I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman
I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....I think it's a prime example of the idiocy (or is it something darker...?) of the author.
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman
I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman
The original Portuguese translates into English with a quite different slant. Roughly speaking "It was concluded that the cadaver odour could only have come from one person : MBM".
This sticks an IF into the equation. IF it was cadaver odour THEN it came from MBM. He's stacked up a get out of jail card if the dogs prove to be wrong in this case.
Amaral is normally a lot smarter with his choice of words than the translators who translate him into other languages.
The dogs gave their evidence and SY are following up on it. The dogs won't alert unless they are certain! SY will be further investigating their alerts re new forensic tests. The British police do not ignore professional British police crime dog evidence. If death did occur and the body was moved then the car boot is the obvious place to search for potential evidence. If you find any possible matching evidence in that location and other witness evidence then the police become very suspicious. They won't ignore the dog alerts in this case as recent events indicate.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02933/mccann-search-port_2933254b.jpg)
Under no circumstance is it possible to determine whose remains a VRD may be alerting to without a body being discovered. So he may have used his words carefully but IMO not carefully enough.I have simply pointed out that he did not use certainly (certamente, com certezo). He used proveniente (originating from, arising from). Plus a construct that is poder ser (maybe, it could be, it might be). Then he stuck in a só (only).
Dogs do not give evidence ... they indicate places where evidence may be found ... Eddie and Keela's work in Praia da Luz uncovered no forensic evidence which implicated Madeleine McCann's parents in her disappearance.
The original Portuguese translates into English with a quite different slant. Roughly speaking "It was concluded that the cadaver odour could only have come from one person : MBM".
This sticks an IF into the equation. IF it was cadaver odour THEN it came from MBM. He's stacked up a get out of jail card if the dogs prove to be wrong in this case.
Amaral is normally a lot smarter with his choice of words than the translators who translate him into other languages.
From what I can see amaral has lied to his readers. He has seriously misled them. Most of his support comes from the fact that people believe his lies.
I have simply pointed out that he did not use certainly (certamente, com certezo). He used proveniente (originating from, arising from). Plus a construct that is poder ser (maybe, it could be, it might be). Then he stuck in a só (only).Oh well back to the drawing board 8(0(*
The translator has had a stab at what Amaral might or might not have said, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm just not getting a 'certainly' here. I believe that 'certainly' is what the topic is about.
The original Portuguese translates into English with a quite different slant. Roughly speaking "It was concluded that the cadaver odour could only have come from one person : MBM".
This sticks an IF into the equation. IF it was cadaver odour THEN it came from MBM. He's stacked up a get out of jail card if the dogs prove to be wrong in this case.
Amaral is normally a lot smarter with his choice of words than the translators who translate him into other languages.
I have simply pointed out that he did not use certainly (certamente, com certezo). He used proveniente (originating from, arising from). Plus a construct that is poder ser (maybe, it could be, it might be). Then he stuck in a só (only).
The translator has had a stab at what Amaral might or might not have said, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm just not getting a 'certainly' here. I believe that 'certainly' is what the topic is about.
I have simply pointed out that he did not use certainly (certamente, com certezo). He used proveniente (originating from, arising from). Plus a construct that is poder ser (maybe, it could be, it might be). Then he stuck in a só (only).
The translator has had a stab at what Amaral might or might not have said, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm just not getting a 'certainly' here. I believe that 'certainly' is what the topic is about.
No (IMO), I don't find the word "certainly" to be acceptable.
On the one hand, I don't think that Grime / Harrison were clear about the limitations of the dogs, nor about the fact that no significance should be attached to alerts in the absence of corroborating forensic evidence in the "dog-selling" stage. Portugal wasn't familiar with such dogs, so I can understand in a way how Amaral & co., could have felt that they were close to hitting the "jackpot" when they did alert.
On the other hand, the caveats were clear in the reports, but Amaral seems to have ignored them. Neither did he understand the forensic results associated with those alerts, which should have been an indication that that avenue wasn't going anywhere.
I don't see how any casual reader, who assumes that the former coordinator was indeed a highly knowledgeable and seasoned expert, could fail to come to the conclusion that she did indeed die there when in reality there is no evidence to support it.
Why would anyone who believed in Amaral's "thesis" continue to be vigilant?
A tragedy of errors...
Not at the dog-selling stage, no.
But Harrison's second report, written some 3 months before Amaral was booted off the case, and fully and legally accessible to Amaral, at least the point he was booted off, makes abundantly plain what limitations should be placed on (uncorroborated) dog alerts.
Amaral only had to read Harrison's report.
In fairness, even Grime says that uncorroborated dog alerts have no evidential value.
Amaral only had to read these things.
It's true to say that Amaral's team could find no evidence of abduction or of woke and wandered. They were skeptical of Jane Tanner's sighting and found the statements of the Tapas 9 less than believable. Lee Rainbow allegedly agreed that there was cause to look at the parents. Hence in July 2007 Mark Harrison was called in to give his opinion on how to conduct a search for a dead body rather than a live child, something he saw as a reasonable assumption.amarals conclusions do not follow the evidence...he has basically lied and misled people. As a policeman it would be expected his opinions would based on evidence and be honest. they are neither
I think the alerts confirmed the investigator's suspicions rather than the suspicions having arisen from the alerts. Amaral's evidence is all circumstantial, but he believed that it was enough to reach a conclusion.
This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases.
It was Harrison who suggested using dogs;
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. 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
And yet he chose not to take those reports into account... why would that be?
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. 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
Hmmmm.
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Mark Harrison.
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Mark Harrison.
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
AMAZING STATISTICS
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
(Goncalo Amaral)
And (some) people wonder why Amaral lost!
Because he followed the advice of an expert to investigate the family and friends?
Because he followed the advice of an expert to investigate the family and friends?
Because he followed the advice of an expert to investigate the family and friends?
there is nothing wrong with investigating family and friends...it's standard police procedure. The point of the thread is that amaral has lied about the significance of the alerts and because he is an experienced police officer some people have believed him.
I think part of the problem may well have been over reliance on an interpretation of the expert advice which was based on a total misinterpretation of what they were being told.
The Interim Report which Mr Amaral used extensively in his book illustrates perfectly both a misunderstanding of custom and practice and the role of the dogs in an investigation.
**snip
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
( convicted of torture ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.0)
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
**
For example he laboured under the impression that the dogs had 100% success rate. He thought that if the dog alerted that was verification that human remains had been present in that location with a total disregard for the need that such an assertion must be backed up by evidence.
All of those assertions were nullified by proper interpretation of the FSS reports. So there are experts and there are experts and some of the danger lies in thinking the expert has told you what you want to hear not what was actually said.
I think part of the problem may well have been over reliance on an interpretation of the expert advice which was based on a total misinterpretation of what they were being told.
The Interim Report which Mr Amaral used extensively in his book illustrates perfectly both a misunderstanding of custom and practice and the role of the dogs in an investigation.
**snip
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
( convicted of torture ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.0)
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
**
For example he laboured under the impression that the dogs had 100% success rate. He thought that if the dog alerted that was verification that human remains had been present in that location with a total disregard for the need that such an assertion must be backed up by evidence.
All of those assertions were nullified by proper interpretation of the FSS reports. So there are experts and there are experts and some of the danger lies in thinking the expert has told you what you want to hear not what was actually said.
It seems the alerts were just the final bit which convinced the investigators ...
Which investigators?
Certainly not Harrison, as I've already posted ...
The Portuguese police who were investigating the case. Harrison was an advisor.
Good balancing post there G-Unit. Here are a few observations/comments from me, thinking out loud from memory.
-The Portuguese at the time had no experience, moreover, had never heard of cadaver dogs (source:Police spokesman)
-A British expert advised them in general on the search for a body
-A British expert suggested the dogs be sent into the Mccanns' and friends' holidays residences and vehicles (M Harrison)
-There was the challenge of the different languages at play here to consider
-I believe it is unfair to say Amaral fabricated things, as opposed to his team not understanding every nuance, and not crossing the t's and dotting the i's
-They put together all the evidence in the case and his team at the time came to certain conclusions about what they think happened
-They were under pressure to solve a case as are British police all the time
IMO they did not act any different to how any other police force would act
-There is no proof to this date that the wrong people were implicated or that Madeleine Mccann is alive, the reverse being true also
-The Portuguese CPS at the time decided not to charge them
It is interesting though how Mr Amarals's book has been described as "full of lies", despite a higher court ruling saying no such thing, no mitigation given to "translation errors", to "what one would have done at the time" as opposed to "in hindsight" ad infinitum, as is given to the Mccann couple and friends for every possible discrepancy or questionable statement/action/event
Thank you mercury. I agree with your points also. If anyone points out that Gerald McCann didn't remember the day after which door he used to go in and out of the apartment 'he was distraught'. If a statement by the parents is criticised 'it was probably mistranslated'. As you say, Amaral may not be right but he has not been proved wrong either.
Amaral has been proved wrong...this is wrong...
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
He has also claimed that he could prove Maddie dies in5a...he can't...he's telling lies again
Amaral's theory has as much validy as any other at this moment in time. When someone proves that something else happened, then he is wrong.
try and keep up..it's not his theory we are criticising..it's his claims that the evidence proves his theory..it doesn't..he is lying
I prefer to think he actually believed what he was saying; that the evidence proved his theory. I would imagine it happens a lot to policemen even here in the UK. They present the evidence they've gathered and the CPS says 'not good enough'.
I prefer to think he actually believed what he was saying; that the evidence proved his theory. I would imagine it happens a lot to policemen even here in the UK. They present the evidence they've gathered and the CPS says 'not good enough'.
It is an elementary mistake to formulate a theory then try to make the evidence fit. If you prefer to think he actually believed it what you are saying that he is unprofessional and a fool.
I'm not saying he formulated a theory first. There were a lot of things done and said by the parents and their friends which made them look guilty. The dog alerts were the final piece in the jigsaw for the police. All circumstantial evidence, but I think he believed it all added up to proof. You may not like it, but it's a fact that lots of people began to wonder about the parent's story some time before the PJ Files were released.
lots of people question the parents..fair enough. Amarael lied about the evidence...disgraceful
He misinterpreted the evidence dave.
Harrison and Grime have made it clear what the alerts signify...Amaral lied
Harrison and Grime have made it clear what the alerts signify...Amaral lied
He selected a narrative that fitted the available evidence.
Did Amaral first read Harrison and Grimes full reports ?
Were they written in English and/or Portuguese ?
How many others in the PJ thought the same about the mccanns ?
He misinterpreted the evidence dave.
He didn't misinterpret the evidence either. He wasn't a one man team investigating the disappearance. That is a myth spread by the supporters in order to diss the evidence and the dogs, the worst enemies of the McCanns.
What would any police force think if these specialist dogs alerted 11 times to only articles, houses and a car related to the parents and did not give any alerts to any other "suspects" such as Robert Murat?
Davel, you seem obsessed with those dogs. They bother you, don't they?
He didn't misinterpret the evidence either. He wasn't a one man team investigating the disappearance. That is a myth spread by the supporters in order to diss the evidence and the dogs, the worst enemies of the McCanns.
What would any police force think if these specialist dogs alerted 11 times to only articles, houses and a car related to the parents and did not give any alerts to any other "suspects" such as Robert Murat?
Davel, you seem obsessed with those dogs. They bother you, don't they?
You show how serious amaral's lies were and how they have convinced you. This is what Harrison said about the dogs and he's an expert..
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.
Amaral lied about the dogs and you prove his lies have been believed
No one is dissing the dogs...I'm dissing amaral and you...you and amaral are ignoring what the experts say about the alerts
He didn't misinterpret the evidence either. He wasn't a one man team investigating the disappearance. That is a myth spread by the supporters in order to diss the evidence and the dogs, the worst enemies of the McCanns.
What would any police force think if these specialist dogs alerted 11 times to only articles, houses and a car related to the parents and did not give any alerts to any other "suspects" such as Robert Murat?
Davel, you seem obsessed with those dogs. They bother you, don't they?
a comment on amarals gofundme page...
The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]." So the Portuguese police were right,....
Can anyone deny lies are being spread...
a comment on amarals gofundme page...
The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]." So the Portuguese police were right,....
Can anyone deny lies are being spread...
Please tell me what Keela detected?blood and cadaver according to the comment Davel has copied above.
blood and cadaver according to the comment Davel has copied above.
I was asking davel though.I know you were. Davel's point was that the comment was inaccurate. I have I believe highlighted one of the inaccuracies. Would you agree?
Perhaps these are the people the administrators of Amaral's fund will take most note of in choosing their grounds of appeal?
The administrators of the fund for Gonçalo Amaral are not appealing the ruling, Gonçalo Amaral along with his lawyers will be doing that.
What might Eddie have alerted to; there is quite a choice.
Putrefaction of animal tissue produces cadaverine ~ it is present in urine and semen.
Cadaverine is related to putrescine both of which are produced by the breakdown of amino acids in living and dead organisms.
Cadaverine and putrescine are toxic in large doses.
Both cadaverine and putrecine are found in some microalgae found in fresh water and sea water.
It would appear that despite the coast of Portugal being on the Atlantic, Praia da Luz is not immune to the invasion of algae which is unsurprising when one considers the preponderance of green lichen on window cills.
For certain Eddie's nose would twitch if someone had discarding wet clothing, flip flops,towels which had been in contact with micralgae which had leached into grouting in the corner of a room.
Sea bathing banned at Praia da Luz
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:08 pm
I popped over to PdL this afternoon and found that there was a notice by the beach banning swimming in the sea with a reference to a Water Quality directive.
I was wondering if anybody knew any details.
Re: Sea bathing banned at Praia da Luz
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:34 am
Has it got something to do with this algae thats been found in the sea which is supposedly a danger to people, I read about it somewhere, maybe paper or forums.
Just found the link to it algarvedailynews.com/n...rous-algae
http://www.expatfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=31721/
Do you have evidence that such algal blooms occurred in early May 2007? Or is it mere speculation on your part?
I love the quote "I read about it somewhere maybe the paper or forums". That is a stunner.
There is no evidence to the contrary ... just as there is no evidence of semen or urine contamination ... then if you don't look for something you won't find it, which probably could well be applied to Madeleine McCann.I was only asking about the algal bloom. So you postulation is it must be there if there no evidence to suggest it isn't there.
Interesting piece from an expert:-
Sept. 18 2007 6:11 PM
Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?
The parents of Madeleine McCann, the 4-year-old British girl who went missing in Portugal in May, were officially named suspects http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20637334/#.VVFW1pVFDIU
on Sept. 7 by Portuguese police. The change came after developments in the case, including sniffer dogs detecting the "smell of death" on Madeleine's Cuddle Cat toy and her mother's clothes. They did not, however, find a body.
Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?
Torie Bosch is the editor of Future Tense, a project of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State that looks at the implications of new technologies. ……………………………….......................................................................
Not really—especially if a lot of time has elapsed since the body was removed from the scene. Cadaver dogs can find the remains of people who have been dead for years or even decades. But it's much harder for the dogs if the bulk of the remains are gone. In that case, they can pick up the scent from small amounts of body tissue, like a blood stain or nail clippings, or even from materials that came into contact with the tissue. But in the absence of an actual body, the smell of death will dissipate. There's speculation that Madeleine died on the night her parents reported her disappearance—which would mean that she passed away four months ago. It's not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother's clothes for all that time.
Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month.
The dogs couldn't necessarily prove anything even if Madeleine's body had been in recent contact with her mother's clothes. Since they didn't turn up any actual remains, investigators had to rely on the "smell of death" itself, an odor that stems from the decomposition process. Without a body, they can't be certain that the animals didn't make a mistake. Cadaver dogs do mess up from time to time: The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time. (The prosecution claimed a success rate of 60 percent to 69 percent.)
Cadaver dogs learn to spot the "smell of death" and find its source during the training process, which involves exposing them to either actual human remains—blood, teeth, bones—or pseudoscent, an artificial substance that re-creates the death odor. (One chemical company markets several pseudoscent formulas for training cadaver dogs—recently dead, post-decomposition, and drowning victim.) The dogs also learn to differentiate human remains from animal remains.
A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing. When a dog gives a signal, such as barking or sitting down, to indicate that it has smelled a corpse, a handler can only say something along the lines of, "My dog is giving an indication consistent with human blood." He can't say definitively that, yes, a body was present, without further confirmation—in the form of a blood stain, for example.
………………………………..........................................................
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks Maria Claxton of the South Carolina Search and Rescue Dog Association, Larry Myers of the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine, and Andrew Rebmann of K9 Specialty Search Associates.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/scent_of_a_dead_woman.html
What might Eddie have alerted to; there is quite a choice.
Putrefaction of animal tissue produces cadaverine ~ it is present in urine and semen.
Cadaverine is related to putrescine both of which are produced by the breakdown of amino acids in living and dead organisms.
Cadaverine and putrescine are toxic in large doses.
Both cadaverine and putrecine are found in some microalgae found in fresh water and sea water.
It would appear that despite the coast of Portugal being on the Atlantic, Praia da Luz is not immune to the invasion of algae which is unsurprising when one considers the preponderance of green lichen on window cills.
For certain Eddie's nose would twitch if someone had discarding wet clothing, flip flops,towels which had been in contact with micralgae which had leached into grouting in the corner of a room.
Sea bathing banned at Praia da Luz
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:08 pm
I popped over to PdL this afternoon and found that there was a notice by the beach banning swimming in the sea with a reference to a Water Quality directive.
I was wondering if anybody knew any details.
Re: Sea bathing banned at Praia da Luz
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:34 am
Has it got something to do with this algae thats been found in the sea which is supposedly a danger to people, I read about it somewhere, maybe paper or forums.
Just found the link to it algarvedailynews.com/n...rous-algae
http://www.expatfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=31721/
It is interesting they quote Andy Rebmann as a source. He is an acknowledged expert along with Dr Deb Komar who worked with RCMP and Matthew Zarella who worked with the US Military in 2002 locating MIA's in Vietnam.
http://cadaverdog.com/Associates.html
[cf Rebmann & Zarella]
Do you not find it also to be a coincidence, Mercury, that No blood traces (old or new) were found anywhere else either.No one can say that no one ever bled in any apartments ever since the hoiday complex was there. Blood can be cleaned away entirely.
In all the years that this holiday complex has stood there...............No-one bled in that block except for 5A, where we know that several holiday makers bled?
No one can say that no one ever bled in any apartments ever since the hoiday complex was there. Blood can be cleaned away entirely.
The reason no blood was detected (even if remnants were there) in the inspected apartments is because the blood dog was not sent in.
P.S. Who are the "several" holidaymakers who bled in 5A? And was their DNA matched to the samples collected? From the area the blood dog had signalled to?
Eddie alerts to blood and apparently no amount of cleaning will remove the scent.
There is a thread that lists all the holidaymakers who bled in 5A. I will have a look and post a link.
I believe the DNA was checked ,but the samples taken from 5a were too small, coming from several people or inconclusive.
One DNA check from 5A was a semen stain on a bedcover, which turned out to belong to a 2 year old child(saliva)
Sorry, but what is the point of using Keela then?
Thanks, look forward to reading said thread.
Not sure what point you are making regarding saliva stains.
Don't you find it a bad coincidence (at the very least) that urine,semen or algae infected flip flops (now that's a first) were left in the only residence out of many inspected, the one where a child went missing from?Being surrounded by a lakeful of algae had no effect on this dog -
Keela only detects blood, therefore she is used for backup of Eddies alerts. If she alerts to the area that Eddie alerted to, then it must be blood.
Why I mentioned the saliva? probably just to show that the other holiday makers were checked for DNA and That was the only match.
Being surrounded by a lakeful of algae had no effect on this dog -
Working from a boat on a lake, cadaver dog Duke accurately located a body 15 feet underwater.
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/07/31/rescuers-searching-drowning-victim-lake-julian/13430441/
Well Keela wasn't used as back up in any of the other apartments or villas inspected, as Eddie didn't alert at all, for either blood or cadaver scent.Exactly, so back to the original question - don't you find it odd that there were no traces of blood anywhere at all except on McCann-related property?
Ok, thanks for explaining vis a vis saliva. IIRC police screened bedclothing, found a substance, and checked for DNA matches. That is nothing to do with "several" people who alledgedly bled in the apartment, leading the dogs to alert. I have read the FSS Lowe report, there is no reference in it to any previous holidaymakers, their blood, or DNA. (Except for the child whose saliva was DNA matched)
Well Keela wasn't used as back up in any of the other apartments or villas inspected, as Eddie didn't alert at all, for either blood or cadaver scent.
Ok, thanks for explaining vis a vis saliva. IIRC police screened bedclothing, found a substance, and checked for DNA matches. That is nothing to do with "several" people who alledgedly bled in the apartment, leading the dogs to alert. I have read the FSS Lowe report, there is no reference in it to any previous holidaymakers, their blood, or DNA. (Except for the child whose saliva was DNA matched)
Exactly, so back to the original question - don't you find it odd that there were no traces of blood anywhere at all except on McCann-related property?
No, the main reason being I do not believe that Eddie is capable of screening a room for microscopic remnants of blood, that is not what he was trained to do. Keela was.Except, he obviously does alert to microscopic traces of blood as verified by Keela!
So there is every possibility that there were traces of blood in other places apart from flat 5A. That is not what the dogs were brought in for
You are welcome, mercury,
The blood found in 5A, was inconclusive as there was very small amount or it was from multiple unidentified
persons. If there was no match it would not have been recorded. Dna swabs were taken from many people.
The link, but you will have to wade through to find them.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3582.msg136981#msg136981
Except, he obviously does alert to microscopic traces of blood as verified by Keela!
No, the main reason being I do not believe that Eddie is capable of screening a room for microscopic remnants of blood, that is not what he was trained to do. Keela was.
So there is every possibility that there were traces of blood in other places apart from flat 5A. That is not what the dogs were brought in for
Eddie was trained as a forensic blood detecting dog. He was later trained as a cadaver dog, but they could not un-train him to detect blood.
I was only asking about the algal bloom. So you postulation is it must be there if there no evidence to suggest it isn't there.
But blooms that are large enough to cause problems can be seen. So by extension if you can't see it it must be there.
I think I understand that.
Eddie was trained as a forensic blood detecting dog. He was later trained as a cadaver dog, but they could not un-train him to detect blood.
Err, I don't think you can assert that, or even infer itSo if Eddie alerts and Keela alerts at the same place what conclusion can we draw, if any?
So if Eddie alerts and Keela alerts at the same place what conclusion can we draw, if any?
Do you not find it also to be a coincidence, Mercury, that No blood traces (old or new) were found anywhere else either.
In all the years that this holiday complex has stood there...............No-one bled in that block except for 5A, where we know that several holiday makers bled?
Being surrounded by a lakeful of algae had no effect on this dog -
Working from a boat on a lake, cadaver dog Duke accurately located a body 15 feet underwater.
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/07/31/rescuers-searching-drowning-victim-lake-julian/13430441/
Do you know why Keela didn't go in to the other apartments? You don't understand that the dogs work as a TEAM going from your post. Eddie and Keela don't go in to sniff every inch of the apartments looking for blood traces. Eddie goes in first to detect cadaver scent in a missing person case. Their job is to investigate if death occurred at the crime scene. If Eddie alerts then Keela is sent in to investigate that alerted area (not the whole apartment!) to find any traces of blood.Why did Eddie alert to a sex tissue then?
Why did Eddie alert to a sex tissue then?
Do you know why Keela didn't go in to the other apartments? You don't understand that the dogs work as a TEAM going from your post. Eddie and Keela don't go in to sniff every inch of the apartments looking for blood traces. Eddie goes in first to detect cadaver scent in a missing person case. Their job is to investigate if death occurred at the crime scene. If Eddie alerts then Keela is sent in to investigate that alerted area (not the whole apartment!) to find any traces of blood.
I'm not sure about that, Anna. I think it is the case with most cadaver dogs that they will detect blood as well, by default, because blood is a constituent part of any corpse.
I think the difference between Eddie and Morse is that Morse was desensitised to blood, and the idea of the Keela and Morse combination was that you had one dog to detect blood and another to detect cadaver odour.
Remember that a reaction from Morse under the US forensic canine programme was accepted as stand-alone evidence of murder (not applicable with most cadaver dogs).
Eddy was trained initially as a Victim Recovery Dog. VDR. They are trained to scent blood from live people.
Cite. Eddie alerts to blood.Yes!!! So why was there no minute traces of blood anywhere apart from on McCann-related property? Jeez, it's like pulling teeth...
"'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."
Yes!!! So why was there no minute traces of blood anywhere apart from on McCann-related property? Jeez, it's like pulling teeth...
Eddie wasn't looking for traces of blood. Doh!
Eddie wasn't looking for traces of blood. That's Keela's job after Eddie detects cadaver scent in a missing person case. See some examples above.Are you telling me that in Jersey he was tasked with looking for blood?
Eddie wasn't looking for traces of blood. That's Keela's job after Eddie detects cadaver scent in a missing person case. See some examples above.
Eddie wasn't looking for traces of blood. That's Keela's job after Eddie detects cadaver scent in a missing person case. See some examples above.
How did Eddie know what he was supposed to be looking for? Did Grime tell him it was a Missing Person Case?Grime must have used a special "cadaver only" cue...
How did Eddie know what he was supposed to be looking for? Did Grime tell him it was a Missing Person Case?
Eddie might not have been sent in to find blood, but he did have the capabilities to detect blood, so it would be necessary to have Keela check his findings, if he had alerted in any other place.
However He never alerted to blood anywhere except 5A. We know this because keela was not used to check out any alerts. So why, no blood anywhere, but 5A?
Grime must have used a special "cadaver only" cue...
No blood was found at Eddie's first alert in 5A. Keela didn't go in to the other apartment to check for traces of blood that the human eye can't see. Keela only looks for microscopic blood traces if Eddie alerts. Eddie didn't alert in the other apartments. Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent not sniffing every inch of the floor for blood traces humans can't even see.
Eddie wasn't looking for traces of blood. That's Keela's job after Eddie detects cadaver scent in a missing person case. See some examples above.
Eddie did alert to blood in 5A which was confirmed by Keela, IIRC. However the samples taken from the floor tiles was too minute or was inconclusive in forensic results.
This is a missing person case. Eddie first alert suggested cadaver scent so the second alert could be the same again. If microscopic blood is found by Keela then police would think that is where death probably occurred. They work as a team to find evidence of death not to look for blood traces in every apartment.
This is a missing person case. Eddie first alert suggested cadaver scent so the second alert could be the same again. If microscopic blood is found by Keela then police would think that is where death probably occurred. They work as a team to find evidence of death not to look for blood traces in every apartment.
This is a missing person case. Eddie first alert suggested cadaver scent so the second alert could be the same again. If microscopic blood is found by Keela then police would think that is where death probably occurred. They work as a team to find evidence of death not to look for blood traces in every apartment.I find hard to believe after all this time and millions of words of discussion there are still people who don't understand how the dogs worked.
This is a missing person case. Eddie first alert suggested cadaver scent so the second alert could be the same again. If microscopic blood is found by Keela then police would think that is where death probably occurred. They work as a team to find evidence of death not to look for blood traces in every apartment.
In my experience there are quite often large puddles of blood even if someone is dead. Rarely are there microscopic particles unseen by the human eye. Although every little helps, I suppose.
And when Eddie was a Victim Recovery Dog they hoped he would find live people as well as dead ones.
What might Eddie have alerted to; there is quite a choice.
Putrefaction of animal tissue produces cadaverine ~ it is present in urine and semen.
Cadaverine is related to putrescine both of which are produced by the breakdown of amino acids in living and dead organisms.
Cadaverine and putrescine are toxic in large doses.
Both cadaverine and putrecine are found in some microalgae found in fresh water and sea water.
It would appear that despite the coast of Portugal being on the Atlantic, Praia da Luz is not immune to the invasion of algae which is unsurprising when one considers the preponderance of green lichen on window cills.
For certain Eddie's nose would twitch if someone had discarding wet clothing, flip flops,towels which had been in contact with micralgae which had leached into grouting in the corner of a room.
Sea bathing banned at Praia da Luz
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:08 pm
I popped over to PdL this afternoon and found that there was a notice by the beach banning swimming in the sea with a reference to a Water Quality directive.
I was wondering if anybody knew any details.
Re: Sea bathing banned at Praia da Luz
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:34 am
Has it got something to do with this algae thats been found in the sea which is supposedly a danger to people, I read about it somewhere, maybe paper or forums.
Just found the link to it algarvedailynews.com/n...rous-algae
http://www.expatfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=31721/
I find hard to believe after all this time and millions of words of discussion there are still people who don't understand how the dogs worked.
You don't understand how they work as a TEAM.
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
You don't understand that they work as a TEAM to find evidence of death.
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
You don't understand that they work as a TEAM to find evidence of death.I understand perfectly thanks, however you seem to be of the opinion that Grime can tell his dog when to alert to blood and when not to. Did Grime ask Eddie to alert to blood in Jersey?
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
That's right suggestive...not confirmed...he goes on to say there are several reasons for the alert...that's the expert...
amaral says the alerts confrm Maddie died in the apartment..he's telling lies
The police confirms the source. Eddie finds dead bodies which is proof or detects cadaver scent which suggests a dead body without proof. The police have to prove the source of it.
Lichen on widow-sills is a myth debunked in the myths debunked section.
Algae in the water, seemingly hitting Luz but not nearby, that is very interesting but not on topic, so I shall say no more.
Amaral's understanding of the dogs' alerts is about as comprehensive as Pathfinder's, unfortunately,
Thank you Shining. You are absolutely correct....We do appear to be slipping Off Topic here.
However it is essential to drag up all the previous dog alert issues to re-established the importance of the dog alert indications, compared to the case as made by Mr Amaral regarding the reliability of the dog's alerts.
Once done(if ever) we can all get back to.......................The Topic.
"Amaral and the dogs"
The police confirms the source. Eddie finds dead bodies which is proof or detects cadaver scent which suggests a dead body without proof. The police have to prove the source of it.
I understand perfectly thanks, however you seem to be of the opinion that Grime can tell his dog when to alert to blood and when not to. Did Grime ask Eddie to alert to blood in Jersey?
Eddie will alert to blood if he's doing a close inspection search of a vehicle for example. Keela did that inside the hire car. Eddie was put inside the burned out car in the Harron case and found the DNA match that put her killer away. He also found the body.Thanks for not answering my question directly. Here's another question for you to avoid answering: when will Eddie NOT alert to traces of blood?
The search of suspects 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample
was taken and when analysed revealed the victims' DNA.
As the police have told us Maddie may still be alive they have told us the source is not Maddie
Thanks for not answering my question directly. Here's another question for you to avoid answering: when will Eddie NOT alert to traces of blood?
Yes that's because she hasn't been found but they were searching for her body last year.
Eddie will alert to blood but Keela only found blood in two places. Eddie alerted many times.And round in circles we go.
it means that they don't accept the alerts prove she died in the apartment
Eddie will alert to blood but Keela only found blood in two places. Eddie alerted many times.
Eddie alerted to other body fluids apart from blood. Otherwise how and why did he alert to a semen soaked tissue?
And if that's not a bodily fluid from a live body then I don't know what is.
Yeah the sex tissue had blood on it. Eddie alerts to blood.
Yeah the sex tissue had blood on it. Eddie alerts to blood.
you are a classic example of how people have been duped by amaral...
My own thoughts have nothing to do with Amaral. Eddie alerted to cadaver scent in the Prout case when there was no proof. Grime knows Eddie and has given his own professional opinion. Prout was convicted on circumstantial evidence. He later confessed but denied it for years and many believed him.
the fact is that both Grime and Harrison say the alerts are not confirmed...fact...yet amaral takes the alerts as proof....he is wrong to do that...thereis no evidence that Maddie died in the apartment yet amaral claims he can prove it...he is a fantasist
the fact is that both Grime and Harrison say the alerts are not confirmed...fact...yet amaral takes the alerts as proof....he is wrong to do that...thereis no evidence that Maddie died in the apartment yet amaral claims he can prove it...he is a fantasist
And yet he believes he can win the libel trial ...
Yeah the sex tissue had blood on it. Eddie alerts to blood.Yes he does. So, asking again, why did he alert to a tissue in a windy old gun placement in Jersey and not alert to traces of blood that must surely have been present in all (or at least some) of the apartments he checked out?
Wait for round two.if there is around two.....the court has to allow the appeal first
if there is around two.....the court has to allow the appeal first
if there is around two.....the court has to allow the appeal first
Don't worry, the appeal will take place, it is an automatic right.
#=
No it isn't an automatic right.
The appellants must cite grounds of appeal that will be considered and either granted or rejected.
#=
Wait and see ferryman. 8((()*/
The dog alerts were confirmed and Gonçalo Amaral did not misinterpret the DNA results. The first reports given to the PJ from the laboratory and the UK police indicated a match to Madeleine, then with the bombshell final report, John Lowe somehow mixes in 37 markers instead of the 19 and all of a sudden they don't know who the fluids belong to! Very strange or not so strange at all.
So - when all else fails - claim it was a conspiracy. That is what you are claiming above isn't it Montclair?
No it isn't an automatic right.
The appellants must cite grounds of appeal that will be considered and either granted or rejected.
#=
Wait and see ferryman. 8((()*/
Montclaire, your apology is accepted:
I hope Jean-Pierre will forgive me for citing one of his earlier posts:
The current legal position in Portugal is that Amaral has a right to appeal, and has a limited timeframe in which to do so.
He will have to stipulate the grounds for the appeal and the legal and or factual matters that he is challenging. The Court will then decide whether the grounds for that appeal have merit.
If it decides they do, then the case is sent to the court of second instance (Tribunal da Relação). If it decides the appeal is without merit then the matter ends there and the judgement of the court is enforced.
The matter may proceed to the Supreme Court, provided that the courts of first and second instance do not provide the same judgement.
The reason for this process is to avoid the higher courts becoming clogged with appeal cases.
It is also to prevent a respondant being able to spin out an unfavourable judgement indefinitely, thereby denying justice to a rightful claimant.
(Jean-Pierre)
To clear up a semantic quibble, Amaral has a right to cite grounds of an appeal.
He does not have an automatic right to expect that the grounds will be accepted.
Are you an expert on Portuguese Law ?
and/or just worried that Amaral will win.
The case is unprecedented in Portuguese legal history.
I readily concede that Jean-Pierre knows far more about Portuguese law than me.
I have merely repeated what he said.
I'm not claiming anything, I'm just telling you what happened.
Quote
John Lowe somehow mixes in 37 markers instead of the 19 and all of a sudden they don't know who the fluids belong to! Very strange or not so strange at all.
End quote
So can you explain the above please. It's sounds to me as if you are inferring a conspiracy took place. For what other reason would you describe John Lowe's actions as ...'very strange - or not so strange at all' ?
IMO Amaral in his haste - jumped the gun and came to a premature conclusion which turned out to be wrong. John Lowe's report simply gave the reasons why he was mistaken.
Would you agree with that?
The dog alerts were confirmed and Gonçalo Amaral did not misinterpret the DNA results. The first reports given to the PJ from the laboratory and the UK police indicated a match to Madeleine, then with the bombshell final report, John Lowe somehow mixes in 37 markers instead of the 19 and all of a sudden they don't know who the fluids belong to! Very strange or not so strange at all.
Yes he does. So, asking again, why did he alert to a tissue in a windy old gun placement in Jersey and not alert to traces of blood that must surely have been present in all (or at least some) of the apartments he checked out?
The dog alerts were confirmed and Gonçalo Amaral did not misinterpret the DNA results. The first reports given to the PJ from the laboratory and the UK police indicated a match to Madeleine, then with the bombshell final report, John Lowe somehow mixes in 37 markers instead of the 19 and all of a sudden they don't know who the fluids belong to! Very strange or not so strange at all.
That will not be a problem.
Yes he does. So, asking again, why did he alert to a tissue in a windy old gun placement in Jersey and not alert to traces of blood that must surely have been present in all (or at least some) of the apartments he checked out?
Eddie was searching for cadaver scent and he found it at the wardrobe. Keela is the blood dog.What was he searching for in Jersey, when he alerted to the tissue?
Eddie was searching for cadaver scent and he found it at the wardrobe. Keela is the blood dog.
Eddie was searching for a scent he was trained to react to, which includes the scent of blood.
And then there are the well-documented studies that establish that excessive direction (of a dog) and sub-concious bias can influence dog reactions.
Grime himself says as much in his profile.
As soon as Eddie entered 5A he detected the scent and was searching for the body. His behaviour changed. Grime knows his dog and the wardrobe was the first alert by Eddie. That alert wasn't for blood!
As soon as Eddie entered 5A he detected the scent and was searching for the body. His behaviour changed. Grime knows his dog and the wardrobe was the first alert by Eddie. That alert wasn't for blood!Why did Grime bother with Keela at all then?
Why did Grime bother with Keela at all then?
Keela finds blood that has been cleaned to try and detect that vital missing evidence. Keela has to get in real close and sniff hard while Eddie can roam around to detect the source.Why bother with Keela when Eddie can also find blood - eg: on a tissue?
Watch the video and see how they work:
Eddie was different from the day he was born. A dog whose owner was finding him simply "unmanageable".What a peculiar post.
"His normal reaction is to bark. On this occasion he started to dig. As soon as he started to dig I called him back.” The jury was told that a body was found at the spot Eddie had indicated.
The video clearly showed the spaniel examining the other vehicles without reacting, and as soon as it entered the Lantra it began barking and refused to get out.
The dogs have spoken and it's no game because if they get it wrong they are out of a job. They weren't the best paid dogs in Britain for getting it wrong @)(++(* Successful cases and top marks put them into that position. Crime scenes that are cleaned and covered up won't fool these dogs. They only alert when 100% certain.
What a peculiar post.
It was to show to Eleanor that he sometimes did things differently but he was always successful at his job.I don't know where to begin with that one tbh, quite extraordinary...
It was to show to Eleanor that he sometimes did things differently but he was always successful at his job.
It was to show to Eleanor that he sometimes did things differently but he was always successful at his job.
I suppose that you do know that any old dog can find a Cadaver? Or do you think that this is peculiar only to trained dogs?
Oh, and by the way, they mostly dig them up.
I've got a pint sized Pug, and even she could find a Cadaver. She just wouldn't waste her time barking about it.
I do think that you try with the best of intentions according to your faith. And I don't actually enjoy putting you down. But some of your thinking is crackers.
to his credit...path is usually very pleasant and not vindinctive
I suppose that you do know that any old dog can find a Cadaver? Or do you think that this is peculiar only to trained dogs?
Oh, and by the way, they mostly dig them up.
I've got a pint sized Pug, and even she could find a Cadaver. She just wouldn't waste her time barking about it.
I do think that you try with the best of intentions according to your faith. And I don't actually enjoy putting you down. But some of your thinking is crackers.
Scary.
So if Eddie alerts and Keela alerts at the same place what conclusion can we draw, if any?
Should equal blood but no cadaver scent.
"The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes"
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
So the hypothesis in the VeM book which has PMI of only 45 mins must be incorrect IMO
Eddy was trained initially as a Victim Recovery Dog. VRD. They are trained to scent blood from live people.
So what? Keela didnt, when sent in after Eddie, ergo wasnt blood from a live person
Dogs can only scent Dried Blood. Perhaps you didn't know that.
Dogs can only scent Dried Blood. Perhaps you didn't know that.
I suppose that you do know that any old dog can find a Cadaver? Or do you think that this is peculiar only to trained dogs?
Oh, and by the way, they mostly dig them up.
I've got a pint sized Pug, and even she could find a Cadaver. She just wouldn't waste her time barking about it.
I do think that you try with the best of intentions according to your faith. And I don't actually enjoy putting you down. But some of your thinking is crackers.
The dogs work as a team to find evidence of death not blood from a nose bleed. They are investigating a possible death inside the apartment.
Eddie could have been alerting to any body fluid, or it could have just been a false alert.
Either way there was no body................So if anyone believes there was a body, Where is it?
The McCanns were not familiar with the area.
No evidence of anything really.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and stillborn decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scent of a decomposing body…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.”
http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2012/08/09/missing-link-overlooked-in-the-madeleine-mccann-case/
‘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.
We know that Eddie has been trained using blood, bone tissue, teeth and decomposed cross-contaminants… so it is feasible to say that he could alert to skin tissue or other decomposing bodily fluids from a dead or living human being. We also know from the Haut de la Garenne case that Eddie did alert to tissues used to clean up after sex..
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/the-dogs-their-findings-and-facts/
Exactly, thats the only reason they were sent in
What is the VeM book?Sorry VdM, "Verdade Da Mentira".
Why do you assume 45 minutes?
You have a choice. Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent and Keela signalled blood. Or both dogs signalled blood. The problem is you have no way of knowing for sure. You also have a massive problem when one dog alerts and the other doesn't, proving that the first (cadaver) dog was not alerting to blood.Do you have an objective, unbiased cite based on scientific evidence that your statement in bold is true?
The point being put about ,that if Keela alerted where Eddie did, it must mean blood is also a misnomer. Its entirely possible that blood can be found where a dead body has laid.
No use quoting a biased uninformed blog anna is it? Or is it? Oh well, carry on supporting the agenda that Eddie was alerting anything from a corpose, blood, a dead pig, a nappy, broken toenails, infected brietta algae sandals, an abortion, a miscarriage, a missed by police bloody murder, or suicide, people leaving their used condoms around., their dirty nappies, rotting teeth,, leaving pee and poo all over the bathroom.....gosh the list is endless and it all happend in 5 a potentially but we KNOW nowhere else, hahaha!! You have got to be bloody joking at best, laters, long shift, will check timorrow!
The dogs work as a team to find evidence of death not blood from a nose bleed. They are investigating a possible death inside the apartment.They're not trained to find evidence of sexual intercourse but that is what Eddie alerted to in Jersey - it's an inconvenient truth which you simply cannot ignore (though you do a good job of it on here, granted!)
They're not trained to find evidence of sexual intercourse but that is what Eddie alerted to in Jersey - it's an inconvenient truth which you simply cannot ignore (though you do a good job of it on here, granted!)
That makes one wonder about the quality of handler cuing.
Eddie and Keela were both deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen, faeces, saliva etc and would only ever alert to such BODILY fluids IF they were mixed with blood.so, the tissue in Jersey contained decomposed human tissue. Well that's one way of putting it!
Eddie was not a decomp dog, which would detect such BODY fluids, he was trained for blood only and then for detecting cadaver scent.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper) http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Eddie and Keela were both deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen, faeces, saliva etc and would only ever alert to such BODILY fluids IF they were mixed with blood.
Eddie was not a decomp dog, which would detect such BODY fluids, he was trained for blood only and then for detecting cadaver scent.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper) http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Eddie and Keela were both deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen, faeces, saliva etc and would only ever alert to such BODILY fluids IF they were mixed with blood.
Eddie was not a decomp dog, which would detect such BODY fluids, he was trained for blood only and then for detecting cadaver scent.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper) http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
If putrescine and cadaverine are present ... an animal trained to search for human remains will alert.
Semen contains cadaverine.
so, the tissue in Jersey contained decomposed human tissue. Well that's one way of putting it!
The fact is that in over 200 cases, it has been reported, he (Eddie), has NEVER given a false positive. The commenter has clearly not done any homework because if he/she had have done they would know that the dog that gave a reaction to the “tissue after sex” item was in fact a blood dog by the name of “Keela.”
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2012/03/exclusive-footage-of-eddie-cadaver-dog.html
The EVRD was deployed in a wide area screening sweep of the site. The following alert indications were forthcoming:
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.
Errr....so Martin Grime was lying in his report when he wrote:
The fact is that in over 200 cases, it has been reported, he (Eddie), has NEVER given a false positive. The commenter has clearly not done any homework because if he/she had have done they would know that the dog that gave a reaction to the “tissue after sex” item was in fact a blood dog by the name of “Keela.”
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2012/03/exclusive-footage-of-eddie-cadaver-dog.html
The fact is that in over 200 cases, it has been reported, he (Eddie), has NEVER given a false positive. The commenter has clearly not done any homework because if he/she had have done they would know that the dog that gave a reaction to the “tissue after sex” item was in fact a blood dog by the name of “Keela.”
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2012/03/exclusive-footage-of-eddie-cadaver-dog.html
that statement ahs been misinterpreted....plus eddie hasn't been involved in 200 cases
that statement ahs been misinterpreted....plus eddie hasn't been involved in 200 cases
Eddie's first murder case search was in 2002. The four-strong team has never looked back and their first successful – though upsetting – find was Mr Collier's body.
A man convicted of dumping dismembered human remains on Cumbrian moorland, has been jailed for life.
Daniel Thompson, 28, drove to a remote area near Dent and buried the body of Shane Collier, after cutting him into eight pieces.
Thompson was found guilty of murdering 21-year-old Mr Collier at a house in Yews Lane, Kendray, Barnsley, South Yorkshire.
His remains were discovered in two shallow graves bordering the Yorkshire Dales in March 2002, after an extensive search.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2085490.stm
And the other 199 cases were...?
The FOI response as to how many cases Eddie had been deployed on between 2003 and 2007 has been posted here numerous times.
Eddie doesn't alert to semen unless it's mixed with blood. Eddie was specially trained and deconditioned to alert to semen. Eddie's job was to find the body. He was trained on human cadavers. The dogs are a murder squad like Operation Grange.
Pseudo scent is an artificially chemically produced product that its manufacturers claim to resemble 'dead body scent'. Although some cadaver dog trainers have had limited success with its use in training, when tested on my dogs they showed no interest and it is not used as a training aid for them.
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.
in 200 case searches...there are multiple searches in each case
in these 200 case searches eddie has never alerted to meat based foodstuffs...not he has never had a false alert in 200 cases
Blood was alerted to on the tissue and both dogs alert to blood. So either dog would be correct in their blood alert.You quoted some blog to give the impression that it was Keela, not Eddie that alerted to the tissue - why did you do that, out of interest? Eddie alerted to the tissue. So my original question has yet to be addressed - why did he not alert to any place or property except those pertaining to the McCanns...? Are we to believe that there was no trace of blood in any other apartment, or in Murat's house? How long did Eddie spend at Murat's residence?
You quoted some blog to give the impression that it was Keela, not Eddie that alerted to the tissue - why did you do that, out of interest? Eddie alerted to the tissue. So my original question has yet to be addressed - why did he not alert to any place or property except those pertaining to the McCanns...? Are we to believe that there was no trace of blood in any other apartment, or in Murat's house? How long did Eddie spend at Murat's residence?
That was from Lenny Harper. All you need to know is that SY are looking for a body because of these exceptional murder crime dog detectives. Let's see if this case is solved then we will know how good Eddie and Keela were ?>)()<All I WANT to know is why you are unable to address the very salient question I keep on putting on putting to you. Is it because you don't know the answer?
Sorry VdM, "Verdade Da Mentira".
The sofa theory is in the files. From chat to alarm is about 45 mins.
But the CSST experiment found the minimum PMI required is 85 mins.
They miss the whole point. The dogs are investigating death. If Eddie doesn't alert then Keela is not used. Eddie detects the source of scent and Keela is brought in to find the proof of the missing person. If that DNA matched Madeleine then the police would think she died inside the apartment. Eddie has given his cadaver alert at the crime scene and Keela has found a blood match. Now you need to find the body. SY have begun searches for that stage.
MARTIN GRIME PERSONAL PROFILE
09-Processo 9..Pages 2262 to 2268
11 also Processo XI 2813 to 2835
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.RD.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood to very small samples in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the asset is conducted using pig as the subject matter for solid hides and human blood for fluid.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Do you have an objective, unbiased cite based on scientific evidence that your statement in bold is true?
All I WANT to know is why you are unable to address the very salient question I keep on putting on putting to you. Is it because you don't know the answer?
It's common sense and logic in the main.That's simply not good enough I'm afraid.
Eddie is sent in first to find a body. When Eddie has alerted Keela comes in to locate any microscopic blood. It is too simple for you to understand. Eddie is the body dog and Keela is the blood dog. Eddie is there to find evidence of a body in a missing person case.Another non-answer.
Putrecine and cadaverine occur naturally and are part of the smell of human remains.
There is no way a dog trained to locate human remains will ignore that scent. It all emanates from the body; if someone has ejaculated and for example, cleaned with a tissue ... the dog will react as Eddie did.
**snip
The smell of a decomposing body is made up of all sorts of interesting compounds, but amines and sulfurous molecules make up the stinkier end of the spectrum. Most of those amines come from breakdown of the proteins in the corpse, and two of them have such fetid odours that they have been named putrescine - after the process of putrefaction - and cadaverine, after the Latin-derived word for a corpse: cadaver.
//////
...cadaverine and putrescine contribute, in small parts, to the smell of urine.
They also turn up in other bodily fluids - both contribute to the odour of semen ...
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/CIIEcompounds/transcripts/putrescine.asp
Since you do not appear to understand(or want to) the words of an expert or Mr Grimes' report in the McCann files, I thought these simple links might help................but alas you are convinced, so I will leave you to it.
Nobody knows what happened and it is all guesswork. If, however you have proof that madeleine died in 5A, Please share.
Another non-answer.
That's simply not good enough I'm afraid.
It is. You cannot ask a question such as , is there any evidence that a blood dog reacts to blood? when it exists and it is a known fact both from training and real life cases
&%+((£
Because basically that was what you were saying. That a blood dog was brought in to confirm a cadaver dog's alerts to blood (as asserted by you as the reason for the cadaver dog alerts) but failed to alert, even though the blood dog was more highly and specifically trained for blood. Do you understand?
It is. You cannot ask a question such as , is there any evidence that a blood dog reacts to blood? when it exists and it is a known fact both from training and real life casesYou cannot talk of proof without incontovertible evidence, do you understand that? You cannot state that if one dog alerts and the other dog doesn't it proves the existence of cadaver odour, not without evidence, do you understand that?
&%+((£
Because basically that was what you were saying. That a blood dog was brought in to confirm a cadaver dog's alerts to blood (as asserted by you as the reason for the cadaver dog alerts) but failed to alert, even though the blood dog was more highly and specifically trained for blood. Do you understand?
And I showed him the video of the dogs training in Jersey. Eddie detected the corpse scent on the beach (his job is to find a body) and Keela detects blood. That's their specialised training to work as a team in a suspected murder case. Eddie finds corpse scent and Keela blood. If Eddie doesn't alert then Keela is not used. They are not used as a team to find blood. They are used to find evidence of the missing person. Who would've thought it could be that simple and that's their job which they were successful at doing @)(++(*
You cannot talk of proof without incontovertible evidence, do you understand that? You cannot state that if one dog alerts and the other dog doesn't it proves the existence of cadaver odour, not without evidence, do you understand that?
SY are looking for the proof. The dog alerts are evidence.
You cannot talk of proof without incontovertible evidence, do you understand that? You cannot state that if one dog alerts and the other dog doesn't it proves the existence of cadaver odour, not without evidence, do you understand that?
You will of course accept my sincerest apologies for even suggesting proof, if I did. The pointers are there and its a simple equation.The reason I asked you for science based evidence in the first place is because you did use the word "prove".
It is entitely possible if not probable that if a) cadaver dog alerts and b) blood dog who is more highly trained vis a vis blood does not alert = c) it was not blood that the cadaver dog alerted to and therefore d) cadaver scent. That is why Mr Grime in his police report stated that in his professional opinion Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent contaminant. That does not mean blood from a living person.
It's not hard
The reason I asked you for science based evidence in the first place is because you did use the word "prove".
You will of course accept my sincerest apologies for even suggesting proof, if I did. The pointers are there and its a simple equation.
It is entitely possible if not probable that if a) cadaver dog alerts and b) blood dog who is more highly trained vis a vis blood does not alert = c) it was not blood that the cadaver dog alerted to and therefore d) cadaver scent. That is why Mr Grime in his police report stated that in his professional opinion Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent contaminant. That does not mean blood from a living person.
It's not hard
Nope it sure ain't ... a little bit too much for Mr Amaral to get his head round ... but takes all sorts
Thing to bear in mind is that the components of the "scent of death" number cadaverine and putricine, the names of which are self explanatory.
Makes it rather important for forensic scientists to find out what is actually causing the stink.
I didn't think I did say anything proves anything, can you quote me? bet you can't. meanwhile, try and keep up with the facts and the arguments.
You are ignorant because you don't know the dogs training. Martin Grime knows and he said Eddie alerted to cadaver as he has proven it in many missing person cases. When Maddy turns up alive you can diss the dogs.
I sincerely hope Madeleine does turn up alive and well ... but I will not be dissing the dogs when she does.
Of course Eddie alerts to cadaver scent. Which is a mix max of various organs breaking down at different rates and producing the horrible smell you don't need a dog to locate.
He also alerts to the components of cadaver scent which include cadaverine and putricine ...
It is probable that Eddie KNEW what and maybe even WHO he was smelling ... but he couldn't tell us that ... whatever he was smelling had to be checked out forensically ... and Martin Grime told us that.
Eddie came months later to detect cadaver scent. If she died inside that apartment she was moved out shortly after. You didn't see the police coming in and saying what's that awful smell did you? If she was later transported in a car the smell would be horrid and you would leave the boot open if you wanted to get rid of it.Why didn't Eddie alert to the boot of the car?
Why didn't Eddie alert to the boot of the car?
The scent was escaping through the passenger door seal. He didn't sniff the boot seal but went underneath the boot twice.So it wasn't blood on the key fob then?
"the passenger compartment of your car is not designed to be airtight."
"I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door." (MG)
So it wasn't blood on the key fob then?
Eddie came months later to detect cadaver scent. If she died inside that apartment she was moved out shortly after. You didn't see the police coming in and saying what's that awful smell did you? If she was later transported in a car the smell would be horrid and you would leave the boot open if you wanted to get rid of it.
Who said the boot had been left open? ~ a woman driving pastThere is a video of this woman, describing what she saw. Have you seen the video?
Is there a witness statement from this woman? ~ no there isn't
Who said there was a woman? ~ Mr Amaral
When did he say that? ~ in his book
I think we can rest easy that there is absolutely no veracity in either the existence of this woman or of the claim she was alleged to have made.
There is a video of this woman, describing what she saw. Have you seen the video?
Is that an official video, recorded in the PJ files?No. But it is a genuine video. She is a real person. IMO she did report it to the PJ, after Mr Amaral was forced out. The released files include almost nothing of the post-Amaral PJ investigations on the ground in PDL.
No. But it is a genuine video. She is a real person. IMO she did report it to the PJ, after Mr Amaral was forced out. The released files include almost nothing of the post-Amaral PJ investigations on the ground in PDL.
How do you know the video is genuine?It is certainly a real person in the video. It is too realistic to be a computer generated person. Probably there are some who would prefer this witness had not said what she did, and I predict they will claim that Mr A hired an actress and invented her lines for her (its their only option). IMO the witness is genuine.
It is certainly a real person in the video. It is too realistic to be a computer generated person. Probably there are some who would prefer this witness had not said what she did, and I predict they will claim that Mr A hired an actress and invented her lines for her (its their only option). IMO the witness is genuine.
It is certainly a real person in the video. It is too realistic to be a computer generated person. Probably there are some who would prefer this witness had not said what she did, and I predict they will claim that Mr A hired an actress and invented her lines for her (its their only option). IMO the witness is genuine.
The scent was escaping through the passenger door seal. He didn't sniff the boot seal but went underneath the boot twice.
"the passenger compartment of your car is not designed to be airtight."
"I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door." (MG)
The scent was escaping through the passenger door seal. He didn't sniff the boot seal but went underneath the boot twice.
"the passenger compartment of your car is not designed to be airtight."
"I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door." (MG)
Who says that a door seeal to a car is not designed to be airtight?
What rubbish
Go in the greatest storm that you can find and with the water splashing up from deep puddles at speed. Does you door let in the force of the storm? Nah it does not.
Not an iota of draught nor a drop of water comes in, unless it is a really old banger. This car was nearly new.
Of course door seals are designed to be airtight. That is their VERY purpose for their being.
"I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door." (MG)
There are several ways to know if you have an airtight car -- and none of them are pleasant. That's because the passenger compartment of your car is not designed to be airtight. Fresh air comes in the front of the car, circulates through the passenger compartment and leaves the car through exhausters in the rear. If the cabin of a car or truck were truly airtight, the windows wouldn't defrost, it would get unbearably hot in there and anyone inside wouldn't be able to breathe.
When diagnosing car problems, people might say "airtight" when what they mean is "watertight." Sitting inside a car in the pouring rain or a car wash would quickly tell you if you had any leaks in the door or window seals or even unsealed body seams. The vents that allow fresh air to enter and exit have been designed to keep water out and rarely cause auto problems.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/diagnosing-car-problems/body/car-air-tight.htm
Eddie alerted at the passenger door side where scent was escaping from the car. Eddie is correct in his alert at the source of the scent.
Please explain why Eddie didn't bark at the rear of the car where Keela indicated.
"I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door." (MG)Pathfinder , what you quote above answers whether the door seals are airtight [scentproof] or not.
There are several ways to know if you have an airtight car -- and none of them are pleasant. That's because the passenger compartment of your car is not designed to be airtight. Fresh air comes in the front of the car, circulates through the passenger compartment and leaves the car through exhausters in the rear. If the cabin of a car or truck were truly airtight, the windows wouldn't defrost, it would get unbearably hot in there and anyone inside wouldn't be able to breathe.
When diagnosing car problems, people might say "airtight" when what they mean is "watertight." Sitting inside a car in the pouring rain or a car wash would quickly tell you if you had any leaks in the door or window seals or even unsealed body seams. The vents that allow fresh air to enter and exit have been designed to keep water out and rarely cause auto problems.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/diagnosing-car-problems/body/car-air-tight.htm
Eddie alerted at the passenger door side where scent was escaping from the car. Eddie was correct in his alert at the source of the scent.
Pathfinder , what you quote above answers whether the door seals are airtight [scentproof] or not.
The air that circulates in a car comes in via vents at the front and exits via exhausters at the rear. Have you got it?
The door seals do not allow passage of air or water or scent. They are impervious.
Do you understand this now?
He didn't sniff the rear boot seal. He was first chasing the scent a good distance away from the source i.e. car and that wasn't the scent of blood you can't even see. That was a different much stronger scent that was escaping from the car into the underground car park. Keela has to get inside the car and sniff very close to detect any blood traces so IMO Eddie alerted to strong cadaver scent coming out of that car. If it was that then a cadaver was inside the boot at some point. We have seen it in countless cases - bodies moved in the boots of cars.
Just cos bodies can be moved in car boots and sometimes are, DOES NOT mean that this happened in this case.
Pathfinder, my dear, you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe what you have written.
May I remind you that there is NO forensic evidence to back your .. erm .. thoughts.
You haven't got it at all. Watertight doesn't mean airtight. Scent was escaping through the passenger door - that's why Eddie alerted.It is you that hasn't got it. The air comes in via vents at the front and goes out via exhausters at the back.
It is you that hasn't got it. The air comes in via vents at the front and goes out via exhausters at the back.
If the seals were not airproof, every time there was a blast of wind in a gale, you would feel an awful draught.
It is YOU that hasn't got it.
And now, Pfinder. Nigh Night.
He didn't sniff the rear boot seal. He was first chasing the scent a good distance away from the source i.e. car and that wasn't the scent of blood you can't even see. That was a different much stronger scent that was escaping from the car into the underground car park. Keela has to get inside the car and sniff very close to detect any blood traces so IMO Eddie alerted to strong cadaver scent coming out of that car. If it was that then a cadaver was inside the boot at some point. We have seen it in countless cases - bodies moved in the boots of cars. And we know Keela got a match of 15 out of 19 then 37 or whatever they were trying to say. Can they prove it was 5 different people that made up that match that matched Madeleine. New boot tests me thinks.
Please explain why Eddie didn't bark at the rear of the car where Keela indicated.A vehicle is not sealed. It has various ventilation holes. That's why a person can sleep in a car and never run out of oxygen. Depending on the environment where it is parked and the temperature differentials, air enters some ventilation holes and exits out of others. With all 5 doors closed, Eddie alerted at where air was exiting. The lower part of the driver side front door seal. This seal has ventilation holes in it IMO. In a different airflow environment he might have indicated at the rear hatch door seal. The result is the same, he was alerting to air coming from inside the vehicle.
I am sorry but I am not following your reasoning. There were blood deposits in the boot which Keela indicated. If the cadaver had been in the boot & bodily fluids were deposited, surely a cadaver dog would have scented this via the boot seal in the same fashion as through the door seal?
I am sorry but I am not following your reasoning. There were blood deposits in the boot which Keela indicated. If the cadaver had been in the boot & bodily fluids were deposited, surely a cadaver dog would have scented this via the boot seal in the same fashion as through the door seal?Eddie should have scented any blood scents as well, but the boot seal prevented it.
Eddie should have scented any blood scents as well, but the boot seal prevented it.
No air passes thru seals of the type used on modern cars.
So, how come he scented a smell of Something, blood or cadervine, around the door seal?
Just how could that have happened? £5%4%
Show me where Eddie sniffed the boot seal? He didn't. He was chasing scent all over the car park. Grime knew that when he passed that car his behaviour drastically changed because he had found a scent so he brought him back to the source i.e. car. Eddie then alerted to the passenger side where the scent was escaping. Scent escaping from there could be from the boot. The whole car would be full of that scent to be all over the car park.
A vehicle is not sealed. It has various ventilation holes. That's why a person can sleep in a car and never run out of oxygen. Depending on the environment where it is parked and the temperature differentials, air enters some ventilation holes and exits out of others. With all 5 doors closed, Eddie alerted at where air was exiting. The lower part of the driver side front door seal. This seal has ventilation holes in it IMO. In a different airflow environment he might have indicated at the rear hatch door seal. The result is the same, he was alerting to air coming from inside the vehicle.
Would any airflow not have been from front to back, in light of the way the vehicle was parked?I don't know all the ventilation openings in a grand scenic. Logically, when parked, air would flow in lower openings, and out of higher openings. He had access to only the lower openings. This is a limitaion of EVRD dogs, they work at ground level. You can see this in the New Addington case, where the dog was working at 1st floor level and alerted on two seperate days to 2nd floor level (attic). Also you can see the same limitation in video of the south bedroom alert at 5A, where Eddie is searching for some time to locate the source of the scent, concentrating mainly on floor level, and accurately locates the source only when he finally sniffs above ground level, at the first shelf up above floor level in the wardrobe.
I don't know all the ventilation openings in a grand scenic. Logically, when parked, air would flow in lower openings, and out of higher openings. He had access to only the lower openings. This is a limitaion of EVRD dogs, they work at ground level. You can see this in the New Addington case, where the dog was working at 1st floor level and alerted on two seperate days to 2nd floor level (attic). Also you can see the same limitation in video of the south bedroom alert at 5A, where Eddie is searching for some time to locate the source of the scent, concentrating mainly on floor level, and accurately locates the source only when he finally sniffs above ground level, at the first shelf up above floor level in the wardrobe.
I am still having difficulty understanding how the airflow would have enabled odour from the r/o/s inside the boot to travel diagonally across the vehicle through 2 (or was it 3?) sets of seats and then downwards without some sort of airflow into the boot which would thus be the point at which Eddie should have been able to first detect odour.
P/F's argument that Eddie didn't sniff the boot seal applies to all the other vehicles in that car park so what else may Eddie have missed?
If the odour was escaping from the car via air vents ... why didn't Eddie alert at the vents, which would have been the only source ... thinking of scent cones etc?Exactly
Exactly
And how come his nose followed close to the line of the edge of the door seal ?
Gawd, I do have a suspicious mind..... but just how did it happen?
Please reassure me that my suspiciions are wrong by giving me a sensible scenario.
I will say now that I do not believe that a car would be designed with air vents low down and so close to the passengers. Water would come in. Additionally the passenger would feel draughts.
My bet is that the incoming vents are placed in some part of the car which is inherantly dry
... such as under the bonnet
Sorry Pfinder.
Also as mentioned last time we went round this loop, there is a significant part of the bodywork within the door frame and outside the seal that could act as repository for scents transferred from clothing when entering or leaving the car.And yet how strange that there were no dog alerts to any of Gerry's clothing.
And yet how strange that there were no dog alerts to any of Gerry's clothing.
I wasn't aware he was the only person to use the car?And your point is...?
But that wouldn't explain why Eddie did not alert in the Paynes apartment where he spent hours in the same clothing he had worn that night - and cross contamination would almost certainly have occurred - as any residual odour would be at its strongest.
You really do need to look up the relevant laws of physics and the application of Chemistry in regard to this.
You won't find one example when the missing person has turned up alive after Eddie has alerted to a body. Madeleine is still missing.You don't need to find such a missing person.
The scent was escaping through the passenger door seal. He didn't sniff the boot seal but went underneath the boot twice.
"the passenger compartment of your car is not designed to be airtight."
"I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door." (MG)
All car doors are designed so that any unwanted water which gets inside the door (from rain or carwashes) can drain out. On the underside of a car door are drain holes.
Air can pass from the people area of the car, around the sides of the interior panel of the door, to inside the door, then out the drain holes. That is where the air he sniffed came from IMO, a drain hole at the bottom of the driver door.
Here's how it works on a different make http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c120/BCGearhead/2000-2005/Water%20Leak%20Repair/Water9.jpg
We need now is a photo of the underside of a scenic door showing the drain holes, anyone here own one?
But seems that it is OK to say exactly what THEY want to say about The Mccanns
... including VERY defamatory things, such as continually suggesting by inferring that Gerry is Smithman ... and that Gerry was carrying Madeleines dead body
And also changing the facts subtly to fit THEIR agenda
Can we have a level playing field please.
All car doors are designed so that any unwanted water which gets inside the door (from rain or carwashes) can drain out. On the underside of a car door are drain holes.If it was due to holes in the door, why wasn't the same true of the passenger side? If the driver door has drain holes, wouldn't the passenger side have the same? Therefore an air and scent passageway?
Air can pass from the people area of the car, around the sides of the interior panel of the door, to inside the door, then out the drain holes. That is where the air he sniffed came from IMO, a drain hole at the bottom of the driver door.
Here's how it works on a different make http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c120/BCGearhead/2000-2005/Water%20Leak%20Repair/Water9.jpg
We need now is a photo of the underside of a scenic door showing the drain holes, anyone here own one?
...
My point is that I don't understand the nitpicking of statements when there is a strong likelihood that there were mistakes for all sorts of reasons.
Here's one by Martin Grime, which - for some reason - I have never noticed being picked up.
CANINE VEHICLE SEARCHES.
...
I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from
the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door. [/i]
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and
no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the
vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the
boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a
forensic laboratory in the U.K.
That's not correct. Keela alerted to the opposite side of the boot area (i.e. behind the passenger's side).
If it was due to holes in the door, why wasn't the same true of the passenger side? If the driver door has drain holes, wouldn't the passenger side have the same? Therefore an air and scent passageway?
If the water from the door drips onto the door footplate, which is then angled to expel the water, we are back to seals that don't seal. And it should be the same on the passenger side, which was missing an alert.
If it goes out further down the car, there is the issue of why Eddie picked on the bottom of the door, rather than the external drain holes. And why the driver side but not the passenger side.
I wonder if I know anyone with a Scenic?
If it was due to holes in the door, why wasn't the same true of the passenger side? If the driver door has drain holes, wouldn't the passenger side have the same? Therefore an air and scent passageway?You are assuming that the airflow through the drainholes on all doors is identical. With unequal temperatures and convection currents the in/out airflow will be different for each door. (Edit, this is same as what lordpookies posted).
If the water from the door drips onto the door footplate, which is then angled to expel the water, we are back to seals that don't seal. And it should be the same on the passenger side, which was missing an alert.
If it goes out further down the car, there is the issue of why Eddie picked on the bottom of the door, rather than the external drain holes. And why the driver side but not the passenger side.
I wonder if I know anyone with a Scenic?
You are assuming that the airflow through the drainholes on all doors is identical. With unequal temperatures and convection currents the in/out airflow will be different for each door. (Edit, this is same as what lordpookies posted).Hang on a minute. You are now talking as tho' drain holes thru doors are a fact.
BTW there are car auctions in many towns.
Hang on a minute. You are now talking as tho' drain holes thru doors are a fact.Car doors have drain hole at bottom.
If there were drain holes thru the doors, why would they bother to fit seals around the doors?
It just doesn't make sense.
Where air, scent, water can escape so can air. scent and water enter. It is a two way thing and via the lower part of the door would cause wind and draughts and wetness and out side smells to penetrate.
In an earlier post by, I think Pfinder, she quoted some car information that stated that air came in via the front and exited via exhausters at the rear.
Now that makes sense.
Air from under the bonnet is dry, capable of being warmed and also capable of being dissipated over a wide area within the car thus avoiding draughts .
Without any proof or even likelyhood, can we please STOP the SPECULATION about drain holes in the door.
No point in having seals if there are holes letting air and water out and in
Car doors have drain hole at bottom.
To let out water which accidentally gets inside the door if the window seal wears.
Search a video site for: water in car door
Car door seals are not 100% air & water tight.
Hang on a minute. You are now talking as tho' drain holes thru doors are a fact.
If there were drain holes thru the doors, why would they bother to fit seals around the doors?
It just doesn't make sense.
Where air, scent, water can escape so can air. scent and water enter. It is a two way thing and via the lower part of the door would cause wind and draughts and wetness and out side smells to penetrate.
In an earlier post by, I think Pfinder, she quoted some car information that stated that air came in via the front and exited via exhausters at the rear.
Now that makes sense.
Air from under the bonnet is dry, capable of being warmed and also capable of being dissipated over a wide area within the car thus avoiding draughts .
Without any proof or even likelyhood, can we please STOP the SPECULATION about drain holes in the door.
No point in having seals if there are holes letting air and water out and in
I bet you they dont link with the inside of the car. Too draughty
Guess what?
Car doors have drainage holes in them.
I bet you they dont link with the inside of the car. Too draughty
Maybe drainage holes for when the car runs thru a storm and water gets between the window glass and door carcase? They cant have that void filling up and slopping around. Must be a further skin of waterproof membrane inside the door.
Think about it Spammy. Holes from the outside to the interior, alongside the passengers ... and constant draughts etc ?
Nah
Shoot the designer if they designed that !
Only joking about the shooting bit, but possibly a sackable offense?
Actually, it wouldn't get beyond the prototype stage.
Rain can leak past external window seal to inside of door.
Air can leak past internal window seal to inside of door.
Inside of door has drainholes to outside.
If there are so many holes in vehicle doors (sounds as if they could substitute for colanders) all interior smells would be leaking through all five doors ... why did Eddie alert only to one?
Have a browse through here to see what a car door looks like before the pretty bits are fitted.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=car+door+images
Not necessarily; study a bit of fluid dynamics or even basic meteorology and you will be able to answer your own question.
For details of drainage holes in car doors click on link:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=drain+holes+in+car+doors
8)--)) Absolutely riveting ...
Now where is the bit that tells us why Eddie wasn't going into paroxysms outside each door ... surely the inside of the car must have been spewing out ~ the scent of death ~ to a band playing?
Holes on underside not visible from this camera angle of driver door but black line is where where I would put one of them on the underside IMO, might be wrong.
I have given you leads to the wherewithal to work it out for yourself so instead of sneering why don't you do just that?
Thank you ... I have watched Levy's video with interest ... and do not feel the need to 'work anything out'.
As always you pull out all the stops to solve a problem and looking at that illustration ... I think it remains clear that the seal insulates the inside compartment from the outside via an airtight seal on the door. The hole is not designed to evacuate into the vehicle ... I'm with Sadie when she says that = poor design.The door drain holes are exterior to the door seals. Good engineering design. So the water can drain out.
By the way ... anyone ever driven a vehicle where the seal on the sun roof has failed?
I don't know why Eddie alerted outside the door, but I have never thought it was to anything inside the vehicle; there is no record of Keela replicating finding cellular material from the same position as Eddie.
The drain holes are exterior to the door seal. Good engineering design. So the water can drain out.
What has Levy to do with basic physics?
I presume from the last comment you haven't a clue where to start rather than "I do not feel the need to.....".
Say no more.
Exactly ... and the door seal remains watertight and therefore airtight.
During a search conducted with the VRD Morse in America ... there was no alert until Martin Grime requested an opening was cut in an airtight wrapping to allow the scent to escape.
**snip
Grime said there was no response during the first search, when the car seat was sealed inside the brown paper. He then asked officers to put a slit in the paper and move the car seat to another room.
"The second time, when the dog got close to the package, he put his nose in the package and gave a positive response," Grime said.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id421.html
Exactly ... and the door seal remains watertight and therefore airtight.The drainholes (and the other openings like the passenger compartment ventilation intake and outlets) are the equivalent of the cut opening in the brown paper in the other case.
During a search conducted with the VRD Morse in America ... there was no alert until Martin Grime requested an opening was cut in an airtight wrapping to allow the scent to escape.
**snip
Grime said there was no response during the first search, when the car seat was sealed inside the brown paper. He then asked officers to put a slit in the paper and move the car seat to another room.
"The second time, when the dog got close to the package, he put his nose in the package and gave a positive response," Grime said.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id421.html
Door seals water tight?
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSElgsNrKe6Ty5ZhkzEthjI6qmJeCHie-eO4cuJeQ8CeIDb-a0U)
I imagine If she had kept the doors closed, it wouldn't have flooded.
Stupid woman.
The drainholes (and the other openings like the passenger compartment ventilation intake and outlets) are the equivalent of the cut opening in the brown paper in the other case.
Hmmm ... wasn't aware having an opinion on the work of VRD requires a knowledge of basic physics ... pity the 'experts' in that field can't be bothered to share expertise or maybe they are not as expert as they may pretend to be either in that or any other discipline.
8(>((
The discussion was how scent (airborne) can get from the inside of a car to out.
Draw a section through the car door in position in the frame and sill then see if there is a path for air inside to out or vice versa?
You really do have a poor grasp of this aspect don't you?
Furthermore, can anyone venture a reason why Grime would make it more difficult for his dog to sniff out cadaver scent by having the doors of all the cars closed?
Precisely. If the vehicle doors are as porous as you believe ... why on earth was the VRD not alerting to them all ... and why did Keela not react to the same stimulus as Eddie when in locus?
I think that makes it about the third time I have posted that ... your responses don't come close to answering ... then when do they ever?
Furthermore, can anyone venture a reason why Grime would make it more difficult for his dog to sniff out cadaver scent by having the doors of all the cars closed?
Precisely. If the vehicle doors are as porous as you believe ... why on earth was the VRD not alerting to them all ... and why did Keela not react to the same stimulus as Eddie when in locus?
I think that makes it about the third time I have posted that ... your responses don't come close to answering ... then when do they ever?
There is always the possibility that there were no blood deposits in the luggage compartment at the time Eddie indicated. Keela was not deployed until several hours later - and after the vehicle had been forensically examined by the PJ in a non-sterile environment.
Sadie, have much Physics and Chemistry have you studied ?
I don't think they are, pegasus. The door seal does just that ... it seals the water out nor is it a ventilation source.What happens when a car accidentally drives into deep water?
As far as the ventilation intake and outlets are concerned ... the ones in my vehicle operate to best advantage when I control them from the dashboard. So although the vehicle is not designed to be hermetically sealed ... it is not designed to allow either water or air ingress through the doors although it is designed to allow the air to be conditioned and circulated without the requirement to open the windows.
The floor panel is in the boot in the photo showing a box and 2 bags in the boot.
But later when Keela is checking the car, the floor panel has been removed, it is not in the video
Did Keela examine the luggage area floor panel?
What happens when a car accidentally drives into deep water?Plenty of space around the engine compartment, Pegasus, for water to come in
It fills with water and sinks in about two minutes.
I posted a video by an expert proving this, he is in a car in a lake. You can see the car fill with water.
How does the water get in?
As I said in an earlier post:Thankyou Sadie. But look at where the window slides into the door. Water can enter the outer window seal, air can enter the inner window seal, they are not perfect. Pull the inner window seal back, pour coffee in, and the coffee will come out the drain hole on the bottom of the door to the outside. Even if Eddie was asleep he would wake up and smell it :)
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Car/doors.htm
Corrosion of Car Doors
Cars are equipped with drain holes designed to release channeled water runoff. Water seeps into the gap at the base of windows between glass and door panels when the car is washed and during rainstorms. As long as drain holes are kept clear and open, standing water will not accumulate. However, if drains become clogged up with dirt or other debris, water will be trapped at the base of doors to start the rusting process. (reference) -snip-
So long as the drainage holes are outside the seal, ingressed water from rainfall etc. will drain out via the holes at the bottom of the door, without air or scent getting out from the interior.
The massive company where I worked made car doors by the thousands, but I never worked in that department. I walked thru many times and watched the panels being pressed. IIRC they were assembled elsewhere.
But I did work on the design of tractor cabs and we used door and window seals there. [rather primitive ones]
It was all a long time ago and I cant claim to be an expert now. However basic engineering principles always tend to stay in the mind.
Seals will have improved imeasurably since then.
Thankyou Misty. I had not noticed photo 26 before. This floor panel would be next to or touching where Keela alerted in the boot. But in the Keela video the floor panel is not there. Photos 29 and 30 of the two plastic trim parts are IIRC parts which PJ kept and substituted new replacement parts back in the car?
Now, as to dog deployment.
' If anyone has been following this case -
"jurors found Barry Davis Jr., 34, guilty Monday in a "no body" murder trial after a little more than two hours of deliberation."
http://www.newsherald.com/news/crime-public-safety/barry-davis-found-guilty-in-double-murder-of-area-couple-1.479781
This was the Florida case in which two cadaver dogs alerted to a car "even though the seats and carpeting in the truck had been removed and the vehicle interior scrubbed clean."
http://www.newsherald.com/news/crime-public-safety/murder-prosecution-cadaver-dogs-find-evidence-of-human-remains-1.476920 '
Makes for very interesting reading ... IMO the parallels with Madeleine McCann's case are ZERO ... but for the fact it exemplifies the importance that the indications of cadaver dogs must always be backed by evidence ... and there was evidence in spades in this case.
I think the jury may have considered more compelling evidence than the dogs when reaching a conclusion ... even the fact that he returned to the scene and took the dog from which the victim was inseparable ... various witness statements including an eye witness to the double murder ...
I think it would be safe to say that even with the dog alerts removed from the equation ... there was enough evidence to convict this man ... and no evidence from the jury room about the weight, if any, given to the dogs.
** snip
Elmore used bank account records, cellphone records and the lack of contact with friends and family to argue Davis killed the couple. Many family members were present Monday for closing arguments in the trial of Davis when Elmore made a final push to convince jurors that Davis killed the couple and robbed Hughes’ home “down to the very last salt shaker” in order to have enough money to assemble a marijuana growing business.
**snip
Steward told jurors that the night of May 7, 2012, she and Davis went to Hughes’ home unannounced so Davis could collect on a drug debt. Hughes invited them into his home for dinner and margaritas, she said.
Steward told jurors she and Rhodes left to get margarita mix, only to find Hughes motionless and bleeding on the floor when they returned. Steward said Davis then grabbed Rhodes by the throat until she slipped into unconsciousness. He then bound both Hughes and Rhodes and submerged their head in a bathtub, she testified.
**snip
A cadre of people who helped Davis in some way after May 7 told investigators they feared Davis and misled law enforcement under his direction, including a group who assisted in removing Hughes’ possessions from his home. In total, authorities said they recovered more than $18,000 in Hughes’ property from Davis’ home.
Authorities also claimed Davis forged about $16,000 worth of Hughes’ checks for moving Hughes out of his house and “property maintenance.” Those funds went toward planting the seeds of a business, the prosecution said.
“He was broke,” Elmore said. “He couldn’t even turn his lights on, but here comes the future. He took Hughes’ money to build the marijuana grow room.”
**snip
Prosecutors also claimed a trail of cellphone calls and texts highlighted the truths of witness testimony and traced Davis’ actions in the days and weeks after the killings of Hughes and Rhodes as investigators attempted to close in on Davis.
Davis previously was acquitted of stealing a 2008 Corvette from Hughes following his disappearance. Jurors on Monday found Davis guilty of 15 counts of robbery, theft and fraud to attain Hughes’ possessions, including first-degree premeditated murder of Hughes and Rhodes.
http://www.newsherald.com/news/crime-public-safety/barry-davis-found-guilty-in-double-murder-of-area-couple-1.479781?page=3
Indeed. No mention of the dogs in the main thrust of the prosecution's case (from the first article):
"Prosecutor Bobby Elmore faced what seemed like an uphill battle since the bodies of neither Hughes nor Rhodes were ever recovered.
Elmore used bank account records, cellphone records and the lack of contact with friends and family to argue Davis killed the couple. Many family members were present Monday for closing arguments in the trial of Davis when Elmore made a final push to convince jurors that Davis killed the couple and robbed Hughes’ home “down to the very last salt shaker” in order to have enough money to assemble a marijuana growing business".
So why were dogs used ?
There's a tough question . 8)-)))
To look for forensic evidence - did they find any?
The dogs indicate Alfred.And what forensic evidence did they find in this case that verified their alerts?
Then the forensic scientists do the analysis.
And what forensic evidence did they find in this case that verified their alerts?
Well, why don't you obtain the full case files and let us know ?
Now remind me again alfred, why do police forces around the world use dogs ?
and let's face it, SY used dogs in Portugal when searching the sites for 'remains'.
My answer hasn't changed since I posted it a few minutes ago - in cases like this to look for evidence.
As was done in PDL.Certainly not conclusive of a dead body having ever been in situ either in the apartment or in the car, correct. However Amaral states the dog alerts proved it. What was he on?
Forensics, INCONCLUSIVE.
Certainly not conclusive of a dead body having ever been in situ either in the apartment or in the car, correct. However Amaral states the dog alerts proved it. What was he on?
I am fully aware of that.Less than useless then these alerts aren't they? What they are telling us is "there may or there may not have been a body present". Well, I could have told them that from the comfort of my armchair, having never set foot in Portugal.
We already know he misunderstood the results.
However, they haven't precluded the the possibility of a body, have they ?
I have a question for anyone who can answer it.
I believe it was Martin Grime who said that a body starts to decompose immediately after death.
If that is so, as some people have been resuscitated when they have died, some even 20 minutes later is he saying that their bodies had started to decompose in that 20 minutes or so?
I have a question for anyone who can answer it.
I believe it was Martin Grime who said that a body starts to decompose immediately after death.
If that is so, as some people have been resuscitated when they have died, some even 20 minutes later is he saying that their bodies had started to decompose in that 20 minutes or so?
Body decomposition after death depends on the surrounding environment and especially temperature. The hotter it is the sooner decomposition will start and the faster it will be.
When the heart stops the body will slowly start its initial transformation to rigor mortis stage. The changes are very small to begin with but after say twenty minutes at normal room temperature the body cells will begin to break down irretrievably. Very slowly to begin with mind.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis
What happens when a car accidentally drives into deep water?
It fills with water and sinks in about two minutes.
I posted a video by an expert proving this, he is in a car in a lake. You can see the car fill with water.
How does the water get in?
Less than useless then these alerts aren't they? What they are telling us is "there may or there may not have been a body present". Well, I could have told them that from the comfort of my armchair, having never set foot in Portugal.
There is also this -
A trained human cadaver dog will not signal a living person or an animal (except pigs), but it will signal a recently deceased, putrefying or skeletonised human corpse. That suggests that the "bouquet of death" is discernible, but attempts to identify it have so far failed. Two of the by-products of decomposition, putrescine and cadaverine, have been bottled and are commercially available as dog training aids. But they are also present in all decaying organic material, and in human saliva.
Present in ALL DECAYING ORGANIC MATERIAL AND IN HUMAN SALIVA. Well, that really widens what cadaver dogs smell doesn't it.
Do you actually know what these compounds are or where they originate ?
You are looking at things from the wrong perspective, having introduced both liquid & outside interference into the equation.
If I dispose of my washing machine into the canal, it will fill up with water & sink. However, if I fill the machine drum with water in the normal sense on dry land, it will not leak unless the seals are broken.
If you filled the interior of the Scenic with smoke in the car park, at what places would the smoke escape?
from the little information that is available I think it is impossible for the scent to last for 3 months outside in the flowerbed without physical remains being present...that blows a massive hole in the alerts
In broad terms and principle: Through any orifice of any size where the upstream pressure is higher than the downstream pressure.
There is also this -
A trained human cadaver dog will not signal a living person or an animal (except pigs), but it will signal a recently deceased, putrefying or skeletonised human corpse. That suggests that the "bouquet of death" is discernible, but attempts to identify it have so far failed. Two of the by-products of decomposition, putrescine and cadaverine, have been bottled and are commercially available as dog training aids. But they are also present in all decaying organic material, and in human saliva.
Present in ALL DECAYING ORGANIC MATERIAL AND IN HUMAN SALIVA. Well, that really widens what cadaver dogs smell doesn't it.
What it says is they don't actually know what the dogs smell. They can't reproduce it. They know it includes putrescine and cadaverine, but not what else is there which allows the dog to identify the "bouquet of death". There is obviously something else, or the dogs would be alerting to all decaying organic material and human saliva. The point is that they don't alert to these scents, not that they do.How do you know they don't? What did Zampo the cadaver dog in Sweden alert to 45 times in places where no human remains had ever been?
So who's going to be the first one to make a bonfire in their car to see where the smoke comes out?
What it says is they don't actually know what the dogs smell. They can't reproduce it. They know it includes putrescine and cadaverine, but not what else is there which allows the dog to identify the "bouquet of death". There is obviously something else, or the dogs would be alerting to all decaying organic material and human saliva. The point is that they don't alert to these scents, not that they do.
What it actually said was putrescine and cadaverine has been bottled as it is useful for training cadaver dogs, however it is also found in decaying organic material too and human saliva.
The dog is given a sign to search G unit otherwise they would bark around cemeteries too wouldn't they?
I know it said that. I thought you were suggesting that the dogs would alert to decaying organic material and or saliva. Obviously they don't because of the 'unknown' properties of the scent of death. They know the 'true' scent, the scientists don't.
I know it said that. I thought you were suggesting that the dogs would alert to decaying organic material and or saliva. Obviously they don't because of the 'unknown' properties of the scent of death. They know the 'true' scent, the scientists don't.
I know it said that. I thought you were suggesting that the dogs would alert to decaying organic material and or saliva. Obviously they don't because of the 'unknown' properties of the scent of death. They know the 'true' scent, the scientists don't.But we also know they will falsely alert, like Zampo the Swedish cadaver dog did, 45 times in a forested area.
You are missing the part where it says that 'it is used to train cadaver dogs'.
What it says is they don't actually know what the dogs smell. They can't reproduce it. They know it includes putrescine and cadaverine, but not what else is there which allows the dog to identify the "bouquet of death". There is obviously something else, or the dogs would be alerting to all decaying organic material and human saliva. The point is that they don't alert to these scents, not that they do.
Actually I can believe that about organic material, have you ever gone away and forgot to throw flowers in a vase away? The water smells absolutely disgusting.
The gardener would have used organic material on the garden no doubt, probably that is why Eddie alerted to the garden. It could even be what he alerted to inside 5a. With people back and fro walking in the garden then inside 5a.
I know it said that. I thought you were suggesting that the dogs would alert to decaying organic material and or saliva. Obviously they don't because of the 'unknown' properties of the scent of death. They know the 'true' scent, the scientists don't.
Not Grimes'dogs though, I think?
Interesting;Thanks for posting that G-Unit. The important question is, what is the minimum PMI (postmorteminterval) which can later be detected by a dog. That carpet square experiment doesn't tell us the minimum PMI required, it just tells us that 3hrs is above that minimum (because no subjects with shorter PMI were tested).
In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.
Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html
The conclusion is only as reliable as the basic assumption.
I am fully aware of that.
We already know he misunderstood the results.
However, they haven't precluded the the possibility of a body, have they ?
there are 1200 people donating to amaral's fund who are not aware that amaral misunderstood the results..
Thanks for posting that G-Unit. The important question is, what is the minimum PMI (postmorteminterval) which can later be detected by a dog. That carpet square experiment doesn't tell us the minimum PMI required, it just tells us that 3hrs is above that minimum (because no subjects with shorter PMI were tested).
This experiment http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html found that to produce an alert, the PMI must be at least 1hr25mins.
If amaral had not resigned from the PJ....Would he have been sacked and lost his pension when he was given the criminal conviction
Was it a case of jump or be shoved?
looks like it...perhaps that was the REAL reason he retired early.
there are 1200 people donating to amaral's fund who are not aware that amaral misunderstood the results..
The Policia Judicial had been attempting to clean up their act when this all came upon them in 2007. Mr Amaral might very well have retained his post had it been down to the powers that be in Faro/Portimao but once Lisbon got involved it was game over. For him it was an unfortunate set of circumstances which came together at the most inopportune time.
Does anyone?
does GrimeOf course he does, what a silly question!
Of course he does, what a silly question!
from the little information that is available I think it is impossible for the scent to last for 3 months outside in the flowerbed without physical remains being present...that blows a massive hole in the alerts
grime says the alerts were suggestive of cadaver scent...so he doesn't know for certain....yet posters on here and elsewhere think they know...deluded
Exactly. The dog alerts suggest cadaver scent because that is what the dog was trained to alert to, what he alerted to in actual case searches. Mr Grime does not suggest anything else, therefore it is a given that he is pretty sure. He did also say it is in his "professional opinion" (that should give you an extra clue).
Whether posters make a small, medium or a giant leap to any ideas or conclusions is by the by. But please don't suggest the dog handler doesn't know what he is talking about.
Why would Grime have deemed it unnecessary to deploy Eddie INSIDE a vehicle to which he had just positively alerted?
If Eddie alerted then Keela was used. If Keela alerted then blood was present. If Keela did not alert; cadaver.
grime says the alerts were suggestive of cadaver scent...so he doesn't know for certain....yet posters on here and elsewhere think they know...deluded
If Eddie alerted then Keela was used. If Keela alerted then blood was present. If Keela did not alert; cadaver.
Inconclusive forensics.More than a possibility?! How so?
So it is more than a possibility a cadaver was present.
Eddie only alerted outside the vehicle, albeit at the door seal. How could Grime be positive the odour was coming from inside rather than something on the outside?
Thirty-odd years;
Police on Thursday revived their search for Etan Patz, a 6-year-old who disappeared in 1979 en route to a New York City bus stop, after a cadaver-sniffing dog recently detected the odor of human remains in a basement near Patz’s SoHo home.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/04/etan_patz_search_renewed_can_cadaver_dogs_smell_30_year_old_corpses_.html
Inconclusive forensics.
So it is more than a possibility a cadaver was present.
Why would Grime have deemed it unnecessary to deploy Eddie INSIDE a vehicle to which he had just positively alerted?
Experience? I don't know because he didn't say.
GUnit has answered this Misty. (Thank you GU). I would add that the space inside a car is relatively small, in fact too small to differentiate between one area and another.
GUnit has answered this Misty. (Thank you GU). I would add that the space inside a car is relatively small, in fact too small to differentiate between one area and another.
Eddie only alerted outside the vehicle, albeit at the door seal. How could Grime be positive the odour was coming from inside rather than something on the outside?An alert on the outside of the car would have been easier to film than an alert on the inside of the car... ?>)()<
not more than a possibility...just a possibility
so according to that it was blood...we now know Gerry's .....so no cadaver in the car
and absolutely no evidence of abduction. 8((()*/
Do we really "know"? Did the FSS report state categorically it was Gerry's blood? Did Gerry ever mention that he had shed blood in his car? Just playing devil's advocate.What does it mean then?
PS You are also assuming that because both dogs alert at the same place it means "blood". That's not necessarily a given.
So why did Eddie have to be put inside the wardrobe in 5a before he indicated?
Do we really "know"? Did the FSS report state categorically it was Gerry's blood? Did Gerry ever mention that he had shed blood in his car? Just playing devil's advocate.
PS You are also assuming that because both dogs alert at the same place it means "blood". That's not necessarily a given.
Keela detects only blood. Forensic science is not so exact, so the FSS couldn't say what it was, but it contained DNA. There could have been blood and cadaver odour in the car, but we don't know.
Do we really "know"? Did the FSS report state categorically it was Gerry's blood? Did Gerry ever mention that he had shed blood in his car? Just playing devil's advocate.
PS You are also assuming that because both dogs alert at the same place it means "blood". That's not necessarily a given.
so again we have no confirmation of cadaver in the car
I don' think there is any mystery here. Eddie will hone in eventually to the source of the scent he is looking for. He ran around the whole bedroom trying to find it. He settled in an area near the wardrobe. It could have been the bed nearest the wardrobe, not necessarily the wardrobe, although it could have been. The point is he settled in an area near there outwith a large room at least three times a car area.Grime was quite specific that Eddie was indicating to the wardrobe. What you are suggesting is that there could have been blood on the carpet....or the bed...or the bedcovers....none of which were forensically tested....
and how many on here have a clue about what the alerts really signify..There is no rael scientific information about the reliability of the alerts yet amaral made the claim that Maddie died in the apartment and is believed by several thousand gullible people...at least I am being honest...shame amaral wasn'tI was referring to your conclusion.
none that you understand
I wish there was a multiquote function here.
@Alfred, all it means is that there is a possibility both scents are found in the same place
@GUnit, I was referring to the FSS results not being 100% definite that they found Gerry's DNA, whether it came from blood or shed skin cells, etc. This is in the context of many posters stating it as a fact whilst at the same time insisting Madeleine Mccanns DNA was not found, (in other samples) when both results were not conclusive and both samples contained DNA markers from them both.
@Misty, there is no point asking me about the intricacies of blood odour dispersal and timelines, I don't know.
@Misty, no, I am not suggesting there could have been blood in the carpet or bedcovers, and Eddie alerted to that, for the simple reason that if there were, Keela will have indicated there, but she did not. (Remember Mr Grime sayng, "if there is blood there, she will find it")
I am cooking and posting at the same time. NOT a good idea, so need to go for a wee bit. Fascinating subject though.
Do we really "know"? Did the FSS report state categorically it was Gerry's blood? Did Gerry ever mention that he had shed blood in his car? Just playing devil's advocate.
PS You are also assuming that because both dogs alert at the same place it means "blood". That's not necessarily a given.
RE: your answer to me above - if both dogs alert to the same spot and it could mean either blood or cadaver and blood then what is the point of deploying two dogs in cases like this? Why not simply use Eddie and dispense with Keela's services altogether?
I take it we have established that we don't know what, scientifically, the prime suspect AKA Eddie, was smelling?
RE: your answer to me above - if both dogs alert to the same spot and it could mean either blood or cadaver and blood then what is the point of deploying two dogs in cases like this? Why not simply use Eddie and dispense with Keela's services altogether?
I take it we have established that we don't know what, scientifically, the prime suspect AKA Eddie, was smelling?
I take it we have established that we don't know what, scientifically, the prime suspect AKA Eddie, was smelling?
How can you equate that to cadaver odour emanating downwards through the door seal when there is no internal pressure? (genuine question as I was never great at physics)You need to understand pressure and basic fluid dynamics.
He detected cadaver odour like he was trained to find.
cadaver odour has not been confirmed by grime
Why wouldn't there be a point? Eddie is used to find indications of a death. It really is that simple. Keela is used to find minute forensic traces as back up. There is no need to labour this to kingdom come.
PS, well said GUnit, I didn't see your post, ha!
You need to understand pressure and basic fluid dynamics.
You need to remove words like Amaral Grime Eddie Keela McCann Praia da Luz and Renault Scenic from the equation. They have b****r all to do with the principles which were figured out by guys, in the 17th and 18th centuries, like Boyle,Charles & the Bernoulli clan.
So this could apply to any old metal box in a seaside town near you.
Pressure moves from high to low. Put a hole in your car tyre wherever you like and the air will come out moving from high pressure in the tyre to low pressure outside. Stick in as many holes as you like anywhere you like in the tyre, they will leak air. Consider you have done it on the rig KwikFit use to fit tyres so it is horizontal and the car weight is not a distraction. Ultimately the air will leak out up down and sideways until there insufficient pressure to shove anymore out through the holes. If the holes are big enough the pressure will balance to equal inside and outside ie atmospheric pressure.
If you have parked your tin box by the beach huts at Brightlingsea in full sun, to start with the pressure in the box and the pressure outside are the same ie about 1013 mbar. If the temperature inside the box increases due to exposure to direct sun the volume of air inside will increase; if restrained in any way it will cause an increase in pressure until it is sufficient to flow out through a path to a low pressure area. Note that when the temperature outside is only about 25C the temperature inside can reach 60C plus in direct sun. See nice little graphic in the link below explaining absolute temperature and volume
If a draught blows along the tin box it will create areas of high and low pressure where the pressure outside the tin box on a micro level can be below that inside the tin box. This is basically a venturi effect.
Broadly speaking that is how it works; I am not saying in the case in point it did happen but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. It would scarcely be possible to determine as it would be necessary to recreate precisely all the conditions that obtained at the time so the debate could go on forever.
If you want to say its blx don't tell me get a medium and tell the guys above they got it wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles%27s_law
cadaver odour has not been confirmed by grime
I already said to you a few posts back, there is no such thing as "confirmation" of cadaver odour, especially in cases where remnant cadVer scent are concerned, without a body, so why are you bringing this argument forward again?If there are no confirmations of cadaver scent then how can anyone claim eddie has never been wrong
I already said to you a few posts back, there is no such thing as "confirmation" of cadaver odour, especially in cases where remnant cadaver scent are concerned, without a body, so why are you bringing this argument forward again?
If there are no confirmations of cadaver scent then how can anyone claim eddie has never been wrong
Because he wasn't?
In training there is no doubt about any alert as the matter is there
In operational cases, Mr Grime says he has not been distracted by various factors such as road kill, bacon sandwhiches, etc
The point is, this dog was highly trained to the scent of dead carcasses, and that is what he will have smelt
And the scent of Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car.
Could detect a scent on clothing in the gym; but no scent on the same clothing in the villa.
Most strange.
Because he wasn't?
In training there is no doubt about any alert as the matter is there
In operational cases, Mr Grime says he has not been distracted by various factors such as road kill, bacon sandwhiches, etc
The point is, this dog was highly trained to the scent of dead carcasses, and that is what he will have smelt and alerted to, with some small provisos
It hasn'tbeen established it was Gerry's blood and secondly, it's only a possibility, keep up
I'm glad you admit that it is a lie that in 200 cases eddie has never been wrong...a complete lie...so was there abody in 5a..do we know....
Let's get back to the topic.
Even if a hundred posters go into the annals and intricacies of cadaver dog history, Amaral and his team ( or the other way around) was given x y z information at the time and came to a theory/conclusion....that's that and what happened at the time...it really wasn't their problem
You don't get to be the highest paid dog in Britain for getting it wrong.
I'm glad you admit that it is a lie that in 200 cases eddie has never been wrong...a complete lie...so was there abody in 5a..do we know....
That may have been what happened at the time ...but by the time amaral wrote his book Grime had said the alerts had no evidential reliability...amaral continued with his lies
What is your problem exactly Dave? Why do you feel the need to put words into peoples mouths and also misconstrue what they have posted? I don't recall anyone asking me to admit anything for starters. And to finish because you are being tiresome, a) where is the "lie" in the fact that Eddie has never been wrong in 200 case searches and b) no one knows if there was a body in 5a or not. If they suggest they do they are being dishonest although it is totally acceptable also to believe there is no possibility (for reasons other than the dog alerts).End of, period. If you have trouble comprehending, do give me anither shout, I'm always willing to educate where I can. It's my day off work and was looking forward to posting, please don't spoil it.
removed
Mr Grime submitted his report in August 2007. Whilst Mr Amaral was still on the case. Nothing to do with the book or when it was published and the reasons. Steady on chap.Get your brainwaves into order.
removed
Mr Grime submitted his report in August 2007. Whilst Mr Amaral was still on the case. Nothing to do with the book or when it was published and the reasons. Steady on chap.Get your brainwaves into order.
I take it we have established that we don't know what, scientifically, the prime suspect AKA Eddie, was smelling?
it has been claimed on here and elsewhere that eddie has never been wrong in 200 cases...that's a lie
Amaral has not suggested there was a body in 5a he has stated it as a fact...that's another lie
if you think you can educate me you are deluded
If you post expect to be challenged by those who don't agree with you
this is what amaral said in his book...this is what his deluded followers believe
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
That would be the logical conclusion. If a murder had just happened and you rounded up people seen on the street nearby and brought a cadaver dog in and it barked at one you would conclude that he was probably the murderer.
That would be the logical conclusion. If a murder had just happened and you rounded up people seen on the street nearby and brought a cadaver dog in and it barked at one you would conclude that he was probably the murderer.
That would be the logical conclusion. If a murder had just happened and you rounded up people seen on the street nearby and brought a cadaver dog in and it barked at one you would conclude that he was probably the murderer.
no
Why wouldn't there be a point? Eddie is used to find indications of a death. It really is that simple. Keela is used to find minute forensic traces as back up. There is no need to labour this to kingdom come.I'm sorry but I'm not seeing how Keela isn't completely superfluous if what you're saying is correct. Eddie alerts to a spot, humans do a forensic sweep. Why bother with Keela in such a scenario?
PS, well said GUnit, I didn't see your post, ha!
Maybe, a touch of hyperbole in reporting, there.
There is an FOI answer somewhere that gives the breakdown of costs of hiring Eddie, and it's nothing like the amounts touted in the press.
YES unless he worked in a morgue with dead people. To have that odour alerted by the dog he would be arrested on suspicion of murder.
what about if he had sat next to someone who worked in a morgue for 30 mins on the train...never mind he confessed after the torture
What if he told you a load of BS. You think they're gonna let him leave? It's ok our cadaver dog alerted to you but you can go @)(++(*
this is what amaral said in his book...this is what his deluded followers believe
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
Probably a mistranslation. 8(0(*
Traslation of: "Conclui-se, então, que aquele odor de cadáver só poderia ser proveniente de uma pessoa: Madeleine McCann"
"It was then concluded that the cadaver odour could only come from one person: Madeleine McCann."
Any police force would come to the same conclusion.
Except that those representatives of British police forces, present in PdL, didn't.
Trying to sound clever but we are not talking fluids...we are talking gases...the dogs are detecting gases not fluids or solids as none were found. Any gases would have dissipated from the car...and the flower bed and possibly the apartment due to Brownian motion which would create constant dilution.
there is no concrete evidence that the dog's detected a cadaver...as Grime pointed out there are several scenarios that could have produced the contamination
this is what amaral said in his book...this is what his deluded followers believe
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing how Keela isn't completely superfluous if what you're saying is correct. Eddie alerts to a spot, humans do a forensic sweep. Why bother with Keela in such a scenario?
That is the point, Eddie does not alert to a specific spot, cadaver scent does not settle in a minute specific place like blood doesSo Eddie did not alert to cuddlecat or behind the sofa or to the flowerbed (which incidentally was never dug up)...? &%+((£
Probably a mistranslation. 8(0(*
So Eddie did not alert to cuddlecat or behind the sofa or to the flowerbed (which incidentally was never dug up)...? &%+((£None were specific spots but if you want to annalise specific spots be my guest
None were specific spotsCuddlecat wasn't specific enough, so Keela gets called in to sniff the toy to find the cadaver fluids? If you say so!
Cuddlecat wasn't specific enough, so Keela gets called in to sniff the toy to find the cadaver fluids? If you say so!
What would your "logical" conclusion be? I'm sure that if the dogs had alerted to all things concerned with Robert Murat, you would not criticise them or their trainer in any way.
It may have been. We have no record of Keela vis a vis scenting the toy.Personally I think the idea of a mutt pinpointing the precise location of a speck of blood on a cuddly toy is utterly ludicrous but that's probably just me. How does it do it? Point to the exact spot with its nose?
Personally I think the idea of a mutt pinpointing the precise location of a speck of blood on a cuddly toy is utterly ludicrous but that's probably just me. How does it do it? Point to the exact spot with its nose?
Personally I think the idea of a mutt pinpointing the precise location of a speck of blood on a cuddly toy is utterly ludicrous but that's probably just me. How does it do it? Point to the exact spot with its nose?
Well, yes. Thats exactly how Keela does itSo where on cuddlecat did Keela point her nose? And if her nose was not called in to operation on the toy please explain why not?
Again, finding minute traces of Madeleine's blood on the toy would be no big deal.
Plenty of innocent explanations of how it might have got there ...
So where on cuddlecat did Keela point her nose? And if her nose was not called in to operation on the toy please explain why not?
Are you Dave no 2? Forgetting my previous replies? I already said we have no record of Keela inspecting the toy but if she did, then yes, she would hone her nose into the exact spot where blood was. With a toy it might not be that specific to a c m , depends how silly you want to get
Are you Dave no 2? Forgetting my previous replies? I already said we have no record of Keela inspecting the toy but if she did, then yes, she would hone her nose into the exact spot where blood was. With a toy it might not be that specific to a c m , depends how silly you want to getAre you planning to insult me in every reply you make to me?
What would she do if it was on the underside?If there is blood there Keela will find it... (Source: Mr Grime, SY police dog handler)
Are you planning to insult me in every reply you make to me?
Any reason why Keela would not have been asked to sniff out traces of blood or cadaver juice on the toy?
If there is blood there Keela will find it... (Source: Mr Grime, SY police dog handler)
Topside or other
She wouldn't be able to point her nose at if it was on the underside, would she.
She wouldn't be able to point her nose at if it was on the underside, would she.
We have discussed the situation on many occasions on the forum and the situation regarding the deployment and the payment exceeding the Chief Constables salary debunked every time.
DCI posted ...
Grime claims that in a 6 year period in Britain, Eddie was deployed over 200 times.
This disclosure under Freedom of Information (FOI) indicates just 37 deployments in the 5 year period 2003-2007.
Either Eddie must have had one very busy year or Grime has got his sums wrong.
http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disclosurelog/20090062
Some States in America use human cadavers to train cadaver dogs on what are known as ‘body farms’. Grime claims that Eddie has been trained on such a farm in the States.
An FOI answer to a question I have submitted cited parts of a Personal Development review for the Year 2005-6 when it was stated that Eddie (then aged 5 or 6, and close to retirement) had been to the States for that training. The cited justification was, not that it would improve Eddie’s performance, but that it would “generate some income potential”.
Until his last day of service, the daily cost of hiring Eddie was just £10. And no documentation confirming this apparent trip was ever received by SYP.
Still, Grime describes both Eddie and Keela as the only “assets” (as he describes them) of their type in the world. Clearly Eddie’s apparent training on a body farm in America wouldn't make him that, because many dogs in America are trained the same, so what would?
Whatever it is, perhaps that is why there are no references to the “Enhanced” Victim Recovery dog status outside Eddie and Grime?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1626.20;wap2
Thanks for this Brietta. And DCI.
I've never been overly impressed by the dogs. I find them more fun and games than hard fact.
One of the flags was the 'deployed 200 times' warning marker. That sounded like one hell of a lot of unsolved dead/missing body cases.
However, I'm sure that you can understand that searching for 'cadaver dogs' on a forum like this is a pointless exercise.
8((()*/
This reminds me of when people believed the premise that the sun revolved around the earth. If someone produced scientific evidence of the contrary, it was immediately dismissed as heresy and the person who presented this evidence was punished.
Some here start, with blind faith, with the premise that the McCanns are innocent, thus any evidence to the contrary is immediately dismissed as irrelevant and as heresy. Furthermore, the persons who doubt them are treated as heretics or with the new word "troll".
What I am saying is that if the dogs had alerted to anyone else the same number of times they had alerted to the parents, you would never dismiss them as you do now.
This reminds me of when people believed the premise that the sun revolved around the earth. If someone produced scientific evidence of the contrary, it was immediately dismissed as heresy and the person who presented this evidence was punished.
Some here start, with blind faith, with the premise that the McCanns are innocent, thus any evidence to the contrary is immediately dismissed as irrelevant and as heresy. Furthermore, the persons who doubt them are treated as heretics or with the new word "troll".
What I am saying is that if the dogs had alerted to anyone else the same number of times they had alerted to the parents, you would never dismiss them as you do now.
This reminds me of when people believed the premise that the sun revolved around the earth. If someone produced scientific evidence of the contrary, it was immediately dismissed as heresy and the person who presented this evidence was punished.
Some here start, with blind faith, with the premise that the McCanns are innocent, thus any evidence to the contrary is immediately dismissed as irrelevant and as heresy. Furthermore, the persons who doubt them are treated as heretics or with the new word "troll".
What I am saying is that if the dogs had alerted to anyone else the same number of times they had alerted to the parents, you would never dismiss them as you do now.
This reminds me of when people believed the premise that the sun revolved around the earth. If someone produced scientific evidence of the contrary, it was immediately dismissed as heresy and the person who presented this evidence was punished.
Some here start, with blind faith, with the premise that the McCanns are innocent, thus any evidence to the contrary is immediately dismissed as irrelevant and as heresy. Furthermore, the persons who doubt them are treated as heretics or with the new word "troll".
What I am saying is that if the dogs had alerted to anyone else the same number of times they had alerted to the parents, you would never dismiss them as you do now.
as has been pointed out...the sceptics believe lies ands myths.....the McCann supporters can see through all the propaganda that has come out of Portugal and look at things logically..
That is a complete reversal of the truth.
Try again.
as has been pointed out...the sceptics believe lies ands myths.....the McCann supporters can see through all the propaganda that has come out of Portugal and look at things logically..
That is a complete reversal of the truth.
Try again.
I went with the Amaral interpretation of the results of the dog inspections having had the 'Dogs Don't Lie' mantra chanted at me ... then I watched the Levy video courtesy of a link provided by one of the aunties ... then I read up on what it is working dogs actually do in an investigation.
I watched the nauseating pamalam videos ... and subjected myself to studying the 'evidence' on some of the great aunties' sites ... I even managed to read some of the files.
So please don't tell me I don't have an informed view ... (and I don't know the half of what goes on behind the scenes)... any conclusions I have reached were enabled by the information I sourced and using a modicum of common sense ... not a belief system.
Personally I think the idea of a mutt pinpointing the precise location of a speck of blood on a cuddly toy is utterly ludicrous but that's probably just me. How does it do it? Point to the exact spot with its nose?
as has been pointed out...the sceptics believe lies ands myths.....the McCann supporters can see through all the propaganda that has come out of Portugal and look at things logically..
Your statement dave is the typed equivalent of an inverse function.
Propaganda, myths and lies, have frequently come form the mccann camp, and the newspapers swallowing and perpetuating the same half truths and lies.
This reminds me of when people believed the premise that the sun revolved around the earth. If someone produced scientific evidence of the contrary, it was immediately dismissed as heresy and the person who presented this evidence was punished.Funnily enough I would say exactly the same about "sceptics" who seem to have blind faith in the ability of a pair of dogs and who won't hear a negative word said against them, even if it comes in the form of scientific research proving issues such as the potential for handler bias (see my link).
Some here start, with blind faith, with the premise that the McCanns are innocent, thus any evidence to the contrary is immediately dismissed as irrelevant and as heresy. Furthermore, the persons who doubt them are treated as heretics or with the new word "troll".
What I am saying is that if the dogs had alerted to anyone else the same number of times they had alerted to the parents, you would never dismiss them as you do now.
A more precise version of this maybe?:A slight difference between pointing to a dead bird and pointing precisely to a speck of blood not visible to the naked eye - the dog's nose would have to hover millimetres above the speck surely?
The pointer is employed to find upland game. In performing its task as a hunters' aid, these skills may be expected from Pointers when hunting:
Point – The dog finds and points out the location of birds.
Honor – The dog stops immediately or within a few steps, usually in a pointing stance, upon observing a bracemate on point.
Being lascivious and non pc by nature I find point one quite entertaining.
Your statement dave is the typed equivalent of an inverse function.
Propaganda, myths and lies, have frequently come form the mccann camp, and the newspapers swallowing and perpetuating the same half truths and lies.
let's have some examples then...I guarantee you will struggle
1. Abduction.
2. Exhibiting responsible parenting skills.
3. Going out to dine at the tapas. When in fact they were drinking as well.
4. Claiming to be devout catholics. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
More to come.
Topic. If You Please. This is not a request.
Have you asked dave to do the same ? &%+((£
Unfortunately a lot of themtyhmisconceptions emanated from the co-ordinator of the investigation and some very flawed reasoning formed the basis of his approach ~ none more so than his misunderstanding of the use of dogs in the gathering of evidence.
He dealt with many drug cases in his career ... did the Portuguese not have trained sniffer dogs helping in these investigations which might have given him a better understanding of how the dogs actually worked and how they were used?
... quote ...
Meanwhile, we were supposed to receive American electronic equipment that detects human bodies thanks to the odour that emanates from them (Scent Transfer Unit 100). But the equipment, blocked by customs, arrived late. We didn't need to use it, having obtained very concrete results, thanks to the dogs. Goncalo Amaral
A slight difference between pointing to a dead bird and pointing precisely to a speck of blood not visible to the naked eye - the dog's nose would have to hover millimetres above the speck surely?
Like you and many others on this forum what I know about the operating and olfactory detail of woofers could be written in 20 point on the back of a penny black. So I haven't a clue.You don't need to know anything about the dogs to know that in order for it to accurately pinpoint a microscopic dot of blood, its nose would (logically) have to be incredibly close to the microscopic dot it was alerting to.
Are you satisfied that is an accurate translation and that perhaps it should have read:
"An American electronic device allowing to identify human beings through the compounds detected in human odours was requested".
Actually ... if I may make so bold, that part of the quote is irrelevant to the crux of the quote which was ...
We didn't need to use it, having obtained very concrete results, thanks to the dogs. Goncalo Amaral
Meaning our man in Portugal was under the mistaken impression ~ the case was cracked ... thus proving his total ignorance of the actual role of the dogs.
You don't need to know anything about the dogs to know that in order for it to accurately pinpoint a microscopic dot of blood, its nose would (logically) have to be incredibly close to the microscopic dot it was alerting to.
Thanks for this Brietta. And DCI.
I've never been overly impressed by the dogs. I find them more fun and games than hard fact.
One of the flags was the 'deployed 200 times' warning marker. That sounded like one hell of a lot of unsolved dead/missing body cases.
However, I'm sure that you can understand that searching for 'cadaver dogs' on a forum like this is a pointless exercise.
8((()*/
Funnily enough I would say exactly the same about "sceptics" who seem to have blind faith in the ability of a pair of dogs and who won't hear a negative word said against them, even if it comes in the form of scientific research proving issues such as the potential for handler bias (see my link).
IMO the theory in VDM film is proved incorrect by the minimum time the CSST experiment found.
You don't need to know anything about the dogs to know that in order for it to accurately pinpoint a microscopic dot of blood, its nose would (logically) have to be incredibly close to the microscopic dot it was alerting to.
If the bit I pointed out has been inaccurately translated what reliability can be placed upon the rest of it?
IMO the theory in VDM film is proved incorrect by the minimum time the CSST experiment found.
I wouldn't know see my previous post.Come now Alice, we are told the blood dog signals the precise presence of microscopic traces of blood with her nose. There is only one way that a dog can alert to something that small at anything approaching precisision and that is by hovering its nose precisely and closely over the speck. Perhaps if it had fingers it could be trained to point with one of those instead, perhaps that will be the next generation of wonder dog to be developed.
If we are going to preface with "I would have thought" or insert "logically" or "You don't have to know anything about dogs to know something about them" and similar, into opinions it suggests we don't know.
You may think you know; I know I don't know.
The routine change was earlier.Routine changes never has solved a case, science of dogs has.
The police do not consider them "fun and games". They don't have a budget for this.
Read the False Alerts section here :
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
It clearly states that Eddie was used 200 times but not in 200 cases
200 criminal case "searches" is the clue
SY has a budget for fun and games.The dogs are very valuable and not make huge wrong assumptions like human investigators do. In a recent case a dog indicated to an attic but was ignored first time by investigators. The dog was right BTW.
The mound they searched in mid-2014 is/was - probably occupied by one Godfrey Barrington Norton in May 2007 - a main route into Luz from the west side of the town and from Burgau - overlooked by the Paraíso development and the St James complex - probably overlooked by the Amici Italian restaurant (it opened in 2007 and it makes sense to open it at the start of season, but I don't know that for a fact, hence the probably) - it looks like a nothing little road going through the mound, but the reality is that the one-way system forces traffic to use it - and you can't manually dig holes in the middle of Luz without one hell of a lot of time, one hell of a lot of effort and one hell of a lot of noise.
The cemetery uses a JCB for graves, ditto all the drain schemes and road works.
Yet we had SY with pickaxes and shovels. In central Luz. If you are old enough you will remember Brian Rix farces.
What has this got to do with Amaral and the dogs? The dogs were marketed as rocket science, when they were anything but. I have had months to examine the capability of the dogs. The timescale on the case was much shorter, and the information available then is what I would describe as skewed.
Routine changes never has solved a case, science of dogs has.
the thread concerns whether amaral was correct to draw the conclusions he did re the dogs...the answer is simple ...he wasn't..... he has misled a lot of poeple
The dogs are very valuable and not make huge wrong assumptions like human investigators do. In a recent case a dog indicated to an attic but was ignored first time by investigators. The dog was right BTW.
You identify the hill right and that night a group of early searchers including nannies went up there and spoke with him (nothing to do with the case).
If an EVRD alerts at a small area where no physical evidence is subsequently found, this means the source was moved from that small area to somewhere else. For example in recent UK case an EVRD alerted to small area on carpet of a room. No physical evidence of a source was found at that small area.
I find it intriguing that in his book, Mr Amaral enumerates Eddie's successes in validation of his non success in Praia da Luz with examples of his involvement in cases ... every single one of which ... resulted in the subsequent discovery of human remains.
If an EVRD alerts at a small area where no physical evidence is subsequently found, this means the source was moved from that small area to somewhere else. For example in recent UK case an EVRD alerted to small area on carpet of a room. No physical evidence of a source was found at that small area.
Yes the EVRD alerts at where the scent is strongest. A removed source might have been in a different part of a room to where the EVRD alerts. On slopes the alert can be where water flow brings the underground scent out the hillside. On lakes and rivers the EVRD alerts where the scent from a source many metres below emerges at the water surface. The international search professional from NPIA who took Eddie to PDL is an expert on these things.
No it does not.
The dog can locate the edge of a scent cone.
It is interesting that the Welsh dog teams who came to Praia da Luz were a pair. It is interesting that Martin Grime and his dogs also worked with another team when in Britain.
Very good point about SY taking not one but two "cŵn chwilio" (they takes commands in welsh BTW). Maybe this is because the mound is big area and it could be done faster by two? Did the pair work side to side, or on different parts of the mound?
No it does not.
The dog can locate the edge of a scent cone.
It is interesting that the Welsh dog teams who came to Praia da Luz were a pair. It is interesting that Martin Grime and his dogs also worked with another team when in Britain.
Until it is known what happened you cannot say his conclusions were incorrect.
Very good point about SY taking not one but two "cŵn chwilio" (they takes commands in welsh BTW). Maybe this is because the mound is big area and it could be done faster by two? Did the pair work side to side, or on different parts of the mound?
The alerts are "intelligence" as MG describes them.
the thread concerns whether amaral was correct to draw the conclusions he did re the dogs...the answer is simple ...he wasn't..... he has misled a lot of poeple
amaral has claimed the alerts prove his conclusions.....prove is a word he has used...that's where he has misled gullible people
So two dogs work on seperate grids to cover twice the area in a day.
If it is practice to use two VRD teams, there must be a reason for that and I think it must be for verification particularly in criminal cases.
Also for justification to initiate an expensive course of action which is not necessarily to uncover criminal activity ...
This Sept. 22, 2014 photo shows an old well building in front of a home in Meadow Valley, Calif. The Plumas County Sheriff's Department said three cadaver dogs have alerted on the well, which is near the former home of Mark Wilson. Wilson was 13 went he disappeared in 1967. The sheriff's staff is trying to find funding sources for the nearly $100,000 it will take to excavate and reinstate the site.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2797589/Cadaver-dog-work-accepted-cops-courts.html#ixzz3at7QUFCC
Back to the Welsh dogs. I think two dog teams are used to search and for corroboration.
If one VRD alerted and the handler recognised it as a trained response the other VRD and handler would be brought in and the determination made whether it would be necessary to follow up with forensic examination of the area.
I never saw the dogs working in tandem ... which doesn't mean that did not happen ... but surely it would make sense to cover the large area with both dogs working to their own grid with perhaps an overlap to ensure nothing was missed.
If it is practice to use two VRD teams, there must be a reason for that and I think it must be for verification particularly in criminal cases.
Also for justification to initiate an expensive course of action which is not necessarily to uncover criminal activity ...
This Sept. 22, 2014 photo shows an old well building in front of a home in Meadow Valley, Calif. The Plumas County Sheriff's Department said three cadaver dogs have alerted on the well, which is near the former home of Mark Wilson. Wilson was 13 went he disappeared in 1967. The sheriff's staff is trying to find funding sources for the nearly $100,000 it will take to excavate and reinstate the site.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2797589/Cadaver-dog-work-accepted-cops-courts.html#ixzz3at7QUFCC
Back to the Welsh dogs. I think two dog teams are used to search and for corroboration.
If one VRD alerted and the handler recognised it as a trained response the other VRD and handler would be brought in and the determination made whether it would be necessary to follow up with forensic examination of the area.
I never saw the dogs working in tandem ... which doesn't mean that did not happen ... but surely it would make sense to cover the large area with both dogs working to their own grid with perhaps an overlap to ensure nothing was missed.
So two dogs work on seperate grids to cover twice the area in a day.
But if one dog alerts, the other dog is asked to check the same spot.
BTW why didn't SY have the welsh dogs double check Eddie's alert in the 5A garden?
Summed up succinctly.
Re the Welsh dogs ... I think a seven year gap would have made the exercise futile as far as searching for evidence of human remains is concerned, the 'scent of death' or whatever Eddie alerted to wouldn't have hung around ... the time to have brought the dogs in was after Madeleine's disappearance not months after the event.
Witness JW testifies the chat was completly normal. Theories of some early disaster are made by forums not by VDM. Back to dogs, had the dog ever been tested on scent pads of PMIs of only tens of minutes?The "chat" being "normal" doesnt prove anything, does it?
(In experiment with 5 trained dogs, none of them alerted the 1 hr 10 mins sample)
There was nothing to indicate, on the ground, that the mound was worked in grid fashion. It might have been, just nothing to indicate it.
SY said 41 anomalies investigated of which 3 were outside the mound. So the process APPEARS to have been - identify anomaly - then investigate.
When they went into specific areas they would mark the perimeter, strim the weeds, then conduct a search.
There appeared to be vast tracts that were not searched at all, however, I was not there for vast chunks of time, so I could well be wrong.
I have wondered why they chose to lift some drain covers rather than others.
Whether the dogs in this search alerted or not seems to me to be 100% on-topic. Would the 2014 dogs have alerted after 7 years? When Amaral was told the dogs never made a mistake, what was he supposed to believe?
There's black. There's white. And there's all the grey in between.
That can squarely be put down to a British failure, glad you agree.
Do not presume to use the tried and tested tactic of putting words into my mouth particularly as you are not even subtle enough to implement insinuation.
LOL, whatever Mrs.
OK, whose fault was it that cadaver dogs werent brought in pdq? Seeing as the UK police were on the scene early on....
&%+((£
The UK police probably felt a bit of paranoia ... almost as if someone was following them and checking on their every move ... oh ... wait a minute ... I've just remembered ... someone was!!
It would probably have been more useful to have deployed the men assigned to following the Brits around to looking for Madeleine ... but Mr Amaral's priority didn't appear to lean in that direction ... nor did the level of his distrust allow for advice on how he might use specialist dogs.
If he was suspicious of the Brits ... and it is a matter of record he was ... the Germans also had dogs which could have been deployed.
Who in the PJ would have contacted the FBI for their specialist Scent Transfer Unit 101 equipment prior to the dogs arriving?
The ground was totally unsuitable for an actual grid to be laid out and worked. But I am sure they worked to pre planned areas in much the fashion you have described.
I am certain the 2014 dogs would have alerted to human remains whether in whole or in part had there been any to be found ... I think there is a fair chance they would have alerted to contaminated clothing or materials.
I follow exactly what you are saying regarding the way in which the dogs were promoted ... but an unbiased observation might have led a more inquisitive investigator to question the hard sell just as Inspector Joao Carlos did.
Perhaps (I don't know) the covers lifted were chosen because they allowed camera access to more of the drainage network?
The days of stakes and string lines are long gone.
If you really feel the need for constant criticism ... at least make the attempt to make it constructive 8)--))
Almost certainly no one, because the STU100 is a device for trapping the scents of living people and storing them so that repeat offenders can be identified by scent (one of the scents emitted by living people is unique).
http://www.crimesciences.com/StoreBox/otherevidencecollectkits/stu-100.htm
... and gives law enforcement a scent pad to store in scent banks for future use on repeat offenders.
Thank you for that. One wonders why Amaral made reference to the equipment being requested if that is its purpose.
In his profile, Grime makes reference to the STU100, which he claims to have adapted for training purposes.
I'll see if I can dig out the reference:
I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads
taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a ST100 Scent Transference Unit.
The unit is designed in a two-part design. The main body is a battery operated
elect.rica1 device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. There is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated, the ST100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through
ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be forensically
stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.
The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is
apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a
given area where the S 100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest
contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.
Use of the ST 100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises
are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert
deployment. At a11 other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.
Martin Grime.
Does that imply that the PJ weren't bothered if the dogs contaminated the areas/objects which were to be examined? Otherwise, they surely would have waited for the equipment to arrive.
Summed up succinctly.
Re the Welsh dogs ... I think a seven year gap would have made the exercise futile as far as searching for evidence of human remains is concerned, the 'scent of death' or whatever Eddie alerted to wouldn't have hung around ... the time to have brought the dogs in was after Madeleine's disappearance not months after the event.
Why a limit of 7 years or less ?
Now that seven year thing sounds familiar.
Why a limit of 7 years or less ?The Welsh dogs were deployed in Luz seven years on from Madeleine's disappearance, hence the reference to 7 years.
Now that seven year thing sounds familiar.
The Welsh dogs were deployed in Luz seven years on from Madeleine's disappearance, hence the reference to 7 years.
As to Amaral and the dogs, it has taken me months to get beyond what looks like marketing to a more accurate picture of the original dog teams capability. And I did not have British political pressure or media hype to influence me.
As to the 2014 dig on the mound, think of the mound as a dart board and have someone who is not good at darts throw half a dozen darts at the target. The areas searched were not contiguous and they did not search (in any detail) the whole of the mound. They skipped from site to site much like butterflies flitting about.
That would beg the question: why?
I can only think of two reasons. Prejudgment/intelligence of likely places to search or it was a PR exercise.
I don't really subscribe to the last idea.
Aerial surveys were carried out and areas of interest would be noted. We have been made aware of the difficult terrain in PDL which would mean that any ground disturbance would be for a reason and not just kids playing in a hole.
I was particularly intrigued by the reaction of some when the corrugated iron covered hole was investigated, who stated words to the effect that everyone knew of its existence ... the question being ... was the covering removed and the hole searched in 2007?
Were I doing the job I would not re-trace steps taken by the original investigation if I were satisfied of their completeness simply because of the cost of duplication of effort to no better end.
Areas of which there were no record for any reason what ever I would cover. Not being party to any of it means we are surmising but it seems not unreasonable to conclude:
The areas were searched and records were not kept/lost/misfiled/incomplete.
The areas were not searched.
It was a PR exercise.
fait vos jeux.
I still don't like the PR option so "mon jeux" is on one of the others.
"August 2007. OPERATION TASK CANINE SEARCH REPORT... (snip)... The following searches were conducted: (snip) ... Western beach Praia da Luz ... (snip)"First of all, on searches, despite being familiar with both the terrain in Luz and fairly familiar with the searches in and around Luz, I have come to the conclusion that I have little idea about what was searched of how it was searched, at more or less every point in time (SY search excluded).
No video or photos of this dog search have been released.
Does "western beach" mean the little beach on the west side of the fort?
This is the closest beach to the sighting which Mr Amaral thinks is important.
Shining do you know anything about the history of the big rectangular drain here?
It looks much older than the modern round drains.
I can't do that. Snip and start a new thread.I'm still a newbie and trying to find my way around this rabbit warren.
So please let's not have any quotes or answers on this last post, as I shall have to consider removing them.
Thank You.
I'm still a newbie and trying to find my way around this rabbit warren.
Is there a more appropriate thread in existence? Please point me at it and I will happily snip to there. Or set up a new thread if an appropriate one does not exist.
My thanks in advance.
The days of stakes and string lines are long gone.
By chance I came across a photograph which illustrates the way in which areas to be searched were sub divided ...
Police investigate second area of scrubland in Madeleine McCann search
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-06-11/police-investigate-second-area-of-scrubland-in-madeleine-mccann-search/
You said:
The ground was totally unsuitable for an actual grid to be laid out and worked.
Looks like we were both wrong really.
Mind you I guess it was set out using the optical instrument on the tripod in shot.
It was obvious there would be some method in use to mark out the areas to be searched and ticked off ... whether that was in the form of a physical grid and/or theodolite ... it seems that our argument was along the lines of how many angels ...
A heavenly host of them.
But not on this thread ....
Absolutely right ... 8((()*/ ... I think we may have started off talking about Amaral and the dogs ... or the Welsh dogs, at least ... but got distracted into our private little spat ... so what's new?
The thought arises though, and it is possible the correct thread to raise it on ... did anyone check out the plumbing in the apartment after Eddie's alert in the wardrobe?
Bearing in mind that the fitted wardrobe shared a wall with the toilet.
Interesting point, Brietta.
I hope this is sufficiently on topic as it is related to Amaral and the dogs...
Did Amaral ever ask for the architect's plans of Block 5 to check for entrances to a crawl space? I am reliably told that there would almost certainly be a large area under 5A to a) level off the ground and b) provide access in the event of major works.
The wonder is that the dogs can ever be dragged away from all the smells indiscernible to the human nose around lavatories, bathrooms and nappy changing areas all over the place.
If these dogs alerted to toilets/sewerage they would never be able to be used in houses.
Why? The alert to whatever would have to be eliminated or corroborated whatever the source. It was considered appropriate to use Keela to eliminate the presence of blood when Eddie alerted ... why only blood? ... why not a possible other source?
You never said a truer word ... and is very likely why Judges and Juries prefer alerts to be accompanied by corroborative forensic or other evidence.
I know..............so attempts to hide the possibility that the dog alerted to the cadaver scent from the corpse of the missing person;.... amongst sea-bass, soiled nappies, pork products, sundry bodily substances whether lavatorial, decayed, historical or living are a waste of effort, really.
Putrecine and cadaverine, both components of decomposition, are found in urine and faeces ... hardly surprising since both are waste products from the body.
Plumbing smells indiscernible to the human nose could be indicated by a cadaver dog 'on the job' ... pity no-one checked that situation out.
I don't think there is a record of any inspections carried out in the founds of the building ... or if the lift mechanism was checked out.
In the absence of any proof of exactly what Eddie smelled ... I would say you are perfectly correct that all options remain open.Have we forgotten that the grandparents of Tasmin Silence lived in 5A
Don't know if there is any evidence that anyone stored sea bass or pig in the wardrobe ... but there is a toilet pedestal directly through the wall complete with waste pipe ... and the dog proven to alert to semen and blood will most definitely alert to urine and faeces.
In the absence of any proof of exactly what Eddie smelled ... I would say you are perfectly correct that all options remain open.
Don't know if there is any evidence that anyone stored sea bass or pig in the wardrobe ... but there is a toilet pedestal directly through the wall complete with waste pipe ... and the dog proven to alert to semen and blood will most definitely alert to urine and faeces.
Have we forgotten that the grandparents of Tasmin Silence lived in 5A
Tasmin being the very observant little girl who was so helpful describing watchers at 5A
It is said that her grandpa died in hospital.
Wonder what happened to his clothes / slippers etc.
Were they brought back from the undertakers / hospital to 5A?
I'm not convinced that Eddie would have reacted to simply toilet smells - otherwise he would presumably have reacted in the bathroom itself.
However, it's not impossible that the smell of something within his "training parameters" could be within such a void, if there is one.
In one of the other inspections he was interested enough in a corner of the room that the sideboard was moved to allow him access, although he was given no time to inspect.
One wonders if the bathroom was behind the adjoining wall. It is he fact that cadaverine and putrecine are by products of human waste that brings the question to mind ... any residual smell through contamination has to be a consideration because I cannot see how the animal could be desensitised from reacting to those.
With that stance.........what do you feel stops the animal reacting all over the place?
Do you suppose the dogs don't know when they are working and when they are not? For example did Eddie obey a command to stop woofing or did he keep on woofing despite being stood down?
O.K............put it this way........When in "work mode" what stops the dog reacting to lavatories/bathrooms/nappy changing areas present at most sites and homes everywhere when investigating a possible death?
You said:No area in Luz was worked on a grid method in 2014.
The ground was totally unsuitable for an actual grid to be laid out and worked.
Looks like we were both wrong really.
Mind you I guess it was set out using the optical instrument on the tripod in shot.
Some kind of hardwired toggled interlock? 8(0(*
No area in Luz was worked on a grid method in 2014.
General areas of interest (3) had cordon tape set around the outside to keep the media and public off.
When an area of particular interest (within the general area) was identified they then stuck in iron or steel stanchions on each corner, set up a small rectangle of tape, and worked within that.
The area to the east of Luz that was searched was quite large. First, the entire perimeter was taped off. Then, a quite small area within that had (presumably) metals rods banged in and the rectangle of interest taped off. Then they searched that rectangle.
Then they concluded there was nothing of interest.
There does not seem to have been a comprehensive, meticulous or methodical search of areas to the east of Luz.
Just whack in a small search area, check that scrupulously, then move on.
Not up to the computer speak.........but it could be Infinite Baffle on the Woofer.
It's not computer speak! It is basic controls. Gosh how offended am I that you should think I am some kind of computer geek?.....eeek!
O.K............put it this way........When in "work mode" what stops the dog reacting to lavatories/bathrooms/nappy changing areas present at most sites and homes everywhere when investigating a possible death?
It is all in the training and perhaps in the dog.
For example ... dogs are trained not to disturb or contaminate evidence to which their noses have led them. We have seen playful Eddie tossing cuddle cat around much to the bemusement of Inspector Joao Carlos. We have seen him throwing clothing around during his inspection in the gymnasium.
Very definitely not a trained response.
We know that Eddie reacted to some extraordinary materials in Jersey ... so unless the a possible source for his behaviour in the McCann apartment has been checked and eliminated ... the possibility must remain, particularly as urine and faeces are detritus from a human body just as the semen which contaminated the tissue Eddie alerted to is.
**snip
6) Dogs used to develop probable cause based upon residual scent must be negatively conditioned to human urine, feces, and semen in order to ensure that the animal will not alert when encountering these substances during a search.
http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
That is a worrying concern imo. Portugal, although I have never been though may visit this year, but not to Prai da luz, but to sample some of their green wine is according to a good friend the type of place where you can offer a bribe. I'm sure we've all been to countries like that before. Maybe my friend is mistaken, but Amaral given his previous convictions is not adverse to applying some Sweeney style tactics. I wouldn't trust this man given the info we know so far. Maybe SY do not either... All the stuff regarding alerting to the loos or airtight cars is a far less credible proposition imo.
Mark Harrison also suggests that we use the skills of two totally remarkable dogs: the first an EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog), achieves outstanding performance in the detection of human cadaver odour; the second, a CSI dog (Crime Scene Investigation) is capable of smelling the tiniest trace of blood, knowing how to recognise its human origin. (TOTL)
The dog alerts will be proved if this case is solved. They couldn't control them or Amaral so they're the enemy.
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.' (DP)
@)(++(* Mind you, neither could Kate. After the children went to bed;
She took a bath, did her make-up and drank a glass of New Zealand wine with her husband.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Or did she have a shower earlier?
While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Whichever, Gerry thought she had a bath earlier, he had one after the children went to bed;
As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already had one, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I don't find it strange that the PJ believed the dogs got it right, because the statements were a mess.
@)(++(* Mind you, neither could Kate. After the children went to bed;
She took a bath, did her make-up and drank a glass of New Zealand wine with her husband.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Or did she have a shower earlier?
While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Whichever, Gerry thought she had a bath earlier, he had one after the children went to bed;
As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already had one, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I don't find it strange that the PJ believed the dogs got it right, because the statements were a mess.
Absolutely ... a total mess ... how fortunate it is that SY are using professionally translated files which are sequential.
I'm not absolutely sure you can tar the PJ as a whole with the stick of making such a pig's ear of the dogs inspections, Inspector João Carlos questioned the visual reports which the coordinator accepted hook line and sinker ... so blame where blame is due
@)(++(* Mind you, neither could Kate. After the children went to bed;
She took a bath, did her make-up and drank a glass of New Zealand wine with her husband.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Or did she have a shower earlier?
While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Whichever, Gerry thought she had a bath earlier, he had one after the children went to bed;
As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already had one, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I don't find it strange that the PJ believed the dogs got it right, because the statements were a mess.
these were the statements given in English and translated....the ones where kate complained about mistranslations.....
It's not unusual to have a shower followed by a bath...some of us don't like to relax in a bath of dirty water particularly if we have been covered in suncream
CC likes a good scrub aswell. Kate had just finished a long run so if she wanted a shower she would have it as soon as she went through the door and before Gerry left for tennis. The statements reveal what the normal time was for the kids bath but this has now changed to Kate's shower time 1830. And David couldn't remember her only wearing a towel. Oh yes I believe every word they say 8)--))
Are you suggesting that the anomalies are due to translation errors? Wow, big errors! Kate was wrapped in a towel when David arrived - oh no she wasn't. @)(++(*
Time will tell perhaps about the veracity or otherwise of the dog alerts. Keela wasn't wrong once, and people can assume that Eddie was wrong, but he could have been right.
When police are investigating the disappearance of a child it's counter-productive to keep changing your statements because it makes them suspect you're being less than truthful.Can you give an example of someone who "kept changing their statement" with regard to the events of that evening? That is, more than 2 significant changes please.
We don't know if the dogs got it wrong because we don't know what happened.
We don't know what the current investigators are thinking because they haven't told us.
Can you give an example of someone who "kept changing their statement" with regard to the events of that evening? That is, more than 2 significant changes please.
1. Key doorAn example of one specific individual who kept changing his or her story please - two or more significant changes please....
2. DP visit
Regarding the episode where he spoke to David on the 3rd of May, he says that he was playing tennis at 18:30 when David appeared near the tennis court and asked him if he was going to continue playing. G. said he didn't know because Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Regarding his previous statement where he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM, earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00PM. At the flat they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door.
After the children's bath, already alone, she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits. Before bathing the children and because it was early, they had thought of taking them to the recreation area, but then decided against this because of tiredness.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
They can't agree on anything in regards to that time period - that much is obvious!
An example of one specific individual who kept changing his or her story please - two or more significant changes please....
Gerry see above. Key and DP visit - how long he was away. Kate saying Maddy dropped it and moved on and it never crossed her mind again and she's talking about it at the table. Kate first statement - took a bath after kids put to bed at 7:30. Arguido it had changed to 6:30. You don't take 2 in an hour. Kate only did one brief statement on 4 May. Gerry telling Fiona Kate was bathing the kids at around 6:30 and getting them ready for bed. Gerry said they had bathed them before he left at 6. Maddy was really tired but then says it was the best day of her life. Maddy said two things that day or in the whole of that holiday in the book - why didn't you come when we cried (you got the day wrong plummy) and it was the best day ever &%+((£COuld you try and be a bit more clear in what you are saying. Let's take the example of Gerry and DP's visit. We need two or more clear alterations of a story to qualify as "keep changing statements" - so - let's see three or more separate accounts of showing the changes...
A liar should never change their story so why would somebody keep changing it? Once is more than enough. You find contradictions and work from there.
COuld you try and be a bit more clear in what you are saying. Let's take the example of Gerry and DP's visit. We need two or more clear alterations of a story to qualify as "keep changing statements" - so - let's see three or more separate accounts of showing the changes...
1st statement he said -
2nd statement he said
3rd statement he said
etc.
Gerry only made two statements. Kate made one statement so where are you getting the third and more statements. You only need contradictions not 3 different changes. Who would anybody change their story three times. Gerry said half-hour on 10 May but said that was not correct in Sept. On that holiday from statements kids bath time was 6:30 onwards but it was said to have changed on 3 May to before 6pm. Fiona contradicts that statement.
Gerry only made two statements. Kate made one statement so where are you getting the third and more statements. You only need contradictions not 3 different changes. Who would anybody change their story three times. Gerry said half-hour on 10 May but said that was not correct in Sept. On that holiday from statements kids bath time was 6:30 onwards but it was said to have changed on 3 May to before 6pm. Fiona contradicts that statement.Pathfinder. If you change or correct an element of your statement once that does not constitute "keep on changing your statement" - not in my universe anyway. It constitutes one change. If another witness contradicts your statement that also does not constitute "keep on changing your statement" either. Jeez.
You are wrong again Pfinder.
Gerry made three statements:
1) 04.05.2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
2) 10.05.2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
and,
3) 07.09.2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
I am not aware of any others but there are certainly three.
Three statements Pfinder.
Alfie was right and you were wrong.
Why dont you admit it
A gentle apology would be nice altho I doubt that Alfie requires one. He is pretty easy going on that score.
I've quoted all 3 in my posts. I'm interested in the initial statements not months later when you can get your stories straight. It's interesting how the later ones contradict the early ones tho. If you tell the truth you dont have to remember anything 8)--))
Friday 03 July 2015
Human Remains Found Inside Apartment Wall
Family members say they fear the body is that of Raven Joy Campbell, 31, who disappeared in Lomita, California, in 2009.
Human remains have been found inside the walls of an apartment building in California after a tip off to police.
Coroner's office officials went to the property in Lomita and cadaver dogs gave a "positive alert" for a body.
http://news.sky.com/story/1512836/human-remains-found-inside-apartment-wall
Well they would, wouldn't they, if there was a body there.
They bring cadaver dogs in first before knocking down walls.
They bring cadaver dogs in first before knocking down walls.
There was still a body there.
There was still a body there.
Yes because the body was hidden behind a wall. Dogs will still pick up the scent if it has been removed e.g. Zapata case dogs detected the scent 30 years later. Any credible police force will be working on a theory that the missing child possibly died at the crime scene and was removed by the unidentified suspect. SY searches close to the sighting suggest it.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. 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.
So we are still left with only possibilities.
Yes because the body was hidden behind a wall. Dogs will still pick up the scent if it has been removed e.g. Zapata case dogs detected the scent 30 years later. Any credible police force will be working on a theory that the missing child possibly died at the crime scene and was removed by the unidentified suspect. SY searches close to the sighting suggest it.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. 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.
Quote Brietta.
"I would suggest that the dogs had little to do with Mr Amaral taking his eye off the ball and more to do with grabbing any leverage to close the case with another parental conviction under his belt."
My thoughts exactly.
I wonder how Mr Murat`s arguido status and the investigations into his possible involvement ties in with "any leverage to close the case with another parental conviction under his belt," though?
Might there have been a prior hope that there would be alerts around his property and so forth, which, along with turning over his garden, could possibly have formed the initial leverage to close the case, too?
I think the interest in Robert Murat sprang from uncertainty about his whereabouts on the night (never, I don't think, satisfactorily resolved, either way).
Whatever the truth of that, there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence linking Murat to Madeleine, and certainly not to Madeleine's disappearance.
I don't believe the present enquiry is considering Murat, any more than it is considering the McCanns.
What does the sofa have to do with Murat's whereabouts on the night?
ETA: From John Lowe's report:
A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material on the swab (3A) from the apartment floor. An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material on the wet swab (3B) from the same area was unsuccessful in that no profile was obtained.
Weak and incomplete DNA results which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components were obtained from cellular material on the wet and dry swabs (14A & B} from the back of the sofa.
And ....
Keela alerted to human blood which corroborated Eddie's alert.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.
Keela alerted to human blood which corroborated Eddie's alert.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.
Keela alerted to human blood which corroborated Eddie's alert....corroborated Eddie's alert being that of blood only
The dogs are very good. You will find out how good if they solve this case.
No doubt with some link to The McCanns.
They have interviewed Murat.
That's one of the things that I really don't understand about Hideho and her "campaign". There never WAS any blood found. She claims to be some kind of tutor on the files for her fan club, but she still doesn't appear to have grasped the basics of the forensic results.
Keela alerted to human blood which corroborated Eddie's alert....corroborated Eddie's alert being that of blood only
They have interviewed Murat.
Not necessarily.
Why could Eddie`s alert not be to cadaver contaminant, with Keela`s to blood at the same spot?
How have you ruled that out and concluded that both dogs alerted only to blood?
Keela alerted to human blood which corroborated Eddie's alert.
You don't seem to have learnt anything, do you?
Keela alerted only to human blood.
Eddie alerted to human blood and cadaver scent.
So where both dogs alert in the same spot, the provenance of the alert has to be blood.
Or Keela has alerted falsely.
Or both dogs have alerted falsely.
An alert from Keela (assuming an alert within trained parameters!) is blood!
Because both dogs are trained to react to the scent of blood.
So yes.
Necessarily!
Eddie couldn't make up his mind whether there was, or whether there wasn't, a scent on cuddle-cat.
And despite not being able to find a trace of any scent on clothing in the villa, he (apparently) could find a scent (on exactly the same clothing!) in the gym.
Most bizarre ...
Mr Amaral linked him to the McCanns?
Wasn`t it the McCanns and/or friends who felt that Murat was involved in some way?
Is that the link to Murat, along with the suspicions of a journalist?
Which does not rule out a cadaver contaminant alert by Eddie at the same spot.
What is more suspicious is the washing and getting rid of her missing daughter's scent on CC.
We all hope for a miracle for Maddy Telegraph
By Liz Hunt
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 10/05/2007
It is grubby now, a little battered and undoubtedly tear-stained. But the pink soft toy that Kate McCann has hugged close to her over this interminable week, the only remaining physical link with her daughter, is becoming the focus for the thoughts, fears, prayers and dwindling hopes of all of us.
'Gerry paused over Madeleine, who – a typical doctor’s observation, this – was lying almost in "the recovery position" with Cuddle Cat, the toy her godfather, John Corner, had bought her, and her comfort blanket up near her head, and Gerry thought how gorgeous, how lovely-looking she was and how lucky he was.'
David James Smith Timesonline 16 December 2007
Instead, look for a midsize dog that never tires of playing with a tennis ball or pull toy. Eventually, you will teach the dog to associate the smell of death with its toy by making the toy smell like death. Your dog should be exposed to, and trained to find, all sorts of dead bodies — on varied terrain, day or night, rain or shine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/magazine/how-to-train-a-cadaver-dog.html?_r=0
Talking about the night she went missing, she said: "I can't remember when I picked Cuddle Cat up. I don't think I did touch Cuddle Cat. I knew straight away a crime had been committed, we had no doubt about that. "I can't actually remember when I collected Cuddle Cat." &%+((£
What is more suspicious is the washing and getting rid of her missing daughter's scent on CC.
We all hope for a miracle for Maddy Telegraph
By Liz Hunt
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 10/05/2007
It is grubby now, a little battered and undoubtedly tear-stained. But the pink soft toy that Kate McCann has hugged close to her over this interminable week, the only remaining physical link with her daughter, is becoming the focus for the thoughts, fears, prayers and dwindling hopes of all of us.
'Gerry paused over Madeleine, who – a typical doctor’s observation, this – was lying almost in "the recovery position" with Cuddle Cat, the toy her godfather, John Corner, had bought her, and her comfort blanket up near her head, and Gerry thought how gorgeous, how lovely-looking she was and how lucky he was.'
David James Smith Timesonline 16 December 2007
Instead, look for a midsize dog that never tires of playing with a tennis ball or pull toy. Eventually, you will teach the dog to associate the smell of death with its toy by making the toy smell like death. Your dog should be exposed to, and trained to find, all sorts of dead bodies — on varied terrain, day or night, rain or shine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/magazine/how-to-train-a-cadaver-dog.html?_r=0
Talking about the night she went missing, she said: "I can't remember when I picked Cuddle Cat up. I don't think I did touch Cuddle Cat. I knew straight away a crime had been committed, we had no doubt about that. "I can't actually remember when I collected Cuddle Cat." &%+((£
Yes, it does.
Why do you suppose Portuguese police, way back in May 2007, never took the toy for forensic analysis?
No.........You are mistaken.
If a cadaver has been removed from a site with only traces of blood left behind; how do you know that the VRD has not alerted to cadaver contaminant?
Because the dog is trained to react to blood. The reaction of the blood dog confirms blood which a cadaver dog will inevitably also react to if deployed in the same area.
You cannot disregard or negate the point that a cadaver contaminant alert can occur at the site from which a cadaver has been removed leaving blood traces behind.
Such illogicality implies that each time blood is present a cadaver alert cannot occur at the same site!
Yes, it does.
Why do you suppose Portuguese police, way back in May 2007, never took the toy for forensic analysis?
You cannot disregard or negate the point that a cadaver contaminant alert can occur at the site from which a cadaver has been removed leaving blood traces behind.
Such illogicality implies that each time blood is present a cadaver alert cannot occur at the same site!
Afraid not.
Do what you want with your frayed knots.
The family wasn't the focus in May 2007 . The twins weren't even tested.
Police do not base their suspicions on guess-work.
Afraid not.
The family wasn't the focus in May 2007 . The twins weren't even tested. Too much interference and a media circus.
You cannot disregard or negate the point that a cadaver contaminant alert can occur at the site from which a cadaver has been removed leaving blood traces behind.
Such illogicality implies that each time blood is present a cadaver alert cannot occur at the same site!
Maybe, though as I recall, it had been laundered within an inch of its life so may not have provided anything useful.
The toy was on Madeleine's bed.
It should have been bagged and sent to forensics.
So who do you think may have died there on the floor tiles behind the couch, Carew?
Was her bedding?
Do you agree that a VRD can alert to cadaver at the same spot that a blood dog alerts to?
That`s the point.
It has been stated that both dogs must have only alerted to blood.
That is misleading because we don`t actually know, do we?
Was her bedding?
Madeleine McCann should rightly have been the focus of the investigation from the minute she was reported missing. Everything of hers and everything with which she was in close contact should have been taken for examination.
If the abductor had dropped a hair which stuck to either cuddle cat or her blanket ... it would never be found otherwise.
There is very remote chance that the minuscule amounts of blood that Keela can detect, was not what Eddie alerted too.
However IIRC there was no DNA belonging to the McCanns found on that tile area, so it would not be a case of removing a cadaver and leaving some of that body blood/fluid behind, if it was Madeleine.
I'm sure you can understand why Mr Grime took two dogs. It was to eliminate any alerts of blood be Eddie.
Hairs on bed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2316.jpg)
I think it is usual to have at least two different teams working a case, Anna. Different handlers and different dogs.
No it's not the point.
If there is blood in the vicinity, a cadaver dog (should alert). Speculation about "cadaver scent" is precisely that, speculation and guesswork unless there is corroboration.
Corroboration can come, alone, from DNA uncovered by scientists in a laboratory.
I think it is usual to have at least two different teams working a case, Anna. Different handlers and different dogs.
Yes, a one-to-one handler to dog ratio at the same crime scene.
Hairs on bed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2316.jpg)
Grime does one to one. One at a time. They do different jobs. That's why there's two dogs 8(0(*
I believe you are correct, Brietta. Although Mr Grime owned both dogs, IIRC one of them had a different handler.
To state as fact that if both dogs alert, then it must be only to blood is misleading.
That`s why I stuck to the point, because in my view such a categorical assertion could give an impression that cadaver contaminant was never present in this case, rather than unconfirmed/unknown.
There is a question mark over it, isn`t there and that`s the bottom line surely?
Who says that they didn't reach the lab?
Have you seen any Lab results? If so please share
I think it all boils down to corroboration, Carew.
This topic is concerning Madeleine McCann and an alert by a blood dog and a cadaver dog(who could also scent blood).
It therefore needed corroboration(as do all dog alerts really).
Since her DNA was not found in that area it means that it was not her blood. If as you thought a cadaver was alerted too, by Eddie and the blood was left behind(which was alerted too by Keela), then it was not Madeleine.
However I must agree with you that it could have come from any another cadaver.
The Eddie and Keela combination was a half-way house to attainment of the optimal combination, realised with Keela and Morse partnership.
This was an innovation of the US forensic canine program that matched a cadaver dog, desensitised to blood, with a second dog trained to react to nothing else (so that the potential advantage of finding blood was not lost).
Moreover, by having a cadaver dog desensitised to blood, that (in theory) increased confidence that if a cadaver dog alerted, it had, indeed, detected cadaver scent.
That is why, in the Bianca Jones case, the uncorroborated alerts of Morse were accepted as stand-alone evidence of murder.
At SYP Ellis handled Keela.
http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2005/12/on-scent-of-success-sniffer-dog-keela-earns-more-than-her-chief-constable/
PC John Ellis, her handler, said that police sent for Keela when the scenes of crime squad failed to find what they were looking for. - See more at: http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2005/12/on-scent-of-success-sniffer-dog-keela-earns-more-than-her-chief-constable
Who says that they didn't reach the lab?
Eddie was not desensitised to the scent of blood, Ferryman. This where confusion arises.
There are several threads on this. Here's one:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1246.15
I believe you are correct, Brietta. Although Mr Grime owned both dogs, IIRC one of them had a different handler.
The Eddie and Keela combination was a half-way house to attainment of the optimal combination, realised with Keela and Morse partnership.
This was an innovation of the US forensic canine program that matched a cadaver dog, desensitised to blood, with a second dog trained to react to nothing else (so that the potential advantage of finding blood was not lost).
Moreover, by having a cadaver dog desensitised to blood, that (in theory) increased confidence that if a cadaver dog alerted, it had, indeed, detected cadaver scent.
That is why, in the Bianca Jones case, the uncorroborated alerts of Morse were accepted as stand-alone evidence of murder.
Agreed.
But Morse was ...
I have read something somewhere about desensitising cadaver dogs from blood or maybe even just to desist from alerting to blood? ...I can't find any reference to it at the moment.
I'm not quite sure I can get my head entirely around it though. No-one knows exactly what components of decomposition the 'body' dogs alert to ... and there are different scents from different stages in decomposition ... and all human decomposition has blood as a component.
Uncorroborated cadaver dog alerts are not accepted as evidence precisely because cadaver dogs alert to blood.
I meant cadaver dogs, Anna. If one team's dog alerts to cadaver ... the next does a blind test if it also alerts in the same place it is corroboration. Then the task is to locate the body and / or forensic evidence to bring to court.
Agreed.
But Morse was ...
Not quite, cadaver dog alerts are not evidence in England in the absence of a body....and there is no such thing as corroboration of their alerts in the absence of a body, or body parts, unless other circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence is combined with the alerts. You are also wrong to state that both dogs alerting in the same place MUST be an indication of blood only. The absence of corroboration of a "cadaver" alerg in the absence of a body is the main reason.
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers
EVRD is a classification limited to Grime and Eddie.
Not quite, cadaver dog alerts are not evidence in England in the absence of a body....and there is no such thing as corroboration of their alerts in the absence of a body, or body parts, unless other circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence is combined with the alerts. You are also wrong to state that both dogs alerting in the same place MUST be an indication of blood only. The absence of corroboration of a "cadaver" alerg in the absence of a body is the main reason.
I am precisely right in every last detail ...
Not quite, cadaver dog alerts are not evidence in England in the absence of a body....and there is no such thing as corroboration of their alerts in the absence of a body, or body parts, unless other circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence is combined with the alerts. You are also wrong to state that both dogs alerting in the same place MUST be an indication of blood only. The absence of corroboration of a "cadaver" alerg in the absence of a body is the main reason.
I believe Scottish Law allowed cadaver dog indications to be presented in a murder trial. There were alerts to the boot of the accused's car and an area in the workplace where the victim and the accused were known to have been.
(Ms Pilley had been caught by CCTV on her way to work and almost at the entrance although not entering ... the man convicted of her murder was at work in the building for part of that day but left to go on an apparently unscheduled work related journey.)
Suzanne Pilley's body has not been discovered till this day. But there was sufficient evidence to convince the jury of the guilt of the accused person. (which he has appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court in England - but continues to protest his innocence and the case is under review in Scotland).
I am unsure of the part played by the dogs in the trial for the simple reason there was no song and dance about it at the time or since.
Yes, Ferryman is wrong to keep stating this as fact.
Pantomime season
Oh yes, I am ...
Scottish law allows uncorroborated dog alerts as evidence, true!
Well, yes, it does descend to pantomime level to maintain as fact that if both dogs alert at the site from which a cadaver has been removed it must be only to blood, never cadaver contaminant.
On the whole though, it is obvious that the MO is to put across as often and as authoritively as possible that any alert in and around the McCanns must have been only to the nosebleeds/shaving related incidents from ages past.
Never ever must there remain even a hint of the possibility it might be to the cadaver of the missing person.
Are you really questioning the little forensic evidence retrieved from apartment 5A?
There was no forensic evidence that the blood found in the McCann residence was theirs or more specifically Madeleine's .
There was forensic evidence of historical bleeds attributed to other doners - notably that of a GNR officer.
There is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine McCann is dead ... and I really do wish you would read and digest what Marting Grime said about the value of the dogs' alerts in his report.
Yes, Ferryman is wrong to keep stating this as fact.
It seems to be tolerated here, though.
I will explain this as simply and clearly as I can.
Cadaver dogs alert to blood
Blood dogs alert to blood.
So where a blood dog alerts, there is blood.
And if a cadaver dog alerts in the same place, the cadaver dog, also, will be alerting to blood.
Brietta........I am concerned that it is being presented as "fact" that if both dogs alert at the same spot, then it must be blood to which they both reacted.
Quite simply that.
As a definitive statement of fact it is misleading.
No amount of authoritive wordy justification will alter that principle.
Similarly I have concerns that if the cadaver dog has 'alerted' and the blood dog not, the assumption must be that human remains or human remains contaminant were present.
However I have no issues with two dogs both trained on human blood alerting to a substance which proves to be human blood.
Brietta........I am concerned that it is being presented as "fact" that if both dogs alert at the same spot, then it must be blood to which they both reacted.
Quite simply that.
As a definitive statement of fact it is misleading.
No amount of authoritive wordy justification will alter that principle.
I see what you mean. It's possible that Eddie reacted to blood and another human decomp substance at the same time, whereas Keela would have only reacted to any blood present (assuming that she's always accurate...). A potential example is the Jersey sex clean-up tissues. In that instance, was Eddie alerting to a speck of blood or blood and sex fluids?
I have a caveat, however. Grime states that Keela will only react in the physical presence of blood, but he says nothing about whether Eddie would react to the residual smell of blood when no longer physically present. As the apartment had been rented out numerous times, I don't see how something as innocent as a bloodied plaster or sock that had been removed prior to the inspection can be ruled out.
Quite.
It will generally be point of principle if I challenge what seems to be a misleading statement.
I readily accept that my knowledge of the case is limited in comparison to most who post here.
I just don`t think it is wise to make definitive judgements about what the cadaver dog alerted to.
You are not when the first alert was for cadaver scent then the 2nd most probably is. Did you notice how long it took Keela to detect the minutest blood in that area where Eddie alerted.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
No, you are mistaken.
The alert by the cadaver dog in the same place does not mean definitively that only blood is being alerted to.
Initially when one starts to read Madeleine McCann's case it is with the assumption that everything was sequential with one reported event making a smooth transition to another.
I don't know how it works in other investigations of this type ... but when considering the events of the 3rd May 2007 ... there are many significant gaps in the narrative.
For example ... until fairly recently I thought Jane Tanner's sighting and the Smith sighting had been reported to the police at the start of the investigation ... that the Smith sighting was not reported till a fortnight after the event was a bit of a puzzle.
Between Madeleine's disappearance and the visit from the dogs the fact that four other families had holidayed in the apartment from which she had disappeared is very significant.
I noticed a post today (sorry, I don't remember which one or which thread) in which the use of luminol was mentioned.
This called to mind a conversation (soundtrack of dog video) Martin Grime had with the officer present when he asked what had been used in the earlier blood investigations as luminol interferes with the dogs' sensory abilities.
**snip
It is often used as a last resort, since the chemical reaction can destroy the very evidence it reveals, but it can still prove incredibly useful. For example, it might reveal an assailant’s shoe prints or show investigators where to look more closely. Blood on carpet that may be invisible to the naked eye can be revealed, prompting investigators to look for much larger, visible stains in the wood beneath. Those working with luminol must be wary of false positives, however, as it also reacts to the presence of urine, copper, and horseradish sauce.
http://listverse.com/2014/05/29/10-fascinating-facts-about-forensics/
Re-read what I said.
If both dogs react to blood and both dogs react in the same spot, both will be reacting to blood.
Your point (which I will make for you) is that conceivably the cadaver dog will be reacting to blood and something else besides.
That might (conceivably) be true.
But since cadaver scent is not something you can capture and analyse (as you can blood) that always only ever be an assumption unless you find a body or other remains.
On the other hand, I find it simplistic to assume that Eddie-only alert + missing child (- established other death) = child died in 5A.
Re-read what I said.
If both dogs react to blood and both dogs react in the same spot, both will be reacting to blood.
Your point (which I will make for you) is that conceivably the cadaver dog will be reacting to blood and something else besides.
That might (conceivably) be true.
But since cadaver scent is not something you can capture and analyse (as you can blood) that always only ever be an assumption unless you find a body or other remains.
Thankyou for acknowledging that possibility.
(About time, too! )
You have asserted several times on this thread........as below....... that alerts by both dogs must indicate only blood, thereby ruling out cadaver contaminant.
Quote from: Carew on July 06, 2015, 05:51:59 PM
Not necessarily.
Why could Eddie`s alert not be to cadaver contaminant, with Keela`s to blood at the same spot?
How have you ruled that out and concluded that both dogs alerted only to blood?
Ferryman
Because both dogs are trained to react to the scent of blood.
So yes.
Necessarily!
I'm surprised the peeps who think dogs are "incredibly unreliable" haven't found and grasped the pregnancy straw yet?
Eddie's track-record from PdL doesn't inspire confidence.If you watch the first alert in the Rua Das Flores house video, it is not to the cat, it is to the last thing sniffed, which answers both your questions.
Did he scent something on cuddle cat?
Or didn't he?
Why could he (apparently!) detect scent on clothes in the gym he could find no trace of (that is scent!) in the villa?
All most odd ...
Madeleine McCann should rightly have been the focus of the investigation from the minute she was reported missing. Everything of hers and everything with which she was in close contact should have been taken for examination.
If the abductor had dropped a hair which stuck to either cuddle cat or her blanket ... it would never be found otherwise.
Do you agree that a VRD can alert to cadaver at the same spot that a blood dog alerts to?
That`s the point.
It has been stated that both dogs must have only alerted to blood.
That is misleading because we don`t actually know, do we?
Absolutely, Keela alerted to blood while Eddie alerted to blood and cadaver. Both dogs alerting at the same spot could be an indicator of blood or both cadaver and blood. Unless a forensic sample is found and independently tested giving a positive for blood or cadaver then there is no way of determining what the dogs found.
I don't know how you desensitise a dog to a specific scent. But you can clearly train a dog not to bark and the trick with Eddie (and other dogs of his type) is still cleverer; the canine equivalents of elective mutes, trained to bark at specific times and to specific scents, but at no other time or scent.
How do you train a dog not to bark at cats (for example?)
You clearly can ...
And I'm sure you can desensitise a dog to the scent of blood ....
I will explain this as simply and clearly as I can.
Cadaver dogs alert to blood
Blood dogs alert to blood.
So where a blood dog alerts, there is blood.
And if a cadaver dog alerts in the same place, the cadaver dog, also, will be alerting to blood.
A small point is that there was no forensic evidence that there was any blood anywhere in 5A or in the car. We're all assuming that the trace DNA must have been blood because that's all that Keela was trained for.
Not necessarily, the cadaver dog could be alerting to blood or cadaver or both as Carew has already pointed out. See my reference to 3 dogs.
Pare the statement right down.
If there is blood in one spot inspected by both dogs, both dogs will react to blood.
All else is conditional.
I don't agree. Unless you apply the 3-dog test, nothing can be guaranteed.
If you watch the first alert in the Rua Das Flores house video, it is not to the cat, it is to the last thing sniffed, which answers both your questions.
By a straw not yet grasped at I meant k9 pregnancy surprised you haven't used that yet?
You think that if there is blood present, one dog or other might miss the scent?
No more than Eddie would miss a cadaver scent. Both dogs alerting indicated that blood or blood and cadaver had been found. Unless a cadaver only dog was used there was no way of determining otherwise.
I would go further.... A dog not alerting does not rule out cadaver odour
Well, yes. There is not a shred of evidence of cadaver odour.
There is evidence of questionable alerts, to clothing in one spot, but no reaction to the same clothing in a different spot.
And cuddle-cat.
What is the evidence of abduction ferryman ?
You keep stating it without a foundation of evidence to back it up.
As to the prosecutors, they had insufficient evidence to charge anyone.
According to his book Mr Amaral had already determined that his theory was the only game in town.
As far as he was concerned, even before the first sniff occurred, there could only be one outcome ... "Their mission: to find Madeleine’s body and expose those responsible." Amaral Chapter 17.
Thus the mindset for the classic mistake of trying to make the evidence fit the theory distorted the outcome, or lack of it, of the dogs visit.
Whilst the mindset of the mccann supporters says abduction or nothing.
Sounds familiar.
you can't even get that right...I've always said abduction is by far the most likely
Nevertheless all the possibilities were still there when the case was archived. No conclusion was reached as to what happened.
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
"More recently, it’s Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder." Amaral: chapter 17
Actually ... no he did not. But what is one more inaccuracy in a book which is full of inaccuracies.
Sometimes mistakes are made and when they are they should be acknowledged as such.
It is remarkable that the 'field full of bodies' as indicated by the use of ground radar has not become an urban legend or that Eddie's 'alerts' to the infant skull never mention that it was actually a very old coconut shell http://metro.co.uk/2008/05/18/skull-fragment-is-not-bone-145799/ or that the 'alert' in the bunker was to semen and blood.
I don't think there is much to say about a children's home and the discovery of milk teeth.
Jersey ‘graves’ could be ‘Bergerac TV props’
Tuesday 4 Mar 2008 4:39 pm
**snip
A police source told The Times:
The field was turned into a graveyard.
They used fibreglass gravestones but they were going to have a burial scene, so they also actually dug a number of full graves.
The full graves go quite deep. They were filled in, and the places where there had been digging registered on the radar.
No-one realised until one of the local officers pointed it out.”
The source said that when Lenny Harper, the deputy chief officer of Jersey Police, was told the real reason they had found so many suspicious spots was because of Bergerac, “he put his head in his hands and uttered a few choice words.
However they added that the search was now being done with the knowledge that there may be an alternative explanation, The Times claimed.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/04/jersey-graves-could-be-bergerac-tv-props-23444/#ixzz3fEH9kpQE
" ... it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Seems a rational conclusion and summed up very succinctly ... yet Mr Amaral took it upon himself to write a book in which he levelled the most scurrilous accusations possible at the parents of the missing child whose case he failed to come even close to solving during his tenure.
The Jersey abuse case is not finished, of course. Just like the Zapata case it could turn out that Eddie will be vindicated in the end.
Police investigating child abuse claims on the island of Jersey say they are set to question 13 celebrities, politicians and sports stars.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111224/Police-set-question-thirteen-celebrities-politicians-sports-stars-investigation-historic-child-abuse-island-Jersey.html#ixzz3fElmYJ6b
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The simple answer is that you cannot teach a dog a negative. A dog which is trained to react to specific substances will only react to those substances. If you require that the dog will never react to blood then blood will have been meticulously absent from his or her training regime. It's not a case of ignoring blood, rather a case of reacting to that which they have been taught to react to. A dog will always smell blood but if trained to find only cadaver then only cadaver it will find.
In order to separate blood from cadaver then three dogs are required.
Dog A reacts only to blood.
Dog B reacts only to cadaver.
Dog C reacts to both.
I would go further.... A dog not alerting does not rule out cadaver odour
Nevertheless all the possibilities were still there when the case was archived. No conclusion was reached as to what happened.
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
How do you separate molecules of blood from the rest of a cadaver (decomposing muscles, etc)? And what would the purpose be?
Hmmm ... I doubt if even Operation Yewtree will dig up any more than Eddie did ... particularly since unlike Savile there are some who are alive and kicking and ready to defend their names ... much as Freddie Starr is doing in a libel action against a woman whose 'story' is worth researching.
It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
Freddie Starr will not be prosecuted, CPS confirms
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27294888
Freddie Starr libel trial: Karin Ward insists she told the truth to BBC and ITV about dressing room encounter
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/freddie-starr-libel-trial-karin-ward-felt-pressured-newsnight-interview-did-not-know-comments-itv
That is the problem I have with it, Carana. Blood is part of the decomposition process. No-one knows exactly what makes up the components of that and exactly what it is the dogs are smelling.
No conclusion was reached as to what happened.
Only about what didn't happen, namely, that the McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their (loved and cherished!) daughter.
That remains to be demonstrated;
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That remains to be demonstrated;
No it doesn't.
The so-called "reconstitution" was (rightly!) seen through as a farce.
Hmmm ... I doubt if even Operation Yewtree will dig up any more than Eddie did ... particularly since unlike Savile there are some who are alive and kicking and ready to defend their names ... much as Freddie Starr is doing in a libel action against a woman whose 'story' is worth researching.
It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
Freddie Starr will not be prosecuted, CPS confirms
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27294888
Freddie Starr libel trial: Karin Ward insists she told the truth to BBC and ITV about dressing room encounter
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/freddie-starr-libel-trial-karin-ward-felt-pressured-newsnight-interview-did-not-know-comments-itv
The investigation is Operation Whistle, not Yewtree.
It's hypocritical when the first arguido fully co-operated. So what makes them any different. Parents are always suspects in these cases so it's not like they didn't know it was going to happen at some stage if it remained unsolved.
Pathfinder needs a new Sat Nav.
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
(Portuguese prosecutors, who reached that conclusion without a reconstitution).
It's hypocritical when the first arguido fully co-operated. So what makes them any different. Parents are always suspects in these cases so it's not like they didn't know it was going to happen at some stage if it remained unsolved.
How unco-operative was it of Kate McCann to decide not to actively assist the police in their last ditch attempt to pin a crime (which she knew had been committed by someone else) on herself? Common sense alone dictates that only someone completely off their rocker would decide to actually help the police to frame them.
How unco-operative was it of Kate McCann to decide not to actively assist the police in their last ditch attempt to pin a crime (which she knew had been committed by someone else) on herself? Common sense alone dictates that only someone completely off their rocker would decide to actually help the police to frame them.
Robert Murat thought he was being framed but he fully co-operated against his lawyers advice because he knew he was innocent. Every comment on the Sun facebook page over 500 today all have the same opinion on this case. You better not go there.
Robert Murat thought he was being framed but he fully co-operated against his lawyers advice because he knew he was innocent. Every comment on the Sun facebook page over 500 today all have the same opinion on this case. You better not go there.
I would go further.... A dog not alerting does not rule out cadaver odourSo what do you deduce from the fact that Eddie did not alert in the bathroom ?
So what do you deduce from the fact that Eddie did not alert in the bathroom ?
Was Eddie deployed in the bathroom?Yes here is 5a bathroom http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=17m23s
So what do you deduce from the fact that Eddie did not alert in the bathroom ?
No conclusion was reached as to what happened.
Only about what didn't happen, namely, that the McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their (loved and cherished!) daughter.
That is the problem I have with it, Carana. Blood is part of the decomposition process. No-one knows exactly what makes up the components of that and exactly what it is the dogs are smelling.
Pathfinder needs a new Sat Nav.
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
(Portuguese prosecutors, who reached that conclusion without a reconstitution).
It's hypocritical when the first arguido fully co-operated. So what makes them any different. Parents are always suspects in these cases so it's not like they didn't know it was going to happen at some stage if it remained unsolved.
Nothing can be deduced.
She could have drowned in the bath & her body left in cold water for a few hours to slow the rate of decomposition.
The first arguido was in mid-May 2007. At that stage, he hadn't been through months of lurid half-baked allegations fluttering out of PJ windows.
He also understood how the system worked, lies and all. And he spoke Portuguese.
I'm not sure that even he realised that his attempts to be helpful made the tabloids equate him with Ian Huntley.
He brought a lawyer with him during the latest round, didn't he?
To a dog, cadaver odour and blood smell completely differently and that is why a dog taught to detect only cadaver odour will only alert to cadaver odour. That is the mistake which Martin Grime made in PdL, he used the wrong dogs.
There was a lawyer kicking around somewhere throughout. I think he asked to be made an Arguido which would have allowed him to have a lawyer present.
As one does on holiday. If that had been the case, why didn't Eddie alert to the bathtub?
AFAIK, there is no such thing as a unique cadaver odour (at least to a dog).
Think about it.
A whole decomposing body will have a different smell to different body parts. Each will give off a certain "bouquet", and each varies according to the stage.
You don't have to be a springer spaniel to distinguish between the smell of liver, kidney and steak do you? A rotting bit of offal won't smell the same as a 10-year-old bone that your dog happened to have hidden under your sofa.
The current SIO has worked on a case where a dog was incredibly reliable.
Pathfinder needs a new Sat Nav.
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
(Portuguese prosecutors, who reached that conclusion without a reconstitution).
you have just made a quote whch refutes your position, oh dear, all it says is it is a fact that Madeleine is missing, but unclear who is responsible or how she disappeared
The (shelved) enquiry established beyond doubt that neither Kate and Gerry nor any of their friends (and neither Robert Murat) had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.The second enquiry started with the implicit assumption of the innocence of everyone.
The second enquiry started with the implicit assumption of the innocence of all three (original!) arguidos ...
... the sniffer dog that GNR sent to the location, on the day following the english girl’s disappearance. It’s an animal that only follows odours, and that “detected the movement of the child from the room to another point inside the apartment”, according to a source with the Guarda. The same source said that “based on that signal, it was not possible to conclude whether the child was alive or dead – because a sniffer dog will smell both the living and the dead”. Yet, outside the house, both through the windows that faced the Tapas restaurant – where the McCanns had dinner with their seven friends – and through the main door, “the dog lost the trail, as if the child had exited, for example, rolled up in a blanket”, that source said.
Source: Sol, 4 Aug 2007
Hmmm ... did Sol mention if it happened to be a pink blanket?IMO "blanket" is given only as an example of the assumption of being wrapped up in or enclosed in something. Which is assumed because the GNR dog reportedly was not able to continue the trail from that second unnamed indoor location to the outside.
IMO "blanket" is given only as an example of the assumption of being wrapped up in or enclosed in something. Which is assumed because the GNR dog reportedly was not able to continue the trail from that second unnamed indoor location to the outside.
Here is the source - scroll down to the Sol 4 Aug 2007 article.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html
If true, it claims IMO that a GNR dog was deployed inside the apartment on 4th May, and tracked from the child bedroom to some other location inside the apartment, but was then unable to track further from that unnamed indoor location to the outside.
It would certainly explain the amount of dog hair found which contaminated the forensics. But why??? is it considered remarkable that a sniffer dog would sniff the scent of a missing child within within the premises where she had lived for a number of days?
I think the value of the Sol report lies in reading the files and the reports of what the GNR sniffer dogs actually did in their searches for Madeleine.
There is nothing in the files which replicates the inventive Sol account of events.
I think it must be read in the context of damaging leaks to the press from a 'source close to the investigation' at a time when there was a spate of such pejorative leaks to soften up public opinion against Madeleine's parents.
It would certainly explain the amount of dog hair found which contaminated the forensics. But why??? is it considered remarkable that a sniffer dog would sniff the scent of a missing child within within the premises where she had lived for a number of days?Two things would be very remarkable indeed if the Sol's source is true.
I think the value of the Sol report lies in reading the files and the reports of what the GNR sniffer dogs actually did in their searches for Madeleine.
There is nothing in the files which replicates the inventive Sol account of events.
I think it must be read in the context of damaging leaks to the press from a 'source close to the investigation' at a time when there was a spate of such pejorative leaks to soften up public opinion against Madeleine's parents.
... the sniffer dog that GNR sent to the location, on the day following the english girl’s disappearance. It’s an animal that only follows odours, and that “detected the movement of the child from the room to another point inside the apartment”, according to a source with the Guarda. The same source said that “based on that signal, it was not possible to conclude whether the child was alive or dead – because a sniffer dog will smell both the living and the dead”. Yet, outside the house, both through the windows that faced the Tapas restaurant – where the McCanns had dinner with their seven friends – and through the main door, “the dog lost the trail, as if the child had exited, for example, rolled up in a blanket”, that source said.
Source: Sol, 4 Aug 2007
Wrong scent, perhaps?If it was another person's scent, it would still be remarkable, to track a scent to a point on a plan of a residence, and have the scent just end there and go nowhere. Why would Sol invent such an apparent impossibility?
I believe the Sol reporter has confused what he was told the VRD dogs found as being what the GNR sniffer dogs found. We know that the GNR dogs followed Madeleine's(?) scent from the front door.The Sol article is dated 4th Aug but claims to be describing a GNR dog's indoor track on 4th May
The date of the report is the clue.
The Sol article is dated 4th Aug but claims to be describing a GNR dog's indoor track on 4th May
"on the day following the English girl's disappearance".
Wrong scent, perhaps?
The SOL 4th Aug article claims a GNR dog was deployed to track inside the apartment on 4th May.
Forensics found numerous canine footprints and hairs all over the inside of the apartment.
This means SOL is probably correct.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
SOL?Yes Here is the source - scroll down to the Sol 4 Aug 2007 article.
Yes Here is the source - scroll down to the Sol 4 Aug 2007 article.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html
If it was another person's scent, it would still be remarkable, to track a scent to a point on a plan of a residence, and have the scent just end there and go nowhere. Why would Sol invent such an apparent impossibility?
Pact of silence?"another point in apartment"
The explanation that the group couldn't discuss the investigation because of Portuguese secrecy laws?
Quite simply Pegasus, the press reporting of Madeleine McCann's case was a disgrace.Often yes, a good example being a journo who previously fed us the WMD guff.
Often yes, a good example being a journo who previously fed us the WMD guff.
But back to dogs - the numerous canine footprints (source already posted) all over the inside of apartment prove that at least one GNR dog was allowed to search inside apartment.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the files saying a scent search was done inside the apartment by GNR dogs. Why would they do that? On the 4 May? The fact there were footprints and hairs (mainly in the kids bedroom) doesn't prove it was either. Its possible this "story" came on the back of the English dog findings.
PS Ferryman, if these dogs only scented a generic human scent (as they do in disaster zones for example) they wouldn't have been given Madeleines clothes, towel and blanket, would they? What does generic human scent mean anyway? Humans were all around them!
&%+((£
There was a debate about whether taking such a step would be worthwhile, which clearly there wouldn't have been if these handlers had ground-scenting dogs.
Ground-scenting dogs can't work any other way.
Sorry, I didn't understand that
I questioned why would dogs who cant trace a personal scent be issued with personal items
There doesn't seem to be anything in the files saying a scent search was done inside the apartment by GNR dogs. Why would they do that? On the 4 May? The fact there were footprints and hairs (mainly in the kids bedroom) doesn't prove it was either. Its possible this "story" came on the back of the English dog findings.The date of this indoor GNR dog behaviour was 4 May, and the date Sol learned of it was a few days before 4 Aug, IMO.
PS Ferryman, if these dogs only scented a generic human scent (as they do in disaster zones for example) they wouldn't have been given Madeleines clothes, towel and blanket, would they? What does generic human scent mean anyway? Humans were all around them!
&%+((£
The bit you didn't understand is the answer to your question.
The handlers (in good faith) improvised in the hope that their dogs would track Madeleine's scent.
There was never the slightest chance that they would.
The date of this indoor GNR dog behaviour was 4 May, and the date Sol learned of it was a few days before 4 Aug, IMO.Ferryman says they cant track individual scents
A good reason to do it, starting from the child bedroom, would be to find which door or window was the exit, IMO.
Oh, not sure I believe this
It's perfectly true.
Dogs that track a unique and individual ground-scent (of humans) are rare and specialised. In England there is just one police force (based in Dyfed, Wales) that has them.
The Portuguese didn't have them, but they improvised as best they could.
I (genuinely) applaud their efforts, but their efforts were always in vain.
This doesnt make sense. Police ask for personal effects when they know their dogs cant use them?
It's perfectly true.I think Sherlock the dog would disagree with you?
Dogs that track a unique and individual ground-scent (of humans) are rare and specialised. In England there is just one police force (based in Dyfed, Wales) that has them.
The Portuguese didn't have them, but they improvised as best they could.
I (genuinely) applaud their efforts, but their efforts were always in vain.
The alternative was to give up on Madeleine ...
The alternative was to give up on Madeleine ...
Now that really doesnt make sense, steady on
youre saying police had no person scenting dogs but just said so so it wouldnt seem they were not giving up n madeleine n 4 may, honestly
No!
I'm saying that the Portuguese handlers, faced with a stark choice between simply giving up on Madeleine, or mixing-and-matching as best they could on behalf of Madeleine, opted to mix-and-match.
Nothing else.
I have the upmost admiration for these Portuguese handlers ....
8(8-))I think you mistake (conflate!) pretence for improvisation!
Giving up on Madeleine? They hadnt even started
So they were faced with that conudrum on may 4 were they? As wigj all other caes of missing persons send out dogs pretending to be what they are not is that what you are saying?
I think you mistake (conflate!) pretence for improvisation!
The two are quite different ...
Stop talking cryptic or in riddkes and not answering posts, its time wasting
Just spit it out
You don't understand.
I'm not surprised ....
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/175067-sniffer-dogs-brought-in-to-missing-michaela-search/
So?
An example of ground-scenting dogs in action.
From the only police fore (in Britain!) that has them.
The Portuguese didn't! and don't have them.
I still dont believe you that the portuguese pretended or improvised when in gact fhey had no scent sniffing digs yu wikk hVe to prove this over and above your own suspicions or beliefs, I hVent got a clue but it doesnt sound right to me what you are saying
Ah well ....So do you think that even hypothetically if the Sol article is true (GNR dog tracked from bedroom to another place in apartment then nowhere) it would be completely meaningless as intelligence?
Maybe, when Mark Harrison said the Portuguese deployed air-scenting dogs (the type that track the generic, not the individual and unique) human scent, he was making it all up?
Who knows?
Ah well ....
Maybe, when Mark Harrison said the Portuguese deployed air-scenting dogs (the type that track the generic, not the individual and unique) human scent, he was making it all up?
Who knows?
It's perfectly true.
Dogs that track a unique and individual ground-scent (of humans) are rare and specialised. In England there is just one police force (based in Dyfed, Wales) that has them.
The Portuguese didn't have them, but they improvised as best they could.
I (genuinely) applaud their efforts, but their efforts were always in vain.
Ah well ....Strange, experts say that Lowland Search dogs can track a unique individual's scent by air-scenting.
Maybe, when Mark Harrison said the Portuguese deployed air-scenting dogs (the type that track the generic, not the individual and unique) human scent, he was making it all up?
Who knows?
So do you think that even hypothetically if the Sol article is true (GNR dog tracked from bedroom to another place in apartment then nowhere) it would be completely meaningless as intelligence?
seems ferryman is wrong not a poster to rely on,for true facts as if that is news
I assure you quite categorically that I am right ....
Have you handled dogs in the field ?
Or are you still googling as before ?
I've read about them.
And I assimilate the information I read.
Others to contribute to this thread have done the same ...
Doesn't make you an expert or qualified in the field, does it ?
So on your logic, if you read up and assimilated information , you could carry out heart surgery
Just makes me right.
I'll settle for that ...
In what way exactly are you right ?
As for settling, by whose standards do you do that ?
To use one of benice's favourtie expressions, is it as an armchairs detective ? 8**8:/:
I assure you quite categorically that I am right ....
What have the detectives achieved then Benice ?
Besides, you spout your views on here, day after day.
Are you an armchair detective ?
What happens to people Benice when they do a job and achieve nothing ?
Itsjust a little hard to believe that a police force was pretending their dogs could follow a persons scent, and asked for their clothing just for effect!
They didn't pretend anything.
They improvised and hoped.
Their only other option was to give up.
And I suppose point 7 here is a lie
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
They didn't pretend anything.
They improvised and hoped.
Their only other option was to give up.
Nope!
with the aim of their releasing search and rescue dog teams, seeing as these are specially trained to find missing persons, which is not the case with the Portimao sniffer dogs, which are essentially patrol dogs.
Search and resuce dogs track the generic human scent, not the individual and unique one.
The dogs were given her pink blanket on the bed. I think that would have her unique scent on.
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
Beginning to follow the track using Rex, from the door of apartment 5 A (the place where the girl had been sleeping) he would always head in the direction of Block 4, leaving block 5 the dog would turn to the left, pass by a metal access door to a path existing between the apartments blocks to the leisure area (restaurant, pool and playground). Immediately another attempt at reconstruction was made using the dog Zarus, who, in general terms, ended up following the same route as Rex and having the same behaviour.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM, earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00PM. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Pathfinder ... there are screeds of information and discussions out there about specialist dogs trained to search out an individual by scent.
A lot of it originates in America where I think bloodhounds are the animal of choice. I believe Germany is another centre of excellence.
We only have them in Wales (see the link provided by Ferryman) ... and in 2007 the Portuguese had none.
No-one can state what it was that the Portuguese dogs followed ... but the chance of it being Madeleine's unique scent are so slim I believe it may be non-existent.
They did the best they could in the circumstances. Their training was to find people lost outdoors if Madeleine had been outside (woke and wandered theory) there is every likelihood they would have found her.
Particularly when one considers the area of terrain they covered.
They were perfectly correct to improvise and hope and they put their all into finding Madeleine.
I think what you have illustrated in the link you posted Ferryman, is that dogs with particular 'bloodhound' skills are few and far between in Europe.
There are mountain rescue dogs in Scotland as well as police dogs ... yet a specialist team had to be imported from Wales.
Back in 2007 the Portuguese faced similar problems.
Sometimes the issue with dogs finding nothing is that there is nothing there to be found.
Pathfinder ... there are screeds of information and discussions out there about specialist dogs trained to search out an individual by scent.
A lot of it originates in America where I think bloodhounds are the animal of choice. I believe Germany is another centre of excellence.
We only have them in Wales (see the link provided by Ferryman) ... and in 2007 the Portuguese had none.
No-one can state what it was that the Portuguese dogs followed ... but the chance of it being Madeleine's unique scent are so slim I believe it may be non-existent.
Two types of dogs were used, and it was search and rescue dogs who were given the towel and blanket to sniff at;
At 00.40, given the complexity of the situation that seemed to surround the disappearance, the GNR post commander requested reinforcements from two sniffer dog teams from the Portimao territorial group to help in the searches, considering the possibility that the girl could have left the apartment on foot and could be somewhere not very far from the OC resort.
At 01.00 after the group commander had been briefed about the situation, telephone contact was made with an official from the Queluz GNR school, with the aim of their releasing search and rescue dog teams, seeing as these are specially trained to find missing persons, which is not the case with the Portimao sniffer dogs, which are essentially patrol dogs.
At 02.00 they arrived at P da L and began searching with the Portimao sniffer dog teams, the terrain searches were extended until the morning with the dogs and officers on the scene, as well as the night guard and local people who volunteered to help in the searches that took place throughout the night.
At 08.00 three officers with 4 search and rescue dogs from Queluz arrived at the scene, these dogs immediately began to operate.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
Search and rescue dogs track the generic human scent, not the individual and unique one ...
Nope!
with the aim of their releasing search and rescue dog teams, seeing as these are specially trained to find missing persons, which is not the case with the Portimao sniffer dogs, which are essentially patrol dogs.
Search and resuce dogs track the generic human scent, not the individual and unique one.
So who were the SAR dogs looking for then? its confusing.
The hope was that they would find Madeleine.
But they were of the wrong discipline to track an individual and unique scent.
Somewhere in the GNR report (I can't find it now) there was actually a discussion about whether their dogs would be able to assimilate Madeleine's scent from sniffing something belonging to Madeleine.
The mere fact of that conversation proves they had dogs of the wrong discipline for that search.
Dogs of the right discipline can't work any other way hence (English nomenclature) scent article method dog. That is dogs that assimilate an individual and unique scent by sniffing an article.
Sorry, still dont understand. If the dogs dont search for an individuals scent what exactly do they search for?
Have a read of the link to a thread I posted just above, Mercury.Cant you just tell me?
There are all kinds of dogs trained for different purposes.
Sorry, still dont understand. If the dogs dont search for an individuals scent what exactly do they search for?
Cant you just tell me?
The dogs were given Madeleines belongings but Ferryman and others have said this means nothing at all
So, what were the dogs looking for? Ferryman says a generic human scent, that don't help much either, there were many humans around, if you see what I mean
thanks Fm and Anna but I havent got an answer to my question , what were the dogs sent out to do?/find rather
Tracking and Trailing Dogs
Tracking dogs are capable of locating any human scent and following the scent to a successful conclusion.
Trailing dogs are capable of locating a specific human scent (usually obtained from an article of clothing) and following the scent, ignoring other scents, to a successful conclusion.
Search Dogs UK are able to supply dogs trained in both disciplines to agencies concerned with locating persons in vast areas.
Target Agencies: Law Enforcement, SAR Agencies.
http://www.searchdogsuk.co.uk/other_disciplines.html
Thank you Anna.
What I underline is what we, in Britain, term scent article method dogs.
Not remotely the fault of the GNR handlers who tasked their dogs to look for Madeleine, but their dogs were not of that discipline.
So what were the dogs looking for?
Their handlers hoped they were looking for Madeleine.
However, they weren't because they had not successfully assimilated Madeleine's (individual and unique) scent.
They were of the wrong discipline for that type of search ....
Thank you Anna.
What I underline is what we, in Britain, term scent article method dogs.
Not remotely the fault of the GNR handlers who tasked their dogs to look for Madeleine, but their dogs were not of that discipline.
I get what you said but what did the dogs go out and look for? Dogs look for something surely and the dogs deployed twice over followed a trail did they not? what was the trail?
Who knows what scent they followed?
Just not Madeleine's.
Oh, so now they did follow someones scent, make your mind up
So they ARE scent following dogs?? Hello?
Ok ferryman
Do let me know what the gnr dogs were left off their leash to find then , it seems to me you are saying they couldnt find nothing at all, so whats the point of using them???
If they were searching remote uninhabited areas, there was a chance that they would find someone,,,if someone was there that is. They were basically Public control trained, but they did have some training in tracking(of some sort)
Therefore it is a waste of time and effort to keep asking why they were used, Mercury, when none of us know the answer.
I get what you said but what did the dogs go out and look for? Dogs look for something surely and the dogs deployed twice over followed a trail did they not? what was the trail?
Did Amaral & Co use any dogs when Joana went missing, do you know?
Did Amaral & Co use any dogs when Joana went missing, do you know?
If they were searching remote uninhabited areas, there was a chance that they would find someone,,,if someone was there that is. They were basically Public control trained, but they did have some training in tracking(of some sort)
Therefore it is a waste of time and effort to keep asking why they were used, Mercury, when none of us know the answer.
No Anna you have got it wrong
there were two types of dogs
one type was tasked to find a missing person
The other type was taskedto search fields etc
Do you understand thedifference?
Yes. Well I thought I understood Mercury. So if a dog is searching a field , what do you think it was searching for?
I was not aware that one of dogs was trained to find a specific person on that day.
I am interested in your reply. I haven't really studied the GNR dogs in this case. I know that an air scenting dog was discussed a while back.
Yes. Well I thought I understood Mercury. So if a dog is searching a field , what do you think it was searching for?
I was not aware that one of dogs was trained to find a specific person on that day.
I am interested in your reply. I haven't really studied the GNR dogs in this case. I know that an air scenting dog was discussed a while back.
The type tasked to search fields was probably looking for rabbits ....
Im as bemused as you
The portuguese police had dogs
Some of these dogs were said by them trained to find missing persons
The dogs were given the childs personal effects
Some Posters onhere say they werent trained to personal scents
Ok
So I ask them what they searched for then? how does a dog search if it doesnt know what its sesrching for!!!
I think the dogs search for the scent of a person(any person) Mercury.
I have no idea why they were given an article to sniff and it seems no one else knows either.
There is some posts here about air scenting dogs
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2678.msg105032#msg105032
Here you go Misty,
16 sep 2004 CM
The authorities also decided to investigate again the family of small Joana, 8 years of age, as well as various other people that could provide clues about the mysterious case. The truth, however, is that the efforts made have had no effect. Leonor Cipriano, the mother of the child already speaks in "abduction" and asks: "Don't do evil to Joana".
Second found the CM, two teams cinotecnicas (man/dog) were used in the actions of search triggered in the fields around this rural village. The soldiers were conducting, including various wells, a stream and a channel for irrigation which passes close to the village, disproved the existence of traces of the girl.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/atualidade/mae-confessa-morte-da-filha-por-acidente
Thank you for that, Anna. I'm not very familiar with most of the finer details of the investigation into Joana's disappearance.
It's a shame there isn't a little more information regarding any trailing done from the family home.
Mystery solved then John. 8((()*/
These dogs were in fact trailing/tracking dogs?
Thank goodness that is sorted....I hope.
Not when Kate said all the gates were closed. Unless you're calling her a liar 8)--))
A nearly 4-year-old could easily get over a child gate. My grandson (19 months) can climb out of his high sided cot.
The bottom gate was closed according to Kate.
Easily opened as it wasn't locked.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/K/DSC05261.jpg)
Not when Kate said all the gates were closed. Unless you're calling her a liar 8)--))
Easily opened as it wasn't locked.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/K/DSC05261.jpg)
I agree but it wouldn't be found closed. All the movements that night and nobody bumped into her is heading back into fantasyluzland. She comes out crosses the road and immediately meets the most evil person in PDL who throws her in the car and takes off. Not having it. No witnesses reported screaming or cars taking off at great speed.
I agree but it wouldn't be found closed. All the movements that night and nobody bumped into her is heading back into fantasyluzland. She comes out crosses the road and immediately meets the most evil person in PDL who throws her in the car and takes off. Not having it. No witnesses reported screaming or cars taking off at great speed.
There was no need to take off with wheels spinning and the gate probably swings closed in any event. A small child wouldn't have opened it fully anyway as they tend to slide through the smallest gap.
A nearly 4-year-old could easily get over a child gate. My grandson (19 months) can climb out of his high sided cot.
What a load of presumptuous rubbish sadeA mother hears the cry of her children above all else. The waiters say that the Tapas party was not noisy
there is no way a child could have signalled their parents at the noisy tapas bar from the balcony of their flat
A mother hears the cry of her children above all else. The waiters say that the Tapas partiy was not noisyMadeleine could have choked and died and her parents not know
Not when Kate said all the gates were closed. Unless you're calling her a liar 8)--))
A mother hears the cry of her children above all else. The waiters say that the Tapas party was not noisyAt the recent wedding in Gib, one of the kids toppled into the pool on board the boat and struggled in the water.
At the recent wedding in Gib, one of the kids toppled into the pool on board the boat and struggled in the water.
Who went to the rescue? His dad took shoes off (?????) then dived in fully clothed. The onlookers applauded.
The cost of this rescue was that his mobile gave up the ghost. But sticking it in a bag of rice restored it to life.
All's well that ends well.
Two sniffer dogs from the GNR specialised dog unit in Queluz were deployed at 11pm on the 4th May ie some 24 hours after Madeleine disappeared. Handler Sgt Antonio Silva states in his report...
The deponent states that:
- He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
- He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
- That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.
- When carrying out this operation with the second dog, he followed the same rout, took the same direction and headed toward the light post in the parking lot mentioned above. He sniffed the area and at that point appeared to have lost the scent. The only difference was that this dog did not head toward the entrance of the restaurant or the pool area.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
(http://i.imgur.com/a4b5S8P.jpg?1)
Sniffer dogs both lost Madeleine's scent by the lamp post shown in the foreground giving support to the theory that she somehow got out of the apartment on her own but was lifted having crossed the road to the car park.
It is worth pointing out that none of the specialist dogs marked the route taken by Tannerman.
Last sentence! Interesting.Very unlikely that they would mark the route taken by Tannerman, cos he was carrying Madeleine and it was a very gusty night.
&%+((£
PS thanks Anna
Very unlikely that they would mark the route taken by Tannerman, cos he was carrying Madeleine and it was a very gusty night.
No Madeleine foot scent there , just air scent and gusty winds.
No scent left to follow of Madeleines ... in such conditions.
But they followed ?
@)(++(*”
Who knows what scent they may have followed, Mercury. Had it been Madeleine's, the dogs should have at least wanted to go in through the apartment gate & up the steps - but they didn't.Dogs can detect direction.
Dogs can detect direction.
Otherwise 50% of dogs tracking a missing person would lead you exactly in the wrong direction.
Very unlikely that they would mark the route taken by Tannerman, cos he was carrying Madeleine and it was a very gusty night.
No Madeleine foot scent there , just air scent and gusty winds.
No scent left to follow of Madeleines ... in such conditions.
Then you have to go back to exactly what the dogs were trained to do.Maybe where the most recent scent trail ended, one dog switched to tracing a less recent scent trail of the same scent source?
Why did one S&R dog track to the Tapas Bar entrance but the other one didn't?
Maybe where the most recent scent trail ended, one dog switched to tracing a less recent scent trail of the same scent source?
What is the kids creche to tapas route at 5pm on 3 May? Do they use the safer shortcut path route and cross the road at the lamppost opposite the entrance?
What is the kids creche to tapas route at 5pm on 3 May? Do they use the safer shortcut path route and cross the road at the lamppost opposite the entrance?Presumably yes. It would be the only sensible route IMO.
Why did the dogs go this way though?
Why did the dogs go this way though?
They couldn't turn right after leaving the front door, because there was a wall there. There was also a walled pathway which they would have to follow. It looks to me as if they were following the lingering smell of food coming from the restaurant. However I am most probably wrong.
IIRC They showed interest in some food in refuse bags and then an apartment that had rotten food in the fridge.
When the children were taken out of the front door, would that not be a route to the crèche or Main reception?
And was it possible that Gerry and Kate's scent was also on that blanket?
"after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment 5A of block 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
Did the most recent scent on the north side of the building lead directionally not away from the front door, but towards it?
They couldn't turn right after leaving the front door, because there was a wall there. There was also a walled pathway which they would have to follow. It looks to me as if they were following the lingering smell of food coming from the restaurant. However I am most probably wrong.
IIRC They showed interest in some food in refuse bags and then an apartment that had rotten food in the fridge.
When the children were taken out of the front door, would that not be a route to the crèche or Main reception?
And was it possible that Gerry and Kate's scent was also on that blanket?
Why would they head towards block 4 and go between blocks 4 and 5 to the path behind the apartments? it's a bit like Creche man's meandering route home from the night creche, it makes no sense.
Why would they head towards block 4 and go between blocks 4 and 5 to the path behind the apartments? it's a bit like Creche man's meandering route home from the night creche, it makes no sense.Its a bit further but a better route with children.
Its a bit further but a better route with children.
Its a bit further but a better route with children.
Why would they head towards block 4 and go between blocks 4 and 5 to the path behind the apartments? it's a bit like Creche man's meandering route home from the night creche, it makes no sense.
They went into the car park opposite the Tapas reception and cut through there to the main recepton. No mention ever of going around block 5, cutting between blocks 5 and 4 and going down the path by the gardens as per the sniffer dog's route.
I thought it had been discussed that the GNR dog trails going around the apartments before crossing the road and disappearing at he car park opposte the Tapas restaraunt may have related to the Mccanns younger children followed by Madeleine following after them going around the apartments a day or so earlier? On their way to the daily creche? Icannot remember whose interview I read that in, but I definitely remember it.
They had to leave the twins at the kiddies club located beside the tapas bar first and then make for the junior club with Madeleine. Members must realise that there were at least two childrens clubs in operation, one for toddlers located beside the tapas bar and another located above main reception for older children like Madeleine.
The plan below might help. No 6 marks the location of the twins club while no 13 marks the location of 24 hr reception above which was Madeleine's club.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/oceanclubmap3.gif)
It was in Gerald McCann's statement, made after the dogs went that way;
That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
If the dogs had been following Madeleine's or even the twins scent, I would expect them to have at one stage gone off the path and into a garden ... "the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]."
I don't think it is possible to know what scent they were following or its significance (or not) in relation to Madeleine McCann. The handlers reported only what the dogs did and the only opinion I can see mentioned is the possibility that the second dog might have been following the first ... giving the impression the handlers may not have been convinced they had followed Madeleine's scent.
They did find Madeleine's scent. It is proven from statements and facts.
If they were following Madeleine's scent it was hugely significant.
If the scent came to an abrupt halt with both dogs losing it in a car park ... that is hugely significant.
It would appear that Madeleine had been taken from the apartment and taken by a circuitous route to a waiting vehicle.
Yet the significance of that would appear to have escaped the investigators who were already formulating suspicions about the involvement of Madeleine's parents in her disappearance ... the request to see a priest being one of the triggers for this.
No-one appears to have been asked about parked vehicles at that spot ... vehicles are only mentioned in passing by Mr Carpenter and the cook who appears to have had more concern about them than the police to whom he gave his statement.
Perhaps a perfect example of some of the search for evidence to solve a crime is ignored when the search for evidence to fit a theory is given paramount importance.
Why look for a live child when your theory dictates she is dead.
Why look for an outsider when your theory dictates it is an inside job.
Why look for a vehicle when your prime suspects have no access to one.
So if you are correct and the dogs did indeed follow Madeleine McCann's scent to the car park ... someone at the head of the investigation has an almighty sin to answer.
Madeleine McCann: The lost clues
CRUCIAL leads that could solve the mystery of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance are revealed today by the Sunday Express.
By JAMES MURRAY
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Sun, Apr 29, 2012 | UPDATED: 01:29, Sun, Apr 29, 2012
These vital clues were never followed up by the Portuguese police, according to Isabel Duarte, the Lisbon lawyer acting for Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
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.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/317111/Madeleine-McCann-The-lost-clues
Not really when the dogs came to a big open area and lost the scent trail - one dog crossed the road and went to the entrance but it was shut. Jane, Matt and Russell saw no cars parked on that road on their checks. Jes also said it was deserted.
They did find Madeleine's scent. It is proven from statements and facts.
Quote - Jane, Matt and Russell saw no cars parked on that road on their checks. Jes also said it was deserted. End quote
Did they volunteer that information or was it mentioned in a response to the question in their statements? I think I would really need a cite.
Since Madeleine was never found by the dogs, how can anyone possibly know that it was Madeleine's scent that they followed?
The blanket would also have the scent of Kate and Gerry on it.
It was not a piece of clothing (usually used for scenting) that would have a stronger scent of the child's body, that was used for the dogs to sniff.
Sweat and an individual body smells. is what the dogs smell and try to trace.
I still believe that the dogs were confused by scents on that blanket.
How could anyone possibly prove that the dogs followed Madeleine's Scent when she was never found???
In their rogs.
In the same way he relates never to have perceived suspicious movements undertaken by any motor vehicles in the vicinity of the resort where they were lodged.
By the way, he relates never to have perceived the presence of a blue light motor vehicle in the vicinity of the Ocean Club Garden.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
Madeleine's blanket was used. It was her scent they followed. It's amazing how many people underestimate the abilities of a dogs nose on this forum.
During these holidays Madeleine usually slept clutching a soft toy, a pink cat, and sometimes wrapped in a pink blanket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
I do not have a problem with the abilities of a sniffer dog. They do a wonderful job.Do we have any reports or photos of tracker dogs in the Hazell case in London? I mean non-evrd dogs used before 8th Aug 2012, outdoors. (I don't want details of evrd dog used indoors 8th to 10th, I want non-evrd dogs used outdoors 4th to 7th Aug).
However on the occasions that a trail leads nowhere and the person being searched for is unfound. There is no evidence to prove that they tracked that particular persons scent. Can you prove otherwise?
Do we even know which of the two lamposts at that carpark the GNR dogs went to?
There is one near the entrance and one actually in the car park.
The one opposite the entrance. There is nothing to be found there. The other dogs found the truth.In your theory (what as you know I disagree with) you have a bag is that right?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33574800/rip-buster-the-sniffer-dog-who-saved-a-thousand-lives
Since Madeleine was never found by the dogs, how can anyone possibly know that it was Madeleine's scent that they followed?
The blanket would also have the scent of Kate and Gerry on it.
It was not a piece of clothing (usually used for scenting) that would have a stronger scent of the child's body, that was used for the dogs to sniff.
Sweat and an individual body smells. is what the dogs smell and try to trace.
I still believe that the dogs were confused by scents on that blanket.
How could anyone possibly prove that the dogs followed Madeleine's Scent when she was never found???
We don't know that for sure, either way as the forensic results weren't negative, merely inconclusive.
In your theory (what as you know I disagree with) you have a bag is that right?
And closed the GNR dogs would not track its route, is that your theory?
@Pathfinder if your theory which I do not agree with were correct then the GNR dogs would only be able to track the earlier routes of times very approximate 09.00 outward, 13:00 inward, 14:00 outward, 17.30 inward, but would not be able to track a later route ?
Sorry Stephen. I don’t understand your post ……We were discussing the tracking/sniffer dogs that used the blanket to sniff for her scent.What you say Anna is true in theory, (regarding mixed scents) whch makes you wonder what the point was if Madeleine was always with her family on a similar daily route (apart from the dogs trailing behind the apartments)
Was there a forensic report?
This is the message you replied too.....................................
Anna:-
Since Madeleine was never found by the dogs, how can anyone possibly know that it was Madeleine's scent that they followed?
The blanket would also have the scent of Kate and Gerry on it.
It was not a piece of clothing (usually used for scenting) that would have a stronger scent of the child's body, that was used for the dogs to sniff.
Sweat and an individual body smells. is what the dogs smell and try to trace.
I still believe that the dogs were confused by scents on that blanket.
How could anyone possibly prove that the dogs followed Madeleine's Scent when she was never found???
Another case of police ignoring an alert by an EVRD dog - then weeks later finding the dog was right.
And a live demonstration by EVRD dog "Chance" (who alerts by sitting)
searching for and finding a real human scent source in the back room of a TV studio.
http://youtu.be/ZseVVfswzPA
What you say Anna is true in theory, (regarding mixed scents) whch makes you wonder what the point was if Madeleine was always with her family on a similar daily route (apart from the dogs trailing behind the apartments)
BTW three sets of dogs IIRC were given (separately) a) ablanket, b) a towel and then c) an item of her clothing, though the latter was the last set of searches a few days later when there wasn't much confidence it would yield any result, due to time lapsed, but they tried anyway, although the trailing exactly mirrored the first trail. I'm as confused as you.
I have a doubt as to whether the blanket and the towel are two different items.
Why? Do you think there is no difference between what one handler describes as a Turkish towel used by the child and the other one on a search almost a day later describing being given a pink/orange blanket the child used to sleep in?
These comfort blankets are small and normally made from a micro fibre, Mercury.
So I think that the blanket could very easily have been mistaken for a light towel.
When I read the statements, I assumed that the blanket had been mistaken for a towel.
However, does it really matter? There is still a fair chance that more than one person's scent was on the item.
But Gerry McCann told Sandra Felgueiras, a Portuguese journalist in a TV interview that cadaver dogs are "incredibly unreliable" and Kate McCann says in her book she was "relieved "when the blood and cadaver dogs alerted in their apartment because they're "not scientific" . I was very surprised to read her "account of the truth "where she belittled their capabilities, makes you wonder quite a few thngs after all that garbage was spouted.And maybe soon there will be a "cue" of peeps claiming that dog "Chance" in this live demonstration
?
PS Pegasus you're not allowed to say EVRD dog as they don't exist except in Martin Grimes imagination according to Ferryman who also asserts Eddie never went to the USA to be trained on real human cadavers, though Mr Grime's CV asserts he did.
And maybe soon there will be a "cue" of peeps claiming that dog "Chance" in this live demonstrationoh, very good Pegasus !
http://youtu.be/ZseVVfswzPA alerted only because of cuing?
BTW IMO Mr G would look great in one of those shiny red dog-handler one-piece jumpsuits like handler Tracey is wearing
Going back to this video
http://youtu.be/ZseVVfswzPA
It was a missing child case.
A cadaver dog alerted to a garage.
Police ignored the dog.
Weeks later a body was found in the garage.
Going back to this video
http://youtu.be/ZseVVfswzPA
It was a missing child case.
A cadaver dog alerted to a garage.
Police ignored the dog.
Weeks later a body was found in the garage.
The police dogs did not alert initially ... the alert from a cadaver dog owned by a member of the public was ignored and not acted on (although we are not told of the circumstances in which this happened) ... it was only when the mother's boyfriend confessed to suffocating the baby after her mother had assaulted her and showed the police the box in the garage where he had hidden her that she was found.The police did deploy cadaver dogs but did not allow them into the garage because the large amount of junk inside made it unsafe. The cadaver dog of a volunteer organisation working with the police however did alert to the garage, but police ignored its alert.
There seems to have been a rather slip shod investigation carried out into the child's disappearance ... a blanket, the floor and the wall beside her crib were all bloodstained.
As far as I can see,Pegasus, there are no parallels with Madeleine's disappearance ... this was classic dysfunctional family ...
The child was only reported missing when she was not available for her father's custody visitation.
The police did deploy cadaver dogs but did not allow them into the garage because the large amount of junk inside made it unsafe. The cadaver dog of a volunteer organisation working with the police however did alert to the garage, but police ignored its alert.Did the dogs in the US case not indicate near the garage doors on first inspection, despite the complete cadaver being inside?
If we freeze that USA case at that point and pretend we don't know the solution....
the similarity between that USA case, and the PDL case today, (and the Addington case frozen on Thu 9th) would be...
missing child ... a dog alerted but was ignored ... case unsolved.
the title of the thread is amaral and the dogs...the point being that amaral..the SIO ...drew incorrect conclusions from the alerts...
the title of the thread is amaral and the dogs...the point being that amaral..the SIO ...drew incorrect conclusions from the alerts...
This is true, you only have to read his book to realise how ignorant he was about their abilities. He apparently thought that an alert by Eddie proved that a body must have been present at the place where the dog alerted. As we know from Martin Grime that is not true.
On the other hand - if he wasn't ignorant of the facts, then IMO he cherry picked info about the dogs which suited his agenda and ignored anything which didn't From a 'policing' point of view - that's even worse than being a policeman who made errors because he hadn't done his homework properly IMO.
SY are looking for a body.
It is you who is ignorant to why they were brought in to investigate. Alerts in and outside the crime scene. On clothes including a kids top and no blood on the clothes. Harrison clearly states if Eddie alerts on his own and no body is there it has been removed. Eddie's first alert was at the wardrobe and Keela didn't alert there. Grime clearly states his professional opinion is the EVRD alerts were for cadaver but they need to be corroborated.
As children who are abducted and murdered are often found comparatively near to where the abduction took place, then it is not surprising if the police are searching for a body. However anyone who thinks the police believe it was the McCanns wotdunnit - is going to be very disappointed IMO.
Martin Grime makes it plain that there are various other scenarios (apart from a dead body) as to why cadaverscent may be present. It is because of these other possible reasons that no evidencial value can be placed on an alert unless it is corroborated.
AFAIK - Not once does he say an alert by Eddie is suggestive of a cadaver i.e. (dead body). He always uses the word 'Cadaverscent' - which according to him, could be present for perfectly innocent reasons - cross contamination being one of them.
There was no evidence found of cross contamination from other deaths there or contaminated furniture. Smithman took the risk to move her probably to the dark deserted beach/rocks but it doesn't mean she stayed there. The safest closest place to quickly hide under rocks (he's not digging a hole is he?) and later retrieve a body in the dark and not near street lights.
I see you have ignored the point I made that Martin Grime never uses the word cadaver - only cadaverscent. In fact he is careful not to do that in his videos.
If you believe a dead body must have been in 5A at some time because of the alerts - then it's Martin Grime you are disagreeing with.
Whoever took Madeleine from 5A - I agree with the AG and SY that it wasn't the McCanns, as there is no evidence
that they were in any way involved.
In order to think they were involved then IMO you first have to remove all common sense, logic and reasoned thought from the equation.
Cadaver scent normally comes from cadavers, ie dead bodies and not fertiliser, toenails , sticky plasters with blood on them or bad breath or any of the ridiculous other examples given by the apologists.And Mr Grime was hardly going to say "yes, the cadaver dog barking MUST mean someone died here" . There can be some reasons when this isn't the case. The odds are stacked though here IMO higher than lower.
What you think the odds are is of no importance
It is what Grime thinks that is important....and he has not told us
What he has told us is that it is not certain
I see that nutball Birch is at it again.
His LinkedIn page claim says everything about him.
He is probably one of the few aspects of this case that most of us can agree is - at best - nonsensical.So a nut job is the only thing we can agree about? LOL How generous of you Carana.
But he has his little fan club of people, some of whom may have serious mental health issues and might obey his commands. That must be very scary for an elderly lady. And his latest propaganda target is just as bad.
At the same time, for anyone who finds it unlikely that any one of the T9 would have knocked on the door and asked if they could be so kind as to allow them to bury a child in their garden for a month or two, is it any more likely than any one of them would have knocked on some other stranger's door to ask if they would mind stuffing a large package in their freezer for a couple of months?
So a nut job is the only thing we can agree about? LOL How generous of you Carana.
I didn't say that it was the only one. You did. ;)
Cadaver scent normally comes from cadavers, ie dead bodies and not fertiliser, toenails , sticky plasters with blood on them or bad breath or any of the ridiculous other examples given by the apologists.And Mr Grime was hardly going to say "yes, the cadaver dog barking MUST mean someone died here" . There can be some reasons when this isn't the case. The odds are stacked though here IMO higher than lower.
If you or I slice the tip of a finger off tomorrow (which I hope won't happen), the sliced bit of finger will smell of "cadaver" to a trained dog.
Does that mean that we've died?
If you or I slice the tip of a finger off tomorrow (which I hope won't happen), the sliced bit of finger will smell of "cadaver" to a trained dog.If GNR/PJ had done a complete fingertip search we probably wouldn't still be here discussing it today
Does that mean that we've died?
If GNR/PJ had done a complete fingertip search we probably wouldn't still be here discussing it today
If GNR/PJ had done a complete fingertip search we probably wouldn't still be here discussing it today
Nice one, Pegasus, took me a couple of minutes but I got there.There is no end to the ideas some peeps will resort to to dismiss Eddie's alerts.
But the dogs did do a search and thats whyalso we are discussing thngs these days...the dogs findings have not been explainedIf you mean the GNR dogs - it's not the first case where the way in which police have deployed and interpreted tracking/trailing dogs has resulted in missing the solution.
There is no end to the ideas some peeps will resort to to dismiss Eddie's alerts.is it ok go barge in
is it ok go barge inAnd compost, and algae.
clipped toenails
semen /used condoms
used plasters
bad breath
period blood
abortions
dead pigs
fertiliser
soiled nappies
there are more
And compost, and algae.
But the point is - some of the EVRD alerts were misinterpreted, because...
IMO the alert assumed to be to the toy was not to the toy.
IMO clothing items alerted to were not being worn at the relevant time.
Those two errors by humans led to a drastically wrong conclusion being made IMO
so....which dog alerts were valid in your eyes and what did they mean, se you, have to log off catch up tomorrow
No dog alerts were valid because too many of them were demonstrably unreliable.
Why could Eddie "find" a scent on cuddle-cat when it was hidden in a cupboard he could find no trace of all the time he could see it, sniff it and pick it up?
Why could Eddie find no trace of a scent on clothing in the villa, yet "find" scent on the same clothing after it was transported to the gym?
We know what scent he found in the Renault Scenic and it wasn't incriminating (Gerry's blood).
Why were the inspections of all other villas whistle-stop, yet long-drawn-out and protracted in apartment 5a
....
And so on.
No dog alerts were valid because too many of them were demonstrably unreliable.What does the "and so on" refer to?
Why could Eddie "find" a scent on cuddle-cat when it was hidden in a cupboard he could find no trace of all the time he could see it, sniff it and pick it up?
Why could Eddie find no trace of a scent on clothing in the villa, yet "find" scent on the same clothing after it was transported to the gym?
We know what scent he found in the Renault Scenic and it wasn't incriminating (Gerry's blood).
Why were the inspections of all other villas whistle-stop, yet long-drawn-out and protracted in apartment 5a
....
And so on.
This is why the toy was hidden and a second test performed:
Training starts as a game played with puppies, starting with simple reward-based training (i.e. puppy is given a treat or allowed to play with a toy upon showing a simple skill such as retrieving the toy and bringing it back to the trainer) and expanding outward to "games" with more specific job skills (i.e. a well-loved toy is scented with the desired scent to find; when puppy finds the toy, he/she is allowed to play with the toy; later, scent and toy are separated so that puppy will search for the scent and is rewarded with the toy afterward).
That was probably why Inspector Joao Carlos Eddie wondered about Eddie playing with his toy in the villa ... he certainly found it to be quite mystifying.
That was probably why Inspector Joao Carlos wondered about Eddie playing with his toy in the villa ... he certainly found it to be quite mystifying.
That was probably why Inspector Joao Carlos wondered about Eddie playing with his toy in the villa ... he certainly found it to be quite mystifying.
That was PJ Inspector Dias:
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
To add to Inspector Dias' list of (pertinent) questions, what the hell was any police dog attending a crime scene doing picking stuff up in its mouth at all?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
Thats a queston for Mr Grime.Or ask the dog! Both are better barometres than one who doesnt like their work and isnt qualified
That was PJ Inspector Dias:
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
To add to Inspector Dias' list of (pertinent) questions, what the hell was any police dog attending a crime scene doing picking stuff up in its mouth at all?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
Mr Grime was launching a solo career.
He also wanted to play with that tennis ball. Eddie loves them @)(++(*
Apartment H5
We searched this apartment and the dog hasn't shown any interest in this particular apartment, apart from around the table, where there was a tennis ball which is how we reward the dog for finding things, as soon as we removed the tennis ball the interest was gone. And so it was a negative search.
Thats a queston for Mr Grime.Or ask the dog! Both are better barometres than one who doesnt like their work and isnt qualified
Much along the lines of the interesting tit bit he fished out of a kitchen waste bin.
Much along the lines of the interesting tit bit he fished out of a kitchen waste bin.
Irrelevant as confirmed by Mr Grime, the "professional" rather than the "armchair" layman, or woman
Eddie barks when he alerts.
I would argue that it's a reasonably pertinent indicator of what reliance can be placed on Mr Grime's answers to questions ...
No, the only pertinent indicator here of anything is your libellous posts...its almost as if you might have an aneurism if the dog did alert to a dead body, true?
Difference between me and you is that Im open minded, and say I might be wrong,you on the other hand wont have any talk of it, which, is strange, unless youre one of the Mccanns, or the abductor, both of which Im sure is untrue, so how you can be so categoric is beynd me
Grime did say that, at his request, the toy was retained by the judicial police for future forensic examination.Yes, we know, you have bleated long enough about it, fact remains you didnt answer my original question, thng is you cant ignore questions then demand answers for your own
That wasn't true.
The toy was returned to the McCanns.
Grime did say that, at his request, the toy was retained by the judicial police for future forensic examination."Apartment 5H. We searched this apartment and the dog hasn’t shown any interest in this particular apartment, apart from around the table, where there was a tennis ball which is how we reward the dog for finding things, as soon as we removed the tennis ball the interest was gone. And so it was a negative search."
That wasn't true.
The toy was returned to the McCanns.
I (first!) learnt of the existence of the McCann family at some point after May 3rd 2007.never thought otherwise dear
Or when he's miffed because his toy has been taken away from him ....
No he was trained not to bark except for when he alerts. He doesn't bark when he's playing with tennis balls or toys.it is true though PF that he didnt bark when he first encountered that toy....why not?
Posts containing insults will be deleted.
No he was trained not to bark except for when he alerts. He doesn't bark when he's playing with tennis balls or toys.
never thought otherwise dear
We know that Eddie was correct in the Prout case, although there was no evidence found following his alert. He alerted in Jersey and no evidence was found there either. Does that mean he was wrong? No. it means no evidence was found.
He alerted in this case and no evidence was found. Does that mean he was wrong? No, it means no evidence was found.
Thank you.
No he was trained not to bark except for when he alerts. He doesn't bark when he's playing with tennis balls or toys.
Eddie was trained to bark wherever he detected a certain odour. AFAIK he was not trained to bark wherever he detected a certain odour - but not when that odour was from a soft toy.
In the Prout case, Eddie alerted in the family home, despite Prout strangling his wife in an outhouse several hundred yards away, and burying her.
Still, I give Eddie benefit of doubt that Prout might have cross-transferred death scent into the home from his clothes after burying his wife.
it is true though PF that he didnt bark when he first encountered that toy....why not?
I watched the video and did hear a reaction but not a loud bark as when he alerted outside that sideboard
I read this explanation:
"Eddie was given a cuddly toy as a reward in training so reverted to puppy mode."
Grime had to confirm if he marked it by removing it from the bin so he hid it for a second test.
Eddie had already taken cuddle cat from the bin before giving it a toss and walking off leaving it lying on the floor.
When next we see cuddle cat it is being extricated from a cupboard after Eddie had barked at a chair and some files on top.
We did a whole thread on this not too long ago.
do you have a cite for where he killed her ferryman? i haven't seen that.
how lovely, and how does it forward any discussion!??It doesn't directly. It shows that this dog's treat is a small coloured hoop (IMO Eddie's was a tennis ball). BTW this dog had just that minute alerted in a missing child case. Investigators decided to ignore its intelligence because they had already searched the indicated area several times so no point in searching yet again.
It doesn't directly. It shows that this dog's treat is a small coloured hoop (IMO Eddie's was a tennis ball). BTW this dog had just that minute alerted in a missing child case. Investigators decided to ignore its intelligence because they had already searched the indicated area several times so no point in searching yet again.
Oh so confirmation humans are dumb not dogs,yup, will agree thereYes that is correct, as I am sure the DCIs on that case learned.
We know that Eddie was correct in the Prout case, although there was no evidence found following his alert. He alerted in Jersey and no evidence was found there either. Does that mean he was wrong? No. it means no evidence was found.
He alerted in this case and no evidence was found. Does that mean he was wrong? No, it means no evidence was found.
we cannot prove eddie is right or wrong when no evidence is found...therefore we cannot claim that eddie has never been wrong
Who is claiming that Eddie was never wrong? In this particular case Eddie was right twice; behind the sofa in G5A, and with the Renault car. His alerts were confirmed by Keela and by forensic tests. The dogs suggested something was there and they were correct.
Eddie's other alerts were unconfirmed, but because he was right twice my personal opinion is that those alerts are more likely to have been right than wrong. Of course that's just my opinion, which a lot of people disagree with, but it makes sense to me.
There are many claims that eddie has never been wrong...in amaral's book I believe ..repeated ad nauseam online. Eddie's alerts confirmed by keela would be blood...minute specks...not unusual in any house.
Again your personal opinion is of value only to you
There are many claims that eddie has never been wrong...in amaral's book I believe ..repeated ad nauseam online. Eddie's alerts confirmed by keela would be blood...minute specks...not unusual in any house.
Again your personal opinion is of value only to you
Martin Grime said he's never gave a false alert. He should know. Look at Morse record that was released. Mark Harrison recommended the best dogs to the PJ.
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's "Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies. (TOTL)
What is your opinion on Keela PF - regarding the following? She did not alert to the white curtains on her first 'search' but then did alert to them on her second 'search.
Was she wrong the first day and right on the second day? or
Was she right the first day and wrong on the second day?
Either she failed to detect an odour that was present on the first search - or she was correct and no odour was present - which means she gave a false alert on the 2nd search. As forensic tests found no trace of blood - then IMO that is suggestive of a false alert.
Quote
On 2007/07/31 she's searched the apartment 5a. She didn't alert to the curtains behind the sofa.
On 2007/08/03 she's searched the apartment again.
19.20 The dog "marked" the lower part of the left white coloured curtain of the window behind the sofa.
Relevant part of the FSS report :
The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.
286A/2007-CRL 16 & 16B Two blue curtains and one white curtain.
286B/2007-CRL 1 One white section of a curtain.
These curtains were analysed for traces of blood, semen and saliva, none of which were detected.
What is your opinion on Keela PF - regarding the following? She did not alert to the white curtains on her first 'search' but then did alert to them on her second 'search.
Was she wrong the first day and right on the second day? or
Was she right the first day and wrong on the second day?
Either she failed to detect an odour that was present on the first search - or she was correct and no odour was present - which means she gave a false alert on the 2nd search. As forensic tests found no trace of blood - then IMO that is suggestive of a false alert.
Quote
On 2007/07/31 she's searched the apartment 5a. She didn't alert to the curtains behind the sofa.
On 2007/08/03 she's searched the apartment again.
19.20 The dog "marked" the lower part of the left white coloured curtain of the window behind the sofa.
Relevant part of the FSS report :
The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.
286A/2007-CRL 16 & 16B Two blue curtains and one white curtain.
286B/2007-CRL 1 One white section of a curtain.
These curtains were analysed for traces of blood, semen and saliva, none of which were detected.
Martin Grime said he's never gave a false alert. He should know. Look at Morse record that was released. Mark Harrison recommended the best dogs to the PJ.
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's "Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies. (TOTL)
Martin Grime doesn't know if eddie ever gave a false alert......you need to read his statement in context..
we cannot prove eddie is right or wrong when no evidence is found...therefore we cannot claim that eddie has never been wrong
Eddie's alerts confirmed by keela would be blood...minute specks...not unusual in any house.
Who is claiming that Eddie was never wrong? In this particular case Eddie was right twice; behind the sofa in G5A, and with the Renault car. His alerts were confirmed by Keela and by forensic tests. The dogs suggested something was there and they were correct.
Eddie's other alerts were unconfirmed, but because he was right twice my personal opinion is that those alerts are more likely to have been right than wrong. Of course that's just my opinion, which a lot of people disagree with, but it makes sense to me.
The" blood spatter" is a total 100 % myth as confirmed by the PJ files wherein its stated all wall material was tested for blood and none found
I don't see where the idea of confirmation via forensic tests comes from. Inconclusive DNA was found. It's not even certain what the substance was that the forensic chap left behind... possibly blood (if Keela was accurate) or a drop of sweat with skins cells, innocently wiping a brow. Or a drop of blood from whoever laid the tiles.
Contrary to mythdom, Keela doesn't appear to have alerted at the wall itself, AFAIK. So how the DNA traces on the wall became "evidence" of blood spatter remains to be explained.
the notion that keela may have alerted to sweat is too ridiculous to contemplate but some thnk its worth it, sheesh, wheres a hanmer when you need one?!
*&*%£
beyond ridiculous indeed! TBH Im finding it hard to fnd things that a cadaver dog doesnt alert to these days
weve had the whole gammut from chocolate cake and pizza to clipped toenails, plasters, flower fertiliser, hidden abortion remains,etc and now sweat.....like the police train dogs to alert to sweat, theyd be barking all the time
what people FORGET is the cadaver dog alerted in the last place a missing child was seen, but lets not let details and facts get in the way when defending two dodgy characters hey? makes you wonder what the motive is
It's obvious how useful dogs can be in all sorts of roles. The alerts must worry some people a lot if they go to such lengths to try to discredit them. I'm sure that if there were lots of cases where the police used dogs and they alerted wrongly there would either be a massive retraining effort or they would stop using them. They bring them into so many situations that it's obvious how much faith police forces and others have in these dogs being able to help.Let's debunk one myth here at least. No one is worried about the dog alerts. There is nothing to worry about the dog alerts. The dog alerts are history. The dog alerts mean nothing now. We're so over the dog alerts. The dog alerts were so 2007. Guess what? It's 2015. Let's all learn to get over the dog alerts and move on, for the love of God, Jesus and Allah. Thank you.
Let's debunk one myth here at least. No one is worried about the dog alerts. There is nothing to worry about the dog alerts. The dog alerts are history. The dog alerts mean nothing now. We're so over the dog alerts. The dog alerts were so 2007. Guess what? It's 2015. Let's all learn to get over the dog alerts and move on, for the love of God, Jesus and Allah. Thank you.
Let's debunk one myth here at least. No one is worried about the dog alerts. There is nothing to worry about the dog alerts. The dog alerts are history. The dog alerts mean nothing now. We're so over the dog alerts. The dog alerts were so 2007. Guess what? It's 2015. Let's all learn to get over the dog alerts and move on, for the love of God, Jesus and Allah. Thank you.
Gosh!
Bernoulli was so 18th century, we are so over the 18th century and it is now the 21st century we have moved on; and guess what about Bernoulli?
A fascinating form of argument however but it sounds like a Sloane Ranger type of thang.
*&*%£ *&*%£
The dogs alert and the alerts have to be confirmed by forensics. Forensics confirmed the alerts, simply by finding DNA. The forensic people couldn't confirm that it was blood, but forensics aren't as good as dogs. Keela alerted only to blood, not sweat or skin cells.
Let's debunk one myth here at least. No one is worried about the dog alerts. There is nothing to worry about the dog alerts. The dog alerts are history. The dog alerts mean nothing now. We're so over the dog alerts. The dog alerts were so 2007. Guess what? It's 2015. Let's all learn to get over the dog alerts and move on, for the love of God, Jesus and Allah. Thank you.
I have no problem with Keela, alhough there is always the possiblity that she could have been mistaken by confusing smells very similar to what she was trained for.
It's obvious how useful dogs can be in all sorts of roles. The alerts must worry some people a lot if they go to such lengths to try to discredit them. I'm sure that if there were lots of cases where the police used dogs and they alerted wrongly there would either be a massive retraining effort or they would stop using them. They bring them into so many situations that it's obvious how much faith police forces and others have in these dogs being able to help.
No, Alfred. You may be 'so over the dog alerts', but others aren't. You can't decide what is or is not relevant, you're not in charge. If people wish to discuss Amaral and the dogs they can do so for lots more years yet. 8(>((You claimed some of us (meaning McCann supporters I suppose) were ever so worried about the dog alerts. I don't think discussing them is the same as being worried about them. You may choose to infer that we're in a permanent angst-ridden fret about the dog alerts if it makes you happy, but I think you'll find you are wrong.
Its not your position as a layman to make any claim
It's beyond ridiculous when you consider what a fabulous job these dogs do. They're so useful when tragedies happen;
Staffordshire Police's search teams, which includes a specialist police cadaver dog, found two bodies this afternoon.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2814729/Search-missing-people-huge-blaze-Stafford-fireworks-factory.html#ixzz3gp0SDO3Z
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Where is it stated that she alerted to spots on the wall? If they had been blood, surely it would have been noted that she had done so?
I have no problem with Keela, alhough there is always the possiblity that she could have been mistaken by confusing smells very similar to what she was trained for.
She was trained for human blood and alerted in several places. Apparently in such microscopic quantities that the traces couldn't be determined as such, let alone any conclusive DNA within it.
The living-room wall doesn't appear to have been one such location... so why do some people keep banging on about "blood spatters" on the the wall?
I am not worried about the dog's alerts as eddie's so called cadaver alerts were not confirmed.
I don't go to any lengths to discredit the dog's but I go to great lengths to expose the myths re the dog's because I am interested in the truth. I accept everything that Grime said about the alerts ...they are not evidence of a cadaver being in 5A and certainly amaral was woefully off the mark...a complete duffer...when he claimed he could prove Maddie died in 5A based on the dog's alerts
As I have said before...the dogs are only of any use if they find evidence...if they do not find evidence...they are of no use... I would class 2 bodies as evidence
I am not worried about the dog's alerts as eddie's so called cadaver alerts were not confirmed.
I don't go to any lengths to discredit the dog's but I go to great lengths to expose the myths re the dog's because I am interested in the truth. I accept everything that Grime said about the alerts ...they are not evidence of a cadaver being in 5A and certainly amaral was woefully off the mark...a complete duffer...when he claimed he could prove Maddie died in 5A based on the dog's alerts
There is nothing else in this case.
You claimed some of us (meaning McCann supporters I suppose) were ever so worried about the dog alerts. I don't think discussing them is the same as being worried about them. You may choose to infer that we're in a permanent angst-ridden fret about the dog alerts if it makes you happy, but I think you'll find you are wrong.
Then there's nothing to incriminate the mccanns .... Must be why they are not suspects
Discussion is fine Alfred. I was referring to ridiculous assertions that the dogs alerted to such things as sweat. That to me is scraping the ground under the barrel.Do you know for certain what caused Eddie and Keela to alert? Would you stake your life on it?
Do you know for certain what caused Eddie and Keela to alert? Would you stake your life on it?Turn that one on it's head Alf for a reality check *&*%£
Do you know for certain what caused Eddie and Keela to alert? Would you stake your life on it?
Discussion is fine Alfred. I was referring to ridiculous assertions that the dogs alerted to such things as sweat. That to me is scraping the ground under the barrel.Sweat, urine, saliva, tears, nail clippings .... a whole list of things that the dogs actually alert to.
Turn that one on it's head Alf for a reality check *&*%£I don't need a reality check. I can't say for certain what the dogs alerted to. No one can. That's reality.
I don't need a reality check. I can't say for certain what the dogs alerted to. No one can. That's reality.So you would bet your life on it? (to quote you)
So you would bet your life on it? (to quote you)Yes.
Sweat, urine, saliva, tears, nail clippings .... a whole list of things that the dogs actually alert to.
It has all been throughly discussed on here before.
Cant tell you where, but I suggest that you read back, Gunit.
Sweat, urine, saliva, tears, nail clippings .... a whole list of things that the dogs actually alert to.
It has all been throughly discussed on here before.
Cant tell you where, but I suggest that you read back, Gunit.
Sorry, Sadie, I don't buy it.Maybe someone will tell you where to look. It has been thoroughly discussed on here with documentation. IIRC and I think I do.
Maybe someone will tell you where to look. It has been thoroughly discussed on here with documentation. IIRC and I think I do.
Ferryman is an expert. Maybe he will point you in the right direction. He is good natured.
Maybe someone will tell you where to look. It has been thoroughly discussed on here with documentation. IIRC and I think I do.
Ferryman is an expert. Maybe he will point you in the right direction. He is good natured.
Ferryman is an expert love it @)(++(*Ferryman is an expert. Little doubt about that.
This is the expert on his dogs Sadie
Given the nature of the training, the dog WILL NOT alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Sweat, urine, saliva, tears, nail clippings .... a whole list of things that the dogs actually alert to.Even if true, did the question never cross your mind of why no one elses sweat,urine,saliva,tears and nail clippings! (hilarious as it sounds) were found ? in several other residences searched!?
It has all been throughly discussed on here before.
Cant tell you where, but I suggest that you read back, Gunit.
Maybe someone will tell you where to look. It has been thoroughly discussed on here with documentation. IIRC and I think I do.
Ferryman is an expert.
Ferryman is an expert. Little doubt about that.
Perhaps I misremembered?
Strange, I am almost certain that the dogs alerted to anything from human origins.
I wonder why the ROGATORY is called a RIGATORY now?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
You don't suppose that a substitute page with a subtly changed title has been put out to hide the original page, do you?
PS. The mcannpjfiles [Martin Grime] webpage will no longer open because of my altering the colour and emboldening part. If you wish to open this, maybe phoney, webpage use the address that Pfinder gave you.
Several times when I was on pfa2 forum, someone subtly changed a webpage address. Even a lone full stop alters it. And a new version was sustituted giving the opposite "story" to the original.
Chicanory and deceit.
That's objective, Mercury.Sorry Carana, missed this post. What can I say? Anyone who repeats a real myth and knowingly needs a slap.
Some in the extremist sceptic camp still tout this as fact for some reason. If they had truly read and integrated the files, they would know that that is simply not true...
There are no doubt deeply held false beliefs on both sides and, IMO, if a detail isn't correct, then it should be corrected.
tell me what proof there is that eddie has never given a false alert
Keela can detect washed blood.
Ferryman is an expert. Little doubt about that.
Perhaps I misremembered?
Strange, I am almost certain that the dogs alerted to anything from human origins.
I wonder why the ROGATORY is called a RIGATORY now?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
You don't suppose that a substitute page with a subtly changed title has been put out to hide the original page, do you?
PS. The mcannpjfiles [Martin Grime] webpage will no longer open because of my altering the colour and emboldening part. If you wish to open this, maybe phoney, webpage use the address that Pfinder gave you.
Several times when I was on pfa2 forum, someone subtly changed a webpage address. Even a lone full stop alters it. And a new version was sustituted giving the opposite "story" to the original.
Chicanory and deceit.
keela wasnt asked /tasked to find blood if eddie didnt alert
Yes I know PF, but that doesn't change the fact that Keela did not alert to the white curtain on the first search but then did alert to it on the second one - or explain why this apparent 'fail' occurred on day one. IMO it can only be due to the amount of time spent searching. What else can it be?
IMO had more time been spent searching non-McCann related places - (or even the same amount of time that had been spent on everything that was McCann related), then more alerts would have been made.
Remembering that Keela could detect the minutest odour from blood deposited 50 years (or more) ago. - then I find it hard to believe that not even a tiny trace of blood had ever been deposited in the 9 other cars, since they were manufactured, or in any of the other apartments over decades - during which time probably thousands of people had 'lived' in them. That's a bridge too far for me.
Sweat, urine, saliva, tears, nail clippings .... a whole list of things that the dogs actually alert to.
It has all been throughly discussed on here before.
Cant tell you where, but I suggest that you read back, Gunit.
keela wasnt asked /tasked to find blood if eddie didnt alert
Celestial teapot?
Your question should really be why, if any false alert happened, did it have to be in flat 5A of all places. Everyone is perplexed, why did Eddie alert in the parents' bedroom. Any (sensible) idea?
Yes I know PF, but that doesn't change the fact that Keela did not alert to the white curtain on the first search but then did alert to it on the second one - or explain why this apparent 'fail' occurred on day one. IMO it can only be due to the amount of time spent searching. What else can it be?
IMO had more time been spent searching non-McCann related places - (or even the same amount of time that had been spent on everything that was McCann related), then more alerts would have been made.
Remembering that Keela could detect the minutest odour from blood deposited 50 years (or more) ago. - then I find it hard to believe that not even a tiny trace of blood had ever been deposited in the 9 other cars, since they were manufactured, or in any of the other apartments over decades - during which time probably thousands of people had 'lived' in them. That's a bridge too far for me.
Washed blood will be hard to detect unless Keela is sniffing and investigating the exact spot. Keela sniffs up close to detect minute samples on murder weapons etc.
"'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement." (MG)
Eddie goes in first to detect the scent he has been trained to find. Eddie didn't alert to the other cars so I wonder what that strong scent was coming from the open boot witness car?
Washed blood will be hard to detect unless Keela is sniffing and investigating the exact spot. Keela sniffs up close to detect minute samples on murder weapons etc.
"'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement." (MG)
Eddie goes in first to detect the scent has been trained to find. Eddie didn't alert to the other cars so I wonder what that strong scent was coming from the open boot witness car?
If it was that strong then why didn't Eddie alert to the boot? He alerted to the keyfob in the driver's door compartment from outside the car. Surely it could only be that the strong smell was not something he was trained to alert to.
I wonder how Martin Grime would know that human blood so minute that it is invisible to the naked eye and can't be recovered by forensics was actually there in the first place? I don't see how he could test his dogs to prove they were capable of doing that. For training purposes - how could he put down a trace that was so minute it was invisible and could not be recovered forensically? Just curious.
Ferryman is an expert. Little doubt about that.
Perhaps I misremembered?
Strange, I am almost certain that the dogs alerted to anything from human origins.
I wonder why the ROGATORY is called a RIGATORY now?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
You don't suppose that a substitute page with a subtly changed title has been put out to hide the original page, do you?
PS. The mcannpjfiles [Martin Grime] webpage will no longer open because of my altering the colour and emboldening part. If you wish to open this, maybe phoney, webpage use the address that Pfinder gave you.
Several times when I was on pfa2 forum, someone subtly changed a webpage address. Even a lone full stop alters it. And a new version was sustituted giving the opposite "story" to the original.
Chicanory and deceit.
first...who said it was a strong scent...
and what if a body was alerted to...
Where does that leave the mccanns ?
your post is total speculation without evidence...plainly ridiculous and typical of the doubters such as yourself
Rubbish.
Your riposte is par for the course, because you know damp well where the case would lie if it was proved the dogs alerted correctly.
As it stands, since the forensic results were inconclusive, it is a logical possibility they did.
and if they didn't alert to a body, what did they alert to ?
there certainly would be a case if it was proved the dogs alerted correctly...Southampton would have won the premiership if they had won more games..I could have won the tour de france if I had been better at cycling...
if only...but none of these things happened einstein
It was inconclusive, so there is a distinct possibility they did.
Now if they did, where does it leave the mccanns ?
You also have omitted that Redwood included the possibility Madeleine never left the flat alive.
That is an interesting one, Sadie.
I have followed the link to Martin Grime's R ... I ... GATORY statement and got right there.
When I have substituted the O with an I on other rogatory statements ... I get a 404 message telling me
"To find the page you requested Click onto link below.
It will help you find the page that you may be looking for.
SITE MAP"
As you have said ... mistype an address and you will get nowhere ... so I guess this must be the one which is the exception that proves the rule.
It was inconclusive, so there is a distinct possibility they did.
Now if they did, where does it leave the mccanns ?
You also have omitted that Redwood included the possibility Madeleine never left the flat alive.
What exactly was "inconclusive" about the area near the wardrobe where Eddie barked?
No forensic samples from that area were retrieved and sent off to the lab for investigation.
If it was that strong then why didn't Eddie alert to the boot? He alerted to the keyfob in the driver's door compartment from outside the car. Surely it could only be that the strong smell was not something he was trained to alert to.
I wonder how Martin Grime would know that human blood so minute that it is invisible to the naked eye and can't be recovered by forensics was actually there in the first place? I don't see how he could test his dogs to prove they were capable of doing that. For training purposes - how could he put down a trace that was so minute it was invisible and could not be recovered forensically? Just curious.
We certainly have one fact. It seem the PJ...SY and amarals lawyer accept that Maddie may still be alive...so that proves beyond any doubt that all three do not accept that the alerts were definitely to Maddie's body.
So you believe in fairy stories as well dave ?I'm stating a fact...SYand the PJ accept that Maddie may still be alive..perhaps you didn't read the post properly
I'm stating a fact...SYand the PJ accept that Maddie may still be alive..perhaps you didn't read the post properly
I know what they stated.
I asked you if you believe in fairy stories, such as Madeleine returning after over 8 years of no trace of her whatsoever ?
Perhaps you should think outside the mccann box on this one.
Or do you support the mccanns statement, that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm ?
I was talking about the actual forensic results of samples taken.
There is nothing at all in "the actual forensic results of samples taken" to support your belief that Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A ... for the simple reason that there were no forensic results worth talking about which came from the apartment.
Contrary to what has become popular belief there was no proof of a blood bath having occurred ... and more importantly there was absolutely no proof of death or many "inconclusive" results pointing in that direction.
All speculation and spin.http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html
- Low level incomplete DNA results, which in certain circumstances showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person were obtained from biological material on the following swabs: 286A/2007 CRL 14a, 14b, 15a; the swab from the hem of the curtain 286A/2007 CRL 16 curtain 2; the swabs from the tile pieces 286/2007 CRL 2 areas 1 and 2 and 3 area 1. In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone from the McCann family contributed their DNA to them results.
- The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.
- An incomplete, low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material in an area of floor-tile 2. In my opinion, there is not any positive proof that supports the theory of any of the members of the McCann family have contributed DNA to this result.
- 286/2007-CRL (21) Fragments of bush/shrubbery
Insofar as it relates to this sample, the examination performed was aimed at the detection of the possible presence of blood, no trace thereof having been found. Particles from the superficial surface layer were recovered and preserved in a way similar to that of hairs and fibres. In my opinion, the capillary roots were not good quality as they were not adequate to perform DNA profile tests.
You do know what inconclusive means ?
Yes I know mercury. But Eddie was just as brilliant as Keela was in detecting blood. IIRC some of the bones found in Jersey were hundreds of years old. But they must have had traces of blood on them if Eddie alerted to them.Err Benice, no, wrong on both accounts there, a) Eddie did not alert only where there was blood and b) there is a difference to what he and Keela alerted to, where did you get such an idea? that the only difference between a cadaver dog and a blood fnding dog is only in the manner in whch they alert?
The only difference between the two dogs is that Eddie barked in the vicinity of the odour and Keela froze at the precise spot,
Don't you find it strange that no alerts occurred in any of the other cars or the other apartments? The car video in particular clearly shows that Eddie was directed to spend far more time on the McCanns vehicle than the others - before there was an alert. And IMO that's the reason why he did not alert anywhere else.
The best crime scene dog's in the world found no evidence that Maddie died in 5A...that's another factThe best crime scene dogs in the world such as Eddie (bless his little paws, now deceased) alert to the remnant scent of a body, when no body is there, thats all they can do as trained to do so, they cant wag and point their finger to any judge!
Quite obviously I do ... unfortunately you are unable to comprehend "no evidence" which in a nutshell is what Eddie's much lauded alerts consist of.
Think about it rationally just for a second ... if your confidence in these alerts is so unshakeable ... why didn't the Final Report recommend any arrests based on them?
Was it because unlike Mr Amaral at the time and countless others taking his lead and following like sheep ... they had actually read and they had understood the forensic report?
The best crime scene dogs in the world such as Eddie (bless his little paws, now deceased) alert to the remnant scent of a body, when no body is there, thats all they can do as trained to do so, they cant wag and point their finger to any judge!
Thats the fact.
you show how little you understand about the dogs...eddie is an EVRA dog...V stands for victim...eddie is trained to find bodies or body parts...physical evidence..
I understand these dogs totally, but I have to ask, is it possble for you to ever post without attacking another member in any way shape or form? No, is the answer I guess.
PS its EVRD not EVRA
Oh, also dont say that to Ferryman, he would say there is nosuch thng as an EVRD cos E stands for enhanced, as in Eddie recieved enhanced training, ie on real dead humans, in the USA, whch Ferryman says is a lie...
BTW Eddie reacts to REMNANT dead body scent as well as physical in situ!
&%+((£
Yes Davel, the problem being "contamination" in the last place a missing child was in and none elsewhere, serious doubts whichever way you want to slice it
See you later, dont like seeing my username all along the right hand side of the board, feels like hogging, but just quiet, tara
You do know what inconclusive means ?
It is circumstantial evidence.
The forensic reported neither confirmed or dismissed the possibility of a body.
Do you comprehend that ?
and if a body is at some point found, then it is a whole different ball game.
BTW, your continued attention to this topic reveals why you and other mccann supporters are so clearly worried by the dogs.
Likewise, gm in the trial, tried that on with the judges.
It didn't wash there either.
That forensic report of 5A showed nothing at all of significance. It wouldn't have confirmed or excluded that you, me or even Madeleine had even ever set foot in that apartment, let alone died there.
I don't exclude that she may have died in that flat - it's a possibility; my point is just that the forensic report didn't show anything to indicate that that had happened.
The forensic report isn't that difficult to understand. I really don't understand why some people keep perpetuating the myth of non-existent blood spatters or other body fluids of a sinister nature that have no basis in fact.
It's almost as if some people are hoping that this was is the case for some unfathomable reason.
Two straightforward points.
There were insufficient D.N.A. markers to identify Madeleine's presence in the samples examined.
Second, the dogs either alerted to a body or they didn't.
Comes to to a question of probability, or what you believe happened to Madeleine.
.
you can believe what you want...you can believe in father Christmas but there is no evidence to support this..
you can believe maddie died in the apartment...but there is no evidence to support this
There is no evidence she is alive either.
'
You can believe ' pH - pOH ' has significance, but it doesn't. That by the way was one of your classics.
There is no evidence she is alive either.
'
You can believe ' pH - pOH ' has significance, but it doesn't. That by the way was one of your classics.
your problem is that you have no concept of accuracy....no concept of precision. I have never said pH-pOH has any significance...the fact that it hasn't meant you couldn't find the answer on google...I said it has a value...and it does....and you continue to make yourself look a fool by not understanding that.....
and you are wildly off topic as usual
now on topic...you state..There is no evidence she is alive either
that is correct...your use of the word either shows you accept that there is no evidence maddie is dead...
so Maddie may be alive...or sadly she may be dead...so amaral misunderstood...the title of the thread...so glad you agree...
and as it is accepted she may be alive..fact...what does that mean for the alerts...it means they were not to Maddie's body
I merely pointed out you talk nonsense.
That equation has no value or merit.
If it had, you would found an example, and you can't, because there isn't one.
and dave I don't need Google to teach Chemistry, or understand it.
Unlike you.
The only people who believe Madeleine is still alive are those who believe in fairy tales.#
I am not one of them.
How about you ?
was also the last place the police were...either accidental...they were pretty poor with their forensic techniques...or even deliberate to put pressure on the mccanns to force a confessionWhat?
What?
The police(if contamnated due to normal duties) werent JUST in 5A so that argument is vacuous, unless you were thinking thry okNted sinethng, if so, why not just say
Do I really have to start Deleting?
The PJ if contaminated....police deal with dead bodies ...were in 5A...the car and handled the clothes...and were in other flats too, where Eddie didnt alert, sigh
What?
The police(if contamnated due to normal duties) werent JUST in 5A so that argument is vacuous, unless you were thinking they planted something, if so, why not just say
and were in other flats too, where Eddie didnt alert, sigh
my post directly raised the possibility of planted evidence...this has to be considered a possibilitywhy? you cant be serious
what other flats were the PJ in .... citeerr all the other flats eddie was taken to unless you thnk the PJ planted evidence before the dogs were even considered
#
I haven't said I believe Maddie is still alive...you continue to make a fool of yourself
err all the other flats eddie was taken to
err all the other flats eddie was taken to unless you thnk the PJ planted evidence before the dogs were even considered
You like fairy tales of Madeleine returning, don't you.
There were pj who only went into 5a...who handled the clothes...who drove the car....contamination possibleReally? Oh dear.
thepj knew the dogs were coming and could have planted evidence the day before
Really? Oh dear.
OK,who were the PJ members who ONLY went into 5A and then drove the Mccanns hire car and handled clothes and thus contaminating deliberately or accidentally?
As for your speculation, that the PJ planted cadaver odour, its too silly for words for so many reasons
we know the pj were in 5a...no reports or reason for them to enter any other apartment'reason to NOT plant evidence? Oh dear as I said before, and
Could you give the reasons why the pj would not plant evidence..no where near as stupid as maddie dying almost immediately from falling off a sofa...now that is really stupid
reason to NOT plant evidence? Oh dear as I said before, and
yes the PJ went into all 7 apartments and Murats villa searched by Eddie
PS How do rogue police plant cadaver odour, like, in detail please, thanks
you didn't say before...
simply take a rag to the mortuary and wipe it over the face of a cadaver....wipe the same rag over areas in the apartment..car and clothes...
you didn't say before...OMG
simply take a rag to the mortuary and wipe it over the face of a cadaver....wipe the same rag over areas in the apartment..car and clothes...
it really is that simple
OMG
@)(++(*
Yes Im sure this happens all the time
it is certainly possible...unlike maddie dying falling off a sofa which many on here seem to believe
Some long forgotten Tiler could well have cut himself. And so it seems did the person who raised the tiles.
Eddie was fine, he just wasn't a proper Cadaver Dog, so no one, not even Martin Grime knew what he was alerting to.
Merely because the davel doesn't say something could happen as a result of a fall, doesn't make it true.
you didn't say before...
simply take a rag to the mortuary and wipe it over the face of a cadaver....wipe the same rag over areas in the apartment..car and clothes...
you are getting confused...I have said that there are no reports of instant death from a fall involving a child in adomestic situation...that seems to be a fact as no one has been able to produce a report
Are all accidents reported davel ?
Can you say with 100% certainty it couldn't ?
Are all accidents reported davel ?could have been toenails or sweat though
Can you say with 100% certainty it couldn't ?
Basically, as I said earlier, it comes down to two options, either the dogs alerted to a body or they didn't.
Are all accidents reported davel ?
Can you say with 100% certainty it couldn't ?
Basically, as I said earlier, it comes down to two options, either the dogs alerted to a body or they didn't.
that's on topic...and true..the dogs may have alerted to a body..or they may not...amaral was wrong to conclude they didwrong is better than satan, an improvement I suppose
Forensics found nothing in the Prout case but the police knew what Eddie alerted to. They just had to prove it.
that's on topic...and true..the dogs may have alerted to a body..or they may not...amaral was wrong to conclude they did
you didn't say before...
simply take a rag to the mortuary and wipe it over the face of a cadaver....wipe the same rag over areas in the apartment..car and clothes...
In theory, that would seem possible. Even burying a bit of cloth in the nearby cemetary overnight might have done the trick.ah but what came first? Amaral's suspicions or the dog alerts? why on earth would Amaral suspect a fatal fall off the sofa werent it for the dogs
Until recently, I found that idea too far-fetched to be credible. Now, I'm not so sure.
I find it to be an amazing ooincidence that Eddie alerted to the precise areas that Amaral found suspicious in photos (the sofa that everyone and his brother would have checked behind before that photo was taken) and the dark travel case (aka "blue tennis bag") that wasn't there in the the subsequent photos taken the next day. The forensic squad didn't notice a travel case and check it? Seriously?
He made the conclusion as did others, based on the information made available.the others were also wrong...as you have admitted...the alert may or may not have indicated a cadaver
The forensic results did not show conclusive evidence either way, but then it wasn't the only information which pointed to a certain conclusion.
In theory, that would seem possible. Even burying a bit of cloth in the nearby cemetary overnight might have done the trick.
Until recently, I found that idea too far-fetched to be credible. Now, I'm not so sure.
I find it to be an amazing ooincidence that Eddie alerted to the precise areas that Amaral found suspicious in photos (the sofa that everyone and his brother would have checked behind before that photo was taken) and the dark travel case (aka "blue tennis bag") that wasn't there in the the subsequent photos taken the next day. The forensic squad didn't notice a travel case and check it? Seriously?
[/quote
ah but what came first? Amaral's suspicions or the dog alerts? why on earth would Amaral suspect a fatal fall off the sofa werent it for the dogs
The concept of planted cadaver scent is a bit silly tbh
amaral suspected the parents long before the dogs.....I find what you believe more than a bit silly..in fact very silly...so there you are
amaral suspected the parents long before the dogs.....I find what you believe more than a bit silly..in fact very silly...so there you are
No, the arguido status was removed because the case was shelved not because any authority deemed the Mccanns not guilty, how could they anyway if they said the crime was unknown
Legal technicality rather than exoneration
It doesnt really matter if he did or didnt in the context of this discussion, where its been put forward that delberate planting of cadaver odour was done near the sofa
do you understand? hope so
ps remnd me of what I beleve seeing as you know but I dont
@)(++(*
It doesnt really matter if he did or didnt in the context of this discussion, where its been put forward that delberate planting of cadaver odour was done near the sofa
do you understand? hope so
ps remnd me of what I beleve seeing as you know but I dont
@)(++(*
the case was shelved because of lack of evidence of any crime by the arguidos..they either had to be charged or released from arguido status
read your post and they will remind you of what you believe
the others were also wrong...as you have admitted...the alert may or may not have indicated a cadaver
when all the evidence was properly considered the arguido status was removed
post is singular
they is plural
which one are you referring to?
PS I am the only arbiter of my beliefs, not you, and wont be told what they are (or not told as is the case here) by you
Now have a lovely evenng and I shall be back later! to correct any more nonsense
you stated the arguido status was lifted because all the evidence was considered ie inferrng it was exoneration,it wasnt, thats all, it was lfted as is required when a case is shelved..IE put on semi pertanent hold
The Portuguese authorities have never cleared the parents
and arguido status can be initiated.
No doubt based on the dog's alert, they formulated a theory that Prout strangled his wife in the main house of the Prouts.
He strangled her in an outhouse, a few hundred yards away ....
And the dog alert formed no part of the prosecution's case.
Do you have a link for that please ferryman? I can't find one.
why was the case shelved...because of lack of evidence to proceed against the two arguidos...I am not implying( note not inferring) anything... just stating fact...
probably best to ignore my typos as your posts are full of grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors...
of course...but now evidence is needed which was not the case when the mccanns were made arguidaYes, the Portuguese judiciary allowed the PJ to make them arguidos based in someones evil whim...how gruesome
How extremely pedantic pointless and petty of you
Having a space bar problem sometimes is not a sign of being grammatically stupid, will give you the "pertinant" point though, silly me, must give my A Level English Lit and Language certificates back and hope for their returns when I learn to spell "pertinent"
Im happy to stop replyng to silly posts such as Amaral snooped down the local morgue and wiped his hanky on a handy corpse then ran to flat 5a to smear it in the sofa and bed so as to frame the Mccanns, even if you cant stand the man, theres limits to "sensible" debate surely
Im happy to stop replyng to silly posts such as Amaral snooped down the local morgue and wiped his hanky on a handy corpse then ran to flat 5a to smear it in the sofa and bed so as to frame the Mccanns, AND that this idea is more likely than a child dyng by an accident, even if you cant stand the man, theres limits to "sensible" debate surely
you will find that my accusation of evidence planting will stay as it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion
Im happy to stop replyng to silly posts such as Amaral snooped down the local morgue and wiped his hanky on a handy corpse then ran to flat 5a to smear it in the sofa and bed so as to frame the Mccanns, AND that this idea is more likely than a child dyng by an accident, even if you cant stand the man, theres limits to "sensible" debate surelyb
as you have criticised me then....your misuse of the word infer instead of imply was you most revealing errorStill at the nonsense? Oh well, take a chill pill dear
Pheasant pen, it would seem
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139103/Millionaire-farmer-strangled-wife-driving-pub-glass-whisky-inquest-hears.html
On the other hand mercury, who would have believed when Madeleine disappeared that her case would be investigated by two corrupt policemen. One willing to lie to pervert the course of justice, and the other willing to torture people to get 'a result'. And who have both ended up with criminal records because they had no qualms about abusing the power which had been entrusted to them.
You do realise that by suggesting that the PJ planted cadaver scent in the apartment you are accepting that Eddie's alerts were correct? Therefore, if they didn't plant cadaver scent a body must have been there at some point?
Not at all , you are mistakenlast point is dud as police confirmed no one had ever died there before, so you are mistaken there
There are several scenarios
Eddie could be wrong
Grime could be wrong
The alerts may have been due to contamination
There may have been a cadaver in the apartment previously
last point is dud as police confirmed no one had ever died there before, so you are mistaken there
you also have to furnish us with evidence or reason of how Mr Grime could be wrong,tia
Not at all , you are mistaken
There are several scenarios
Eddie could be wrong
Grime could be wrong
The alerts may have been due to contamination
There may have been a cadaver in the apartment previously
There has to be a reason why the alerts are not admissible......keep saying that to yourself, one day you might actually believe it
The only one I can think of is they are not reliable
Not at all , you are mistaken
There are several scenarios
Eddie could be wrong
Grime could be wrong
The alerts may have been due to contamination
There may have been a cadaver in the apartment previously
I'm referring to a cadaver with Maddie as a possibility ...no dud
but then again Eddie and Grime might have been right and you are wrong.
In which case PJ officers wiping cadavers and planting the scent in the apartment were wasting their time, weren't they? You can't have your cake and eat it. One minute the dog was wrong, next minute it was right but it was a plant gov. 8(>((
In which case PJ officers wiping cadavers and planting the scent in the apartment were wasting their time, weren't they? You can't have your cake and eat it. One minute the dog was wrong, next minute it was right but it was a plant gov. 8(>((
PMSL, how true
@)(++(*
There is something wrong with the sequence of events proposed by Amaral to explain the dog alerts.Its possible Madleine died in 5a and its possible she was in the parents bedroom before or after, (MO went looking for her in her parents room rather than her own room for some reason and also Kate Mccann is on tv record saying you would never think someone would take your child out of "your bed") the alerts outside have always been a bit mysterious
If someone finds something in the lounge and takes it to the outdoors - all that happening within a tiny slot of a two or three minutes - why on earth would anyone waste time taking it into a wardrobe in a different room on the way - it would be pointless wouldn't it? - and Amaral fails to state a believable reason why someone would do that complicated diversion.
who is npe?
yes, bye now, dont bang your head and falloff the sofa on your way out lol
There is something wrong with the exact theory proposed by Amaral to explain the dog alerts.
If someone finds something in the lounge and takes it to the outdoors - all that happening within a tiny slot of a two or three minutes - why on earth would anyone waste time taking it into a wardrobe in a different room on the way - it would be pointless wouldn't it? - and Amaral fails to state a believable reason why someone would do that complicated diversion.
More likely on the way in perhaps if drinking is happening? @)(++(*No way, Davel is an intelligent super iq know it all poster with the best arguments around, we are all so stupid compared etc
Amaral's exact theory (which I think is wrong) has discovery in the last check about 10.00pm at location = sofa lounge. Then at 10.05pm he has location = Rua 25 Abril.
His theory provides no time and no reason to unnecessary sandwich another location = other bedroom in between. And what would be the point of that?
Amaral's exact theory (which I think is wrong) has discovery in the last check about 10.00pm at location = sofa lounge. Then at 10.05pm he has location = Rua 25 Abril.Amaral hypothetised, never had a concrete theory, dont blame him either
His theory provides no time and no reason to unnecessary sandwich another location = other bedroom in between. And what would be the point of that?
Amaral hypothetised, never had a concrete theory, dont blame him eitherIMO big omission is he never offered any behavioural explanation for his cupboard hypothesis
err no you posted no cadaver in the apartment previously
so yes dud
Amaral hypothetised, never had a concrete theory, dont blame him either
No way, Davel is an intelligent super iq know it all poster with the best arguments around, we are all so stupid compared etc
Stop being so silly, its FAR more likely that Mr Amaral visited the local morgue and swept his hanky over the nearest corpse then popped along to flat 5a pretending to have a sniffle whilst surreptitiously wiping said hanky over furniture etc
Bloody Laurel and Hardy werent as funny!!
previously...before the dogs arrived....it's called reacting to remnant scentyes, no deaths recorded previously ie prior to this case as told to us by police, and to be extra sure you understand, NO deaths before May 3 2007
IMO big omission is he never offered any behavioural explanation for his cupboard hypothesisHe didnt have to, he was pointing out facts
yes, no deaths recorded previously ie prior to this case as told to us by police, and to be extra sure you understand, NO deaths before May 3 2007
amaral's book was called the truth about the lie...that is ... the "truth"...he claimed he could prove Maddie died in 5a..
he couldn't...the man is a fool for that reason and so is anyone who believes him
He didnt have to, he was pointing out facts
of course he is...according to YOU then again he might not be, no need to get so het up really as its none of your business either way
never implied there were...perhaps you have inferred incorrectly
amaral got the basic facts totally wrong...which is inexcusable as the SIOno evidence he did so
No way, Davel is an intelligent super iq know it all poster with the best arguments around, we are all so stupid compared etc
Stop being so silly, its FAR more likely that Mr Amaral visited the local morgue and swept his hanky over the nearest corpse then popped along to flat 5a pretending to have a sniffle whilst surreptitiously wiping said hanky over furniture etc
Bloody Laurel and Hardy werent as funny!!
of course he is...according to YOU then again he might not be, no need to get so het up really as its none of your business either way
It's on a par with the 'source' who suggested that Kate Mccann and cuddle cat played with half a dozen corpses just before she went on holiday.
no evidence he did so
yup, you surely did in post 1303... suggested the possibility...your theoretical possibility was removed by the police who stated the fact there were none
no I didn't...you are wrong yet again.....no, youre wrong, this is a copy of your post 1303 where you DID suggest exactly that in the last sentence!
my post directly raised the possibility of planted evidence...this has to be considered a possibilityI have wondered that too.
amaral got the basic facts totally wrong...which is inexcusable as the SIOPartly wrong, not totally wrong.
Partly wrong, not totally wrong.
I think he managed to work out that Madeleine was missing ... can you think of anything else he got right?
David Payne saw Madeleine, alive and well, at around 1700 on May 3rd.
Amaral has never gone with before May 3rd.
David Payne saw Madeleine, alive and well, at around 1700 on May 3rd.
Amaral has never gone with before May 3rd.
Yeah ... I'll give him credit for that one ... but it didn't take rocket science to work it out. Pity about the dogs though, he picked up what he wanted to hear from the handler and ignored anything that didn't fit in with his perception of how and who.
Classic error there in trying to make the evidence fit the theory ... it is good to see the professional work being done by the PJ and SY now who are doing what professionals do and following the evidence.
and what these professionals found, after millions of Pounds and Euros spent ?
There is of course a simple one word answer. 8(>((
According to all the statements David Payne was at the beach at 1700.I am not checking what you are saying because you are being far too picky and precise.
I am not checking what you are saying because you are being far too picky and precise.
Just how accurate do you think these timings are? Especially the ones earlier in the day, which may not have seemed so important.
How far away do you think the beach is?
About 450 metres. A walk of about 4.5 minutes.
These people tended to jog, so less than 2 minutes probably
Just how accurate do you think these timings were? Be realistic, puleaze.
I cannot see that SY would still have 40 staff on the case if they had nothing to investigate. I look forward to when the can actually tell us what has gone on...at the moment they are governed by Portuguese secrecySpot on.
Spot on.
Mark my words,
... they know who they are after ... and wheels are grinding behind the scenes in the hopes that they can prove it beyond doubt.
Only IMO of course. 8(0(*
But they aint gonna tell us any way, are they?
I agree, Sadie. SY and The PJ know who they are after. They probably even know where Madeleine is, albeit possibly in a country from which it will be difficult to extract her.
And No, they ain't going to tell anyone anything.
They wouldn't spend millions on a search operation in Luz if they knew where she was.
You don't know where the millions are being spent, or where they are searching.
Amaral's exact theory (which I think is wrong) has discovery in the last check about 10.00pm at location = sofa lounge. Then at 10.05pm he has location = Rua 25 Abril.
His theory provides no time and no reason to unnecessary sandwich another location = cupboard other bedroom in between. And what would be the point of that?
We all saw where they were searching. On a hill - hope it wasn't Kate's dream.Good try
(https://zizipresscuts.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/praia-da-luz.png)
(http://static2.hln.be/static/photo/2014/12/16/14/20140706200817/media_xll_6880919.jpg)
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/75445000/jpg/_75445113_022632966-1.jpg)
Insp Paiva told the hearing in Lisbon: “Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying.
“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.
David Payne saw Madeleine, alive and well, at around 1700 on May 3rd.
Amaral has never gone with before May 3rd.
We all saw where they were searching. On a hill - hope it wasn't Kate's dream.
(https://zizipresscuts.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/praia-da-luz.png)
(http://static2.hln.be/static/photo/2014/12/16/14/20140706200817/media_xll_6880919.jpg)
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/75445000/jpg/_75445113_022632966-1.jpg)
Insp Paiva told the hearing in Lisbon: “Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying.
“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.
I think he managed to work out that Madeleine was missing ... can you think of anything else he got right?
Are sarcastic pointless put downs a staple for you?
How about criticising the British police who "sat" on "crecheman" for years and seemingly didn't have the nous to put 2 and 2 together and manage to come up with 4? Unless you are of the Redwood "made it all up brigade"
The British police had no jurisdiction ... in the meantime, in Portugal those who did and do were sitting on the self same efits ...funny that. By your reckoning, the PJ had no "nous" either.
They were tasked to assist and they failed if for years Tannerman was Crecheman.
Portuguese police did not have info on Crecheman OR Smithman efits, at least until 2009, if at all, after the case was shelved
Good try
But you got the wrong hill @)(++(*
They were tasked to assist, yes: they offered expert assistance and dealt with most of the coordination of the sightings with Interpol (to double-check), and any requests for UK-based enquries.
But why would that include obtaining crèche records for them? LP may have thought they'd done that, and it might have sounded a bit offensive to ask them if they had.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
I realise this is off topic and also another Groundhog day event!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-anyone-saying-were-2965383
So no-one knows why the 'innocent' Dad was overlooked and no-one knows who failed to spot his statement. No-one knows if LP passed the statement to the PJ, and if they did, what happened to it next. Very informative.
So no-one knows why the 'innocent' Dad was overlooked and no-one knows who failed to spot his statement. No-one knows if LP passed the statement to the PJ, and if they did, what happened to it next. Very informative.
Very true but the article manages to sow this little seed of doubt without any evidence to back it up:-
snip >>>>
In their liaison role, they may have simply forwarded the questionnaires to Portuguese police without analysing them themselves.
Even if they did consider the content, they may not have realised the relevance without access to all of the material.
The information should have been recognised as of great relevance by the Portuguese police.
snip <<<<
Or in other words: "nothing to do with us pal it were Johnny Foreigner what was less than diligent" %&5%£
It's possible that LP lost it, just as it's possible it was just passed on with whatever else came in. The PJ weren't interested in Tannerman anyway, once Jane couldn't identify the person as Murat. They then seem to have decided she'd made it up.
They were interested in Smithman, but that wasn't Murat either. And then they only appear to have pricked up their ears when Martin thought it might have been Gerry.
Did they ever actually check the night crèche records? There are no sheets in the files, yet there are Tapas reservations, the day crèche ones and accommodation bookings.
If it is accurate that crècheman contacted LP, then it wasn't the PJ requesting LP to follow up on records they'd obtained. If they had got the records (and they're simply not in the accessible files), and had asked LP to follow up and contact then, there's no correspondence to that effect.
The GNR and the PJ did ask a number of people whether they'd seen a man carrying a child or anything suspicious, but I can't see anything to indicate that the PJ had been asking if they themselves or someone they knew had carried their own child home that night.
Quite. I have no idea if the information was ever given to LP or if they ever passed it to the PJ. However, the PJ didn't rate Jane Tanner's evidence for two reasons; she wasn't seen by the two men she allegedly passed and her description of the man she saw got more detailed over time. Consequently, the PJ would have been very happy to have this info and would have chased it up diligently.
A position seemingly supported by probably the best police force in the world.
Sorry! but it's mantra time again @)(++(*
"It's never been the same since that nice DCI Redwood fragged Tannerman the Abductor".
Wait for it wait for it.
There are those who think nice DCI Redwood may have got it wrong. Just like the 'Drs McCann' they prefer Tannerman. I wonder why? Perhaps because nasty Mr Amaral favoured Smithman.
Who it has to be said was a person of interest who needed to be identified according to that same nice DCI Redwood formerly of "probably the police force in the world".
It would seem he hasn't come forward yet or The Yard are keeping shtum about it.
Amaral's exact theory (which I think is wrong) has discovery in the last check about 10.00pm at location = sofa lounge. Then at 10.05pm he has location = Rua 25 Abril.
His theory provides no time and no reason to unnecessary sandwich another location = cupboard other bedroom in between. And what would be the point of that?
Okay, back On Topic or the inevitable will occur.
Hi Eleanor, thought you'd gone somewhere ha ha.
Amaral believes the cadaver was moved from behind the sofa and hidden out of sight in the wardrobe so why he said Kate found the cadaver at that time is confusing to say the least. You would hide something if you thought it may be seen by others. You don't hide a cadaver there when people are opening wardrobes and frantically looking for a missing child. Any cadaver would be found so that puts the timeline back for that theory to work. The only credible solution for that theory is two separate moves - one out of 5A and a second later move to further away i.e. Smithman sighting.
It will have been puzzling to anyone, tryng to piece together all the evidence gathered. And, as far as I know, all he has insisted on was a belief that there was no abductor. The rest was hypothesising., ie the how, when and where of the child's demise. Remember, the Portuguese police had not even heard of cadaver dogs, let alone use them, before this case. (source was a PJ spokesman, whose name escapes me-the one who had said they are not suspects and days later said they were)
Before asking if the PJ checked the night creche records you first need to establish that they existed.Ahhh....
It will have been puzzling to anyone, tryng to piece together all the evidence gathered. And, as far as I know, all he has insisted on was a belief that there was no abductor. The rest was hypothesising., ie the how, when and where of the child's demise. Remember, the Portuguese police had not even heard of cadaver dogs, let alone use them, before this case. (source was a PJ spokesman, whose name escapes me-the one who had said they are not suspects and days later said they were)
There is really no excuse for not making oneself familiar with with workplace instruments, particularly if they are to be used as an integral part of one's job.
The Rebelo investigation probably put the correct interpretation on the expert advice given by the handler ...
" Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed.
The signals of an alert are only just that.
Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc." MARTIN GRIME: ROGATORY STATEMENT:03-CARTAS ROGATORIA 5 Pages 21 to 25
That certainly was clear enough at the time; unfortunately Mr Amaral just didn't understand it at the time or perhaps it wasn't explained to him as succinctly as it was laid out in the rog.
The Rebelo investigation didn't just run with the advertising blurb ... they wanted to know how the mechanism actually worked ... it seems they were able to accomplish that which led in due course to the release of the Drs McCann from their arguido status and unfortunately the shelving of the investigation into Madeleine's case.
Quote
PJ admits innocence of the McCann couple
They also doubt that the dogs that were used by the British police could have detected cadaver odour.
If the child did, in fact, die in the bedroom, was the short period that she stayed there, enough for odours to be released?
What biological transformations occur during the first hour after death?
These are the questions that they are looking for answers to.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?53176-Portuguese-Press-(Translations)-No-Discussion/page12
Unquote
There is really no excuse for not making oneself familiar with with workplace instruments, particularly if they are to be used as an integral part of one's job.
The Rebelo investigation probably put the correct interpretation on the expert advice given by the handler ...
" Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed.
The signals of an alert are only just that.
Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc." MARTIN GRIME: ROGATORY STATEMENT:03-CARTAS ROGATORIA 5 Pages 21 to 25
That certainly was clear enough at the time; unfortunately Mr Amaral just didn't understand it at the time or perhaps it wasn't explained to him as succinctly as it was laid out in the rog.
The Rebelo investigation didn't just run with the advertising blurb ... they wanted to know how the mechanism actually worked ... it seems they were able to accomplish that which led in due course to the release of the Drs McCann from their arguido status and unfortunately the shelving of the investigation into Madeleine's case.
Quote
PJ admits innocence of the McCann couple
They also doubt that the dogs that were used by the British police could have detected cadaver odour.
If the child did, in fact, die in the bedroom, was the short period that she stayed there, enough for odours to be released?
What biological transformations occur during the first hour after death?
These are the questions that they are looking for answers to.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?53176-Portuguese-Press-(Translations)-No-Discussion/page12
Unquote
Any seasoned policeman or woman would take the dog alert as significant and not just "open to interpretation".
There would be no use using cadaver dogs if you could interpret their alerts as coming possibly from pizza or people having BO!
How do you know what any seasoned policeman would think...the alerts indicate nothing and are evidence of nothing...at least that is what Grime said
Ahhh....
Good to be able to agree with you.
Did they actually exist?
You better write to all police forces worldwide who use cadaver dogs and let them know their alerts mean nothng, might save them some time energy and money
And please don't twist Grime's words to suit
if the alerts had any value they would be admissible as evidence ...grime has made it clear that the alerts themselves are of no value without corroboration. the dogs are used world wide to find evidence...if they never found any ...as in this case..they would not be used
Eddie alerted in the Prout case and found nothing. I assume they brought him in because they suspected Prout. The police didn't wander off saying 'no body, no evidence, he didn't do it' though. They continued to gather circumstantial evidence and got a conviction with it. I have no way of knowing what they thought about Eddie's alert, but I imagine they bore it in mind.
if the alerts had any value they would be admissible as evidence ...grime has made it clear that the alerts themselves are of no value without corroboration. the dogs are used world wide to find evidence...if they never found any ...as in this case..they would not be usedNo, your problem is you have to decide why police use cadaver dogs and it's not just in case they find a body, anyone can do that
if the alerts had any value they would be admissible as evidence ...grime has made it clear that the alerts themselves are of no value without corroboration. the dogs are used world wide to find evidence...if they never found any ...as in this case..they would not be used
No, your problem is you have to decide why police use cadaver dogs and it's not just in case they find a body, anyone can do that
This is what grime said...
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Not is alerting..but is possibly alerting...
they are used to find evidence...bodies...body parts. Without finding evidence there alerts are of no use
He is a police officer and he knows the law. He is stating the legal position. When he uses the word 'possible' he isn't referring to the alert, (we all know Eddie alerted, after all, and Grime mentions 'this alert', so no doubts about that) he is referring to the reason for the alert; possibly cadaver scent contamination.
if the alerts had any value they would be admissible as evidence ...grime has made it clear that the alerts themselves are of no value without corroboration. the dogs are used world wide to find evidence...if they never found any ...as in this case..they would not be used
Eek! Something we agree on. They should have, as there should have been contact info like with the day creches. I've read one witness statement saying they were contacted at night because their child cried, but can't remember who it was at the moment. Unless the PJ had them and didn't include them in the files I can't imagine Mark Warner keeping them for years until SY came along.
And neither can I.Yes the evening creche was free.
Such transiant things as the occasional evening at the creche could even have had all the details and signatures written on a notepad. To be screwed up and thrown away once all the children had been collected, signed for and any charges had been paid.
Now please remind me. Was the evening creche free?
If so, once all the children had been collected and signed for, it is quite likely that the list would have been scrapped IMO
But once again, we dont know.
Yes the evening creche was free.Number five, kids were allowed in the Tapas Restaraunt. But leaving them alone in an insecure apartment on the corner of a main street was considered the best and safest option for some reason. "We've all done it" after all, some say, but adding, not me personally. They were two and three not nine or ten!
And professional in-apartment evening childcare was available for 15 euros an hour.
And the apartment was self-catering with full kitchen.
And the Tapas restaurant offered a takeaway service.
Four safe options IFLG and BP failed to mention, and any of them would have resulted in this dog thread never existing.
No...they alert to remnant scent as well, there may be no physical evidence for it, but its still evidence
Number five, kids were allowed in the Tapas Restaraunt. But leaving them alone in an insecure apartment on the corner of a main street was considered the best and safest option for some reason. "We've all done it" after all, some say, but adding, not me personally. They were two and three not nine or ten!
no the alerts are not evidence...Grime has made that clear...
you are wrong yet again...I have said on several occasions that I have done exactly the same as the McCcanns...25 yrs ago..In a small minority then,thats OK
They are evidence. Evidence of a cadaver dog alerting to cadaverscent which it has been trained for. Quite the opposite to them meaning nothing at all as you asserted before. If dog alerts mean nothing they wouldnt be used. But please yourself.
In a small minority then,thats OK
you are wrong yet again...I have said on several occasions that I have done exactly the same as the McCcanns...25 yrs ago..
So to summarise....
According to Grime...
The alerts are not evidence..
The alerts are possibly to cadaver odour
The alerts are suggestive of cadaver odour
The alerts could be due to contamination
According to SY..the PJ and amaral's lawyer...maddie may still be alive
Points three and four say it all, ie, yes, cadaver dogs alert to cadaver odour
just pointing out that what you said was wrong
they do....they also alert to blood..the alerts to not prove that abody was ever present at that site..You cant prove a remnant cadaver scent alert
what you don't understand is that the alerts suggest cadaver odour...they do not confirm it...according to Grime
It is a fact many journalists have stated "we've all done it" though "not me personally" which is an oxymoron at best
If you decided to leave your babies alone, whilst going out, your problem, and a risk you took, whether my post was right or wrong in your eyes!
In a small minority then,thats OK
Are you saying you left three children under five sleeping in an unlocked apartment in another country while you went out for dinner for two to three hours?
You cant prove a remnant cadaver scent alert
The arguments about alledged blood alerts by cadaver dog in this case have not been proven, oh hello, because its impossible
never seen...not me personally...reckon you are making it up...prove me wrong with a quote
Your reckoning is often wrong, why on earth would I "make anything up"
You will have your quote, then that might shut you up.
As I said the other day, the dogs alerted to a body or they didn't.
Since the dogs clearly worried thew mccanns and the lack of evidence of anything else, well to use one of Sadie's words, they are POINTERS.
get back on topic
so the remnant scent cannot be proved...that's the whole point...we do not know if it is factual or not...yet amaral has said he can prove maddie died in the apartment based on remnant scent..he can'tNo, the point is you can't have proof if proof isn't possible, with remnant scent on it's own,doesn't mean the cadaver dog alert "means nothng"
I doubt there will be any quote..it doesn't exist...perhaps if you cannot supply the quote...you should shut upLorraine Kelly , Kate Garraway and Fiona Phillips from GMTV has said "we've all done it" then qualified it with " I wouldn't personally" do it
As I said the other day, the dogs alerted to a body or they didn't.
Since the dogs clearly worried thew mccanns and the lack of evidence of anything else, well to use one of Sadie's words, they are POINTERS.
that's right... there may have been a body...or there might not...so the alerts tell us nothing
No they weren't Pointers Stephen - they were Spaniels.
(sorry I'll get me coat) :-)
No they weren't Pointers Stephen - they were Spaniels.
(sorry I'll get me coat) :-)
get back on topic
@)(++(*
good one B
nice to have a bit of humour sometimes in this depressing board
Ty mercury. I'm sorry you find the board depressing - I think it's a fantastic forum - as it's the only one I know of where (thanks to the mods) both 'sides' can debate their very different opinions with one-another.
Lorraine Kelly , Kate Garraway and Fiona Phillips from GMTV has said "we've all done it" then qualified it with " I wouldn't personally" do it
Most people remember this,not my problem if you don't or wish to accuse me of "making it up"
PS If I have time I will try and fish videos out from youtube IF they still exist
No, the point is you can't have proof if proof isn't possible, with remnant scent on it's own,doesn't mean the cadaver dog alert "means nothng"
so you cannot supply an exact quoteNot at the mo so was "obviously making it up"... just for fun
I said that that the existence of remnant scent cannot be proven
depressing as in the subject matter
so you cannot supply an exact quote
your usual ad hominem attack
So dave, how many people have done what the mccanns did ?
I give credit to Eleanor for admitting to doing it.
One of my students parents left their young son in a hotel room which was unlocked in Tenarife about 15 years ago. He got out (he was 3 years old at the time). The rest of the family were out to dinner, but fortunately for them, other people recognized their son and brought him back after he was wondering down a local road. They were lucky.
In my opinion, Eddie smelt an aroma that could have been from anything left on the floor after one of the people who stayed there after the McCann's. Eddie was called back so many times in my opinion he barked at the smell because he wanted to end the exercise.So you think the dog got fed up, and just wanted his tennis ball or biscuit quick, and alerted to "anythng" on the floor, maybe it was a sweaty flip flop? from a later holiday maker, but no chance the possibility of the Mccanns child, interesting sort of blanket denial
What's that got to do with 'Amaral and the dogs'? Another opportunity for you to repeat the 'left the children' AGAIN Stephen.well they did didnt they??
In my opinion, Eddie smelt an aroma that could have been from anything left on the floor after one of the people who stayed there after the McCann's. Eddie was called back so many times in my opinion he barked at the smell because he wanted to end the exercise.
well they did didnt they??
No it was me who said that, your mantra is the dog alerts mean nothing
Can you back up all the claims you have made ?
The whole question of dog-alerts is just too fraught with unanswered questions:
Why could Eddie detect no scent on clothing in the villa he (apparently!) could (exactly the same clothing!) in the gym?
Was cuddle-cat an error of commission?
Or an error of omission?
Why were the 'inspections' of all other holiday apartments whistle-stop; yet the inspection of apartment 5a long-drawn out and protracted?
Why did Mark Harrison, in his report, expressly disavow UK involvement in those inspections he had nothing to do with (the places Madeleine never lived in or went near).
And so on ....
You could add to that:
Why did Martin Grime wear head to toe protective clothing during the car search, but only wore gloves during the search of the apartments?
As you say there are many unanswered questions re the dogs - but although I regard MG as an excellent dog trainer, unlike some - I have not ruled him out of the human race when it comes to possible human error - and neither does he apparently.
Quote
Asked about the ‘human remains’ found by Eddie that turned out to be coconut, Grime said bizarrely: ‘People aren’t right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn’t be human.’
Unquote
In response to the question I underline, guess which video Grime used to promote himself when he enrolled for the gig at Haut de la Garenne, Jersey ....
without corroboration they mean nothingNo, without corroboration,which can't exist for remnant scent on it's own, they just mean uncorroborated but not meaningless
So ferryman, do you accept the dog might or might not have alerted to a body ?
There was no body.
No, without corroboration,which can't exist for remnant scent on it's own, they just mean uncorroborated but not meaningless
So you think the dog got fed up, and just wanted his tennis ball or biscuit quick, and alerted to "anythng" on the floor, maybe it was a sweaty flip flop? from a later holiday maker, but no chance the possibility of the Mccanns child, interesting sort of blanket denial
@)(++(*
@ Benice no problems, I did say before, but got deleted
so...then tell us what they mean...try reading Stephen's post..he seems to undestand
If you read up about these dogs you will find that yes they will do exactly that.Oh, right, I find that hard to believe. If true it makes a mockery of so much.So, no, I probably won't believe it. Never even read anything to say a dog got tired/fed up so just barked.
So you think the dog got fed up, and just wanted his tennis ball or biscuit quick, and alerted to "anythng" on the floor, maybe it was a sweaty flip flop? from a later holiday maker, but no chance the possibility of the Mccanns child, interesting sort of blanket denial
@)(++(*
@ Benice no problems, I did say before, but got deleted
They mean that a cadaver dog alerted to what he had been trained to, ie cadaver odour, so not "nothing"
Oh, right, I find that hard to believe. If true it makes a mockery of so much.So, no, I probably won't believe it. Never even read anything to say a dog got tired/fed up so just barked.
ETA re your post below, Eddie wasn't deployed in 5A for hours anyway. If your claim is true, he would be barking at the end of that day's shift rather than at the start (which was 5A)
I'd appreciate a link when you get a spare minute anyway,thanks
I can substantiate very claim I have made...where do you want to start
Two requests were deleted. &%+((£
Now can you substantiate that no child has died from a fall of a couch, straight after or after a delay, onto a concrete floor ?
Here is another detail that has always intrigued me, from the inspection in the gym:
1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.
2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.
A prior inspection of the gym by both dogs with no odour detected.
Then an inspection of clothing that (apparently) resulted in detection of odour on certain clothing.
Except that, there was no gap between the prior inspection of the premises and the inspection of the clothing, tending to suggest that the clothes were already laid out before the inspection of the premises.
So why was no odour detected during the inspection of the premises?
And what was the point of the inspection of the premises?
Had there been any coconuts in the box previouslyOr was the cardboard box made in part of coconut fibre?
Here is another detail that has always intrigued me, from the inspection in the gym:Thankyou. By looking at the original portuguese of what you posted, some progress is made:
1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.
2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.
A prior inspection of the gym by both dogs with no odour detected.
Then an inspection of clothing that (apparently) resulted in detection of odour on certain clothing.
Except that, there was no gap between the prior inspection of the premises and the inspection of the clothing, tending to suggest that the clothes were already laid out before the inspection of the premises.
So why was no odour detected during the inspection of the premises?
And what was the point of the inspection of the premises?
Or was the cardboard box made in part of coconut fibre?
Or were all the alerts due to transfer from a coir doormat?
Or was a coconut dropped by a migrating swallow and rolled into the underground parking garage and ...
Presumably an African Swallow.But African swallows do not migrate. European swallows do, they go to Africa and back.
But African swallows do not migrate. European swallows do, they go to Africa and back.
So maybe small particles of coconut dropped from a European swallow returning from Africa, onto the items being tested in Portimao?
But African swallows do not migrate. European swallows do, they go to Africa and back.
So maybe small particles of coconut dropped from a European swallow returning from Africa, onto the items being tested in Portimao?
Thankyou. By looking at the original portuguese of what you posted, some progress is made:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2101.jpg
The alerted items were from box "sala comum".
There was another box "sala da estar" (which produced no alerts).
Some internet research reveals that in open-plan layouts in portugal where there is both a "sala da estar" area and a "sala comum" area, usually the "sala comum" refers to the dining area.
IMO the the alerted clothes were all from the dining area of the Rua Das Flores house.
Certainly all the clothes, apparently, "alerted" to came from the same box, which is probably what prompted the question put to Grime in his rogatory interview about cross-contamination.
He confirmed that cross-contamination is immediate (indeed it is!)
Here is the link to the article - http://csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
In my opinion Eddie looked hot he was panting a lot, he was called back numerous times.
a very interesting article ...read the whole of it ...it gives some good pointers how false positives can occur..See also the study on the same csst site which found that a minimum of 85 minutes post-mortem interval was required for even one of their five dogs to alert.
a dog repeatedly called back will get tired and alert just to end the search....very interesting. No wonder Grime thought it important to point out that without confirmation the alerts should not be taken as evidence
See also the study on the same csst site which found that a minimum of 85 minutes post-mortem interval was required for even one of their five dogs to alert.
Compare that with Mr Amaral's theory which has PMI commencing hypothetiacally at the earliest at 9.10pm (chat outside window) and add the csst minimum 85 minutes to that which gives at earliest 10.35pm which obviously would make it impossible the Smith sighting is relevant. IMO Amaral's theory (sofa during chat + smith sighting) doesn't work.
a very interesting article ...read the whole of it ...it gives some good pointers how false positives can occur..
a dog repeatedly called back will get tired and alert just to end the search....very interesting. No wonder Grime thought it important to point out that without confirmation the alerts should not be taken as evidence
See also the study on the same csst site which found that a minimum of 85 minutes post-mortem interval was required for even one of their five dogs to alert.
Compare that with Mr Amaral's theory which has PMI commencing hypothetiacally at the earliest at 9.10pm (chat outside window) and add the csst minimum 85 minutes to that which gives at earliest 10.35pm which obviously would make it impossible the Smith sighting is relevant. IMO Amaral's theory (sofa during chat + smith sighting) doesn't work.
Inconsistencies - first at 6:30, second at 9:10 and third at 10:03.Your theory (which I don't agree with) would need either to provide a minimum 1 hour 25 minutes in the first location, or to find other research which disproves the CSST study (which found that minimum time).
Your theory (which I don't agree with) would need either to provide a minimum 1 hour 25 minutes in the first location, or to find other research which disproves the CSST study (which found that minimum time).
Not necessarily. Something could have happened to the child indoors at any time if the parents did not check them, or didn't notice, before or after going out.
The child was last seen at 5.30pm by strangers. Loads of time for anything to occur.
if Maddie had an accident and died between 5.30 and 8.30...no need for a cover upThe tmeline is 5.30 to 10 (ish)
The tmeline is 5.30 to 10 (ish)
1. So Eddie was trained as a Rescue Dog at first, Therefore he would have been trained to find live human beings,
For that he would need to be trained as a Decomp Dog to recognise the scents of human tissue, urine, semen, blood, etc. + materials handled (worn) by live humans
Decomp Dog
A term used to describe a canine that will indicate when a scent source is human tissue, blood, semen, urine, feces, and materials that have been handled and worn by humans; often cross trained for other purposes.
2. Later he was trained as a Cadaver dog, or so we are told.
But is Eddie truly a Cadavar Dog?
Cadaver Dog
A narrow term, used in a search-and-rescue context, to indicate a canine primarily trained as a tracking or air-scent dog that has also received cross training in the location of dead human bodies. But he found NO dead bodies !
So Cadavar dog does not cover what Eddie was supposed to do. He was not specifically trained to search and rescue, nor tracking, nor air-scent work ... and he wasn't actually finding any dead bodies
3. In reality Eddie is a Forensic Search Dog .... or he should be for the work he was doing.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; **** and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.****
4. At different periods,
a) Eddie was trained to look for living humans with their urine, blood, living tissue, etc scents
b) Eddie was trained to scent sources from decomposed human tissue. Such as a Forensic Search Dog and he was not supposed to alert to the residual scent of a live human
5. Poor dog. Eddie received two opposing sets of training.
No wonder he appeared a bit schizophrenic when he was racing around the cars
To remind you,
The Forensic Search Dog, which Eddie actually was
**** should have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.****
With thanks to Lace and http://csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
You let your own blindness, as with other mccann supporters, to be unable to grasp that dogs are very adaptable and can be retrained.
you obviously haven't read the article
we are told 85 mins for cadaver in situ to develop scent....again...why the cover up if an accident happened before 8.30
"I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom...........I was very clear about this, as having heard him say that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone."
From the article linked to earlier:
) A severely fatigued dog can inadvertently be pressured to give a false alert because it wants to terminate the search in order to rest. Therefore, it is important to maintain the dog at a high level of physical fitness so that it may work for multiple hours with only brief rest periods.
6) Dogs used to develop probable cause based upon residual scent must be negatively conditioned to human urine, feces, and semen in order to ensure that the animal will not alert when encountering these substances during a search. All dogs, no matter what level of training, used in the detection of decomposed human tissue should be negatively conditioned to the scent of decomposed non-human tissue. It must be kept in mind, however, that many dogs will react or show interest to any decomposed tissue at certain short times during the decomposition process.
7) Training for dogs used in search-and-rescue for lost persons (cadaver dogs) and for general field searching to find visible decomposed remains is generally appropriate and effective for that type of situation, but not for highly specialized situations or to build probable cause based solely upon residual scent.
You let your own blindness, as with other mccann supporters, to be unable to grasp that dogs are very adaptable and can be retrained.
If you read the literature, of which there is plenty, dogs cannot be 'untrained' to ignore earlier training.
For example, a dog trained on pig foetuses will always respond to dead pig.
For this reason cadaver dogs in some States in the USA are trained solely on complete human remains ~ human body parts and nothing else.
Who said dogs can be 'untrained' ?
Your ill informed posts just cannot stand beside the researched posts from Sadie (which is the one you chose to denigrate) and Ferryman ... which lay out to all but those who will not comprehend ... that dogs can be "retrained" (your word) or fresh skills added to their repertoire ... but cannot be "untrained" (my word) to forget old skills.
Is that clear enough for you?
So dogs can't learn new skills ?
As to ferryman and sadie, they find 'research' which suits their purposes.
That is well known, and neither are experts.
Dogs can learn new skills. But they can't unlearn old ones.
I didn't say they could.
So what was Eddie alerting to?
So what was Eddie alerting to?
we are told 85 mins for cadaver in situ to develop scent....again...why the cover up if an accident happened before 8.30
Sausages
Sausages
Pork or Beef?
More likely chicken. 8)-)))
So which dogs were severely fatigued ?Next they'll be assuring us that Eddie's total lack of reliability was due to his being tired and fatigued out after a long woof (and probably pining for the yorkshire dales too).
Your continued attempts to dismiss the dogs and Grime, really shows desperation.
Next they'll be assuring us that Eddie's total lack of reliability was due to his being tired and fatigued out after a long woof (and probably pining for the yorkshire dales too).
Next they'll be assuring us that Eddie's total lack of reliability was due to his being tired and fatigued out after a long woof (and probably pining for the yorkshire dales too).
Next they'll be assuring us that Eddie's total lack of reliability was due to his being tired and fatigued out after a long woof (and probably pining for the yorkshire dales too).
Are you after an argument?I already replied Slarti, why do you keep asking?
if Maddie had an accident and died between 5.30 and 8.30...no need for a cover upPrecisely.
To remind you, stephen, Eddie was not really a Cadavar Dog
In reality Eddie was a Forensic Search Dog .... or he should have been for the work he was doing.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; **** and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.****
But Eddie had previously been trained to be a Rescue and Decomp Dog
Decomp Dog
A term used to describe a canine that will indicate when a scent source is human tissue, blood, semen, urine, feces, and materials that have been handled and worn by humans; often cross trained for other purposes.
Once a dog has been trained to alert to something, that cannot be unlearned. He cannot be deconditioned.
So Eddie alerts
1) to blood, semen, urine, feces etc. from living humans and materials that have been worn by living humans
2) to scent sources from decomposed human tissue
3) And he was trained on pig carcases.
So as davel says to pork sausages. Also to bacon sarnies, and pork sarnies[/b]
With thanks to Lace and http://csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
That is so wrong it's quite amusing;
The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Just to remind posters as to what the thread is about......amaral stated in his book...
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
amaral was wrong to assume this.....posters still believe this now...they are wrong...contributors to his fund believe this...they are wrong
Edited to amend.
I see you were quoting Grime.
Enough said ....
Common sense tells us that a dog alerting to food would be of no use at all ever. I don't need Grime to tell me that.
Cadaver dogs do not alert to bacon sandwiches or pork sausages!! Or semen or sweat etc. I have a book on cadaver dogs. Will post for you guys if you like.
Also a very large part of the reason (though far from the whole reason) why Dr Amaral lost the libel trial .....
A bit pedantic, but still it was a damages trial, no? At least that it was what that poster oxfordbloo claimed and he seemed to have good knowledge of Portuguese law.
What would be interesting to know is how far forensics have progressed since 2007 and if there is much forensic material left from 2007. That could certainly put this matter to bed. Seems SY applied for and got material collected. What that material was we don't know but newspaper reports suggested the curtains...
Cadaver dogs do not alert to bacon sandwiches or pork sausages!! Or semen or sweat etc. I have a book on cadaver dogs. Will post for you guys if you like.So what DO they alert to when no evidence of any corpse is found? For example Zampo the cadaver dog which alerted numerous times in a forest in which the handler believed murders and dismemberments had taken place but which later turned out to be untrue?
If you wish to post on this thread perhaps you could address the topic of the thread
So what DO they alert to when no evidence of any corpse is found? For example Zampo the cadaver dog which alerted numerous times in a forest in which the handler believed murders and dismemberments had taken place but which later turned out to be untrue?
"Amaral & the Dogs"?
It seems to me any post containing either the word dog or Amaral would be on topic.
So what DO they alert to when no evidence of any corpse is found? For example Zampo the cadaver dog which alerted numerous times in a forest in which the handler believed murders and dismemberments had taken place but which later turned out to be untrue?
This is the part of the article I posted a link to that tells it all as far as I am concerned -
2) Dogs specifically trained to detect scent of decomposed human tissue can be invaluable in resolving issues related to evidence gathering and determination of investigative direction. It is crucial, however, that dogs be used in situations appropriate to their training level, and that dog handlers are able to support their testimony about dog behavior with accurate training logs. Any canine used for forensic purposes in the location of the scent of decomposed human tissue should never be cross-trained for any other type of scent work if the results of the animal's activities and handler's opinions are to be used for the development of probable cause.
Eddie was trained as a rescue dog first of all, in which case he would have been trained to detect live human bodies.
When Eddie alerted in the living room behind the sofa, he alerted exactly where Keela had, the exact spot, so was obviously in my opinion alerting to may be blood.
If Madeleine had lain behind that sofa long enough for the scent of a cadaver to be apparent, then Eddie would have been alerting to whole of the area behind the sofa.
Eddie was panting so he was obviously tired and hot, Keela wasn't panting.
When did Grime retire Eddie?
This is the part of the article I posted a link to that tells it all as far as I am concerned -
2) Dogs specifically trained to detect scent of decomposed human tissue can be invaluable in resolving issues related to evidence gathering and determination of investigative direction. It is crucial, however, that dogs be used in situations appropriate to their training level, and that dog handlers are able to support their testimony about dog behavior with accurate training logs. Any canine used for forensic purposes in the location of the scent of decomposed human tissue should never be cross-trained for any other type of scent work if the results of the animal's activities and handler's opinions are to be used for the development of probable cause.
Eddie was trained as a rescue dog first of all, in which case he would have been trained to detect live human bodies.
When Eddie alerted in the living room behind the sofa, he alerted exactly where Keela had, the exact spot, so was obviously in my opinion alerting to may be blood.
If Madeleine had lain behind that sofa long enough for the scent of a cadaver to be apparent, then Eddie would have been alerting to whole of the area behind the sofa.
Eddie was panting so he was obviously tired and hot, Keela wasn't panting.
When did Grime retire Eddie?
Why don't you contact him yourself on linkedin and find out ?
Amaral and The Dogs, please, Stephen.
Lace asked a question and I gave her a suggestion related to the topic.
Not quite good enough, Stephen. Especially as Martin Grime will not reply. As well you know.
This is the part of the article I posted a link to that tells it all as far as I am concerned -
2) Dogs specifically trained to detect scent of decomposed human tissue can be invaluable in resolving issues related to evidence gathering and determination of investigative direction. It is crucial, however, that dogs be used in situations appropriate to their training level, and that dog handlers are able to support their testimony about dog behavior with accurate training logs. Any canine used for forensic purposes in the location of the scent of decomposed human tissue should never be cross-trained for any other type of scent work if the results of the animal's activities and handler's opinions are to be used for the development of probable cause.
Eddie was trained as a rescue dog first of all, in which case he would have been trained to detect live human bodies.
When Eddie alerted in the living room behind the sofa, he alerted exactly where Keela had, the exact spot, so was obviously in my opinion alerting to may be blood.
If Madeleine had lain behind that sofa long enough for the scent of a cadaver to be apparent, then Eddie would have been alerting to whole of the area behind the sofa.
Eddie was panting so he was obviously tired and hot, Keela wasn't panting.
When did Grime retire Eddie?
If the dogs had no importance, why the contained reference to them and Grime by mccann supporters ? &%+((£
If you wish to post on this thread perhaps you could address the topic of the thread
If the dogs had no importance, why the contained reference to them and Grime by mccann supporters ? &%+((£
Speaking for myself ... my introduction to Mr Amaral (whose name in my innocence I spelt with an o ... Lol imagine the stushie!) and the dogs who do not lie was as a result of being directed to the 'dog' videos by sceptics.
To say I was astounded by them is an understatement ... compounded only by having my intelligence insulted by the rather obvious machinations of Lizzie Taylor ... next question, please.
That's not answering the question.
Why, if the dogs and Grime are irrelevant, why carry on commenting on it ?
The same question can be asked of gerry mccann when he tried to bring it up in the Portuguese Court.
That's not answering the question.The dog alerts were VERY relevant in helping to cement the opinions of many ill-informed individuals that the McCanns dunnit. Some of these same people still continue (in the face of all the facts) to insist that the dog alerts are proof that Madeleine is dead and that her parents are involved in her disappearance. As long as these individuals continue to make these unevidenced claims, there will be others pointing out why they are wrong. Simples innit.
Why, if the dogs and Grime are irrelevant, why carry on commenting on it ?
The same question can be asked of gerry mccann when he tried to bring it up in the Portuguese Court.
The clues are 'dog' and 'Grime'
The dog alerts were VERY relevant in helping to cement the opinions of many ill-informed individuals that the McCanns dunnit. Some of these same people still continue (in the face of all the facts) to insist that the dog alerts are proof that Madeleine is dead and that her parents are involved in her disappearance. As long as these individuals continue to make these unevidenced claims, there will be others pointing out why they are wrong. Simples innit.
it is also simples that the dogs either did or did not alert to a body.
Innit just.
Meanwhile the crime is unknown.
That's right...so you agree amaral was wrong to claim that the alerts proved Maddie died in the apartment..
so if Grime was called to testify in court he could confirm that the dog's may or may not have alerted to a body...fat lot of use that testimony would be
perhaps you would like to post about your dog....the tread is about amaral's interpretation of the dog's alerts. I can see why you want to avoid the topic at all costs and continually try to deflect the tread to other issues
I was answering the rather foolish allegation that Eddie alerted to bacon sandwiches. Amaral's 'mistakes' were minor compared to that. @)(++(*
I was answering the rather foolish allegation that Eddie alerted to bacon sandwiches. Amaral's 'mistakes' were minor compared to that. @)(++(*
Before anyone accuses me of criticising MG or the dogs….Wrong.
These dogs do a wonderful job of locating cadavers or body fluids and they can’t do that job without the assistance of expert trainers/handlers.
Poor little Eddie may have already been sick when he was in Jersey…….We don’t know.
However, evidence of the Jersey search, (False alert) surely proves that these specialised dogs don’t always get it right.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html
In my opinion. GA had already come to the conclusion, that the parents were involved and in his desperation to get a conviction, decided that these dogs were infallible in their detection capabilities. I doubt that it would have been the first time that police, changed the facts to fit the Theory.
We cant say with certainty, that Eddie did not detect residual scent ,or indeed that he did , at this time.
MG has said that it is not certain without corroboration, so why would GA, think otherwise?
We still do not know what happened on that fateful night and there is still a possibility that, Eddie did detect, residual Cadaver scent……If that is the case from who and where ? Back to square one !
Well, if you aren't criticising Martin Grime, why not?
Why should I Ferryman?. This topic concerns Amaral and the dogs.
I was answering the rather foolish allegation that Eddie alerted to bacon sandwiches. Amaral's 'mistakes' were minor compared to that. @)(++(*
The dog alerts were VERY relevant in helping to cement the opinions of many ill-informed individuals that the McCanns dunnit. Some of these same people still continue (in the face of all the facts) to insist that the dog alerts are proof that Madeleine is dead and that her parents are involved in her disappearance. As long as these individuals continue to make these unevidenced claims, there will be others pointing out why they are wrong. Simples innit.
£5It always makes me laugh....those who claim to follow the evidence but like amaral don't understand it
Question 45
44 mins ago
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
£5
Question 44 of the 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer when asked by the Portuguese police
15 hours ago
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had? Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz3hEQtyM1G Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Taken from very recent posts on Mr Amaral's Gofundme appeal page so repetitive they don't even need to be looked for: seems it is the turn of the 48 questions to make their appearance with the usual tripe about the dogs being the theme.
I perfectly understand why the sceptics prefer to peddle the myth rather than the actuality, that there are other people who prefer to follow the truth and the evidence is not surprising.
I'm glad you accept amaral made mistakes....mistakes made by posters on here are of no consequence...amaral was supposed to be a professional yet he seems to have less knowledge re the dogs than some posters on here
When there are quotation marks around a word it means it's not my word and I don't agree with it. It's a bit like what Kate McCann said about her mistake in leaving her children unprotected. 'If you want to call it that'. Kate would have put quotation marks around that word if she had written it. she would have said 'We made a 'mistake', meaning she doesn't think they did.He thought the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse, or chose to believe it unequivocally. Was he correct to do so?
Having explained that, I think Amaral did make mistakes, but not the ones some believe he made. He certainly never thought that VRD dogs alert to bacon sandwiches, that would have been foolish.
When there are quotation marks around a word it means it's not my word and I don't agree with it. It's a bit like what Kate McCann said about her mistake in leaving her children unprotected. 'If you want to call it that'. Kate would have put quotation marks around that word if she had written it. she would have said 'We made a 'mistake', meaning she doesn't think they did.
Having explained that, I think Amaral did make mistakes, but not the ones some believe he made. He certainly never thought that VRD dogs alert to bacon sandwiches, that would have been foolish.
First you say you don't agree he made mistakes then you go on to say you think he did make mistakes....that makes you a tad confused...it's obvious amaral was mistaken about the alerts and your squirming in not wanting to admit it is equally obvious
I meant he made other mistakes. One of them was accepting the abduction hypothesis in the beginning.Did he really? To the exclusion of all other hypotheses? That's not what he'd have us believe from his extremely truthful book on the subject.
I meant he made other mistakes. One of them was accepting the abduction hypothesis in the beginning.Seeing as all your theories are backed by evidence could you give us a cite showing amaral accepting abduction...you will struggle
Seeing as all your theories are backed by evidence could you give us a cite showing amaral accepting abduction...you will struggle
No problem. Most of the work undertaken below was in relation to abduction.None of that supports your contention that Amaral accepted abduction from the beginning to the exclusion of all other hypotheses.
As such, the Portuguese authorities engaged an enormous and expensive panoply of technical and human resources, in the attempt to discover the missing child and the understanding of the explanation of the disappearance.
The PJ never disregarded any information or credible elements – as will be seen in this criminal process – that could have led to the realization of the disappearance, and there have been completed, during these months, more than 2000 diligences, formal and informal, in this regard.
As an example, we refer to the international cooperation, especially with Spain, the Netherlands and the UK which led to the detention and identification of individuals who tried to introduce deceptive information about the hypothetical destination or location of the child.
All of the information with any major or minor level of credibility was explored, nationally and internationally, by the PJ, with special relevance given to dozens of supposed sightings or localizations of the child, most of which, in fact, were widely publicized in the press.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
None of that supports your contention that Amaral accepted abduction from the beginning to the exclusion of all other hypotheses.
I didn't say that. All hypotheses were investigated, including abduction. Why else follow up sightings? To fool everyone?So remind me again what mistake you think Amaral made?
I haven't read Amaral's book, but wouldn't it be bad police work in a case like this not to eliminate the parents and those closest as a matter of priority? At least that is what I have heard/read and actually wasn't it the British that initially encouraged the PJ to investigate the parents and tried to develop evidence against them?
I haven't read Amaral's book, but wouldn't it be bad police work in a case like this not to eliminate the parents and those closest as a matter of priority? At least that is what I have heard/read and actually wasn't it the British that initially encouraged the PJ to investigate the parents and tried to develop evidence against them?
Some people almost seem to want others to believe Amaral just made up lies. The PJ were told this by Mark Harrison, the expert search advisor that was brought in. Given that the PJ were uninformed about these types of dogs, I don't see how it is far fetched to reach certain conclusions (ie that the cadaver dog alerts pointed to a death)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2227.jpg
I didn't say that. All hypotheses were investigated, including abduction. Why else follow up sightings? To fool everyone?
I think that needs to be viewed in the context of the brief Mark Harrison was given by the PJ
I have read enough of Amaral'ls book to pick up the gist of how he formulated his theory of what Gerry (supposedly) did with the body of Madeleine.
He relates that he was called away by his distraught wife from a meeting in the early hours of the morning. She had found the body of their pet dog with head injuries and she was distraught. She tried to persuade him to drop the investigation but he calmed and reassured her, and convinced her he must carry on.
Then he tried to dig a hole to bury the corpse of his dog, but he found the ground hard to dig.
So he popped the corpse into the bin and the realisation hit him how much 'easier' it would to hide, rather than bury, a body.
That was it. Gerry 'hid' Madeleine's body on the beach.
Amaral actually plagiarised the proper detective-work of Mark Harrison, who, himself, never entertained any such theory ....
Some people almost seem to want others to believe Amaral just made up lies. The PJ were told this by Mark Harrison, the expert search advisor that was brought in. Given that the PJ were uninformed about these types of dogs, I don't see how it is far fetched to reach certain conclusions (ie that the cadaver dog alerts pointed to a death)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2227.jpg
Would any other context change what he states about the dogs? I doubt it.
I haven't read it either. What people forget is that it was proposing his hypothesis. The work done by the PJ was procedure; searching, investigating sightings etc. Obviously policemen have thoughts or suspicions about what happened, but they still have to investigate all possibilities.
according to Harrisons Maddie was murdered......do you think he was referring to her parents....
Amaral misunderstood the dog's alerts...simple...no lies. Furthermore having heard what Grime has said re the dog's he has not retracted his statement
Not quite right, and the distinction is crucial.
Harrison was handed a brief by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine was murdered and did so.
Harrison himself never formed any firm conclusion about what happened to Madeleine.
Interesting theory. What I find incredulous is the notion that he stashed the body, called the world's media and then picked the body up a few weeks later and took it to another location, because this is what it would involve. Would take some balls and how would you know the body was hidden well enough for all that time whilst huge searches were taking place? I imagine there are many ways to conceal a body effectively such as weighing it down with stones and submerging in water and retrieving later. I've often felt quite suspicious of Amaral's involvement tbh concerning the dogs and his history... we are all guessing here though imo and one day perhaps we find out the truth. That's my main area of interest here to see this puzzle finally solved. Don't really care who did it as whoever did deserves to be punished. I think the McCanns should be given the benefit of the doubt given the information at hand otherwise of course they would be charged... and without the dog alerts there would be not much to debate imo.
No, of course it wouldn't.
But it did shape the advice that he gave to the PJ ...
Interesting theory. What I find incredulous is the notion that he stashed the body, called the world's media and then picked the body up a few weeks later and took it to another location, because this is what it would involve. Would take some balls and how would you know the body was hidden well enough for all that time whilst huge searches were taking place? I imagine there are many ways to conceal a body effectively such as weighing it down with stones and submerging in water and retrieving later. I've often felt quite suspicious of Amaral's involvement tbh concerning the dogs and his history... we are all guessing here though imo and one day perhaps we find out the truth. That's my main area of interest here to see this puzzle finally solved. Don't really care who did it as whoever did deserves to be punished. I think the McCanns should be given the benefit of the doubt given the information at hand otherwise of course they would be charged... and without the dog alerts there would be not much to debate imo.8@??)(
I disagree. British experts would have given the same advice to anyone. Search the last place a child was seen, any suspects and famly residences and surroundng areas with as many resources as they are able to. After three months British police wold have turned it into a murder enquiry long time before anyway.
I disagree. British experts would have given the same advice to anyone. Search the last place a child was seen, any suspects and famly residences and surroundng areas with as many resources as they are able to. After three months British police wold have turned it into a murder enquiry long time before anyway.
This is the terms of reference that heads up each of Harrison's 3 reports:
Terms of reference to provide assistance to the Portuguese Judicial Police.
1. Assist the Judicial Police and GNR in assessing new or previous areas searched and give opinion on the best methods and assets to provide assurance as to the absence or presence of M McCann's concealed remains.
2. Act as a "critical friend" to the officer in charge of search planning and management and offer immediate and enduring peer review until case resolution or search suspension.
3. Assist in the development of framework models such as scenario based searching to aid homicide disposal searching.
4. Consider further opportunities or areas for search in order to locate M McCann as applicable to the latest intelligence and inform tion provided.
5. Where appropriate, provide independent and impartial advice on the enabling and disabling factors of specialist resources available either within Portugal or elsewhere in body detection.
6. To assist in decision support where requested by testing and challenging claims made by persons offering unorthodox search methods or devices to aid locating M McCann.
7. Where appropriate and requested, assist in advising on procedures to procure any non Portuguese specialist assets that are deemed to be relevant and useful.
eddie was brought in to find concealed remains....
Amaral did not propose any hypothesis...he stated categorically that Maddie died in the apartmnet
That was his conclusion, he thought he had proved his hypothesis using the evidence.
Interesting theory. What I find incredulous is the notion that he stashed the body, called the world's media and then picked the body up a few weeks later and took it to another location, because this is what it would involve. Would take some balls and how would you know the body was hidden well enough for all that time whilst huge searches were taking place? I imagine there are many ways to conceal a body effectively such as weighing it down with stones and submerging in water and retrieving later. I've often felt quite suspicious of Amaral's involvement tbh concerning the dogs and his history... we are all guessing here though imo and one day perhaps we find out the truth. That's my main area of interest here to see this puzzle finally solved. Don't really care who did it as whoever did deserves to be punished. I think the McCanns should be given the benefit of the doubt given the information at hand otherwise of course they would be charged... and without the dog alerts there would be not much to debate imo.
I see you now say he thought he had proved.....so you accept he was wrong.....he proved nothing
I don't recall ever saying he was right. People assume that anyone doubting the McCann story supports the Amaral story. There are actually lots of possibilities.
We had already concluded, long before the Irish witness, that if those persons were involved, there was only one possibility. It pointed towards the beach. Not only because of what [locations] they knew but also due to the terrain's conditions. In that area, it is not easy to dig a hole. One either knows where holes already exist, or it is not possible, within a short time lapse, to decide where to place a corpse without knowing the area. If there was involvement, it would have been towards the beach area. Which is later corroborated by the Irish witness. (GA)
So basically what Mr Amaral is saying here is that anyone heading beachwards with a body to bury had to have local knowledge to have any chance of success.
Quote
"In that area, it is not easy to dig a hole. One either knows where holes already exist, or it is not possible, within a short time lapse, to decide where to place a corpse without knowing the area."
Unquote
Leaving your prime suspect well and truly off the hook.
Nope he is saying the parents didn't know the place but they knew the beach as they'd been there. If they were involved the beach was their only possibility of hiding a corpse.
Sorry ... I thought his preferred option for the parents was the freezer theory, seems he had used it before and it worked well.
With respect ... an absolutely ridiculous assertion that people who had briefly visited a holiday beach would know of all the hidey holes for a body which would defeat local amateur (who really did know the areas to search) and professional searchers and their dogs alike.
Not only unlikely but an impossibility.
Going way off topic here. Please get back on track. Thank you
Off-topic how? A cadaver dog alerted to the car boot, closet/wardrobe in the parent bedroom and a bin. Amaral said Eddie alerted to the wardrobe and car boot for a cadaver. This case has similarities to the McCann case dog alerts.
Off-topic how? A cadaver dog alerted to the car boot, closet/wardrobe in the parent bedroom and a bin. Amaral said Eddie alerted to the wardrobe and car boot for a cadaver. This case has similarities to the McCann case dog alerts.
I know where the hatred was, and it wasn't from Amaral or the people who don't believe the mccanns.
Get your facts right.
there is plenty of online hatred towards the mccanns fuelled by amarals lies re the dogs
Rubbish.
there is plenty of online hatred towards the mccanns fuelled by amarals lies re the dogs
question...... How long should the McCanns suffer...Answer......For the rest of their miserable lives
I suppose you would describe that as just asking questions
You are mistaken if you believe that everyone who doubts the McCann's story does so because of Amaral's 'lies about the dogs'. Doubts arose and were expressed long before the dogs went to Praia da Luz.
You are mistaken if you believe that everyone who doubts the McCann's story does so because of Amaral's 'lies about the dogs'. Doubts arose and were expressed long before the dogs went to Praia da Luz.
Whether you like it or not, people have opinions, and why shouldn't they ?
Your views are very often extremely objectionable, but you still continue to place them on here. 8)-)))
A little later, Eddie is examining the floor in the parents' bedroom, near the wardrobe, when he lets out a strident howl, indicating that he has detected a cadaver odour. The investigators have hardly recovered from their amazement, when another, equally impressive, howl startles them. [/u]This time, Eddie has picked out that same odour under the window, just behind the sofa, on one of the walls in the lounge. That evening, in apartment 5A, the investigators begin to glimpse what might have happened.
That is lies form amaral's book...eddie reacts to blood as well...there is absolutely no confirmation that eddie was alerting to cadaver...yet amaral claims he is.
As I don't believe that and have never said it then I am not mistaken..it is a sign of your poor understanding of what I post that you should say that.
What I actually said was that amaral has fuelled the hatred towards the McCanns with his lies...and I don't think anyone could deny that...the evidence is very clear
The mere fact that you put the words lies about the dogs in inverted commas suggests you doubt Amaral lied.
At most charitable, Amaral's interpretation of the work of the dogs was incompetent; at worst, he lied.
Take your pick.
The mere fact that you put the words lies about the dogs in inverted commas suggests you doubt Amaral lied.
At most charitable, Amaral's interpretation of the work of the dogs was incompetent; at worst, he lied.
Take your pick.
Lying requires intent to deceive. I don't actually think the guy intended to deceive when discussing the dogs. He also had other reasons for suspicion, let's not forget. For him the dogs didn't arouse his suspicions they confirmed them.
Lying requires intent to deceive. I don't actually think the guy intended to deceive when discussing the dogs. He also had other reasons for suspicion, let's not forget. For him the dogs didn't arouse his suspicions they confirmed them.
In order to claim his suspicions were confirmed - he had to 'cherry pick' the parts re the dogs which suited him - and turn a blind eye to the parts which cast serious doubt on his suspicions. That's not proper policework IMO.
OK, so people were already questioning the McCann's story. You are saying this was intensified once Amaral's opinions became known. When did his opinions become known and what measure have you used to determine the intensification of questioning at that time?
In order to claim his suspicions were confirmed - he had to 'cherry pick' the parts re the dogs which suited him - and turn a blind eye to the parts which cast serious doubt on his suspicions. That's not proper policework IMO.
How do you think police function ?
Let's look at SY.
They don't even know what crime took place, yet they cherry pick abduction. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
There was a horrid smell reported in that car and the boot was left open!
The theory is simple: Keela detected Madeleine'a blood in the car boot. For that to happen in a car rented nearly a month after her disappearance the body was hidden on the beach then moved inside and stored in a freezer or her missing pink blanket with blood on was put in the boot re fibres and hairs found. Keela only alerts to human blood and the preliminary report said it matched (15 out of 19 alleles) Madeleine's profile and not any of the other family members.
There was a horrid smell reported in that car and the boot was left open!
The theory is simple: Keela detected Madeleine'a blood in the car boot. For that to happen in a car rented nearly a month after her disappearance the body was hidden on the beach then moved inside and stored in a freezer or her missing pink blanket with blood on was put in the boot re fibres and hairs found. Keela only alerts to human blood and the preliminary report said it matched (15 out of 19 alleles) Madeleine's profile and not any of the other family members.
A bag of meat burst open in the boot of the car and the meat went off in the heat.
Hence the smell.
It's all in the files ....
Eddie and Keela don't alert to that.
they have looked at the evidence and decided what is most probable...that is not cherry picking
There was a horrid smell reported in that car and the boot was left open!
The theory is simple: Keela detected Madeleine'a blood in the car boot. For that to happen in a car rented nearly a month after her disappearance the body was hidden on the beach then moved inside and stored in a freezer or her missing pink blanket with blood on was put in the boot re fibres and hairs found. Keela only alerts to human blood and the preliminary report said it matched (15 out of 19 alleles) Madeleine's profile and not any of the other family members.
TOPIC. This Thread is wandering off again.
Oh dear - Groundhog day again. It's clear to me PF that you either don't read or choose to ignore the explanations re the alerts in the boot both from the FSS and other posters who have explained it numerous times.
If there had been cadaverscent that strong present in the car then Eddie would have alerted to it. He did not. The material which Keela alerted to was so tiny FSS could not say what it was - only that it was 'cellular material. It is only the fact that Keela only alerted to blood that it is assumed that is what it was.
A statement by an anonymous person which is not in the files - and which IIRC Amaral claimed was handed to him after he was removed is not credible evidence IMO. (from memory so happy to be corrected if necessary)
If you think about it, if Madeleine had fallen from the sofa and hit her head so that it bled enough for some of the blood to have leaked under the tiles.
Does anyone honestly believe that there would have only been a tiny miniscule amount to be found? For one it would have stayed in the grout.
You don't know that and unless the crime is known, which it isn't, it's just poor policing.
You are mistaken if you believe that everyone who doubts the McCann's story does so because of Amaral's 'lies about the dogs'. Doubts arose and were expressed long before the dogs went to Praia da Luz.
no...just very poor understanding and logic by you
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
PREPARATION FOR THE INTERROGATIONS
Analyses of the residues collected following the visit by the dogs is entrusted to the English Forensic Science Service laboratory. To avoid any leaks of information, Stuart Prior, a senior officer with Leicestershire police, is responsible for liaison between the laboratory and José Freitas of Scotland Yard. The latter, who is with us, in Portimão, is passing on any relevant reports.
We confidently wait for the evaluation reports from FSS. A few days after the samples are sent, we are informed that the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns’ car shows a significant match – 50% – with Gerald’s, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. We telephone the public minister to pass on this initial result and wait for the follow-up to the analyses and definite conclusions But the laboratory takes its time.
At the beginning of September, shortly before the McCann couple are placed under investigation, Superintendent Stuart Prior travels to Portimão to present the first of the two preliminary reports from the laboratory and to discuss the progress of the investigation.
At a meeting in our office, with the Portuguese and the English investigation team, Stuart expresses his disappointment over the test results. This is where the saga of the FSS reports begins. We read the part of the report dealing with the traces of blood lifted from the floor of apartment 5A, from behind the sofa and in the boot of the McCanns’ car
and we don’t agree with Stuart’s disappointment We talk about blood traces because the CSI dog is trained to find only that bodily fluid. The reports that support that decision are clear: the CSI dog was used to detect human blood. Low Copy Number, the technique used to determine the DNA of the samples, does not identify the nature of the bodily fluid they are derived from. But we know it’s definitely traces of blood and not other bodily fluids since the CSI dog is trained to detect only human blood.
In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!.
As for the second case, after an explanation about the DNA components in Madeleine’s genetic profile, it concludes that 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine’s profile are present in the sample examined. Only 4 short of 100% reliability. The FSS specialists qualify the results as, “complex,” and state that these 15 markers are not enough to conclude with certainty that it’s definitely Madeleine’s DNA profile, especially as Low Copy Number picked out a total of 37 in the sample. That means that at least three individuals contributed to this result.
But there was more in this first preliminary report. In the same report, the scientist went further and explained that in the profiles of many of the lab experts, elements from the DNA profile of Madeleine are present. This means that a major part of the DNA profile of any given person can be built by three donors. That is understandable. Two questions arose immediately. The first one: what good is a DNA profile in terms of criminal evidence, if it can be the combination of three or more donors? Another question was simple: why did the DNA profile from those three donors contribute to Madeleine’s DNA profile and not to that of any other person, like the scientist who carried out the test? But the surprises from the preliminary reports were not to end there.
On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine’s DNA profile.
As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed.
Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue:either this LCN technique is not reliable or it’s simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine’s DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance.
At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: “With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England.” I look at my colleagues and see that they are as stupified as I am. In fact, in Portugal, it’s not so easy to arrest someone. We explain to Stuart that the McCanns interrogations would not result in detention. According to Portuguese law, the crimes of concealment of a corpse and simulating an abduction are not liable to remanding in custody. (TOTL)
In what manner do you suppose ... "Doubts arose and were expressed long before the dogs went to Praia da Luz."
It couldn't possibly have been as a result of insider knowledge of what was actually happening within the investigation.
That wouldn't have been allowed under the secrecy law ... from which Madeleine McCann's case could have been exempt ... so the opinions and doubts you mention must have been formed by the incessant propaganda and lies for which the Portuguese press paid 'a source close to the investigation'.
Mr Amaral's use of the dogs appears to be less of an investigative tool and more of a weapon against her parents when seen against the background of this propaganda war.
I believe he knew they did not constitute just cause which was one reason the magistrates never got the chance to rule on the new change to the law which came into force within days of making them arguidos; the other which would not have borne scrutiny was the alleged dream.
Making them arguidos was precipitate and designed to cause lasting damage, which it did both long and short term. Which is quite extraordinary considering his own arguido status at the time.
It is little wonder that anyone forming opinions based on information fed to the press in 2007 and subsequently proved false are still asking questions as imo opinion they are displaying a less than adequate analytical grasp of how the media was used against Madeleine's family.
Everybody else realised they had been played for fools.
Who seriously believes that Stuart Prior was first contradicted and corrected by Amaral on interpretation of the forensic results, then rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest?
Anyone?
Apart from Pathfinder?
And (possibly!) Amaral?
ETA: Is it just coincidence that we don't see Prior's report?
Prior's report would be in the restricted files. As Amaral's understanding of English appears to be rudimentary, it's hearsay at best. It's not even clear if he was even there.
Since when would serving UK police officers be allowed to testify in an overseas civil case without Home Office clearance in a case that was already a diplomatic nightmare? Particularly one involving two senior investigating officers involved in different scandals.
I have yet to discover what Amaral's "ace" actually was. My best guess is the tiny extract (without surrounding context) from Rainbow's - sub-judice - report suggesting that Gerry should be investigated in view of his contradictory statements.
Well, you don't need to be Einstein to work out that those closest to a missing child need to be investigated. What Rainbow quite possibly didn't know is that the statements were not verbatim and that it is highly unlikely timewise that Gerry could have read a translated written version before signing on the dotted line on the original PT version.
Early doubts arose when it became clear that the parents had apparently neglected to take proper care of their children's safety and that early stories of jemmied shutters and broken doors reported by friends and family were untrue. No need for propoganda and lies, they admitted that they left the children alone each evening that week and that the shutters weren't jemmied and no doors were broken.
Amaral's opinion of the dog alerts didn't enter into it at that stage.
I'm sure the swinger allegations, implied paedophilia and the expert body language analyses of the police wives had nothing at all to do with forming the opinions still so dearly held by the sceptics.
That there are those still in denial that most of the early headlines were deliberate lies and who still believe nonsense such as that being disseminated by Pathfinder from Mr Amaral's book shows that there is something lacking and perhaps they have spent over eight years asking the wrong questions of people who only appear to have access to the wrong answers or the answers that suit them.
Quote ... the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns’ car shows a significant match – 50% – with Gerald’s, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. G Amaral: Unquote
The unadulterated misinterpretation of the results from the expensive visit of the dogs to Praia da Luz is the lynch pin of Mr Amaral's theory ... how much credence do you think should be given to the above excerpt from his book in the light of what we know from the FSS Report.
Whenever we do a dog thread there is always discussion about the training of VRD and what may or may not have been the reason for Eddie's alerts ... I found this item from a blog which gives an explanation of just how this individual trains her dogs, I found it to be of interest.
It seems any human detritus at all will emit the scents to which a VRD is trained to alert which broadens the scope for alerts to be made which do not necessarily have to be cadaver.
**Snip
3) Getting the Scent Source
This is the tricky part of Cadaver training. You are training your dog to find and alert on decomposing human tissue.
For that, I need decomposing human tissue. Some may argue they can train with a psuedo-scent or pig scent, but I want to know that my dog has trained on human scent and only human scent.
This doesn't mean you keep arms and legs in your garage! You can, and should, train your dog on multiple sources of decomposing human tissue. Some are easier to obtain than others.
Decomposing bodies outside seep into the soil and leave a blackened oily film over the grass. Long after the body has been removed to the medical examiner's office, that "decomp" soil will still be there. It still smells like a decaying human body because it is filled with "decomp soup." This decomp soil makes an excellent training source.
Placentas make another wonderful training tool. At the moment Daughter has three placentas in the freezer that came from friends. Knowing the placentas are used for training search dogs, she hits up her pregnant friends for source material.
Teeth are a must. Many scenes that call for search dogs are "bone calls." Someone finds a human bone and we must scour the area on a bizarre Easter egg hunt for other human bones. Most of the time these have been scattered by scavengers. There is very little, if any, tissue left on the bones. Because of this, your dog must learn to hunt for bones and teeth.
Yesterday Son's Girlfriend had 4 wisdom teeth removed. Guess who gets those teeth? Yes, it says something about a family when they collect cadaver material together!
For years Kona trained with a segment of my neice's mummified umbilical cord.
Training a Cadaver Dog turns you into a family of Body Snatchers. No, you're not stealing from corpses. Aside from the fact that it isn't legal, talk about bad Karma! (shudder)
http://farmfreshforensics.com/csi_blog?blogstart=89
It was much simpler than that at the beginning. Just a story that didn't add up, that's all.
Why don't you ask the FBI about Eddie and his top marks at their body farm for detecting human cadavers and to MG why Eddie alerted to clothes with no blood on them?
FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow that he and his springer spaniel dogs, Eddie, Keela and Morse, were called in by Northern Constabulary in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on June 6 last year. The jury was told that a body was found at the spot Eddie had indicated. Mr Grime told the court that Eddie’s nose is so sensitive that if someone touched a dead body and then touched a piece of paper before hiding it, Eddie would be able to locate the paper using his sense of smell.
you are quoting amaral's book..it's gobblydee gook...he doesn't understand the dna.....15 out of 19 being 4 short of 100%....what a ridiculous thing to say...does he actually understand what he is sayingBwhahaha!
Bwhahaha!
Did Amaral actually say that?
No wonder he got things so wrong.
It was much simpler than that at the beginning. Just a story that didn't add up, that's all.
I have often seen that claim made for Eddie.
I have often seen a request for a cite to substantiate the claim being made.
I have never seen anything to prove what you claim for Eddie is true ... I have seen Morse's qualifications officially and independently endorsed ... I have never seen any independent endorsement for Eddie.
Interesting though to notice the ease with which cadaver scent contamination can be transferred.
I also noticed that in Mr Roses's case a body was found proving Eddie right.
Now you know how Eddie found the clue about CC. Moved neatly on the bed after handling a cadaver so it became cadaver contaminated. That pink blanket would have been alerted to had it been handled and moved but it's missing.
Now you know how Eddie found the clue about CC. Moved neatly on the bed after handling a cadaver so it became cadaver contaminated. That pink blanket would have been alerted to had it been handled and moved but it's missing.So, everything that "Smithman" handled after hiding the body became contaminated, or did he come back, move CC, then immediately wash and disinfect his hands...?
Now you know how Eddie found the clue about CC. Moved neatly on the bed after handling a cadaver so it became cadaver contaminated. That pink blanket would have been alerted to had it been handled and moved but it's missing.
Now you know how Eddie found the clue about CC. Moved neatly on the bed after handling a cadaver so it became cadaver contaminated. That pink blanket would have been alerted to had it been handled and moved but it's missing.You've got a short memory Pfinder
Now you know how Eddie found the clue about CC. Moved neatly on the bed after handling a cadaver so it became cadaver contaminated. That pink blanket would have been alerted to had it been handled and moved but it's missing.
Do you know offhand if any of the people who like to ask questions have gone to the bother to ascertain why Mr Amaral did not invite the dogs in when they were offered at a time when they might actually have made a positive contribution to finding Madeleine McCann?
Do you have a source telling us that the dogs were offered in May (apart from 'A senior police spokesperson' quoted in The Sun for obvious reasons)Could you please explain what you mean by "for obvious reasons"? Thanks.
Could you please explain what you mean by "for obvious reasons"? Thanks.
That's not a reliable source.I get you.
That's not a reliable source.
If the Sun is not reliable enough for you on this occasion how did they know about 'the best dogs in the world' when the newspaper hit the stands on 23 May 2007 before Eddie and Keela had set a doggy paw on Portuguese soil?
They had written about these dogs before, they were big news apparently with Keela earning more than the Chief Constable of Yorkshire. Just follow Brietta's original link, it's all there.But we can dismiss this as hogwash as it was in the Sun, correct?
Do you know offhand if any of the people who like to ask questions have gone to the bother to ascertain why Mr Amaral did not invite the dogs in when they were offered at a time when they might actually have made a positive contribution to finding Madeleine McCann?
But we can dismiss this as hogwash as it was in the Sun, correct?
How much do you know about D.N.A. analysis in forensic science ?
Would it be more or less than Amaral ? &%+((£
When did this happen? Before or during dinner?
You will find out.When and where was Madeleine frozen?
"When a body is frozen and thawed, Notman said, blood cells rupture and leak intracellular fluid."
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-18/news/mn-17063_1_frozen-depths
When and where was Madeleine frozen?
Are you suggesting that because no one can say where or when (good song title) it could not have happened?No, I'm asking Pathfinder where and when Madeleine was frozen, is that OK with you?
There is at least one unsolved case where it did happen but no one knows where and only approximately when.
Are you suggesting that because no one can say where or when (good song title) it could not have happened?PS: I take it from your post that we should consider all and any scenario as eminently possible re: Madeleine's fate: fed to pigs, abducted by hot air ballon, sewn into the body of a dog, thrown down a volcano, etc.
There is at least one unsolved case where it did happen but no one knows where and only approximately when.
No, I'm asking Pathfinder where and when Madeleine was frozen, is that OK with you?
PS: I take it from your post that we should consider all and any scenario as eminently possible re: Madeleine's fate: fed to pigs, abducted by hot air ballon, sewn into the body of a dog, thrown down a volcano, etc.
Fine by me. I was just pointing out the question and answer will not prove much as it has been done before and the case remains unsolved.When I want your opinion and advice I'll be sure to ask you directly, but thanks anyway.
You've got a short memory Pfinder"Eddie DID NOT alert to CCat" I agree with you Sadie.
Eddie picked Ccat up and threw it up in the air. He didn't alert to it
Even when it was placed at the bottom of the cupboard, Eddie sniffed really close, inches from it, twice, but did not alert either time.
Later, after Martin G had insisted Eddie checked the counter above, he alerted to a pile of folders, papers on the top of the cupboard counter. These were feet away from CCat.
Martin mistakenly took that as an alert to CCat.
Eddie was alerting to the papers.
Eddie DID NOT alert to CCat.
I was saying don't give your customary sneer to something which has happened before.You really have picked up the wrong end of the stick Alice, now kindly butt out - I am quizzing Pathfinder on her/his beliefs, I am well aware that bodies have been frozen before, thanks.
You are always big on asking that it be shown something has happened before and if it hasn't it is unlikely it can happen.
You really have picked up the wrong end of the stick Alice, now kindly butt out - I am quizzing Pathfinder on her/his beliefs, I am well aware that bodies have been frozen before, thanks.
You start with a KEY. They were given keys to the church so getting access to another property is certainly a possibility. You investigate sightings at unknown properties and the person who got them the keys and stored the car isn't mentioned once in their truth book. He was not questioned by the PJ. It's like he didn't exist! Will the yard finally investigate this KEY man.Aw Gawd, Pfinder, what new myth are you developing?
You start with a KEY. They were given keys to the church so getting access to another property is certainly a possibility. You investigate sightings at unknown properties and the person who got them the keys and stored the car isn't mentioned once in their truth book. He was not questioned by the PJ. It's like he didn't exist! Will the yard finally investigate this KEY man.So because they had keys to the church, they might also have had keys to a property with a freezer? Blimey, that's a bit tenuous.
You really have picked up the wrong end of the stick Alice, now kindly butt out - I am quizzing Pathfinder on her/his beliefs, I am well aware that bodies have been frozen before, thanks.
Then you will realise it is possible.Anything's possible including throwing a body down a volcano but I thought we were sensible enough to limit our speculation to what is likely considering the circumstances of the case. If you believe it is perfectly plausible that Madeleine's body was kept on her ice by her parents then that's your problem. I prefer to live in the real world.
Butting out now O masterful one 8(0(*
Then you will realise it is possible.
Butting out now O masterful one 8(0(*
many things are possible and therefore we cannot 100% rule out alien abduction...according to Stephen as the crime is not determined everything should be investigated....should the UK govt therefore send a probe into space.
Well, Amaral does seem rather fond of freezers...Perfectly plausible I'm sure - after all, bodies have been frozen before that means we can't rule it out. Anything's possible.
So let's see... PF's "Smithman" carries the body down to the beach and luckily remembered a perfect hiding place from the previous day (or whenever they'd gone down for a walk and an ice cream). So perfect in fact that the GNR, volunteer searchers and the media posse never noticed it.
After a long day at the police station and with the media following their every move, "Smithman" 's plan is to stroll down to the beach with a suitcase / bag and put the now decomposing remains in it and carry it away. No one notices him doing that, either. Let's say that that takes it up to Saturday, when some reporter saw him leaving with a bag / suitcase and a toy bucket and spade.
Then what? Idea! Off to ask around the village if anyone has a working freezer big enough to hold a suitcase. Perhaps by this time, they'd gone off to buy some thick big black gravel bags and a saw (which no one found odd). Some unsuspecting soul who didn't know Smithman from Adam offers them keys to their large domestic (or commercial) freezer, that they hardly ever happened to use, but kept running anyway. Smithman promises that the suitcase will be removed in a month or so, just as soon as they hire a car and can escape from the ever-waiting paparazzi.
Amazingly, no one saw a thing. And Eddie, who'd gone sniffing all around the beach, never noticed anything, either.
Just how plausible is that?
Well, Amaral does seem rather fond of freezers...
So let's see... PF's "Smithman" carries the body down to the beach and luckily remembered a perfect hiding place from the previous day (or whenever they'd gone down for a walk and an ice cream). So perfect in fact that the GNR, volunteer searchers and the media posse never noticed it.
After a long day at the police station and with the media following their every move, "Smithman" 's plan is to stroll down to the beach with a suitcase / bag and put the now decomposing remains in it and carry it away. No one notices him doing that, either. Let's say that that takes it up to Saturday, when some reporter saw him leaving with a bag / suitcase and a toy bucket and spade.
Then what? Idea! Off to ask around the village if anyone has a working freezer big enough to hold a suitcase. Perhaps by this time, they'd gone off to buy some thick big black gravel bags and a saw (which no one found odd). Some unsuspecting soul who didn't know Smithman from Adam offers them keys to their large domestic (or commercial) freezer, that they hardly ever happened to use, but kept running anyway. Smithman promises that the suitcase will be removed in a month or so, just as soon as they hire a car and can escape from the ever-waiting paparazzi.
Amazingly, no one saw a thing. And Eddie, who'd gone sniffing all around the beach, never noticed anything, either.
Just how plausible is that?
Anything's possible including throwing a body down a volcano but I thought we were sensible enough to limit our speculation to what is likely considering the circumstances of the case. If you believe it is perfectly plausible that Madeleine's body was kept on her ice by her parents then that's your problem. I prefer to live in the real world.
PS: If you must challenge me on everything I write on this forum then fair enough, your choice, but don't expect me to roll over and die because of your supposedly superior intellect. 8(0(*
You investigate all possibilities. Nothing was was found outdoors so the next logical step is indoors.Outdoors, presumably on the way to the freezer department at the local Lidl I expect.
"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously." (Madeleine)
"Eddie DID NOT alert to CCat" I agree with you Sadie.I dont think it was a pile of clothes but folders, but it is not clear.
"Eddie was alerting to the papers". I agree the first of his two alerts in the villa was to that pile on the sideboard.
The pile he sniffs just before alerting.
However in that pile are folded clothes.
Everything in the box labelled "sala comum" came from IMO on the dining table or on that sideboard.
Check the other items to confirm (its easy to find the pillows, pillowcases, towels)
I dont think it was a pile of clothes but folders, but it is not clear.
There was a sheet of paper on top anyhow. I wonder who put that there?
Was that what Eddie was alerting to?
I dont think it was a pile of clothes but folders, but it is not clear.Yes the pile Eddie sniffs a moment before his first villa alert has a sheet of paper on top.
There was a sheet of paper on top anyhow. I wonder who put that there?
Was that what Eddie was alerting to?
I have never seen such a flat pile, let alone so neatly folded too, bunch of clothes....also, why would a piece of paper have cadaver scent on it? Or neat pile of clothes?
?
Did Keela "confirm" this alert as blood then?
Did Keela "confirm" this alert as blood then?
Did Keela "confirm" this alert as blood then?
Was she given the opportunity?
We only saw Eddie's performance at the villa.
The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately. (MG)And neither did Eddie. Martin Grime was mistaken.
Keela is only used if Eddie alerts. The only difference was on clothes screened separately. Keela detected no blood so when Eddie came next and alerted it suggests cadaver scent.
And neither did Eddie. Martin Grime was mistaken.Unless you are a professional dog handler I dont think somehow you are in any position to say whether a professional dog handler is mistaken. You can of course say it is your laymans opinion, which is fine
Unless you are a professional dog handler I dont think somehow you are in any position to say whether a professional dog handler is mistaken. You can of course say it is your laymans opinion, which is fineWe watched the video carefully. We all witnessed it mercury. Even John agreed that Eddie did not alert to CCat IIRC.
We watched the video carefully. We all witnessed it mercury. Even John agreed that Eddie did not alert to CCat IIRC.
Eddie sniffed right by CCat in the cupboard and didn't blink an eyelid, but later when Martin indicated the counter well away from CCat he alerted.
And mercury, prior to all this Eddie had tossed CCat into the air and not alerted. Why didn't he alert then?
Beyond doubt, Martin was mistaken
who is we ??It was talked about for a while. If you missed it, then you didn't look in those days .... or you failed to read the relevant posts.
who is we ??
Here you go Carly. If you missed it, at 4.04 is when he barks at the paperwork or whatever it isThanks again Anna
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3076.msg112720#msg112720
Thanks again Anna
And other relevant places on the video are at about 1.41-1.51 when Eddie twice throws CCat in the air without alerting.
Then at about 2.04 he runs past it and again at about 2.30, taking absolutely NO notice of it. Cadavar scent? I think NOT !!
CCat was then pplaced out of sight in the bottom of a cupboard and Eddie was taken past it twice. 3.44 and 3.52 approx. Eddie sniffs around but smells nothing. No alert
At about 4.04 after Martin has ordered him to check the cupboard counter top he finally alerts. He barks at the paperwork or what ever it is.
CCat had no cadavar odour on it as you have seen, but the paperwork or what ever above seems to have.
At about 5.42, Martin takes CCat out of the cupboard and says that Eddie alerted to it.
He clearly did NOT, he alerted to something on the counter. Martin was mistaken
The cuddle cat episode was a bit if a fiasco if I'm honest and on this I agree with you Sadie. To me the dog was already aware of the toy having just lifted it out of the toy basket and tossed it in the air. He then knew the scent of the soft toy so when he scented it inside the cupboard, hey presto, he barked for it. Not Grime and Eddie's finest moment imo
What do peeps think about the second alert in the villa video. Possibly to a dining chair?
Unless you are a professional dog handler I dont think somehow you are in any position to say whether a professional dog handler is mistaken. You can of course say it is your laymans opinion, which is fine
Grime requested that the toy be forensically examined.
It never was.
Why not?
Or, an alternative question: if Grime did recommend that the toy be forensically examined (as he states in his rogatory interview) why was his instruction ignored?
The clothes inspection is even more bizarre, IMO. There are items that he appears to have alerted to (and threw up in the air) which are not on the list (which the PJ had, not Grime), and items he simply nuzzled which are on it.
The very first item that got him excited was the little pair of blue shorts, followed by the little red T-shirt (seen being worn by Sean in at least one photo). The T-shirt is on the list, but not the blue shorts. His reaction to Kate's white top was not the same as his reaction to her trousers. He was very interested in what would appear to be one of G's T-shirts, but that didn't make the list.
Aside from one pair of knickers, there doesn't appear to have been any underwear. Why not? They may well not have been considered relevant for what they were seeking, but then neither was the toddler's outfit. Could underwear have deliberately not been packed in case Eddie gave false alerts?
IIRC Carana - the red t-shirt was listed by the PJ as belonging to Madeleine. Was that (wishful thinking imo) ever corrected?
I'm still wondering how all the clothes that were contaminated just happened to have been packed in the same box.
I'm also still wondering why Eddie didn't alert to any of that clothing while it was in the villa - but then did after it had been in the possession of the PJ.
It seems to me that 'cherry picking' may have come into the decisions by the PJ on which articles Eddie alerted to.
It's possible that Madeleine might have worn that tee-shirt at an earlier time (in her life!) but certainly not on that holiday ....
That's possible - but AFAIK Madeleine was very 'girly' and pink was her favourite colour. I can't see her agreeing to wear what is obviously a boy's tee shirt.
Grime requested that the toy be forensically examined.
It never was.
Why not?
Or, an alternative question: if Grime did recommend that the toy be forensically examined (as he states in his rogatory interview) why was his instruction ignored?
The clothes inspection is even more bizarre, IMO. There are items that he appears to have alerted to (and threw up in the air) which are not on the list (which the PJ had, not Grime), and items he simply nuzzled which are on it.Eddie had previously been trained to alert to things from living people, like blood and urine. He could not be untrained.
The very first item that got him excited was the little pair of blue shorts, followed by the little red T-shirt (seen being worn by Sean in at least one photo). The T-shirt is on the list, but not the blue shorts. His reaction to Kate's white top was not the same as his reaction to her trousers. He was very interested in what would appear to be one of G's T-shirts, but that didn't make the list.
Aside from one pair of knickers, there doesn't appear to have been any underwear. Why not? They may well not have been considered relevant for what they were seeking, but then neither was the toddler's outfit. Could underwear have deliberately not been packed in case Eddie gave false alerts?
Given the passage of time and the way in which the clothes were packed, any lawyer worth his salt would have had the entire fiasco kicked out of court.
In a UK court... but not necessarily in a PT one, unless a defence lawyer could provide reliable counter evidence to prove the contrary. It's not just about raising "reasonable doubt".
That's possible - but AFAIK Madeleine was very 'girly' and pink was her favourite colour. I can't see her agreeing to wear what is obviously a boy's tee shirt."For ages 2 to 3, height 98cm".
"For ages 2 to 3, height 98cm".Looks like it has shrunk a good deal then.
label on the aeroplane red T-shirt.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME%20VIIIa_Processo_2110.jpg
Looks like it has shrunk a good deal then.See PJ photo of the tshirt - it has short-sleeves.
An aeroplane T-shirt for Madeleine? On Red?
Seems unlikely, cos everything around Madeleine has been more of the fairy, teddy bear type stuff .... and a ghastly pink. Sorry Kate, but it did tend to be rather ghastly; maybe Madeleines choice?
Looks like it has shrunk a good deal then.
An aeroplane T-shirt for Madeleine? On Red?
Seems unlikely, cos everything around Madeleine has been more of the fairy, teddy bear type stuff .... and a ghastly pink. Sorry Kate, but it did tend to be rather ghastly; maybe Madeleines choice?
Madeleine was into football and playing it with boys in PDL unless you can show all those photos of her with precious CC to prove it.
Louis Boyd couldn't believe that his new friend was so good at football. After all, she was only a girl. The three year old was having great fun tearing around with the pal he had met that afternoon. Her name was Madeleine McCann.
We feel so much for Maddies mum By Vicky and Louie Boyd (First Mag 19-05-2007)
(http://media2.picsearch.com/is?a2g-Xqe5eM30SSPUX-UlY07jXqJA2izokTnhn7srAHA&height=303)
See knees
(http://i4.loughboroughecho.net/news/article6183284.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
Just to keep the record straight ... I think you may be referring to a mistake in Catriona Baker's original statement regarding playing with the boys which she was anxious should be rectified ...
Between 11h57 and 12h12 of the same day I was again interviewed on DVD by DC GIERC.
During this interview I was permitted to refresh my memory after reading my translated original statement made to the Portuguese police.
There are two facts that I would like to clarify: "dining out service" which is mentioned is available for the adults, being that the children would be left under the care of a childcare worker during dinner.
My original deposition also mentioned that Madeleine offered more attention to the boys in the club. I do not remember having made such an affirmation given that Madeleine passed the majority of time playing with Jane Tanner's daughter. I confirm that the deposition in this second DVD is truthful and in accord with my knowledge and that it will be registered.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm
Boys play and talk about football and Madeleine liked playing football so there's nothing strange in the fact that she would play with boys. Madeleine wasn't the girly girl type that Sadie said she was.She is a gutsy girl. I agree with that
She is a gutsy girl. I agree with that
But she is also a girly girl cos she loves being the fairy etc and dressing up in Mums shoes etc. .... and PINK !
She is a gutsy girl. I agree with that
But she is also a girly girl cos she loves being the fairy etc and dressing up in Mums shoes etc. .... and PINK !
That lovely video her daddy took of her in her fairy outfit couldn't show a more 'girly' little girl imo. (or a more adoring father). She also liked to have beads in her hair, wearing her mum's engagement ring and playing with her mums make-up. IIRC she chose the colour of her bedroom - which was pink. All girly stuff. It's because she was 'gutsy' as you put it Sadie, that IMO she may well have refused point blank to wear a boy's tee shirt.
Of course had that red Tee-shirt belonged to Madeleine, that would have been very convenient for Amaral IMO.
All IMHO.
and what relevance does this have to the topic exactly ?
The dog supposedly alerted to a red t'shirt, Stephen. But some say that it couldn't be Madeleine's because she was too 'Girlie'
Lat's not forget secondary transfer.
The dog supposedly alerted to a red t'shirt, Stephen. But some say that it couldn't be Madeleine's because she was too 'Girlie'
I think most say that it couldn't be Madeleine's (or at least, couldn't be worn by Madeleine on that holiday) because the shirt was too small (or Madeleine was too big), take your pick.
And others say it is unlikely, ever, to have been worn by Madeleine because it was not Madeleine's style.
No clue about that ...
Key is that she never wore it, on that holiday, tending to suggest that Eddie's act in picking it up (always an untrained and deleterious act) was a redherring.
How could any dog picking stuff up in its mouth at a crime scene, ever, be anything else?
It never could ....
And yet Amaral was idiotic enough, either to believe or to pretend that Eddie picking stuff up could be indicative (of something or another).
Amaral was either an idiot or dishonest (possibly both)
If the alert was in any way meaningful, then, yes 'cross contamination' is a possibility.
There is no way of knowing the reason for the dogs alerts, or whether they were positive or false. We must therefore rely on MG's final assessment/words on the matter.
Why?
He knew the legal status of the dog alerts....... Who else's opinion could we rely on?
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.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Forensic results can be admitted as evidence in a court in England and in Portugal. Alerts by a dog cannot.
There are good reasons why this is so.
Fair enough that you haven't taken what I underline out of context, but still, why should we rely on that?
Do you have a suggestion , FM, as to who's professional opinion we should rely on, to give us the legal standing, on the dog alerts, other than MG?
Mark Harrison:
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.
That is a proper professional opinion.
Of course you are absolutely correct, FM. It all boils down to........"No evidential value"
Of course you are absolutely correct, FM. It all boils down to........"No evidential value"
Quite interesting article here
http://www.hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=67
Quite interesting article here
http://www.hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=67
More than that: "no inference can be made".
There could be dozens of unrelated potential explanations to account for the alerts.
Very good explanation of false and true negatives and positives. Also of interest was ...
Quote
In the case mentioned at the outset of this article, police attempted to determine whether a human remains detection dog could detect residual odor from a decomposing body they suspected had been transported some time earlier in a rental car.
The rental car, a subcompact, was placed in a police parking garage that was filled with various police vehicles.
The rental car was the only non-police vehicle, the only subcompact, and had out of state license plates, facts which
the dog handler admitted to having noticed.
A film of the event showed the dog passing by the subject rental car without alert until the handler drew the attention of the dog to it again.
United States v. Anderson (E.D. Mich. Case No. 2003 CR 80602) Unquote.
The McCann rental vehicle was covered with Madeleine posters ... so hardly a 'blind' inspection.
Very good explanation of false and true negatives and positives. Also of interest was ...Peeps seem to be imagining this was a test of one suspect vehicle and a dozen known-clean vehicles.
Quote
In the case mentioned at the outset of this article, police attempted to determine whether a human remains detection dog could detect residual odor from a decomposing body they suspected had been transported some time earlier in a rental car.
The rental car, a subcompact, was placed in a police parking garage that was filled with various police vehicles.
The rental car was the only non-police vehicle, the only subcompact, and had out of state license plates, facts which
the dog handler admitted to having noticed.
A film of the event showed the dog passing by the subject rental car without alert until the handler drew the attention of the dog to it again.
United States v. Anderson (E.D. Mich. Case No. 2003 CR 80602) Unquote.
The McCann rental vehicle was covered with Madeleine posters ... so hardly a 'blind' inspection.
Peeps seem to be imagining this was a test of one suspect vehicle and a dozen known-clean vehicles.Oh is that so?
It wasn't.
Every vehicle there was a vehicle of interest to the investigation.
Every vehicle was being tested.
Oh is that so?He did. It's in the extended vehicle video. He calls the Eddie back to other vehicles. And cues Eddie to examine certain areas on other vehicles. All the vehicles were of interest, all the vehicles were connected directly or indirectly to T9 or RM.
Why didn't Martin keep calling Eddie back to the other vehicles as he did with the Mccann car then?
He did. It's in the extended vehicle video. He calls the Eddie back to other vehicles. And cues Eddie to examine certain areas on other vehicles. All the vehicles were of interest, all the vehicles were connected directly or indirectly to T9 or RM.Can we see the extended vehicle video please
Can we see the extended vehicle video pleasehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8#t=4312
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8#t=4312Thanks Pegasus, will have a look at it later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8#t=4312
Revealed in all it's glory. I wonder how much Martin Grime got paid for that farce.
And incidentally, Eddie never at any time reacted to CuddleCat, or even to the cupboard in which the toy was hidden.
I think secondary transfer was on CC so a weaker scent and it had a good wash and clean. Another suspicious action before the dogs arrived. Reverted to puppy toy play mode so it was hidden.
Police Dog Training Instructor
Uk Police
January 1984 – August 2007 (23 years 8 months)
Police Dog Training Instructor
Human remains search.
Cornwall, UK
A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspects
house by the EVRD was conducted who indicated on the living room carpet.
No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently a diary written by the
suspect was alert indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts that the
offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead, the diary had in fact
been written by the suspect having handled the body. This was confirmed by
the offender in interview.
I think secondary transfer was on CC so a weaker scent and it had a good wash and clean. Another suspicious action before the dogs arrived. Reverted to puppy toy play mode so it was hidden.
I don't see how it could be a weaker scent for any reason since Eddie didn't react to CuddleCat at all. Or the cupboard.
CuddleCat wasn't in that cupboard for very long, so the scent can hardly have drifted away from the object, and left the object all together.
But I agree that Martin Grime might have tried reverting to puppy play mode, but it didn't work, did it. Eddie didn't find it.
But I did so love the look on Martin Grime's face when he produced it. Pity about Eddie.
Sending a single dog handler to PdL was the mistake they made. The fact that a journalist with questionable credentials was involved renders the entire fiasco extremely suspect.
If your clothes are in direct contact with a cadaver then a stronger contaminated scent will be on the clothes than if you touched a cadaver with your hands and then picked something else up like a diary or a toy i.e. secondary transfer. I think everybody can agree with that conclusion. Direct contact with a cadaver will be a stronger scent.
So where and to what did this happen?
The obvious explanation from the dog alerts is that the missing child died in the apartment and after handling the cadaver CC was placed on the bed and was a part of staging.
So why didn't Eddie alert to the bed? And why didn't Eddie alert to CuddleCat? Could it be that none of this happened?
Sending a single dog handler to PdL was the mistake they made. The fact that a journalist with questionable credentials was involved renders the entire fiasco extremely suspect.
What seems indisputable to me is that the full footage has not been released - whoever edited it.
I find it unlikely that during the arguido interviews the PJ fast-forwarded through hours and hours of footage to find the right sequences. The sequences only show where the dogs alerted, not the hours of footage where they didn't.
The PJ were attempting to get a confession based on supposedly incriminating alerts. Showing sequences in which Eddie may have cocked his leg up for a pee might have ruined the psychological impact.
SY are still using them so I think they take the dog alerts very seriously as they're searches last year proved. Searching areas Eddie hadn't in 2007.
I think secondary transfer was on CC so a weaker scent ...
Who is "them"?
I have no problem with using dogs as an intelligence tool and never have had...
'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
(Martin Grime)
Eddie bark alerts whether it's weak or strong scent. But secondary transfer will be weaker than direct contact with a cadaver. That is obvious.
Weaker to whom?
The olfactory sensors of a dog?
I doubt it.
SY are still using them so I think they take the dog alerts very seriously as they're searches last year proved. Searching areas Eddie hadn't in 2007.
Weaker scents do exist @)(++(* Eddie only bark alerts when he is 100% certain.
Eddie is dead.
Weaker scents do exist @)(++(* Eddie only bark alerts when he is 100% certain.What does he do when he's only 60-80% certain? Give a raised eyebrow?
Not in this case he isn't.
So Eddie wasn't certain about CuddleCat? How do you work that one out? Cart before the horse?
Eddie did not alert to CuddleCat.
What does he do when he's only 60-80% certain? Give a raised eyebrow?
Oh yes he did. He pulled the toy out of the bin and marked it. Maybe he thought it was a test like he did as a puppy. They hid the toy for a second test and he alerted. Eddie alerted to CC. CC was a part of staging and placed on the bed.
He doesn't alert.How do you know it's a weak alert then? It's either an alert or it isn't!
Have you watched that Video?
Oh yes he did. He pulled the toy out of the bin and marked it. Maybe he thought it was a test like he did as a puppy. They hid the toy for a second test and he alerted. Eddie alerted to CC. CC was a part of staging and placed on the bed.He marked it? What with?!
He marked it? What with?!
Revealed in all it's glory. I wonder how much Martin Grime got paid for that farce.
And incidentally, Eddie never at any time reacted to CuddleCat, or even to the cupboard in which the toy was hidden.
I asked Martin why Eddie did not alert to cuddle cat when he first encountered the toy and his response was this, and I quote:
"Eddie was given a cuddly toy as a reward in training so reverted to puppy mode. His inital reaction in playing with the toy was not unusual at all."
Serendipity on December 16, 2013
Agree, Eleanor.
Grime spent five times as long standing by the right front wing of the Renault than he did with any of the other cars. And Eddie showed no more interest in the Renault than he did with any of the other cars - until he realised that his masters behaviour was quite different. On the fifth recall he "alerted". In the place that Grime was repeatedly pointing to.
Combine that performance with Duarte Levy on the video, and the forensic results (a trace of Gerry's blood on the keycard) , and this is a complete non event.
Anyone who is convinced that this shows Madeleine was in the hirecar redefines the term "gullible".
I asked Martin why Eddie did not alert to cuddle cat when he first encountered the toy and his response was this, and I quote:Dogs usually mark things with urine, that's why I asked.
"Eddie was given a cuddly toy as a reward in training so reverted to puppy mode. His inital reaction in playing with the toy was not unusual at all."
Serendipity on December 16, 2013
Many thanks for that, erm, "authoritative" source...Postively serependitous! We're not allowed to diss that particular source though... 8(8-))
Many thanks for that, erm, "authoritative" source...
It is if you know who it is 8(0(*The problem is - we all know who it is, hence the derision!
Well..........I expect all these outpourings help to displace any hint of a possibility that an alert by the EVRD could have originated from the cadaver of the missing child.
Better to opt for urine- contaminated shorts, alleged handler incompetence and an overly - playful dog alerting for a reward.......( or was it an exhausted dog, alerting to get it all over with?)
EVRD?
An individual and unique classification bestowed upon Eddie by Grime, that ceased to exist when Eddie stopped working ....
Well..........I expect all these outpourings help to displace any hint of a possibility that an alert by the EVRD could have originated from the cadaver of the missing child.Are you 100% convinced that the dogs alerted to the body of the missing child? Is so, why? If not, why not?
Better to opt for urine- contaminated shorts, alleged handler incompetence and an overly - playful dog alerting for a reward.......( or was it an exhausted dog, alerting to get it all over with?)
I have a broader issue (although it is linked).
Why is some evidence admissible in court and other evidence not?
It is if you know who it is 8(0(*
I have a broader issue (although it is linked).
Why is some evidence admissible in court and other evidence not?
an anonymous source on the internet...is this the poster who assured us that grime was going to answer questions from this forum
A very broad answer is that some evidence is objective and repeatable, and is capable of being viewed in the same way by different people. e.g fingerprints, DNA results, a written statement, forensic matching of a bullet to a gun etc etc.
Other evidence is subjective, and depends on circumstances, interpretation. Dog alerts would come into this category - a dog is a tool to narrow down and aid the search for forensic evidence. and it is the results of such analysis which constitutes evidence.
Whether the dog alerted in down to Grime's interpretation of what constitutes an alert. That is why it would need to be corroborated by forensic analysis.
A question -would you be happy, say as a member of a jury, to send someone to prison for life on the basis of the video of Eddie searching the flat and the car?
A very broad answer is that some evidence is objective and repeatable, and is capable of being viewed in the same way by different people. e.g fingerprints, DNA results, a written statement, forensic matching of a bullet to a gun etc etc.
Other evidence is subjective, and depends on circumstances, interpretation. Dog alerts would come into this category - a dog is a tool to narrow down and aid the search for forensic evidence. and it is the results of such analysis which constitutes evidence.
Whether the dog alerted in down to Grime's interpretation of what constitutes an alert. That is why it would need to be corroborated by forensic analysis.
A question -would you be happy, say as a member of a jury, to send someone to prison for life on the basis of the video of Eddie searching the flat and the car?
Try not to let it worry you.
I can put my hand on heart and say that about ten seconds in to my first viewing of the dog videos I was incredulous that people had been taken in by them.
Now that I have read a bit more about the training and skills of all types of working dogs and their handlers, that initial response has been reinforced.
I don't think there would ever have been the slightest chance that any jury would have been been asked to view the videos; for the simple reason I don't think they would have been allowed to be presented in court as there wasn't even circumstantial evidence to back them up.
Although having read a little of what was allowed in the Cipriano case it could have been interesting if there had been a prosecution in Madeleine's case.
Well..........I expect all these outpourings help to displace any hint of a possibility that an alert by the EVRD could have originated from the cadaver of the missing child.
Better to opt for urine- contaminated shorts, alleged handler incompetence and an overly - playful dog alerting for a reward.......( or was it an exhausted dog, alerting to get it all over with?)
A very broad answer is that some evidence is objective and repeatable, and is capable of being viewed in the same way by different people. e.g fingerprints, DNA results, a written statement, forensic matching of a bullet to a gun etc etc.
Other evidence is subjective, and depends on circumstances, interpretation. Dog alerts would come into this category - a dog is a tool to narrow down and aid the search for forensic evidence. and it is the results of such analysis which constitutes evidence.
Whether the dog alerted in down to Grime's interpretation of what constitutes an alert. That is why it would need to be corroborated by forensic analysis.
A question -would you be happy, say as a member of a jury, to send someone to prison for life on the basis of the video of Eddie searching the flat and the car?
The point might concern Grime, should someone from officialdom choose to question him about this unique classification at some (future) time.
My sole concern is to chart truth and separate it from fiction ....
So far no reports of either any official inquiry into , or censure for this officer regarding his deployment of the dogs ........( or his terminology)........ have been forthcoming, have they?
Are you 100% certain the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse? If so, why and if not, why not?
So far no reports of either any official inquiry into , or censure for this officer regarding his deployment of the dogs ........( or his terminology)........ have been forthcoming, have they?
no...because his deployment produced nothing...as did his deployment in Jersey. He has not worked in the UK since...how much work has he done in the US
Combine that performance with Duarte Levy on the video, and the forensic results (a trace of Gerry's blood on the keycard) , and this is a complete non event.
Are you 100% certain the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse? If so, why and if not, why not?
Was he on the video? Why would he be? I don't recall seeing him, and hs name does not appear in the files among the list of people involved in the dog searches.
You asked this a few posts back.
It wasn`t worth answering then any more than now because I used "possibility" and "could" .
You could have worked out the answer from that.
Mr Grime has neither been charged or accused of any offence nor officially rebuked for his deployment of the dogs.
(This alone would usually be enough to cause supporters to hyperventilate at the very idea of "Only Asking Questions for 8 years " equating the practise with putting the boot in.)
Since the present investigative team have considered the possibility that Madeleine may not have been alive when removed from the apartment , who knows what permutations are in the frame or could become so as the investigation progresses?
In the vernacular, you are "aving a giraffe"
Grime deployed the dogs to help in the investigation, looking for forensic evidence. The dogs alerted, some samples were found, tested by the FSS and shown to be inconclusive (before you get excited this means that no conculsion can be drawn).
Grime did his job. So why would he be "charged or accused of any offence nor officially rebuked for his deployment of the dogs"?
Its the sceptics who are getting all excited about Amarals misunderstanding of the results.
As I have said.......it wasn't Grime's fault the dogs found no evidence.....there just wasn't any there
Have you actually bothered to watch the video? You may see, at the top of the screen, Duarte Levy (C) 2008-2009.Yes dear, I have watched the video. My question was not about alledged copyright but whether he was physically there at the time, which you suggested (and others have asserted)
I assume you are familiar with the name Duarte Levy?
And this is the chap who has his fingerprints all over the video that you set such store by.
In the vernacular, you are "aving a giraffe"
Grime deployed the dogs to help in the investigation, looking for forensic evidence. The dogs alerted, some samples were found, tested by the FSS and shown to be inconclusive (before you get excited this means that no conculsion can be drawn).
Grime did his job. So why would he be "charged or accused of any offence nor officially rebuked for his deployment of the dogs"?
Its the sceptics who are getting all excited about Amarals misunderstanding of the results.
As I have said.......it wasn't Grime's fault the dogs found no evidence.....there just wasn't any there
Eddie seems to have indicated to cadaver scent in a bedroom..it is an indication/intelligence, however much youbluster, that will always be a fact. Still waiting for your response to my previous question btw about Mr Grime never havng worked in the UK again post Jersey.
Or were you just making things up? I'd prefer to believe you were just mistaken/wrong.
Agree, Eleanor.
Grime spent five times as long standing by the right front wing of the Renault than he did with any of the other cars. And Eddie showed no more interest in the Renault than he did with any of the other cars - until he realised that his masters behaviour was quite different. On the fifth recall he "alerted". In the place that Grime was repeatedly pointing to.
Combine that performance with Duarte Levy on the video, and the forensic results (a trace of Gerry's blood on the keycard) , and this is a complete non event.
Anyone who is convinced that this shows Madeleine was in the hirecar redefines the term "gullible".
Yes dear, I have watched the video. My question was not about alledged copyright but whether he was physically there at the time, which you suggested (and others have asserted)
What does "have his fingerprints all over" mean then?
You asked this a few posts back.So you acknowledge that there is no way of knowing for sure what the dog was alerting to then, thank you.
It wasn`t worth answering then any more than now because I used "possibility" and "could" .
You could have worked out the answer from that.
Mr Grime has neither been charged or accused of any offence nor officially rebuked for his deployment of the dogs.
(This alone would usually be enough to cause supporters to hyperventilate at the very idea of "Only Asking Questions for 8 years " equating the practise with putting the boot in.)
Since the present investigative team have considered the possibility that Madeleine may not have been alive when removed from the apartment , who knows what permutations are in the frame or could become so as the investigation progresses?
So you acknowledge that there is no way of knowing for sure what the dog was alerting to then, thank you.
The question I have is why, if there's no way of knowing what the dog alerted to and as unconscious handler bias is a proven phenomenon in dog searches, people like you set so much store by these dog alerts?
You are welcome............
A handler allegedly repeatedly calling a dog back until he alerts to a toe-nail or cross- contamination by a pair of urine- stained toddler shorts floats many a boat. 8)-)))
Changed your mind since around 2 o`clock this afternoon re Mr Grime`s deployment of Eddie?
You show total ignorance of what the alerts signify......we already know maddie may have died in the apartment
What else do the dogs...woof woof....add to that
You show total ignorance of what the alerts signify......we already know maddie may have died in the apartment
What else do the dogs...woof woof....add to that
I assume you are familiar with the works of Duarte Levy? Why is his name of this video?
I know nothing about him really. I can only guess his name is on the video because he has managed to get a copy from the police when the files were released and then edited it somehow. Whether its editing five hours to one and a half or somethng else, ie sequence, I cannot say, Sorry. If you know, do share. Does your answer mean NO, he wasn't there at the time the video was made then?
I think any sensible person would agree with you. To think Levy was there and part of the police investigation team is mental @)(++(*
The question I have is why, if there's no way of knowing what the dog alerted to and as unconscious handler bias is a proven phenomenon in dog searches, people like you set so much store by these dog alerts?
Strangely enough, it is the need to devote such time and effort into reinforcing the two points you make on a daily basis which demonstrates the store you and others set by these dog alerts.I don't set any store whatsoever in the dog alerts. I'm just continually bemused by the almost religious fervour that the dogs have inspired and continue to inspire amongst the "sceptic" community. You can't suggest the dogs are fallible without it seemingly causing great offence. Personally, I'd be delighted if I never saw another reference to the dogs ever again but all the while they are revered (and let's face it their alerts are the single most important piece of schmevidence the "sceptics" have) the dogs will continue to be discussed.
It is very revealing.
Were there no doggie threads, "people like me" .......(whatever that means ).....wouldn`t add one.
The two points you make are generalised factors in dog searches; but their existence does not remove the possibility that the cadaver of the missing person could have prompted the alerts in this particular, individual case.
Strangely enough, it is the need to devote such time and effort into reinforcing the two points you make on a daily basis which demonstrates the store you and others set by these dog alerts.
It is very revealing.
Were there no doggie threads, "people like me" .......(whatever that means ).....wouldn`t add one.
The two points you make are generalised factors in dog searches; but their existence does not remove the possibility that the cadaver of the missing person could have prompted the alerts in this particular, individual case.
I don't set any store whatsoever in the dog alerts. I'm just continually bemused by the almost religious fervour that the dogs have inspired and continue to inspire amongst the "sceptic" community. You can't suggest the dogs are fallible without it seemingly causing great offence. Personally, I'd be delighted if I never saw another reference to the dogs ever again but all the while they are revered (and let's face it their alerts are the single most important piece of schmevidence the "sceptics" have) the dogs will continue to be discussed. Pathfinder for instance is always barking quite literally in his /her posts. Woof!
Why are they fallble, they do after all, alert to blood, (on plasters as well as period pads and shaving cut droplets or showers) dead bodies, (god forbid) semen, sweat, toenails, hairbursh hair, bad breath, saliva, urine, abortions!, nappy poo, bacon, sausages, and some say pizza and cake, pretty amazing hounds wouldn't you say? A whole (but incomplete) repertoire of possibilities to explain any alert that happens in the last place a child was seenbefore disappearing.very good 8@??)(
8@??)(
very good 8@??)(Thank you, so sadly ridiculous I agree
?1st image = detail from PJ wardrobe photo you posted.
Can't see it. There appears to be an item or items in a mix of orange and white. TBH it could be anything.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2563.jpg
1st image = detail from PJ wardrobe photo you posted.I find it rather unsavoury poring over other peoples dirty washing, but if you consider it necessary, what do you think it is ?
2nd image= detail from PJ forensic clothing photo, rotated and trimmed.
I find it rather unsavoury poring over other peoples dirty washing, but if you consider it necessary, what do you think it is ?IMO it is likely all 3 alerted clothing items were for the entire evening/night of May 3rd in that laundry pile in the wardrobe.
IMO it is likely all 3 alerted clothing items were for the entire evening/night of May 3rd in that laundry pile in the wardrobe.I am sorry I am a bit slow.
I am sorry I am a bit slow.The significance is plane to see: the only location in which the clothing could have acquired scent that evening was on that shelf.
Not sure of the significance ?
I am sorry I am a bit slow.
Not sure of the significance ?
Notice the empty base shelf. You can put something heavy there.But he doesn't alert at wardrobe floor level Pathfinder. He alerts to first shelf above floor level.
The significance is plane to see: the only location in which the clothing could have acquired scent that evening was on that shelf.
But he doesn't alert at wardrobe floor level Pathfinder. He alerts to first shelf above floor level.
And it wasn't the clothes on that shelf that Eddie alerted to three months later.
I can see the smilarity in shapes now. Where did you get that image no. 2?item 3 Mercury
There isn't any red top with a white design in the forensic clothing file?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CLOTHES.htm
But where are you going with all this?
item 3 Mercury
Yes,thanks for replying hours later after bypassing my post inititally. I did figure out you had cut and pasted and enlarged the one white aeroplane on that red top and enlarged it to match the thing in the wardrobe you thought it matched. Besides, the item in the wardrobe was not red, more orange.The proposition is that item 3 was on that shelf the whole evening.
You have not elaborated on your latest "theory" about the clothes and dog alerts.
The proposition is that item 3 was on that shelf the whole evening.
The proposition is that item 3 was on that shelf the whole evening.
So what if it was?That means it acquired scent while it was not being worn.
That means it acquired scent while it was not being worn.Even if that was true, so?
And Kate's pants? Maybe she wore them on 3 May as she likes wearing them as is proven in many pics.IMO all three clothes listed as alerted were on that shelf for the whole evening/night of May 3rd.
Even if that was true, so?It is progress which dumps the rubbish assumption
It is progress which dumps the rubbish assumption
"clothing 1 2 3 contacted source at location unknown while being worn by someone"
and replaces it with
"clothing 1 2 3 contacted source while at exact location a in room b and it was not being worn at the time".
Didnt you digest and or factor in my previous post? The scent source can settle anywhere porous in the near vicinityIn addition to alerting to the 3 listed clothes, he on earlier date alerted to the empty shelf where IMO the clothes had been the whole evening of the 3rd May. There was no alerts to the porous air-trapping beds mattresses.
But yes you could argue scented clothes were not actually worn
In addition to alerting to the 3 listed clothes, he on earlier date alerted to the empty shelf where IMO the clothes had been the whole evening of the 3rd May. There was no alerts to the porous air-trapping beds mattresses.
But you have no proof all three items were in that shelf and also AS I said the scent could have come from anywhere in that roomIf the scent molecules came from some other part of the room, how did they decide to bypass the beds (porous, air-trapping) and attach instead on the smooth laminate surface of a shelf cavity (non-porous non-air-trapping)?
Now I am interested to know what your underlying thesis is surrounding all this
If the scent molecules came from some other part of the room, how did they decide to bypass the beds (porous, air-trapping) and attach instead on the smooth laminate surface of a shelf cavity (non-porous non-air-trapping)?
I have no idea and neither do you, perhaps a cadVer dog alerts to the most concentratedly saturated item? However that came across with the transference of the scent. A matress is a large item, a small t shirt is tinyI might be wrong but the simplest solution IMO is that the 3 listed clothing alerts and the bedroom alert have a single explanation.
I might be wrong but the simplest solution IMO is that the 3 listed clothing alerts and the bedroom alert have a single explanation.
I might be wrong but the simplest solution IMO is that the 3 listed clothing alerts and the bedroom alert have a single explanation.
your problem is you dont actually KNOW that all three items were together to start with
That's why Amaral wanted to know what Madeleine was wearing that day and to collect their clothes the following day. A shelf full of clothes weren't alerted and we know the mother was with the children from 6-7 on 3 May when Gerry was playing tennis.I believe you agree that shelf was alerted (sniiffed just before bark).
I believe you agree that shelf was alerted (sniiffed just before bark).
Obviously if something was placed so that it contacted the shelf it would also contact some of the clothes.
All the clothes would alert so I think the obvious explanation is clothes in direct contact or after handling cadaver clothes are immediately touched i.e. secondary transfer.
How do you explain the fact that none of the clothes, apparently, alerted to in the gym were alerted to in the villa, despite all being present in the villa during that inspection?
The venue (gym) was screened by both dogs prior to introducing clothing. (MG) Clothes have to be screened separately. Please provide proof where the alerted clothes were in the villa?
More clothes would alert so I think the obvious explanation for only three items is by direct contact or after handling clothes are immediately touched i.e. secondary transfer.On shelf a small number of the items would be in direct contact with a specified item and the remainder would not.
@FerryMan
"In these terms, the pieces of clothing recovered [from the home] were laid out individually in accordance with instructions given by the British technicians, the dogs [then] walking the area where they [those pieces of clothing] were laid out by order and with the following results described below"
That paragraph is a summary of the following (numbered) paragraphs
They weren't laid out before the inspection. The dogs checked the site first.
I query why there was no gap between the laying out of the clothing and the commencement of the search.The document is clear. The first action was to check the venue. This is described in the paragraph clearly labelled "1". The paragraph preceding those numbered actions is a summary of all the numbered actions.
In fact, I query why there was a search of clothing at all.
These were not clothes kept in some special storage pending the investigation.
They were clothes in everyday use as clothes are: worn, washed, hung out on washing lines, packed in suitcases.
The point is frequently (and rightly) made that there was zero reference to cross-contamination of any (hypothetical) scent on clothing.
But that didn't matter.
The inspection came 3 months after the crime; cross-contamination (if it was going to occur) would, long since, already have done so.
The key questions are: what was the point of any inspection at all?
And why a re-inspection of clothing already inspected once (in the villa) without result?
The document is clear. The first action was to check the venue. This is described in the paragraph clearly labelled "1". The paragraph preceding those numbered actions is a summary of all the numbered actions.
Read the timings.
There was no gap between completion of the "prior" inspection and commencement of the search.
The clothes must have been laid out before the "prior" inspection.
1 - dogs checked site first. 11:20 to 11:30
2 - 11:30 to 11:40 first box of clothes laid out and Keela inspection
11:41 Eddie alerts
Exactly.
No gap between the "prior" inspection of the premises and commencement of the search.
So the clothes were laid out before the search and the inspection.
Where does it say clothes were laid out?
1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.
Where does it say clothes were laid out?
1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.
There was no gap between the "prior" reconnoitre and commencement of the search.
So the clothes must have been laid out before the "reconnoitre"
Nope that happened in number 2.
2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.
So it took them 1 minute (after completion of the "reconnoitre") to lay out all the clothes and begin inspection of the clothing?
Dream on ....
It wouldn't take long as 4 people were laying clothes out from the box as seen in the footage. To think they would have clothes laid out before the dogs inspected the site is bonkers!
The clothes Eddie alerted to.
It is important to find the exact location where those clothes were from 7.30pm onwards.
I posted a pair of images which match IMO.
No-one posted any other clothing image to dispute that match.
But where is the evidence that Eddie "alerted" to any clothing.Eddie alerted twice in the "sala comum" area of the villa.
Picking stuff up in his mouth was a deleterious and untrained act.
Eddie could find no trace of any scent in clothing, present in the villa during that inspection, he (apparently!) "found" in the gym.
How did the inspection in the gym come about and who requested it?
But where is the evidence that Eddie "alerted" to any clothing.
Picking stuff up in his mouth was a deleterious and untrained act.
Eddie could find no trace of any scent in clothing, present in the villa during that inspection, he (apparently!) "found" in the gym.
How did the inspection in the gym come about and who requested it?
Tossing clothes around................Just like he would treat a toy, or ball, really.
I believe the original location selected for the dogs' inspection was not clean enough, according to Harrison, IIRC.
PJ had to find another site at short notice and the Gym was it.
There was no sensible reason to do this search. The villa would have been good enough.
I believe that they were trying to prove that a body had been moved........by someone wearing those garments which Eddie supposedly alerted too.
But where is the evidence that Eddie "alerted" to any clothing.
Picking stuff up in his mouth was a deleterious and untrained act.
Eddie could find no trace of any scent in clothing, present in the villa during that inspection, he (apparently!) "found" in the gym.
How did the inspection in the gym come about and who requested it?
But where is the evidence that Eddie "alerted" to any clothing.Let's assume you are right about all those things and all of Eddie's barks are meaningless.
Picking stuff up in his mouth was a deleterious and untrained act.
Eddie could find no trace of any scent in clothing, present in the villa during that inspection, he (apparently!) "found" in the gym.
How did the inspection in the gym come about and who requested it?
Let's assume you are right about all those things and all of Eddie's barks are meaningless.
Then presumably you have no objection to that clothing being for whole evening 3 May in that pile in the wardrobe?
We know it wasn't being worn that evening, so isn't a wardrobe a likely place for it to be?
@Anna in the photo you posted have you changed the colour balance?
It makes it even clearer IMO the red top is there, and BTW the fuselage size is correct.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6311.0;attach=5463;image
I don't follow what you are driving at there at all.The PJ crime scene photos - they have clothing in them - locating the "barked" items is important IMO.
Where is the reference to clothing on evening 3rd May?
You'll not find any of that in the files, only in Amaral's book.
Of course, Amaral lost the libel trial.
No doubt that was (a large part of!) the reason why ....
I lightened it, to enable a better view. The wardrobe doors would be white and not grey. Glad it helped.Thanks. I was going to try locating another item next.
Thanks. I was going to try locating another item next.
But it appears no-one agrees with the plane nose.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6311.0;attach=5463;image
In clothing video August when zoom out and blurred a grey white check becomes plain grey. In wardrobe photo May also is blurred grey.
I'm intrigued by the way you ferret out information, Pegasus. Don't let all us sceptics put you off ... please proceed to the next step and then to your conclusion.
If anyone is old enough to remember the Saturday cinema matinees ... I'm finding it a bit like that.
The PJ crime scene photos - they have clothing in them - locating the "barked" items is important IMO.
I'm intrigued by the way you ferret out information, Pegasus. Don't let all us sceptics put you off ... please proceed to the next step and then to your conclusion.
If anyone is old enough to remember the Saturday cinema matinees ... I'm finding it a bit like that.
The canine inspections were in July/August 2007.The clothes barked at were definitely in the apartment for the whole evening of May 3rd.
The clothes barked at were definitely in the apartment for the whole evening of May 3rd.
Let's assume you are right about all those things and all of Eddie's barks are meaningless.
Then presumably you have no objection to that clothing being for whole evening 3 May in that pile in the wardrobe?
We know it wasn't being worn that evening, so isn't a wardrobe a likely place for it to be?
The clothes barked at were definitely in the apartment for the whole evening of May 3rd.
If they had brought the clothes with them on holiday that would be a fair assumption to make.
However, they only expected to be there for a few days and would have brought a wardrobe which reflected that.
I don't think the family would have come out without bringing some changes of clothing for them, either spontaneously or by arrangement; in particular for the twins.
Therefore if there are no photographs of the holiday prior to 3rd showing them wearing the clothes which were barked at ... it cannot be said with certainty that they were in the house when Madeleine disappeared.
If they had brought the clothes with them on holiday that would be a fair assumption to make.The trousers, and the red top, were both worn after May 3 at dates before anyone accessed the house in UK.
However, they only expected to be there for a few days and would have brought a wardrobe which reflected that.
I don't think the family would have come out without bringing some changes of clothing for them, either spontaneously or by arrangement; in particular for the twins.
Therefore if there are no photographs of the holiday prior to 3rd showing them wearing the clothes which were barked at ... it cannot be said with certainty that they were in the house when Madeleine disappeared.
Where is that stated?The witness clearly states she was wearing blue jeans for the meal.
Kate didn't have her favourite pants in the apartment? These images prove they were there. I think she was wearing them between 6-8 on 3 May.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/GerryKateMcCannAP_468x372.jpg)(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/01/article-1176448-04C74AF3000005DC-511_233x423.jpg)
So are you suggesting they drove down to Leicester to get those trousers, then back up north to Manchester to get on the plane? The theory sounds like pants to me (no insult Brietta - its a joke).
Kate's mother, father and aunt arrived on the fourth May.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6518.msg260797#msg260797
The trousers, and the red top, were both worn after May 3 at dates before anyone accessed the house in UK.
Therefore both those items were inside apartment 5A for the whole evening of 3rd May.
There is nothing to suggest that it would not have been possible for the family to access the house to pick up fresh clothing; or even to have had suitable clothing to bring with them; without either an inventory of the contents of cupboards in the apartment or photographs taken prior to the 3rd there is nothing to substantiate those items were present when the photographs were taken.But isn't it much more likely that they were taken to PDL on Apr 28th?
But isn't it much more likely that they were taken to PDL on Apr 28th?
It would be hundreds of miles to drive down from Formby or Skipton, then back up to Manchester Airport, just to get a few clothes, wouldn't it?
It is likely the clothes were taken out with them at the start of the holiday ... but there is nothing to prove it.And BTW it's proven this clothing item was already owned before Apr 28th.
What does Kate's clothing have to do with the fact the inspections were screwed up?There are two "reactions" seen in the villa video. Neither is to the cat IMO. The first is to something on top of the sideboard because that is where the dog sniffed just before he "reacted". The second "reaction" is possibly to a dining chair or to the area near that chair.
From the files, the closest we get to an explanation of the inspection at the gym is this:
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, [the gym!] attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
There was only one, apparent, "reaction" at the Rua das Flores, 27, and that was to cuddle-cat.
There are two "reactions" seen in the villa video. Neither is to the cat IMO. The first is to something on top of the sideboard because that is where the dog sniffed just before he "reacted". The second "reaction" is possibly to a dining chair or to the area near that chair.
And BTW it's proven this clothing item was already owned before Apr 28th.
Next to identify its exact location in the apartment...
IMO it is visible directly above the plane top in the pile in the PJ photo that night.
That orange and white "blob" in the wardrobe photo looks nothing like the red t-shirt. It is futile trying to match clear large photos of clothing items with that blurry pile IMO unless there is something substantial to work with. You reckon that the white on the orange background is one of the planes on the red t shirt...the scale of the item in the wardrobe picture would be all wrong for starters, iyswimThe scale of the fuselage is correct IMO.
But let's say all three/four tems Eddie picked up in the gym inspection were there. What is your argument again?
That they were not being worn on May 3 because they were in the wardrobe at 3am or whenever it was these photos were taken. That doesn't matter very much IF cadaver odour was on them. The scent is easily transferable we are told, either naturally from an original source or by contamination by humans.
TBH I'm finding it hard to follow any full theory here.
It is likely the clothes were taken out with them at the start of the holiday ... but there is nothing to prove it.
The scale of the fuselage is correct IMO.
And the scale of checks on the item above it IMO.
And I don't have a full theory.
The plain fact is that there should never have been an inspection at the villa because Madeleine never lived there.No, it is not a plain fact. Seeing as the cadaver dog alerted to their first apartment, they had every reason to check everywhere else. They would be amiss NOT to, Besides, Harrison did recommend all residences and vehicles by the whole group be inspected.
And there should never have been an inspection at the gym because Madeleine never went near the gym.
For a clue to what Grime was playing at, you have to look forward to another continent, a different case and an entirely different discipline.
The plain fact is that there should never have been an inspection at the villa because Madeleine never lived there.
And there should never have been an inspection at the gym because Madeleine never went near the gym.
For a clue to what Grime was playing at, you have to look forward to another continent, a different case and an entirely different discipline.
Are you saying that the police are not entitled to look and search where they please?
This was the full extent of Harrison's recommendations for searches:
Re Visiting Previously Searched Areas.
In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.
Mark Warner Creche at Praia Da Luz.
This is the location of the last confirmed sighting by a person independent of family members of Madeleine McCann. Although this location was within the original search area it may well benefit from a further search using enhanced detecting methods for human remains. This will depend on the size of any outside grounds and concealed areas inside the building.
McCann's Apartment.
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. 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. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's.
Murat's House and Garden.
The property has been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however the house and gardens may benefit from a fully invasive specialist search to preclude the presence of Madeleine McCann.
A method previously employed on similar cases has been to use the below assets.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
Deploy the CSI dog to search the house to locate any human blood.
This will act in support of the forensic examination already completed.
An inhibiting factor will be on areas where Luminol has been used.
Page 2228 :
Deploy geophysical instruments in the house and garden to detect any burial of a body or concealment in voids.
These specialists should be supported by physical search teams exploring and accessing all areas where concealment of a child's body could be made typically 0.5m.
Murat's Vehicles.
All vehicles Murat has had access to have been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however they may all benefit from a full search by the EVRD and CSI dogs. They may be able to detect whether a dead body has been transported in one of the vehicles for intelligence purposes or detect human blood deposits that can be recovered and
examined in a laboratory for Madeleine McCann's blood.
No, that wasnt the full extent, he also recommended all vehicles the tapas group had access to, and I have no idea why you keep posting things in bold. End of the day was recommendations not an order or warrant, the PJ decided to search further, as is their prerogative as a POLICE FORCE
I'm saying that there was literally no point in searches in places Madeleine is known never to have gone near.
In fact, that what Mark Harrison says ....
I have read Mark Harrison's three reports in their entirety, seemingly more carefully than you.And that is supposed to be an answer to what?
But how would the police know where Madeleine did not go?
And that is supposed to be an answer to what?
Your question.
What is your answer to my question?
Why inspections in places Madeleine never lived in or went near?
This is the red t shirt. As I understand it you are sayng that the image you posted (the orange and white piece) is a small part of it? It does not scale IMOYes that's what I'm saying. I will do some measurements and get back to you Mercury.
Your question.
What is your answer to my question?
Why inspections in places Madeleine never lived in or went near?
How would you, or anyone know where she went?
How would you, or anyone know where she went?
Yes that's what I'm saying. I will do some measurements and get back to you Mercury.
@FerryMan
"searches he (Harrison) had nothing to do with"?
According to the files Harrison was present when Eddie searched 5A.
And present when Eddie searched the Rua das Flores villa.
I already answered you, just read back
a) Cadaver scent was alerted to in 5a so police would be remiss not to search everywhere connected with the child
b) Its the police's prerogative!!
c) Harrison made "recommendations" The PJ werent monkeys, they could do what they thought might forward the case
@FerryMan
"searches he (Harrison) had nothing to do with"?
According to the files Harrison was present when Eddie searched 5A.
And present when Eddie searched the Rua das Flores villa.
I don't see it myself, but plug away....you hVe the colour problem as well as the scale, but careful you don't get distracted and waste much time on something which might not matter at allIt matters very much exactly where in the apartment these items were Mercury.
He was present at the searches but had nothing to do with evolution of intent to inspect in those places Madeleine never lived in or went near.But I already posted the letter dated 1st July which recommended obtaining warrants to search and bug the villa.
He also distanced UK input from those searches in his summary (as I have already pointed out)
It matters very much exactly where in the apartment these items were Mercury.I think you are confused by many things and confusing other things,no offence
An innocent individual was unjustly accused based on the illogical assumption they were being worn.
Re the colour problem you mention, if you take several photos of a red top in different lighting conditions, the red will be different in each photo.
It matters very much exactly where in the apartment these items were Mercury.
An innocent individual was unjustly accused based on the illogical assumption they were being worn.
Re the colour problem you mention, if you take several photos of a red top in different lighting conditions, the red will be different in each photo.
But I already posted the letter dated 1st July which recommended obtaining warrants to search and bug the villa.
The reason it gives is - the findings of MH at 5A.
And he was there at the villa search.
But you are saying he had nothing to do with it?
I think you are confused by many things and confusing other things,no offence
The one thing you can say about Pegasus' posts is that they are always interesting. She has unique way of looking at angles and has started many an interesting debate and discussion.
We would be a far poorer forum without her well thought through discussion points. I think I see where her present train of thought is leading and although I'm not in agreement with the route we are going to get to it I'm finding it fascinating.
The child wasn't seen by any independent witness from 5:30 on 3 May. If they rounded up male suspects close to the sighting that night and a cadaver dog alerted to one of them do you think they would let him go? So somebody's clothes (the one who refused to answer questions as a suspect) being alerted along with a kids top is different. Why?
I always thought pegasus was a he, how interesting dont you thnk? assigning gender to handles?
I have no problem with pegasus at all
LOL ... I have no idea about pegasus' gender either ... I took the concise analytical thought process and attention to detail to be female (sorry if I've offended by getting that wrong, pegasus)
Sorry if I was abrupt with you too, mercury, it is just I think pegasus is anything but confused.
.... and we are way OT again.
The child wasn't seen by any independent witness from 5:30 on 3 May. If they rounded up male suspects close to the sighting that night and a cadaver dog alerted to one of them do you think they would let him go? So somebody's clothes (the one who refused to answer questions as a suspect) being alerted along with a kids top is different. Why?Some clothing comes into direct contact with something.
Some clothing comes into direct contact with something.
You seem to assume that the clothing was being worn at the time.
Luckily I've got the book called "How to not make assumptions".
Some clothing comes into direct contact with something.
You seem to assume that the clothing was being worn at the time.
Luckily I've got the book called "How to not make assumptions".
what did that clothing come into contact with then for the dog to alert then?
CONVENIENTLY,Rubbish Sadie, give it up
Everyone keeps forgetting that Eddie was first trained to respond to living human odours and later to respond to Cadavar odours. It has been thoroughly explained that training once given cannot be detrained.
Eddie was the wrong dog for the tasks, cos he alerted to living human odour as well as the smell of death.
No way of telling if he is responding to living scents or death scents.
CONVENIENTLY,
Everyone keeps forgetting that Eddie was first trained to respond to living human odours and later to respond to Cadavar odours. It has been thoroughly explained that training once given cannot be detrained.
Eddie was the wrong dog for the tasks, cos he alerted to living human odour as well as the smell of death.
No way of telling if he is responding to living scents or death scents.
CONVENIENTLY,
Everyone keeps forgetting that Eddie was first trained to respond to living human odours and later to respond to Cadavar odours. It has been thoroughly explained that training once given cannot be detrained.
Eddie was the wrong dog for the tasks, cos he alerted to living human odour as well as the smell of death.
No way of telling if he is responding to living scents or death scents.
CONVENIENTLY,
Everyone keeps forgetting that Eddie was first trained to respond to living human odours and later to respond to Cadavar odours. It has been thoroughly explained that training once given cannot be detrained.
Eddie was the wrong dog for the tasks, cos he alerted to living human odour as well as the smell of death.
No way of telling if he is responding to living scents or death scents.
what did that clothing come into contact with then for the dog to alert then?The subject of contact is more complicated than it appears so I don't know.
The subject of contact is more complicated than it appears so I don't know.
My main point is that the trousers were for that entire evening not being worn.
Therefore the accusation against the person who owns them is illogical and unjust.
R.U.B.B.I.S.H.
T.O.T.A.L. A..N.A.D.U.L.T.E.R.A.T. E.D R. U.B.B.I.S.H
And why did Harrison give no clue at all who took part in the inspection of vehciles?
Harrison was AT THE INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLES, why are you trying to rewrite history??? Sheesh, one might almost thnk you had some agenda!!
Did Harrison write a report AFTER all the searches and didnt give you a clue who was there and who did what??
Harrison acknowledged the involvement of Grime and his dogs in those searches he recommended: the places Madeleine either had been or (please God not!) might have been.
There was literally no function or purpose that served the enquiry in searches in the other places.
That's why Harrison turned his back on them.
Harrison was involved with these dogs years before the McCann case. He knew them very well.
Her handler, PC Martin Grime, has been responsible for training Keela, along with National Search Adviser Mark Harrison, since June last year. Friday 30 December 2005
http://news.sky.com/story/395084/keelas-nose-makes-her-top-dog
The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
That is common sense but it's not the be all and end all in a circumstantial evidence case.
There is no circumstantial evidence (at least against the McCanns) -- still less, hard evidence.
All we have are two dogs incompetently deployed and solid evidence placing Gerry in the Tapas restaurant at the time of Kate's alert and the Smith sighting.
That's why the judge at the libel trial against Amaral commented that the McCanns are innocent -- also (part of the reason) why the McCanns won the libel trial ....
The faith people put in Anne Guide's transcripts is no odds to anyone ....
But no one has accused the wearer of those trousers of anything
Anne was there.
Tuesday 08 July 2014
martinbrunt@skymartinbrunt · 5h
##Madeleine Gerry McCann tells court Amaral "wrong" to write in book sniffer dogs detected blood and "smell of death" in family apartment
Cite for Eddie being a dog trained to find living humans? and matter from them NOT being anywhere else apart from 5 a , yes, ok
It's surprising those so desperate to rubbish the dog alerts haven't picked on canine pregnancy yet.Eddie was pregnant?!
Eddie was pregnant?!
I have a dim and distant memory from way-back, to a suggestion that Keela might have been pregnant.
I couldn't give you a quote for that, though ...
That is correct....
I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs. 'Eddie' is a 7-year old English Springer spaniel dog. 'Keela' is a three-year old English Springer spaniel pregnant dog. I also have a six-month old English Springer spaniel dog, puppy, in training, 'Morse' .
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html
@Pathfinder. It would be interesting to find how he obtained that figure of two hours.
By doing tests to get those results.Yes but how did they get permission to use a body that had been dead for only two hours in order to do this test? "I'm sorry, your husband has died, now do you mind if we whisk his body off to a do a test on Eddie and Keela?" I don't think so!
PJ photo of shirt: width of white fuselage = about 1/30th of shirt length.
PJ photo of wardrobe: width of white detail on red item = about 1/30th of length of jacket on wardrobe doorknob
Of far greater significance than the measurement of clothing is what the hell any police dog was doing at a crime-scene picking stuff up its mouth.
Outrageous ill-discipline, even in respect of clothing in ordinary circulation as clothing is for a full 3 months after Madeleine's abduction.
Just no justification for "inspection" of such clothing, irrespective of the fact that the manner of the "inspections" was farcical ....
Yes but how did they get permission to use a body that had been dead for only two hours in order to do this test? "I'm sorry, your husband has died, now do you mind if we whisk his body off to a do a test on Eddie and Keela?" I don't think so!All that is needed is to briefly place a special scent pad in contact with the subject, at whatever post-mortem interval is required. That scent pad is then sealed in a special container, which can be used on later dates.
Would not Eddie have destroyed any forensics with slobber? Or do they take out the slobber before they test it?
Morse learnt from the master Eddie. Look at his training record results. They detect odour 2 hours after death. So we know who the prime suspects are in this case.
(http://s7.postimg.org/904ruim23/morserecord.jpg)
so cardigan/jacket 18 inches.0.6 inches sounds about right pegusas.In the PJ photo of red shirt, the width of white fuselage = about 1/30th of shirt length.
We should also remember that items in the foreground will appear larger.
I was trying to compare with what looks like Kate's trouser leg bottom (closer to the red item) side to side approx. 10 inches and came up with motive on teeshirt as .75 of an inch.
Not sure what any of this means, or indeed if it is the tshirt in question. or a small red crumpled item with a white sock on top.
Was anything found by forensic? I thought this clothes inspection only resulted in certain people believing that it was cadaver scent.
I guess they have a slobber test too, Eleanor @)(++(*
In the PJ photo of red shirt, the width of white fuselage = about 1/30th of shirt length.
In the PJ photo of wardrobe: the width of white detail on red item = about 1/30th of length of jacket on doorknob.
I assume the jacket hanging on the wardrobe doorknob is the same real length as the red shirt.
If so then the white detail on the red item in the wardrobe is quite accurately the correct width to be the white aircraft fuselage of the red shirt.
All that is needed is to briefly place a special scent pad in contact with the subject, at whatever post-mortem interval is required. That scent pad is then sealed in a special container, which can be used on later dates.That is still using a very recently deceased person in a test scenario. I'd like to see some actual cites of similar tests using people who have been dead for two hours or less.
Is right.
Nothing (of clothing!) was sent to the FSS.
Still more farcical is that in the gym, Keela (the blood dog!) was deployed first and didn't react.
So why was Eddie deployed at all?
Uncorroborated dog alerts are excluded as evidence in any English court of law.
Keela didn't alert to blood, so in their reasoning, Eddie could only alert to Cadaver scent.
A dog may alert when there is no target…. Negative alert.
No forensic matter remains to be investigated.
The alerts will always remain no more than indications and not of evidential value in a court of law, without corroborating evidence.
However, Mr Amaral believed the alerts to be proof of a death, as do some others.
Who knows for certain whether she was alive or dead, except for the culprit(s) who removed Madeleine, of course.
I was thinking of the slobber(saliva) issue that was raised. Did a supposed semen spot sent to forensic lab in UK, not turn out to be saliva?
Morse's training record results are documented and independently verified ... do you have a cite for the equivalent regarding Eddie's performance.
Does the onset of rigor mortis feature anywhere in your pet theory?
It did, although (I have always assumed!) human saliva.
Perhaps I was wrong.
Maybe it was canine saliva?
Eddie will have training records and excellent ones to be known as the best dog. I follow evidence not any allegiance. That's another reason you can't leave anybody inside that apartment for too long.is there a world ranking of EVRD dogs?
That is still using a very recently deceased person in a test scenario. I'd like to see some actual cites of similar tests using people who have been dead for two hours or less.Yes but it is easier to do because there is no need to keep the body.
Yes but it is easier to do because there is no need to keep the body.
Also it is possible to get lots of scent pads of one subject.
Do one scent pad at PMI 10 mins, another at PMI 20 minutes, etc.
I agree there is a big need for a detailed study to be done.
The best we have so far is the CSST study (no dogs alerted to a 70 minute pad, one dog out of five alerted to a 85 minute pad).
I will happily volunteer for it if I can have a flexible appointment date.
is there a world ranking of EVRD dogs?
Why don't you contact him to find out about Eddie.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rex-stockham/39/6a8/aa0
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. (MG)
Lane tried to diss Eddie about coconut island.
Grime submitted Morse and Keela's training reports into evidence. Over the course of 49 tests, Morse gave no false negative or false positive responses to tests in controlled environments. He gave one “unexplained” response, which was a single bark in a “blank” room. Morse scored 100 percent in tests on December 2 and December 6, 2011. Morse was tested on variety of dates between January 21, 2011, and February 13, 2013. Morse scored 100 percent in all but one test, on which he scored 95 to 100 percent. Morse did not give false positive responses to animal remains during his tests.
Lane contends that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to impeach Grime with evidence that one of his cadaver dogs, Eddie, in 2009 had alerted to the odor of decomposition on what was determined to be a piece of coconut shell. We disagree.
The basis of Lane's claim is that counsel was ineffective for failing to admit certain impeachment evidence. Lane contends that Grime testified that his dogs are 100 percent accurate, and that counsel should have impeached Grime with the evidence involving Eddie. Lane bases his argument on a factual predicate that the record does not support.
The defendant must show the factual predicates of his or her claims on appeal.68 Here, Grime testified that Morse's proficiency test results were “very high” and that, during specific training dates before and after December 4, 2011, Morse tested 100 percent positive and with 100 percent efficiency. However, Grime did not testify that “his dogs” were 100 percent accurate or flawless. To the contrary, when asked whether Morse was “pretty much perfect,” Grime testified that he “wouldn't say that,” and that his dogs were not 100 percent correct.
Because Grime never testified that his dogs were 100 percent accurate, evidence of a specific instance in which one of Grime's dogs was inaccurate was not probative of Grime's truthfulness and would not have been valid impeachment evidence. Accordingly, we reject Lane's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel because he has failed to establish the factual basis of his claim.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html#sthash.XUzHeLLF.dpuf
Why don't you contact him to find out about Eddie.There isn't a world ranking for EVRD dogs is there?
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rex-stockham/39/6a8/aa0
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. (MG)
Lane tried to diss Eddie about coconut island.
Grime submitted Morse and Keela's training reports into evidence. Over the course of 49 tests, Morse gave no false negative or false positive responses to tests in controlled environments. He gave one “unexplained” response, which was a single bark in a “blank” room. Morse scored 100 percent in tests on December 2 and December 6, 2011. Morse was tested on variety of dates between January 21, 2011, and February 13, 2013. Morse scored 100 percent in all but one test, on which he scored 95 to 100 percent. Morse did not give false positive responses to animal remains during his tests.
Lane contends that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to impeach Grime with evidence that one of his cadaver dogs, Eddie, in 2009 had alerted to the odor of decomposition on what was determined to be a piece of coconut shell. We disagree.
The basis of Lane's claim is that counsel was ineffective for failing to admit certain impeachment evidence. Lane contends that Grime testified that his dogs are 100 percent accurate, and that counsel should have impeached Grime with the evidence involving Eddie. Lane bases his argument on a factual predicate that the record does not support.
The defendant must show the factual predicates of his or her claims on appeal.68 Here, Grime testified that Morse's proficiency test results were “very high” and that, during specific training dates before and after December 4, 2011, Morse tested 100 percent positive and with 100 percent efficiency. However, Grime did not testify that “his dogs” were 100 percent accurate or flawless. To the contrary, when asked whether Morse was “pretty much perfect,” Grime testified that he “wouldn't say that,” and that his dogs were not 100 percent correct.
Because Grime never testified that his dogs were 100 percent accurate, evidence of a specific instance in which one of Grime's dogs was inaccurate was not probative of Grime's truthfulness and would not have been valid impeachment evidence. Accordingly, we reject Lane's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel because he has failed to establish the factual basis of his claim.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html#sthash.XUzHeLLF.dpuf
I don't know. My "How to not overcomplicate things" book by Ockham is on a cupboard shelf under a pile of clothes, it is in direct contact with the surface of the shelf, and also in direct contact with a few of the clothes.
So you think the t shirt, Kate's trousers and possibly the white t'shirt in the wardrobe, all came from that shelf that may have been contaminated. That could mean many things, considering the amount of people with their clothing and suitcases, who had used 5A.
What do think was responsible for the X contamination?
Imcoconutment is the accurate legal word.
OH No! I wouldn't want people pawing all over my body when I'm dead or covering me with scent pads, Yuk!:)
Besides I'm allergic to so many materials.
:)
Back to Amaral, dogs, and the wardrobe. Grey-white check turns to grey when blurred.
The faith people put in Anne Guide's transcripts is no odds to anyone ....
Interesting that the wearer of the trousers was constituted arguida and a book was written in justification.
Both of the couple were made arguidos and not just because the dog alerted to her trousers or his t shirt.
The dog tossed Sean's tee shirt around ~ which apparently passes as an 'alert' in some circles.Grime was the handler, if it was good enough for him, it should be for everyone ele, and of course, it wasn't just Sean's t shirt the dog was interested in, but Gerry's white t-shirt as well (Pathfinder posted about it a short whle ago)
Both of the couple were made arguidos and not just because the dog alerted to her trousers or his t shirt.
Not just because?
Ian Horrocks made reference to the irrelevant behaviour of the dogs ....
Well, Im sure you loved and agreed with his "comments", whoever this is
If sniffer dogs "behaviour" was "irrelevant" they would not be used in the first place
As a generic statement, that is, of course, untrue.
With specific reference to PdL and the McCanns, it's fair to say that if the dogs had been deployed properly, the McCanns might never have been made arguidos.
Admittedly, with a loose cannon like Amaral, that can't be said certainly.
Amaral might have found some other pretext or excuse ....
Well, Im sure you loved and agreed with his "comments", whoever this is
If sniffer dogs "behaviour" was "irrelevant" they would not be used in the first place
The dogs are used to find evidence and they are very good at it. In this case the dogs found no evidence
Rollocks.
The dogs alerted.
Forensic results were inconclusive.
the dogs found no evidence...fact
Rubbish.
The forensics were inconclusive.
the dogs found no evidence
Evidence YES.
Forensics were inconclusive.
Now which group of people messed up the crime scene before the police got there ?
the dogs found no evidence
The dogs alerted, that is evidence.
Now if the dogs hadn't alerted............................... 8)--))
The dogs alerted, that is evidence.
Now if the dogs hadn't alerted............................... 8)--))
the alerts have no evidential value according to Grime...but of course you know better
the dog's alerts are not evidence.
All your beliefs and those of others on this forum are based on lies...it really is a waste of time having any sort of debate when you believe lies
Rubbish as usual.
Also , your repeated mistakes in basic science and maths, show what your posts are worth. 8)-)))
the dog's alerts are not evidence.
All your beliefs and those of others on this forum are based on lies...it really is a waste of time having any sort of debate when you believe lies
"He was questioned as a witness in a missing person case, a status that changed when sniffer dogs indicated that a body had been in Pacteau's car."
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/he-robbed-us-of-our-beautiful-daughter-and-sister-buckley-family-issue-statement-690536.html
It is well known where the lies originate.
EXACTLY WHERE THEY ORIGINATE. 8(0(*
the dogs alerts are not evidence...your claim is totally false....you cannot even get the basics right..
when you have been caught out you then try and deflect
Let's make this simple for you.
The dogs alerted. FACT.
Forensics were inconclusive. FACT.
So either the dogs alerted to a body or they didn't. FACT.
8(0(*
and dogs are RELIABLE, VERY RELIABLE.
Alerts are not evidence.....fact...which is what you stated ..fact...you are 100% wrong...fact
They are circumstantial evidence.
I know what the laws of probability dictate in these circumstances.
they are not evidence...fact...and are not admissible in uk or Portuguese courts as circumstantial evidence ...fact...you are 100% wrong...fact
You do not have a clue what the laws of probability state in this instance...fact...as you do not have enough information..fact
The alerts are circumstantial evidence.
You can't get away from that.
Hence why you, other 'supporters' and the mccanns, as the trial revealed, are still worried about the alerts.
and as far as the dogs are concerned, and the mccanns 'story', peoples minds are made up as to what really happened.
The alerts are circumstantial evidence.
You can't get away from that.
Hence why you, other 'supporters' and the mccanns, as the trial revealed, are still worried about the alerts.
and as far as the dogs are concerned, and the mccanns 'story', peoples minds are made up as to what really happened.
Very revealing that you need to resort to insults in order to make your case.
The dogs have no more evidential value than any other form of search technique. It is only the results of forensic analysis that has any evidential value whatever. I know this is somewhat inconvenient to your argument, but it is the precise legal position.
The insults are from davel as usual, not me.
Try to be precise on that, and the tactics on display are so well known.
I'm fully aware of the inconclusive forensics jp.
However, as this thread continues to demonstrate, and for very obvious reasons, it continues to be one of the main focuses of attention of mccanns supporters and of course, the mccanns themselves.
At least you have given up trying to claim the alerts are any type of evidence.....
The insults are from davel as usual, not me.
Try to be precise on that, and the tactics on display are so well known.
I'm fully aware of the inconclusive forensics jp.
However, as this thread continues to demonstrate, and for very obvious reasons, it continues to be one of the main focuses of attention of mccanns supporters and of course, the mccanns themselves.
Hardly. Let's face it, it's about the only thing "McCann septics" have to justify their continuing hate campaign against this unfortunate family.
A message for members of this Forum who do not believe that cadaver dogs have been tested on recently dead individualsThanks. Interesting study. PMIs of 110 mins and 120 mins. But isn't the maximum possible PMI in the theory in VdM film less than half that time? 45 mins?
http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf
'' Both men (A and B)
had publicly collapsed and died despite comprehensive resuscitative efforts. At
the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B)
was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively''
Oh dear.
The crime has yet to be ascertained jp.
'hate campaign' ???
That is observable from certain parties on both sides.
A simple inspection of the extreme forums on both sides will amply demonstrate that, won't it jp ?
Thanks. Interesting study. PMIs of 110 mins and 120 mins. But isn't the maximum possible PMI in the theory in VdM film less than half that time? 45 mins?
Quite possible Pegasus, but that would depend on several variables.The theory in the film allows only about 45 mins max.
The theory in the film allows only about 45 mins max.
But is there any evidence anywhere of a dog alerting to such a short interval?
I'll have a look later today.Shortest I found was 70 mins and none of the dogs alerted http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
@Anna This image you posted is interesting. Did you only brighten it, and nothing else?
I believe that was all I done, Pegusas . I may have adjusted the contrast. Do you want me to crop the original and post it? I just wanted to see what was there more clearly.Thanks. no need to upload original. Your brightening made some things clearer like check. But now I see on original too.
Not just because?
Ian Horrocks made reference to the irrelevant behaviour of the dogs ....
Ian Horrocks.
Paid by the Sun.
As to his track record...
So, police DO change the course in an investigation from missing when dogs are brought in, silly UK police hey? Its only the Portuguese who are supposed to do that!
He was questioned as a witness in a missing person case, a status that changed when sniffer dogs indicated that a body had been in Pacteau’s car. DNA samples taken from his apartment showed traces of Ms Buckley’s blood.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/he-robbed-us-of-our-beautiful-daughter-and-sister-buckley-family-issue-statement-690536.html
Interesting posts here on this unknown forum to me:
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1945-poacher-s-view-on-grime-and-the-dogs (http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1945-poacher-s-view-on-grime-and-the-dogs)
The guy seems to work in the dog handling industry and claims to know Martin Grimes and offers some opinion on the alerts and Grimes himself.
Poacher seems to have made himself persona non grata because of his opinions.
Personally, I think he makes a lot of sense.
"The dog indicated the presence of one spot of blood deposited on a wall, subsequently washed off and left for six weeks.
It also indicated the mop and bucket used to wash the walls that had themselves been washed in disinfectant and left for six weeks.
As such the sensitivity of the dog's nose is such that innocent depositions can never be ruled out unless you have a controlled environment which the apartment and the hire car aren't."
In other words, if that example is accurate ... the cleaner mops a contaminated area somewhere in the areas allocated to her. She washes and disinfects her mop. She then uses the mop to clean up a spillage elsewhere.
Up to six weeks later, possibly more ... a cadaver dog inspects a room ... runs around daft looking for the scent source he knows is there ... and alerts.
Hardly surprising there is nothing there which can be picked up forensically ... and so a myth is born.
If the guy is for real then it certainly adds another perspective. The dog alerts will always be ambiguous without forensic corroboration. He does say as Grimes himself says:
If the dogs indicated in the apartment then it is possible that there was something that they detected that forensic examination failed to find. It might be that the McCanns are guilty. There is enough in my posts to show that this is entirely possible. If you want me to say that the dog's indication proves beyond all doubt that they are guilty then I cannot. There is the slight chance that cross-contamination or other depositions caused one or more of the indications. As previously and repeatedly been said - forensic proves the case not the dogs.
Interesting posts here on this unknown forum to me:
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1945-poacher-s-view-on-grime-and-the-dogs (http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1945-poacher-s-view-on-grime-and-the-dogs)
The guy seems to work in the dog handling industry and claims to know Martin Grimes and offers some opinion on the alerts and Grimes himself.
Thanks for finding that, Lordpookles. I had entirely forgotten about it, although I did read it at the time.
So, it is highly unlikely that Eddie was taken to America before Praia da Luz, or trained on Human Cadaver as Martin Grime wasn't there for long enough.
And highly unlikely that Martin Grime was employed by South Yorkshire Police when he went to Praia da Luz.
I shall make no comment about Martin Grime himself, other than to say that Poacher's opinion mirrors mine.
I don't know what to make of Poacher. I'm sceptical as this person seems to have had a personal gripe against either Grime or the other agency employing dogs.
I did come across a different HRD handler (US?) who seemed much more objective to me... I've posted the link here before, and will add it again if and when I find it.
ETA:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6311.msg255256#msg255256
The fact that it is accepted that Maddie may still be alive says all we need to know about the alerts
brit1981
06-21-2012, 12:34 PM
The cadaver dog did not alert to these.
Also here are a few facts
1) Martin Grimes says the alerts mean nothing on their own
2) Grimes and his cadaver dog no longer have a license to practice in the UK as the license was not renewed.
3) British police will no longer work with grimes and his dogs
4) Eddie alerted in an old jersey care home, specifically to a piece of organic material thought to be bone. Experts examined the material eddie alerted to and found it to be coconut shell.
5) when asked about the mistakes grimes said mistakes happen, people are only human. I am not certain if the "only human" was a turn of phrase and he was refering to the dog making a mistake, or if he meant a human had made a mistake in interpreting the dogs signals
6) Grimes also said that the scent can appear through transferance. Tens of people including criminal investigators had been in the flat.
7) Reports have stated that dogs in the UK are not trained well enough for their alerts to be meaningful. They can be helpful when looking for a body, but in no way can be used to identify where there are bodies. this was shown by the care home fiasco when eddie alerted, and the alert turned out to be false and he had alerted to coconut shell.
Sound ....
No it doesn't.
Since the alerts also can signify a death.
Down to probability.
and Mr. Mccann in his interview said 'dogs are incredibly unreliable'.
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
The fact that it accepted Maddie may still be alive prove the alerts are unreliable in proving the previous presence of a cadaver
The fact that it is accepted that Maddie may still be alive says all we need to know about the alerts
I don't know what to make of Poacher. I'm sceptical as this person seems to have had a personal gripe against either Grime or the other agency employing dogs.
I did come across a different HRD handler (US?) who seemed much more objective to me... I've posted the link here before, and will add it again if and when I find it.
ETA:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6311.msg255256#msg255256
The sad thing is that our scepticism about Dog Alerts is so badly misunderstood. If scepticism is even the word.
Some of us are really only interested in what it all amounts to. Which is actually nothing much at all.
Now that could all change Eleanor if a body is found.
Likewise if dogs are of no use, why were they taken to Portugal last year by the SY team, including spaniels of course.
The Dogs are a tool, Stephen. They are not definitive in their own right.
If a body is found? What will that tell us?
There are actually 3 FOI answers (two in my possession) that, between them confirm Eddie was never sent to America to be trained on human remains.
The forensic examination could reveal the dogs were correct in indicating the possible presence of a body.
Could and Possible.
However, I doubt very much this case will ever be solved.
I might agree with you on that.
Are we setting a precedent ?
There are actually 3 FOI answers (two in my possession) that, between them confirm Eddie was never sent to America to be trained on human remains.
Ask him.
Rex Stockham
FBI Canine Program Manager at FBI
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rex-stockham/39/6a8/aa0
Forensic Canine Program Manager
FBI
May 2005 – Present (10 years 4 months)Fredericksburg, VA
Developed and implemented the FBI's Human Scent Evidence Team (HSET) and Victim Recovery Team (VRT) programs. Provide canine-related search assistance and subject matter expert testimony. Train and certify Forensic Canine Program canines.
Rollocks.They weren't even pointers .. cos Eddie alerts to living scents as well as cadavar odour.
The dogs alerted.
Forensic results were inconclusive.
They weren't even pointers .. cos Eddie alerts to living scents as well as cadavar odour.
Not even pointers. Soz stephen.
Is this from you ferryman ?
From Amazon..........................
''There are actually 3 FOI answers (two in my possession) that, between them confirm Eddie was never sent to America to be trained on human remains.''
' This is a total falsehood. In fact, the FOI responses confirm that Martin Grime did indeed take the dog to America and that there is a record of this in his training record with South Yorkshire police.
In the record it makes mention of a report to follow. The report referred to is not in the file.
ferryman has used the absence of the report to claim something is amiss, and has made this libelous claim about Mr Grime on numerous occasions.
It is of course complete rubbish'
They weren't even pointers .. cos Eddie alerts to living scents as well as cadavar odour.
Not even pointers. Soz stephen.
Keep digging ...
I don't need to. 8)-)))
Is there evidence for that statement please?
I don't need to. 8)-)))
You're already buried then?
He was a fantasist who discussed means of disposing of a body.
His image was captured on CCTV in the company of his victim.
He had been acquitted on a rape charge which was alleged to have occurred a short distance from where he battered his victim to death in his car with a spanner.
Traces of his victim were found in his flat where he had changed his mattress after enquiring how to remove blood from his old one.
He purchased caustic soda which he made into a solution in a drum and attempted to dissolve his victim's body in it.
He was familiar with the storage facilities on the farm where he had stored the drum and its contents having rented there before.
Forensic tests on the dirt trapped in the wheel treads of his vehicle showed matches for the soil from the farm where he dumped his victim's remains and from where he dumped her handbag.
That's all I can recall off the top of my head, I'm sure there will be more.
The example you have chosen to equate the value of police dog working bears absolutely no comparison or relation to what happened in Praia da Luz ... it is rather mean spirited of you to suggest such a thing.
Ferryman
- the FOI response confirms Mr Grime went to the USA to train his dog on human remains
- that SYP never recieved a specific report from the FBI as to methods used does not nullify this
- do you accept you are calling Mr Grime a liar? and that he has fabricated info on his CV?
Is there evidence for that statement please?Gunit
The answers say what they say.
They don't say what you insist.
Unless we have been misinformed, Dr Gerry McCann is alive and kicking ... the cellular material Eddie alerted to in the Renault was his; that provides evidence that Eddie alerts to living scent.
Thank you Brietta.
Practical proof that what i have repeated from the official report (at least three times) is true.
Eddie alerts to living scents
Gunit why do you keep asking the same question? Is it three times that I have now answered it, or four?
Time wasting.
What other scents could have been present by secondary transfer, which were not 'living scents', which of course is a contradiction in terms ?
What other scents could have been present by secondary transfer, which were not 'living scents', which of course is a contradiction in terms ?
Living scents and pork products
You of course can prove this ??I can prove it every bit as well as you can prove that the scent of death was there
and that these scents were present ??
Question about http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.htmlYes, at 90 minutes post mortem in that example
Their shortest-PMI scent pad they say they put on a subject who had passed away 70 minutes before.
They leave the pad in place for 20 minutes
So does that mean that pad was removed at 90 minutes?
Question about http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
Their shortest-PMI scent pad they say they put on a subject who had passed away 70 minutes before.
They leave the pad in place for 20 minutes
So does that mean that pad was removed at 90 minutes?
Dear [name deleted],
With regard to your request in relation to:
"1. Can you confirm that the cadaver dog "Eddie", formerly a police dog under
dog handler and dog instructor Martin Grime, now retired from your force, was
sent to America to be trained on human cadavers and be upgraded to "enhanced"
victim recovery dog?
2. Can you confirm that South Yorkshire Police uses, or has used, an American
device for trapping scents, a "Scent Transfer Unit" or "STU100" in the
training of its cadaver dogs?"
RESPONSE
1. South Yorkshire Police holds information which would tend to confirm this part of your request. This information is contained within the anual Personal Development Review of retired PC GRIME for the year 2005/2006 and states at various points,
"(PC GRIMES) has deployed police dog 'Eddie' to train on human remains in the US. This training has been valuable as it is not possible to utilise human remains in the UK. A full report from the F.B.I. to document his training and operational deployments whilst in America remains pending"
"Deployments have been on a national scale and a recent visit to the F.B.I. in America has created some income generation potential in terms of training."
"Complete sponsored visit to FBI to educate on C.S.I. Dog capabilities - Achieved"
2. From enquiries I have made it would appear that South Yorkshire Police have not deployed or used a device known as a 'Scent Transfer Unit' or 'STU100' within Force either operationally or for evaluation. However the Force does hold information that would indicate that Mr GRIME, whilst serving with this Force IN 2006, did utilise such a device whilst engageD in another Force area. A section of a statement apparently made but not signed by Mr GRIME reads: -
" I developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles by a ST 100 Scent Tranference Unit.
The unit is designed in a two main-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. Ther is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second main part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated the ST 100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.
The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the S100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.
Use of the ST100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.
Operational use of the STU 100 is in a developmental stage"
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by following the advice contained in the separate notice attached to this correspondence:
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely
___________________________
The follow-up quetion:
__________________________-
Freedom of Information Request - Reference No:20110231
REQUEST
[Following a response to request 20110186]
Can I ask, did that FBI report described as 'pending' turn up?
RESPONSE
SYP did not receive a report, therefore there is `no information held'.
The third FOI answer (which I believe Carana has) asked, straightforwardly, what training or preparation Eddie had received to equip him for his duties as a police dog.
The answer was that Eddie's training was in conformance with standard ACPO guidelines.
Then a link was given to the ACPO dog-training manual.
As you would expect, the ACPO dog-training manual says nothing about sending dogs to America. It explains in detail how dog-training courses are set up in the UK using pig carcasses and pig scents.
I can prove it every bit as well as you can prove that the scent of death was there
As you must by now well know.
Living scents and pork products
Living scents and pork products
Rex Stolkham did not produce the FOI answers.
South Yorkshire Police did (Grime's former employer)
He was questioned as a witness in a missing person case, a status that changed when sniffer dogs indicated that a body had been in Pacteau’s car. DNA samples taken from his apartment showed traces of Ms Buckley’s blood.
-----
His status changed from witness to suspect after a cadaver dog alerted. Just as happened in the Mccann case. So dogs can change the course of an investigation.
A pertinent point on a dog thread.
That is the only point I was making, and not comparing the two cases in any other way and it is mean spirited of you to suggest anything else!
The point you are making is a spurious one.
The direction of the investigation was firmly fixed on him as the last person to have had any contact with the missing person.
The dog alert in the vehicle was corroborated by the blood found in the car.
On the strength of the evidence found including the victim's remains the perpetrator was brought to trial.
So it most definitely is not "Just as happened in the Mccann case."
@Anna Thanks
@Mercury Thanks.
The scent pads were placed in direct contact with skin of abdomen.
So the transfer to the pad is actually instant IMO.
The pad started at 70 minutes was in skin contact until 90 minutes. No dogs alerted to that.
And the pad started at 85 minutes was in skin contact until 105 minutes. One of the 5 dogs alerted to that.
IMO this means the minimum PMI interval required is 105 minutes.
That's 1 hour 45 minutes.
Well,no, from the site:
The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes.
That is 85 minutes
I think that was before the pads were put in place to absorb the scent, Mercury
Well,no, from the site:Was the "85 minutes" pad started at 45 minutes and removed at 85 minutes?
The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes.
That is 85 minutes
Was the "85 minutes" pad started at 45 minutes and removed at 85 minutes?
Or started at 85 minutes and removed at 105 minutes?
That is the question.
Eh?
What does the "correct response to " refer to then if not the pads?
Is referring to the dogs, I believe.Yes Anna
Was the "85 minutes" pad started at 45 minutes and removed at 85 minutes?No mention of pads in the section of the report, just the words, the dog alerted correctly after 85 mins (PMI) speaks for itself
Or started at 85 minutes and removed at 105 minutes?
That is the question.
Even an 85 minutes minimum rubbishes the theory stated in that disputed book and film doesn't it?Yes
Because 9.10 to 10.00 is only 50 minutes.
YesThe main theory in that book and film IMO seems to claim something happened at about 9.10pm, doesn't it?
But you are being too pedantic
And you can never take uncorroborated witness statements (especially persons who were the last to see a missing person as gospel
From what I have read of your posts you thnk everyne is telling the truth, good luck with that
... PS btw do you agree a dog akerted at 85 minsIMO it's debatable whether that pad it was on the skin from 45 mins PM until 85 mins PM, or on the skin from 85 mins PM until 105 mins PM.
IMO it's debatable whether that pad it was on the skin from 45 mins PM until 85 mins PM, or on the skin from 85 mins PM until 105 mins PM.
Later, when it was dog tested, 1 of the 5 dogs alerted to it.
If 85 mins (or 105 mins) is correct, the "chat/sofa-smithsighting" hypothesis in that book-film doesn't work IMO
IMO it's debatable whether that pad it was on the skin from 45 mins PM until 85 mins PM, or on the skin from 85 mins PM until 105 mins PM.
Later, when it was dog tested, 1 of the 5 dogs alerted to it.
If 85 mins (or 105 mins) is correct, the "chat/sofa-smithsighting" hypothesis in that book-film doesn't work IMO
No it would not even work at 8.30pm, when they went for dinner.The only way to make the "sofa+smithsighting" hypothesis fit would be to move chat to earlier, and smithsighting to later, and it is difficult to stretch that combination to get the 85 (or more) minutes of the dog study.
The only way to make the "sofa+smithsighting" hypothesis fit would be to move chat to earlier, and smithsighting to later, and it is difficult to stretch that combination to get the 85 (or more) minutes of the dog study.youare assuming the mccanns told the truth
youare assuming the mccanns told the truthTo test Amaral's "sofa + irish sighting" hypothesis against dog studies, all that's needed is to estimate the time of the chat outside, and the time of the irish sighting, both of which IMO we know independently did happen, because there is an independent witness for the first and several for the second.
that could bewhere u might be going wrong
To test Amaral's "sofa + irish sighting" hypothesis against dog studies, all that's needed is to estimate the time of the chat outside, and the time of the irish sighting, both of which IMO we know independently did happen, because there is an independent witness for the first and several for the second.
As i said youre assuming mccanns were truthful
Are you asserting that The McCanns are liars?
not assertng anything but they might be! if thats ok with you, feel free to delete delete thought lol
long as you dont insist eddie barked to sausages , meh, tara, off now
Are you asserting that The McCanns are liars?
Yes
But you are being too pedantic as Amaral was hypothesising
And you can never take uncorroborated witness statements (especially persons who were the last to see a missing person as gospel
From what I have read of your posts you thnk everyne is telling the truth, good luck with that
PS btw do you agree a dog akerted at 85 mins
amaral was not hypothesising...that's a mistake many make....he claimed to be able to prove maddie died in the apartment
One can't really be sure, can one?
The police will have made a judgement on this and it appears both the Portuguese and SY accept the McCanns are telling the truth. Combine that with all the available evidence. Combine that with the fact that there is no realistic scenario for death in the apartment and the parents are ruled out. That looks exactly what has happened.
No one has come up with a realistic scenario for death in the apartment in the time frame. Amaral's falling off the sofa is completely ridiculous
Still waiting ferryman for an answerr,are you asserting Grime is a liar?
Well, let's see.
According to Amaral, Eddie was involved in operational deployment and over 200 cases. An FOI answer by SYP confirms the true number to be operational deployment and 37 cases.
We can't really judge Grime's claim to be in post with SYP when he wrote his profile, because it is undated.
But certainly he was freelance when he went to PdL.
One can't really be sure, can one?One can be sure the police don't think so otherwise they would be suspects. They are not suspects, as I'm sure you agree.
The fact that SY declared the McCanns not suspects is evidence that they believe them
Ah mccann mantra time.
There is no evidence that SY have ever questioned as witnesses or otherwise, either the mccanns or the rest of the group.
As to accidental death, quite possible.
Children do have fatal accidents, which can lead to death directly, or after a delay.
3.10.11
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
- 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.
The fact that SY declared the McCanns not suspects is evidence that they believe them
What kind of evidence would you expect to see? Do tell.
Ah!
That is also the report that confirms, much more convincingly than tabloid newspapers, that Eddie alerted to a coconut .[/list]
How about for a start SY, openly saying they had questioned all of them on the events of May the 3 rd and after ???
Maybe SY thought that would be insulting the intelligence of any reasonable member of the GBP - who would automatically expect SY to carry out the premier requirement of any police force in these cases. I.E. First of all investigate the family and friends of the victim in order to rule them in or out of the enquiry.
The alternative - i.e. SY just took their word for it that it wasn't them 'wot dunnit' - and immediately publicly ruled them out of the enquiry - is just too daft for words IMO.
I am puzzled by the notion put about that Scotland Yard launched the reopening of Madeleine McCann's case without first interviewing the relevant people within their jurisdiction at the review stage and going over their recollections of May 2007.
Including British holidaymakers who were there; those who gave a statement at the time and those who did not.
Police professionals who were in Praia da Luz on duty including the liaison officers who spent time with the McCann family and who had first hand professional experience of the investigation at its most critical phase; as well as Martin Grime and Mark Harrison.
"The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before."
Operation Grange - Remit of Investigation
There is no evidence the McCanns have been questioned when they are not suspects.
again that is a celestial teapot argument
They have never stated it.
It wouldn't have taken much, would it ?
As for '..too daft for words..'
Well, that is one of your stock phrases.
Ah!
That is also the report that confirms, much more convincingly than tabloid newspapers, that Eddie alerted to a coconut .[/list]
Well how would you describe the idea that SY have never interviewed the McCann or their friends - but just took their word for it - that they were all innocent? That is what you are claiming isn't it? If not what are you claiming?
Still waiting ferryman for an answerr,are you asserting Grime is a liar?
It was supposed to be a open investigation.
That means you investigate all logical possibilities.
"The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before."
Operation Grange - Remit of Investigation
There is no evidence the McCanns have been questioned when they are not suspects.
It'll take me a while to find.
But somewhere in that Operation Haven report Brietta posted is definitive confirmation that Eddie reacted to a coconut.
I will post when I find.
Carana knows where it is.
She was the first one to highlight it ....
again that is a celestial teapot argument
Where is your proof that all logical possibilites were not investigated?
What do you mean by 'an open investigation'. You keep forgetting that SY stated they would not be giving a running commentary to the public on this case. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
It'll take me a while to find.
But somewhere in that Operation Haven report Brietta posted is definitive confirmation that Eddie reacted to a coconut.
I will post when I find.
Carana knows where it is.
She was the first one to highlight it ....
It was also concluded that the dog was "unreliable" round about the same place, ferryman; I didn't post that because I couldn't be bothered ploughing through the document again for a cite.
But if you do come across it when looking for the coconut details can you post it up too.
There is no statement as to how crèche man was found and interviewed.
I think it is infantile to suggest the case was reopened without prior consultation with those closest to the heart of it.
I think "infantile" sums it up
It was also concluded that the dog was "unreliable" round about the same place, ferryman; I didn't post that because I couldn't be bothered ploughing through the document again for a cite.
But if you do come across it when looking for the coconut details can you post it up too.
AMARAL AND THE DOGS.
so Grime says....
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.
and amaral says..
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann.
Can there be any defence for amaral's outrageous statement...the answer has to be NO
so Grime says....
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.
and amaral says..
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann.
Can there be any defence for amaral's outrageous statement...the answer has to be NO
It'll take me a while to find.
But somewhere in that Operation Haven report Brietta posted is definitive confirmation that Eddie reacted to a coconut.
I will post when I find.
Carana knows where it is.
She was the first one to highlight it ....
Not sure what you're looking for.
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.
There were several reports and I'd have to find which one this extract came from.
Not sure what you're looking for.
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.
There were several reports and I'd have to find which one this extract came from.
In fairness, from what I've read of numerous reports, there were more factors than just Grime and his dogs in the PdL and Jersey fiascos.
This article sums up numerous points on the Jersey situation, which in some ways is quite similar to the PdL one in terms of various agents, assumptions and the media:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html#ixzz2nLiavJKv
Coconut @)(++(* Martin Grime was correct.
"People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human."
Coconut @)(++(* Martin Grime was correct.
"People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human."
Page 255
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
You are always fair to everyone, something for which I 90% admire you.
I'll leave the 10% reservation to one side for now ....
Not sure what you're looking for.
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.
There were several reports and I'd have to find which one this extract came from.
In fairness, from what I've read of numerous reports, there were more factors than just Grime and his dogs in the PdL and Jersey fiascos.
This article sums up numerous points on the Jersey situation, which in some ways is quite similar to the PdL one in terms of various agents, assumptions and the media:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html#ixzz2nLiavJKv
If you read the 383 page report posted by Brietta, Grime and his dogs don't take up much space. The thrust of the issue seems to be p**s poor media management by two officers.
"Our main concern was the media strategy being used by Mr HARPER because although we knew nothing internally about the case, we were learning everything we knew from SKY news
and other media sources".
Y'all are hot on cross contamination so my worry would be not so much a woofer alerting to a potentially cross contaminated piece of wood (it does not appear to have been formally identified as a lump of coconut but I guess coconut is more amusing) than a forensic anthropologist saying it was a lump of human bone in the first instance then passing it over for a "spaniel test".
The thrust of the issue is that Grime cocked up in leading a wild goose chase for (non-existent) "bodies"
The thrust of the issue is that Grime cocked up in leading a wild goose chase for (non-existent) "bodies"
Either you and I are reading different reports, pal, or your prejudices against Mr Grime have severely impeded your comprehension faculties. Then on the other hand you may feel you are in a superior position to Wiltshire Police who investigated and compiled the report. Their opinion being somewhat at variance with your own and all
8(0(*
Either you and I are reading different reports, pal, or your prejudices against Mr Grime have severely impeded your comprehension faculties. Then on the other hand you may feel you are in a superior position to Wiltshire Police who investigated and compiled the report. Their opinion being somewhat at variance with your own and all
8(0(*
I'm not sure what the joke is. The "skull" fragment turned out to be wood-based.
And picked up by FM.
so Grime says....
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.
and amaral says..
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann.
Can there be any defence for amaral's outrageous statement...the answer has to be NO
1809 - police dog repeatedly alerted to a wood shed.
Cadaver Dogs: Aiding Law Enforcement throughout History
http://www.annmarieackermann.com/tag/andreas-bichel/
The whole Jersey investigation was a shambles. Jersey was after PDL,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7723860.stm
However, we are discussing whether or not Amaral's thoughts, words and writings on the dogs and their reliability were justified, since there was no corroborating evidence to substantiate the alerts.
So do you accept that the coconut shell at HdlG was just that, a coconut shell?
As we all know well, the forensics were inconclusive, neither affirming or dismissing the dogs indications.Is there a forensic test that can detect, Cadaver scent?
Nothing else has come to light in this case.
Equally Grime had no business speculating about cadaver scent.
Is there a forensic test that can detect, Cadaver scent?
Is there a forensic test that can detect, Cadaver scent?
So do you accept that the coconut shell at HdlG was just that, a coconut shell?
Not even Grime said that ...
But you'll probably get away with that untruth ...
What was Eddie used for? Read Harrison's report - dogs are used to find evidence of death. Eddie detects death.
I have read all 3 of Harrison's reports closely and attentively from first to last.
You would do well to do the same.
"This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed." (Mark Harrison)
What is Eddie used for?
Is there a forensic test that can detect, Cadaver scent?
Wood absorbs fluids, scent a lot of stuff. Coconut my ass.
"This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed." (Mark Harrison)
What is Eddie used for?
AFAIK, they are still trying to work out which scents the dogs react to.
Part of the problem is that there are hundreds of them, and will rise and fall in concentration over time, giving off different "bouquets" and the bouquet will also depend on factors such as time / decomp rate and whatever remains were / may be present.
Individually, or in small combinations, some scents can be present in nature or everyday life.
And then there is the issue as to how long the initial compounds remain detectable and in which conditions.
I have no problem whatsoever with bringing in VRD dogs as an asset to help find potential remains. In the Madeleine case none were found, and in the Jersey case, nothing found related to the scope of the murder investigation.
The whole Jersey investigation was a shambles. Jersey was after PDL,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7723860.stm
However, we are discussing whether or not Amaral's thoughts, words and writings on the dogs and their reliability were justified, since there was no corroborating evidence to substantiate the alerts.
Thanks Carana,
I agree. that to find a body or remains, they are invaluable to search teams. Without the evidence of remains, however, there can be many other reasons for an alert. None of us know what scent it is, that the dog alerts too. Even the specialist don't know what specific smell or combination it is, for sure.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
To take it out of gory context, the dog is tasked to look for evidence of a vegetable soup with loads of ingredients.
Tomato soup doesn't smell the same as mushroom soup, or minestrone, with or without pulses, carrots, garlic, onions, courgettes, potatoes, herbs and spices.
He's just looking for vegetable soup... to get his toy.
It's then up to the humans to work out whether the residual scent of a carrot purée with tarragon was actually what they were looking for.
Thanks for the reminder I have not had lunch yet. ?{)(**
It's not speculating, Eddie gave an alert [potentially associated with] cadaver scent. That's his job and why he goes in first. Keela is only used after Eddie alerts. No blood indicates cadaver scent.
Edited
What was Eddie used for? Read Harrison's report - dogs are used to find evidence of death. Eddie detects death.Eddie is used to find EVIDENCE of death...the alerts are not evidence....Eddie found no evidence
"This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed." (Mark Harrison)
Eddie is used to find EVIDENCE of death...the alerts are not evidence....Eddie found no evidence
I've posted a link here several times about such dogs becoming confused by methane when searching for potential bodies in peat bogs... That's just one example.
It was also concluded that the dog was "unreliable" round about the same place, ferryman; I didn't post that because I couldn't be bothered ploughing through the document again for a cite.
But if you do come across it when looking for the coconut details can you post it up too.
What are the probabilities that the only apartment (from where a missing child went missing) in amongst seven, contained any one or all of the myriad of "living scents" (bypassing the sausages and bacon for now) to which the dogs alerted?
Pretty unlucky don't you think?
Bump for an answer...or opinion. Anyone good at maths?
Well, let's see.
According to Amaral, Eddie was involved in operational deployment and over 200 cases. An FOI answer by SYP confirms the true number to be operational deployment and 37 cases.
We can't really judge Grime's claim to be in post with SYP when he wrote his profile, because it is undated.
But certainly he was freelance when he went to PdL.
Ah!
That is also the report that confirms, much more convincingly than tabloid newspapers, that Eddie alerted to a coconut .[/list]
AFAIK, they are still trying to work out which scents the dogs react to.
Part of the problem is that there are hundreds of them, and will rise and fall in concentration over time, giving off different "bouquets" and the bouquet will also depend on factors such as time / decomp rate and whatever remains were / may be present.
Individually, or in small combinations, some scents can be present in nature or everyday life.
And then there is the issue as to how long the initial compounds remain detectable and in which conditions.
I have no problem whatsoever with bringing in VRD dogs as an asset to help find potential remains. In the Madeleine case none were found, and in the Jersey case, nothing found related to the scope of the murder investigation.
"Inspections" of the other apartments were whistle-stop tours.
Apartment 5a was long-drawn out and protracted until he got the result (dare I say it!) that was desired.
Much the same with the vehicles.
So pretty high.
It is worth reading some of the stuff about Matthew Zarella's trials using dogs to find MIAs in Vietnam.
Bump for an answer...or opinion. Anyone good at maths?There are simply too many unknowns to make any sort of accurate prediction...fact
IIRC his personal profile mentioned over 200 case searches. The operative word beng searches, not cases.
You are still calling him a liar as he has, in one of his reports stated that whilst a serving police officer working for South Yorkshire police, he undertook the search in PDL. That does not mean freelance.
Eddie was not trained for and did not alert to fruit or vegetables..and if you like, per se
Have you watched Lenny Harper's video interview on the subject?
all this proves nothing applicable to the alerts...we all know dog's are excellent at finding evidence...that can be evaluated. what we don't know is how reliable the alerts are. It is claimed that eddie has never given a false alert...that is absolute BS and I don't believe Grime ever said thatI said the stuff about Matthew Zarella's trials was worth reading.
There are simply too many unknowns to make any sort of accurate prediction...fact
I would say that given the amount of information we have on the case we can make a fairly good estimate on whether maddie was abducted...I would say 90% plus
You recall incorrectly.
Grime makes two separate references, one where he says case searches; the other where he says case searches; the other where he says cases.
[/list]
There are simply too many unknowns to make any sort of accurate prediction...fact
I would say that given the amount of information we have on the case we can make a fairly good estimate on whether maddie was abducted...I would say 90% plus
I wasn't asking anyone to be a fortune teller but do the math, and like Ferryman, I suggest you reread the original question which was not what you are probably imagning it to be.
Your second paragraph is irrelevant to the question I asked
I couldn't get the layout of the post right.That's three
Why don't you just accept it is highly probable he meant individual searches rather than cases whch would mean he lied, but I suppose that doesn't suit?
well guess what...in my second paragraph I asked a question...do you imagine you are the only person able to ask a question
I wasn't asking anyone to be a fortune teller but do the math, and like Ferryman, I suggest you reread the original question which was not what you are probably imagning it to be.
Your second paragraph is irrelevant to the question I asked
Are you eating mushrooms perchance? There was no question in your second (irrelevant) paragraph.
If you cannot answer my original question, just say so
I couldn't get the layout of the post right.
Here is where Grime says operational deployment and over 200 cases
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME_IXprocesso_2265.jpg
The true number is operational deployment and 37 cases.[/list]
this is the original question...
What are the probabilities that the only apartment (from where a missing child went missing) in amongst seven, contained any one or all of the myriad of "living scents" (bypassing the sausages and bacon for now) to which the dogs alerted?
Pretty unlucky don't you think?
my answer is the same...not enough information to compute...as you asked if someone who is good at maths could work it out you obviously can't your self
Most mccann supporters on here attack the dog indications largely because the abduction scenario is bereft of evidence.
Likewise, if they weren't apprehensive about the dogs in the first place, they would not give them the kudos they do, day after day.
What I did find was criticism, not of the dog, but of the archaeologist:
We informed X of
our concerns shortly afterwards, by phone and e-mail. We stand by our
original assessment. We suggest that the curvature of the material
may have had something to do with the misidentification. We
think it appears to be more like part of a large seed casing, or part of
something like a small piece of coconut. Certainly, the density of the
material is most unlike bone, it is too light. Our conclusion is that this
sample is: a) not bone and b) not human. We are very surprised that
the forensic archaeologist could be so confident and differ in X
identification. We suggested at the time that a further opinion would be
required, but this not considered by X . A further
analysis of the bone structure under a suitable microscope would
confirm the situation rapidly.
5.6.22 If this sample is bone and close to modern in age, then it would be
unusual in our experience for it to be so poorly preserved and lacking
in collagen. One would expect normally that for a bone coming from
the last few decades that at least some collagen would survive. In the
absence of collagen, one would conclude that the bone is probably
older than this, possibly by several hundred or even several thousands
of years. In this light, it is not liable to be of forensic interest. Our
assessment is, however, that it is almost certainly not bone and it is for
this reason that we have significant doubts over its forensic
importance. This probably explains the problems we encountered with
the sample and the fact that it is not able to be dated using collagen
extraction techniques.
I do recall those who scoffed at the (perfectly correct) assertion that was not bone asserted confidently that it must be because (they insisted) it contained collagen.
In fact, it was absence of collagen that, in part, led to scepticism that this was bone ....
Well, that goes without saying Sherlock
But if your math is top notch do list the info that is missing that would enable you to deduce that it is improbable that out of seven inhabited residences the only residence found to have "living matter" that a cadaver dog "alledgedly" alerts to was the one cnnected to a missing person
They say attack is the best form of defence. When the story of the dog alerts first broke back in 2007, there was a solicitor on Radio 4 telling a story (and laughing with contempt whilst doing so) about how snffer dogs react to fruit cake. I agree with you, protesting too much is a bit of a give away sometimes. Be better to let sleeping dogs lie, as it were
First question...what did the dog's alert to......answer that and we can move forward
First question...what did the dog's alert to......answer that and we can move forward
Thanks for trying, ferryman.
amaral was not hypothesising...that's a mistake many make....he claimed to be able to prove maddie died in the apartmentIn the film the hypothesis it is quite clearly visually enacted in two scenes.
No, deflecting won't do. The original claim was that cadaver dogs alert to all manner of normal everyday materials from living humans such as saliva, BO, semen, blood, toenails, bad breath, shed hair and moving on to bacon and sausages and pizza. Hence my question on why none of these existed anywhere n PDL the dogs searched except for one place.
Thanks for trying, ferryman.
Then you should ask the question only of the posters who made that claim..
My opinion is that we don't know what the alerts signified and neither does Grime
I did, but had no response, so decided to ask others.Nothing so far has come anyway near close to answering but thanks for tryng
the very fact that the alerts are not accepted as evidence indicates they are unreliableFuzzy logic
Fuzzy logic
only in your opinion...to anyone who understands maths my answer is correct. To build a mathematical model you need information
I asked you what info was missing, you ignored the question, in any case, am certainly not going to argue the toss with you as it is entirely pointless trying to debate with a person with a closed mind and despotic stance,
&8#£% &8#£%
no ...DNA ...fingerprints are accepted...you tell me why the alerts are not accepted...
you don't need to tell me...Grime already has...perhaps you should listen to him
Perhaps a mod or admin can create a new thread about the coconut business
Is that not what you had in mind?
It was a direct criticism of the dog made by one of the review team.
I read what you posted sometime today so it is round about there ... perhaps just before. I'll have a look later.
Thats not what you claimed. Your claim is alerts are not allowed as evidence BECAUSE they are unreliable, this is not a fact, just your interpretation whch is seriously flawed.
it is actually Grime who questions the reliability of the alerts....no evidential reliability is what he said...take it up with him
Did you not watch and digest? Listen from 6 minutes on
Perhaps a mod or admin can create a new thread about the coconut business
only in your opinion...to anyone who understands maths my answer is correct. To build a mathematical model you need information
It's very simple in reality.
There either was or wasn't a body.
Grime said Eddie had been involved in operational deployment and over 200 cases.And here he talks of case searches, now which one do you think is the more likely seeing as it is on record Eddie was involved in 37 cases?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2481.jpg
Edited to correct link
True Stephen, We can't possibly, know the unknown. What did Mr Amaral believe he knew?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3566.msg136728#msg136728
it is actually Grime who questions the reliability of the alerts....no evidential reliability is what he said...take it up with himNo, wrong again, he never questioned the reliability of his dogs alerts
the problem here is you can have 100 threads discussing something and there is no resolution/arbiter of truth....how to solve this??
Grime said Eddie had been involved in operational deployment and over 200 cases.
The true number is operational deployment and 37 cases.
The discrepancy matters because the false figure was used (although not by Grime) to brow-beat the McCanns in their arguido interviews.[/list]
You just quoted from the wrong place.[/list]My link proves you are wrong....case "searches" which is the most logical explanation
No, wrong again, he never questioned the reliability of his dogs alerts
True Stephen, We can't possibly, know the unknown. What did Mr Amaral believe he knew?
page 117.
That is well known.
He was either right or wrong.
Let's not forget either, that many police detectives go by their instinct in cases.
That is well known.
He was either right or wrong.
Let's not forget either, that many police detectives go by their instinct in cases.
amaral was wrong...full stop...he claimed he could prove Maddie died in the apartment...he was 100% wrong
Very true. I was merely pointing out the Topic of this thread 'Amaral and the dogs'
I'm afraid to say he wasn't proven wrong or right.
However, unlike what gerry mccann said, dogs are reliable.
and in that smarmy smug comment to Sandra Felgueiras , he was talking out of his derriere.
try posting on the correct threadCorrect thread despite your despotism
You just quoted from the wrong place.[/list]
he is proven wrong by your own statement...amaral claimed he could prove maddie died in the apartment...he cannot prove such...he is 100% wrong
Grime stated.."it is possible " that the alert was to cadaverine contaminant....that means it may not have been ...that means it is not reliable...Grime used the words no evidential "reliability"....that is questioning the "reliability" of the alerts
the problem here is you can have 100 threads discussing something and there is no resolution/arbiter of truth....how to solve this??
No. He is not questionng the reliability of the alerts. Its that simple.
So when you are losing an argument you pretend to be a moderator, 2/10 for comedy value
Very true. I was merely pointing out the Topic of this thread 'Amaral and the dogs'
Do you really rate that?
From the link you provided, Anna:-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3566.msg136059#msg136059
How sad ... the plaque on the oak tree would have alerted them why Eddie had alerted there. But if there had been no plaque or anyone who knew the history ... no-one would have ever known what it was Eddie was alerting to.
Just as no-one can tell what he was alerting to in 5A master bedroom ... which is why it has no evidential value.
oh dear...you are a million per cent wrong...how embarrassing for you...could you supply a cite for this statement...you will not be able to
But those were NOT his only words, his CONCLUSION was that "in his professional opinion" the dog was alerting to cadaverscent contaminant. ie he was sure he wasMy professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
Do you have a cite for this comment, please(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2477.jpg)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2477.jpg)
summary
you should be embarrassed because what you have posted isn't true...it's a lie...Grime states...
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert
indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
you missed out the word suggestive...try posting honestly in future
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2477.jpg)
summary
suggestive means just that, it suggests, points to, indicates it doesnt mean "i have no clue and it could be bad breath or sausages"
cadaver scent means = from a dead body
Martin Grime couldn't have made himself any clearer ... why do you find it so difficult to understand what he is saying?
I am very clear about what he is sayng
He is sayng in his professional opinion cadaver scent was alerted to, what exactly is your problem there?
your post was not true...you missed out "suggestive"...we all know what suggests means and it doesn't mean something is "certain" ...which you claimed
no problem...you have just shown to be yet another sceptic who doesn't understand the evidence...Grime says suggestive and you see "certain"......enuff saidGrime and the cadaver dog found indications of death...you can spin for eternity but never manage to erase this FACT
Grime and the cadaver dog found indications of death...you can spin for eternity but never manage to erase this FACT
8((()*/
OK Guys enough.
I will remove all the nonsense about the summary and leave the correct wording of the summary in place
i'll stick with what Grime actually sayswhch is indication of death scent, cool, we agree at last
whch is indication of death scent, cool, we agree at last
Martin Grime couldn't have made himself any clearer ... why do you find it so difficult to understand what he is saying?
"The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family." Smithman come forward and bring your 12 year old Maddy lookalike daughter with you to clear yourself. Soon everybody will be thinking you're someone else 8(>((yet SY say the McCanns are not suspects and are still spending millions investigating in portugal
How can anyone quote dishonestly when one issues a quote, lol
Grime said in his opinion Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent contaminant
end of basically
no he didn't...you are still being dishonest
yet SY say the McCanns are not suspects and are still spending millions investigating in portugalnope SY said Mccanns were not suspects in a certain context, same with PJ, stop lyng
suggestive means just that, it suggests, points to, indicates it doesnt mean "i have no clue and it could be bad breath or sausages"
cadaver scent means = from a dead body
yet SY say the McCanns are not suspects and are still spending millions investigating in portugal
They are not suspects and are spending millions to close this case for good. The circus can wait.
Not necessarily from a dead body mercury, - hair, teeth and fingernails can be parted from their live owners at times and would decompose. Also an alert could be to a scent which had been innocently transferred there from another source. I could also be to a scent emanating from underground.
Without corroborating evidence no-one can say which scenario it is.
Quote from THE SUN - (Yes I know - but it's in quotation marks - so a direct quote)
Martin Grime:-
: "Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn't matter if it's hundreds of years old. "Eddie smells for the scent of a decomposing human body. He can detect any part of a human body that is decomposing - hair, bones, flesh, anything. "The smell of a decomposing body is very difficult to get rid of. It can easily be transferred to clothing and on to a person."
Unquote
remember my orignal question benice, why indications to ONLY 5a living or dead derived....no one cN answer this
Well IMO mercury it's because far more time was spent on everything McCann related than on anything else. If the same time had been spent on the non-McCann related cars and apartments then it's my firm belief that alerts would also have occurred in those places.
In view of Martin Grime's claim (which I believe) that his dogs could alert to the tiniest of scents, even decades of years old -which cannot be removed by cleaning - then I simply can't accept that not one speck of blood was ever spilt in any part of those other apartments or cars over such a long period of time. Sorry but that's just not credible IMO.
Keela is not used unless Eddie alerts. Eddie only alerted in 5A. Eddie goes in first to detect death. If he detects it Keela is brought in to find any trace of blood i.e. of the missing person. These dogs are used to find evidence in murder cases. SY homicide team are working on this case.
Yes I know what Eddie and Keela do (or did) but what has any of that got to do with my post?
Your post is meaningless. Did they find any teeth in the wardrobe or on the clothes?
Your post is meaningless. Did they find any teeth in the wardrobe or on the clothes?
Actually it was Eddie's alerts which were and are meaningless.
Eddie's alerts are never meaningless as past cases prove.
Eddies alerts are meaningless without any corroborating evidence. There was no corroborating evidence.
And you KNOW IT.
Why do you keep pushing untruths Pfinder.
Some think Eddie was right, others think he was wrong. On balance he was very good at what he did. Keela proved him right twice. His alerts are definitely not meaningless in my opinion.
Grime is on record as stating that Eddie alerted to cuddle-cat.
But only second time of asking.
And while Eddie did react to something within his scent range in the Renault Scenic, that was only after copious direction and re-direction towards a specific target (the car with the stickers in the back).
And we have the record of a PJ officer who expressed puzzlement that Eddie only alerted anywhere after constant direction and re-direction ....
Are you accusing Grime of somehow persuading Eddie to alert?
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Are you accusing Grime of somehow persuading Eddie to alert?
I would say 100% yes for reasons I have given before...absolutely nothing wrong with that imo
Some think Eddie was right, others think he was wrong. On balance he was very good at what he did. Keela proved him right twice. His alerts are definitely not meaningless in my opinion.
Your post is meaningless. Did they find any teeth in the wardrobe or on the clothes?Thats a first, remnant scent of fallen out teeth
Thats a first, remnant scent of fallen out teeth
@)(++(*
Yes my lord, a toddlers tooth fell out and we stuck it in the wardrobe
Well IMO mercury it's because far more time was spent on everything McCann related than on anything else. If the same time had been spent on the non-McCann related cars and apartments then it's my firm belief that alerts would also have occurred in those places.
In view of Martin Grime's claim (which I believe) that his dogs could alert to the tiniest of scents, even decades of years old -which cannot be removed by cleaning - then I simply can't accept that not one speck of blood was ever spilt in any part of those other apartments or cars over such a long period of time. Sorry but that's just not credible IMO.
for the record and not that it has any bearing on this case but exfoliated deciduous teeth will contain remnants of blood
Only Keela said, NO
8((()*/
How much time are you talking about? If there is no interest indicated by the dog, there is no interest.Are you saying all other 6 residences must have had cadaverscent contaminant from dead (or live humans as it put across ) but Eddie wasnt given the chance to find it?
hopefully you realise now Grime has not confirmed any alerts to cadaver......
Your problem is explaining the cadaver scent alert in 5a bedroom and verandah...keep trying
IMO mercury - the car video is the best example of the difference in timing. The most time spent at any of the other cars was 30 seconds (and that's being generous). Eddie did not even do a full circuit of one of the cars before being allowed to move on.
So - after 30 seconds no alert was made. But that is no different to the Renault - as no alert had been made to it after 30 seconds either. The difference is that - unlike with the other cars - Eddie was not allowed to move on from the Renault - he was called back numerous times - with MG actually tapping the car in places - and it was 2 minutes before he alerted.
If Eddie had been directed to spend the same amount of time on the other cars - then (unless you believe no 'alertable material' had ever been deposited in any of those cars since their manufacture) - alerts may well have resulted. But he wasn't - so we shall never know.
The same principle applies re the apartments.
AIMO
there is no confirmation of cadaver scent in any location..fact....your problem is that you did not understand what Grime said...fact
In that case, so does Mark Harrison, who said exactly the same thing ....
No, he did not say cadaver dog alerts are meaningless, you cannot put words into anyone's mouth to suit
Unconfirmed alerts are not evidence, that is all he said
Grime is on record as stating that Eddie alerted to cuddle-cat.
But only second time of asking.
And while Eddie did react to something within his scent range in the Renault Scenic, that was only after copious direction and re-direction towards a specific target (the car with the stickers in the back).
And we have the record of a PJ officer who expressed puzzlement that Eddie only alerted anywhere after constant direction and re-direction ....
When cadaver dog alerts lead to evidence that implicates culprits or identifies victims of crime, they are meaningful.The only red herring is your first paragraph, also
Alerts that are red-herrings are meaningless.
Eddie's alert to the Renault Scenic was meaningless.
It was to Gerry's blood.
Gerry drove the car and was entitled to.
Why did Eddie only pick that toy out which was on her bed? Why not another toy in the villa? That's why Grime hid it and did the second test and kept the cupboard slightly open at the top and Eddie went up high and then alerted.
No, that won't do. A dog either shows interest or it doesn't. It alerts or it doesn't. It alerted in one place only and that is significant.
Unless you are of the Mr Grime is a fraud school of thnking.
Eddies alerts are meaningless without any corroborating evidence. There was no corroborating evidence.
And you KNOW IT.
Why do you keep pushing untruths Pfinder.
(PJ Inspector Dias)
I would say 100% yes for reasons I have given before...absolutely nothing wrong with that imo
Was that a yes or a no? Was Grime persuading Eddie to alert in your opinion or not?
There is no such thing as confirmation of remnant cadaverscent in existence...fact
8((()*/
All we have is the indication and Grime's confirmation of it...fact
How much time are you talking about? If there is no interest indicated by the dog, there is no interest.Are you saying all other 6 residences must have had cadaverscent contaminant from dead (or live humans as it put across ) but Eddie wasnt given the chance to find it?
Think very carefully about what you are saying here.
How likely is it that in all the residences checked by the dogs, including the Murat villa ... the only place where an individual had shed blood was in the McCann holiday residence?
It is for Grime, not me, to explain why he kept directing and re-directing the dog back to one car (the car with find Madeleine stickers plastered all over the back windows).
It is for Grime, not me, to explain why the tours of all other apartments were whistle-stop, and the tour of apartment 5a long-drawn-out and protracted.
It is for Harrison, not me, to explain why he acknowledged the input of Grime and his dogs only in those inspections he recommended.
I wish Alfred still had the link to the way bias can influence a handler's judgment and interaction with his dog.
Indeed, in Grime's own profile, he makes reference to that very bias (in respect of other handlers, not himself ....)
Think very carefully about what you are saying here.
How likely is it that in all the residences checked by the dogs, including the Murat villa ... the only place where an individual had shed blood was in the McCann holiday residence?
It is for Grime, not me, to explain why he kept directing and re-directing the dog back to one car (the car with find Madeleine stickers plastered all over the back windows).
It is for Grime, not me, to explain why the tours of all other apartments were whistle-stop, and the tour of apartment 5a long-drawn-out and protracted.
It is for Harrison, not me, to explain why he acknowledged the input of Grime and his dogs only in those inspections he recommended.
I wish Alfred still had the link to the way bias can influence a handler's judgment and interaction with his dog.
Indeed, in Grime's own profile, he makes reference to that very bias (in respect of other handlers, not himself ....)
Eddie goes in to find the scent he is trained to find. He doesn't go in first to sniff between every floor tile for any trace of blood. That is Keela's job. The dogs have to sniff really close to detect such minute blood. That's why the clothes have to be screened separately and Keela goes first to rule out blood. If Eddie alerts next it suggest cadaver scent.
There appears to have been little expectation on anyone's part that there might be cadaver scent anywhere other than apartment 5A and the Renault therefore the intensive attention given to both areas ... the dogs according to Ricardo Paiva being called in because of the heightened suspicions (did you ever!) arising from Dr McCann's alleged reporting of a dream.
Remember Clever Hans?
Police dog handlers direct the search, they don't 'persuade' the dogs to alert. @)(++(*
You are a star Anna ... that is precisely what I was after ...
After the 'build up' given to him resulting from Praia da Luz where the Drs McCann were at that time arguidos; I think the expectations for Eddie were just too high and just because he didn't find the bodies allegedly buried in Haute de la Garenne didn't really mean he was 'unreliable'.
It just meant that there were no bodies there to be found.
Quote
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’.
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/r-wiltshireoperationhavenredacted-20081112-jn.pdf
Why don't you post the conclusion that the Wiltshire Police Investigation came to in this respect ? If you don't I will 8(0(*
It casts a different light all together.
Neither are dogs:
5.6.19 The sample was logged into the ORAU system in the usual manner
and, as in all cases, a sample of bone powder was drilled from the
underside of the specimen using a tungsten carbide drill. The powder
weighed 440 mg. The technician performing this procedure noted that
the material did not behave as bone ordinarily would and did not have
the texture that normal bone exhibits. The technician has a great deal
of experience in the sampling of bone (almost 30 years). Because of
this uncertainty, and as a precaution, a small amount of the sample
was combusted to measure the % nitrogen remaining. % N is a good
correlate for protein, which is dominated in bone by collagen, and the
measurement of nitrogen offers a simple test concerning whether the
sample is dateable or not. Low % N means that the material is
essentially un-dateable using radiocarbon.
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had
0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any
quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller
chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a
result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably
not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material,
the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so
the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist
and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU)
concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost
certainly wood. It seemed surprising to us that the material could be
so confidently identified by X , and particularly that it could
Page 255 of 383
Media Highly Confidential – Personal Information
be determined to be an infant specimen. We informed X of
our concerns shortly afterwards, by phone and e-mail. We stand by our
original assessment. We suggest that the curvature of the material
may have had something to do with the misidentification. We
think it appears to be more like part of a large seed casing, or part of
something like a small piece of coconut. Certainly, the density of the
material is most unlike bone, it is too light. Our conclusion is that this
sample is: a) not bone and b) not human. We are very surprised that
the forensic archaeologist could be so confident and differ in X
identification. We suggested at the time that a further opinion would be
required, but this not considered by X . A further
analysis of the bone structure under a suitable microscope would
confirm the situation rapidly.
Why don't you do just that and give us your take on the matter ... it is after all a discussion forum ... not a one man comedy opportunity.8((()*/ well said!
Why don't you do just that and give us your take on the matter ... it is after all a discussion forum ... not a one man comedy opportunity.
8((()*/ well said!
It is for Grime, not me, to explain why he kept directing and re-directing the dog back to one car (the car with find Madeleine stickers plastered all over the back windows).
It is for Grime, not me, to explain why the tours of all other apartments were whistle-stop, and the tour of apartment 5a long-drawn-out and protracted.
It is for Harrison, not me, to explain why he acknowledged the input of Grime and his dogs only in those inspections he recommended.
I wish Alfred still had the link to the way bias can influence a handler's judgment and interaction with his dog.
Indeed, in Grime's own profile, he makes reference to that very bias (in respect of other handlers, not himself ....)
Grime was the professional dog trainer and handler and no doubt he directed the search in the same way he directed all his searches. He has no need to explain his methods to you or anyone else. His dogs got results.One could no doubt say the same about Zampo and his handler both of whom continued to work despite the numerous false alerts in the Thomas Quick case.
My take is that Officer X was just one person giving evidence to an inquiry. He also said the excavations were not justified 3.10.17. His opinions do not seem to have been unequivocally upheld by the inquiries conclusions. If one is going to use an official inquiry as the basis for an argument then one would have thought the conclusions of that inquiry would be the better base rather than selective choices from witness opinions.
snip>>>>
Conclusion
3.10.18
There are two significant issues in relation to the search of Haut de la Garenne. Firstly, whether the search was justified and secondly, whether CO POWER supervised the decision-making process, given the significance of the search and what it implied about Operation Rectangle.
3.1019
Operation Haven concludes that the decision to dig at Haut de la Garenne was questionable. DCO HARPER was not trained to an acceptable level and, in the case of CO POWER, we note his own admission that he had no current training ‘in the oversight of such investigations’.
Nevertheless, this Inquiry can conceive why, in all circumstances, it may have been considered reasonable to do so. We do not raise formal criticism of DCO HARPER or CO POWER for their decision to do so. We do point out however, that the decision to search having been made, the risks in terms of public and media speculation about police activity, if reported, should have been predicted and carefully planned for. <<<<< snip
I suppose one could also point out that this particular "fiasco" did wind up with a result at a cost of only £7MM.
Eddie goes in to find the scent he is trained to find. He doesn't go in first to sniff between every floor tile for any trace of blood. That is Keela's job. The dogs have to sniff really close to detect such minute blood. That's why the clothes have to be screened separately and Keela goes first to rule out blood. If Eddie alerts next it suggest cadaver scent.
Grime was the professional dog trainer and handler and no doubt he directed the search in the same way he directed all his searches. He has no need to explain his methods to you or anyone else. His dogs got results.
"If one is going to use an official inquiry as the basis for an argument then one would have thought the conclusions of that inquiry would be the better base rather than selective choices from witness opinions."
Perhaps that is an admonition which should be borne in mind when considering the Attorney General's Report in Madeleine McCann's case.
Unfortunately sceptics tend to get stuck either at the beginning or the middle perhaps because the conclusions do not fit theirs or Mr Amaral's or their unfounded belief in the capabilities of the dogs.
Unqualified reliance on what they had been told the dogs' would bring to the case in Praia da Luz and Haute de la Garenne had an undue influence on the conduct of both cases by the lead investigators.
Both cases were unqualified disasters and the dogs, through no fault of theirs, were the catalyst for that.
The dogs found nothing of interest ... That isn't their fault there was nothing to find
Did you ever read the link (I believe Anna?) produced a while back of all the people besides Paul Anthony Gordon (who cut himself shaving and paced the whole apartment trying to stem the flow of blood for 45 minutes) to bleed in apartment 5a?
And the only inspection where Keela went first was in the gym.
The mantra goes that, generally, Eddie is the first to be deployed, then Keela afterwards ....
Actually, I'm not convinced Keela and Eddie were deployed on the same case before PdL ....
Did you ever read the link (I believe Anna?) produced a while back of all the people besides Paul Anthony Gordon (who cut himself shaving and paced the whole apartment trying to stem the flow of blood for 45 minutes) to bleed in apartment 5a?
And the only inspection where Keela went first was in the gym.
The mantra goes that, generally, Eddie is the first to be deployed, then Keela afterwards ....
Actually, I'm not convinced Keela and Eddie were deployed on the same case before PdL ....
The dogs found nothing of interest ... That isn't their fault there was nothing to find
45 minutes @)(++(* Keela only checked where Eddie alerts so behind the sofa and bedroom/wardrobe.
My take is that Officer X was just one person giving evidence to an inquiry. He also said the excavations were not justified 3.10.17. His opinions do not seem to have been unequivocally upheld by the inquiries conclusions. If one is going to use an official inquiry as the basis for an argument then one would have thought the conclusions of that inquiry would be the better base rather than selective choices from witness opinions.
snip>>>>
Conclusion
3.10.18
There are two significant issues in relation to the search of Haut de la Garenne. Firstly, whether the search was justified and secondly, whether CO POWER supervised the decision-making process, given the significance of the search and what it implied about Operation Rectangle.
3.1019
Operation Haven concludes that the decision to dig at Haut de la Garenne was questionable. DCO HARPER was not trained to an acceptable level and, in the case of CO POWER, we note his own admission that he had no current training ‘in the oversight of such investigations’.
Nevertheless, this Inquiry can conceive why, in all circumstances, it may have been considered reasonable to do so. We do not raise formal criticism of DCO HARPER or CO POWER for their decision to do so. We do point out however, that the decision to search having been made, the risks in terms of public and media speculation about police activity, if reported, should have been predicted and carefully planned for. <<<<< snip
I suppose one could also point out that this particular "fiasco" did wind up with a result at a cost of only £7MM.
Grime was the professional dog trainer and handler and no doubt he directed the search in the same way he directed all his searches. He has no need to explain his methods to you or anyone else. His dogs got results.
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
The dogs responded to the presence of certain compounds.
The samples taken were inconclusive as regards forensics.
It does not mean there was nothing to find.
Now who was it who contaminated the crime scene ?
Try being precise
There were no other incidents whilst we were in Portugal that were noteworthy, apart from this man I have just described, however there was an occasion that I cut myself whilst shaving in the bathroom. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time for the cut to stop bleeding, during which time I walked around the apartment with bits of paper trying to stem the flow of blood. As far as I know, apart from this nobody else cut themselves nor died in the apartment.
I find 45 minutes may be a mistake, unless the chap suffers from haemophilia. Not that it changes anything in reality as wandering around with potential blood drops from a shaving incident for even 4-5 minutes is quite long.
There is no confirmation from grime that the alerts were to cadaverine ..... In reality we do not have a clue what the alerts were to
I find 45 minutes may be a mistake, unless the chap suffers from haemophilia. Not that it changes anything in reality as wandering around with potential blood drops from a shaving incident for even 4-5 minutes is quite long.
The dogs alert to what they are trained to detect.
The police were investigating a major abuse issue. Then there were allegations of murder. I agree that these allegations of murder also needed to be investigated.
I'd highlight a point that you didn't:
We do point out however, that the decision to search having been made, the risks in terms of public and media speculation about police activity, if reported, should have been predicted and carefully planned for.
The fiasco was - in part - the lack of experience, procedures, financial decisions, etc., plus the spiralling media frenzy and the consequent difficulty in backing down from half-baked leaks.
There were no other incidents whilst we were in Portugal that were noteworthy, apart from this man I have just described, however there was an occasion that I cut myself whilst shaving in the bathroom. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time for the cut to stop bleeding, during which time I walked around the apartment with bits of paper trying to stem the flow of blood. As far as I know, apart from this nobody else cut themselves nor died in the apartment.
If the observation of being in scent already at front door were correct would that mean an interval significantly longer than the minimum?
So are you saying cadaverine was detected....because Grime doesn't
Did he crouch behind the couch while bleeding I wonder? If not, this is of no interest.
Having made oblique reference to it in my post 12:59pm yesterday I did not think it worth labouring the point 8(0(*
What I said then however was : If you read the 383 page report posted by Brietta, Grime and his dogs don't take up much space. The thrust of the issue seems to be p**s poor media management by two officers.
Did he crouch behind the couch while bleeding I wonder? If not, this is of no interest.
It was a holiday flat (once a residential flat, apparently).
No one knows the origin of the furniture, no one knows what accidents may have happened in that flat over time.
The flat had been rented out 4 times since the disappearance... with various other people having had access.
It's impossible to know what Eddie could have been reacting to.
The dogs found evidence of death all connected to the same family. Nobody has found any evidence of her being alive and the prime suspect wasn't carrying a screaming abducted child.
He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.
Questioned, states that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was sleeping deeply.
Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
'Oh, is she asleep?' &%+((£
Media management is certainly one issue... in both cases (IMO), but not the only one.
In the Jersey case the SIO seemingly being allowed to run around inadequately supervised, like the Wild Man of Borneo, was detrimental. It should not, though, be forgotten there was a result in the Jersey case. The fact that Mr Grime and his dawgs merit little more than a page in a report approaching 400 pages would tend to put his role in this case in perspective.
93 grand is not a bad pay-off for a bit-part ....
What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what 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
(Martin Grime).
In the Jersey case the SIO seemingly being allowed to run around inadequately supervised, like the Wild Man of Borneo, was detrimental. It should not, though, be forgotten there was a result in the Jersey case. The fact that Mr Grime and his dawgs merit little more than a page in a report approaching 400 pages would tend to put his role in this case in perspective.
So are you saying cadaverine was detected....because Grime doesn't
Something a bit odd about that is that residual scent would be in permeable materials... yet the dog was reacting to the scent cone, presumably of an airflow indicating the direction of that corner of the bedroom.
Grime has only ever stated that Keela would only react in the physical presence of blood, but Eddie could have sniffed whatever was within his training parameters (which includes dried blood) without the physical source being present.
Sooo... someone has to explain to me in very simple terms why Eddie could not have been reacting to anything that had blood on it that had been removed just prior to the inspection.
Are you familiar with process of physical adsorption ?
It was a holiday flat (once a residential flat, apparently).
No one knows the origin of the furniture, no one knows what accidents may have happened in that flat over time.
The flat had been rented out 4 times since the disappearance... with various other people having had access.
It's impossible to know what Eddie could have been reacting to.
Something a bit odd about that is that residual scent would be in permeable materials... yet the dog was reacting to the scent cone, presumably of an airflow indicating the direction of that corner of the bedroom.
Grime has only ever stated that Keela would only react in the physical presence of blood, but Eddie could have sniffed whatever was within his training parameters (which includes dried blood) without the physical source being present.
Sooo... someone has to explain to me in very simple terms why Eddie could not have been reacting to anything that had blood on it that had been removed just prior to the inspection.
No. Did Grime explain that possibility in his report?
I'm not sure on that.
It would depend on how extensive his knowledge is of the possible compounds being detected, and onto what 'surfaces' they could be adsorbed on.
Likewise, how long any would be retained would depend on several other key factors.
93 grand is not a bad pay-off for a bit-part ....I would say £93k in £6.6 MM is pretty small beer. In me 'ead that's less than 1.5% ?.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
If grime says that the alerts suggest cadaverine then he doesn't know for sure... That's it
Did Grime perform the forensic tests ?
So what did the dogs detect then ?
Was it hot air ?
Hmmmm.
A casual search for just "dog" in that report highlights 21 pages of that report. I suppose I could check through all of them to check if they all related to the same dog....
In the meantime, perhaps you'd have a glance through this:
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20OperationRectangleReviewUseResources%20201005%20BDO.pdf
and
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReviewSubmissions/Submission%20-%20Issues%20surrounding%20the%20Review%20of%20Financial%20Management%20of%20Operation%20Rectangle%20-%20BDO%20Alto%20-%2012%20July%202011.pdf
If grime says that the alerts suggest cadaverine then he doesn't know for sure... That's it
When did Grime conduct the forensic analysis dave ?
The dogs were trained to detect certain compounds, the Diammine is just on of those associated with a body.
I assume Gas CHromatography was used to in the forensic analysis.
Wherever Eddie barked, they dug, in expectation of finding bodies.
And they found none.
But led to interesting speculation about Eddie's abilities to sniff death through concrete (and the like).
I'm thinking of a bloodied plaster / sock, whatever, that could have been removed from a previous occupant prior to the inspection.
Is it likely that any of the PJ inspectors could have planted any such object and removed it just prior to the inspection in the hope that Eddie would react?
Personally, I doubt it unless Grime or Harrison had explained to them verbally in a briefing prior to the inspection that Eddie could react to the residual scent of blood.
If that had been the case, Amaral would certainly have been harping on about cleaned blood stains in the bedroom - which he doesn't appear to have done.
Collagen is found in mammals not coconut.
Eddie showed the same lack of interest in the Renault after 30 seconds as he did to the other cars. If it wasn't for the repeated call-backs that would have been an end to it IMO. It was Martin Grime's behaviour which changed at the Renault - not Eddies. He did not repeatedly call Eddie back to any other car.
No way do I think MG is a fraud but I do not rule out the possibility of unconscious cueing - and that is not a slur on MG - as the handler does not know it is happening. And it certainly is NOT a crime.
IMO Martin Grime is a brilliant dog trainer, but he is still human and therefore it is not impossible that this may have happened.
This 'job' was under in the world's spotlight and he was about to embark on his own business where Eddie and Keela would be his livelihood. That must have involved a considerable amount of extra pressure to make sure that he 'got it right'. It certainly wasn't just another day at the office for him IMO, which it would have been had he been staying in the police service IMO.
IMO he may have inadvertently and unconsciously over-egged the pudding.
I repeat that is not a crime, but something which does happen. Tests have proved 'unconscious cueing' to be a fact - and something which can happen to perfectly decent and honest police dog handlers.
Think very carefully about what you are saying here.
How likely is it that in all the residences checked by the dogs, including the Murat villa ... the only place where an individual had shed blood was in the McCann holiday residence?
Eddie was not sent in to detect blood.
Did you ever read the link (I believe Anna?) produced a while back of all the people besides Paul Anthony Gordon (who cut himself shaving and paced the whole apartment trying to stem the flow of blood for 45 minutes) to bleed in apartment 5a?
And the only inspection where Keela went first was in the gym.
The mantra goes that, generally, Eddie is the first to be deployed, then Keela afterwards ....
Actually, I'm not convinced Keela and Eddie were deployed on the same case before PdL ....
Irrelevant.
You can't ask a dog to switch off from that they are trained to detect unless you desensitise the dog to that scent.
Both Grime and Harrison make plain Eddie would react to blood.
Was Paul Gordon's DNA matched?
But not microscopic or residual scent or which Carana has suggested.?
There was a link given on this board way back to all the people (besides Mr Gordon) who did, or might have, bled in apartment 5a.
The miracle is that, apparently, no one bled in any of the other apartments ....
No idea.
But there was some DNA they couldn't identify. Perhaps some of it was his.
There was a link given on this board way back to all the people (besides Mr Gordon) who did, or might have, bled in apartment 5a.
The miracle is that, apparently, no one bled in any of the other apartments ....
Wherever Eddie barked, they dug, in expectation of finding bodies.
And they found none.
But led to interesting speculation about Eddie's abilities to sniff death through concrete (and the like).
For you ferryman and those others who ignore evidence, knowledge and logic which doesn't suit your agenda.
' Specialist dogs are demonstrably reliable.
In the Oesterhelweg et al 1998 study, it was demonstrated that the overall accuracy of the dogs they tested was 98%
Controlled studies like these are important as they are able, amongst other things, to identify false negatives and positives, something which is very difficult to do in the field. In the Zapata case, for example, the judge originally excluded the dog evidence as he decided that in tests conducted, where no alert had been signalled by the dog, no human had gone over the ground and checked there was nothing there for the dog to find. He therefore declared these ''false negatives'', which is nonsense. Hence studies which identify genuine false positives and negatives are vital.
Dogs trained to detect chemical changes in urine consistent with bladder cancer are able to do so with greater accuracy than laboratory tests, a pattern repeated with dogs trained to detect other medical problems. Dogs can alert to the presence of numerous malignant changes, possibly as a result of necrosis associated with the tumour, and can even signal to people with epilepsy that a seizure is imminent.
Humans do have these abilities - they are just nowhere near as pronounced as in dogs. Experienced nurses quickly learn to detect certain bacterial wound infections by their distinctive odour, for example.
If a dog gives an alert, it is alerting to the scent. The scent may be residual, and there may be no remains present to find, but is that a false alert? No, of course it isn't. It is alerting to something which was present and has now gone.
Because it is not possible to completely eliminate the risk of false positive alerts and unconscious signalling by handlers, an uncorroborated alert is unlikely to be considered sufficient to present in evidence, but may still add to the weight of circumstantial evidence.
The twisting and whining by McCann supporters, and by the McCanns themselves who have made some outrageous statements about Cadaver dogs in general and Mr Grime in particular, does them no favours.
The 'coconut shell' debacle is another example of this hysteria. ''Eddie found a coconut!'' they shriek.
No.
Eddie alerted to the ground. A forensic anthropologist identified a piece of what looked like it might be human skull. This is not uncommon, as if you field walk any ploughed field in the uk you are likely to find two things - medieval pottery and pieces of ancient human bone. Subsequent tests suggested it was probably a piece of seed pod or shell, but Eddie alerted to the ground, or earth adherent to the shell, not the shell itself.
The dog alerts in PdL provided what Redwood would have called ''an investigative opportunity''
It will be interesting to see if, should another suspect ever emerge, the McCann supporters will be so keen to dismiss multiple uncorroborated alerts from their property '
That view would not seem to be borne out by the inquiry:
3.10.2
It is apparent from DCO HARPER’s policy book entries relating to the search of Haut de la Garenne that the rationale he developed to justify the search (in particular the full scale dig inside the premises) is based upon historic accounts from witnesses of varying reliability. However, Decision 13 of the Search Policy Book also makes reference to the Ground Penetrating Radar confirmation of anomalies under the floor and ‘dog indications’
3.10.8
On 11 February 2008, a string of e-mails between the States of
Jersey Police Forensic Service Manager,
X , and DCO HARPER, reflect X attempts to persuade him to search the inside of Haut de la Garenne. DCO HARPER is adamant in his reply that they will not search that area as ‘there is not a shred of intelligence or evidence to suggest that anything untoward took place in any of the rooms. We would be ‘fishing’.
3.10.9
It appears to this Inquiry that the only additional information obtained by DCO HARPER after that point, when he was so adamant that the search should not take place, was the opinion of a builder who conducted work on the building in 2003 and held a contrary view to a pathologist who, in 2003 when bones were found at Haut de la Garenne, classified them as animal rather than human. It cannot be ascertained, in the absence of documentary records to assist us, why the view of this builder should have had such a profound effect on DCO HARPER, causing him to change his initial viewpoint.
Neither has any record been found as to whether this particular aspect of the decision was referred to CO POWER for consideration.
3.10.10
It seems more likely to this Inquiry, that CO POWER felt that, against the political backdrop and suggestions of ‘cover up’ and concealment, there was no alternative but to search Haut de la Garenne with a view to bringing the rumours and speculation to an end. Operation Haven accepts that this legitimate objective must be taken into account when assessing the performance of the Chief Officer in respect of this facet of our Inquiry.
From davel earlier..............
''There is no confirmation from grime that the alerts were to cadaverine ..... In reality we do not have a clue what the alerts were to''
and a response from another poster to davel, in addition to my earlier ones.
' Well, you clearly don't. Grime's dogs were not trained to alert to Cadaverine. Cadaverine is a volatile compound which is just one of the molecules which contributes to cadaver odour.
His dogs were trained to alert to cadaver odour. Therefore, a positive alert signals the presence of cadaver odour.
It is possible to ''collect'' a scent from the air and analyse the constituent molecules but this was not attempted here'
Indeed.
Cover up allegations and whistleblowers strongly indicate police officers have covered up paedophilia.
Irrelevant.
You can't ask a dog to switch off from that they are trained to detect unless you desensitise the dog to that scent.
Both Grime and Harrison make plain Eddie would react to blood.
Where did you read that?
they did in Portugal too...and probably in most countries in the world
Since when has a link to paedophilia been established, let alone proven in this case ?
Collagen is found in mammals not coconut.
(https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-gURm_7j3Hbc%2FVIhhETCNn2I%2FAAAAAAAAH9A%2F7UetjVtIXWY%2Fs1600%2FTortureCham.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
"One chamber contained a concrete bathtub splattered with blood."
Forensic scientists searching the cellars, where victims have told them they were taken to be abused, have already uncovered 65 milk teeth and up to 100 pieces of bone that they say appear to have been burned. An intact adenoid bone, from the ear of a child, has also been found, it has been reported.
https://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/
I was questioning whether it was possible and whether Grime had pointed it out or not, if so.
- Grime made a point of stating that Keela would only react to bodily fluids if mixed with blood, but he made no such remark about Eddie.
Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids''
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
- He also stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood, but he makes no such remark about Eddie.
The second dog that we've seen work today is the crime scene dog 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. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that's historically very old and she will find anybody's blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows. (Transcript 5A) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Re Keela and blood, and then a comment about Eddie:
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
No, you were not questioning if it was possible that Eddie could alert to residual blood scent, but were questionng if Grime or Harrison had told any of the PJ that he could, and if they did, it was likely they decided to plant a plaster or sock with blood on it in the flat before the dogs were brought in!
At least that is the way I read your post. So, do you redact the suggestion that Eddie alerts to residual blood scent? Because I cant find any evidence for it.
Grime is talking about blood. Keela only reacts to the physical presence of it. Then, he states that Eddie may react to a scent source (still talking about blood).
Was this discussed in an informal briefing or not? There's no way of knowing.
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.
What 'dead body' scent exactly ?
Grime is talking about blood. Keela only reacts to the physical presence of it. Then, he states that Eddie may react to a scent source (still talking about blood).
Was this discussed in an informal briefing or not? There's no way of knowing.
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.
Read Grime's statement
Grime isn't a forensic scientist.
He was a dog handler.
The dogs alerted.
And what do the alerts signify according to Grime
You tell me dave 8)--))
They are suggestive of cadaver odour.. Just suggestive
Keela didn't detect blood on the clothes Eddie alerted to.
Eddie didn't alert to any clothes. He picked stuff up in his mouth (an untrained and deleterious act) and barked (though obviously not at the same time) ...
Now remind exactly of what the dogs were trained to do.Eddie is an EVRD dog trained to find human remains
Eddie did bark when screening the clothes, he only barks when he has found the scent he is trained to find. Why are you trying to rewrite history?
Eddie is an EVRD dog trained to find human remains
Eddie is an EVRD dog trained to find human remains...and places where they have previously been
So you claim the alerts confirm the presence of cadaver odour
and the remnant scent of.....an important piece of info you decided to exclude
I claimed Eddie alerted to the clothes, a fact which Ferryman is denying for some inexplicable reason...do you have any idea why Ferryman says Eddie did NOT alert? when he obviously did?
@)(++(*
But the existence of remnant scent cannot be confirmed without forensic evidence so no one knows how reliable the alerts are.....
You claimed grime confirmed the alerts to cadaver odour...try and stick to the truth
But the existence of remnant scent cannot be confirmed without forensic evidence so no one knows how reliable the alerts are.....
How many tmes do I need to say there is no such thng as forensic evidence for remnant scent
There is possible forensic evidence for the alerts... Without forensic evidence the alerts have no evidential reliability,
Grime was unable to confirm the alerts were to residual scent...fact
So, if a dog alerts and a body is found it is alerting to the scent of a dead body, yet if a body is not present then in the world of davel it is alerting to something else.....talk about clutching at straws.
You claimed grime confirmed the alerts to cadaver odour...try and stick to the truth
No, there is no forensic evidence for remnant scent, if you thnk there is, do detail it
Grime neither confirmed or dismissed it.
It wasn't his job to either.
It is simply a case of probability.
The dogs alerted.
Try sticking to the facts
If a dog alerts and a body is found.... The alert is confirmed
If no body is found the alert is not confirmed
Where is the fault in the logic
Thank you
Grime did not confirm the alerts
So, if a dog alerts and a body is found it is alerting to the scent of a dead body, yet if a body is not present then in the world of davel it is alerting to something else.....talk about clutching at straws.
Very simple.
Bodies aren't always found.
However, people can still be found guilty in those circumstances.
There is no forensic evidence for residual scent therefore it cannot be confirmed and is therefore evidence of nothing
Did he dismiss them.
Again, just to remind you, it wasn't Grime's job to say yes or no.
That was the job of the forensic scientists involved.
LOL, now that is real funny
For 8 years peeps expert and amateur have completely missed the elementary solution to the PMI issue IMO.
tell us why...you cannot...the post makes perfect sense and you are reduced to name calling
Eddie did bark when screening the clothes, he only barks when he has found the scent he is trained to find. Why are you trying to rewrite history?
Eddie's act of picking stuff up in his mouth was an untrained and deleterious act.
I take it you don't dispute that fact?
So why did he alert? No one forced him to
Eddie has behaved differently on other occasions, when he scented the body of Bob Rose, he dug for it, and found it, he hadnt been trained for that either
He barked.
There's not a shred of evidence he alerted.
Your post was illogical and I didnt name call, are you imagining things again? Or projecting, seeing as you use derogatory phrases to several posters when you realise you are losing an argument
@)(++(*
.......
Eddie's bark WAS the alert, I am seriously worrying about you now, never mind though, your problem, not mine
there is no argument as you have failed to say why you find my post funny...you are deflecting because you cannot fault the logic
No connection can be made between his bark and his (untrained and deleterious) act of picking stuff up in his mouth.
alerts to residual scent are not nothing even if they cant be corroborated
what good is a forensic scientist when there is nothing recovered to analyse...sweet FA
Your obvious mistake
Who says the alerts are to residual scent... Grime doesn't
Seeing as there were no remains, they were to residual scent
Seeing as there were no remains, they were to residual scent
However, Decision 13 of the Search Policy Book also makes reference to the Ground Penetrating Radar confirmation of anomalies under the floor and ‘dog indications’
Where the dog barked, they searched.
Now you are being silly. Eddie barks when he has found cadaver scent. Fact.
Eddie alerted when screenng the clothes. Fact.
2 + 2 = 4
You just cannot say Eddie did not alert to the clothes unless you come up wth a reason why he did alert, its not rocket science
Show us in the report where it says that "Where Eddie barked they dug/searched".
The report clearly does not say that so I guess you are making it up.
Do you have proof of this, Mercury?
As we know there is no proof otherwise we wouldn't be debating it to kingdom come.
I just go on two facts
Eddie does not alert unless he finds what he has been trained to find eg dead bodies,
and Grime's/Harrisons comments, eg
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
So what you meant and missed out was ‘In my opinion’
Do you all agree with the Handler/trainer’s conclusions, ?
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
This does not however suggest a motive or suspect, as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence, reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Seeing as there were no remains, they were to residual scent
And you have cite that states this as a fact?
I haven't seen that, so sorry if I missed it.
And you have cite that states this as a fact?
I haven't seen that, so sorry if I missed it.
As we know there is no proof otherwise we wouldn't be debating it to kingdom come.
I just go on two facts
Eddie does not alert unless he finds what he has been trained to find eg dead bodies,
and Grime's/Harrisons comments, eg
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
Yes, Grime said the alerts indicate cadaverscent contaminant.He put it simply enugh, personally I dont see why anyone has a problem with that.
You don't need a body to confirm his alerts because it may not exist now. The perps would love that - search forever you ain't gonna find FA! There are many like Adrian Prout who lie and lie and lie to try and prove their innocence but Truth never lies. The proven dog, Eddie, in that case (and many others) alerted to death scent whatever anyone else claims. You either lie or you don't and spend the rest of your life in jail. So perps lie! Uncover the lies and you discover the truth.
They certainly dug looking for bodies.
If it wasn't Eddie's alerts that prompted them to dig, what was it?
But PF Eddie could have been alerting to sausages and nappies and sticky plasters or socks with blood on planted by the PJ and then remved inmediately before Eddie was sent in
@)(++(*
The wonder is how investigators ever cope on site, what with non-stop alerts due to all the possible sources listed here, plus the unconscious cuing from handlers , over- excited undisciplined dogs either in play-mode ; reward- fixated mode or simply exhausted and alerting to get it all over with and go home.
(Not to forget possible cross-contamination from cleaning - mops and dogs even alerting to their own slobber !)
Those seem to be the latest.
The alerts, like the "reasons" for them, would be incessant.
The wonder is how investigators ever cope on site, what with non-stop alerts due to all the possible sources listed here, plus the unconscious cuing from handlers , over- excited undisciplined dogs either in play-mode ; reward- fixated mode or simply exhausted and alerting to get it all over with and go home.
(Not to forget possible cross-contamination from cleaning - mops and dogs even alerting to their own slobber !)
Those seem to be the latest.
The alerts, like the "reasons" for them, would be incessant.
Basically, Eddie was flawed as a Cadaver Dog, which he actually wasn't. Martin Grime saw a market and exploited it.
He then went on to train Morse in a far better fashion. Sadly, he did a great deal of damage in the meantime.
Martin Grime understands semantics. Most people don't. Or they see what they want to see.
Although I suspect that Martin Grime got some help on what he did have to say.
I learned this art many years ago, so I can spot it a mile off.
BS. Eddie is proven as a cadaver finding/detecting dog.
FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow that he and his springer spaniel dogs, Eddie, Keela and Morse, were called in by Northern Constabulary in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on June 6 last year.
Mr Grime told prosecutor Alex Prentice QC that one of the dogs, Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick on June 24 last year.
The jury heard that a thin metal probe was then put into the spot Eddie indicated before a forensic anthropologist was called in to excavate the scene.
The jury was told that a body was found at the spot Eddie had indicated.
BS. Eddie is proven as a cadaver finding/detecting dog.
FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow that he and his springer spaniel dogs, Eddie, Keela and Morse, were called in by Northern Constabulary in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on June 6 last year.
Mr Grime told prosecutor Alex Prentice QC that one of the dogs, Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick on June 24 last year.
The jury heard that a thin metal probe was then put into the spot Eddie indicated before a forensic anthropologist was called in to excavate the scene.
The jury was told that a body was found at the spot Eddie had indicated.
Perhaps it would be pertinent to remember that Eddie had assistance in the search for Mr Rose's remains ...
A man accused of murder on an Orkney island led police to sand dunes where his alleged victim was buried, a court has heard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8518464.stm
The point is that many or most of the sources of "residual scents" listed are present at any given investigation site and are accessible to the dog when in work mode.
Whilst in "work mode" the dog is also susceptible to the other cues, handler expectations and sundry reasons for alerts which are trotted out regarding exhaustion, play and reward behaviour.
The point about why no incessant alerts under "work mode" or "on duty" conditions still stands, really.
Which is precisely why the importance of finding out exactly what it is the dog is actually alerting to.
He knows ... the investigators do not.
Therefore any alert requires back up evidence to say what the alert may be ... whether that is in the form of human remains or a discarded tissue from a nosebleed.
Perhaps it would be pertinent to remember that Eddie had assistance in the search for Mr Rose's remains ...
A man accused of murder on an Orkney island led police to sand dunes where his alleged victim was buried, a court has heard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8518464.stm
So the evidence of Martin Grime was of no value whatsoever. The Perpetrator admitted that he had killed the man, and then told The Police where to find the body.That perp told them the area of dunes to find the body in.
Although it wouldn't surprise me if the perpetrator pleaded Not Guilty
for all the thousands of posts on the dogs...and all the claims re there skills...the bottom linr remains...
Eddie may have alerted to cadaver odour...and then again he may have not...that statement is confirmed by what Grime said
That perp told them the area of dunes to find the body in.
Not the exact spot.
That's why Eddie was called in.
The dogs responded to the presence of certain compounds.
FACT.
GRIME IS NOT A FORENSIC SCIENTIST, just a dog handler.
Dogs do what they are trained to do.
FACT.
The dogs responded to the presence of certain compounds.
FACT.
GRIME IS NOT A FORENSIC SCIENTIST, just a dog handler.
Dogs do what they are trained to do.
FACT.
Well quite.
The problem is that there will be "nosebleed" residue or similar blood/saliva/toenail/pork product/mop spillage related contaminants at most sites accessible to the on-duty dog in work mode.
"Any" alert requiring back up evidence would therefore become "many" alerts everywhere requiring back up evidence.
for all the thousands of posts on the dogs...and all the claims re there skills...the bottom linr remains...
Eddie may have alerted to cadaver odour...and then again he may have not...that statement is confirmed by what Grime said
What has forensic science have to do with residual scent...nothing at the moment ...
There is no science behind residual sent..it is anectdotal..
science requires proof...there is no proof to support what eddie alerted to....Grime has made that clear
... and that is the sum and substance of it.
That perp told them the area of dunes to find the body in.
Not the exact spot.
That's why Eddie was called in.
Was the material recovered from behind the sofa confirmed as blood? And if so how much was actually collected and where was it collected from? Because if it was collected from underneath the tiles in small amounts I assume a reasonable amount of blood would need to be spilled in order for it to seep under there.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
So that's why you and the rest of the mccann faithful keep commenting on this thread.
Deary me. 8)-)))
'There is no science behind residual sent'
It is you once again who needs lessons in science.
Just what the hell do you think forensic scientists do at the scene of a crime ?
Play happy bunnies perhaps. 8)--)) 8(>((
Sands shift and it is easy to lose track of where bodies are buried ... witness Northern Ireland where victims of the troubles cannot be found despite the deposition site being known ... but there is nothing remarkable in a cadaver dog finding a recent burial which must have been stinking to high heaven as it was wrapped only in a duvet.With the way that sands backfill, it is unlikely that the body would have been buried very deeply
Digging in sand dunes is particularly difficult as loose sand quickly backfills the area being dug out therefore pin pointing the exact spot would be important and a cadaver dog the proper tool to do that and having been taken to the immediate area I reckon it would have taken Eddie minutes to do that saving hours of digging time.
Absolutely.
Which is why a dog alert will not be presented in court in the British Isles with the exception of Scotland.
In the case of Suzanne Pilley a murder conviction was returned although Ms Pilley's remains still have not been recovered ... an alert from a cadaver dog was accepted as evidence ... not on its own ... but as part of a vast sum of corroborating evidence which was compelling enough for a jury to return a guilty verdict.
It should be noted that this occurred in a jurisdiction which allows three verdicts ... guilty - not guilty - and not proven.
The not proven cop out verdict usually being interpreted as ... aye, we know you dunnit, but we don't think there is enough evidence to prove it, so away you go and don't do it again.
That people are anxious to hang, draw and quarter the parents of a missing child on the very questionable evidence of a very questionable dog alert ... and only that ... nothing else I find one of the more extraordinary aspects of Madeleine McCann's case, and there are a lot to choose from.
Not pointless if they find forensic evidence
What prevents continual alerts at most sites though, if residual scents or contaminants from toenails/ mops/ pork products / nosebleeds/ nappy related substances /saliva etc are what trigger the response?
Surely the searches on most sites would be pointless were this the case.
That`s the point.
What prevents continual alerts at most sites though, if residual scents or contaminants from toenails/ mops/ pork products / nosebleeds/ nappy related substances /saliva etc are what trigger the response?
Surely the searches on most sites would be pointless were this the case.
That`s the point.
Not pointless if they find forensic evidence
But they didn't in the Mccann case.
Probably.
Dreary you, more like. You keep on commenting.
'There is no science behind residual sent'
It is you once again who needs lessons in science.
Just what the hell do you think forensic scientists do at the scene of a crime ?
Play happy bunnies perhaps. 8)--)) 8(>((
there is no science behind residual scent.....at the scene of a crime forensic scientists are responsible for the analysis of any evidence collected...fact...if no evidence is present...as in residual scent...there is no involvement of scientist..
it is you who needs a lesson in science
8)-)))
What prevents continual alerts at most sites though, if residual scents or contaminants from toenails/ mops/ pork products / nosebleeds/ nappy related substances /saliva etc are what trigger the response?
Surely the searches on most sites would be pointless were this the case.
That`s the point.
............and what do you do in support of the mccanns ?
Very dreary and then some.
That would seem to sum up exactly Mr Amaral's late calling in of dogs which he had been told were available to him shortly after Madeleine's disappearance when, as in the case of the reconstitution they would have been of maximum value and certainly of more use than the excellent GNR sniffers. (please don't require a cite ... it's all in the files)
Do you think that based on the fiasco in Praia da Luz, Haute de la Garenne, Tia Sharpe, Shannon Matthews etc ... VRD and CSI working dogs are 'pointless'.
I think you are misunderstanding the role of the dogs as just one very valuable tool in the box of tools available to investigators ... or is it your suggestion that if you or a loved one is lying under a collapsed building it would be pointless to send the dogs in to find you because there are too many distractions around?
So no material was collected from the crime scene in this case ?
You need to get a grip.
and learn some basic science.
'Thinking out of the box' and 'lateral thinking' won't help in your case, as your repeated mistakes in science and maths have amply demonstrated.
No........I think you are misunderstanding the point.
There`s no need for you to "suggest" what you think I`m "suggesting" about loved ones under collapsed buildings.
The point was that the EVRD doesn`t seem to alert non-stop as he would were the alerts triggered by residual scents from the many aforementioned substances which would probably be present at most sites under investigation.
To reinforce my point...
no one knows what the alerts signify....even Grime cannot be sure...and he's the expert
He is not a forensic scientist.
Well make sure that includes davel's.
After all. we are all supposed to be on an even playing field.
Quite true. Though, we've all seen the pics of the removed tiles and I thought it was established that this material came from a member of the McCann family, but there was not enough material to establish which member. I don't profess to know much about DNA analysis, so could well be mistaken.
Hmmm ... I wouldn't dream of offending you by "suggesting" anything at all pertaining to your posts ... which really rather detracts from broadening the discussion which is a pity.
Right lets get back on track with Mr Amaral and Eddie.
I think we can both agree that Eddie barked ... is that correct?
I have read and understood what Mr Grime had to say about that ... have you?
I have read up on VOCs ... have you?
Will have to leave it there for the moment ... perhaps in the interests of accuracy and to dismiss the chance of "suggestion" getting in the way ... you might like to continue stulted discussion based on question and answer such as the three above and I'll get back to you later.
Why are sceptics incapable of discussion without taking personal slight? That was rhetorical.
At the risk of being boring about the Wiltshire Police Inquiry:
It appears to this Inquiry that the only additional information obtained by DCO HARPER after that point, when he was so adamant that the search should not take place, was the opinion of a builder who conducted work on the building in 2003 and held a contrary view to a pathologist who, in 2003 when bones
were found at Haut de la Garenne, classified them as animal rather than human. It cannot be ascertained, in the absence of documentary records to assist us, why the view of this builder should have had such a profound effect on DCO HARPER, causing him to change his initial viewpoint.
The report also refers to historic accounts from witnesses, Ground Penetrating Radar and dog indications.
If however you choose to believe most of it is "window dressing" and it was all down to Eddie then OK. But that is not what the report says.
Sands shift and it is easy to lose track of where bodies are buried ... witness Northern Ireland where victims of the troubles cannot be found despite the deposition site being known ... but there is nothing remarkable in a cadaver dog finding a recent burial which must have been stinking to high heaven as it was wrapped only in a duvet.The area where concealment was on Sanday
Digging in sand dunes is particularly difficult as loose sand quickly backfills the area being dug out therefore pin pointing the exact spot would be important and a cadaver dog the proper tool to do that and having been taken to the immediate area I reckon it would have taken Eddie minutes to do that saving hours of digging time.
How do you think it is possible for blood to seep under a cemented tile? Into the grout possibly, but not underneath. And No, it was not established as coming from a member of The McCann Family. Quite the opposite. No DNA was found from The Family McCann.
This is not a criticism of your post. Do keep on asking. But we are all battling past myths. This is what the likes of me are doing here.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
How do you think it is possible for blood to seep under a cemented tile? Into the grout possibly, but not underneath. And No, it was not established as coming from a member of The McCann Family. Quite the opposite. No DNA was found from The Family McCann.
This is not a criticism of your post. Do keep on asking. But we are all battling past myths. This is what the likes of me are doing here.
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
Are you experienced in the use of forensic dogs ?
for all the thousands of posts on the dogs...and all the claims re there skills...the bottom linr remains...
Eddie may have alerted to cadaver odour...and then again he may have not...that statement is confirmed by what Grime said
The bottom line is that it is highly likely that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour. It is a matter of probability.
Hmmm ... I wouldn't dream of offending you by "suggesting" anything at all pertaining to your posts ... which really rather detracts from broadening the discussion which is a pity.
Right lets get back on track with Mr Amaral and Eddie.
I think we can both agree that Eddie barked ... is that correct?
I have read and understood what Mr Grime had to say about that ... have you?
I have read up on VOCs ... have you?
Will have to leave it there for the moment ... perhaps in the interests of accuracy and to dismiss the chance of "suggestion" getting in the way ... you might like to continue stulted discussion based on question and answer such as the three above and I'll get back to you later.
Why are sceptics incapable of discussion without taking personal slight? That was rhetorical.
Yeah I went and read the files and was mistaken. No meaningful results were obtained. That was what I was thinking though. If a significant amount of blood was spilled it could possibly leak down between a crack in the grout. This would be apparent I would imagine to anyone investigating the scene. Seems weird they didn't try using luminol in the area.
Hmmmmm......It was irrelevant in my view , not offensive.
How about sticking to the point as an idea to "keep on track?"
The point was that the EVRD doesn`t seem to alert non-stop as he would were the alerts triggered by residual scents from the many aforementioned substances which would probably be present at most sites under investigation..........including those investigated by Eddie.
You seem, in the clip below to regard the ever growing list of substances to which residual scents the EVRD alerts, in your view, as "too many distractions"
"I think you are misunderstanding the role of the dogs as just one very valuable tool in the box of tools available to investigators ... or is it your suggestion that if you or a loved one is lying under a collapsed building it would be pointless to send the dogs in to find you because there are too many distractions around?"
So what stops the on duty dog alerting immediately and continuously to residual scents from any or many of the substances on an ever growing list of "distractions" which will be present at most sites ?
Yeah I went and read the files and was mistaken. No meaningful results were obtained. That was what I was thinking though. If a significant amount of blood was spilled it could possibly leak down between a crack in the grout. This would be apparent I would imagine to anyone investigating the scene. Seems weird they didn't try using luminol in the area.
who says it's highly likely....no one in authority....and who is to say what the probability is...your post is simply your opinion based on no proper evidence
The bottom line is that it is highly likely that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour. It is a matter of probability.
who says it's highly likely....no one in authority....and who is to say what the probability is...your post is simply your opinion based on no proper evidence
Probability is simply not good enough. Although your definition of probability is vastly different from mine.
Hmmmmm......It was irrelevant in my view , not offensive.
How about sticking to the point as an idea to "keep on track?"
The point was that the EVRD doesn`t seem to alert non-stop as he would were the alerts triggered by residual scents from the many aforementioned substances which would probably be present at most sites under investigation..........including those investigated by Eddie.
You seem, in the clip below to regard the ever growing list of substances to which residual scents the EVRD alerts, as "too many distractions"
"I think you are misunderstanding the role of the dogs as just one very valuable tool in the box of tools available to investigators ... or is it your suggestion that if you or a loved one is lying under a collapsed building it would be pointless to send the dogs in to find you because there are too many distractions around?"
So what stops the on duty dog alerting immediately and continuously to residual scents from any or many of the substances on an ever growing list of "distractions" which will be present at most sites ?
we would need to ask an expert.....may be in this situation the dog goes for the strongest scent...the body
Probability us simply not good enough. Although your definition of probability is vastly different from mine.
Somebody could still be alive under that rubble. Dogs find them. Dogs like Eddie. That's what he was.
They are trained for a specific purpose.
Perhaps you should look up the Oesterhelweg study 1998.
Complete waste of time using sniffer dogs isn't it? &%+((£
Maybe........
If that`s the case, though, a weak residual scent remaining from an actual cadaver after a clean-up could be superseded and missed by the stronger whiff left behind by a nosebleed to which the dog alerts.
You do know convictions can be made, for example, with a lack of a body in suspected murder cases.
That will involve circumstantial evidence and more than just a consideration of probability.
Yes, I use a mathematical definition.
not if they regularly find evidence
Really? My mathematical skills far exceed most. I can actually add 10 times 90, divided by eleventy two and come up with an answer.
I don't have any great scientific skills. Just don't take me on when it comes to Maths.
You do know convictions can be made, for example, with a lack of a body in suspected murder cases.
That will involve circumstantial evidence and more than just a consideration of probability.
if you are going to respond to my post could you answer the question it asks
Somebody could still be alive under that rubble. Dogs find them. Dogs like Eddie. That's what he was.
Really? My mathematical skills far exceed most. I can actually add 10 times 90, divided by eleventy two and come up with an answer.
I don't have any great scientific skills. Just don't take me on when it comes to Maths.
Yes, Stephen, I do know that. Can you give us some examples of circumstantial evidence in this case?
Can someone please remind me......How many bodies did they find in Jersey?
Lots of alerts in this film.
as I said...do actual cadaver dogs alert to blood...it appears eddie was not trained originally as a cadaver dog
So Eddie alerted to a live person in the apartment.....
This one will appear in Fora all over the net.
Oh dear. 'Eleventy two'
Freudian slip, no doubt.
Can someone please remind me......How many bodies did they find in Jersey?
Lots of alerts in this film.
I suggest you keep your eyes on the ongoing inquiry into paedophiles and those who covered it up 8(0(*
So you know what Eddie alerted to?
Eddie was a Victim Recovery Dog. This often involved live people to which he alerted. This often involved Blood, and live people.
So don't try your smart arsed tricks on me.
I assume that is a joke?
Not really. Have you never heard of eleventy two? It's the wild card that comes into every equation.
You need to know it before you can decide that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Not really. Have you never heard of eleventy two? It's the wild card that comes into every equation.
You need to know it before you can decide that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
It wasn`t the survivors under the rubble I was on about, though. Brietta brought that up.
It was the fact that Eddie and his doggy colleagues don`t seem to be alerting non-stop, from the word go, as they surely would if all the possible contaminants listed on these threads caused an alert.
Oh dear. 'Eleventy two'
Freudian slip, no doubt.
At the moment, there is nothing other than the dogs.
Most Victim Recovery Dogs don't become Cadaver Dogs overnight. With some facile E added to their credentials.
So not a live person, just blood. Which Keela didn't alert to.
So that's your Smart Arsed trick?
Just as well then that any trial won't take place in a British court.
Do you know what a victim recovery dog is?
Cadaver Dogs Also known as decomposition or victim recovery dogs.
If a dog is not accurate, it will not alert when it should as well as alert when it shouldn't, if they are as inaccurate as you suggest I think I will stop flying.
If a dog is not accurate, it will not alert when it should as well as alert when it shouldn't, if they are as inaccurate as you suggest I think I will stop flying.
No, Stephen. Just a joke. What could possibly be Freudian about that.?
So you've never been grabbed by the differential equations then ?
2nd order, of course. 8)--))
No........I think you are misunderstanding the point.You mean like alerting to a tissue used for cleaning up after sex, for instance?
There`s no need for you to "suggest" what you think I`m "suggesting" about loved ones under collapsed buildings.
The point was that the EVRD doesn`t seem to alert non-stop as he would were the alerts triggered by residual scents from the many aforementioned substances which would probably be present at most sites under investigation.
The area where concealment was on Sanday
2:19 to 2:40 in video http://news.stv.tv/north/160890-spurned-lover-guilty-of-island-murder/
So you've never been grabbed by the differential equations then ?
2nd order, of course. 8)--))
Grabbed by your differentials - sounds painful 8)--))
No idea of what you are talking about. I know that figures can be distorted. But not to the likes of me. But then I can do all of your supposed equations in my head. Some of us can you know.
Logistics.
At the risk of being boring about the Wiltshire Police Inquiry:
It appears to this Inquiry that the only additional information obtained by DCO HARPER after that point, when he was so adamant that the search should not take place, was the opinion of a builder who conducted work on the building in 2003 and held a contrary view to a pathologist who, in 2003 when bones
were found at Haut de la Garenne, classified them as animal rather than human. It cannot be ascertained, in the absence of documentary records to assist us, why the view of this builder should have had such a profound effect on DCO HARPER, causing him to change his initial viewpoint.
The report also refers to historic accounts from witnesses, Ground Penetrating Radar and dog indications.
If however you choose to believe most of it is "window dressing" and it was all down to Eddie then OK. But that is not what the report says.
Well Eleanor, it's just part of calculus.
What supposed calculations of mine are you referring to Eleanor ?
I'm intrigued. &%+((£
No idea of what you are talking about. I know that figures can be distorted. But not to the likes of me. But then I can do all of your supposed equations in my head. Some of us can you know.
Logistics.
I still think it would be useful data - where in the apartment the clothing was. "Data data data!" as Holmes said.
I have no idea of what a Calculus is, Stephen. So I can't help you.
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
I don't need help Eleanor.
It's part of one of the subjects I teach. 8)-)))
You mean like alerting to a tissue used for cleaning up after sex, for instance?
Maybe as Davel suggested......(sort of )...... that the dog alerts to the strongest scent at the site ?Exactly. Who knows? Dogs may not lie but that's only cos they can't actually speak so we'll never know what's really going on in their canine brains.
The sex-tissue over riding the weaker scent from the historic toenail fragments, any residual scents from plasters, saliva , mop related cross -contamination and coconuts in this instance ?
Maybe he settled for the tissue due to unconscious cuing or to get his reward or simply to get the job over with due to exhaustion?
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
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
(Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie, chapter 16)
More like a red herring to take the investigation in the wrong directionMaybe, but I'll do some check measurements anyway.
Is it possible some of the alerts are irrelevant (tiler and gardener mishaps?) and some are not irrelevant?
Or is it all or nothing?
I think it's nothing, because the way the dogs were handled brings into question the whole modus operandi.
Eddie was trained for living and cadavar scents. Maybe this Zapata dog was solely trained for cadavar odour?
Your analogy does not work in this case Pfinder, because of Eddies past training looking for living people.
Soz
You are wrong so give it up Sadie. SY are using the same dogs (Tito & Muzzy) that also alert to blood like Eddie. Name some cases where Eddie has found a living missing person? Eddie and Keela are used to find evidence in possible missing people murder cases.
Tito and Muzzy handler Sally Richards said recently: “They are trained to find anything from tiny specks of blood which are hard for the human eye to see to a full-sized victim, and everything in between.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-search-april-jones-3642420#ixzz33lYYLilY
“But with missing people and murder cases, we know we’re giving people closure. You know that person or body may not have been recovered if it wasn’t for the work that the team put in. With murder cases, it’s about finding evidence that could otherwise have been missed,” said Pc Newman.
Pc Williams said: “It’s a sense of determination to get justice for the family. All of us have a quiet sense of determination. Sometimes you find yourself up to your knees in mud, you have been there for hours but what keeps you going is finding or getting closure for the family.”
As well as working on cases local to their Bridgend base, they have also been asked to go abroad. They have been involved in the most recent search for missing schoolgirl Madeleine McCann.
All four of the team went to Portugal in June last year, working with the Metropolitan Police.
But what is it that makes these springer spaniels so skilled? Partly, it’s because their olfactory glands - in their noses - are 400 times more powerful than a human’s.
Pc Newman said: “The dogs are tasked with looking for evidence which can be a minuscule piece of evidence like a blood drop which is pin-prick sized.”
That could be in a search area which is small - for example a room in a house - or miles and miles of land.
When the dogs find something of interest, they are trained to freeze.
PC Sally Richards and Tito searching for a human tooth. Part of Crime Scene and Victim Recovery Dog Unit, South Wales Police Dog Section, Waterton Cross, Bridgend.
(http://i3.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8461172.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/tito2.jpg)
And the dogs? “They come to work to play, they have the best job a dog could have,” says Sgt Patterson.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/meet-badger-spud-muzzy-tito-8460918
Here is a detail from a PJ photo (brightened by Anna) which relates directly to amaral and dog.
An interesting thing is there are faint traces of what appear to be check pattern on grey item.
Is it image compression effect or is it real check partly blurred? I did some measurements including accurate adjustment for foreshortening, length ratios, using other data too, and discover the check pattern faintly visible in the photo is IMO approximately the same size check as that on grey item in other PJ photo. I might be wrong, it might be image compression, just saying IMO it's about the correct dimension.
My goodness you have been busy, Pegasus. We must also remember that the PJ Print runs across the photo as you can see on the left margin. Even before I lightened it, I too believed it was Kate's trousers.Thanks, you have me worried about that PJ watermark now, time to check the photo again.
Where's this report been hiding...In the bedroom he bypassed the floor level of the left wardrobe.
I believe that this report was Feb 2008.
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
Doesn't the red highlight ring any alarm bells...no wonder the arguido status was removed
In the bedroom he bypassed the floor level of the left wardrobe.
However he alerted immediately the first time he sniffed the first shelf up.
This might perhaps be a small clue that the scent came from that first shelf up.
(However, there is a complication here - if scent was also coming from from a higher shelf)
You are watching the videos edited by Duarte levy whilst the PJ are watching the originalsI doubt Levy had the resources to hire Eddie and MG lookalikes to make a fake alert movie.
I doubt Levy had the resources to hire Eddie and MG lookalikes to make a fake alert movie.
NW has certainly watched the original too
Who BTW has worked on another case where a dog alert was grossly under-valued.
And where the investigators misled themselves by making a HUGE false assumption.
I said edited...the scent of death is a relatively new phenomena....I'm fairly intelligent and from a scientific backround...as far as I'm concerned the unconfirmed alerts are absolute tosh...Yes but if, after editing, a video contains a dog barking at a shelf in a wardrobe, that means the original complete video must have contained a dog barking at a shelf in a wardrobe. Your claim that the video was edited actually proves that the dog barked at that shelf.
Yes but if, after editing, a video contains a dog barking at a shelf in a wardrobe, that means the original complete video must have contained a dog barking at a shelf in a wardrobe. Your claim that the video was edited actually proves that the dog barked at that shelf.
The complete video may have shown the dog walking past the wardrobe several times without barking at it...in the same way eddie ignored cuddlecat at first. The PJ who would have seen exactly what happened and the complete video says...
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
That statement completely undermines further the alerts
Grime explains that the dog was looking for the source. If there is no source he alerts where the scent is strongest;
What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
So now we know in most cases Eddie did not alert until being repeatedly called back......evidenced by the pj report......no evidence found to confirm the alerts........the video has been edited to show the dogs in a better light.......
You might be fooled but I'm not
A brief reminder.
Inconclusive forensic results does not mean NO EVIDENCE.
The dogs alerted.
Simple balance of probabilities.
THAT IS WHY YOU KEEP ON RETURNING TO THIS THREAD.
A brief reminder.
Inconclusive forensic results does not mean NO EVIDENCE.
The dogs alerted.
Simple balance of probabilities.
THAT IS WHY YOU KEEP ON RETURNING TO THIS THREAD.
if the dogs first ignored the spots they later alerted to in many cases that alters the credibility of the alerts and therefore reduces the possibility of them actually meaning anything.
inconclusive results does mean no evidence...
Why ?
Have you never observed dogs being used at first hand in such situations ?
Inconclusive means the material was contaminated.
Now if a body is found..............................
Yes but if, after editing, a video contains a dog barking at a shelf in a wardrobe, that means the original complete video must have contained a dog barking at a shelf in a wardrobe. Your claim that the video was edited actually proves that the dog barked at that shelf.
Eddie ignored uudlecat then later alerted to it...it seems this happened re many of the alerts according to the PJ....If you cannot see that this drastically reduces the credibility of the alerts then its your problem
Therein lies your trouble.
You haven't seen dogs in action in the real world.
I see what you are saying, Pegasus.
However the current discussion is the doubts regarding the alerts as seen on video, by PJ.
Why should that alert in the wardrobe be less doubtful? They saw the full video before it was edited, Did we?
Eddie alerts to living scents
What i cant understand is why all this palava over him aparantly alerting at a shelf in a cupboard? What if the dirty washing from a living Madeleine had been stored there? There would be a scent then, would there not?
And Eddie who was trained to alert to living scents would have alerted.
Have you any direct physical experience of seeing how dogs 'work' in the field ?
Videos, give a false perception.
Eddie alerts to living scents
What i cant understand is why all this palava over him aparantly alerting at a shelf in a cupboard? What if the dirty washing from a living Madeleine had been stored there? There would be a scent then, would there not?
And Eddie who was trained to alert to living scents would have alerted.
Eddie alerts to living scents
What i cant understand is why all this palava over him aparantly alerting at a shelf in a cupboard? What if the dirty washing from a living Madeleine had been stored there? There would be a scent then, would there not?
And Eddie who was trained to alert to living scents would have alerted.
none of us need to see dogs working to understand what is going on. The video has been edited to show the dogs in a more favourable light...that's it. Originally according to the PJ .eddie ignored things on many occasions before signalling...we have been sold a lie for 8 years...8@??)(
none of us need to see dogs working to understand what is going on. The video has been edited to show the dogs in a more favourable light...that's it. Originally according to the PJ .eddie ignored things on many occasions before signalling...we have been sold a lie for 8 years...
8@??)(
And not only that, we NOW find that Eddie alerts to living scents as well as the scents associated with a cadavar
What is going on with all this disinformation ?
None of us know for certain what Eddie was trained to alert too, Sadie. Only the trainer would know that. However we do know that he could alert to blood from a living person (which had dried) and IIRC, he alerted to semen on a tissue in another case.
X contamination could be another cause for alerts. False alert is also a possibility.
Living scent as in a human scent, would be everywhere in the apartment.
SAR dogs who do this kind of search (live victims) usually do so in searching outside areas or areas of disasters, they will also find a cadaver if one is present.
Please feel free to correct me on any of the above, which is only my opinion.
That post merely highlights your ignorance on how dogs operate in the field.
As to 'lies', that started with the unproven story of the abduction.
How do you account for the absence of Eddie`s constant and continual alerting from the word go at sites in which living scents abound?See my post immediately above. Concentrated scent.
Would he and other VRD`s be likely to alert to dirty washing/ clothes which had been worn at investigation sites everywhere, then.......as a result of their "training?"
Why don`t the many "living scents" of all sorts everywhere lead to constant alerting from the moment the dog is "on duty?"
That post merely highlights your ignorance on how dogs operate in the field.
As to 'lies', that started with the unproven story of the abduction.
See my post immediately above. Concentrated scent.
How do you account for the absence of Eddie`s constant and continual alerting from the word go at sites in which living scents abound?
how do you account for eddie continually failing to alert to something....many times according to the pj....and then marking the object...
I hoped the many self appointed experts here would help with the answers to my questions, thanks in advance.
the self appointed experts all seem to think the dog's alert are important so I don't think you will get much sense out of them
We won't get much sense from those self appointed experts who seem to think that the dogs' alerts are not important.
We won't get much sense from those self appointed experts who seem to think that the dogs' alerts are not important.
We won't get much sense from those self appointed experts who seem to think that the dogs' alerts are not important.
could you name an actual expert who has anything positive to say about the alerts....
Which experts have said the dogs could not have alerted to a dead body ?
Grime and Harrison have both said the alerts have no evidential or intelligence reliability...we can only look at what the experts have said ...not what they have not said. We are all aware that there may have been a body in 5a.....and the dogs may have alerted to it...or they may not have...not much use...
Its like an explosive scent dog inspecting a plane and the handler reporting...there might be a bomb on there but then again there might not....wouldn't be a fat lot of use would it
So when did they say the alerts could not be to a body ?
Remember of course, this is what the dogs are trained for.
and Gerry Mccann, got it so, so wrong.
So when did they say the alerts could not be to a body ?
Remember of course, this is what the dogs are trained for.
and Gerry Mccann, got it so, so wrong.
None of us know for certain what Eddie was trained to alert too, Sadie. Only the trainer would know that. However we do know that he could alert to blood from a living person (which had dried) and IIRC, he alerted to semen on a tissue in another case.
X contamination could be another cause for alerts. False alert is also a possibility.
Living scent as in a human scent, would be everywhere in the apartment.
SAR dogs who do this kind of search (live victims) usually do so in searching outside areas or areas of disasters, they will also find a cadaver if one is present.
Please feel free to correct me on any of the above, which is only my opinion.
So when did they say the alerts could not be to a body ?
Remember of course, this is what the dogs are trained for.
and Gerry Mccann, got it so, so wrong.
you need to read the post again....what do you think of the PJ criticism of the alerts
Eddie alerts to living scentsYes statistically the pile of laundry we see on the shelf that night contains items of all 5 people.
What i cant understand is why all this palava over him aparantly alerting at a shelf in a cupboard? What if the dirty washing from a living Madeleine had been stored there? There would be a scent then, would there not?
And Eddie who was trained to alert to living scents would have alerted.
In this context the dogs are used as a tool to narrow down a search area and to point up places where forensic EVIDENCE may be found - no more and no less.
Some people do seem to be reading more into this than it actually warrants.
The dogs are trained to find evidence
Now again.
Where does it say, the dogs could not have alerted to a body ?
The dogs are trained to respond to a group of compounds which form as a result of decomposition.
including dried blood. Which can, as Eleanor says, be from people who are definitely still alive.
So, with this information, how does a dog alert definitely mean that there was a dead human there at some time?
Grime and Harrison have both said the alerts have no evidential or intelligence reliability...we can only look at what the experts have said ...not what they have not said. We are all aware that there may have been a body in 5a.....and the dogs may have alerted to it...or they may not have...not much use...
When the cadaver dog is teamed up with a second dog trained, only, to react to blood and (itself!) desensitised to blood.At the wardrobe, Eddie alerted, Keela did not, what does this mean?
That is why, in the Bianca Jones case, the (uncorroborated) cadaver dog alert of Morse was accepted as stand-alone evidence of death.
The weak link in the Eddie-and-Keela combination was always that both dogs react(ed!) to blood.
At the wardrobe, Eddie alerted, Keela did not, what does this mean?
including dried blood. Which can, as Eleanor says, be from people who are definitely still alive.
So, with this information, how does a dog alert definitely mean that there was a dead human there at some time?
At the wardrobe, Eddie alerted, Keela did not, what does this mean?
Can you cite evidence that dried blood from a living person will produce compounds after decarboxylation such as Cadaverine and Putrescine (from Lysine and Arginine respectively) ?
Can you cite evidence that dried blood from a living person will produce compounds after decarboxylation such as Cadaverine and Putrescine (from Lysine and Arginine respectively) ?
dried blood does not produce cadaver scent
Why is that relevant? Grime has stated that Eddie would react to dried blood from a living human being. He's less clear about which other decomposing "body fluids" he'd also have reacted to.
Can you cite evidence that dried blood from a living person will produce compounds after decarboxylation such as Cadaverine and Putrescine (from Lysine and Arginine respectively) ?
Precisely.
Why is that relevant? Grime has stated that Eddie would react to dried blood from a living human being. He's less clear about which other decomposing "body fluids" he'd also have reacted to.
Forensic scientists don't know what these dogs are alerting to because they haven't been able to separate the components of 'cadaver scent'. That's why they can't reproduce it in the laboratory. Eddie was trained on decomposing piglets because the scent is very close to that of decomposing humans. As the dogs become experienced they can identify the scent of a decomposing human being and that is what they alert to.
Forensic scientists don't know what these dogs are alerting to because they haven't been able to separate the components of 'cadaver scent'. That's why they can't reproduce it in the laboratory. Eddie was trained on decomposing piglets because the scent is very close to that of decomposing humans. As the dogs become experienced they can identify the scent of a decomposing human being and that is what they alert to.
Is Grime a forensic scientist ?
Xcuse me. Blood only comes from live humans. Dead humans don't bleed. Hope this helps.
Incorrect.
Blood can seep from a dead body from a wound.
Hope that helps.
from what we have learnt...nothing ....how many times did eddie walk past the wardrobe without alertingSeveral times, but spot the difference.
Incorrect.
Blood can seep from a dead body from a wound.
Hope that helps.
Forensic scientists don't know what these dogs are alerting to because they haven't been able to separate the components of 'cadaver scent'. That's why they can't reproduce it in the laboratory. Eddie was trained on decomposing piglets because the scent is very close to that of decomposing humans. As the dogs become experienced they can identify the scent of a decomposing human being and that is what they alert to.
Xcuse me. Blood only comes from live humans. Dead humans don't bleed. Hope this helps.
Blood pressure in anyone dead is zero, therefore blood-loss (from anyone dead is much less likely.
Still, it can happen, and where it does, it congeals in a form very different from blood lost by a living person.
They also alert to dried blood from living humans and (Eddie) coconuts ....
187 pages and losing the will to live.....
and that is just this thread on the cadaver dog
&%&£(+
Well this is England and we are a nation of dog lovers.
In North Korea this thread would be entitled "Menu".
187 pages and losing the will to live.....
and that is just this thread on the cadaver dog
&%&£(+
You have missed the point here....This thread has just discovered something that has not been discussed before...the fact that the videos of the dogs have been heavily edited showing the alerts to be of even less use than we thought.
Who did the 'editing' ?
Morals' boyfriend
Levy
So where is the source material ?
Levy is a journalist.... We don't know exactly how he got hold of them
We know from a statement by a Pj officer in the files that they have been heavily edited as I have already explained
Levy is a journalist.... We don't know exactly how he got hold of them
We know from a statement by a Pj officer in the files that they have been heavily edited as I have already explained
Have you ever seen a 'video' which hasn't been edited ?
Without the source material, comparisons remain just hot air.
and what precisely does heavily edited mean ?
Have any 'videos' the mccanns have done been heavily edited to try and show the mccanns in a good light ?
*&*%£
not hot air due to the statement by the PJ
Unless the original material can be looked at comparisons are irrelevant.
So dave have videos featuring the mccanns been heavily edited for public consumption ?
Unless the original material can be looked at comparisons are irrelevant.
So dave have videos featuring the mccanns been heavily edited for public consumption ?
The pj officer who made the statement has told us what really happened...are you calling him a liar
You have missed the point here....This thread has just discovered something that has not been discussed before...the fact that the videos of the dogs have been heavily edited showing the alerts to be of even less use than we thought.
I don't quite follow your logic.
Mr Grime gave an opinion on the alerts. He was the "expert" called in. How does some gash hand effing about with videos diminish Mr Grime's opinion?
Or are you trying to say Mr Grime took in the dogs then relied on an edited version of the video to draw his conclusions?
*&*%£
cue another 187 pages.
I don't quite follow your logic.
Mr Grime gave an opinion on the alerts. He was the "expert" called in. How does some gash hand effing about with videos diminish Mr Grime's opinion?
Or are you trying to say Mr Grime took in the dogs then relied on an edited version of the video to draw his conclusions?
*&*%£
cue another 187 pages.
Have you ever seen a 'video' which hasn't been edited ?
Without the source material, comparisons remain just hot air.
and what precisely does heavily edited mean ?
Have any 'videos' the mccanns have done been heavily edited to try and show the mccanns in a good light ?
*&*%£
I have edited a lot of videos in my time and know exactly how to make a cut or reverse a sequence which will enhance the footage to make it say exactly what I want it to ... it's not rocket science ...
So what ?
This will have been done on 'behalf' of the mccanns as well.
I'll bear that in mind next time I have the misfortune to stumble over a Lizzy Taylor effort.
I'll bear that in mind next time I have the misfortune to stumble over a Lizzy Taylor effort..
.
Very strange. My thoughts exactly.
Very true Alice ... and as Mr Grime stated ... they had no evidential value whatsoever or words to that effect.
Why very strange Eleanor.
It's 2 halves of the same coin.
Could we have some examples of Videos that The McCanns have edited?
You are kidding me ?
I did say on behalf of the mccanns. 8((()*/
Okay. Could we have some examples of Videos that have been edited on behalf of The McCanns?
I have edited a lot of videos in my time and know exactly how to make a cut or reverse a sequence which will enhance the footage to make it say exactly what I want it to ... it's not rocket science ...
Found one or two which are really all about Madeleine ... what a shame there are individuals about who feel duty bound to append nasty comments to each and every one.
I don't quite follow your logic.
Mr Grime gave an opinion on the alerts. He was the "expert" called in. How does some gash hand effing about with videos diminish Mr Grime's opinion?
Or are you trying to say Mr Grime took in the dogs then relied on an edited version of the video to draw his conclusions?
*&*%£
cue another 187 pages.
Agreed, but that doesn't get to the bottom of who edited them.
For the PJ, the dog inspections were their "smoking gun". Unedited footage would have reduced the impact. It makes sense to me that the PJ went through it all, eliminating whatever didn't support the PJ case against the McCanns.
The logic is easy to follow...there is a statement in the files by a PJ officer who was very unimpressed with the dog alerts. He states that rather than simply alerting to items as the video shows the dog on most occasions completely ignored the target several times before eventually alerting...that's what's important..
Thw fact that the videos have been edited to misrepresent the alerts is secondary but still important
The logic is easy to follow...there is a statement in the files by a PJ officer who was very unimpressed with the dog alerts. He states that rather than simply alerting to items as the video shows the dog on most occasions completely ignored the target several times before eventually alerting...that's what's important..
Thw fact that the videos have been edited to misrepresent the alerts is secondary but still important
This is waht you said first time around in repsonse to Mercury:
You have missed the point here....This thread has just discovered something that has not been discussed before...the fact that the videos of the dogs have been heavily edited showing the alerts to be of even less use than we thought.
No mention of policemen there is there?
That sounds like a logical deduction ... particularly as we know both arguidos were shown the dogs allegedly 'alerting' to cadaver scent.
Sitting through hours of meaningless drivel would certainly have lessened the impact and wouldn't have had the shock value of being shown alleged temporary deposition sites for the remains of your dearly loved eldest.
A tactic designed I think to tip a distraught mother over the edge.
The chain of evidence has certainly had a few links removed from it ... and it is an interesting thought as to who exactly did the original edit on behalf of the PJ.
The logic is easy to follow...there is a statement in the files by a PJ officer who was very unimpressed with the dog alerts. He states that rather than simply alerting to items as the video shows the dog on most occasions completely ignored the target several times before eventually alerting...that's what's important..
Thw fact that the videos have been edited to misrepresent the alerts is secondary but still important
So what expertise did this PJ officer have in the field of alerts by dogs ?
and if you had observed what dogs do during searching, ignoring targets is not exactly unusual before alerting.
Just like the PJ 'officer', you and and a few others, need a bit more insight before you make judgements, clearly bent by your support of the mccanns.
Indeed he did say something like "no evidential value unless backed up by forensic science" which is a nice academic point as there has been no court case.
What really counts is what is written in the archiving report. It remaining the ruling document and all.
it is not academic......there has been a court case online for the last 8 years
Under which court's jurisdiction?
The crowned master of BS is well known on here. %£&)**#
Take some time out of your busy schedule on here *&*%£ 8)--)) and watch dogs in the field. %56& 8((()*/ 8((()*/
so as expected nothing to back up your statement ....you just made it up......as expected I'm right yet again
I expect that team Amaral sat down with the footage and got someone with a bit of technical know-how to push the buttons to transfer selected sequences onto a new tape. Not rocket science, as you've said.
Watch dogs in the field dave.
Or are you too busy on here defending the mccanns to do that ?
Such comments regarding "editing" do rather weaken the case for "handler expectation and cuing" influencing the alerts somewhat.
The entire operation could have been over in half the time. 8(0(*
Your lack of substance is the problem.
and stop watching videos. ?{)(**
The Public's
Oh! neither a real court nor a real court case then.
I've never bothered to watch them...so there you are
On the other hand you have watched hours of the Hall video's so take your own advice
I would be intrigued to know what the Portuguese dog-handlers (whom I rate as highly professional) made of Grime's handling of his dogs ....
The logic is easy to follow...there is a statement in the files by a PJ officer who was very unimpressed with the dog alerts. He states that rather than simply alerting to items as the video shows the dog on most occasions completely ignored the target several times before eventually alerting...that's what's important..
Thw fact that the videos have been edited to misrepresent the alerts is secondary but still important
Isn`t it fairly usual for the "cadaver dog" to run, head in air as it tries to narrow down the source of the scent before going back?
I don't need to read the Koran to reject Islaam...or all the other religious books...I don't need to read all of Icke's books to reject his message...etc , etc..
We have a comment from the PJ in the files that questions the alerts with good cause...fact
What expertise did the PJ representative have in the use of dogs ?
tries to narrow down the source of the scent........these are supposed to be the best dogs in the world...tossing cuddle cat up in the air and not alerting to it.....no
What qualifications did Grime have to act as deputy crime-scene manager at HdLG?
I don't recall Tito and Muzzy running around much ....
What expertise did the PJ representative have in the use of dogs ?
More than a googler. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
More than a googler. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Carew, do you believe Eddie and Keela and their handler Martin Grime are above reproach? Should they and the alerts not be questioned? Is there absolutely nothing questionable about them at all in your view?
That's why Grime was asked the question about cuddlecat ...remember..
It's only when you piece all the pieces of information together that you get the big picture. Grime was asked the question and he was unable to answer it...he had in fact been caught out...the alerts were basically useless
The inconsistency revealed in certain comments about the dogs and their handler are there to be questioned or challenged .
As to your last couple of questions............apply them to your own and others` attitude to "questioning" or "doubting" the McCanns.
The inconsistency revealed in certain comments about the dogs and their handler are there to be questioned or challenged .Yes, I have done that myself, questioned every aspect of the McCanns, their statements and their behaviour and am quite tolerant of the billions of "only asking questions" that have occurred since Mary 3rd 2007. Now perhaps you could answer my questions? Should the alerts not be questioned? Is there absolutely nothing questionable about them at all in your view?
As to your last couple of questions............apply them to your own and others` attitude to "questioning" or "doubting" the McCanns.
He doesn't get that Carew, not with his idols.How insulting.
It's the personification of the mccann supporters one a dimensional logic.......
It's amazing what Google turns up:
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’.
(Operation Havern)
How insulting.
It's amazing what Google turns up:
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’.
(Operation Havern)
This has been posted on here enough times to paper a wall with it!!!
You appear to have the needle stuck old stick.
Insulting saying mccann supporters have a one a dimensional view ?
No, merely right on the ball.
Yes, I have done that myself, questioned every aspect of the McCanns, their statements and their behaviour and am quite tolerant of the billions of "only asking questions" that have occurred since Mary 3rd 2007. Now perhaps you could answer my questions? Should the alerts not be questioned? Is there absolutely nothing questionable about them at all in your view?
And yet, because some people clearly still don't believe it, it can't have been posted enough ...
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’.
Yes, I have done that myself, questioned every aspect of the McCanns, their statements and their behaviour and am quite tolerant of the billions of "only asking questions" that have occurred since Mary 3rd 2007. Now perhaps you could answer my questions? Should the alerts not be questioned? Is there absolutely nothing questionable about them at all in your view?
"Only ask questions" of the alerts all you like.........( and for how many years now? )So you won't answer my questions. OK.
Just expect responses occasionally.
O.K.?
In fairness to Mr Grime the Official Inquiry found that the main problem in the above case was SIO Harper pushing his own agenda, without adequate supervision, based on unreliable historic witness statements and the word of a builder. It was SIO Harper who pushed for Mr Grime to be Deputy Forensic Service Manager. You can hardly blame the Jersey episode on Grime entirely if at all. Unless of course you are party to information the Inquiry was not. In which case you should be a public spirited citizen and avail them of this information to allow correction.
Neyroud said: 'You certainly don't go rushing in. I must say, I was surprised by how fast Lenny moved.'
Once Eddie started sniffing, any notion of a strategy disappeared. Karl Harrison, one of the scientists Harper brought in from a UK company, LGC Forensics, summed up the inquiry's approach in a comment to the financial investigators.
He said: 'We followed the dog. Where the dog barked was dug up.' This, says the interim report, was 'a fundamental error'.
(Operation Havern)
So what expertise did this PJ officer have in the field of alerts by dogs ?
and if you had observed what dogs do during searching, ignoring targets is not exactly unusual before alerting.
Just like the PJ 'officer', you and and a few others, need a bit more insight before you make judgements, clearly bent by your support of the mccanns.
so once again Stephen is looks like you have made this statement up......cite
Another quote from the same PJ report on further action needed...
To obtain, from the trainers and supervisors of the dogs (ERVD and CSI), further enlightenings about the 'marking' and the friability of their work.
But isn't it possible hypothetically that the dog alerts may be correct, and both the parents completely innocent?
Have you watched dogs in action dave ???
Now let's try once more.
When has it been stated the dogs could not have alerted to a body ?
Do you believe that Mr Grime actually drove the investigation?
So what did the official inquiry by Wiltshire Police conclude?
The basic problem as defined by the official police inquiry seems to be confirmed by your post; the SIO was not up to the job.
The first sentence in the bit you have posted is not borne out by the police inquiry so which are we to believe?
I understand your prejudice against Mr Grime and his dawgs 8(0(*
(emoticon just to show I am lacking in education and erudition)
so the bottom line is that the PJ had serious doubts about the abilities of the dogs having seen them in action
How many of the PJ dave.
Try some names, and then provide their expertise in this field.
You have missed the point here....This thread has just discovered something that has not been discussed before...the fact that the videos of the dogs have been heavily edited showing the alerts to be of even less use than we thought.
?Of course Grime needs no ones help...he has told us what they indicate in guarded words...sweet FA really and this seems to have been confirmed by the PJ report...with of course all the experts agreeing Maddie may still be alive
What is "heavily edited" supposed to mean?
Further, It seems you are very glad they were
@)(++(*
But I am glad you support the thread even though it is going nowhere, never has, and never will ,seeing as constant "soundbites", biased opinions and cherry picking do not make any semblance of a debate
End of the day GRIME is the seasoned professional with decades of experience, as are other professionals in this area, he doesn't need your help, or hindrance, really, trust me, he doesn't
Of course Grime needs no ones help...he has told us what they indicate in guarded words...sweet FA really and this seems to have been confirmed by the PJ report...with of course all the experts agreeing Maddie may still be alive
Alive where ?
and who are these 'experts' exactly ??
Instead of watching stupid TV films try reading the news
You lack the very basic understanding of this case if you do not realise who has stated maddie may still be alive
Of course Grime needs no ones help...he has told us what they indicate in guarded words...sweet FA really and this seems to have been confirmed by the PJ report...with of course all the experts agreeing Maddie may still be alive
Dont be ao ridiculous, Grime has not given any statement about PDL operation
You haven't got a single clue what HE, the professional, thinks
He said before it, the cadaver dog alerts indicate cadaver scent, twist it as much as you want, and fill another 300 pages, it will never make any difference, so give your fingers a rest maybe but to your credit you, unlike a few others, have not called him a liar or a fraud
Imagine your tshirt is signalled by a dog that signals cocaine.No it doesn't but its pretty unlucky if I was living in a flat where someone did and then I got accused of handling not just for living there but for other reasons
And let's imagine the dog is right - your tshirt has been in direct contact with a cocaine.
Does that mean that you have handled cocaine?
Grime has given statements re PDL...he has also answered questions posed by the PJ...he has told us what he thinks...
do you realise that when you describe my opinions are biased ...that is based on your own opinion which judging by your criteria ...is biased
Imagine your tshirt is signalled by a dog that signals cocaine.
And let's imagine the dog is right - your tshirt has been in direct contact with a cocaine.
Does that mean that you have handled cocaine?
but you are biased, im open minded but will not ignore relevant evidence
but you are biased, im open minded but will not ignore relevant evidence, and there is no way anyone can assert cadaver dog findings mean nothing at all in this case, period
No it doesn't but its pretty unlucky if I was living in a flat where someone did and then I got accused of handling not just for living there but for other reasons
eg
a missing child and cadaver dog alerting ONLY there
So the cadaver scent is due to?
Many have offered scenarios, what do you think?
no...I'm open minded and will not ignore any relevant evidence...you are not
Imagine your tshirt is signalled by a dog that signals cocaine.
And let's imagine the dog is right - your tshirt has been in direct contact with a cocaine.
Does that mean that you have handled cocaine?
I will be the judge of my own thinking thanks very much
You ARE biased and its proven based on many of your own posts which have nothing to do with any evidence at all but modcodd,ing the Mccanns as IF they are innocent rather than just presumed to be
The dog evidence is a thorn in your side, not my fault
8)--))
who says the dogs alerted to cadaver scent..Grime hasn'tYes he has even if you want him to be a literary agent and get every letter word sentence and ohrase right....he's a cadaver dog handler...he said his dogs suggested it was cadaver scent
Yes he has even if you want him to be a literary agent and get every letter word sentence and ohrase right....he's a cadaver dog handler...he said his dogs suggested it was cadaver scent
why does it bother you so much that you would expend so much time and energy saying he didnt really mean that LOL
And I will be the judge of my opinion..all my conclusions are based on evidence...the alerts are meaningless according to the evidence..
so tell me if you can..
#
what do the alerts tell us
so he says the alerts are suggestive of cadaver scent...not that they are cadaver scent..can you not see the difference..perhaps you can't because you are biased
I wish you well in the future tryng to prove forever the dog alerts mean nothing at all but my time is worth more than arguing your rubbish , bye now
&8#£%
8)-)))
THEY SUGGEST = THEY INDICATE = THE DOG THINKS ITS CADAVER ODOUR
No one suggested it was anything else
Jesus wept, YOURE ON IGNORE for being dim as well as everything else
THEY SUGGEST = THEY INDICATE = THE DOG THINKS ITS CADAVER ODOUR
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
that's the important line...without forensic confirmation the alert cannot be confirmed...therefore they are not confirmed
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
I don't think you actually mean that!
We probably know what you mean but it isn't what you said.
Thanks Anna for showing there may be various reasons for a cadaverscent alert but not that there wasnt one which many are at pains to portray
You do not understand the basics or are twisting them
Forensic evidence ie blood by Keela alerts cannot confirm (corroborate) a cadaver scent
It might
There is NOTHING that can confirm a cadaver scent alert per se, only support it, now learn this fact , digest it and dont converse with me again
A cadaver might, or a body part, don't you think?
THAT goes without sayingI wasn't being facetious, merely pointing out the error in your statement.
Stop being facetious
This is a case of REMNANT body scent
If a kilo of cannabis contacted my slacks, it makes a huge difference....
Was I was wearing them at the time of contact?
Or was I not wearing them, and not even in the same building, at the time of contact?
Imagine your tshirt is signalled by a dog that signals cocaine.
And let's imagine the dog is right - your tshirt has been in direct contact with a cocaine.
Does that mean that you have handled cocaine?
And round and round it goes ad finitum.
And still the police authorities trust cadaver dogs to find dead bodies.
I was checking Kate's account of doggy film show.
There's one scene that I don't recall offhand without wading through it all again.
In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs begn to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture. PC Grime summoned the dog and they left the flat.
Another interesting snippet, prior to the "film show":
Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. 'These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,' he said, waving an A4 document in front of me. 'Two hundred cases and they've never failed (...)'
Amaral said something similar in one of his interviews (which I posted recently), except that in his version, the dogs alerts had resulted in 200 convictions...
Despite Grime's unfortunate lack of clarity in originally stating "cases", he was clearly stating that Eddie had not reacted to meat-based foodstuffs.
There's no reason why Eddie (trained on the scent of pig carcasses) would not react to the remnants of a joint of pork.
I was checking Kate's account of doggy film show.Does that mean that Eddie would have been no good detecting human flesh in the home of a cannibal killer, if he'd cooked the flesh first?
There's one scene that I don't recall offhand without wading through it all again.
In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs begn to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture. PC Grime summoned the dog and they left the flat.
Another interesting snippet, prior to the "film show":
Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. 'These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,' he said, waving an A4 document in front of me. 'Two hundred cases and they've never failed (...)'
Amaral said something similar in one of his interviews (which I posted recently), except that in his version, the dogs alerts had resulted in 200 convictions...
Despite Grime's unfortunate lack of clarity in originally stating "cases", he was clearly stating that Eddie had not reacted to meat-based foodstuffs.
Really.
Can you also tell me how cooked pig meat would differ biochemically from an uncooked source ?
and what sources of pig meat were found to be present at any of the sites ?
I normally keep my pork chops and bacon rashers in my wardrobe, don't you?
Absolutely the best place.
After all, what use are refrigerators ?
None.
I see this is going to be another twilight zone veering, Eddie reacting to the remnants of a joint of pork. Out of here!!
Have a nice day.
@)(++(*
There's no reason why Eddie (trained on the scent of pig carcasses) would not react to the remnants of a joint of pork.
I normally keep my pork chops and bacon rashers in my wardrobe, don't you?
But we don't know that Eddie was alerting to the wardrobe - because as Martin Grime has told us - the scent can drift and it's origin is not necessarily at the place where he barked.
Not sure. There is an insistence on training on decomposing pig (i.e. NOT for human consumption). We'd be very sick indeed if we ate decomposing pork.
It's not clear however, whether he (or other similarly trained dogs) would react to a discarded week-old uncooked - or even cooked - pork chop forgotten in a rubbish bin.
They may well do, but a visual inspection would presumably determine that the cause of the alert was irrelevant to the investigation and move on.
The U.K. has also approximately six Police dog teams that have been trained
exclusively on decomposing pig remains not for human consumption as
specialist dogs to work off the leash to locate human remains in a wider
variety of scenarios.
(...)
The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches.
Grime report
Does that mean that Eddie would have been no good detecting human flesh in the home of a cannibal killer, if he'd cooked the flesh first?
From memory so am not absolutely sure, but didn't Eddie alert to the remnants of pork which had been soaked in petrol and 'cooked'?
From memory so am not absolutely sure, but didn't Eddie alert to the remnants of pork which had been soaked in petrol and 'cooked'?
I think we need to remember that any Pig Meat used in training will have come from Ungutted Pig. Pig left with intestines in situ while it decomposed.
So let's cut the pork chop jokes.
Unless the McCanns had purchased tripe and chitterlings..........(or are those delicacies from cattle?)
But we don't know that Eddie was alerting to the wardrobe - because as Martin Grime has told us - the scent can drift and it's origin is not necessarily at the place where he barked.
I think we need to remember that any Pig Meat used in training will have come from Ungutted Pig. Pig left with intestines in situ while it decomposed.
So let's cut the pork chop jokes.
And cadavers drift in and out of that apartment all the time. Reminds me of the perfect murder episode - I couldn't believe were were going to believe Kate Prout was dead on the say so of a dog (Eddie).
I'm seriously wondering though.
If bits of whole decomposing (ungutted) piglets are exclusively used, then why would the dogs also alert to dried blood from a living person? Distinct training might be one explanation, but does it make sense that if some poor sod had been mutilated prior to death (e.g., a finger chopped off) that the dog wouldn't alert to those physical remains?
Eddie never did find Kate Prout's body. And it was there all of the time.
Blood, I expect. That's why Eddie was no good as a Cadaver Dog.
That ended up being a no body murder case and the police got the evidence required to convict her husband of murder without the need for the body. If SY believe Maddy is dead then this could be the same - a no body murder case.
"In order to prove that the child is dead it is not necessary to have a body. There is no point in saying that the child is dead, or that the child is alive, what we need is to work the investigation and carry it out to the end, something that was not done." (GA)
That ended up being a no body murder case and the police got the evidence required to convict her husband of murder without the need for the body. If SY believe Maddy is dead then this could be the same - a no body murder case.
"In order to prove that the child is dead it is not necessary to have a body. There is no point in saying that the child is dead, or that the child is alive, what we need is to work the investigation and carry it out to the end, something that was not done." (GA)
Why do you keep quoting Goncalo Amaral.
His incompetence is manifest and proven.
I thought you wanted to cut the jokes.
My comment was no joke. Just a logical explanation.
You believe it was cross contamination Pegasus? How?Hypothetically position a bar of gold on a shelf, under a pile of 40 clothing items, and list the items it is in contact with.
Eddie never did find Kate Prout's body. And it was there all of the time.
Just your opinion, as others express theirs.
276-acre Redhill Farm at Redmarley.
(http://www.buildstore.co.uk/findingland/images/Sizes/option2_1.jpeg)
That ended up being a no body murder case and the police got the evidence required to convict her husband of murder without the need for the body. If SY believe Maddy is dead then this could be the same - a no body murder case.
"In order to prove that the child is dead it is not necessary to have a body. There is no point in saying that the child is dead, or that the child is alive, what we need is to work the investigation and carry it out to the end, something that was not done." (GA)
Well, erm, no. The first case of a successful conviction in Portugal in the absence of a body and any significant evidence beyond a "reconstruction" in dubious circumstances was... ?
When asked what his next steps would have been, he'd said that he was in the process of getting members of the Smith family over again (he doesn't specify which members, nor is there any trace that he was organising it in the files) and to carry on looking for an elusive freezer.
Hypothetically position a bar of gold on a shelf, under a pile of 40 clothing items, and list the items it is in contact with.
I got it!
There is also one common denominator, which hasn't been considered........ If it was an alert to the scent of a cadaver scent.
It would have touched clothing, which in turn would touch the wardrobe and most likely the plant on the balcony. it contained some of the chemical elements that make up of cadaverine .......
What do you think it could be?
Until I finish my calculations, I will leave you to ponder the possibilities.
I was checking Kate's account of doggy film show.
There's one scene that I don't recall offhand without wading through it all again.
In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs begn to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture. PC Grime summoned the dog and they left the flat.
Another interesting snippet, prior to the "film show":
Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. 'These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,' he said, waving an A4 document in front of me. 'Two hundred cases and they've never failed (...)'
Amaral said something similar in one of his interviews (which I posted recently), except that in his version, the dogs alerts had resulted in 200 convictions...
Despite Grime's unfortunate lack of clarity in originally stating "cases", he was clearly stating that Eddie had not reacted to meat-based foodstuffs.
Question: Was Eddie trained not to alert to wee-wee or to other accidents on laundry when in work mode or not? Had his clothing test been used before or not?
As Grime was never asked, no reply was given.
If Eddie was trained to ignore such accidents, ok, but then the next question is why Eddie alerted to two items of clothing: the blue shorts and the red airplaine T-shirt.
No explanation has been given as to why Eddie appears to have reacted to the blue shorts, yet the shorts weren't on the list establsihed or noted by the PJ. The red T-shirt does appear on the list, with no explanation as to the distinction.
Why didn't Grime keep a note of which clothing items corresponded to a correct alert? Or if he had, what did he do with it? If ever there had been a court case, he could have been asked to testify (if such evidence were allowed).
I believe it may be here, along with the kebab or meat on a bone, Carana. about 39.20
What are you waffling on about? Eddie finds evidence of death not if a child has done a pee on the floor. No blood was on the clothes!
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. (Martin Grime)
You don't know that because you think Eddie is alerting to semen, urine, sweat and god knows what else which is not true! He will only alert to these substances if they contain BLOOD. No blood was on the clothes so the police know what he was alerting to.
yes I do mean that...and it is what I posted
These cloths were apparently on a dirty garage floor before being boxed up again and taken to the Gym(if we are to believe his book)
Not sure about the urine......It does contain trace elements of putricine. The twins nappies and pants would have traces.
cadaverine and putrescine contribute, in very small parts, to the smell of urine.
Excerpt:
They also turn up in other bodily fluids - both contribute to the odour of semen, along with the related (and aptly named) polyamines spermine and spermidine, which are made by adding extra chains of three carbons, each ending with another amine group, to one or both ends of a putrescine molecule.
Clothing alerted too(all from one box, therefore in close proximity to each other).
I would have thought that there is a list somewhere, but it seems to have selected only a few. Reason ???
Re the unpacking in the dirty garage... there seems to be an ambiguity in that due to lost-in-translation issues. The original doesn't actually say that the clothes were unpacked, but describes the situation as being where they were to be unpacked (i.e. intention). Whether they actually were or not, prior to unpacking in the gym is anyone's guess. No idea.
Amaral was in a restaurant at the time (according to his own account), so he wasn't actually there.
Whether they were elsewhere before the Gym or not, does not really come into the question regarding Urine scent on garments and the close proximity of the alerted items in the Gym. Best we just ignore the book.
It's not just the book. My earlier question was whether it had ever been established that Eddie had been trained to ignore wee-wee (or other irrelevant) mishaps.
Grime was never questioned about this.
So... there's no way of knowing one way or the other.
I still find it odd that he didn't have an established list of which clothes constituted confirmed alerts by Eddie...
Had these skills been successfully demonstrated before or was this a new potential one?
I have already posted that, Carana.
Urine is a bodily fluid, is it not? And it contains a trace amount of putricine.
Search Asset Profile
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.RD.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood to very small samples in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the asset is conducted using pig as the subject matter for solid hides and human blood for fluid. The use of human remains for the purpose of training dogs in the U.K. is not acceptable at this point in time.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html
Yes, I know, but it hasn't been established which decomposing body fluids from a living person Eddie may have been trained to ignore aside from blood.
There's simply no definitive answer to that either way, as no one seems to have asked Grime. Unless anyone finds a case in which Grime has testified in court that Eddie would not react to decomposing urine, semen, vaginal fluids, sputum, nasal secretions, etc., then I don't see why it should be assumed that alerts to such substances are unlikely.
Eddie was trained to recognise cadaver scent. Not all the constituents of this scent are scientifically identified, but because of the way a dog's nose works, they can identify each individual consituent. They alert when all the different compounds which make up cadaver scent are present. In other words, they don't alert to certain bits of the scent, only to all of it.Do you have cite for that post, Please, G?
CADAVER SCENT
The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time
Do you have cite for that post, Please, G?
"Volatile organic compounds" None of us know what it is that the dogs alert too in a cadaver scent.
Where does it say that they can not alert to part of the makeup of a Cadaver scent.
The scent can not be replicated in a laboratory, therefore it is impossible to know what the scent consists of, or indeed which parts of a cadaver scent, the dogs recognise and alert too.
Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time
???
Ah! Now, I am sure that you will understand this, Stephen.
The smell of a decomposing body is made up of all sorts of interesting compounds, but amines and sulfurous molecules make up the stinkier end of the spectrum. Most of those amines come from breakdown of the proteins in the corpse, and two of them have such fetid odours that they have been named putrescine - after the process of putrefaction - and cadaverine, after the Latin-derived word for a corpse: cadaver.
Putrescine and cadaverine are chemically very similar: they are both diamines. Both have short hydrocarbon chains with a primary amine group on either end. The difference is that putrescine has four carbon atoms in the chain between the two amines (its systematic name is butane-1,4-diamine), whereas there are five in cadaverine - or pentane-1,5-diamine.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/CIIEcompounds/transcripts/putrescine.asp
I do know know already Anna.
Trust me on that.
There are many compounds which are present from decomposition and the result largely of hydrolysis of 'proteins' and subsequent decarboxylation of the among no acids produced
My question referred to the mentionng of Urine.
I will be more specific next time when I raise a question mark.
I do know know already Anna.
Trust me on that.
There are many compounds which are present from decomposition and the result largely of hydrolysis of 'proteins' and subsequent decarboxylation of the among no acids produced
My question referred to the mentionng of Urine.
I will be more specific next time when I raise a question mark.
I do know know already Anna.
Trust me on that.
There are many compounds which are present from decomposition and the result largely of hydrolysis of 'proteins' and subsequent decarboxylation of the among no acids produced
My question referred to the mentionng of Urine.
I will be more specific next time when I raise a question mark.
OK, Thanks Stephen.
Did I mention urine in that post? or did You answer the wrong post.........I do it all the time.
http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
The reference is to dogs which have been trained only on material from human sources ... Eddie was not one of those.
It is worth bearing in mind that no-one ... ie scientist or handler ... knows exactly what VOC or combination thereof the dog is alerting to.
Do you have cite for that post, Please, G?
"Volatile organic compounds" None of us know what it is that the dogs alert too in a cadaver scent.
Where does it say that they can not alert to part of the makeup of a Cadaver scent.
The scent can not be replicated in a laboratory, therefore it is impossible to know what the scent consists of, or indeed which parts of a cadaver scent, the dogs recognise and alert too.
Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time
Suggestion to the Forum owner - contact this young lady to take part in this discussion, at least she should know what she's talking about, and she can be contacted via her twitter account:
https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2014/august/forensicsresearchtomakecadaverdogsmoreefficient.php
Suggestion to the Forum owner - contact this young lady to take part in this discussion, at least she should know what she's talking about, and she can be contacted via her twitter account:
https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2014/august/forensicsresearchtomakecadaverdogsmoreefficient.php
Here you are Anna, sorry!
I think the post says the dog will alert to the scent of a cadaver. If only parts of the scent are present, therefore, that wouldn't be the scent of a cadaver, would it? No alert.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Is it wise to introduce VRDs mistakenly signalling mushrooms to add to the confusion?Hey, she's the one with the PHD, who are we to argue?? Let's add fungi to the list!!
Is it wise to introduce VRDs mistakenly signalling mushrooms to add to the confusion?
Is it wise to introduce VRDs mistakenly signalling mushrooms to add to the confusion?
Welcome back misty, let's not forget our manners folks.
This bit?
Kip correctly identified the odours derived from decomposition and was not distracted by the “negative control” smells. It was a successful demonstration. But in the field, VR dogs can sometimes be distracted by “false positives”, such as dead animals, or even mushrooms, explained Lorna. If she can arrive at a greater understanding of the chemistry of odours from human cadavers, then VR dogs can be extra efficient.
“If you train a dog with a chemical that is specific to human decomposition, you can enhance its ability. It is not about changing the way the dogs do it, but improving it,” she added.
Dogs have also been distracted by methane from peat bogs.
Personally, I don't agree with the "dogs are useless" camp any more than I do with the "dogs are always accurate in detecting human corpses" camp.
They're a tool. Sometimes they lead to evidence, sometimes they lead to a red herring, and sometimes there's just an unresolved question mark pending further eliminatory investigation - which may or may not ever take place.
If methane, mushrooms or any other odour can lead to an irrelevant alert, then I find that worth researching, particularly when some people can end up on death row for the flimsiest of reasons and by the time the appeals process is over, the dogs in question will have been chasing butterflies on a cloud for years.
So the dogs who were supposed to have a 100% record
who were supposed to have never made a false alert in 200 cases
who according to amaral had been responsible for 200 convictions....have produced alerts that are worthless
If they were worthless, why keep commenting ?
It's not as though you have any chance of changing anybodies mind on the issue.
The discussion is interesting to some of us Stephen. If you don't like it - don't read it.
That's interesting Alfie.
Forensics research to make cadaver dogs more efficient
Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:24:00 BST
“They are mostly used for human remains detection, not just in murder cases but for suicides too. For example, if somebody has been hit by a train, the dogs are used to locate body parts. They have also been used after incidents such as the 7/7 bombings.
“They can also be used for blood detection, if there has been an assault for example, and in Lancashire they train their dogs to identify semen as well, so they can be used in sexual assault cases,” said Lorna.
As at Aug 2014, there still doesn't appear to be any global criteria concerning what such dogs are trained to alert to or to ignore. And this is seven years later.
Good find by Alfred.One mustn't criticise the Scottish police though as that would be xenophobic. And as for the dogs, I expect the body was wrapped in waxy paper or something.
Sadly there are occasions when the dogs fail to find remains despite what must have been their best effort. It took the determination of her friend to keep the search going before Susan McLean's body was found.
Perhaps like, Mr Amaral the police were giving too much trust to the dog alerts.
In the case of Portugal the alerts ... in the case of Scotland the lack of them.
Retired US officer travels to Scotland to find her pal's body and slams police failure to find missing tourist
06:00, 19 AUGUST 2015
BY JAMES MONCUR
A RETIRED US army colonel who travelled to Scotland in search of her missing friend has attacked police’s failure to find the woman’s body.
Lorna VanderZanden and a team of volunteers uncovered the remains of Susan McLean at the weekend.
Susan, 61, from Pennsylvania, was on holiday with husband Donald when she disappeared from a hotel in Aberfeldy, Perthshire, three months ago.
And Lorna is furious police were unable to find her in that time, despite using specialist teams including dog handlers and divers.
She said they had passed within feet of the body at one point as they searched the Loch Hoil trail – but chose not to enter the heavily wooded area.
Lorna, 61, said yesterday: “I am totally astonished I could come here and find Susan in four weeks with eight volunteers on two Saturdays when Police Scotland could not find her in three months.
“I was told repeatedly that police and cadaver dogs had searched the entire area from Moness to Gatehouse Nursery to Loch Hoil trail to the Birks of Aberfeldy.
“We found her a couple of hundred yards north of Loch Hoil trail, 25ft from the edge of a section of forest. How could police and cadaver dogs miss her when she was so close to the secondary trail just north of Loch Hoil trail?”
Lorna added that she can’t imagine life without her friend.
She said: “I’ve known her for 27 years and she was closer than a sister. I just couldn’t stay in the U.S and not know what happened.”
Donald added: “I miss Susan every day, especially when I care for our horses or water her flowers. My life and those of my sons and friends are changed forever.”
The criticism of the search for Susan comes just weeks after police bungled the handling of a call to a car crash, leaving tragic Lamara Bell lying in a wrecked car next to her dead boyfriend for three days. She later died in hospital.
Police yesterday confirmed the body was that of Susan.
Superintendent Graeme Murdoch said: “It is my critical assessment, even with hindsight, that our search strategy was sound although it is always frustrating that extensive searches do not yield an early positive outcome.
“Now that remains have been found, I sincerely hope that this will allow some measure of closure for the family and friends.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/retired-officer-travels-scotland-find-6277011
Yes, I know, but it hasn't been established which decomposing body fluids from a living person Eddie may have been trained to ignore aside from blood.
There's simply no definitive answer to that either way, as no one seems to have asked Grime. Unless anyone finds a case in which Grime has testified in court that Eddie would not react to decomposing urine, semen, vaginal fluids, sputum, nasal secretions, etc., then I don't see why it should be assumed that alerts to such substances are unlikely.
The most interesting thing to come out of this recent discussion is that we have learned that the alerts are from the clear cut actions we had been led to believe. it is hardly surprising that we are told by those leading the search that Maddie may still be alive
Alive ???Maddie may still be alive..... Fact not fantasy
Yet there has not been one trace of her since she disappeared.
Unless you believe in fantasies as some clearly do.
...
Perhaps like, Mr Amaral the police were giving too much trust to the dog alerts.
In the case of Portugal the alerts ... in the case of Scotland the lack of them.
...
I think this has hit the nail on the head re Amaral and the dogs.
The question I am chewing over is - did Amaral buy into this - or - were the super-successful dogs thrust upon him?
I think this has hit the nail on the head re Amaral and the dogs.
The question I am chewing over is - did Amaral buy into this - or - were the super-successful dogs thrust upon him?
They had no other clues, and so any police in the world in a comparable situation would have done the same.
(They still have no other clues.)
absolute rubbish....amaral made up evidence...and drew his own made up conclusions that did not follow the evidence
absolute rubbish....amaral made up evidence...and drew his own made up conclusions that did not follow the evidence
No police anywhere in the world could have or would have ignored those alerts. Fact, davel.
No police anywhere in the world could have or would have ignored those alerts. Fact, davel.
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.But how can that statement be libellous? It does not accuse any individual of doing anything.
Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie, the chapter The Arrival of the Experts
Against stiff competition, that, by my reckoning, is the most libellous passage in Amaral's book.
No police anywhere in the world could have or would have ignored those alerts. Fact, davel.
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie, the chapter The Arrival of the Experts
Against stiff competition, that, by my reckoning, is the most libellous passage in Amaral's book.
the whole point is amaral misrepresented the alerts...
Note the words 'the most plausible'.
Meanwhile ferryman, nae evidence of anything else.
the whole point is amaral misrepresented the alerts...
But how can that statement be libellous? It does not accuse any individual of doing anything.
Could not a third party be responsible for that scenario, and each of the parents completely innocent?
note the words.....there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead..absolute lies
Pegasus appeared to have identified that Sean's distinctive red aeroplane T-shirt & Kate's check trousers, which were marked by Eddie, were also both visible in the pile of dirty laundry in the wardrobe which Eddie also allegedly marked.
What were the odds that those 2 items, 3 months later, would be randomly put in the same box at the rented villa by the PJ - and also laid out on the gym floor in such close proximity to each other for the cadaver dogs to inspect?
Like this:Considering the possibility of death is not libellous.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
Amaral was/is clearly not familiar with the prosecutors' fallacy!
But I bet Harrison is ....
Pegasus appeared to have identified that Sean's distinctive red aeroplane T-shirt & Kate's check trousers, which were marked by Eddie, were also both visible in the pile of dirty laundry in the wardrobe which Eddie also allegedly marked.Just to clarify, I withdrew my measurements of the check pattern, because of having overlooked the watermark in the photo, (however IMO it's still very likely they are in that pile).
What were the odds that those 2 items, 3 months later, would be randomly put in the same box at the rented villa by the PJ - and also laid out on the gym floor in such close proximity to each other for the cadaver dogs to inspect?
Considering the possibility of death is not libellous.
The shelf was alerted, there was certainly a pile of clothes on it that night, so why weren't a few of those clothes alerted at the gym?
Misquoting a third party as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that her concealed remains are somewhere in close proximity and that someone close (such as her parents!) certainly is.
What I quoted first can only be viewed in that context.
Harrison told hm 96 per cent of crimes against children were perpetrated by friends and relatives 84 per cent by parents, 4 per cent by strangers, hardly libellous!! to just repeat what he was told by a policeman??
It is certainly libellous, and I don't believe Harrison said any such thing.
Aside from all else, it is a misapplication of statistics.
What stats ferryman ?
Stats are irrelevant.
Really ?
So what about this misapplication of stats ?
Stats are irrelevant.
It is certainly libellous, and I don't believe Harrison said any such thing.
Aside from all else, it is a misapplication of statistics.
Why don't you believe MH said any such thing?
And Amaral didn't say MH told him the parents ARE responsible, he used the stats as part of his hypothesis, any policeman would
Why don't you believe MH said any such thing?
And Amaral didn't say MH told him the parents ARE responsible, he used the stats as part of his hypothesis, any policeman would
Really ?
So what about this misapplication of stats ?
Why don't you believe MH said any such thing?
And Amaral didn't say MH told him the parents ARE responsible, he used the stats as part of his hypothesis, any policeman would
Because right at the end of his third and final report, Harrison said this:
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Clearly indicating that he he had reached no firm conclusion about the fate of Madeleine, and that he did not consider that her remains were concealed anywhere in proximity to PdL
Stats are irrelevant.
If we say 96% of children who are harmed are harmed by their parents...then what is the possibility that the McCanns harmed Maddie...you have claimed some expertise in statistics...now is your chance to shine
If we say 96% of children who are harmed are harmed by their parents...then what is the possibility that the McCanns harmed Maddie...you have claimed some expertise in statistics...now is your chance to shine
My question was about statistics given by MH where you said you didnt believe MH told Amaral any such thing, nothng to do at this juncture with life/death/disposal/location
Amaral clearly lied that Harrison said Madeleine was definitely dead.
What other lies did he tell.
And why should anyone suppose Harrison would bandy about statistics so irresponsibly?
So where is the 96% from dave ?
As you know, I never said the mccanns harmed Madeleine.
Neglected her and the other two children , YES.
Probability of her being alive with a paedophile, ZERO.
With a family unaware of her identity, ZERO.
So where is she ferryman after all this time, and no trace of her ?
so the statistics that amaral used were totally irrelevant...amaral mis applied the statistics..case proved
she may be alive..she may be dead
AMAZING STATISTICS
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
Harrison also suggests that we use the skills of two totally remarkable dogs: the first an EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog), achieves outstanding performance in the detection of human cadaver odour; the second, a CSI dog (Crime Scene Investigation) is capable of smelling the tiniest trace of blood, knowing how to recognise its human origin. To convince us of their capability and the extraordinary work carried out by these very special detectives in the course of over 200 investigations, he screens a video for us, showing their training and their intervention on the ground.
He suggests that we start the operations with the inspection of apartment 5A, then those occupied by the McCanns' friends. Robert Murat's house will also be subjected to thorough examination. In addition, all the vehicles used by all of them will be sniffed by the dogs.
Meanwhile, we were supposed to receive American electronic equipment that detects human bodies thanks to the odour that emanates from them (Scent Transfer Unit 100). But the equipment, blocked by customs, arrived late. We didn't need to use it, having obtained very concrete results, thanks to the dogs. (TOTL)
You haven't proved anything dave.
So where is Madeleine dave ?
Amaral clearly lied that Harrison said Madeleine was definitely dead.
What other lies did he tell.
And why should anyone suppose Harrison would bandy about statistics so irresponsibly?
If you say she is alive, then state any logical possibilities.
Amaral didn't say Harrison said the child was dead but it has to be investigated due to statistics.
"Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine." (GA)
you are quoting a man who has a criminal conviction for lying
Amaral clearly lied that Harrison said Madeleine was definitely dead.
What other lies did he tell.
And why should anyone suppose Harrison would bandy about statistics so irresponsibly?
If you say she is alive, then state any logical possibilities.
look at previous cases einstein
And why shouldn't it be investigated?
I've proved amaral misapplied statistics
Name me a case which has so much unparalleled publicity and police involvement, and a return after over 8 years from nowhere.Do you want one where the missing person is named Maddie as well..
8**8:/:
Amaral didn't say Harrison said the child was dead but it has to be investigated due to statistics.
"Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine." (GA)
What statistics did he use ?read it yourself
Name me a case which has so much unparalleled publicity and police involvement, and a return after over 8 years from nowhere.
8**8:/:
The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.
(Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie Chapter: The Arrival of the Experts)
That's a translation, and it's possible either translator or Amaral has just been clumsy with the syntax.
How was it irresponsible? Or maybe you think Amaral plucked the percentages out of his head.Without being privy to conversations I don't think you or anyone else is in a position to call "liar"
Why didn't the Mccanns call Mark Harrison to testify in their trial? Maybe that could have cleared all this up ?
I've read enough of what else Amaral alleges.
Surely you don't really think Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?
Do you?
Do you want one where the missing person is named Maddie as well..
could you name me a case where two parents and a group of friends covered up an accidental death...despite world wide publicity...despite police investigation ...and kept the investigation live for 8 years
I'm waiting.
You mean one with no evidence of abduction, and where the people involved changed their stories and didn't cooperate with the local police, and called two of them 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee' ?
I'm waiting for you to tell me how you came up with the story that it's normal for dogs to totally ignore the target several times before alerting
anything close will do
Can you name just one case ?
Yes .... I can name 2
I'm waiting.
Misquoting a third party as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that her concealed remains are somewhere in close proximity and that someone close (such as her parents!) might be responsible certainly is.I see your point.
What I quoted first can only be viewed in that context.
There is a black item at the bottom of the pile in the wardrobe, immediately underneath Sean's red T-shirt. I believe that black item is a top belonging to Kate, which can be seen displayed on the VRD video in the same inspection batch as the 2 rucksacks and being tossed around by Keela.First a general calculation - 6 days of an 8 day trip had been completed. Therefore it is likely that about 75% of the clothing items taken on the trip had already been worn. This means that laundry pile contained probably at least 50% of all the clothing present on that trip. (I'm not counting jackets and coats). So there is a good chance the listed items are there in that photo of the pile, even if we can't see them.
What is clear (if you believe the testimony of DP) is that the red T-shirt was not being worn by any of the children at the time of his brief visit after 6.30pm, as they were all in their pyjamas, alive & ready for bed. We do not know what Kate was wearing between 6.30 & 8.30, after which time she went out in jeans.
As you rightly pointed out previously, there was insufficient post-mortem time for cadaverine to have developed & been deposited on any of the marked clothing before the parents left the apartment, had anything happened to Madeleine in the interim.
So, if the clothing wasn't contaminated at that stage, what was Eddie really alerting to?
The Confessions Of Thomas Quick is the new film about the Swedish serial killer who never was, the case in which Zampo the cadaver dog alerted 46 times in 23 places to body parts that never were. Looking forward to watching this... http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/aug/16/confessions-of-thomas-quick-consistently-intriguing-documentary
The Confessions Of Thomas Quick is the new film about the Swedish serial killer who never was, the case in which Zampo the cadaver dog alerted 46 times in 23 places to body parts that never were. Looking forward to watching this... http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/aug/16/confessions-of-thomas-quick-consistently-intriguing-documentary
Bit irrelevant unless that dog was trained the same way as Mr Grime's dogs.What way was that then? In a foolproof, 100% always right way?
As Anna has said already on this thread, it is about Eddie not every cadaver dog in the world and all their different trainings uses glories and failures, why complicate things? Oh..hang onUnless you or someone can demonstrate with proof that Eddie was a cut above all other cadaver dogs then I'm afraid it is relevant to the discussion.
Unless you or someone can demonstrate with proof that Eddie was a cut above all other cadaver dogs then I'm afraid it is relevant to the discussion.
It's not a matter of a cut above, it is a matter of not lumping in every cadaver dog, in every country, in every training scenario, every handler, in every case in the world to judge anythingRight, so you make the rules of the discussion do you? We must not look at any other dogs or handlers or training methods when discussing Eddie and Grime? Except when it suits you to, for example in the numerous other cases in which cadaver dogs have been lauded for finding bodies and helping to bring successful convictions. @)(++(*
Right, so you make the rules of the discussion do you? We must not look at any other dogs or handlers or training methods when discussing Eddie and Grime? Except when it suits you to, for example in the numerous other cases in which cadaver dogs have been lauded for finding bodies and helping to bring successful convictions. @)(++(*
First a general calculation - 6 days of an 8 day trip had been completed. Therefore it is likely that about 75% of the clothing items taken on the trip had already been worn. This means that laundry pile contained probably at least 50% of all the clothing present on that trip. (I'm not counting jackets and coats). So there is a good chance the listed items are there in that photo of the pile, even if we can't see them.
Re the black item thanks I will have a look.
Also interesting is the item almost encircled by the large grey item.
Re the CSST minimum time required, everyone seems to be making an elementary assumption which I don't.
In this sequence, the deponent and his colleague also taught the mother of the child how to operate the washing machine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS-FERRO.htm
His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIO_MOREIRA.htm
In this sequence, the deponent and his colleague also taught the mother of the child how to operate the washing machine.Taking into account the washing machine, and the airing rack on balcony, IMO a large percentage of the clothes (excluding jackets and coats) taken on this holiday are in the laundry pile on the wardrobe shelf.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS-FERRO.htm
His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIO_MOREIRA.htm
Taking into account the washing machine, and the airing rack on balcony, IMO a large percentage of the clothes (excluding jackets and coats) taken on this holiday are in the laundry pile on the wardrobe shelf.
This can be estimated by looking at the size of the pile. It is a big pile.
Where were all the kids toys?They wouldn't take many on holiday would they?
Where were all the kids toys?During the dinner that evening, the toy cat was on the bed nearest the door in the children's bedroom, the 2 special toys of other 2 children were fairly obviously in the 2 cots, and the 2 toy buckets and 2 toy spades were just outside the front door.
Perhaps someone who has read the Portuguese original would like to comment?
BTW there is a huge illogical assumption made in this case re timeline (+dog/amaral) IMO.
BTW there is a huge illogical assumption made in this case re timeline (+dog/amaral) IMO.
Just had a look. The original doesn't seem to say that there is no doubt that she's dead, but I'm not quite sure what plasmar means... in context, it seems to mean to give shape / form /substance to. Confirmed might be too strong, not sure.I've got no idea how far plasma can be stretched.
See: http://dictionary.reverso.net/portuguese-english/plasmar
My understanding of that is that Mark's report (whatever plasmar means, gave substance to?) ... the probable / likely scenario that she is dead.
Perhaps Shining or Montclair could help and correct that if I've misunderstood.
FM's cite from the Engligh:
The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.
Original:
Após uma intensa semana de trabalho, Mark apresentou um relatório com as conclusões do seu estudo aos elementos da coordenação e as notícias, apesar de esperadas, não eram as melhores. Na verdade, aquele relatório plasmava uma das piores hipóteses para os investigadores: o provável cenário de Madeleine estar morta , e o seu cadáver escondido nas proximidades da Praia da Luz.
I've got no idea how far plasma can be stretched.
However, the key phrase seems to be the one you have underlined. ...the probable scenario that Madeleine was dead ... One cannot be firm about something that is probable, but not proven. Therefore I would not use conclude, simply because it implies a certainty that is not there.
Thanks Shining and Carana.
I have seen it said (in writing) that the English translation of Amaral's book is quite poor in places.
Perhaps that's an example.
But that, also, is an object-lesson in why we should be guarded about translation of the files?
Thanks Shining and Carana.
I have seen it said (in writing) that the English translation of Amaral's book is quite poor in places.
Perhaps that's an example.
But that, also, is an object-lesson in why we should be guarded about translation of the files?
Don't keep it to yourself, Pegasus, your train of thought is usually of interest and often provokes good discussion. Please tell us what you are thinking re the timeline.Re what was where, if I was accused of handling something I didn't, this would be of prime importance IMO, not an irrelevance.
I think there may also be a total irrelevance as to what was where in the apartment at the time when the crime scene photographs were taken with regard to the dog's supposed alerts in relation to Madeleine McCann.
In my opinion they are rendered meaningless in that context for the simple reason the crime scene did not remain undisturbed in the intervening period between the taking of the photographs and the introduction of the cadaver dog.
The crime scene apartment had been in occupation on at least four occasions within that time span by four different families.
We have no idea what contaminants may have been introduced by all or any one of the individuals who were allowed to reside there or what may have been introduced into the apartment after the McCann family's departure from it leading to the dog's confusion.
We have been consistently misinformed that this could only have been cadaver scent emanating from Madeleine; the fact that cross contamination can occur so readily is vastly underplayed.
One only has to think of the smell on one's clothing after spending time in the company of smokers as an example.
Therefore had the dog made the alert in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance the alert could have been attributed to the time of her family's occupation of the apartment.
The whole dog episode is rendered meaningless as this patently was not the case. It served only as a convenient instrument to implicate Madeleine's parents in her disappearance which vies with Ricardo's Delphic dream interpretation for a place in the police handbook on ... "how not to".
Are you referring to the alleged accident at 9.15pm ish?The illogical assumption is (IMO)
If so, then, No there would definitely be insufficient time for cadaver scent to develop and the disposal of the evidence, before 10pm.
Re what was where, if I was accused of handling something I didn't, this would be of prime importance IMO, not an irrelevance.
http://crimebodge.com/fool-a-sniffer-dog/
The illogical assumption is (IMO)
"before 10pm"
Are you saying that in your opinion cadaver scent was left after 10pm. Surely I misunderstood that?I think Mr Amaral's theory has several huge flaws, however, here is an interesting question -
I think Mr Amaral's theory has several huge flaws, however, here is an interesting question - where does Mr Amaral (in interviews) think the location was at the moment the alarm was raised at restaurant ?
That is so funny Misty, but a lot of truth in there too.
Nice to have you back on here. ?{)(**
Behind the settee? And all that was found there was the blood of several people IIRC.List the people who looked behind?
List the people who looked behind?
List the people who looked behind?
Nice to be back, Anna, & thank you. Congratulations on your promotion, too.
Yes, there are a lot of truths in the blog, many of which put dents in the credibility of Eddie, Grime & the PJ.
Professional police dogs are trained daily all of their lives to help nail perps.
Professional police dogs are trained daily all of their lives to help nail perps.
if you are suggesting Maddie died due to a fall from the sofa then that is plainly ridiculous as I have explained
Most of the cases which are quoted as 'false alerts' are not proved to be false. They are unknown. The Sharon Matthews case is quoted but it wasn't a false alert the dogs detected the scent of death, just the wrong death. Amaral and his team already suspected the McCanns of something, the dog alerts seemed to confirm their suspicions. They had found nothing to support the abduction theory promoted by the McCanns. They had found nothing to support woke and wandered despite intensive searching.
If Eddie had been outside somewhere looking for cadaver scent of Madeleine, Grime wouldn't have been able to call him back numerous times as he wouldn't have known what Madeleine had been in contact with. The fact that Eddie was in 5a a place that Madeleine had been living all week Grime could call Eddie back again and again, if he hadn't Eddie would have ran out of the bedroom without alerting.
In the other apartments Eddie just ran in and out of the rooms, Grime didn't call him back constantly to the same room.
If there had been cadaver scent in the bedroom Eddie would have alerted straight away to it.
Eddie alerted straight away to the place where Keela alerted, a tiny miniscule of what is believed to be blood under one of the tiles, if that had been from where Madeleine had bled there would have been a lot more blood and Eddie would have alerted to the whole of the area behind the sofa.
So to me, no, Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent in 5a.
In fact I would go as far as to say, either Eddie was tired and wanted to end the exercise and barked in order to do so, or he smelt an odour emitted from the garden that someone had walked in or from something that had been on the floor eg dirty washing which could have been from any one of the families who had stayed in 5a after the McCann's.
On what scientific basis do you make these judgement Lace ?
Have you ever trained dogs for this purpose, or witnessed them in action ?
No scientific basis Stephen, if outside how would Grime know to call Eddie back? Hey Eddie have another sniff under that tree you just passed or maybe another by that patch of grass. If Grime hadn't called Eddie back numerous times to that bedroom he would have just ran out from there. If Grime hadn't known 5a belonged to the McCann's would he have called Eddie back?
Have you?
I have read enough to know that dogs can alert to the smell of something that had once been there such as a bloody rag or similar, Eddie alerted to blood, he would detect the scent even if there wasn't any blood there, cadaver dogs have also been known to alert to decaying vegetation, Eddie alerted to the garden, could be the scent of the garden was brought in on someone's shoes.
If Madeleine had lain in that bedroom long enough for the scent of cadaver to be present then Eddie would have alerted straight away to it.
From PF's post citing a passage from Amaral's book:
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
Ok... The paragraph above clearly refers to homicides of children under 5 years of age.
But then the following paragraph isn't very clear. Is Amaral still referring to homicides alone? Does this include sexual abuse without death? He also refers to "abductor"... Death related to abduction / or falsely claimed abduction? Or does it include parental abduction with or without death?
Clear as mud to me.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6311.msg264717#msg264717
@Shining
Sorry to trouble you, but your opinion would be helpful... My understsnding of Portuguese is somewhat basic.
In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that
Desta forma, muito pouco subtil, demonstrava que a solução para o caso poderia muito bem estar escondida no restrito círculo de indivíduos que mais próximos estavam de Madeleine, ou seja, estávamos agora a ponderar inves- tigar mais seriamente os pais e amigos.
p.160 of book, p. 154 pdf
"Desta forma, muito pouco subtil" doesn't mean "in a roundabout way", does it?
These are all hypothetical questions.
What if this, what if that...............................
Unfortunately Martin Grime has chosen not to answer questions on these matters. However, bearing in mind the personal attacks he has received from certain 'parties' I could mention, it is hardly surprising.
perhaps if this case i ever solved, he night answer them, if it is solved of course.
Most of the cases which are quoted as 'false alerts' are not proved to be false. They are unknown. The Sharon Matthews case is quoted but it wasn't a false alert the dogs detected the scent of death, just the wrong death. Amaral and his team already suspected the McCanns of something, the dog alerts seemed to confirm their suspicions. They had found nothing to support the abduction theory promoted by the McCanns. They had found nothing to support woke and wandered despite intensive searching.
Have you?
I have read enough to know that dogs can alert to the smell of something that had once been there such as a bloody rag or similar, Eddie alerted to blood, he would detect the scent even if there wasn't any blood there, cadaver dogs have also been known to alert to decaying vegetation, Eddie alerted to the garden, could be the scent of the garden was brought in on someone's shoes.
If Madeleine had lain in that bedroom long enough for the scent of cadaver to be present then Eddie would have alerted straight away to it.
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.
http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work
What an interesting thing for you to say, " ... ... ... it wasn't a false alert the dogs detected the scent of death, just the wrong death."
Thankfully, Shannon was and is alive ... but precious time was taken up by the dogs' positive alert to human remains which might have altered that situation.
What an indictment you make of Mr Amaral and the quality of the investigation led by him and his team. You seem to find the incompetence of the biggest mistake in the book laudable.
"Amaral and his team already suspected the McCanns of something, the dog alerts seemed to confirm their suspicions."
Are you really having a laugh here?
No competent investigation twists the evidence to suit the theory ... particularly when there is no evidence to begin with ... "seemed" just doesn't cut the mustard.
As far as Mr Amaral's investigation finding nothing is concerned, that is hardly surprising if you are not looking.
For example Heri makes very good points regarding the phone data http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/ which he is not presently allowed to access most of which was ignored by the Amaral investigation and which competent investigators from the PJ and SY had to check out years down the line.
Investigators who are of the opinion that in the absence of evidence to the contrary Madeleine may well be alive and was the victim of a stranger abduction.
That the Amaral investigation relied on unsubstantiated dog alerts and an alleged dream to make Madeleine's parents suspect in her disappearance is risible if it wasn't so serious, but it certainly highlights the amateur manner in which he conducted his investigation.
.
Eddie also alerted to semen, blood, milk teeth and coconut in Haute de la Garenne.
In fact, in the video I watched there were few places Eddie didn't alert.
From his reports, this is the only reference (I am aware of) by Harrison to statistical data-base ....
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Are there any others?
I would really like to know why Martin Grime found it essential to be covered from head to toe in protective clothing at the carpark - but not anywhere else? What was the relevance of that? Any suggestions Stephen?
(I have to go out now - but will be back later)
The dogs made alerts. FACT.
The dogs are trained to detect certain compounds. FACT.
.
.........but only a few places in PDL where he did .
The dogs made alerts. FACT.
The dogs are trained to detect certain compounds. FACT.
The fact remains there was no evidence, apart from blood, to substantiate alerts. Opinion doesn't count.
... and I do wish you would refrain from shouting.
So one set of errors balances out another, in your opinion?
Dear oh dear.
It wasn't shouting brietta. @)(++(*
The fact remains, there is nothing in this case, other than the dog alerts.
Opinions don't count as to the 'abduction'. ?{)(** , you need evidence for that. 8**8:/:
So there's nothing in the case ....
Dear oh dear.
It wasn't shouting brietta. @)(++(*
The fact remains, there is nothing in this case, other than the dog alerts.
Opinions don't count as to the 'abduction'. ?{)(**
Nothing other than the dog alerts. None of which produced any evidence, let alone proof. So it's still all opinion. That of Martin Grime, Goncalo Amaral and a load of Internet Posters.
I sometime get overcome by the perfidy of it all, when the whole ghastly mess comes together in my brain. But like all WTF moments I come back to the same old same old. There is still nothing to implicate The McCanns.
Keep on taking the pills. This Topic still has acres to run.
As for Martin Grime and Goncalo Amaral, best I don't pursue that. And it would take too long anyway.
If Eddie had been outside somewhere looking for cadaver scent of Madeleine, Grime wouldn't have been able to call him back numerous times as he wouldn't have known what Madeleine had been in contact with. The fact that Eddie was in 5a a place that Madeleine had been living all week Grime could call Eddie back again and again, if he hadn't Eddie would have ran out of the bedroom without alerting.
In the other apartments Eddie just ran in and out of the rooms, Grime didn't call him back constantly to the same room.
If there had been cadaver scent in the bedroom Eddie would have alerted straight away to it.
Eddie alerted straight away to the place where Keela alerted, a tiny miniscule of what is believed to be blood under one of the tiles, if that had been from where Madeleine had bled there would have been a lot more blood and Eddie would have alerted to the whole of the area behind the sofa.
So to me, no, Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent in 5a.
Yes, acres to run, in a Mobius Loop.
The initial interest by the dog is recognised by the handler which prompts the attempts to identify and pinpoint the source ?
The "calling back" also occurred in the bathroom of 5A but no alerts
*snip *
"Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I wish I could pick up my dog's body language. I might be able to stop her pissing on the carpet.
I wish I could pick up my dog's body language. I might be able to stop her pissing on the carpet.
............ so all the alerts and all non- alerts by Eddie at both sites were erroneous in your view?
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.
http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work
What an interesting thing for you to say, " ... ... ... it wasn't a false alert the dogs detected the scent of death, just the wrong death."
Thankfully, Shannon was and is alive ... but precious time was taken up by the dogs' positive alert to human remains which might have altered that situation.
What an indictment you make of Mr Amaral and the quality of the investigation led by him and his team. You seem to find the incompetence of the biggest mistake in the book laudable.
"Amaral and his team already suspected the McCanns of something, the dog alerts seemed to confirm their suspicions."
Are you really having a laugh here?
No competent investigation twists the evidence to suit the theory ... particularly when there is no evidence to begin with ... "seemed" just doesn't cut the mustard.
As far as Mr Amaral's investigation finding nothing is concerned, that is hardly surprising if you are not looking.
For example Heri makes very good points regarding the phone data http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/ which he is not presently allowed to access most of which was ignored by the Amaral investigation and which competent investigators from the PJ and SY had to check out years down the line.
Investigators who are of the opinion that in the absence of evidence to the contrary Madeleine may well be alive and was the victim of a stranger abduction.
That the Amaral investigation relied on unsubstantiated dog alerts and an alleged dream to make Madeleine's parents suspect in her disappearance is risible if it wasn't so serious, but it certainly highlights the amateur manner in which he conducted his investigation.
Hmmmmm!
Not sure about carpets to, but on the occasion Carew refers to, Eddie can be quite clearly seen in the video waiting patiently for Grime to take off his lead ....
Hmmmmm!
Not sure about carpets to, but on the occasion Carew refers to, Eddie can be quite clearly seen in the video waiting patiently for Grime to take off his lead ....
Ah well.........were you a professional Piss-Posture- Recognition- Expert you could ply your trade all over and have an enviable earning potential..
Dog owners would be queuing up.
Because a dog alerted to the scent of death in the home of Shannon Mathews,
I do wonder what conclusion would have been arrived at, had the child been found deceased in a wood or somewhere else.
Would they have investigated the possibility of the furniture in the home, being purchased from a deceased person?
How could they know that the scent that was supposedly alerted too, was on furniture or who that scent belonged too?
How do you check any antique or pre-owned furniture you may purchase, for cadaver scent? You can not!
There are so many possible reasons for an alert of cadaver dog, that I do not believe any can be reliable, unless a body is found in the location of that alert. Just my opinion, of course.
Apparently you are the one who attaches value to Eddie's alerts. Ignoring the ones which have been corroborated either forensically or by Keela, why do you think the prosecutors discarded utilising any others in the prosecution of the Drs McCann?
Then you 'only ask questions' and don't really listen to the answer if it doesn't suit ... or such has been my experience.
.
Oh dear. Now that is really funny. It made me laugh out loud.
And Eddie did seem to have a bit of a problem with Martin Grime's.
PS. I have tried pointing at the offending puddle and telling her that she is for the chop if she doesn't mend her ways. But she obviously doesn't get my body language.
Have you?
I have read enough to know that dogs can alert to the smell of something that had once been there such as a bloody rag or similar, Eddie alerted to blood, he would detect the scent even if there wasn't any blood there, cadaver dogs have also been known to alert to decaying vegetation, Eddie alerted to the garden, could be the scent of the garden was brought in on someone's shoes.
If Madeleine had lain in that bedroom long enough for the scent of cadaver to be present then Eddie would have alerted straight away to it.
Probably a bit off topic, but all in the training of a dog. Try a toy water pistol, when she squats to wee. Fire!
@)(++(*
Says who?
And let us suppose he could, what would be the point of that remarkable ability
?
If Eddie had been outside somewhere looking for cadaver scent of Madeleine, Grime wouldn't have been able to call him back numerous times as he wouldn't have known what Madeleine had been in contact with. The fact that Eddie was in 5a a place that Madeleine had been living all week Grime could call Eddie back again and again, if he hadn't Eddie would have ran out of the bedroom without alerting.
In the other apartments Eddie just ran in and out of the rooms, Grime didn't call him back constantly to the same room.
If there had been cadaver scent in the bedroom Eddie would have alerted straight away to it.
Eddie alerted straight away to the place where Keela alerted, a tiny miniscule of what is believed to be blood under one of the tiles, if that had been from where Madeleine had bled there would have been a lot more blood and Eddie would have alerted to the whole of the area behind the sofa.
So to me, no, Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent in 5a.
Because a dog alerted to the scent of death in the home of Shannon Mathews,
I do wonder what conclusion would have been arrived at, had the child been found deceased in a wood or somewhere else.
Would they have investigated the possibility of the furniture in the home, being purchased from a deceased person?
How could they know that the scent that was supposedly alerted too, was on furniture or who that scent belonged too?
How do you check any antique or pre-owned furniture you may purchase, for cadaver scent? You can not!
There are so many possible reasons for an alert of cadaver dog, that I do not believe any can be reliable, unless a body is found in the location of that alert. Just my opinion, of course.
The fact remains there was no evidence, apart from blood, to substantiate alerts. Opinion doesn't count.
... and I do wish you would refrain from shouting.
Hi Lace. You said recently that Eddie was re-trained from SAR to VRD. do you have a cite for that please?
Your "experience" or assessments of other posters are neither here nor there.
You seem to need to resort to it though.
Are you not "only asking questions" of the alerts and the handler, then?
Neither do opinions which say the alerts were not to cadaver scent, so all equal there.
Neither do opinions which say the alerts were not to cadaver scent, so all equal there.
Hi G Unit this is a snip of what Martin Grime said about his dogs Eddie and Keela -
A dog just needs to show a keen sense of smell and it's the training that makes them good enhanced victim recovery dogs, says Mr Grime. Eddie was bred by a specialist search-dog breeder and Keela came from the West Midlands Police breeding programme. Both live with Mr Grime and have a normal life outside of work.
Eddie seems to have a lot alerts.....is there any case he attended where he did not alert...a new and very interesting question
Opinions of that sort are unjustly accusing and have no place in official police enquiries.
Particularly by a dog-handler who kept one of the dog inspection videos for his own, personal, promotion on a separate case during the course of his (further) career as a free-lance dog-handler ....
If people could take the 'dog's don't lie' belief system out of the equation I think people would realise that there is still a great deal of scientific research and work going into understanding just exactly what it is that causes the dogs to react.
Because Shannon was very obviously alive they had to find out what caused the alerts, would they have bothered otherwise?
If her remains had been found or she had not been found at all ... what would that have meant for the investigation and the misdirection of resources into her case.
I agree with everything you have said in your post although I know that dogs do alert in areas where bodies have lain (eg ... soil contaminated by a corpse is used for training purposes and I read that when the containing jar is opened it is possible to discern a scent ... can't find the cite).
Were I on a jury listening to cadaver scent evidence where remains or fragments had not been found ... I would not be a happy bunny.
**Snip
But in the field, VR dogs can sometimes be distracted by “false positives”, such as dead animals, or even mushrooms, explained Lorna. If she can arrive at a greater understanding of the chemistry of odours from human cadavers, then VR dogs can be extra efficient.
https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2014/august/forensicsresearchtomakecadaverdogsmoreefficient.php
Not at all equal ... unless one gives no weight to what Eddie's handler has to say in his rogatory statement.
Which authority would you expect to have "censured" Grime?
His work seems to have been "within the bounds of reasonable handling" since no official censure has been forthcoming.
As is oft repeated with regard to Madeleine`s parents, why should he accommodate the "only asking questions" section of forumites ?
So no mention of Eddie being re-trained then? Is that quote in the files?
Which authority would you expect to have "censured" Grime?
So no mention of Eddie being re-trained then? Is that quote in the files?
Or was Eddie a Forensic search dog -
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Or was Eddie a Forensic search dog -
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Interesting. Just to clear up one point which has been questioned, Grime was working for South Yorkshire Police when he was in PdL;
Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
Although no evidence of a body was found, this statement is pretty strong imo;
'Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion'
The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Is Eddie a cadaver dog -
Cadaver Dog
A narrow term, used in a search-and-rescue context, to indicate a canine primarily trained as a tracking or air-scent dog that has also received cross training in the location of dead human bodies.
Not in the slightest.
When was the 5A inspection?
He may track or air-scent (I'm not sure how he worked), but he would follow the scent of a dead, not a living person.
Or was Eddie a Forensic search dog -
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Eddie wasn't one these then was he?
After all he alerted to sea bass, nappies and practically everything under the sun that he wasn't trained to alert to, sniffed things for reward or because he was bored and wanted to go home or because he was primed like Clever Hans; or was that Keela?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UiSMyyj-Ac
Nothing official forthcoming from anywhere that you know of then?I'm asking you who do you think would have issued an official censure? Is there a governing body of Cadaver Dog Handlers or something?
Poor old Eddie. A good dog. I feel really sorry for him.
He has taken some flak, but he hasn't been proved wrong yet.
Anyone know what Martin Grime means when he says 'Enhanced' as in 'Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog' as how he trains the dogs is confidential.
Did Grime ever state that he thought that it was Madeleine's blood? I don't recall that.
Both dogs alerted to the key card (last used by the PT police driving it to the inspection venue unless a tow truck was involved throughout the process).
AFAIK, it was Amaral who made a song and dance about the (in)significant results.
They were looking for Madeleine's blood.
Nothing else ....
so does anyone know of a case where eddie did not alert
I have no doubt he was a good victim recovery dog, he could sniff out blood that's for sure. If there was a body to find I am sure he would find it.
In Madeleine's case though there was no body and I don't believe there was sufficient time for there to have been cadaver scent.
Interesting question...
Well they suspected she was dead.
They were looking for Madeleine's blood.
Nothing else ....
They needs to be carefully defined.
Harrison was instructed by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered, and did so.
Harrison himself never formed any firm conclusion about what might have happened to Madeleine.
In the McCann case there were loads of places where Eddie didn't alert.
In the McCann case there were loads of places where Eddie didn't alert.
Anyone know what Martin Grime means when he says 'Enhanced' as in 'Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog' as how he trains the dogs is confidential.
Eddie wasn't one these then was he?
After all he alerted to sea bass, nappies and practically everything under the sun that he wasn't trained to alert to, sniffed things for reward or because he was bored and wanted to go home or because he was primed like Clever Hans; or was that Keela?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UiSMyyj-Ac
He has taken some flak, but he hasn't been proved wrong yet.
Possibly through having sniffed human remains at the Body Farm (if he ever visited).
And, quite possibly, through gauze pads of human cadaver scent presumably sent through the post (if that idea ever took off suffiiciently to offer regular train opportunities).
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. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material.
Curiously or otherwise, the only places and objects alerted to by Eddie have associations with the McCanns. Are we to accept this was purely accidental or is there something more sinister in it all?
The problem I have John is that Eddie was repeatedly called back in 5a yet not in the other apartments.
An excellent example of that was what occurred in the underground garage where the McCann's hire car sat parked in a corner at the end of a line of other cars with the Madeleine posters on it. Eddie made no reaction to the McCann's car and had to be called back several times by Mr Grime before eventually reacting at the drivers door. That one incident illustrates perfectly how a handler can impact on the dog and its alerts.8((()*/
Curiously or otherwise, the only places and objects alerted to by Eddie have associations with the McCanns. Are we to accept this was purely accidental or is there something more sinister in it all?
Or was it a case of, if you point the dogs to the same places and objects often enough, sooner or later they will react?
An excellent example of that was what occurred in the underground garage where the McCanns hire car sat parked in a corner at the end of a line of other cars with the Madeleine posters on it. Eddie made no reaction to the McCann's car and had to be called back several times by Mr Grime before eventually reacting at the drivers door. That one incident illustrates perfectly how a handler can impact on the dog and its alerts.
Mr Grime reports noticing a change in the dog`s behaviour between the 2 cars, as he did with the start of the investigation in 5A.
Isn`t the directing a part of the "handling" procedure to focus the dog?
The handler felt the dog was in scent but what is being said in effect, is that this was not so.
We have a handler who said it was.
Thanks Carana, so he was extra trained from a victim recovery dog to an enhanced victim recovery dog, yet a forensic dog is trained solely on human remains.
Have you forgotten what it said in the article I give you a link to already?
In the article it states that an alert by a cadaver dog needs to be taken with caution as someone could have left a bloody rag or a sanitary pad in the spot where the dog is alerting.
Isn't it strange how some don't like criticism of Grime yet are quick to laugh and mock at what other experts at training cadaver dogs say.
edited to add -
Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.
I do not know which link you refer to as there have been so many asserting this that or the other. In the end, they are for various cadaver dogs worldwide with different handlers, training and way of working, alerts, performance and results. We are talking about Eddie the EVRD dog and Mr Grime specifically has stated Eddie was NOT trained for "live human" odours. He was trained on decomposing piglets initially and then mainly on human corpses.Decomposing teeth, nails, human tissue, blood ,urine, nappy pooh and all the rest, etc from live humans do not develop the same scent as corpse decomposition.
See his rogatory interview.
BTW There is no reference anywhere to Eddie ever being a search and rescue dog. The above should show that. No mention of cross training either. No mention or record of deployment to find missing live people.
I do not know which link you refer to as there have been so many asserting this that or the other. In the end, they are for various cadaver dogs worldwide with different handlers, training and way of working, alerts, performance and results. We are talking about Eddie the EVRD dog and Mr Grime specifically has stated Eddie was NOT trained for "live human" odours. He was trained on decomposing piglets initially and then mainly on human corpses.Decomposing teeth, nails, human tissue, blood ,urine, nappy pooh and all the rest, etc from live humans do not develop the same scent as corpse decomposition.
See his rogatory interview.
BTW There is no reference anywhere to Eddie ever being a search and rescue dog. The above should show that. No mention of cross training either. No mention or record of deployment to find missing live people.
I do not know which link you refer to as there have been so many asserting this that or the other. In the end, they are for various cadaver dogs worldwide with different handlers, training and way of working, alerts, performance and results. We are talking about Eddie the EVRD dog and Mr Grime specifically has stated Eddie was NOT trained for "live human" odours. He was trained on decomposing piglets initially and then mainly on human corpses.Decomposing teeth, nails, human tissue, blood ,urine, nappy pooh and all the rest, etc from live humans do not develop the same scent as corpse decomposition.
See his rogatory interview.
BTW There is no reference anywhere to Eddie ever being a search and rescue dog. The above should show that. No mention of cross training either. No mention or record of deployment to find missing live people.
I have given you the section of the article referring to cadaver dogs being to detect the scent of blood even if the article isn't there.
Eddie was trained as a victim recovery dog by using pigs, then had 'enhanced' training with dead human bodies. Forensic search dogs are only trained using dead human bodies and nothing else, therefore Eddie was cross trained.
You are aware that it is illegal to train dogs "mainly on human corpses" in Britain?
I have given you the section of the article referring to cadaver dogs being to detect the scent of blood even if the article isn't there.
Eddie was trained as a victim recovery dog by using pigs, then had 'enhanced' training with dead human bodies. Forensic search dogs are only trained using dead human bodies and nothing else, therefore Eddie was cross trained.
You are aware that it is illegal to train dogs "mainly on human corpses" in Britain?
yes, thats why the handler/trainer travelled to the usa to do it
!
I do not know which link you refer to as there have been so many asserting this that or the other. In the end, they are for various cadaver dogs worldwide with different handlers, training and way of working, alerts, performance and results. We are talking about Eddie the EVRD dog and Mr Grime specifically has stated Eddie was NOT trained for "live human" odours. He was trained on decomposing piglets initially and then mainly on human corpses.Decomposing teeth, nails, human tissue, blood ,urine, nappy pooh and all the rest, etc from live humans do not develop the same scent as corpse decomposition.
See his rogatory interview.
BTW There is no reference anywhere to Eddie ever being a search and rescue dog. The above should show that. No mention of cross training either. No mention or record of deployment to find missing live people.
With a dog about 18 months from retirement?
And given that we have a tried-and-trusted method of training cadaver dogs in Britain (also used in States of the United States where use of human remains is similarly prohibited) because we regard it as unethical to use human body parts or remains, why would we indulge both the expense and the hypocrisy of sending dogs to America to be trained in ways banned as unethical here?
Yet other professions use human body parts for 'training' in the UK.
It would also render the dogs more effective, as Grime obviously realized.
yes, thats why the handler/trainer travelled to the usa to do it
!
Eddie was trained to find the scent of a dead human, initially using decomposing piglets which smell so similar that VRD's trained in this way can find dead humans. His training was enhanced when he was given the actual scent of a dead human. No cross-training, all his training was aimed at finding dead human beings.
He reacts to dried blood from a living human being.
I was giving Eddie credit for possibly having alerted in the general area of the milk teeth in Jersey. Are you saying that he didn't react to them?
Deciduous teeth count as human remains, don't they? If not, what are they?
I didn't know that anybody did. However the forensic team would have and possibly the GNR.I don't recall seeing any statement specifically stating "That night I moved the sofa out and looked behind it".
I don't recall seeing any statement specifically stating "That night I moved the sofa out and looked behind it".
Yes of course, I meant to put that in my post though "everyone knows it is a given by now" but in PDL it matters not as Keela found no blood for his (not confirmed by Keela) alerts, even though apparently some thnk he reatcs to its remnant scent
He reacts to dried blood from a living human being.
I was giving Eddie credit for possibly having alerted in the general area of the milk teeth in Jersey. Are you saying that he didn't react to them?
Deciduous teeth count as human remains, don't they? If not, what are they?
Then you will have a cite for that?
You are probably correct. I thought there was forensic photographs of the curtains and window wall in the lounge.The photos you are remembering were taken months later on 1st August 2007.
The photos you are remembering were taken months later on 1st August 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm
IMO there is no-one, not a single tourist, GNR officer, PJ officer, or Forensics officer, who states specifically
"That night I moved the sofa away from the wall to look behind it then pushed it back against the wall"
I don't recall seeing any statement specifically stating "That night I moved the sofa out and looked behind it".
Kate doesn't mention checking anywhere in the living room in her book.No, because there is no such test. Keela did not find blood on them so her potential alerts could have been tested
Had the settee been moved from the position the parents left it in (pushed against the wall/curtains) would that not have prompted an immediate check behind it?
Were the clothes marked by Eddie ever subjected to further forensic tests for the presence of cadaverine deposits?
No, because there is no such test. Keela did not find blood on them so her potential alerts could have been tested
Since when did forensics only test clothing for blood?
If cadaverscent can be deposited on scent pads to be used for dog training, then there are chemicals which can be tested for, aren't there?
No, not really, its complex and not that easy
Was there any evidence that the clothing Eddie marked had not absorbed any non-blood deposits?
Such as?
Putrescine. Dimethyl sulphide. (If you can bottle it you can test for it)
Fibres from Madeleine's pyjamas.
Putrescine. Dimethyl sulphide. (If you can bottle it you can test for it)
Fibres from Madeleine's pyjamas.
They are not the "scent of death" anyway
@Anna I hope you are not saying Eddie alerted to plastic and polystyrene now! What about egg boxes?
@)(++(*
This is getting silly
Goodnight
You have been doing your homework, Misty
Nylon and plastic contain :-
Putriscine 4 carbon atoms in chain between amines, which is chemically similar cadaverine 5 carbon atoms between amines ends, as they are both Diamines with a short hydrocarbon chains with primary amines group either end
=Methane + Putriscine diamines are two main ingredients of cadaverine
.............................................
Now add polystyrene (C8H8)n
I must confess I used this article as a guide.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html
This part was interesting:-
A human cadaver dog's detection skills depend greatly on its training, and the problem is that human remains are hard to come by. Trainers often use a combination of available "pseudoscents", and pigs. The problem with pseudoscents, says Mick Swindells, a retired police handler who works as a freelance trainer and handler in Blackpool, is that they represent a "snapshot" of death. As decomposition proceeds, the chemistry of the corpse evolves, causing its odour to change. "I'm trying to train a dog to find the whole video, not just a snapshot," he says. Pigs decompose in similarly to humans, and when buried they disturb the ground in a similar way.
as was this part:-
On another occasion, Swindells and one of his dogs were searching a house when the dog signalled. A cache of bones was found beneath the floorboards at the spot – but they were later identified as pig. Pig carcasses are used in training cadaver dogs. But why would anybody hide a dead pig? The dating of the bones gave a clue: they had probably been buried during the Second World War, when pork was rationed and penalties for dabbling in the black market were severe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But back to the clothing. Why, if something suspicious was detected, were no further tests apparently carried out?
There may have been soil traces on the trousers, or other forensics. Why did Amaral not follow this up immediately, in light of his mantra that "every contact leaves a trace"?
But back to the clothing. Why, if something suspicious was detected, were no further tests apparently carried out?
There may have been soil traces on the trousers, or other forensics. Why did Amaral not follow this up immediately, in light of his mantra that "every contact leaves a trace"?
Sorry Misty, I didn't answer this part of your post. I have no idea what Amaral was thinking.
However It would have been very difficult to pinpoint the item(s) that could possibly have been the cause of alerts.
You have been doing your homework, Misty
Nylon and plastic contain :-
Putriscine 4 carbon atoms in chain between amines, which is chemically similar cadaverine 5 carbon atoms between amines ends, as they are both Diamines with a short hydrocarbon chains with primary amines group either end
=Methane + Putriscine diamines are two main ingredients of cadaverine
.............................................
Now add polystyrene (C8H8)n
Alerts have no evidential reliability
Basically BS
Maddie may still be alive
Where ?Now that is the million dollar question !
this is what you said:-
And given that we have a tried-and-trusted method of training cadaver dogs in Britain (also used in States of the United States where use of human remains is similarly prohibited)
Very easy to skimp over " states of the united states"
Hence my response
Still, I don't believe you have any argument as the fact remans Eddie was trained on eal human corpses
Eddie was trained to find the scent of a dead human, initially using decomposing piglets which smell so similar that VRD's trained in this way can find dead humans. His training was enhanced when he was given the actual scent of a dead human. No cross-training, all his training was aimed at finding dead human beings.
Eddie was used as a forensic search dog and this is what it says about such dogs -
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
It says a dog which has NEVER been used to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Now I'm sorry but Eddie was trained using pigs, it may be the closest thing to human tissue but it isn't human tissue. If being trained on pigs was fine why did Grime go off and train Eddie on human tissue too?
The decomposition of pigs (in terms of VOCs and stages) is close to that of humans, but some differences have been found. (I'd have to check which scientific papers state that, it might be Vass.)
I presume that the purpose of using real cadaver scent on gauze pads was to enhance Eddie's abilities, but - according to Grime - even dogs trained solely on human cadavers will react to "pig-based products".
Acting in my role of 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 pig based products into training assessments 100%! of the animals alerted to the medium. The result from scientific experiment and research to date would tend to support the theory that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two.
(Grime report)
you really have no idea at all.
Eddie was used as a forensic search dog and this is what it says about such dogs -
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
It says a dog which has NEVER been used to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Now I'm sorry but Eddie was trained using pigs, it may be the closest thing to human tissue but it isn't human tissue. If being trained on pigs was fine why did Grime go off and train Eddie on human tissue too?
So I presume there is evidence of pig 'material' in all the dog alerts in PDL ?
The decomposition of pigs (in terms of VOCs and stages) is close to that of humans, but some differences have been found. (I'd have to check which scientific papers state that, it might be Vass.)
I presume that the purpose of using real cadaver scent on gauze pads was to enhance Eddie's abilities, but - according to Grime - even dogs trained solely on human cadavers will react to "pig-based products".
Acting in my role of 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 pig based products into training assessments 100%! of the animals alerted to the medium. The result from scientific experiment and research to date would tend to support the theory that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two.
(Grime report)
I've read that on numerous occasions, Carana, and only now have I noticed that the dogs had never been exposed to pig in their training "These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources." yet they alerted to pig.
Mr Grime would I imagine have introduced the scent of pig as part of the dogs' assessment on whether or not they reacted to scent from decomposing animal sources ... I can think of no other reason for introducing pig scent to dogs trained solely on human sources.
Because these were training or assessment exercises the substances causing the dogs' observed response were known.
If a dog alerts and there is nothing there to signify what caused it to alert and going on the discussion of other man made possible sources Misty and Anna have brought to the thread I think it brings the whole acceptance of these alerts into question.
For example ... Mr Grime describes situations when without exception (100%) dogs trained solely on human sources alerted to pig; courts in America are slowly allowing the introduction of 'cadaver scent' based on the training record of dogs like Morse who are trained using only human material and their total lack of interest in animal remains.
Wonder if the Defence know that the lack of reaction to animals does not include the porcine species or even those with feathers?
**Snip
Pig VOC signatures were not found to be a subset of human; in addition to sharing only seven of thirty human-specific compounds, an additional nine unique VOCs were recorded from pig samples which were not present in human samples. The VOC signatures from chicken and human samples were most similar sharing the most compounds of the animals studied.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22424672
How can you train a dog on pig then take it to America and more or less say 'forget about the scent of pig that I trained you to detect now it's human bodies' they may be 99% similar but there is still the 1 % that they are not the same. No alert by Eddie in the bedroom can be used as evidence as it is not know what he was smelling, he wasn't bothered at all, Grime had to call him back numerous. times if it wasn't for the fact that the bedroom was a known place that Madeleine had been then I doubt if Grime would have called him back. In my opinion, Eddie finally alerted because either he wanted to end the exercise or he smelt something that was in his training for eg. blood residue scent or maybe scent from the garden that someone had walked in, they use pig bone in fertiliser don't they?
The alerts to cuddle cat and the clothes wouldn't be used as evidence either as dogs are trained not to pick up evidence, Eddie picked up Cuddle Cat and he picked up the clothes.
Yet again.
If the mccanns have nothing to fear about the dog alerts, why all the bother on this thread ?
It won't change minds.
Yet again.
If the mccanns have nothing to fear about the dog alerts, why all the bother on this thread ?
It won't change minds.
Training materials for dogs include earth from a body deposition site; I don't think there is any doubt that Eddie would be highly likely to alert to earth which had been enriched with fertiliser which includes pig extracts.
Particularly since he was trained using pig and there is proof from Mr Grime's report that even dogs trained only on human remains had alerted 100% to pig.
Nor what is written in the Archiving Report.
Maybe some posters have aspirations to doing PhD's in organic chemistry?
I came across something similar concerning chickens very recently... possibly yesterday. It might have been from a handler saying that decomposing chicken smells more like human decomp than that of pigs. I don't think I noted it as at the time it seemed to be just an opinion.
I HAD found a scientific study comparing various animal VOCs with those of humans, but I've never been able to find it again, although I did hunt extensively for it. It may have been taken off the Internet for copyright reasons as some likely links that I'd bookmarked to find it again sent me to "page not available".
Yet again.
If the mccanns have nothing to fear about the dog alerts, why all the bother on this thread ?
It won't change minds.
"You don`t think there is any doubt that Eddie would be highly likely"...... etc.
Sounding very authoritive.
Is this to tie in with Lace`s post yesterday opining that Eddie`s alert to the garden could link with the alerts in the apartment due to people possibly treading the scent from decaying vegetation/compost etc., in on their footwear?
Another idea to bear in mind, but to couch it in terms such as you used is really no better than the assertions that an alert by Eddie must mean that a body lay in 5A, which you so deplore, is it ?
You really should accept the reality of the situation which has been so succinctly explained by Mr Grime. There are some minds which unfortunately are incapable of being changed whatever the evidence ... the only danger they seem to represent to society is that they are probably eligible for jury duty.
The dogs were trained to respond to a specific range of compounds.
They indicated in several locations.
The clear metaphorical blindness is shared by you and others.
That is why you continue to cut and paste articles again and again.
listen to what Grime says....no evidential reliability...fact
In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
this is also what Grime says...no confirmation of cadaver scent according to Grime
Thank you for thinking I sound authoritative when in fact my post contains many caveats.
The clear fact arising from Eddie's alerts in the apartment are they mean absolutely nothing
No one - not even his handler knows what Eddie may have been reacting to - for the simple reason nothing was found which could be tested forensically to say exactly what that may have been.
Which means that your pig fertiliser possibility is no more likely a source for the alerts than the cadaver of the missing person.
The "discussions" and derogatory comments are intended to give that impression, though aren`t they?
Neither did he dismiss it either.
and it wasn't his job to either.
That's the job of the forensic scientists, and just to remind everyone, inconclusive means what it says.
Neither did he dismiss it either.
and it wasn't his job to either.
That's the job of the forensic scientists, and just to remind everyone, inconclusive means what it says.
I (genuinely) think it's a good thing to listen selectively to Grime ....
so the alerts tell us nothing either way..thank you...absolutely useless
There can be no doubt that Mr Grime knew the targets before sending in the dogs. He knew which apartment the McCanns had occupied with Madeleine prior to her disappearance, he knew which car was rented by them and he knew it was their clothing which was laid out on the gym floor. For me the entire exercise was a fiasco and yet another waste of money.
They constitute circumstantial evidence.
and if a body is ever found, quite crucial.
Redwood himself stated Madeleine could have died in the apartment.
Similar dogs were used by SY in Portugal last year and searched in specific locations with no results.
No evidential reliability
The alerts have zero value
If a body is found how will that change
Yes, I found it, Pegasus. So what are you saying?Yes that photo shows that the 1st Aug forensic team moved the sofa away from wall and looked behind it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/V/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2192_a.jpg
ETA image
The alerts come down to basic probability.
The dogs are trained to respond to a group of compounds.
They did so.
Did the dogs used last year give any indications ?
you make the same basic mistake as others of your ilk...
no one knows what the dogs alerted to...Grime doesn't know
the archiving report is supportive of the mccanns innocence
Odd that this personal comment remains but my reply was deleted.If you wish to pursue this argument then I'm only to glad to do so on an appropriate thread. Perhaps you could start one off...?
The idea that double standards regarding the criticism levelled at those who have been "asking questions " of the McCanns for 8 years by those same posters who target MG on a daily basis similarly is relevant in principle and worth mentioning.
Quoting numbers on various sites as a tit-for-tat excuse doesn`t really alter the principle.
If you wish to pursue this argument then I'm only to glad to do so on an appropriate thread. Perhaps you could start one off...?
The law does not determine innocence. It deals in guilty or not guilty in its own eyes. Or in the case of the archiving report insufficient evidence to bring a case which is not the same as saying innocent.
But then I was referring to the detail of forensics and doggies in the Archiving Report which cannot be changed by either side and it does not say what either side says it does. Tune in in another 300 pages of cut and paste and repetition.
Wrong again dave.
If they are so useless, why do you keep commenting, as do others of your ilk ?
The dogs were trained to respond to a specific range of compounds.
They indicated in several locations.
The clear metaphorical blindness is shared by you and others.
That is why you continue to cut and paste articles again and again.
Grime has stated that the alerts cannot be affirmed without forensic confirmation
You are ignoring the truth
Grime has stated that the alerts cannot be affirmed without forensic confirmation
You are ignoring the truth
Quote - 'the dogs were trained to respond to a specific range of compounds'What about horses?
Yes, and Eddie was trained with pig carcass's they use pig in garden fertiliser he could very well have alerted to the smell of that.
I had made my point already to which you replied, "you really have no idea at all. "You really have no idea at all.
My reply was removed, so I made it again.
Your rudeness had survived intact, otherwise I wouldn`t have bothered.
What about horses?
Horses?
The dogs were trained to respond to a specific range of compounds.
They indicated in several locations.
The clear metaphorical blindness is shared by you and others.
That is why you continue to cut and paste articles again and again.
Horses?Sorry I withdraw that. I thought I found a video of Eddie locating 100 year old horse remains. But I have listened again and I had misheard pelvic cavity of a "horse" when it wasn't "horse" at all
Which means that your pig fertiliser possibility is no more likely a source for the alerts than the cadaver of the missing person.
The "discussions" and derogatory comments are intended to give that impression, though aren`t they?
I cut and paste different articles to substantiate my posts by providing a cite ... I thoroughly recommend it to you.
It may be worth noting that on the few occasions I do not post a cite ... I am invariably asked to provide one.
You claim to be a scientist and an educationalist which makes it all the more surprising that you display such resistance to accepting the pace of scientific research leading to advancements in our knowledge of precisely what compounds of decay Victim Recovery Dogs may be reacting to.
Mr Grime knew the legal situation regarding the need to establish corroboration of Eddie's alerts; he took pains to lay them out precisely in his statements which are recorded in the files.
I would have assumed that one of a scientific bent like yourself, particularly a chemist, might have taken that in conjunction with scientific studies and worked things out for yourself as to the irrelevance of Eddie's alerts.
I find it mystifying that people remain adamant that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment without the existence of even a modicum of evidence in support.
There can be no doubt that Mr Grime knew the targets before sending in the dogs. He knew which apartment the McCanns had occupied with Madeleine prior to her disappearance, he knew which car was rented by them and he knew it was their clothing which was laid out on the gym floor. For me the entire exercise was a fiasco and yet another waste of money.
I think that is a perfect scenario for clever Hans to come into effect ... I think close observation of the videos would tend to reinforce that opinion.
I think the dogs were brought in far too late to be of any value to the investigation.
Tell that to Redwood.
He admitted as such.
Your posts don't reflect scientific belief or logic.
They merely reflect cutting and pasting of anything which you believe gives doubt to the indications of the dogs.
I have stated numerous times that the forensic analysis of the collected samples was inconclusive, but what the dogs indicated can be viewed in terms of sheer probability.
There is nothing else in this case which has come to light, no matter yours and others protestations.
That is why you and your fellow brethren continue on this thread, and for that read Newton's Third Law.
Redwood said Maddie MAY have died in the apartment ....not DID.....
You regularly confuse the two
No I don't.
I know what he said.
She might be alive, she might be dead.
An amazing observation you will agree.
So where does that place Redwood as regards dogs ?
I`m nominating you for mod !.......rudeness, now goading & showing off/ playing to the galleryHow rude.
............ all with Eleanor , John & Angelo watching.
Dream Team. 8)-)))
Are you willing to admit the possibility that the dogs indicated the presence of a dead body in the apartment ?
Interesting that you rely on the mumbo jumbo of "sheer probability" just as Mr Amaral did in conjunction with Ricardo's Delphic dream to make a case against the Drs McCann.
That is rather on a par with tasking Derek Acorah to unravel the case.
Show me the supporting evidence that the dogs indicated to a dead body in the apartment.
Explain why there were no alerts in the other apartments in the complex where the McCann family resided in the days after Madeleine's disappearance bearing in mind cadaver scent contaminant.
Show me the supporting evidence that the dogs indicated to a dead body in the apartment.Here is the difference. The relevant clothing and possesions were not present in 4G when Eddie checked there, but were present in villa when Eddie checked there. BTW Eddie did not check the other apartment allocated in block 4 (remember the meals were delivered to two apartments in that block).
Explain why there were no alerts in the other apartments in the complex where the McCann family resided in the days after Madeleine's disappearance bearing in mind cadaver scent contaminant.
'Mumbo jumbo' @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
You really betray your ignorance as regards that subject.
This mumbo jumbo as you call it governs many aspects of our lives.
e.g. Do you know what an Actuarist does ?
Good try at deflection ... however you cannot minimise Mr Amaral's ignorance and / or total misunderstanding of the significance of the dogs in his eagerness to wrap up any sort of case against the Drs McCann.
Yours is the deflection.Tell us about the laws of probability and how they apply to the dog alerts then, for us ignorami.
You clearly don't understand the laws of probability and how widely they are applied in everyday life.
You comment onAmaral'l ignorance, but you are clearly unaware of your own.
Mumbo jumbo..... Now those two words so well sum up many mccann supporter posts.
Tell us about the laws of probability and how they apply to the dog alerts then, for us ignorami.
I find it mystifying that people remain adamant that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment without the existence of even a modicum of evidence in support.
I gave a link to a research article last week as regards that.No.
Did you pay it any notice ?
Sorry I withdraw that. I thought I found a video of Eddie locating 100 year old horse remains. But I have listened again and I had misheard pelvic cavity of a "horse" when it wasn't "horse" at all
Anyway the video is interesting because it confirms Eddie's reward was a tennis ball (not a cuddly toy).
http://youtu.be/NmdkR1K-jU0?t=2m8s
I think that is a perfect scenario for clever Hans to come into effect ... I think close observation of the videos would tend to reinforce that opinion.
I think the dogs were brought in far too late to be of any value to the investigation.
How rude.
I never used the word determine.... I said the report supports their innocence
The report does not use the term insufficient... Another mistake
The report criticises the evidence that was used against the mccanns
I think it's fair comment to say the report supports their innocence
Thankyou for clarifying.neigh, neigh and thrice neigh.
I thought maybe you had added horses as a possible alert trigger in some way......in relation to the pig based fertiliser discussion.
At typical potential crime scenes then ; does the handler usually have no idea which house, or place last seen alive, or vehicles, garages, or clothing are associated with the missing person when the investigation takes place?He usually does, which is why you have situations like the one in Sweden when the handler was taken to the site of alleged murders by a supposed serial killer, and the dog alerted dozens of times, only for it later to be revealed that the site was NOT the place of murder at all.
How would that be managed ?
I did not say the report used the word insufficient.
Post a link to the Archiving Report then we can all read what it says not what posters say it says.
How does the report support their innocence
Thankyou for clarifying.No I just misheard a word as "horse" (the doctor has recommended I get my eeyores hinged).
I thought maybe you had added horses as a possible alert trigger in some way......in relation to the pig based fertiliser discussion.
Well, I imagine you must be mystified quite often then, if you managed to conclude that from what was typed!
He usually does, which is why you have situations like the one in Sweden when the handler was taken to the site of alleged murders by a supposed serial killer, and the dog alerted dozens of times, only for it later to be revealed that the site was NOT the place of murder at all.
I did not say the report used the word insufficient.
Post a link to the Archiving Report then we can all read what it says not what posters say it says.
How does the report support their innocence?
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.[/u] If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
At typical potential crime scenes then ; does the handler usually have no idea which house, or place last seen alive, or vehicles, garages, or clothing are associated with the missing person when the investigation takes place?
How would that be managed ?
Perhaps there had been another death there previously or pig and coconut based fertiliser contaminants were present along with decaying vegetation tracked in on the dog`s paws.Your facetiousness is noted and dismissed.
With so many possible contaminants, "Careful Hans" need never be involved anywhere.......ever.
Mystified and saddened ... but just the perils of treading the Madeleine McCann boards where there is such apparent ill wishing towards a missing little girl.
Your facetiousness is noted and dismissed.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.[/u] If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
All have been mentioned here as possible sources of contaminants at sites.So? Your response to my last point was facetious was it not? Or were you actually being sincere? Ho ho.
Perhaps relating your reply to the actual content of the post might help rather than what you imagine it said.
OK then Ferryman you can be the third supporter I have asked to post a link to the archiving report so we can read it all rather than the cut and paste bits.
The last two supporters I asked ignored the request and/or bottled out. Are you going to make it a prile?
I did not say the report used the word insufficient.
Post a link to the Archiving Report then we can all read what it says not what posters say it says.
How does the report support their innocence?
It seems we have another reason for doubting the alerts
Eddie always makes a positive alert and others are left to debate what it means
You are speaking for a very limited number of people.
Ditto.
You are speaking for a very limited number of people.
As you do
I had that problem with some that I bookmarked some time ago ... I got into some by clicking on a link in the page not found notification.
I've read a lot about it as there are quite a few papers out there ... some of it way above my head.
The ones I have read about pig/chicken VOC seem to be concentrated more towards farming and the attendant pollution from the smells generated by the livestock.
What I am noticing is that those working in the field seem to still think pig scent and similarity of decomposition is the closest to human despite scientific studies saying there are more matching VOC in chickens.
I think these are the guys likely to know what they are talking about.
Mary Cabik seems to be an authority on the subject as she is quoted everywhere; the work is copyright protected, it seems that includes the abstract so I'm not sure if it will be allowed to stay on the forum for long.
Abstract:
Forensic Sci Int. 2012 Jul 10;220(1-3):118-25. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.02.007. Epub 2012 Mar 15.
Characterization of the volatile organic compounds present in the headspace of decomposing animal remains, and compared with human remains.
Cablk ME1, Szelagowski EE, Sagebiel JC.
Author information
1Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA. mary.cablk@dri.edu
Abstract
Human Remains Detection (HRD) dogs can be a useful tool to locate buried human remains because they rely on olfactory rather than visual cues. Trained specifically to locate deceased humans, it is widely believed that HRD dogs can differentiate animal remains from human remains. This study analyzed the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present in the headspace above partially decomposed animal tissue samples and directly compared them with results published from human tissues using established solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) methods. Volatile organic compounds present in the headspace of four different animal tissue samples (bone, muscle, fat and skin) from each of cow, pig and chicken were identified and compared to published results from human samples. Although there were compounds common to both animal and human remains, the VOC signatures of each of the animal remains differed from those of humans. Of particular interest was the difference between pigs and humans, because in some countries HRD dogs are trained on pig remains rather than human remains. Pig VOC signatures were not found to be a subset of human; in addition to sharing only seven of thirty human-specific compounds, an additional nine unique VOCs were recorded from pig samples which were not present in human samples. The VOC signatures from chicken and human samples were most similar sharing the most compounds of the animals studied. Identifying VOCs that are unique to humans may be useful to develop human-specific training aids for HRD canines, and may eventually lead to an instrument that can detect clandestine human burial sites.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22424672
Pig and human
https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/bitstream/10155/315/1/Stadler_Sonja.pdf
I'm wondering if the Cabik one is what I'd found. It had graphs with waves of various VOCs as they increased and decreased across the various phases. Possibly also according to what type of tissue, but I'm not sure about that now.
What I've noticed in many of these studies is how vague they are about how soon after death various VOCs can be detected. I've seen "soon after death", "in the fresh stage", and so on. I've also noticed that there are very few VOCs released / detectable in the "fresh" stage (generally 1-3 days). That raises the question of how many would have been present, which they would have been, and how long those initial compounds could remain detectable, particularly on non-porous surfaces if M had indeed died in that apartment.
From the quarters of cyberspace you inhabit, probably none ....
So? Your response to my last point was facetious was it not? Or were you actually being sincere? Ho ho.
I applied just a few of the many and varied examples of contaminants put forward as possibly alerted to by Eddie to your practical example "in the field," so to speak.You have no contol over whether or not you come across as facetious? I see...
I didn`t think them up, so it`s hardly my fault if all the "alert triggers," had they happened in practice, came across as facetious.
You have no contol over whether or not you come across as facetious? I see...
Slight comprehension malfunction, maybe ?Only human beings can be facetious, whatever triggers a dog to alert (and we know it can be many things) cannot be facetious, so I think perhaps the comprehension malfunction is yours.
..........all the "alert triggers" , had they happened in practice came across as facetious......(as they obviously did to you.)
Many of them do to me , too although I think they are meant to be serious
Only human beings can be facetious, whatever triggers a dog to alert (and we know it can be many things) cannot be facetious, so I think perhaps the comprehension malfunction is yours.
The most important point...which the sceptics seem to want to avoid...is that the alerts have no evidential value and it doesn't take much thought to see why this is. Stephen insists that they are circumstantial evidence..which is wrong...circumstantial evidence is admissible in court.
Only human beings can be facetious, whatever triggers a dog to alert (and we know it can be many things) cannot be facetious, so I think perhaps the comprehension malfunction is yours.
I would refer to them as clues.
I really think the alerts are totally bogus. I've supported Grime but now feel after seeing the report from the PJ re the searches that he has been evasive re the value of the alerts.
He was asked whether the alert to cuddlecat was a trick or a concrete alert to cadaver odour...he did not answer the question.....some have berated Kate for not answering questions...why should Grime fail to answer this one
As I see it he was brought in on the recommendation of Mark Harrison. He searched with his dogs where he was asked. His dogs alerted to various McCann related locations and objects. He says several times that the alerts must be confirmed by forensic findings. He also says several times that the dogs alert only to the scents they are trained to find.
With regard to cuddle cat, he is quite clear I think, considering he has already stated numerous times that the dogs only alert when they find the scent they are trained to find;
'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
As I see it he was brought in on the recommendation of Mark Harrison. He searched with his dogs where he was asked. His dogs alerted to various McCann related locations and objects. He says several times that the alerts must be confirmed by forensic findings. He also says several times that the dogs alert only to the scents they are trained to find.
With regard to cuddle cat, he is quite clear I think, considering he has already stated numerous times that the dogs only alert when they find the scent they are trained to find;
'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
The part I underline is simply not true.
Harrison recommended searches only in those places Madeleine either had been or (conceivably) might have been: the holiday apartments, vehicles owned or driven by Murat and areas in and around PdL.
How the other searches evolved (and how the other vehicles were included) is a mystery, not obviously answered in the files.
Harrison does make reference to searches in places Madeleine never lived in or went near, but the way he words it is completely different from his wording in respect of those searches he recommended.
And there is no mention at all of the inspection in the gym until it is about to happen.
How did that come about?
The only apparent explanation is from Amaral's book.
There was no justification for inspection of clothing at all.
You should have added, in your opinion, which holds no weight whatsoever.
Please explain why clothing should not have been expected.
what ferryman posted is true......Harrison selected certain areas to be searched and the PJ added further locations
I've never taken the alerts seriously to be honest.
There was too much calling back where as in the other apartments Eddie just ran in and out more or less.
I think he alerted to blood behind the sofa but I don't believe it had anything to do with Madeleine, let's be honest would there just be a speck of blood UNDER A TILE if that had anything to do with Madeleine falling banging her head and bleeding from the blow?
The other alerts Cuddle Cat Eddie played with it picking it up in his mouth, the clothes again Eddie picked them up in his mouth, he looked to be playing with them.
In the garden in my opinion it was probably the garden fertiliser.
You should have added, in your opinion, which holds no weight whatsoever.
Please explain why clothing should not have been expected.
on what scientific basis do you make that judgement ?
on what scientific basis do you support the alerts...Grime has told us all the alerts cannot be validated scientifically..
the lack of scientific basis for validation is the root of the controversy around them
Why are dogs employed in forensic searches dave ?
Please remind us.
This was not clothing kept in some special storage awaiting inspection.
This was clothing in common circulation as clothing is: worn, washed, hung out on washing lines, packed in suit cases (and all the rest) for fully 3 months after Madeleine's abduction.
What would they have been looking for? Traces of Madeleine's blood (obviously microscopic, because blood in quantities visible to the naked human eye wouldn't require a dog to find it).
And if they had found microscopic traces of Madeleine's blood on any clothing, so what?
Madeleine sat on mummy's knee or Daddy's knee, has a nose blood or other minor abrasion and blood transfers to clothing.
What would that prove?
Here is Harrison's summary of all searches:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
Harrison acknowledges the input of Grime and his dogs only in those searches he recommended: the holiday apartments, the Murat's place (which I should have mentioned earlier), and areas in and around PdL.
Both inspections at the villa and at the gym, he summarises as PJ exercises.
And he gives no clue at all who took part in the inspection of vehicles.
We can confidently state that Amaral's account in his book of how the inspection in the gym came about is a lie.
Why are dogs employed in forensic searches dave ?
Please remind us.
They aren't.
They look for stuff that can be subject to forensic examination (in laboratories).
'look for stuff' ???
As a general reference point .....................
http://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/
looks like your article agrees totally with me...no surprise
Dogs are trained to respond to certain compounds and when they detect them, they react.
Quite right.
and these did.
'look for stuff' ???
As a general reference point .....................
http://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/
Dogs are trained to respond to certain compounds and when they detect them, they react.
Quite right.
and these did.
on what scientific basis do you make that judgement ?
no one knows what eddie reacted to in PDL...not even Grime
On the basis of observation.
Other cadaver dogs I have watched do not pick up the objects in their mouths, they are trained not to, if they do it will contaminate evidence. Eddie was trained to bark an alert not to pick items up in his mouth.
Can you say hand on heart that if Grime didn't know 5a was where Madeleine had been staying for almost a week he would have called Eddie back so many times? If he hadn't kept calling Eddie back Eddie would just have ran round the bedroom and out again. If he had done that in any of the other apartments Grime would have left it at that.
What do you think Eddie alerted to in the garden Stephen? Do you think Madeleine had been left in the garden for some reason?
Grime is not a forensic scientist, is he ?
Grime is not a forensic scientist, is he ?
So observation of fertilizer ??? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Now what are you talking about?
You mentioned garden fertilizer a few posts ago.
The nit-pickers` convention of one was still in session after I left then...... 8)-)))See my response above.
No comprehension issues this end.
`Twas yourself did struggle and mither over it.
I........(a human being.... Well spotted)....... did not think up the many and varied alert trigger contaminants.
Others ...... ( i.e. another set of human beings)........did so.... and they came across as facetious suggestions when applied in a practical context.
You`re on your own with it from now on.
What was the post 'observation of fertiliser' supposed to be about?
From the files, the closest we get to an explanation of the inspection at the gym is this (very first mention):
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, [the gym] attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
There was only one (recorded!) alert in the villa, to cuddle-cat .....
Work it out for yourself.
I take it it was just a silly childish quip meaning nothing.
I've never taken the alerts seriously to be honest.
There was too much calling back where as in the other apartments Eddie just ran in and out more or less.
I think he alerted to blood behind the sofa but I don't believe it had anything to do with Madeleine, let's be honest would there just be a speck of blood UNDER A TILE if that had anything to do with Madeleine falling banging her head and bleeding from the blow?
The other alerts Cuddle Cat Eddie played with it picking it up in his mouth, the clothes again Eddie picked them up in his mouth, he looked to be playing with them.
In the garden in my opinion it was probably the garden fertiliser.
You're entitled to your opinion but fertilizer? Please!If fertilizer contains the remains of pigs why would you find it so far fetched?
If fertilizer contains the remains of pigs why would you find it so far fetched?
What exactly do you mean by remains ?
and what compounds would the dogs alert to exactly ?
You mentioned garden fertilizer.
Can you provide a list of compounds in garden fertilizer that dogs would indicate to ?
Not a compound but there is blood in Bone meal, Eddie alerted to blood as well Stephen.
snip>>>>>
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified. <<<< snip
I think you will find that no one really knows the entire range of compounds the dogs alert to
The part I underline is simply not true.
Harrison recommended searches only in those places Madeleine either had been or (conceivably) might have been: the holiday apartments, vehicles owned or driven by Murat and areas in and around PdL.
How the other searches evolved (and how the other vehicles were included) is a mystery, not obviously answered in the files.
Harrison does make reference to searches in places Madeleine never lived in or went near, but the way he words it is completely different from his wording in respect of those searches he recommended.
And there is no mention at all of the inspection in the gym until it is about to happen.
How did that come about?
The only apparent explanation is from Amaral's book.
There was no justification for inspection of clothing at all.
Prove almost certainly should be demonstrate.
Or, if the prosecutors indeed said prove, they were letting their fascist slips show ...
If you make a statement that you genuinely believe to be true then that is not being facetious is it? If someone says that they believe Jeremy Corbyn is the ideal leader of the opposition and will make a great Prime Minister and they really mean it, then ludicrous though that belief is as far as I'm concerned then that is not being facetious. If I said it however, that would be a different matter!
Not a compound but there is blood in Bone meal, Eddie alerted to blood as well Stephen.
It is the compound present in the samples they were trained on.The research could also help with the training of ‘human remains detection canines’. ‘We know very little about what compounds or combinations of compounds are recognised by sniffer dogs,’ says Williams.
There are several analytical techniques available for those compounds to be identified, qualitatively and quantitatively.
You can read all about it here, including search warrants requested, granted and the reasons;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
I said it appeared facetious to me and to others because it was so obvious to us that it was absurd.What, specifically, do you find absurd? The fact that dogs may falsely alert for a variety of reasons? Why do you find that absurd when there is ample evidence to suggest that dogs DO give false positives?
The research could also help with the training of ‘human remains detection canines’. ‘We know very little about what compounds or combinations of compounds are recognised by sniffer dogs,’ says Williams.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/06/smell-death-cadaver-body-decay
From the same article.
' ‘Several groups are working on e-noses at the moment,’ Focant says, ‘but we are not sure if this technology will ever make sniffer dogs obsolete.’
Bar haemoglobin and certain other proteins present in transgenic pigs used to produce 'human' haemoglobin, there be differences in the amino acid sequences resulting from protein hydrolysis after death,as well as the residues from the decomposition of other organic compounds from a body.
Now I believe it has been established that blood samples that have been obtained were from human sources, so any reference to the pigs or 'fertilizer' is essentially a red herring, unless proven otherwise.
I don't think you understand my reference to fertiliser Stephen, if the blood in the Fertiliser is pig then Eddie would alert to it, so not a red herring as Eddie was trained using Pig meat at first.
It's you who doesn't understand.What forensics were done to the flowerbed?
There would be clear biochemical differences between the pig and human, bar transgenic species.
Now did the forensic samples indicate the presence of any pig D.N.A. from those collected where the dogs alerted ?
It's you who doesn't understand.
There would be clear biochemical differences between the pig and human, bar transgenic species.
Now did the forensic samples indicate the presence of any pig D.N.A. from those collected where the dogs alerted ?
What forensics were done to the flowerbed?
The only pertinent question is, where there any non human 'traces' in the samples analysed.What samples were taken from the flowerbed?
If there wasn't all reference to pigs is pure hogwash.
The only pertinent question is, where there any non human 'traces' in the samples analysed.
If there wasn't all reference to pigs is pure hogwash.
Were there any non human traces in The Death Scent?
That is precisely what I am asking.
If they're wasn't then all this about the pigs is irrelevant.
If you think it is possible to detect no human traces in a Death Scent then you are a better man than I am, Gunger Din
The dog alerted to the flowerbed. What forensics were done on the flowerbed?
The dog alerted to the flowerbed. What forensics were done on the flowerbed?
The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html
ETA.
Sorry FM, You beat me to it.
It's you who doesn't understand.
There would be clear biochemical differences between the pig and human, bar transgenic species.
Now did the forensic samples indicate the presence of any pig D.N.A. from those collected where the dogs alerted ?
but the dogs only react to what they are trained for
The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.I wonder how they determined which bit of the bush to send off? Was it the bit that Keela specifically pointed to with her nose? So the bed itself was not examined, just the bush?
(John Lowe)
That reference suggests a prior reference to the fragments of bushes which I can't find for the moment.
But that was presumably all sent off because Kela alerted ...
A signalling error by Keela ....
It would be the SCENT the dog was alerting to not DNA.
Eddie was trained using decomposing piglets but he had also found human remains previously. He wasn't a new recruit, he had experience and knew exactly what scent he was searching for. If such dogs alerted to all the materials suggested on here there would be no police force using them now.
Eddie was trained using decomposing piglets but he had also found human remains previously. He wasn't a new recruit, he had experience and knew exactly what scent he was searching for. If such dogs alerted to all the materials suggested on here there would be no police force using them now.
Eddie was trained using decomposing piglets but he had also found human remains previously. He wasn't a new recruit, he had experience and knew exactly what scent he was searching for. If such dogs alerted to all the materials suggested on here there would be no police force using them now.If you take a metal detector out to look for treasure and it beeps and you discover a rusty nail, you discard that and move on and keep searching. You don't stop using the detector because it made a few wrong bleeps, eventually it will bleep on something of value. What's the difference between that and a VRD?
Eddie also alerted to blood Gunit, blood is in fertiliser, Grime also he said it was difficult for the dog to distinguish between pig and human remains, it is quite possible he could smell pig blood.
So what did Eddie alert to in the garden?
They should have taken samples of the soil.
If you take a metal detector out to look for treasure and it beeps and you discover a rusty nail, you discard that and move on and keep searching. You don't stop using the detector because it made a few wrong bleeps, eventually it will bleep on something of value. What's the difference between that and a VRD?
I wonder how they determined which bit of the bush to send off? Was it the bit that Keela specifically pointed to with her nose? So the bed itself was not examined, just the bush?
It would be the SCENT the dog was alerting to not DNA.
Trouble is all a wrong bleep says is you have failed to find the metal.
Yep.
Certainly the curtain seems to be a signalling error by Keela.
I think the bushes might have been sent off at the recommendation of a technician (in fairness to Keela).
I would need to go back and check that, though.
It would be the SCENT the dog was alerting to not DNA.
Yep.
Certainly the curtain seems to be a signalling error by Keela.
I think the bushes might have been sent off at the recommendation of a technician (in fairness to Keela).
I would need to go back and check that, though.
Yep. Could be Pig Scent.
Really, so where was the scent laid down, and what proof was there that it originated with pig products ?
The scent would have been wafting from the garden obviously.
What proof is there that it wasn't pig products?
Pig products? It would have to be decomposed pig, not 'products'. Likely?
Sorry you're right should have been pig residue. 8((()*/
The scent would have been wafting from the garden obviously.
What proof is there that it wasn't pig residue?
edited to change 'products' to 'residue'
An error? You're declaring that based on the FSS reports?
The samples recovered and sent to UK were degraded. The failure of tests on degraded material can't be used as evidence the same tests would have failed had they been done 3 months earlier.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Nothing in the forensic results.
What forensic results?
It isn't possible to define what is in a death scent. It could be Pig Scent from the garden.
Are you saying that the scent molecules remain stationary in the air ?
Obviously they wouldn't.
They would be coming from a source and if therw was a pig residue it would have shown up from the samples collected.
I just had a thought, Grime says Eddie wouldn't alert to any edible pig products, such as pork, pork chop, bacon etc. He used piglets not fit for human consumption, by that I think he means they were decomposing piglets. Yet he took a piece of pork drenched it in petrol, burnt it, hid it, and Eddie alerted to it. Surely if you took say a pork chop drenched it in petrol, burnt it, hid it, Eddie would alert to that too, it's all pork at the end of the day and I would think burnt pork would give off the same scent no matter what shape of food it started off in, wouldn't it?
I just had a thought, Grime says Eddie wouldn't alert to any edible pig products, such as pork, pork chop, bacon etc. He used piglets not fit for human consumption, by that I think he means they were decomposing piglets. Yet he took a piece of pork drenched it in petrol, burnt it, hid it, and Eddie alerted to it. Surely if you took say a pork chop drenched it in petrol, burnt it, hid it, Eddie would alert to that too, it's all pork at the end of the day and I would think burnt pork would give off the same scent no matter what shape of food it started off in, wouldn't it?
What samples?
Trouble is all a wrong bleep says is you have failed to find the metal.So?
What do you think the FSS were analysing ?
Are you saying that the scent molecules remain stationary in the air ?
Obviously they wouldn't.
They would be coming from a source and if therw was a pig residue it would have shown up from the samples collected.
Human Blood. None of it Madeleines.
So in the burnt sample there was something to detect.
Now what did the forensics show ???
&%&£(+
A pork chop is not decomposed, and neither is it the whole animal. Dogs are trained on decomposing whole animals (pigs).
of course scent molecules do not remain stationary in the air...they would disperse in wind and rain....so how many molecules would remain for the dog to detect...ask Avogadro...I reckon it would be none...but it is nearly 50 years since I studied my science s levels...so I just may have forgotten a little
The curtain was sent to the FSS because Keela reacted.
No blood was found by the FSS.
Signalling error by Keela
What are you on about Stephen? Grime just showed how Eddie would detect a piece of pork that had been burnt, whilst training Eddie, I don't think forensics would have been involved as it was a piece of pork Grime had required not from a murdered pig.
What are you on about Stephen? Grime just showed how Eddie would detect a piece of pork that had been burnt, whilst training Eddie, I don't think forensics would have been involved as it was a piece of pork Grime had required not from a murdered pig.
That's not in 'S' levels dave.
Moles and Avogadro's Constant are taught in G.C.S.E. these days, and 'O' Levels when I learned it.
Is that the white curtain - the same curtain which Keela did not alert to on the first visit?
Can you provide the link to that please ?
I was being a little sarcastic...I only took A level chemistry...it was normal to take only 2 s levels and I took physics and further maths.
Still I don't see many molecules remaining outside after 3 months...with wind and rain..if any..
In training the dog has accurately alerted to a 1 cm cube of pork soaked in
petrol for 1 week and then burnt until only a residue remains.
(Martin Grime)
You know very well that none of the blood found in 5A was proven to be Madeleines.
Of course dave.
There are many variables involved, other than wind and rain.
b.pt / adsorbance onto surfaces, which would differ according to the compound(s) being adsorbed and the material(s) onto which they were adsorbed. let's not forget wither that would be affected by intermolecular forces and interactions occurring between the compounds involved. However, I'm sure you know that already.
I know enough to realise that all of that is of little significance compared to wind a rain...the gas molecules would quickly dissipate....would you not agree
Gas molecules dave ?
it would be vapours at best from liquids.
How many diammines have low boiling points ?
and diammines are just one section of the possible compounds present.
Can you provide the link ?
Bearing in mind the forensic results were inconclusive and the genetic markers present, were insufficient In Portuguese Law to show some of the samples came from Madeleine.
First I think you missed out intramolecular forces in you previous post...
yes gas molecules..isn't that what is reaching eddies nose....water has a boiling point of 100deg c yet water evaporates into a gas
Stop trying to derail the discussion, Stephen. I am not hunting for cites that are already on this Forum. You look for it.
First I think you missed out intramolecular forces in you previous post...re the breakdown of large molecules by rain
yes gas molecules..isn't that what is reaching eddies nose....water has a boiling point of 100deg c yet water evaporates into a gas
Smell depends on sensory receptors that respond to airborne chemicals...if the chemical are airborne they would dissipate in wind and rain
That's not really relevant dave, as regards intramolecular forces. You've been googling again. Internal molecular forces, be they H-Bonding, Dipole-Dipole or Van der Waal's are irrelevant here.
Under 'normal' conditions dave water evaporates into a vapour.
that's right...water vapour...water in the form of a gas resulting from heating water or ice
anything in the air will dissipate in wind and rain...surely you understand taht
for stephen
In physics a vapor (American English spelling) or vapour (British) is a substance in the gas phase at a temperature lower than its critical point.
so a vapour IS a gas...and I do understand what I have pasted
Double dutch dave.
A vapour represents molecules which have sufficient Kinetic Energy to escape from the surface of a liquid, which hasn't reached it's b.pt.
that's right...water vapour...water in the form of a gas resulting from heating water or ice
anything in the air will dissipate in wind and rain...surely you understand taht
Googled again dave.
For you dave, what is meant by the b.pt ?
see my post above Stephen...a vapour is a gas...and like a gas the molecules exhibit Brownian motion and will dissipate...If this didn't happen we would have no rain
what a simply stupid question...
I'm not derailing.
The forensic results were inconclusive.
FACT.
see my post above Stephen...a vapour is a gas...and like a gas the molecules exhibit Brownian motion and will dissipate...If this didn't happen we would have no rain
I'm not derailing.
The forensic results were inconclusive.
FACT.
Wrong dave.
Water molecules bond adhere to nuclei such as dust particles inside clouds forming water droplets or the equivalent.
Brownian Motion dave, merely demonstrates Kinetic Theory.
Well, yes. The one spot in 5A comprising five alleles compatible with hers is indeed, erm, inconclusive. All three of unrelated DNA profiles that somehow got published in the files had at least that many in common.
and these clouds dissipate....they move...with wind
Brownian Motion dave, merely demonstrates Kinetic Theory.
which causes dissipation of the gas...those gas molecules could be over Australia by now
Indeed. 8**8:/:
you did not realise a vapour was a gas...epic fail stephen
dog's smell by alerting to airborne molecules...airborne molecules dissipate....I don't see how any molecules would be left outside in the wind and rain
No dave.
I know the key difference between a vapour and a gas.
e.g. At room temperature and pressure, r.t.p. for you dave, OXYGEN IS A GAS, WATER IS A LIQUID.
Some water molecules escape the surface and become a vapor because they have gained extra K.E.
This does not make liquid water a gas dave.
Do keep up.
water vapour IS a gas...epic fail
What rain dave ?
What rain dave ?
Dear oh dear.
Water becomes a gas above it's b.pt.
There is helping you, is there. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
the rain caused by the water in the sea that changes into the gas called water VAPOUR that then falls on the land
You really will have to stop googling.
Try looking up the water cycle.
and the dogs alerted.
Yet the forensic results have shown no pig residues.
wrong ..molecules escape and become water vapour...which is a gas...below the b.pt
I think you need to start googling...try googling vapour and you will find out it is a gasI don't need to dave.
I don't need to dave.
Why do you think there are 2 different terms ?
google it and you will find out
No dave, it isn't.
That is why we have the term b.pt.
By the way, without googling it, what is meant bty the term 'latent heat of vapourization' ?
I learned that decades ago dave.
I don't need to google it.
I suggest you stop answering stupid questions...I think we covered that when I was about 12
a vapour is a gas
Of course you did dave, of course you did.
is that rather like your son carrying out l;og calculation at the age of 9 ?
I never said he carried out a log calculation...I said he worked out the answer... I'm very precise with words..you are not
a vapour is a gas
You can't do a calculation dave unless you understand the topic ?
You and your son, both got it wrong.
By the way, logs don't get taught until pupils reach AS level. 8)-)))
I never said he did any calculation...that's twice now...I said he worked out the answer...
I made the post not to show off my sons prowess at maths but to show how easy it is to misunderstand a statement...you have proved the point
More double dutch.
You have proved nothing.
How can he do a calculation he doesn't understand.
When you do a calculation you get an answer, if of course you're capable.
You both got the answer wrong.
You are wrong. I have done calculations I don't understand, and got the right answer.
More double dutch.
You have proved nothing.
How can he do a calculation he doesn't understand.
When you do a calculation you get an answer, if of course you're capable.
You both got the answer wrong.
its actually English...third time...he didn't do the calculation but he managed to work out the right answer...
remember lateral thinking
More double dutch.
You have proved nothing.
How can he do a calculation he doesn't understand.
When you do a calculation you get an answer, if of course you're capable.
You both got the answer wrong.
Nothing to do with lateral thinking at all.
To get an answer you do a calculation, with or without the use of a calculator.
You both got the answer wrong.
So what does that say about you and your son's thinking ? &%+((£
what I've proved is how easy it is to misunderstand the written and spoken word...three times I have said he worked out the answer....yet you keep saying he would be unable to do the calculation...
for the fourth time he worked out the answer but did not do the calculation...they do it on "A question of sport" all the time
for the fifth time...Jack worked out the answer but didn't do the calculation...think laterally
The answer was wrong.
End of story.
Since when have log calculations featured on a ''Question of Sport'' ?
The answer was wrong.
End of story.
Since when have log calculations featured on a ''Question of Sport'' ?
if I told you the answer you would understand...as it is you are getting more and more confused
he worked out the answer but did not do the calculation...it was a childrens online game,,,,the correct answer opened the door
Sounds like Jackanory. 8(0(*
The answer was wrong dave.
log to the base 4 of (1/8) = -3/2.
NOT -2/3.
I hope that helps.
I just had a thought, Grime says Eddie wouldn't alert to any edible pig products, such as pork, pork chop, bacon etc. He used piglets not fit for human consumption, by that I think he means they were decomposing piglets. Yet he took a piece of pork drenched it in petrol, burnt it, hid it, and Eddie alerted to it. Surely if you took say a pork chop drenched it in petrol, burnt it, hid it, Eddie would alert to that too, it's all pork at the end of the day and I would think burnt pork would give off the same scent no matter what shape of food it started off in, wouldn't it?
just tell me it's impossible Stephen...like the abduction is impossible
I would expect the pork to be part of a decomposing piglet, otherwise Grime was training him to alert to normal pork. He wouldn't do that because it would mess up all his previous training. This type of training allowed Eddie to alert to such things as;
The search of a suspect's 'totally burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence.
A 'one minute' search by the EVRD identified a position in the rear passenger footwell where the dog alerted to the presence of human material.
A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim's DNA.
The enquiry then concentrated it's efforts on the suspect and the EVRD located the body of the woman in a river bank deposition site.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
yes Stephen...it's been nearly 50 yrs since I did such a calculation....but Jack worked out the answer himself
I know enough to realise that all of that is of little significance compared to wind a rain...the gas molecules would quickly dissipate....would you not agree
Ding gong.
You both got it wrong. 8(0(*
I don't think wind and rain were a problem for Eddie;
The dog will locate human cadaver in water either from the bank side or when
deployed in a boat where a large area may be covered using a gridding system.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
no Jack got it right...then he got the next more difficult one right whose answer was 22...but that took a little longer
No dave.
Log to the base 4 of (1/8) = - 1.5.
Not -2/3.
If it helps , just try ( log 0.125 ) / ( log 4 ) ?{)(**
yes the answer was 4 and Jack got it right...is that the tenth time I've told you that
No dave.
Log to the base 4 of (1/8) = - 1.5.
Not -2/3.
If it helps , just try ( log 0.125 ) / ( log 4 ) = -3/2 or -1.5.
but it's wrong dave.
Try it on a calculator.
THE ANSWER IS not -2/3.
oh you are confused... I misquoted the question slightly...didn't expect the Portuguese inquisition...nobody does...but the answer was x=4...and Jack worked it out
You didn't misquote.
You and your son got it wrong.
stop acting like a duck....the whole point is that Jack got the answer right...x=4...without doing the calculation...when I posed the question I put logx(I/8)=-2/3 instead of -3/2.....but jack worked it out
9 year olds are not taught logs in schools.
It's about time you stopped telling stories.
You get caught out.
That is a "D" in the thread title, not an "L"
It says "Amaral and the Dogs"
he didn't need to understand logs to find the answerYou don't need logarithms to do 1.416...+21.25
You don't need logarithms to do 1.416...+21.25
It's elementary decimal addition.
the wind and the rain would be problem as they would dissipate the residual scent...in the case of a cadaver it would not be a problem as we are not dealing with residual scent
at least its stopped Stephen quoting totally irrelevant chemistry for the last couple of hours
Does it rain bleach in PdL? Even if it did it wouldn't affect cadaver scent.
Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
these shrubs the dogs alerted to, the ones from which cuttings were analysed for traces of blood, isn't it likely that they were pruned by gardeners at some point between the beginning of May and mid-July?I feel sure that somewhere it says that the gardeners were in during the first days of the Mccann stay. If anyone finds to the contrary pls let me know .
I would expect the pork to be part of a decomposing piglet, otherwise Grime was training him to alert to normal pork. He wouldn't do that because it would mess up all his previous training. This type of training allowed Eddie to alert to such things as;
The search of a suspect's 'totally burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence.
A 'one minute' search by the EVRD identified a position in the rear passenger footwell where the dog alerted to the presence of human material.
A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim's DNA.
The enquiry then concentrated it's efforts on the suspect and the EVRD located the body of the woman in a river bank deposition site.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Tell me where in the forensic reports it mentions that anything found belonged to Madeleine?
No checks were made as to what Eddie was alerting to in the bedroom and the garden, he could well have been alerting to the scent from the vegetation in the garden.
Now tell me Stephen would Eddie have been able to distinguish the scent from blood of pig used in fertiliser and the smell of cadaver scent?
Snipped from a report by Martin Grime read what it says at the end of this report.
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. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.
So Martin Grime is saying he is unable to train the dog to distinguish between human and pig scent. He has also said Eddie will alert to blood, we know Eddie alerted to blood from live human beings himself and Gerry McCann there is blood in pig whether it is decayed or not, Eddie would not be able to distinguish between the two.
More cut and paste.
Now just tell me which part of the forensic report showed the presence of pig remains ?
More cut and paste.
Now just tell me which part of the forensic report showed the presence of pig remains ?
More cut and paste.
Now just tell me which part of the forensic report showed the presence of pig remains ?
first its copy and paste not cut and paste so you are wrong there
second it's providing a cite which is something you should take note of
first its copy and paste not cut and paste so you are wrong thereYou knew exactly what I meant.
second it's providing a cite which is something you should take note of
You knew exactly what I meant.
Now tell me dave, in the forensic report, where does it show that any of the organic material came from any pig residue ?
fortunately I do know what you meant...just pointing out you criticised others when you are wrong yourself.
For the millionth time no one knows what eddie alerted to...even Grime doesn't know
What pig residue was found in the samples collected dave ?
Snipped from a report by Martin Grime read what it says at the end of this report.
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. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.
So Martin Grime is saying he is unable to train the dog to distinguish between human and pig scent. He has also said Eddie will alert to blood, we know Eddie alerted to blood from live human beings himself and Gerry McCann there is blood in pig whether it is decayed or not, Eddie would not be able to distinguish between the two.
More cut and paste.
Now just tell me which part of the forensic report showed the presence of pig remains ?
It`s just the latest "on trend" idea causing a bit of excitement.......originating from the idea of pig based fertiliser possibly tracked about everywhere from the garden on shoes and paws.
It`ll be rotting horse- dung from the road sprayed up around the hire car next.
It`s just the latest "on trend" idea causing a bit of excitement.......originating from the idea of pig based fertiliser possibly tracked about everywhere from the garden on shoes and paws.
It`ll be rotting horse- dung from the road sprayed up around the hire car next.
Are you saying it could NOT have been pig based fertiliser that Eddie alerted to? What did he alert to in the garden Carew?
good someone posting on topic...so how long does residual scent last...1 month...2 months ...3 months
I thought you knew?
Check out Matt Zarella's work looking for MIA's in Nam.
I really can't understand how Grime can say Eddie will not alert to pork other than from decaying pigs, when he says himself that they cannot be trained to distinguish between human and pig remains, and also admits that Eddie will alert to blood even showing a video of himself hiding a sample of blood [from himself] for Eddie to find.
Blood is in Pork fresh or decaying, Eddie would not be able to distinguish between the blood in pork and the blood in humans fresh or decaying.
Good point 8((()*/
If thgey are so alike that he cannot distinguish between human and pig remains, Eddie would be likely to alert to fresh blood of pigs as he does to human fresh blood,
Isn`t pig-residue of some sort the trending idea, as I posted, then?
Any evidence to back the pig-based fertiliser ?
Let's try you sadie.
What pig remains cooked or residues were found in the samples collected ?
Given that many of the samples actually collected required the use of LCN analysis to get any result at all, and according to the forensic reports the underlying material could not be identified, who knows what it was.
But please not let small details interfere with your diatribe.
Small details JP.
It has become quite sad how mccann supporters have become deperately fixated with pigs.
good someone posting on topic...so how long does residual scent last...1 month...2 months ...3 months
The examples below are referring to an undisturbed, unoccupied and not regularly cleaned, closed building.
In normal circumstances I would be very surprised if scent lasted more than a couple of months(inside or out), but I could be wrong.
............................................................................
Excerpt.
What we have found so far is; residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.
Excerpt.
Since the original set up date on November 9, 1996, we have returned to the building 4 times: January 8, 1997, April 2, 1997, July 23, 1997 and December 7, 1997. On our visit in April we found that they had removed most of the original furniture and some boxes of trash, so the building had little left in it. Two of the objects (the ironing board and a box of trash), that had held scent sources were now missing.
Excerpt.
Room #18 - area where trash can had been - dogs all indicated
area and showed pile of curtains now on floor but had been
hanging above trash can originally. Curtains are porous and
holding scent.
Excerpt.
Our next step in studying residual scent is to set up problems in different environments. We want to compare our results with problems set up in open areas, areas with sun and shade and no building to protect the scent.
http://www.csst.org/residual_scent.html
Given that many of the samples actually collected required the use of LCN analysis to get any result at all, and according to the forensic reports the underlying material could not be identified, who knows what it was.
But please not let small details interfere with your diatribe.
this is why I have always questioned the alert in the flower bed.... if there was some sort of residue present then perhaps...but nothing was found...residual scent will not last that long outside with wind and raion
Was there any indication in the forensic reports to suggest that the "underlying material" could be other than human in origin?
Is it from the forensic reports that the idea of pigs could have originated ?
*snip*
"There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however
see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat
foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Was simply exploring ideas as to reasons for the dog alerts. Nothing that could have related to a cadaver was found at the sites. And nothing was found and analysed that could show that Madeleine was dead. So this line of enquiry would seem to be a dead end.
The flower bed alerts could possibly have resulted from a fish, blood and bone type of fertiliser, where the dried blood component is a by product of slaughterhouses. If Eddie alerts to dried blood, and to rotting rig, would he alert to dried pig blood? I don't know the answer to that but it would seem to be logical.
The thing is Carew pig blood could have been used in the fertiliser on the garden, could be Eddie doesn't alert to cooked lamb chops etc. as the blood could have been cooked out or different when cooked who knows, yet he alerted to a piece of pork that had been soaked in petrol and burnt.
Good point 8((()*/
If thgey are so alike that he cannot distinguish between human and pig remains, Eddie would be likely to alert to fresh blood of pigs as he does to human fresh blood,
He could differentiate between human and animal blood and he was trained using mostly human cadaver odour.
Simply not true ...
Cite?
that isn't residual scent......
I do have a good idea.........outside in wind a nd rain I can't see residual scent lasting 3 months
Check all the documents.
"You can't see" ?
We are supposed to take that as an authoritative statement?
It would seem merely to be another unsubstantiated opinion.
He could differentiate between human and animal blood and he was trained using mostly human cadaver odour.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Dog's noses can tell the difference;
The dog's olfactory system is so highly developed that it continues to be efficient at cellular level:
Distinguish human blood from other species where the chemical constituent parts are identical.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
G unit this is a snip of a report by Martin Grime
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. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.
Now once more, when did the forensic report stipulate the finding of ANY PIG RESIDUES ?
It's really very simple.
Either Eddie alerted to some pig-based product (within his trained repertoire) or he alerted falsely.
Which?
Eddie was initially trained on decomposing piglets. He was enhanced by being trained on human decomposing renains. so he was trained on both. He also alerted to human blood. He had years of experience too, which is invaluable whether you are a dog or a human. He knew what he was looking for.
and what of human traces ferryman ?
There were none in the flower-bed of apartment 5a PdL
However, you and others claim pig residues would give the same reaction.
It seems plausible ....'
'
It is plausible, that there was an alert to 'human residue', but the samples tested from the flower bed did not contain any.
Carefully weighing that alert in the context of the whole of the rest of the investigation, I would say, no ...
Why ?
and what is your opinion worth as a googler ?
Google throws up interesting and pertinent stuff, as I believe I (and others!) have demonstrated.
NOT QUITE.
You select what suits your agenda, AND THAT IS WELL KNOWN.
A picture of Eddie which should be a big clue that he did not alert to the scent of fish alive or dead.
http://i.imgur.com/vldy8zT.jpg?1-EVRD-Eddie-UK_Justice_Forum
In the video of the dogs if you look in the wardrobe where the blue tennis bag is you might see half a pound of pork sausages
Did you enjoy then with a bottle of chianti ? *&*%£
Eddie was initially trained on decomposing piglets. He was enhanced by being trained on human decomposing renains. so he was trained on both. He also alerted to human blood. He had years of experience too, which is invaluable whether you are a dog or a human. He knew what he was looking for.So, if you accept that he alerted to both pig and to human remains how the jiggery did Martin Grime communicate to Eddie to only alert to human cadaver scent when in PdL? Or was he initially trained to alert to pigs and then trained not to alert to pigs, and if so - how is that communicated via the handler?
Alerts all over the place could then have been possible since tracking through from the outside spaces/gardens would occur everywhere.No, because the dogs have to be primed by the handler to commence work mode, if not then presumably they would both be alerting all over the place anyway, unless you believe we live in a completely sterile world in which no drop of blood ever gets spilt anywhere.
Sausages and Chianti ... Oh dear...what appalling taste
If I was going to drink Italian red it would be Barolo
But much prefer South American
His leg fur is very wet but his mouth is empty. Perhaps he swallowed the evidence.
Nice promotional picture for the outdoor pursuits apparel company!
No, because the dogs have to be primed by the handler to commence work mode, if not then presumably they would both be alerting all over the place anyway, unless you believe we live in a completely sterile world in which no drop of blood ever gets spilt anywhere.
@)(++(*
Of course, the other point is that all working dogs alert only when given a signal by their instructor/owner that they are to be in work mode ...
A clothing model would be very upset to be told that posing for the camera wasn't being in work mode.....
@)(++(*
Of course, the other point is that all working dogs alert only when given a signal by their instructor/owner that they are to be in work mode ...
Have you lot thought about forming a Porkie Appreciation Club ? *&*%£
His leg fur is very wet but his mouth is empty. Perhaps he swallowed the evidence.
Nice promotional picture for the outdoor pursuits apparel company!
Why all the sneering?
As it is Martin Grime himself who brought up the fact that the dogs can't distinguish between pigmeat and human remains - I don't understand why sceptics are so quick to dismiss the subject.
He obviously thought it was an important point to make when it came to discussing/explaining how the dogs operate - so what's wrong with posters here discussing it too - and why do you have such a problem with that?
Are we any nearer to a conclusion on this thread with nearly four thousand posts?
Were the dogs a waste of time and money?
Did Gonçalo Amaral understand the findings?
Carefully weighing that alert in the context of the whole of the rest of the investigation, I would say, no ...
Are we any nearer to a conclusion on this thread with nearly four thousand posts?IMO - Goncalo either didn't understand or chose not to understand the dog alerts, same as most "sceptics" to this day. Bringing in dogs should have been a worthwhile exercise but there are many questions about the manner in which they were deployed. At the end of the day, and as Davel keeps stating, the alerts mean nothing without corroborating evidence and IMO are a complete irrelevance to the current investigation.
Were the dogs a waste of time and money?
Did Gonçalo Amaral understand the findings?
Are we any nearer to a conclusion on this thread with nearly four thousand posts?
Were the dogs a waste of time and money?
Did Gonçalo Amaral understand the findings?
Are we any nearer to a conclusion on this thread with nearly four thousand posts?
Were the dogs a waste of time and money?
Did Gonçalo Amaral understand the findings?
I think if Mr Amaral did not understand the findings it is proof that he is a very stupid man indeed.
Can someone explain to me why if the McCann's innocence was all in Amaral's imagination why the continued to bear guides for over ten months after Rebelo took over the investigation ?
Can someone translate the above post into intelligible English?
Can someone translate the above post into intelligible English?
Eddie was initially trained on decomposing piglets. He was enhanced by being trained on human decomposing renains. so he was trained on both. He also alerted to human blood. He had years of experience too, which is invaluable whether you are a dog or a human. He knew what he was looking for.
One fact stands out above all else in relation to the deployment of the cadaver and csi dogs and that is that they were brought in to find evidence that Madeleine had died in apartment 5a with the hope that her remains might be found. In this the British and Portuguese police were equally complicit.
My own view is that they were far too late in bringing in these dogs.
Can someone explain to me why if the McCann's innocence was all in Amaral's imagination why the continued to bear guides for over ten months after Rebelo took over the investigation ?
Is that the Brand name of a company, Misty?
I thought it was Keela's very own wet suit ... but it isn't hers ... she's advertising ???
No, because the dogs have to be primed by the handler to commence work mode, if not then presumably they would both be alerting all over the place anyway, unless you believe we live in a completely sterile world in which no drop of blood ever gets spilt anywhere.
IMO - Goncalo either didn't understand or chose not to understand the dog alerts, same as most "sceptics" to this day. Bringing in dogs should have been a worthwhile exercise but there are many questions about the manner in which they were deployed. At the end of the day, and as Davel keeps stating, the alerts mean nothing without corroborating evidence and IMO are a complete irrelevance to the current investigation.
One fact stands out above all else in relation to the deployment of the cadaver and csi dogs and that is that they were brought in to find evidence that Madeleine had died in apartment 5a with the hope that her remains might be found. In this the British and Portuguese police were equally complicit.
My own view is that they were far too late in bringing in these dogs.
Not sure about with the hope.
You don't, ever, hope to find the body of a child, do you?
But certainly, the PJ determined that the enquiry (from the point of the arrival of input from the UK) should be a murder enquiry, and yes, the dogs of Grime were brought in to look for evidence of death, and also to search for a body.
Keela International, Brietta. You can see he company logo beside the name.
It's Eddie wearing the jacket according to the link Pegasus provided for the photo.
Yes, because when "work-mode" has commenced, the pig blood contaminants and other alert triggers put forward as possibilities ........and to which apparently Eddie cannot be "unlearned" and allegedly will alert to......... are still there, aren`t they?
Wow ... something is germinating somewhere ... keep it up.
Can someone explain to me why if the McCann's innocence was all in Amaral's imagination why the continued to bear guides for over ten months after Rebelo took over the investigation ?Did you mean to say "why they continued to be arguidos for over ten months after Rebelo took over the investigation..." Well you could ask the same question about Murat, who ceased to be an arguido at the same time as the McCanns. Do you think this is evidence that he is somehow complicit? Also, what of the current arguidos?
Stephen: Give it a rest.
And Eleanor: Grime bestowed the "Enhanced" title on Eddie after he returned from his (largely unsuccessful) trip to America in the New Year 2006.
Yes, because when "work-mode" has commenced, the pig blood contaminants and other alert triggers put forward as possibilities ........and to which apparently Eddie cannot be "unlearned" and allegedly will alert to......... are still there, aren`t they?Who knows, it's a mystery isn't it? We KNOW Eddie alerts to dried human blood (see sex tissue alert and Martin Grime's own acknowledgement of that fact) and yet apparently he didn't alert anywhere else except to the McCanns property and possessions. Obviously if Eddie did not alert to dried blood there would be no need to send Keela in after him in order to 'explain' some of his alerts.
Did you mean to say "why they continued to be arguidos for over ten months after Rebelo took over the investigation..." Well you could ask the same question about Murat, who ceased to be an arguido at the same time as the McCanns. Do you think this is evidence that he is somehow complicit? Also, what of the current arguidos?
Did you mean to say "why they continued to be arguidos for over ten months after Rebelo took over the investigation..." Well you could ask the same question about Murat, who ceased to be an arguido at the same time as the McCanns. Do you think this is evidence that he is somehow complicit? Also, what of the current arguidos?
Was Murat or anyone connected to him questioned under the letters rogatory ?
No
Who knows, it's a mystery isn't it? We KNOW Eddie alerts to dried human blood (see sex tissue alert and Martin Grime's own acknowledgement of that fact) and yet apparently he didn't alert anywhere else except to the McCanns property and possessions. Obviously if Eddie did not alert to dried blood there would be no need to send Keela in after him in order to 'explain' some of his alerts.
Do you not find it all even a teensy bit inexplicable?
Is that rather like the mccann supporters believing in 'pig scent' ?
Yet the McCann's friends were. I think that says everything about Rebelo's thinking at the time.
Are we any nearer to a conclusion on this thread with nearly four thousand posts?How long did Amaral get to understand the dogs and their findings?
Were the dogs a waste of time and money?
Did Gonçalo Amaral understand the findings?
Yet the McCann's friends were. I think that says everything about Rebelo's thinking at the time.What does it say about Rebelo's thinking at the time? Did he think their friends were in on it then?
Yet the McCann's friends were. I think that says everything about Rebelo's thinking at the time.
Yet Eddie cannot detect minute traces of blood in the same fashion as Keela, so which comes first - the cadaver or the blood?So at what point is Eddie unable to detect blood? How minute does the speck have to be before he can't detect it? Rhetorical question.
Ant one of those other nine vehicles could have contained minute blood traces of a living, findable Madeleine but Keela couldn't check simply because Eddie didn't bark.
So at what point is Eddie unable to detect blood? How minute does the speck have to be before he can't detect it? Rhetorical question.
Pig scent as you call it is what Eddie was trained on to start with.
How long did Amaral get to understand the dogs and their findings?
How long has this forum had?
Is there any agreement after 4,000 posts and now 8.5 years into the case?
It makes me feel quite sad that Amaral based his theory solely on the alerts of the dogs. The one behind the sofa was probably a speck of blood [not Madeleine's] there was nothing on the curtains nothing on the wall. Eddie alerted to the bedroom, to what is unknown and to the garden again unknown and neither alert was investigated enough to get to the bottom of them. Then Eddie alerted to the car to what who knows again as the sample from the car showed DNA from three people maybe as many as five. The idea that the McCann's put a frozen Madeleine in the car is ludicrous to the extreme, but still all these alerts are being used as evidence against the McCann's and Madeleine is still missing 8(8-))
Are we any nearer to a conclusion on this thread with nearly four thousand posts?
Were the dogs a waste of time and money?
Did Gonçalo Amaral understand the findings?
One or two anomalies. It's always struck me as anomalous that Mrs Fenn (as the person closest to the scene of the crime at the time it was committed) was never interviewed by Rogatory.But she was a resident of Portugal, therefore no international rogatory letter would have been required.
Perhaps she was asked but declined.
Perhaps others were asked but also declined.
Can someone explain to me why if the McCann's innocence was all in Amaral's imagination why the continued to bear guides for over ten months after Rebelo took over the investigation ?
But she was a resident of Portugal, therefore no international rogatory letter would have been required.
How long did Amaral get to understand the dogs and their findings?
How long has this forum had?
Is there any agreement after 4,000 posts and now 8.5 years into the case?
Murat and associates were in Portugal. No need for Rogatory Letters.
Was Murat or anyone connected to him questioned under the letters rogatory ?
Who knows, it's a mystery isn't it? We KNOW Eddie alerts to dried human blood (see sex tissue alert and Martin Grime's own acknowledgement of that fact) and yet apparently he didn't alert anywhere else except to the McCanns property and possessions. Obviously if Eddie did not alert to dried blood there would be no need to send Keela in after him in order to 'explain' some of his alerts.
Do you not find it all even a teensy bit inexplicable?
One or two anomalies. It's always struck me as anomalous that Mrs Fenn (as the person closest to the scene of the crime at the time it was committed) was never interviewed by Rogatory.
Perhaps she was asked but declined.
Perhaps others were asked but also declined.
So was he questioned again by Rebelo ?
One or two anomalies. It's always struck me as anomalous that Mrs Fenn (as the person closest to the scene of the crime at the time it was committed) was never interviewed by Rogatory.
Perhaps she was asked but declined.
Perhaps others were asked but also declined.
OK
But she was never interviewed a second time.
How long did Amaral get to understand the dogs and their findings?
How long has this forum had?
Is there any agreement after 4,000 posts and now 8.5 years into the case?
The obfuscation eight years down the line is entirely due to Mr Amaral's interpretation or misinterpretation ... understanding of misunderstanding.
It wasn't until after the press had brought her up in the press that she was interviewed at all (unless an early interview is missing from the files).
A further point, there, Shining, is that Amaral, apparently, felt he understood forensics well enough to contradict and correct Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensics.
Of course, we can't judge that because we don't see Stuart Prior's report.
But Amaral was certainly surrounded by people who did understand the forensics and who would willingly have explained them to him if he'd asked. But (again, according to his book) he had British personnel put under secret surveillance, because he didn't trust them ....
What I find rather more than a teensy bit inexplicable is posters, whilst believing and maintaining that Eddie cannot be "unlearned," .........(so the work or play mode can`t apply, ).........from alerting to an almost unlimited number of contaminants tracked about and deposited just about everywhere; never-the-less manage to reconcile it with the fact that he didn`t do so.
They still bang on about how many substances Eddie would alert to.
As to your point about Keela`s role...........Wasn`t she sent in following an alert by Eddie in order to pinpoint any actual forensic sample which could lead to the identification of the person to whom it belongs?
It makes me feel quite sad that Amaral based his theory solely on the alerts of the dogs. The one behind the sofa was probably a speck of blood [not Madeleine's] there was nothing on the curtains nothing on the wall. Eddie alerted to the bedroom, to what is unknown and to the garden again unknown and neither alert was investigated enough to get to the bottom of them. Then Eddie alerted to the car to what who knows again as the sample from the car showed DNA from three people maybe as many as five. The idea that the McCann's put a frozen Madeleine in the car is ludicrous to the extreme, but still all these alerts are being used as evidence against the McCann's and Madeleine is still missing 8(8-))
You don't know the human blood Keela alerted to behind the sofa and in the boot wasn't Madeleine's.
How is there room for speculation about the DNA tests? It was those results that allowed you to advance with the arguido status.
GA: The speculation is done by the scientist who performs the test. He starts out by saying, in his preliminary report, that it was easy to say that it was Maddie. Then he raised other questions. Of course nobody can be accused, based on that data alone.
There's never been a dispute that Madeleine's DNA (distinct from Madeleine!) might well have been in the boot.
But as an aficionado of the dogs, on this occasion, you should pay heed to the dog.
Eddie never alerted to the boot.
Why is that?
He alerted to the source of the scent i.e. where it was escaping from the car. The source could be the boot because the whole car would be full of scent.
The obfuscation eight years down the line is entirely due to Mr Amaral's interpretation or misinterpretation ... understanding of misunderstanding.
The source of the scent was Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
That is forensically proved.
Yes but you can't rule out both on the key - blood and cadaver scent contaminated.
The source of the scent was Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
That is forensically proved.
As we have been through before..........the blood on the ignition key being Gerry`s does not confirm the absence of cadaver scent originally from another source being detected by Eddie.
As we have been through before..........the blood on the ignition key being Gerry`s does not confirm the absence of cadaver scent originally from another source being detected by Eddie.
As we have been through before..........the blood on the ignition key being Gerry`s does not confirm the absence of cadaver scent originally from another source being detected by Eddie.And the odour escaped via airtight seals on the door, did it?
As we have been through before..........the blood on the ignition key being Gerry`s does not confirm the absence of cadaver scent originally from another source being detected by Eddie.8(0(*
The McCanns were made arguido(a) on 7th Sept 2007. Sr Amaral was given a DCM on or about 3rd Oct 2007 ceasing to be involved in the case as a consequence. The case was archived back end July 2008.
It is interesting , if Sr Amaral The Boogah Man had it all round his neck as you suggest, that the arguido status was not lifted earlier. Maybe those that followed had been indoctrinated?
I think if Mr Amaral did not understand the findings it is proof that he is a very stupid man indeed.
And the odour escaped via airtight seals on the door, did it?
Short attention span, perhaps, Carana has already posted re the arguido status.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6311.msg265965#msg265965
"Maybe those that followed" were not beguiled by the same eagerness Mr Amaral had to lay charges based on the dogs' visit combined with dream interpretations but chose instead to follow the evidence ... which as we know led to no charges against Madeleine's parents.
Airtight seals.
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
Have you driven thru a flood and water has come in via the seals?.
It has ever come into any of our cars , new or older, even in a deluge.
Are you for real ?
Are you for real ?
Where & when does Keela first mark the key fob?
Have you driven thru a flood and water has come in via the seals?.Ever wonder what happens to rainwater that gets down past your car window seal in a deluge? It comes out here.
It has ever come into any of our cars , new or older, even in a deluge.
My daughter once floated a Peugeot 206 down a flooded road where the water was 2ft deep in the middle and the car remained watertight.
Does that help?
Ever wonder what happens to rainwater that gets down past your car window seal in a deluge? It comes out here.Then travels all around large areas of the door?
Firstly the alert by Eddie at the hire car does not necessarily begin and end with the key fob.Quite no one knows anything for sure, hence the alerts are useless, aren't they?
Secondly a blood alert by Eddie did not rule out a cadaver one.
How do you know that the hand which held the key did not come into contact with a cadaver?
You don`t know.
Perhaps you could help me on this one.
If a car is air tight and all the windows are sealed as are the doors.
How can you smell odours from outside the vehicle ?
Liquids, vapours and gases again.
Perhaps you could help me on this one.
If a car is air tight and all the windows are sealed as are the doors.
How can you smell odours from outside the vehicle ?
I never claimed a car was airtight. There are air-vents on the dashboard, aren't there and the smell of burning brakes at 70mph is one not to be forgotten.
However, I would claim that a door seal is watertight so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why Eddie barked at it.
Quite no one knows anything for sure, hence the alerts are useless, aren't they?
Firstly the alert by Eddie at the hire car does not necessarily begin and end with the key fob.The car boot was stripped to find forensic evidence supporting Keela's alert there.
Secondly a blood alert by Eddie did not rule out a cadaver one.
How do you know that the hand which held the key did not come into contact with a cadaver?
You don`t know.
An investigative tool is never useless. The alerts and forensic results exist as part of the investigation.I didn't say the tool (dogs) were useless I said the alerts were, and they are because they tell us nothing, we still after all these years of discussion have no real knowledge of what caused the dogs to alert.
Alerts leading to inconclusive forensic results are what we have.
Diffusion.
Do you think a stationary closed vehicle in a windless environment can produce a concentration gradient sufficient to shift those minute particles of blood on the key through the seal?
I didn't say the tool (dogs) were useless I said the alerts were, and they are because they tell us nothing, we still after all these years of discussion have no real knowledge of what caused the dogs to alert.
Have you been googling ?
The car boot was stripped to find forensic evidence supporting Keela's alert there.
I asked when & where KEELA first alerted to the key fob. Was it before or after Grime produced it from the door pocket in the same "rabbit from a hat" fashion Cuddlecat appeared out of the cupboard?
Do you think a stationary closed vehicle in a windless environment can produce a concentration gradient sufficient to shift those minute particles of blood on the key through the seal?
The alerts were what led to the forensic samples being recovered for analysis.you're being facetious again. None of the results came anywhere close to suggesting a dead body had been in contact with any of the McCanns property or possessions, hence the alerts themselves prove nothing, are worth nothing, and some people should really try and come to terms with this fact, difficult though it may be for them.
Results were inconclusive.....not non existent......(and no pig got a mention in the forensic report.)
My points still stand.
Nothing you say changes them......(and I can read the name Keela without it being yelled.)
you're being facetious again. None of the results came anywhere close to suggesting a dead body had been in contact with any of the McCanns property or possessions, hence the alerts themselves prove nothing, are worth nothing, and some people should really try and come to terms with this fact, difficult though it may be for them.
Your point doesn't really stand, does it?
If the boot had to be stripped so Keela could pinpoint the precise point of the human residual deposits, how could Grime be so sure that both Eddie had marked the key rather than another part of the driver's area without carrying out the same procedure? Simply showing both dogs indicated the bloodied key in a bucket of sand does not negate the possible presence of residue in the close proximity to the door compartment. Unless you knew it was only on the key.
You are making personal comments again.Whatever. You win. The dog alerts are extremely important evidence and probably almost definitely maybe prove the McCanns dunnit. There you go, that's right isn't it?
The forensic results were inconclusive.
Do you think a stationary closed vehicle in a windless environment can produce a concentration gradient sufficient to shift those minute particles of blood on the key through the seal?The air that Eddie alerted to came out of the drainhole which is further out than the doorseal.
Indeed.
I suggest to test her beliefs, sadie drives by a sewage plant with the doors closed and windows sealed. *&*%£
The air that Eddie alerted to came out of the drainhole which is further out than the doorseal.
And no wind is needed. Brownian motion causes scent molecules to spread.
you're being facetious again. None of the results came anywhere close to suggesting a dead body had been in contact with any of the McCanns property or possessions, hence the alerts themselves prove nothing, are worth nothing, and some people should really try and come to terms with this fact, difficult though it may be for them.
How does the Brownian motion apply to particles which first have to pass through a solid, ie, the interior window seal, before they can travel down to the drainhole?The scent goes by brownian motion from the passenger compartment to the interior cavity of the door (for example through the holes where the door release handle and electrical switches are) and then out of the door drainhole (bypassing the doorseal completely). Eddie's nose was aligned with the door's drainhole.
The McCanns were made arguido(a) on 7th Sept 2007. Sr Amaral was given a DCM on or about 3rd Oct 2007 ceasing to be involved in the case as a consequence. The case was archived back end July 2008.
It is interesting , if Sr Amaral The Boogah Man had it all round his neck as you suggest, that the arguido status was not lifted earlier. Maybe those that followed had been indoctrinated?
The scent goes by brownian motion from the passenger compartment to the interior cavity of the door (for example through the holes where the door release handle and electrical switches are) and then out of the door drainhole (bypassing the doorseal completely). Eddie's nose was aligned with the door's drainhole.
The scent goes by brownian motion from the passenger compartment to the interior cavity of the door (for example through the holes where the door release handle and electrical switches are) and then out of the door drainhole (bypassing the doorseal completely). Eddie's nose was aligned with the door's drainhole.
Is there no chemical reaction with the anti-corrosion treatment inside the door cavity?You could try the Panorama footage which shows the open boot on 2nd August 2007 not sure if it shows drainholes.
Is the same drainage system is in the boot door?
But Eddies nose went along the bottom and up the side. I feel sure it did.You have the video. Look at where the nose stops just before bark it's where the door drainhole is.
You have the video. Look at where the nose stops just before bark it's where the door drainhole is
You could try the Panorama footage which shows the open boot on 2nd August 2007 not sure if it shows drainholes.
[/quot]
OK, thanks. That begs the question as to why Eddie didn't alert at the boot lid if the same principle applies - but it does add to my belief that the key was placed in the door compartment for a very good reason.
It cannot be easy to have your beliefs for over 8 years so thoroughly torn apart by the evidence of documents and arguments from so many of these very clever people.
Just let the facts sink in and accept the facts.
That cuts both ways.Noone has presented any convincing evidence that the dogs were right, but there is plenty to suggest that their alerts were meaningless.
Oh there are lots of ways that scents can get into or out of a car, but via the door seals aint one of them.
Every car has to have a gentle air flow thru it, but I have never felt any drafts by modern car doors even at high speed.
Have you Stephen?
Yep, I agree, he is being facetious. And yep, they should try to come to terms with them.
It cannot be easy to have your beliefs for over 8 years so thoroughly torn apart by the evidence of documents and arguments from so many of these very clever people.
Just let the facts sink in and accept the truth.
Brenda Ryan did, when she realised the error of her previous thoughts
She was big enough to change. Time some of you accepted that you are WRONG.
Well done Brenda Ryan. 8((()*/
Me? I've been to a Sublime Science party. I know everything there is to know. 8)--))
(but perhaps, as the expert, you could answer in layman's terms so those with watertight car door seals can understand)
Noone has presented any convincing evidence that the dogs were right, but there is plenty to suggest that their alerts were meaningless.
That cuts both ways.
Good. You admit air gets in and out, well that's a breakthrough.Of course air gets in and out. I have never said anything different.
Now how about air-conditioning ?
So you are of the alchemy school of science. 8**8:/:Why didn't you answer mistys question Stephen
Meanwhile, where did I mention small particles of blood ?
and let's not forget car doors and windows get open and closed. 8)--))
and since when are car deals 100% effective ?
Noone has presented any convincing evidence that the dogs were right, but there is plenty to suggest that their alerts were meaningless.
Of course air gets in and out. I have never said anything different.
But it doesn't get in or out via the door seals. Have you ever felt drafts when driving at speed? Have you ever been in a deluge or flood and had water come in via the door seals?
Why didn't you answer mistys question Stephen
Absolutely 8((()*/
But some are happy to hang, draw and quarter The Mccanns on NO EVIDENCE
There is no evidence at all that the Mccanns are involved in any way.
None
Of course alfred.Here's a simple question for you Stephen: on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being completely meaningless and 10 being solid proof of the presence of a cadaver) where would you put Eddie & Keela's alerts?
and pigs don't lie. 8)--))
Here's a simple question for you Stephen: on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being completely meaningless and 10 being solid proof of the presence of a cadaver) where would you put Eddie & Keela's alerts?
Not one of the posters to whom you refer is voicing an opinion ... without exception all quote references to scientific studies ~ reports ~ including the comments made by Mr Grime.
You are doing a lot of snarling today stephen
Up a corner, are you ? Having difficulty wriggling out?
Why dont you answer the questions stephen? Mistys and mine.
Gotta go, but will be pleased to see if you have grasped the nettle when I come back
Whatever. You win. The dog alerts are extremely important evidence and probably almost definitely maybe prove the McCanns dunnit. There you go, that's right isn't it?
See I can be facetious too... 8)--))
In terms of probability 7-8.
That was based upon the report I posted last week and others I have read in the past.
Simply because dogs are trained to respond to a group of compounds.
The dogs made alerts.
Mccann supporters such as yourself are, lets face it, hardly likely top accept the dogs alerted to a body
I can't give any higher as I have not seen the entire recordings of what happened with the dogs, nor has anyone on here i would surmise.
and since the forensic results were inconclusive, we will go on forever, with no end in sight .
Meanwhile of course, no pig residue was found.
So those who believe the dogs were responding to pig traces are honking up the wrong tree.
is this just a personal opinion or is it backed by any sort of data
Read.
Well, having passed the buck from posters on to scientific studies, reports and Mr Grime himself, perhaps you could point out where those expert works have addressed themselves specifically to points made about this case rather than simply applied in a cherry-picked disparate way by posters?
Where for instance does the report covering mop-related residual cross contamination from decayed but survived particles of blood, toenails saliva etc., explain the absence of alerts in the 5A bathroom, despite Eddie being called / encouraged back and around with a certain amount of "tapping" at certain areas, too?
How do the Clever Hans / handler cuing studies explain that?
Does Mr Grime in his report, put it down to Eddie not being in "work-mode" at the time?
Did the dog "unlearn" certain behaviours to suit those occasions when an alert to a multitude of contaminant triggers would make no sense to posters?
Did handler cuing influence the alert to a boys t-shirt or does the cherry picking choose another convenient scientific study because handler expectation doesn`t cover that one?
Where does MG or any expert state that an alert by Eddie to a key fob rules out any possibility that there was any other cadaver contaminant source ever present in the hire car ?
A source can be found to quote away any point and sounds impressive but when applied to a whole case it can fall apart.
It can work for propaganda purposes, though.
are you willing to debate your claim in a civilised manner
Civilized manner ?
uc
Your history of calling other posters liars and isnulting their intelligence is not condusive to good debate.
you have made several claims......your latest is a probability of 7 to 8
I can't see how you can support this with any sort of evidence...
would you be prepared to debate this in a civilised manner then others can make up their own minds
Calling me facetious is becoming a habit.No, I don't think so. I haven't had to bluster through any points, certainly not in the manner which you have just exhibited above!
Could it be a convenient way to cover up your cop-out mode when faced with points you can`t bluster through?
( ooops...... could be!) 8)-)))
In terms of probability 7-8.No human cadaver 'residue' was found either so...on what evidence is there to support a 70-80% likelihood that the dogs alerted to cadaver?
That was based upon the report I posted last week and others I have read in the past.
Simply because dogs are trained to respond to a group of compounds.
The dogs made alerts.
Mccann supporters such as yourself are, lets face it, hardly likely top accept the dogs alerted to a body
I can't give any higher as I have not seen the entire recordings of what happened with the dogs, nor has anyone on here i would surmise.
and since the forensic results were inconclusive, we will go on forever, with no end in sight .
Meanwhile of course, no pig residue was found.
So those who believe the dogs were responding to pig traces are honking up the wrong tree.
Read the article.I haven't seen your article - perhaps you could extract the information from it which supports your claim?
No human cadaver 'residue' was found either so...on what evidence is there to support a 70-80% likelihood that the dogs alerted to cadaver?
Well, having passed the buck from posters on to scientific studies, reports and Mr Grime himself, perhaps you could point out where those expert works have addressed themselves specifically to points made about this case rather than simply applied in a cherry-picked disparate way by posters?
Where for instance does the report covering mop-related residual cross contamination from decayed but survived particles of blood, toenails saliva etc., explain the absence of alerts in the 5A bathroom, despite Eddie being called / encouraged back and around with a certain amount of "tapping" at certain areas, too?
How do the Clever Hans / handler cuing studies explain that?
Does Mr Grime in his report, put it down to Eddie not being in "work-mode" at the time?
Did the dog "unlearn" certain behaviours to suit those occasions when an alert to a multitude of contaminant triggers would make no sense to posters?
Did handler cuing influence the alert to a boys t-shirt or does the cherry picking choose another convenient scientific study because handler expectation doesn`t cover that one?
Where does MG or any expert state that an alert by Eddie to a key fob rules out any possibility that there was any other cadaver contaminant source ever present in the hire car ?
A source can be found to quote away any point and sounds impressive but when applied to a whole case it can fall apart.
It can work for propaganda purposes, though.
I haven't seen your article - perhaps you could extract the information from it which supports your claim?
The results of the analysis were inconclusive alfred.Were they 70-80% supportive of the presence of a dead body?
Were they 70-80% supportive of the presence of a dead body?
Questions.
Who has the last person to have touched the key card? Gerry drove the car to meet with the PJ, who then took it, but was it then driven on a low-loader all the way into the garage? In between Eddie and Keela sniffing it was taken to a different level for the forensic inspection (from -4 to -3)... Would it have again been put on a low-loader? Or did someone drive it around from the pick-up point to the inspection site, then to the forensic / Keela inspection level? If so, was the person wearing gloves and a forensic suit? The only person visible who was wearing gloves and a suit was Grime. If he drove it, was he wearing the same gloves as when he handled the dogs' leads?
Read the article.
I read one article you posted last week and it does not support your claim..are you willing to debate your claim in a civilised manner
No, I don't think so. I haven't had to bluster through any points, certainly not in the manner which you have just exhibited above!
The results of the analysis were inconclusive alfred.
How does my post serve as an example of name-calling, exactly? Facetious yes, bluster - well, in your opinion. 8)-)))
Errm..........below isn`t an example of your name- calling and cop-out bluster then?
That`s the post of yours I replied to this morning.
"Whatever. You win. The dog alerts are extremely important evidence and probably almost definitely maybe prove the McCanns dunnit. There you go, that's right isn't it?
See I can be facetious too... 8)--)) "
The article indicated, over a 90% success rate.Of what? Eddie and Keela?
Of what? Eddie and Keela?
How does my post serve as an example of name-calling, exactly? Facetious yes, bluster - well, in your opinion. 8)-)))
You accused me of "name-calling", your accusation had no basis in fact. Good bye, have a nice day &8#£%
.........and so another nit-pickers` convention is back in session for the day.
Enjoy ?{)(**
Short attention span, perhaps, Carana has already posted re the arguido status.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6311.msg265965#msg265965
"Maybe those that followed" were not beguiled by the same eagerness Mr Amaral had to lay charges based on the dogs' visit combined with dream interpretations but chose instead to follow the evidence ... which as we know led to no charges against Madeleine's parents.
We do indeed but you failed to address to my question. If it were that cut and dried why take another nine months to lift the arguido status.
As for my attention span it is longer than your ability to make a post without a sneer 8(0(*
Read the report.I can't read the report as you won't supply the link. So, if it was written in 1998 we know that whatever it was about it wasn't about Eddie & Keela's accuracy. But - if it was about cadaver dogs in general being 90% accurate, and Eddie and Keela were the best dogs in the world ever why do you only rate their alerts at 70-80%?
1998, by the way.
I can't read the report as you won't supply the link. So, if it was written in 1998 we know that whatever it was about it wasn't about Eddie & Keela's accuracy. But - if it was about cadaver dogs in general being 90% accurate, and Eddie and Keela were the best dogs in the world ever why do you only rate their alerts at 70-80%?
Go ahead.
Another question: remembering, always, that they were looking for Madeleine's blood, what was the basis of supposition that it might be found on the ignition key of a car hired 3 weeks after her abduction?
Perhaps you should learn to read what I posted earlier.Why should I seek out and read every post you make on this forum? Do you read everything I post, every link? Why are you completely unwilling to re-post the link?
The McCanns were made arguido(a) on 7th Sept 2007. Sr Amaral was given a DCM on or about 3rd Oct 2007 ceasing to be involved in the case as a consequence. The case was archived back end July 2008.
It is interesting , if Sr Amaral The Boogah Man had it all round his neck as you suggest, that the arguido status was not lifted earlier. Maybe those that followed had been indoctrinated?
I'm not sure that I understand your question, Alice. The investigation had to continue either towards charging one or more people or to archival, whoever was in charge. Arguido status isn't lifted on anyone until the end of the investigation phase.
The only exception to that appears to be someone questioned by the UK (for which I haven't seen a specific provision in the PPC). If it is true that arguido status was lifted, then I can only assume for the moment that it was a temporary arrangement to equate to the UK version of being questioned under caution.
is this the article you are referring to StephenI got a Bullguard warning when I clicked on that link - just sayin...
http://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/
It would seem that under Rebelo the only individuals being seriously investigated were the parents and their friends.On what do you base that supposition? I thought "sceptics" were keen to point out that the PJ continued to investigate ALL theories re: Madeleine's disappearance, are you now saying this is incorrect?
On what do you base that supposition? I thought "sceptics" were keen to point out that the PJ continued to investigate ALL theories re: Madeleine's disappearance, are you now saying this is incorrect?
There comes a time in any investigation when, although other information is considered, the focus is overwhelmingly focused on a certain individual or individuals. Under Rebelo the files show those individuals were the McCanns and their friends.
Do you disagree ?
It would seem that under Rebelo the only individuals being seriously investigated were the parents and their friends.
There comes a time in any investigation when, although other information is considered, the focus is overwhelmingly focused on a certain individual or individuals. Under Rebelo the files show those individuals were the McCanns and their friends.No I don't disagree - Amaral had taken the investigation down a blind alley to the exclusion of everything else and Rebelo had no choice but to re-examine the witnesses and arguidos. He was being thorough, but despite his thoroughness he found nothing to suggest the parents dunnit. Oh dear.
Do you disagree ?
It would seem that under Rebelo the only individuals being seriously investigated were the parents and their friends.
There comes a time in any investigation when, although other information is considered, the focus is overwhelmingly focused on a certain individual or individuals. Under Rebelo the files show those individuals were the McCanns and their friends.
Do you disagree ?
Did this model car have a slot cardkey or a proximity cardkey?
If its proximity type, you can drive with it sitting in door pocket or anywhere in car.
Don't know... when was the car manufactured?It was first rented out new in about Mar 2007 IIRC so probably a 2007 model.
At some point a proximity card would need to be handled, wouldn't it?
Don't know... when was the car manufactured?
At some point a proximity card would need to be handled, wouldn't it?
I keep hoping that some of you will accept official documents, realise that Amaral was barking up the wrong tree ... and be big enough not only to throw in the towel, but to publically apologise
Would be good if some of you who were able, would make the effort .... and like Brenda Ryan put right some of the harm that you have done.
A very strong and caring woman is Brenda Ryan. It cant have been easy switching sides when she realised her mistakes, but she did. Then she went out of her way to try and make amends by publishing her blog supporting Madeleine and The Mccanns.
Can anyone remember the name of her blog? It was very sensitive and well thought out, I would like to reread it
It would seem that under Rebelo the only individuals being seriously investigated were the parents and their friends.
No I don't disagree - Amaral had taken the investigation down a blind alley to the exclusion of everything else and Rebelo had no choice but to re-examine the witnesses and arguidos. He was being thorough, but despite his thoroughness he found nothing to suggest the parents dunnit. Oh dear.
Well, having passed the buck from posters on to scientific studies, reports and Mr Grime himself, perhaps you could point out where those expert works have addressed themselves specifically to points made about this case rather than simply applied in a cherry-picked disparate way by posters?
Where for instance does the report covering mop-related residual cross contamination from decayed but survived particles of blood, toenails saliva etc., explain the absence of alerts in the 5A bathroom, despite Eddie being called / encouraged back and around with a certain amount of "tapping" at certain areas, too?
How do the Clever Hans / handler cuing studies explain that?
Does Mr Grime in his report, put it down to Eddie not being in "work-mode" at the time?
Did the dog "unlearn" certain behaviours to suit those occasions when an alert to a multitude of contaminant triggers would make no sense to posters?
Did handler cuing influence the alert to a boys t-shirt or does the cherry picking choose another convenient scientific study because handler expectation doesn`t cover that one?
Where does MG or any expert state that an alert by Eddie to a key fob rules out any possibility that there was any other cadaver contaminant source ever present in the hire car ?
A source can be found to quote away any point and sounds impressive but when applied to a whole case it can fall apart.
It can work for propaganda purposes, though.
On 6 August 2007, at 15h17, a canine inspection was performed in the following motor cars, this
being done on level -4 of the above-mentioned underground car park:
[list of cars: Opel Corsa; Fiat Punto; Peugeot 205; Renault Scenic; Skodia Fabia; VW Transporter;
Nissan Patrol; VW Passat; Audi A4; Renault Kangoo.]
Thus, at the hour indicated the work began, with the dog Eddy, that detects cadaver odour,
examining the whole level of the underground car park where the vehicles were parked, it having
been verified the following result:
15h27 - the dog 'marked' car number 4 - Renault Scenic - rental vehicle currently used by Gerry
and Kate McCann.
Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert
examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that
began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having
been verified the following result:
03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage
compartment of the car;
04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door,
which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the
Budget rental company.
In order to confirm that the dog had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the
map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car
and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car
park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire
System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car
key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire
System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
08-Processo Volume 8 pages 2186 to 2188
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
If you are unwilling to take what Mr Grime says about Eddie's alert in the Renault I am very sorry, but nothing anyone on this forum or elsewhere has to say is going to overcome the level of prejudice and denial you are suffering from so forgive me for stating the obvious yet again.
Mr Grime just cannot make it any clearer that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour in the Renault.
Do you really think Mr Grime and the PJ were too stupid to verify what Eddie was or was not alerting to by ensuring him access to the car once Keela had detected blood to ensure it was checked out and either ruled in or eliminated for cadaver scent.
In fact when Eddie was introduced to parking level 3 and had the choice to alert either to the car or to the key fob ... what did he choose?
Unless you choose to disregard Mr Grime's statement ... Eddie alerted to the key fob ... Eddie did not alert to the Renault ... therefore Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent, Madeleine McCann's or anyone else's.
**Snip
(Eddie)
15h27 - the dog 'marked' car number 4 - Renault Scenic - rental vehicle currently used by Gerry
and Kate McCann.
(Keela)
Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having been verified the following result:
03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage
compartment of the car;
04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door,which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the Budget rental company.
In order to confirm that the dog (EDDIE) had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
(Eddie)
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
... the present document has been duly signed:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
We do indeed but you failed to address to my question. If it were that cut and dried why take another nine months to lift the arguido status.
As for my attention span it is longer than your ability to make a post without a sneer 8(0(*
Thank you Carana
A number of posters make the point that the forensics were "Inconclusive" as though this adds some weight to their argument about the forensic results.
It may be interesting to debate what members here think "Inconclusive" actually means.
To kick this off, here is Vocabulary.com definition
____________________
If something's inconclusive, that means it doesn't lead to a conclusion or a resolution. Inconclusive often describes scientific results. If your data about a flu outbreak is inconclusive, then your results don't prove anything.
A good way to remember the meaning of inconclusive is to look at the root word conclusive, which means "definitive, decisive, and convincing." When you add in- — which means "not" — to the front of conclusive, you get a word that means "not definitive." When something's inconclusive, it doesn't resolve your questions and leaves room for debate. If you're a detective, the last thing you want to hear is that your evidence is inconclusive.
___________
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inconclusive
Thank you Carana
A number of posters make the point that the forensics were "Inconclusive" as though this adds some weight to their argument about the forensic results.
It may be interesting to debate what members here think "Inconclusive" actually means.
To kick this off, here is Vocabulary.com definition
____________________
If something's inconclusive, that means it doesn't lead to a conclusion or a resolution. Inconclusive often describes scientific results. If your data about a flu outbreak is inconclusive, then your results don't prove anything.
A good way to remember the meaning of inconclusive is to look at the root word conclusive, which means "definitive, decisive, and convincing." When you add in- — which means "not" — to the front of conclusive, you get a word that means "not definitive." When something's inconclusive, it doesn't resolve your questions and leaves room for debate. If you're a detective, the last thing you want to hear is that your evidence is inconclusive.
___________
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inconclusive
And as a detective you most certainly don't want to hear that the results of the forensics tests were CONCLUSIVE and your suspect was categorically ruled out of any criminality.
But that didn't happen here, did it.
Being thorough ? He didn't question Murat or anyone connected to him even though he was also an arguido, so not especially thorough, and the reconstitution was his idea not Amaral's. It seems he also thought the timeline didn't work.OK, you've convinced me - Rebelo wasn't thorough, he was slip-shod and conducted an inadequate investigation, same as his predecessor.
And as a detective you most certainly don't want to hear that the results of the forensics tests were CONCLUSIVE and your suspect was categorically ruled out of any criminality.How could forensics have proved the McCanns DIDN'T chuck their daughter's body is a bin as you believe?
But that didn't happen here, did it.
OK, you've convinced me - Rebelo wasn't thorough, he was slip-shod and conducted an inadequate investigation, same as his predecessor.
How could forensics have proved the McCanns DIDN'T chuck their daughter's body is a bin as you believe?
And as a detective you most certainly don't want to hear that the results of the forensics tests were CONCLUSIVE and your suspect was categorically ruled out of any criminality.
But that didn't happen here, did it.
So two investigation co-ordinaters where slipshod and conducted an inadequate investigation. My, my the McCanns really were a very unlucky couple, weren't they!Whereas I suppose in your view you think they were really, really lucky. But then that's the difference between "sceptics" and everyone else. The McCanns were EXTREMEMLY unlucky - to lose a child, to have the disappearance investigated by incompetents, to have their names and reputations dragged through the mud by the media and the online rabble. Of course they were a very unlucky couple, only a fool could think otherwise.
By proving that someone else did but there seems to be no forensic evidence, not even inconclusive evidence, that any one else was involved in the disappearance of their daughter.What forensic evidence would prove someone else dumped her body in a bin? Was it looked for?
If you are unwilling to take what Mr Grime says about Eddie's alert in the Renault I am very sorry, but nothing anyone on this forum or elsewhere has to say is going to overcome the level of prejudice and denial you are suffering from so forgive me for stating the obvious yet again.
Mr Grime just cannot make it any clearer that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour in the Renault.
Do you really think Mr Grime and the PJ were too stupid to verify what Eddie was or was not alerting to by ensuring him access to the car once Keela had detected blood to ensure it was checked out and either ruled in or eliminated for cadaver scent.
In fact when Eddie was introduced to parking level 3 and had the choice to alert either to the car or to the key fob ... what did he choose?
Unless you choose to disregard Mr Grime's statement ... Eddie alerted to the key fob ... Eddie did not alert to the Renault ... therefore Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent, Madeleine McCann's or anyone else's.
**Snip
(Eddie)
15h27 - the dog 'marked' car number 4 - Renault Scenic - rental vehicle currently used by Gerry
and Kate McCann.
(Keela)
Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having been verified the following result:
03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage
compartment of the car;
04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door,which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the Budget rental company.
In order to confirm that the dog had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
(Eddie)
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
... the present document has been duly signed:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
so forgive me for stating the obvious yet again.
Mr Grime just cannot make it any clearer that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour in the Renault. If you are unwilling to take what Mr Grime says about Eddie's alert in the Renault I am very sorry, but nothing anyone on this forum or elsewhere has to say is going to overcome the level of prejudice and denial you are suffering from
Do you really think Mr Grime and the PJ were too stupid to verify what Eddie was or was not alerting to by ensuring him access to the car once Keela had detected blood to ensure it was checked out and either ruled in or eliminated for cadaver scent.
In fact when Eddie was introduced to parking level 3 and had the choice to alert either to the car or to the key fob ... what did he choose?
Unless you choose to disregard Mr Grime's statement ... Eddie alerted to the key fob ... Eddie did not alert to the Renault ... therefore Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent, Madeleine McCann's or anyone else's.
**Snip
(Eddie)
15h27 - the dog 'marked' car number 4 - Renault Scenic - rental vehicle currently used by Gerry
and Kate McCann.
(Keela)
Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having been verified the following result:
03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage
compartment of the car;
04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door,which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the Budget rental company.
In order to confirm that the dog had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
(Eddie)
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
... the present document has been duly signed:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Being thorough ? He didn't question Murat or anyone connected to him even though he was also an arguido, so not especially thorough, and the reconstitution was his idea not Amaral's. It seems he also thought the timeline didn't work.
Is the highlight in red your way of deflecting the possibility that you could not justify your assertion below by addressing my challenges to it,...... apart from just one "cherry pick?"
Just one ......really?
Where`s the rest?
Even your accepting that I am beyond hope you might at least give it your best shot for the sake of backing up your assertion !
"Not one of the posters to whom you refer is voicing an opinion ... without exception all quote references to scientific studies ~ reports ~ including the comments made by Mr Grime. "
Is the highlight in red your way of deflecting the possibility that you could not justify your assertion below by addressing my challenges to it,...... apart from just one "cherry pick?"Perhaps if you start at page one of this thread and work your way through it you will find quotes and references to scientific studies which back up the various claims. I for one have linked to a study of unconscious handler bias on more than one occasion. I have cited the case of Zampo the cadaver dog in Sweden on more than one occasion. Do you want to do this all over again?
Just one ......really?
Where`s the rest?
Even your accepting that I am beyond hope you might at least give it your best shot for the sake of backing up your assertion !
"Not one of the posters to whom you refer is voicing an opinion ... without exception all quote references to scientific studies ~ reports ~ including the comments made by Mr Grime. "
Carana & you are just brilliant. 8@??)(
Grime' own video on the beach showing Eddie locating the jar, containing 100 year old bone fragments, high up in the rocks proved distance from the source of scent was no obstacle.
Thank you Carana
A number of posters make the point that the forensics were "Inconclusive" as though this adds some weight to their argument about the forensic results.
It may be interesting to debate what members here think "Inconclusive" actually means.
To kick this off, here is Vocabulary.com definition
____________________
If something's inconclusive, that means it doesn't lead to a conclusion or a resolution. Inconclusive often describes scientific results. If your data about a flu outbreak is inconclusive, then your results don't prove anything.
A good way to remember the meaning of inconclusive is to look at the root word conclusive, which means "definitive, decisive, and convincing." When you add in- — which means "not" — to the front of conclusive, you get a word that means "not definitive." When something's inconclusive, it doesn't resolve your questions and leaves room for debate. If you're a detective, the last thing you want to hear is that your evidence is inconclusive.
___________
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inconclusive
Carana & you are just brilliant. 8@??)(
Grime' own video on the beach showing Eddie locating the jar, containing 100 year old bone fragments, high up in the rocks proved distance from the source of scent was no obstacle.
Ah.........so all is well with MG and his deployment this time then?
Are you suggesting that the jar did not contain 100 year old human bone fragments?
I don't have a problem with Eddie alerting, it's what he's alerting to & how it got there I have a problem with in Portugal - especially when the alerts are the basis of illicit financial gain.
I'm not sure which video you're referring to, Misty. The only promo one that I recall was of a spot of blood being hidden for Keela while on walkies somewhere. There may have been others, though...
I`m suggesting that you are happy with MG`s deployment on this occasion...........Which is what I said in my reply, wasn`t it?
Thank you Carana
A number of posters make the point that the forensics were "Inconclusive" as though this adds some weight to their argument about the forensic results.
It may be interesting to debate what members here think "Inconclusive" actually means.
To kick this off, here is Vocabulary.com definition
____________________
If something's inconclusive, that means it doesn't lead to a conclusion or a resolution. Inconclusive often describes scientific results. If your data about a flu outbreak is inconclusive, then your results don't prove anything.
A good way to remember the meaning of inconclusive is to look at the root word conclusive, which means "definitive, decisive, and convincing." When you add in- — which means "not" — to the front of conclusive, you get a word that means "not definitive." When something's inconclusive, it doesn't resolve your questions and leaves room for debate. If you're a detective, the last thing you want to hear is that your evidence is inconclusive.
___________
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inconclusive
Lets turn this on its head, Carew.
What do you think Eddie was alterting to in the Scenic, and what are your reasons?
The letter from Lowe to Prior in the archiving process is good enough for me.
Let`s leave it the original way up, instead.
Have a bash at a few cites to explain the original post........otherwise you could be adding to this little niggle I have about cherry-picking propaganda going on.
"Well, having passed the buck from posters on to scientific studies, reports and Mr Grime himself, perhaps you could point out where those expert works have addressed themselves specifically to points made about this case rather than simply applied in a cherry-picked disparate way by posters?
Where for instance does the report covering mop-related residual cross contamination from decayed but survived particles of blood, toenails saliva etc., explain the absence of alerts in the 5A bathroom, despite Eddie being called / encouraged back and around with a certain amount of "tapping" at certain areas, too?
How do the Clever Hans / handler cuing studies explain that?
Does Mr Grime in his report, put it down to Eddie not being in "work-mode" at the time?
Did the dog "unlearn" certain behaviours to suit those occasions when an alert to a multitude of contaminant triggers would make no sense to posters?
Did handler cuing influence the alert to a boys t-shirt or does the cherry picking choose another convenient scientific study because handler expectation doesn`t cover that one?
Where does MG or any expert state that an alert by Eddie to a key fob rules out any possibility that there was any other cadaver contaminant source ever present in the hire car ?
A source can be found to quote away any point and sounds impressive but when applied to a whole case it can fall apart.
It can work for propaganda purposes, though. "
And me.
Without searching for words of less than one syllable, I'm not sure how Lowe could have explained the findings in more simple terms.
Explaining that mummy and daddy and other relatives each contribute DNA, and that a certain quantity of alleles can be expected to be shared by totally unrelated individuals, just isn't the stuff of an official report.
That email comes across to me as if he was trying to be helpful in explaining the basics to people totally unfamiliar with basic DNA.
But then Amaral managed to turn that on its head and more or less accused the FSS of fudging the results.
Some of his questions as an "expert" don't even make sense...
I keep hoping that some of you will accept official documents, realise that Amaral was barking up the wrong tree ... and be big enough not only to throw in the towel, but to publically apologise
Would be good if some of you who were able, would make the effort .... and like Brenda Ryan put right some of the harm that you have done.
A very strong and caring woman is Brenda Ryan. It cant have been easy switching sides when she realised her mistakes, but she did. Then she went out of her way to try and make amends by publishing her blog supporting Madeleine and The Mccanns.
Can anyone remember the name of her blog? It was very sensitive and well thought out, I would like to reread it
The letter from Lowe to Prior in the archiving process is good enough for me.
Which official documents did you have in mind?
The letter from Lowe to Prior in the archiving process is good enough for me.
Let`s leave it the original way up, instead.
Have a bash at a few cites to explain the original post........otherwise you could be adding to this little niggle I have about cherry-picking propaganda going on.
"Well, having passed the buck from posters on to scientific studies, reports and Mr Grime himself, perhaps you could point out where those expert works have addressed themselves specifically to points made about this case rather than simply applied in a cherry-picked disparate way by posters?
Where for instance does the report covering mop-related residual cross contamination from decayed but survived particles of blood, toenails saliva etc., explain the absence of alerts in the 5A bathroom, despite Eddie being called / encouraged back and around with a certain amount of "tapping" at certain areas, too?
How do the Clever Hans / handler cuing studies explain that?
Does Mr Grime in his report, put it down to Eddie not being in "work-mode" at the time?
Did the dog "unlearn" certain behaviours to suit those occasions when an alert to a multitude of contaminant triggers would make no sense to posters?
Did handler cuing influence the alert to a boys t-shirt or does the cherry picking choose another convenient scientific study because handler expectation doesn`t cover that one?
Where does MG or any expert state that an alert by Eddie to a key fob rules out any possibility that there was any other cadaver contaminant source ever present in the hire car ?
A source can be found to quote away any point and sounds impressive but when applied to a whole case it can fall apart.
It can work for propaganda purposes, though. "
We have all seen the reports. We have all seen Levy's videos. So you have two possibilities here. Either you think that Grime /Eddie were incompetent and missed the cadaver scent
or somewhere there is some secret report with cadaver alerts and forensic finds in the car. Held back for some terribly secret purpose.
Either way I cannot help. Sorry.
Sorry.
Where for instance does the report covering mop-related residual cross contamination from decayed but survived particles of blood, toenails saliva etc., explain the absence of alerts in the 5A bathroom, despite Eddie being called / encouraged back and around with a certain amount of "tapping" at certain areas, too?
I would imagine and explanation is that the bathroom had been cleaned.
Thankyou for addressing the forensic finds in the car.
Any help with the rest of the questions in the whole post?
The car was just one issue with the dog searches, but not to worry.
Your interpretation of the letter is what you are referring to by what I interpret from your posts
Where for instance does the report covering mop-related residual cross contamination from decayed but survived particles of blood, toenails saliva etc., explain the absence of alerts in the 5A bathroom, despite Eddie being called / encouraged back and around with a certain amount of "tapping" at certain areas, too?
I would imagine and explanation is that the bathroom had been cleaned.
You have obviously been reading what members have posted without understanding what has been said. Your apparent difficulty in accepting that the only dog alerts in the garage are those which related to a living human donor would seem to confirm that opinion.
Therefore as far as I am concerned life is too short to attempt to address all the questions which have arisen in your mind. I find when I am perplexed about something it is helpful to do a little reading on the subject. I recommend some of the links already posted as a good starting point for you.
Thanks for the reply.....but it was suggested here that even cleaning would not eliminate the possibility of cross contamination from blood / fertiliser from the garden and other alert trigger contaminants which survive time and cleaning products ;...... could even be contained in a mop......... and which Eddie cannot be unlearned from reacting to.
You appreciate my puzzlement....when he didn`t alert!
It seems to only apply when posters want a convenient "reason" for an alert and the old blood and toenails are brought in to explain it away?
Then we have the calling back element of the handling / encouraging and tapping around the bathroom.
This would raise the alleged handler expectation/cuing and Clever Hans factors which are used to explain away other alerts and backed up by quoting the non-expert Policeman Inspector Dias..........except that Eddie didn`t alert.
You see the problem a person could have with the evidence of selective cherry-picking going on?
Thanks for the reply.....but it was suggested here that even cleaning would not eliminate the possibility of cross contamination from blood / fertiliser from the garden and other alert trigger contaminants which survive time and cleaning products ;...... could even be contained in a mop......... and which Eddie cannot be unlearned from reacting to.I don't know if Eddie would react to a toenail but we know he did react to dried blood - so, what's your problem exactly?
You appreciate my puzzlement....when he didn`t alert!
It seems to only apply when posters want a convenient "reason" for an alert and the old blood and toenails are brought in to explain it away?
Then we have the calling back element of the handling / encouraging and tapping around the bathroom.
This would raise the alleged handler expectation/cuing and Clever Hans factors which are used to explain away other alerts and backed up by quoting the non-expert Policeman Inspector Dias..........except that Eddie didn`t alert.
You see the problem a person could have with the evidence of selective cherry-picking going on?
Why do you suppose Mark Harrison said this right towards the end of his final report?
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
And why do you suppose Harrison never reached a firm conclusion about whether Madeleine was alive or dead?
That's not cherry-picking.
That's summarising, accurately and completely, the thoughts of a true expert.
Carew seems to be under the impression that she is discussing this issue with one amorphous blob of a McCann worshipper, not several different people, all with shades of opinion about the dog alerts. At the end of the day though none of our opinions (or those of the "sceptics") are really worth a hill of beans. We will NEVER know exactly what the dog did or did not alert to, or why - we DO know that no evidence to implicate the McCanns was discovered at any point where the dogs alerted, and that no one who matters (ie: the authorities, the Met etc) sets much store by them now. Why can that not be accepted by all and why can't we ever move on from this?
I don't know if Eddie would react to a toenail but we know he did react to dried blood - so, what's your problem exactly?
Shall we not be reading about Inspector Dias.........about Clever Hans.........handler expectation/cuing..........pig-fertiliser and other contaminants Eddie couldn`t unlearn......"work-mode".....and sundry other aspects, then...
..........since they and the reports/cites which have been used to back them are cherry-picked to suit the prejudice of the poster?
Is that about right?
There is no prejudice, only individuals seeking explanations and understanding of what is obviously quite an inexact science. Would you prefer it if we all agreed that the dog alerts were 100% correct, no questions asked? Would that be the correct course of action in your view? Is it wrong to draw on such reports and studies as have been discussed here? Would you like us all to shut up and accept something which even Martin Grime does not make claim to - that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents covered up her death? Would that make you happy?
Shall we not be reading about Inspector Dias.........about Clever Hans.........handler expectation/cuing..........pig-fertiliser and other contaminants Eddie couldn`t unlearn......"work-mode".....and sundry other aspects, then...
..........since they and the reports/cites which have been used to back them are cherry-picked to suit the prejudice of the poster?
Is that about right?
Oh tuts.........you obviously haven`t read up on your mops and the McCann bathroom factor!
Take your own and Brietta`s advice to me.........back to page 1 and work through all those cites pasted up to support your collective assertions about the dog searches.
oooops!
There is no prejudice, only individuals seeking explanations and understanding of what is obviously quite an inexact science. Would you prefer it if we all agreed that the dog alerts were 100% correct, no questions asked? Would that be the correct course of action in your view? Is it wrong to draw on such reports and studies as have been discussed here? Would you like us all to shut up and accept something which even Martin Grime does not make claim to - that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents covered up her death? Would that make you happy?
No, I really don't because you didn't answer any of my questions! Perhaps as I am clueless you could enlighten me?
To borrow a quote by you and secure in the knowledge that it isn`t considered rude here :-
"you really have no idea at all. "
The questions that Alfred asks are all pertinent.
The research that shows the influence the way a dog is handled can have over whether a dog alerts certainly apply to the (shelved) investigation.
As I said just now:[/b]
"Carew seems to be under the impression that she is discussing this issue with one amorphous blob of a McCann worshipper, not several different people, all with shades of opinion about the dog alerts".
PS: It is not name-calling to say that I find the tone of your posts extremely facetious, the above one being no exception.
[/b]Personally I think it would lead to a more pleasant and productive (not to mention more grown-up) discussion if your dropped the facetiousness, but your call.
Whatever you care to call it perhaps you`d better get used to it? &%+((£
Why do you suppose Mark Harrison said this right towards the end of his final report?
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
And why do you suppose Harrison never reached a firm conclusion about whether Madeleine was alive or dead?
That's not cherry-picking.
That's summarising, accurately and completely, the thoughts of a true expert.
Good points, FM.
From Harrison:
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.
That does seem to be the bottom line, ignored by some for years.
Personally I think it would lead to a more pleasant and productive (not to mention more grown-up) discussion if your dropped the facetiousness, but your call.
Blinkered – My god I was blindfolded
I know there is a lot of tweets from people going on about what happened pre-arguido days and it seems that they are living back in 2007 before the Attorney General said the McCanns along with Robert Murat did NOT commit any crimes and they were released from their arguido days.
http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/blinkered-my-god-i-was-blindfolded/
Ah but therein lies the fundamental problem.......Fair enough, I did say it was your call (so much for "dictating" to you). It does seem to me that you would rather discuss your problems with me than the dogs now, so if you want to take this to PM rather than bore everyone else with your issues that would be grand (but no pressure, your call, entirely up to you, etc etc) 8((()*/
Some want their own way ; to discuss on their terms ; to dictate not only what should be questioned but when a person should answer.......alter someone else`s MO or style but not their own.......... dictatorial......
........even deciding what constitutes "grown up" with apparently no self awareness. 8(>((
I`ve no interest in accommodating your requirements.
Thank you Brietta.
Somehow I must find the time to read those again
http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/
Such a special woman Brenda Ryan. She fought her side with vigour
Originally a sceptic, she lead the fight with the 3A's.
But changed her mind when the files were released and she read them.
Intelligent, she analysed them and realised that a lot of the stuff that she had been believing was propaganda and myths.
Just hot air.
That there was no basis to suspect The Mccanns.
Being the decent, Justice-loving woman that she was, she was magnaminus and admitted her mistake .... "Blinkered – My god I was blindfolded"
.... then set about trying to make amends
HardLine tho some of you on here are .... after all the facts on documents shown here and absolutely NO EVIDENCE against The Mccanns, you must be having serious doubts ...
.... unless you dont want to take notice of the documents .... but want The Mccanns to be guilty?
In that case I have to wonder at your mental condition, You enjoy bullying?
.... or whether you are involved in some way?
Fair enough, I did say it was your call (so much for "dictating" to you). It does seem to me that you would rather discuss your problems with me than the dogs now, so if you want to take this to PM rather than bore everyone else with your issues that would be grand (but no pressure, your call, entirely up to you, etc etc) 8((()*/
Pardon me???I'm so glad to hear it. Now, perhaps you'd like to give us your opinion of the Mark Harrison quote underlined by Carana above. Was he wrong to write what he wrote, in your view? CAN we infer that a cadaver was present in 5a from the dog alerts alone? If not, then there must be a reason why the dog alerts cannot be considered as standalone evidence - what is that reason?
Just move on.
I have no problem with you.
You get the answers your posts deserve.
I'm so glad to hear it. Now, perhaps you'd like to give us your opinion of the Mark Harrison quote underlined by Carana above. Was he wrong to write what he wrote, in your view? CAN we infer that a cadaver was present in 5a from the dog alerts alone? If not, then there must be a reason why the dog alerts cannot be considered as standalone evidence - what is that reason?
The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organicSurely there is another reason? If dogs were 100% always right would the above even be an issue?
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Surely there is another reason? If dogs were 100% always right would the above even be an issue?
is this the article you are referring to Stephen
http://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/
The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Surely there is another reason? If dogs were 100% always right would the above even be an issue?
The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Yep, but Eddie also alerts to dried blood from the living , doesn't he?
.... and he was trained on pig, wasn't he?
All the gobbledegook in the world doesn't change that.
Adrian Prout should have used that one (Eddie was alerting to blood!) but you can't fool a well trained dog's nose. Eddie goes in first to detect cadaver scent. No alert then the blood dog ain't used and Keela found none on the clothes.
Adrian Prout is a poor example.But he didn't alert to the vehicle that was used to transport the body, first to the pub where Prout spent the evening and then to the burial site.
Eddie alerted in the Prouts' main home and Prout murdered and buried his wife in an out-house several hundred yards away.
And as to the point I underline, in PdL, Keela was deployed first in the gym (without alerting!); then Eddie was deployed.
Why?
More than that, I don't believe that Eddie and Keela were ever deployed together before PdL.
Still, I have tended to give Eddie benefit of the doubt that Prout may have cross-transferred a death scent into the matrimonial home from his clothes after burying his wife.
But he didn't alert to the vehicle that was used to transport the body, first to the pub where Prout spent the evening and then to the burial site.
For starters...............
When are you going to begin?
With anything remotely relevant or applicable to the topic under discussion?
We were discussing whether I was right to give Eddie benefit of doubt over his alert in the Prouts' main house when Prout murdered and buried his wife in an outhouse several hundred yards away.
From what Alfred has posted, it seems I wasn't.
Adrian Prout is a poor example.
Eddie alerted in the Prouts' main home and Prout murdered and buried his wife in an out-house several hundred yards away.
And as to the point I underline, in PdL, Keela was deployed first in the gym (without alerting!); then Eddie was deployed.
Why?
More than that, I don't believe that Eddie and Keela were ever deployed together before PdL.
Still, I have tended to give Eddie benefit of the doubt that Prout may have cross-transferred a death scent into the matrimonial home from his clothes after burying his wife.
IIRC it's on a documentary/video about HDLG. Grime is on a beach then hides an open jar of ancient bone fragments up in the rocks for Eddie to find. Sorry - I've lost all my links, but I'll try to find the link on Google unless someone else can post it.
Keela inspected the clothes first to rule out blood so if Eddie comes next and alerts it suggests cadaver odour.
Found it.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHdPGyQt2M[/youtube]
So why did Eddie not alert to any clothing in the villa he, apparently, "alerted" to in the gym?
And is there any evidence of Keela and Eddie being deployed together before PdL?
Eddie inspected the McCanns clothing in the villa ? Do you have any written or visual verification for that ?
So why did Eddie not alert to any clothing in the villa he, apparently, "alerted" to in the gym?
And is there any evidence of Keela and Eddie being deployed together before PdL?
Any help @ about 2.30
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose [the gym], attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
Not sure what you're referring to at 2 minutes 30, but you can see the clothing littered about the villa throughout the video.
At one time, before fraudster Levy started tampering with the lighting of the inspection at the villa, it was possible to see, very plainly, clothing littered about all over the villa, on the floors, on the beds, on the chairs (etc.)
All studiously ignored by Eddie.
Eddie was only interested in the toy.
Which he alerted to only after some bounder took it away from him and hid it in a cupboard.
In short, Eddie barked and picked up clothing in the gym he ignored completely in the villa.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHdPGyQt2M[/youtube]
Wont work Carana, cos there is an "s" after http
Drop the "s" to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHdPGyQt2M
... et voila it works!
I used the report which you linked.
The report doesn`t seem to record an inspection by the dogs of the actual clothing which was boxed / packed at the villa before the dogs were involved .
Just items seized and boxed........presumably for a later inspection at the gym?
There seems to be no written report of the "non alerts" to clothing inspected by the dogs actually at the villa, does there?
No confirmation anywhere that the clothes alerted to at the gym were previously not signalled at the villa.
Were all the McCanns clothes taken for dog inspection, or only selected items?
I used the report which you linked.
The report doesn`t seem to record an inspection by the dogs of the actual clothing which was boxed / packed at the villa before the dogs were involved .
Just items seized and boxed........presumably for a later inspection at the gym?
There seems to be no written report of the "non alerts" to clothing inspected by the dogs actually at the villa, does there?
No confirmation anywhere that the clothes alerted to at the gym were previously not signalled at the villa.
Were all the McCanns clothes taken for dog inspection, or only selected items?
I don't know if there still is, but at one time, there was video footage of clothing being packed into cardboard boxes ready for transportation from the villa to the gym.
I dare say fraudster Levy has edited all that out, now, same as he edited out footage of Eddie literally playing with cuddle-cat before Grime hid it in a cupboard ....
Everything is vanishing Ferryman.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone is scouring these pages and looking at documents that help prove the Mccanns innocence, then deleting them or removing all the links.
Some people are doing their best to try and get Kate and Gerry to take the blame.
And of course, that helps Amaral as well as hiding the perps.
I don't know if there still is, but at one time, there was video footage of clothing being packed into cardboard boxes ready for transportation from the villa to the gym.
I dare say fraudster Levy has edited all that out, now, same as he edited out footage of Eddie literally playing with cuddle-cat before Grime hid it in a cupboard ....
At 10:21 in the following video there is a brief glimpse through patio door of boxes being packed outside ???http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=782&v=c4NMYPsFKb8
At 10:33 the table can be seen being cleared and packed ... Cuddle Cat is there too.
At 11:59 and reprised at 12:43 appx one of Levy's less polished edits is in evidence.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=782&v=c4NMYPsFKb8[/youtube]
Don't know why the video isn't posting ... but it can be viewed at its link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=782&v=c4NMYPsFKb8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=782&v=c4NMYPsFKb8
I wouldn't go as far as say 'everything is vanishing' but I do remember viewing the videos and seeing the boxes with labels on them sitting in the gym. I think the forum has photos of them somewhere so there is no dispute about that one. I also remember seeing Eddie playfully toss Cuddles up in the air after dragging him out of the toy box.
What about those vanishing funds which found their way into Correia's pocket?
My apologies if this is on the wrong thread, but I have forgotten which thread it is pertinent to now
At 13.24 you will see Martin walking down the pathway past Madeleines bedroom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=782&v=c4NMYPsFKb8
Martin is a cop so almost certainly taller than most. And the wall is about chest height as i said before.
Thanks for the video link Pegasus.
Why does Eddie bark once in that video, I thought he only barked when he alerted to something.That is breathing not barking Lace as he approaches apartment
I remember seeing the video of Eddie playing with Cuddle Cat now all you see is CC falling out of the bin and lying on the ground.
I also remember a video showing Martin Grime hiding a sample of his own blood for Eddie to find, that has gone too.
edited to add - also there was a bit in a video where Eddie barked at a bin in one of the other apartments.
It's still online (4.50 ish):
Grime doesn't direct his dogs at all does he...? &%+((£
What does that mean? If Eddie bark alerts behind the sofa should MG then direct Keela to search the bathroom?What does it mean? Well, watch the video.
What does it mean? Well, watch the video.
I've watched that video before. The handler can direct the search if he notices a change in the dog's behaviour and MG knows his dogs.
I remember seeing the video of Eddie playing with Cuddle Cat now all you see is CC falling out of the bin and lying on the ground.He hides a rag with blood spots on, in a wall, for Keela to find.
I also remember a video showing Martin Grime hiding a sample of his own blood for Eddie to find, that has gone too.
edited to add - also there was a bit in a video where Eddie barked at a bin in one of the other apartments.
Once again I am intrigued as to why Martin Grime is covered from head to toe in protective clothing on one occasion but isn't even wearing gloves on another.
He is even wearing a mask over his mouth at one time - which I assume must be something to do with his breath?
Bearing in mind that he must regularly come into contact with 'alertable material' when training his dogs - which apparently was an ongoing regular activity - could it be that he himself was a potential 'carrier' of cross contamination - and he is guarding against that by means of full protective clothing? If so - why only on some occasions and not others?
Hmmm - I'm mystified.
Once again I am intrigued as to why Martin Grime is covered from head to toe in protective clothing on one occasion but isn't even wearing gloves on another.
He is even wearing a mask over his mouth at one time - which I assume must be something to do with his breath?
Bearing in mind that he must regularly come into contact with 'alertable material' when training his dogs - which apparently was an ongoing regular activity - could it be that he himself was a potential 'carrier' of cross contamination - and he is guarding against that by means of full protective clothing? If so - why only on some occasions and not others?
Hmmm - I'm mystified.
I can see the sense of wearing a full forensic suit in a protected crime scene but the inspections in PdL were far away from being that. Basically it made little difference.
I can see the sense of wearing a full forensic suit in a protected crime scene but the inspections in PdL were far away from being that. Basically it made little difference.
I know the (single!) answer to all these questions .....
In that case surely it would have been essential when searching 5A. But he only wore gloves.
It doesn't look very comfortable to me, so there must be a good reason for wearing it IMO.
What I would like to know is why he is wearing it. Is it to protect the scene from contamination from himself, or to protect himself from contamination from the scene?
And why would he need to cover his mouth?
Any ideas Angelo?
Grime doesn't direct his dogs at all does he...? &%+((£
For starters...............
Originally written on 7th June 2008
Article by Dr Rosemary Claire Taylor MA MB BChir (Cantab)
Olfaction, the act or process of smelling, is the primary special sense possessed by dogs. A dog’s sense of smell is a thousand times more sensitive than humans. Dogs have more than 220 million olfactory receptors in their nose, whereas humans only have 5 million. Specially trained dogs have been used to locate forensic cadaver material and disaster survivors. Highly trained dogs assisted the emergency services in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001.
Cadaver dogs need to undergo rigorous training. Prior to beginning a specialised training programme, these dogs need to have basic obedience skills. The cue a dog uses to indicate forensic material depends on the trainer. Some dogs are trained to bark to indicate cadavers, whereas others scratch at the area in the crime scene. Dogs are given a verbal cue to start searching, and directional cues such as “check it out” to indicate an area requiring a more detailed search.
A variety of breeds can be trained to hunt forensic material. Bloodhounds, springer spaniels and labradors are commonly used. Trained cadaver dogs have the ability to detect decomposing bodies beneath running water, for example when a corpse is weighted down, and placed at the bottom of a river.
I have done a thorough search of academic journals on this subject, and will present my findings as follows:
1. 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 (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). 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).
Reference:
Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.
Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.
Notes on the scientific terminology in this study;
Sensitivity means the number of correct detections out of 100. Here, all dogs managed to correctly identify 75-100 carpet squares out of 100. This is a good success rate.
Specificity describes the number of false identifications. A sensitivity of 91 out of 100 means, at most, there are 9 false positives in a sample of 100 uncontaminated squares. This is a good specificity, much higher than cervical screening, which can detect far more false positives.
The Positive Predictive Value can be defined as;
In other words, out of 100, there are 75-100 true positives, and 0-9 false positives. A positive predictive value describes the percentage chance, if a sample is contaminated, that the dog will discover it. The value of 90-100 means that, out of 100 contaminated squares, at least 90 are correctly identified by the dog.
The Negative Predictive Value can be defined as;
In other words, out of 100, there are 0-9 false positives and 0-25 false negatives. A negative predictive value describes the chance that, if a sample is not contaminated, the dog will correctly identify the sample as clear of human remains. The study quotes a negative predictive value of 90-100. This means only 0-10 ‘clean’ squares are wrongly identified as contaminated by the dogs.
Accuracy is the degree to which the evidence presented by the dogs matches known information about which squares were marked. The accuracy of dog detection is presented as 92-100. This means that dogs correctly identify carpet squares as ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ in at least 92 cases out of 100. This is an impressive accuracy score.
In addition, I think it is important to consider that this is an experiment, not real life. In reality cadaver dogs are given more time to assess possible traces of human remains. Hence in a true police setting, cadaver dogs are more likely to give accurate information.
2. Specially trained air scent detection canines (Canis familiaris) are commonly used by law enforcement to detect narcotics, explosives or contraband, and by fire investigators to detect the presence of accelerants. Dogs are also used by police, military, and civilian groups to locate lost or missing persons, as well as victims of natural or mass disasters. A further subspecialty is “cadaver” searching, or the use of canines to locate buried or concealed human remains.
Recent forensic investigations in central Alberta demonstrated that the use of cadaver dogs could be expanded to include locating partial, scattered human remains dispersed by repeated animal scavenging. Eight dog-and-handler teams participated in a two-month training program using human and animal remains in various stages of decay as scent sources. Ten blind field tests were then conducted which simulated actual search conditions. Recovery rates ranged between 57% and 100%, indicating that properly trained cadaver dogs can make significant contributions in the location and recovery of scattered human remains.
Reference:
J Forensic Sci. 1999 Mar;44(2):405-8.
The use of cadaver dogs in locating scattered, scavenged human remains: preliminary field test results. Komar D.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
This study was written in 1999. Nonetheless, in situations where there are scattered human remains, dogs identify them in 57-100% of cases.
3. The detection of human remains that have been deliberately buried to escape detection is a problem for law enforcement. Sometimes the cadaver dog and handler teams are successful, while other times law enforcement and cadaver dog teams are frustrated in their search. Five field trials tested the ability of four cadaver dog and handler teams to detect buried human remains.
Human and animal remains were buried in various forested areas during the summer months near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The remains ranged in decomposition from fresh to skeletonised. Cadaver dogs detected with varying success: buried human remains at different stages of decomposition, buried human remains at different depths, and buried decomposed human and animal remains.
The results from these trials showed that some cadaver dogs were able to locate skeletonised remains buried at a significant depth. Fresh and skeletonised remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains.
Reference:
J Forensic Sci. 2003 May;48(3):617-21.
Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern United States.Lasseter AE, Jacobi KP, Farley R, Hensel L.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0210, USA.
This is an impressive study. The salient points are that cadaver dogs can identify a corpse, or a piece of a corpse, which had been buried at a significant depth. This gives the dog handlers an opportunity to investigate a more ‘real life’ crime scene. Following a murder, it is normal for a criminal to hide any human remains, often by burying the corpse. It appears that these dogs can still detect the ‘smell of death’, when a body part is buried deep in a forest.
- See more at: http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/#sthash.1xx3kVVt.dpuf
It was a pointless exercise in futility imo.
I can see the sense of wearing a full forensic suit in a protected crime scene but the inspections in PdL were far away from being that. Basically it made little difference.
I can see the sense of wearing a full forensic suit in a protected crime scene but the inspections in PdL were far away from being that. Basically it made little difference.
Why are you so antagonistic towards Grime, what did he ever do to you ferryman?Why are you so nasty about Kate and Gerry McCann - what did they ever do to you Angelo?
Why are you so nasty about Kate and Gerry McCann - what did they ever do to you Angelo?
Originally there was no intention to search the villa or the scenic.
That decision was made after the dogs alerted at the apartment, on Aug 1st.
If the dogs had not alerted in 5A, there would have been no search of the villa or scenic.
This is from Harrison's reported dated 25 July, so I don't think that's quite right, Pegasus.Yes Ferryman - If you read that carefully it does not include the Scenic.
On 25-07-07 the PJ Director decided his officers would re-search some of the areas suggested within the report. He also decided the order of their priority. These were the accommodation the McCann’s and their friends have occupied in Praia da Luz, the villa and the grounds occupied by Robert Murat, wasteland that surrounds these locations and any known vehicles the suspect, the McCanns and their friends had access to when Madeleine disappeared.
Yes Ferryman - If you read that carefully it does not include the Scenic.
"Any known vehicles the suspect, the McCanns and their friends had access to when Madeleine disappeared" includes a rental car hired by friends of JT/ROB but does not include the Scenic.
The decisions to search the Rua Das Flores villa and the Scenic were made after Eddie alerted at 5A Aug 1st.
Yes Ferryman - If you read that carefully it does not include the Scenic.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
"Any known vehicles the suspect, the McCanns and their friends had access to when Madeleine disappeared" includes a rental car hired by friends of JT/ROB but does not include the Scenic.
The decisions to search the Rua Das Flores villa and the Scenic were made after Eddie alerted at 5A Aug 1st.
Yes Ferryman - If you read that carefully it does not include the Scenic.
"Any known vehicles the suspect, the McCanns and their friends had access to when Madeleine disappeared" includes a rental car hired by friends of JT/ROB but does not include the Scenic.
The decisions to search the Rua Das Flores villa and the Scenic were made after Eddie alerted at 5A Aug 1st.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Date: 01 August 2007
*snipped*
Initial conclusion.
To the coordinator of the criminal investigation.
Faced with new elements revealed by the dog handling unit's search, attached to the report, and on the basis of Mark Harrison's report, there is every reason to believe that the small child Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A where she was spending her holiday with her parents at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. Following the markings by the cadaver odour detecting dogs and traces of human blood inside the apartment from which the child disappeared, we have done further extensive research, revealing that there was never a death, or a body, notified in this same apartment before. In this report, several places were marked, signaling the presence of cadaver odour and human blood. In addition, we can observe that a cadaver odour was detected in the garden adjacent to apartment 5A. Nothing was detected in the other residences.
It follows from this investigation that there are indications, in practice and in the facts, of the crime of murder such as defined in ArticleQI310 of the Penal Code.
So as to go further with this lead, of which certain results may reveal new evidence, we request authorisation to carry out further inspections, within the legal framework, in two distinct places:
1 - Rue des Fleurs no...The McCann family's current residence in Portugal.
2 - Rented vehicle Renault Scenic, registration ...DA - 27.
We suggest that this inspection is entrusted to the PJ and ask the Public Prosecutor for a 20 day mandate. Thus, we consider that there are indications that consolidate strong suspicions according to which, there are elements of evidence of a crime, inside the vehicle used by the McCanns and, moreover, likely to reveal important details of fundamental importance for the investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing how quickly they could get a search warrant when they really wanted to.
@Misty. Yes the warrants for the searches of the villa and scenic were applied for immediately after Eddie visited 5A, and granted very rapidly by a judge on the next day.
But what happened to the warrants for bugging of villa and scenic?
This is the "sala comum" box area and the pillows on dining table prove it.
There are IMO at least 4 piles of clothing in this photo
On sideboard on your right under a sheet of paper is clothes items grey, green, red, white.
Next pile to left is top down small clothes items yellow, green,yellow.
Next pile to left has a grey clothes item on top.
Also IMO is probably more items on chair.
The PJ did check that no-one had ever lain dead in Rua des Fleurs......didn't they?
There are two sections in the dog video scanning over the sideboard area. IMO at least the first pile you detail as clothes (grey green red and white) are papers and files....Yes there are more footage of these piles on the sideboard from different angles near the end of the villa footage.
Yes there are more footage of these piles on the sideboard from different angles near the end of the villa footage.
Do you agree in that pile on right that the red folder or sheet of paper has a white area on it?
There pillows and pillowcases and towels on dining table - not a usual place to find them - but there is an elementary explanation.
The cadaver dog did not alert there so why should they?
Peggy, I am not going to spend my evening playing spot the red or white bit with you.The pile in the wardrobe did NOT show Sean's red aeroplane t shirt and the pile on the sideboard is papers and folders and files.Ok try another - is it possible a pile of folded aired clothes is on the lonely dining chair?
I would agree with you if I agreed with you but the eye says no
@)(++(*
I know it must fit into some theory of yours but if I may say so you are barking up wrong trees on these particular details, try another if I were you. Or not. Up to you.
Eddie alerted to Cuddlecat there (according to Grime).
What's that then? The PJ piled up bedding and clothes all near each other? Maybe, but then again, maybe notThey had been washed, then aired on the racks outside that balcony door, then brought inside IMO
Yes but hardly topart of the furniture or foundations!!!
But to a piece of the Mccanns belongings NOT the same as flat 5 a
They had been washed, then aired on the racks outside that balcony door, then brought inside IMO
Cuddlecat was in the cupboard when Eddie allegedly alerted. Did the PJ obtain evidence that an ash casket had not been in or on that cupboard at any time?
Cuddlecat was in the cupboard when Eddie allegedly alerted. Did the PJ obtain evidence that an ash casket had not been in or on that cupboard at any time?
Yes there are more footage of these piles on the sideboard from different angles near the end of the villa footage.
Do you agree in that pile on right that the red folder or sheet of paper has a white area on it?
The EVRD alerted to the missing girl's toy. You can't fool a clever dog. Have you seen Madeleine lately? Eddie has told SY the reason why unless you think they spend millions on a case searching for the body for the hell of it.
Do you mean this Pegasus?Yes the red folder?/paper? has a white logo?/title? on it.
Yes the red folder?/paper? has a white logo?/title? on it.
Does anyone have an explanation as to why the dogs completely ignored objects several times that they later alerted to. If the dogs alert to a specific scent then why did they not alert to the objects several times
Any help @ about 2.30
That is definitely a bark around about 14.13 not panting PF
I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house 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.
Moving onto the other rooms once he's found what he thinks he's looking for in this room, and we go into the bathroom and come into this bedroom he loses his interest because he's actually found the source that he was looking for, until we come over here and I think you've got it on video that when he first came in he was quite interested in the sofa but he didn't have access to the back of the sofa and 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I never said anything and if you think that is a bark you should get your hearing checked out. The dog knocking into a chair and moving it is not a bark @)(++(*
It makes no sense...if cuddlecat has cadaver odour eddie should alert immediately on contact...the alerts are meaningless
Was one alert meaningless in the Prout case? Eddie has many alerts in this one.
"You will teach the dog to associate the smell of death with its toy by making the toy smell like death. Your dog should be exposed to, and trained to find, all sorts of dead bodies — on varied terrain, day or night, rain or shine."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/magazine/how-to-train-a-cadaver-dog.html?_r=0
That is definitely a bark around about 14.13 not panting PFNo that is not a bark at 14:13, and it's not panting.
The EVRD alerted to the missing girl's toy. You can't fool a clever dog. Have you seen Madeleine lately? Eddie has told SY the reason why unless you think they spend millions on a case searching for the body for the hell of it.Please post a still photo from the video, of Eddie's nose near the cat just before he barks....
Was one alert meaningless in the Prout case? Eddie has many alerts in this one.
"You will teach the dog to associate the smell of death with its toy by making the toy smell like death. Your dog should be exposed to, and trained to find, all sorts of dead bodies — on varied terrain, day or night, rain or shine."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/magazine/how-to-train-a-cadaver-dog.html?_r=0
Post a still photo of Eddie's nose near the cat just before he barks.
You can't, because that never happens.
The secret technique is to observe carefully where Eddies nose sniffs just before he barks Pathfinder.
Watch his nose - Alert 1 in the villa is to something on top of the sideboard
Watch his nose - Alert 2 in the villa is to something on the seat of the lonely dining chair.
No that is not a bark at 14:13, and it's not panting.
It is Eddie blowing his nose out to clear it.
http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=14m2s
You can hear Keela blowing her nose out and described by the handler here
http://youtu.be/SmHdPGyQt2M?t=4m26s
I can tell the difference between the dog blowing it's nose out and a bark and that is one sharp bark.The noise at 14:13 is blowing nose out IMO http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=14m2s .
That is definitely a bark around about 14.13 not panting PF
The noise at 14:13 is blowing nose out IMO http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=14m2s .
It's a bark.
It could also be someone moving a chair on a hard surface.Could be.
(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/120227_a15918_g2048-600.jpg)
“Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him—yet somehow I did not realize that he was a cow.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/02/27/beware-of-the-dogs
Pure bullocks. 8**8:/:
Were they the wet ones the PJ had to retrieve from the full washing machine?It is possible the pillows and pillowcases and towels on the dining table are from the washdry machine but I don't know. They were not on the table earlier that day. They are interesting only because they ended up in the same box as the listed clothes, which means the listed clothes are near that table.
There is a bunch of bananas, or are people claiming that's a pile of yellow folders and papers?
I can tell the difference between the dog blowing it's nose out and a bark and that is one sharp bark.It could be heard as a bark.
The 'untrained puppy' pulling on the leash almost strangling himself behaviour shown by Eddie outside 5A is not in my opinion the behaviour one would expect from a trained working dog.
The 'untrained puppy' pulling on the leash almost strangling himself behaviour shown by Eddie outside 5A is not in my opinion the behaviour one would expect from a trained working dog.On the same video you can see Eddie's behaviour outside the front door of 5B. Compare.
Taken in conjunction with the loud frenetic panting emanating from Eddie while he was working has always seemed a bit strange to me and I think adds up to a boy who was having difficulty with the warm Portuguese climate.
I have read in various places that a panting dog is not an efficient dog ... which seems a reasonable conclusion to reach and if you have ever been slavered over you will appreciate that ...
**Snip
Then there’s endurance: performance changes over time.
Dogs get tired, and less reliable, as the day goes on, just as we might.
As for conditions, odors change in the weather, and dogs do, too.
When they’re panting, dogs don’t sniff as readily as they normally might; an overly warm dog, forced to pant to cool himself, has a less reliable nose.
And while we don’t think of odors as seasonal (until, upon reflection, we remember: there is a smell of spring, of summer; the odors of winter are fewer), smells are more volatile in warm weather, and travel and disperse differently than in the cold.
This too affects detection rates.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-limits-of-detection
It could be heard as a bark.
The problem here is when Eddie has barked to alert, he has always given several barks as the indication.This was not an indication,IMO, and was not recorded as one either.
Eddie was not a puppy, neither did he almost "strangle himself" and neither was he an untrained or non working dog. Your opinion doesn't really count and isn't remotely relevant to anything of substance as you are, presumably, not a dog handler and not in any position to expect anything at all. To even throw out the notion that you may know better than Mr Grime, a seasoned policeman and dog handler with nearly three decades of experience, is, at the very best, the height of such astonishing arrogance and brazenness.
It could be heard as a bark.
The problem here is when Eddie has barked to alert, he has always given several barks as the indication.This was not an indication,IMO, and was not recorded as one either.
Eddie was not a puppy, neither did he almost "strangle himself" and neither was he an untrained or non working dog. Your opinion doesn't really count and isn't remotely relevant to anything of substance as you are, presumably, not a dog handler and not in any position to expect anything at all. To even throw out the notion that you may know better than Mr Grime, a seasoned policeman and dog handler with nearly three decades of experience, is, at the very best, the height of such astonishing arrogance and brazenness.
Get a grip on yourself please ... you seem to be suggesting that one has to be an expert to recognise the behaviour typical of a dog which has not been trained to walk on the lead without pulling and choking?
I have observed Eddie doing just that ... and every dog I have ever had has been trained to 'stay' when told and to walk at my side whether on the lead or not, but when on the lead never to pull as Eddie did on that video clip ... which rather suggests that in that discipline at least, my training methods and the training methods of thousands of owners, are indeed far superior to Mr Grime's.
I think Grime has been very careful to cover himself by completely playing down the significance of the alerts
Get a grip on yourself please ... you seem to be suggesting that one has to be an expert to recognise the behaviour typical of a dog which has not been trained to walk on the lead without pulling and choking?
I have observed Eddie doing just that ... and every dog I have ever had has been trained to 'stay' when told and to walk at my side whether on the lead or not, but when on the lead never to pull as Eddie did on that video clip ... which rather suggests that in that discipline at least, my training methods and the training methods of thousands of owners, are indeed far superior to Mr Grime's.
I repeat, you are not a cadaver or any other police dog handler, or Eddies handler, it really is that simple, and it matters not that you have had a dog and it did what you said, or that Eleanor had one who pissed as she said on her carpet, we all know what your games are by now...discredit either the dog or the handler, introduce pathetically spurious reasons for the alerts, whichever is easiest at any given time, admit it, you don't like the fact that a cadaver dog alerted at the last place a missing child was seen, that's the nub....it may be, in a month of Sunday's probably though, that the alerts meant nothing at all, but your approach sure doesn't do much to convince, it actually has the opposite effect, unfortunately for you
and you and all the other posters are not cadaver dog handlers...but what we do know is that THE cadaver dog handler says his dog's alerts a have no evidential reliability...as far as i am concerned the alerts are worthless...and grime agrees with me
Nope, you are wrong, yet again, alerts are without forensic evidence unconfirmed "indications" as stated by Mark Harrison and Martin Grime..."indications"
no....cite please
I repeat, you are not a cadaver or any other police dog handler, or Eddies handler, it really is that simple, and it matters not that you have had a dog and it did what you said, or that Eleanor had one who pissed as she said on her carpet, we all know what your games are by now...discredit either the dog or the handler, introduce pathetically spurious reasons for the alerts, whichever is easiest at any given time, admit it, you don't like the fact that a cadaver dog alerted at the last place a missing child was seen, that's the nub....it may be, in a month of Sunday's probably though, that the alerts meant nothing at all, but your approach sure doesn't do much to convince, it actually has the opposite effect, unfortunately for you
May I recommend Mr Grime's comments to you ...You really don't need to, I have read the files, thanks anyway
**Snip
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Cherry picking again are we? Martin Grime wrote that in relation to the CARS....he did not mention blood when he said in his opinion it was cadaver scent on other searches...actually, that proves the point that Mr Grime knows how to differentiate between the two possibilities....isn't he clever?
... ... and we do KNOW (or at least those of us who have been reading the posts on this thread with a modicum of understanding)
patronising will get you nowhere at all
that rather spectacular alert was to cellular material on the key fob of the Renault deposited by a living breathing human being.
Therefore ... corroboration that Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent in the Renault.
You potentially make two mistakes there
1) that the blood found on the car key fob WAS Gerry Mccanns and 2) that a cadaver dog also able to smell blood must have only smelt blood
Oh I forgot, Gerry McCann himself said there was no blood found ...are you disbelieving him? Edited, wrong interview referred to but he did say it
As an adjunct, what is the difference in the Lowe FSS report between it being a 100 per cent given in your view that Gerrys blood was in the car key fob and 100 per cent Madeleine's blood NOT being in the tiles from behnd the sofa
What he may have alerted to in apartment 5A is anyone's guess but as his false alert in the Renault attests ... it could have been anything at all which emits the VOCs he was trained to recognise.
false alert? Backtracking?
I find it amazing that there are so many people around absolutely determined that a little girl died in the apartment that night without a shred of evidence to support their aspirations.
Your last sentence is gross at best, but par for the course
I am usually right,...the fact that you have not provided a cite confirms thisNo, it only confirms you have made an assumption that because I have yet to provide the cite you must be right, but you're wrong
I am usually right,...the fact that you have not provided a cite confirms this
Get a grip on yourself please ... you seem to be suggesting that one has to be an expert to recognise the behaviour typical of a dog which has not been trained to walk on the lead without pulling and choking?Here is a video here of a dog staying when told to stay, calmly waiting at an open door until told to enter
I have observed Eddie doing just that ... and every dog I have ever had has been trained to 'stay' when told and to walk at my side whether on the lead or not, but when on the lead never to pull as Eddie did on that video clip ... which rather suggests that in that discipline at least, my training methods and the training methods of thousands of owners, are indeed far superior to Mr Grime's.
Entry H: http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=46m37s
Again the dog waits until told to enter.
Are you sayng Eddie, as Mr Grime suggested,was already scenting the scent before even venturing in?Probably, rather than he was trying to strangle himself or was tired already ,which is ridiculous as 5a was his first port of call even IF the theory had any substance, or it was too hot, and other such claptrapI don't know Mercury I just posted some video links of dog outside some other front doors for comparing.
I don't know Mercury I just posted some video links of dog outside some other front doors for comparing.
I repeat, you are not a cadaver or any other police dog handler, or Eddies handler, it really is that simple, and it matters not that you have had a dog and it did what you said, or that Eleanor had one who pissed as she said on her carpet, we all know what your games are by now...discredit either the dog or the handler, introduce pathetically spurious reasons for the alerts, whichever is easiest at any given time, admit it, you don't like the fact that a cadaver dog alerted at the last place a missing child was seen, that's the nub....it may be, in a month of Sunday's probably though, that the alerts meant nothing at all, but your approach sure doesn't do much to convince, it actually has the opposite effect, unfortunately for you
No, it only confirms you have made an assumption that because I have yet to provide the cite you must be right, but you're wrong
8((()*/
SUch poor logic
For starters...............
Originally written on 7th June 2008
Article by Dr Rosemary Claire Taylor MA MB BChir (Cantab)
Olfaction, the act or process of smelling, is the primary special sense possessed by dogs. A dog’s sense of smell is a thousand times more sensitive than humans. Dogs have more than 220 million olfactory receptors in their nose, whereas humans only have 5 million. Specially trained dogs have been used to locate forensic cadaver material and disaster survivors. Highly trained dogs assisted the emergency services in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001.
Cadaver dogs need to undergo rigorous training. Prior to beginning a specialised training programme, these dogs need to have basic obedience skills. The cue a dog uses to indicate forensic material depends on the trainer. Some dogs are trained to bark to indicate cadavers, whereas others scratch at the area in the crime scene. Dogs are given a verbal cue to start searching, and directional cues such as “check it out” to indicate an area requiring a more detailed search.
A variety of breeds can be trained to hunt forensic material. Bloodhounds, springer spaniels and labradors are commonly used. Trained cadaver dogs have the ability to detect decomposing bodies beneath running water, for example when a corpse is weighted down, and placed at the bottom of a river.
I have done a thorough search of academic journals on this subject, and will present my findings as follows:
1. 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 (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). 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).
Reference:
Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.
Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.
Notes on the scientific terminology in this study;
Sensitivity means the number of correct detections out of 100. Here, all dogs managed to correctly identify 75-100 carpet squares out of 100. This is a good success rate.
Specificity describes the number of false identifications. A sensitivity of 91 out of 100 means, at most, there are 9 false positives in a sample of 100 uncontaminated squares. This is a good specificity, much higher than cervical screening, which can detect far more false positives.
The Positive Predictive Value can be defined as;
In other words, out of 100, there are 75-100 true positives, and 0-9 false positives. A positive predictive value describes the percentage chance, if a sample is contaminated, that the dog will discover it. The value of 90-100 means that, out of 100 contaminated squares, at least 90 are correctly identified by the dog.
The Negative Predictive Value can be defined as;
In other words, out of 100, there are 0-9 false positives and 0-25 false negatives. A negative predictive value describes the chance that, if a sample is not contaminated, the dog will correctly identify the sample as clear of human remains. The study quotes a negative predictive value of 90-100. This means only 0-10 ‘clean’ squares are wrongly identified as contaminated by the dogs.
Accuracy is the degree to which the evidence presented by the dogs matches known information about which squares were marked. The accuracy of dog detection is presented as 92-100. This means that dogs correctly identify carpet squares as ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ in at least 92 cases out of 100. This is an impressive accuracy score.
In addition, I think it is important to consider that this is an experiment, not real life. In reality cadaver dogs are given more time to assess possible traces of human remains. Hence in a true police setting, cadaver dogs are more likely to give accurate information.
2. Specially trained air scent detection canines (Canis familiaris) are commonly used by law enforcement to detect narcotics, explosives or contraband, and by fire investigators to detect the presence of accelerants. Dogs are also used by police, military, and civilian groups to locate lost or missing persons, as well as victims of natural or mass disasters. A further subspecialty is “cadaver” searching, or the use of canines to locate buried or concealed human remains.
Recent forensic investigations in central Alberta demonstrated that the use of cadaver dogs could be expanded to include locating partial, scattered human remains dispersed by repeated animal scavenging. Eight dog-and-handler teams participated in a two-month training program using human and animal remains in various stages of decay as scent sources. Ten blind field tests were then conducted which simulated actual search conditions. Recovery rates ranged between 57% and 100%, indicating that properly trained cadaver dogs can make significant contributions in the location and recovery of scattered human remains.
Reference:
J Forensic Sci. 1999 Mar;44(2):405-8.
The use of cadaver dogs in locating scattered, scavenged human remains: preliminary field test results. Komar D.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
This study was written in 1999. Nonetheless, in situations where there are scattered human remains, dogs identify them in 57-100% of cases.
3. The detection of human remains that have been deliberately buried to escape detection is a problem for law enforcement. Sometimes the cadaver dog and handler teams are successful, while other times law enforcement and cadaver dog teams are frustrated in their search. Five field trials tested the ability of four cadaver dog and handler teams to detect buried human remains.
Human and animal remains were buried in various forested areas during the summer months near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The remains ranged in decomposition from fresh to skeletonised. Cadaver dogs detected with varying success: buried human remains at different stages of decomposition, buried human remains at different depths, and buried decomposed human and animal remains.
The results from these trials showed that some cadaver dogs were able to locate skeletonised remains buried at a significant depth. Fresh and skeletonised remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains.
Reference:
J Forensic Sci. 2003 May;48(3):617-21.
Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern United States.Lasseter AE, Jacobi KP, Farley R, Hensel L.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0210, USA.
This is an impressive study. The salient points are that cadaver dogs can identify a corpse, or a piece of a corpse, which had been buried at a significant depth. This gives the dog handlers an opportunity to investigate a more ‘real life’ crime scene. Following a murder, it is normal for a criminal to hide any human remains, often by burying the corpse. It appears that these dogs can still detect the ‘smell of death’, when a body part is buried deep in a forest.
- See more at: http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/#sthash.1xx3kVVt.dpuf
so this was for starters.........is there anymore or is that it
Are you having a bad morning ?
I read your minor litany in response to this already.
All you expressed was your amateur googling opinion and that is of no consequence whatsoever.
Are you sayng Eddie, as Mr Grime suggested,was already scenting the scent before even venturing in?Probably, rather than he was trying to strangle himself or was tired already ,which is ridiculous as 5a was his first port of call even IF the theory had any substance, or it was too hot, and other such claptrap
How terribly condescending Stephen.
Whereas you make statements of "fact" with absolutely no cite or corroboration.
Answers in case you wondered, are in purple!
I gave reference to an actual case study jp.
?{)(**
Did you use google or another search engine to find it? . Which you have just critised others for doing. ?{)(**
I don't rely on google for all my knowledge.
Research is sometimes essential and that was just one study among others
However, I don't pretend to be an expert in the field merely having read this study as regards dogs as others do on here. *&*%£
it was Gerry's blood on the key fob wasn't it?
Didn't Gerry mean there was no blood found in the car boot when they took a sample?
I have not seen anyone claiming to be an "expert" in anything on this forum.
Goggle is preferable to guesswork.
No one knows. Both dogs alerted and enough of the components of Gerry's profile were present to satisfy Lowe that it was likely to be his DNA.
There was no forensic corroboration of blood.
You can google and still not understand.
One poster the other day was quoting 'r' values in relation to testing procedures.
They didn't appear to know what they represented.
In case it helps 'r' values normally relate to correlation values.
True.
But if it wasn't blood, then Keela alerted falsely.
You can google and still not understand.
One poster the other day was quoting 'r' values in relation to testing procedures.
They didn't appear to know what they represented.
In case it helps 'r' values normally relate to correlation values.
We don't know that, either, though.
In the Jersey notes, Grime describes the alerts as:
Both the EVRD and Human blood search dog are presumptive screening assets. Any alert indications given MUST be forensically corroborated to be conclusive.
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
I'm not befitting people who use google.
I just don't agree with those who google knowledge and then pretend to be experts in that field of knowledge.
Research helps, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert.
No-one is claiming to be an expert - they are backing up their claims with appropriate cites. Something which you repeatedly refuse to do IMO.
However, the subject of Dog Handling/Training is hardly on a par with Astro Physics - and AFAIK a university degree is not a requirement in order to understand the subject well enough to express an informed opinion on it - backed up by cites from people who ARE experts.
Your reason for attempting to 'shut down' discussion on this subject (simply because you don't happen to agree with) - by accusing people of not being qualified to discuss it doesn't wash IMO.
No-one is claiming to be an expert - they are backing up their claims with appropriate cites. Something which you repeatedly refuse to do IMO.
However, the subject of Dog Handling/Training is hardly on a par with Astro Physics - and AFAIK a university degree is not a requirement in order to understand the subject well enough to express an informed opinion on it - backed up by cites from people who ARE experts.
Your reason for attempting to 'shut down' discussion on this subject (simply because you don't happen to agree with) - by accusing people of not being qualified to discuss it doesn't wash IMO.
Of course Martin Marime is quite clear- the dog alerts are of no evidential or intelligence value without forensic corroboration.
So it is intriguing that some posters are choosing to ignore this, and try to place intelligence and evidential value on the alerts, contrary to Martin Grime's own advice.
This suggests that those posters think they know better than an experienced dog handler.
Of course Martin Marime is quite clear- the dog alerts are of no evidential or intelligence value without forensic corroboration.
So it is intriguing that some posters are choosing to ignore this, and try to place intelligence and evidential value on the alerts, contrary to Martin Grime's own advice.
This suggests that those posters think they know better than an experienced dog handler.
Yet they remain the only the focus of contention in this case.
There is nothing else even remotely pointing to Madeleine's fate.
So given the lack of corroborating evidence, does r=0
still no cite.......no surprise
The clear attempts to attack Martin Grime and to belittle him and the dogs indications, are what mccann supporters are all about on there.
Anyone who thinks anything else is deluded.
What are the bivariate factors being tested jp ?
Are they qualitative or quantitative ?
There you go again Stephen - why can you not say "which variables are being tested"? And "are they number based or quality based"
Why do you have to try to prove how clever you are with trotting out jargon - I have heard it said that the hallmark of a true expert is the ability to explain things to a layman simply.
I asked a simple question.
How would YOU apply a correlation test to the dogs indications ?
It was you you who put r=0 after all.
it was Gerry's blood on the key fob wasn't it?
Didn't Gerry mean there was no blood found in the car boot when they took a sample?
Yet they remain the only the focus of contention in this case.How wrong.
There is nothing else even remotely pointing to Madeleine's fate.
Behaviour outside each apartment - please someone add the two other times?
http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8
5A:
5B: 38:10
5D: 41:39
5H: 46:37
4G:
The swab DNA results from the card key mentioned corresponding components to his profile matching, same as for the blood found under the tiles, corresponding components matched Madeleine's profile except in the latter case, it was from more than one person and it was also qualified by somethng along the lines of IIRC, but this could mean it came from either one or both parents. My point was people take is as fact one result proves one thing (ie it WAS Gerry's blood) but the other proves something else (it WASN'T Madeleine's blood). Anyway,
Yes, he did say there was no blood, period, in one interview
Q – Didn't you find it strange that the dogs found traces of blood in your room and in your rental car…
Gerry – There was no blood found! The indicia are worthless if they are not corroborated by forensic information. And they were not.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id163.html
Quote from: Brietta on August 27, 2015, 11:16:07 PM
May I recommend Mr Grime's comments to you ...You really don't need to, I have read the files, thanks anyway
**Snip
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Cherry picking again are we? Martin Grime wrote that in relation to the CARS....he did not mention blood when he said in his opinion it was cadaver scent on other searches...actually, that proves the point that Mr Grime knows how to differentiate between the two possibilities....isn't he clever?
... ... and we do KNOW (or at least those of us who have been reading the posts on this thread with a modicum of understanding)
patronising will get you nowhere at all
that rather spectacular alert was to cellular material on the key fob of the Renault deposited by a living breathing human being.
Therefore ... corroboration that Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent in the Renault.
You potentially make two mistakes there
1) that the blood found on the car key fob WAS Gerry Mccanns and 2) that a cadaver dog also able to smell blood must have only smelt blood
Oh I forgot, Gerry McCann himself said there was no blood found ...are you disbelieving him? Edited, wrong interview referred to but he did say it
As an adjunct, what is the difference in the Lowe FSS report between it being a 100 per cent given in your view that Gerrys blood was in the car key fob and 100 per cent Madeleine's blood NOT being in the tiles from behnd the sofa
What he may have alerted to in apartment 5A is anyone's guess but as his false alert in the Renault attests ... it could have been anything at all which emits the VOCs he was trained to recognise.
false alert? Backtracking?
I find it amazing that there are so many people around absolutely determined that a little girl died in the apartment that night without a shred of evidence to support their aspirations.
Your last sentence is gross at best, but par for the course
Answers in case you wondered, are in purple!
It is a fact that the word blood doesn't feature once in John Lowe's report ....
How wrong.
Loads of possible sightings including Tannerman and Smithman.
THen IIRC over 20 in Malta and Gozo alone
Of course Roderick Robinson AKA MacDonald was arrested in Gozo at Sannat, just before Christmas. And he now ls allegedly in jail in Malta. I wonder if he is out of jail yet, cos SY want to speak to him and extradite him, do they not?
Mind you, there is something funny going on here cos bioth Anna and misty [IIRC the correct sleuths ] found that Roderick died some years ago
If so, who is this man?
Sightings sadie ???
It doesn't mean any of them was Madeleine.
It was a joke Stephen. And you will also not that it was phrased in the form of a question.
Neither does it mean they were not.
Do you still believe the Smiths saw Gerry?
You can have your pipe dreams and you are welcome to them.
Tell me which sightings have been confirmed.
Do we have Mr.Smith's direct statement on this matter and not from another 'source' ?
5A 13:15Thanks Mercury
4G 49:58
I asked whether you still believe the Smiths saw Gerry?
Has it been ruled out by direct unequivocal evidence ?
Bearing in mind they didn't see the mans face clearly.
I recall you saying his daughter was better at observation than her father.
Are you having a bad morning ?
I read your minor litany in response to this already.
All you expressed was your amateur googling opinion and that is of no consequence whatsoever.
Has it been ruled out by direct unequivocal evidence ?There has been no dog corroboration of the irish sighting's relevance.
Bearing in mind they didn't see the mans face clearly.
I recall you saying his daughter was better at observation than her father.
So have we reached a consensus or what? Did the dogs inspections at Ocean Club, of the cars or of the McCann's clothing bring anything to the investigation?
Has it occurred to you that the article you have quoted was found via google
You may be an Internet dinasaur but for those of us who have kept abreast of technology Google is an essential tool
So have we reached a consensus or what? Did the dogs inspections at Ocean Club, of the cars or of the McCann's clothing bring anything to the investigation?Certainly no forum consensus has been reached.
Certainly no forum consensus has been reached.
Another question.
If the NPIA had recommended against using an EVRD, and Eddie had never gone to PDL, where would the case be now?
Certainly no forum consensus has been reached.
Another question.
If the NPIA had recommended against using an EVRD, and Eddie had never gone to PDL, where would the case be now?
So have we reached a consensus or what? Did the dogs inspections at Ocean Club, of the cars or of the McCann's clothing bring anything to the investigation?
According to Lowe and his colleagues it brought nothing to the party:
snip >>>>>
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.<<<< snip
snip >>>>>
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann. <<<< snip
Not sure whether we've reached a consensus.
But my take is that analysis of the dog inspections confirms the innocence of the McCanns, but contributes nothing to the sum of knowledge about what happened to Madeleine.
Others, much cleverer than me, analysing different aspects of the official record, have brought to light stuff that does, or may.
All power to them ....
According to Lowe and his colleagues it brought nothing to the party:
snip >>>>>
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.<<<< snip
snip >>>>>
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann. <<<< snip
My hunch is that we would, now, be in exactly the same position as we are in, except that the first enquiry would have been shelved earlier, with Robert Murat the only (original!) arguido to be released from the status without blemish or question to his character.Assuming Eddie and Keela never went to PDL and there were no dog alerts.
Davel - how could you be so disrespectful?
It is well known that there are some posters who are such polymaths that they have no need of google or any other reference.
Their command of maths, law and chemisty and alchemy is profound and unquestionable.
We should consider ouselves fortunate that such intellectual titans are prepared to bestow their wisdom on us ignorant, uneducated dregs of society.
It is still very much ruled in that the Smiths might have been seen Madeleine's abductor, unless anything has come to light I am unaware of to rule out the Smith sighting.
So have we reached a consensus or what? Did the dogs inspections at Ocean Club, of the cars or of the McCann's clothing bring anything to the investigation?
Y'all don't seem to like the conclusions of the FSS.
Don't whinge at me I only posted them. Or are you implying I "did a Levy"
*&*%£
So have we reached a consensus or what? Did the dogs inspections at Ocean Club, of the cars or of the McCann's clothing bring anything to the investigation?
Davel - how could you be so disrespectful?
It is well known that there are some posters who are such polymaths that they have no need of google or any other reference.
Their command of maths, law and chemisty and alchemy is profound and unquestionable.
We should consider ouselves fortunate that such intellectual titans are prepared to bestow their wisdom on us ignorant, uneducated dregs of society.
According to Lowe and his colleagues it brought nothing to the party:
snip >>>>>
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.<<<< snip
snip >>>>>
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann. <<<< snip
from the report...
Why - ...
Well lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "
the discussion as to whether the dna matched Maddie seems to be as a result of a direct question
Why is it such a surprise? Do I make a habit of not providing cites when asked? Tut tut.
You have read the files you claim, you should then not require a cite should you? but just so as it doesn't bother you all day, let us recap
I said that Mark Harrison called the alerts without forensic corroboration unconfirmed indications, and that is precisely what he said. So, no, you were very wrong when you accused me of making it up , such haste and willingness to disbelieve a simple statement
Here is your cite, I await your apology in due course (when pigs grow wings of course)
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed INDICATIONS Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
So there we have it, alerts remain indications
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 Bimiingham, myself included. lt'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.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
it seems the sceptics want to read something into that report that simply isn't there
you should be careful making such a post..stephen will think you are serious.
The subject matter of maths and chemistry as taught at a level has probably changed very little since I studied almost 50 yrs ago...stephen has no need to learn new skills and evaluate new information. For those of us working in more challenging professions where ideas seem to change almost daily the internet is a fantastic tool to enable us to keep up to date. We have also developed the ability to question the evidence relating to new ideas so assessing evidence is something we have been taught and do on a daily basis. Part of any MSc programme involves how to critique scientific papers. This is one of stephen's weaknesses and combined with his failure not to appreciate the value of google has led him to a poor understanding of the evidence
Ste
you should be careful making such a post..stephen will think you are serious.
The subject matter of maths and chemistry as taught at a level has probably changed very little since I studied almost 50 yrs ago...stephen has no need to learn new skills and evaluate new information. For those of us working in more challenging professions where ideas seem to change almost daily the internet is a fantastic tool to enable us to keep up to date. We have also developed the ability to question the evidence relating to new ideas so assessing evidence is something we have been taught and do on a daily basis. Part of any MSc programme involves how to critique scientific papers. This is one of stephen's weaknesses and combined with his failure not to appreciate the value of google has led him to a poor understanding of the evidence
Ste
I couldn't help but notice how you refer to google and the internet as being very resourceful, I must disagree with you as quite a lot of information on the internet is incorrect.
You have studied A levels "50 yrs ago", 50 years is a long time and in that time technology has enabled us to research and increase our knowledge, which is used to refine education and change it quite drastically.
" The older you are the wiser you are", this does not apply to you it seems.
I read
Dear oh dear.
Science has changed over 50 years and you don't need to think outside a box for that
Perhaps you should take a look at the syllabuses these days.
No more log tables dave and your grasp of Chemistry is weak.
As to me , google isn't the be all and end all.
I read books, you've heard of them no doubt, and journals.
Your repeated mistakes merely reveal that 'googling' knowledge is not the be all and end all.
As to evidence dave, you only have one perspective in this case.
Protect the mccanns.
Now there's a revelation ....
I couldn't help but notice how you refer to google and the internet as being very resourceful, I must disagree with you as quite a lot of information on the internet is incorrect.
You have studied A levels "50 yrs ago", 50 years is a long time and in that time technology has enabled us to research and increase our knowledge, which is used to refine education and change it quite drastically.
" The older you are the wiser you are", this does not apply to you it seems.
It would help if you did.
I never said science hasn't changed....your attention to detail is very weak
lets just deal with one of your claims...on what basis do you make the claim that my grasp of chemistry is weak...
seeing as you were claiming last week that water vapour was not a gas you are making a fool of yourself once more
It so happens that reading has helped me to work out what Grime was really up to in PdL ...
As an expert of course in libelling Grime. 8**8:/:
First educate yourself on what libel is ...
That simply reveals yet again a lack of understanding.
Now as for you.
Here's your classic.
pH - pOH has significance.
I challenge anyone on here to prove that is true.
That simply reveals yet again a lack of understanding.
Now as for you.
Here's your classic.
pH - pOH has significance.
I challenge anyone on here to prove that is true.
.
Some of us are still waiting for your explanation of diffusion in the windless car park that made Eddie prance around 10m away from the source behind the sealed car door.
still spouting rubbish...I have never used the word significance relating to that calculation...that's one of your major problems...you don't read things critically enough. I said it has A value... a numerical value..and it does
I'm not the only person to accuse you of that.
You should read your own posts.
Here's one of them:
Why did Mark Harrison dismiss both inspections at villa and gym with these terse words?[i/]
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
What's your answer?
I never said science hasn't changed....your attention to detail is very weak
lets just deal with one of your claims...on what basis do you make the claim that my grasp of chemistry is weak...
seeing as you were claiming last week that water vapour was not a gas you are making a fool of yourself once more
I wasn't there and I don't pretend to be an expert in that field.
Why don't you contact him yourself ?
I apolagise grandad. 8)--)) ?>)()<
(Ignorance is bliss.) 8(*(
now you are making a fool of yourself a second time...at least you are good at somethingIt's called having a sense of humor, not that you would understand. &%&£(+
It's called having a sense of humor, not that you would understand. &%&£(+I'm sure that poople as stupid as yourself will think I have made mistakes.....there you are a hat trick
I've made a fool of myself a second time, yet you have made mistakes more than I have and I'm very sure that other members will agree to the fact that you are a fool of fools. %£&)**#
Hey Vulcair, why don't you introduce yourself over on the Trolls thread! 8((()*/
I'm sure that poople as stupid as yourself will think I have made mistakes.....there you are a hat trickIf this is not a mistake then what is dave?? &%+((£
It is not too difficult to understand the words in the conclusions of the report. :
did not help to clarify and it is not possible for me to determine
Now what do you suppose that means? The full bit is in my earlier post if you want context.
If this is not a mistake then what is dave?? &%+((£
so the final report says it cannot be confirmed that the dna was maddie's but it can't be ruled out... I don't see any problem with that statement
.
Read up on kinetic theory dear.
It might help.
The rate of diffusion is lower on a 'windless' day, but it still occurs.
Double Dutch to me, Stephen.Ask Alice, he's good at explaining stuff to dunces like us.
All I've asked is for you to explain, in layman's terms, is how diffusion causes scent to be dispersed through the door seal from inside the car when the car is motionless. closed & in an underground car park. Is it really beyond you to help us thickos understand how Eddie could have scented something 10m away but passed the source on several occasions?
Double Dutch to me, Stephen.
All I've asked is for you to explain, in layman's terms, is how diffusion causes scent to be dispersed through the door seal from inside the car when the car is motionless. closed & in an underground car park. Is it really beyond you to help us thickos understand how Eddie could have scented something 10m away but passed the source on several occasions?
Double Dutch to me, Stephen.
All I've asked is for you to explain, in layman's terms, is how diffusion causes scent to be dispersed through the door seal from inside the car when the car is motionless. closed & in an underground car park. Is it really beyond you to help us thickos understand how Eddie could have scented something 10m away but passed the source on several occasions?
Double Dutch to me, Stephen.
All I've asked is for you to explain, in layman's terms, is how diffusion causes scent to be dispersed through the door seal from inside the car when the car is motionless. closed & in an underground car park. Is it really beyond you to help us thickos understand how Eddie could have scented something 10m away but passed the source on several occasions?
Perhaps you should watch dogs in the field.
This is what they do.
Perhaps you should watch dogs in the field.
This is what they do.
Here is what Grime, in PdL, was really all about.
This business of testing stuff in one place, then testing it a second time in another (clothes, tested in the villa, transported to the gym and tested a second time; the ignition key of the Scenic, tested in the scenic, transferred to a sand-box and tested a second time somewhere well away from the scenic) precisely replicates Grime's modus operandi on a different occasion, with a different dog and in another continent (Detroit, America and the Bianca Jones case).
In the Bianca Jones case, also, you had the line-up of cars, much longer than in PdL.
I am out-of-kilter with many on this (including many whose opinions I respect) but I don't believe I'm wrong.
I think the essential difference between Morse (whom Grime operated with in Detroit) and most other cadaver dogs is that Morse was desensitised to the scent of blood.
The weak link in the Eddie-and-Keela combination was that both dogs reacted to the scent of blood.
What is the point of two dogs that do the same thing?
absolute rubbish ....can you supply evidence to back this up...I've seen dogs at airports going only once along a queue...you are talking BS
Dogs in the field chase rabbits.
I don't need to BS dave, you are the expert on that.
Here is what Grime, in PdL, was really all about.
This business of testing stuff in one place, then testing it a second time in another (clothes, tested in the villa, transported to the gym and tested a second time; the ignition key of the Scenic, tested in the scenic, transferred to a sand-box and tested a second time somewhere well away from the scenic) precisely replicates Grime's modus operandi on a different occasion, with a different dog and in another continent (Detroit, America and the Bianca Jones case).
In the Bianca Jones case, also, you had the line-up of cars, much longer than in PdL.
I am out-of-kilter with many on this (including many whose opinions I respect) but I don't believe I'm wrong.
I think the essential difference between Morse (whom Grime operated with in Detroit) and most other cadaver dogs is that Morse was desensitised to the scent of blood.
The weak link in the Eddie-and-Keela combination was that both dogs reacted to the scent of blood.
What is the point of two dogs that do the same thing?
absolutely spot on
As far as I understand it, Ferryman, Morse was fully accredited having been subject to regular independent testing ... also he was trained only on human scent.
The results he achieved in under test conditions are testament to Martin Grime's skill as a trainer
have you not seen dogs at airports being led once along a queue...never brought up and down several times..
That's my evidence to back my claim...where's yours
Perhaps you should watch dogs in the field.
This is what they do.
And you will be well aware of dogs sense of smell if far more effective than our own and the consequences of that.
That is not evidence dave.
Can you cite examples please.
I just have....You have repeatedly claimed posters had not seen scent dogs working... I have and many on here will have seen dogs being led once along a queue at an airport...showing your claims to be BS..
That is not proof.
That is on your say so.
There is a plethora of programs showing dogs in action and they go to and from sites when they are being employed.
Do you see why I criticise your poor ability to properly read a post....you suddenly replace the word evidence with proof as though they are interchangeable ...they are not..
could you guide us to one example of the dogs behaving in teh way you have claimed
That is not proof.
That is on your say so.
There is a plethora of programs showing dogs in action and they go to and from sites when they are being employed.
You are happy with the dog alerts as evidence rather than proof then?
haven't you read any of my posts...my opinion is unimportant...Grime's is...the alerts are not evidence
Meanwhile dave, we're still waiting for scientific proof that
pH - pOH means anything at all.
I just have....You have repeatedly claimed posters had not seen scent dogs working... I have and many on here will have seen dogs being led once along a queue at an airport...showing your claims to be BS..
You are happy with the dog alerts as evidence rather than proof then?
The dog alerts are intelligence!
so once again...what do the alerts tell us... I would say b....r all
In a nut-shell!
Then let's hope SY agree with you.
as they have said maddie may still be alive they obviously do
Deposition of: JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol MlBiol RFP Age: Older than 18
Profession of Witness: Forensic Scientist
FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 8
An incomplete, low-level DNA profile that matched corresponding components in the profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material present on the card key - (286C/2007-CRL (12)).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Just to clarify matters for you ...
there is no 'cherry picking' or obfuscation involved as I have made it plain that the reference quoted was made by Mr Grime in relation to what he had to say about Eddie's deployment in the garage
what a pity you assume I was patronising you as you have progressed to illustrate that you have clearly not understood what has been previously posted ... let me explain ...
Eddie woofed ... not at the boot where Keela subsequently alerted ... but at the driver's door of the Renault ... where Keela also alerted
according to Mr Grime Keela alerts only to blood ... therefore both these alerts were to blood
the Renault was moved to another floor of the garage
the key fob was secreted at a distance (fire service's bucket of sand)
Keela alerted to the key fob
Eddie alerted to the key fob
Eddie did not alert to the Renault from which the key fob had been removed
therefore Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent
Eddie alerted to what Keela did ... which we are told could only have been blood
I hope that helps you to a better understanding of my post.
As far as I understand it, Ferryman, Morse was fully accredited having been subject to regular independent testing ... also he was trained only on human scent.
... and even if the hairs had been Madeleine's, without a root they would have signified nothing other than they were hers.
The more benevolent minded, of members, remain to question or even rule out the alerts of the dog, which I might add…have no evidential value, without corroboration of evidential proof.
Whereas the more sceptic views, of other members remain in the believe that the alerts from the EVRD were evidence of cadaver scent. Who knows? They may be correct, but there is no evidence to support this.
IMO, The latter group would still be blaming the parents, even if the dogs hadn’t been brought in, whereas the former believe in innocent until proven otherwise.
A book is the cause of all of this and the fact that this case (unlike others) has all the PJ files online for all to study…. Only My opinion, of course.
So indications is just another word for alerts....so the indications have NO evidential value either
Why did Mark Harrison dismiss both inspections at villa and gym with these terse words?Dismiss - treat as unworthy...where's your evidence he did any more than just state what the PJ exercises were
I'm sure that poople as stupid as yourself will think I have made mistakes.....there you are a hat trick
You said nothng about Grime's comments pertaining to the garage, if you had done I wouldn't have responded with the words I did (ie that the only place he said in his opinion Eddie may have been alerting to cadaver scent OR blood)
Cite? morse was being trained in the UK in 2008, and as we are told, training on human bodies is illegal.
If death banding had been looked for, they would have signified more, but the PJs's request seems to have been ignored by the UK
Martin Grime states that in his professional opinion the alerts were suggestive of cadaver scent, it is not somethng plucked out of "sceptics unbenevolent" heads.
Which book? Surely not Amaral's? The news about the cadaver dog alerts was in the public domain and under discussion in the summer of 2007 a whole year before he published his book.
No, an alert gives an indication of something, not the same, two different things. The indication, given by the EVRD dog's alerts, (and yes there are other EVRDs in use by police in the UK according to the BBC at least) in Grime's own words, is to cadaver scent contaminant. (Or blood - the latter only in the case of the garage searches)
Unconfirmed indications have been described as legitimate cause for concern/suspicion, not much else on their own, but indications remain intelligence/circumstantial evidence.
Dismiss - treat as unworthy...where's your evidence he did any more than just state what the PJ exercises were
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4508.15
Why do you feel the need to continuously break forum rules, being derogatory and calling people fools, stupid, uneducated, with poor understanding, and so on? Just wondering.
Apparently the root cause in many instances is lack of self esteem and a feeling of inferiority.
You said nothng about Grime's comments pertaining to the garage, if you had done I wouldn't have responded with the words I did (ie that the only place he said in his opinion Eddie may have been alerting to cadaver scent OR blood)
Cite? morse was being trained in the UK in 2008, and as we are told, training on human bodies is illegal.
If death banding had been looked for, they would have signified more, but the PJs's request seems to have been ignored by the UK
Martin Grime states that in his professional opinion the alerts were suggestive of cadaver scent, it is not somethng plucked out of "sceptics unbenevolent" heads.
Which book? Surely not Amaral's? The news about the cadaver dog alerts was in the public domain and under discussion in the summer of 2007 a whole year before he published his book.
No, an alert gives an indication of something, not the same, two different things. The indication, given by the EVRD dog's alerts, (and yes there are other EVRDs in use by police in the UK according to the BBC at least) in Grime's own words, is to cadaver scent contaminant. (Or blood - the latter only in the case of the garage searches)
Unconfirmed indications have been described as legitimate cause for concern/suspicion, not much else on their own, but indications remain intelligence/circumstantial evidence.
Dismiss - treat as unworthy...where's your evidence he did any more than just state what the PJ exercises were
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4508.15
Why do you feel the need to continuously break forum rules, being derogatory and calling people fools, stupid, uneducated, with poor understanding, and so on? Just wondering.
Apparently the root cause in many instances is lack of self esteem and a feeling of inferiority.
Would overstating/massaging facts about ones own abilities activities and achievements fit into the belittle as much as possible profile?
Wrists are going to get slapped now
8)-)))
Mercury:
Why did Mark Harrison dismiss both inspections at villa and gym with these terse words?
Dismiss - treat as unworthy...where's your evidence he did any more than just state what the PJ exercises were
My evidence is that if you read the whole of Harrison's summary (from which my extract is taken) you will find he acknowledges the input of Grime and his dogs in some searches, but not others.
Here is the full summary:
Note that Harrison acknowledges the participation of Grime and his dogs only in the searches he recommended, the places Madeleine either had been or (conceivably, please God not!) MIGHT have been.
In those searches Harrison had nothing to do with, he does not acknowledge the input of Grime and his dogs.
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
you seem to have a problem with the truth...Grime never said that...the rest of your post is full of rubbish too...particularly the innaccurate attack against me
You seem to have a comprehension problem..Grime did say that
I've led such an interesting successful life it is not surprising that you and others find it incredible
no he didn't...you seem to have a reading problem...Grime said it was suggestive of cadaver odour NOT that it was...this has been pointed out several times to you but has not yet sunk in...try reading your own post..it's there...
Martin Grime states that in his professional opinion the alerts were suggestive of cadaver scent
Clutching at straws?
8(*( 8(*( 8(*(
I think there is a lot of insecurity on this forum...you and others included. That's four posters who have posted unsolicited personal attacks against me this evening...most of which have been removed. Of course the small minded then post one of my responses totally out of context...yes...insecurity...lack of self esteem...just plain stupidity in some cases. I am quite flattered by yours and others continued personal attacks against me....if you think I am in the slightest offended by these posts you are very much mistaken
I've led such an interesting successful life it is not surprising that you and others find it incredible
Something else for you stephen....I have posted before that the reason I find trolls so offensive is that I have been a victim myself. I have appeared on TV several times and someone posted a clip on you tube that attracted some vile comments...fortunately the clip has now been removed
Prople don't wake up in the morning thnking, what shall I do today? oh, I know, let's go and attack the poster with the handle Davel. No, chum, it's very very simple....you dish it out, you should be man enough to take it back without bleating and squirming and crying bullying...as I said, simple as that...no one gives you the right to unsolicedly call people stupid, pathetic OR in MY case, when you told me two weeks ago to go back in the kitchen where I belong and proceed to cook a "frozen dinner for one" as IF you know anything about me
you should address the more peurile aspects of your online forum behaviour IMHO of course
Yet you cannot offer one iota of proof to back any of this up.
Scarcely.
Grime acknowledges the input of Grime and his dogs in the search of: holiday apartments, the villa of the Murats', and areas in and around PdL.
Both inspections at the gym and the McCanns' villa he summarises as PJ exercises.
And while Harrison did recommend an inspection of vehicles, he recommended only that vehicles owned or driven by Murat should be inspected.
There were 3, one of which never made it, while 8 Harrison never said anything about did make it.
Harrison gives no clue who took part in that inspection.
Either you suffer from a very very bad memory problem or you are lying here, which is it?
Either you suffer from a very very bad memory problem or you are lying here, which is it?
I'm quite happy to take it...no squirming...you seem to post later...is it when you've finished your housework...you have made personal attacks on me tonight....don't whinge if you get it back in buckets
you have just proved my point, thanks so much
8((()*/
Murat's Vehicles.
All vehicles Murat has had access to have been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however they may all benefit from a full search by the EVRD and CSI dogs. They may be able to detect whether a dead body has been transported in one of the vehicles for intelligence purposes or detect human blood deposits that can be recovered and
examined in a laboratory for Madeleine McCann's blood.
Mark Harrison
Either you suffer from a very very bad memory problem or you are lying here, which is it?
no one is disputing THAT, why cherry pick and waste time? you are trying to convince the forum that Mark Harrison never asked for any other vehicles to be inspected, which is of course totally untrue, so why bother, the facts are available and citable....and will prove you wrong...."rolly eyes"
Why get arsey just because you've lost the argument?
So when I post facts I am "arsey" why not keep to them? And admit you are tryng to spread misinformation?
How have I lost the argument when it is a fact you are wrong? This is getting a little stupid at best...you are stating that Harrison ONLY recommended Murats vehicles be tested...this is demonstrably untrue...so it's you who have lost the argument, the evidence is in the files, egg on face much?
Which (germane) facts have you posted?
Here is what might be confusing you:
Key part underlined.
The output of this process of reconnaissance and review was a written document entitled “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document” (see appendix 2) and submitted to the PJ with copies supplied to Leicestershire Police and NPIA on 23-07-07.
It recommended considering re searching:
- All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.
- The villa and garden occupied by Robert Murat and any vehicles he had access to.
- Areas of wasteland adjacent to Murat’s and the McCann’s apartment.
- Areas of the beach in Praia da Luz.
- A portion of the coastline east of Praia da Luz.
Decisions were taken to search vehicles other than Murats' vehicles.
But the way Harrison words it makes plain the decisions were not taken by him.
And another thing: note an absence from the above. No mention of the gym.
The fact that Harrison did ask for other vehicles to be searched apart fromMurats!! End of.
No.
In everything Harrison, himself, recommended his language is plain and direct.
You are left in no doubt his recommendations are his.
He prefaces every recommendation not his with the words it [the process] recommended.
The decisions were others, not his.
More than that, they defied logic because they were places or things (cars etc) Madeleine never went near.
The police were not to know that so it was within their remit to investigate everything...you and others slag them off for not investigating properly and when they do you still slag them off.....or is it a case of investigating the parents is off limits?? They took three months to do so and only on the urgency of the UK advisers, if you want to blame anyone blame the UK authorities....
The police were not to know that so it was within their remit to investigate everything...you and others slag them off for not investigating properly and when they do you still slag them off.....or is it a case of investigating the parents is off limits?? They took three months to do so and only on the urgency of the UK advisers
the parents have been investigated and ruled out...try and remember that
Cite?
Of course they were to know that. How much time elapsed between events of May 3rd and the McCanns moving into the villa?
You don't seriously think anyone would countenance the McCanns smuggling a (dead!) Madeleine into the villa they rented several days after May 3rd, do you?
Or that a (dead) Madeleine might have been smuggled somewhere in a car hired 3 weeks after May 3rd?
That's absurd.
I didn't say that. After the alerts in 5a they will have wanted to know if the scent "followed them" in any shape or form, and it did with the clothes alerts
I didn't say that. After the alerts in 5a they will have wanted to know if the scent "followed them" in any shape or form, and it did with the clothes alerts
the archiving report....and Redwood stating they are not suspects
Oh come on.
There were no alerts to any clothes.
A dog barked and picked stuff up in its mouth.
Of course they were to know that. How much time elapsed between events of May 3rd and the McCanns moving into the villa?
You don't seriously think anyone would countenance the McCanns smuggling a (dead!) Madeleine into the villa they rented several days after May 3rd, do you?
Or that a (dead) Madeleine might have been smuggled somewhere in a car hired 3 weeks after May 3rd?
That's absurd.
don't forget eddie alerting to cadaver in the car...used to transport the dead maddie...but he didn't...amaral got everything back to front againmy last post on this thread tonight....finding cadaver scent contaminant in a car does not have to mean a body was transported in it, keep up old chum, you might learn something
The archiving report did not clear them, that is false, and Redwoods statement was taken out of context...and you have no idea if he was not just "sound biting want to hear words"....I mean, what has he achieved exactly? Zero.
No one has "cleared" the Mccanns, all that happened is the case was shelved and their Arguido status removed as part of that process
my last post on this thread tonight....finding cadaver scent contaminant in a car does not have to mean a body was transported in it, keep up old chum, you might learn something
harrison brought in the dogs to investigate maddies murder...
In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.
the pj used the dogs to investigate the parents... this was not Harrisons idea
Grime says Eddie won't bark unless he finds the scent he's been trained on...dead bodies...he barked...
I will leave this thread for now as I feel I am hogging it...good luck
You said nothng about Grime's comments pertaining to the garage, if you had done I wouldn't have responded with the words I did (ie that the only place he said in his opinion Eddie may have been alerting to cadaver scent OR blood)
Cite? morse was being trained in the UK in 2008, and as we are told, training on human bodies is illegal.
If death banding had been looked for, they would have signified more, but the PJs's request seems to have been ignored by the UK
Martin Grime states that in his professional opinion the alerts were suggestive of cadaver scent, it is not somethng plucked out of "sceptics unbenevolent" heads.
Which book? Surely not Amaral's? The news about the cadaver dog alerts was in the public domain and under discussion in the summer of 2007 a whole year before he published his book.
No, an alert gives an indication of something, not the same, two different things. The indication, given by the EVRD dog's alerts, (and yes there are other EVRDs in use by police in the UK according to the BBC at least) in Grime's own words, is to cadaver scent contaminant. (Or blood - the latter only in the case of the garage searches)
Unconfirmed indications have been described as legitimate cause for concern/suspicion, not much else on their own, but indications remain intelligence/circumstantial evidence.
Dismiss - treat as unworthy...where's your evidence he did any more than just state what the PJ exercises were
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4508.15
Why do you feel the need to continuously break forum rules, being derogatory and calling people fools, stupid, uneducated, with poor understanding, and so on? Just wondering.
Think about it very carefully.
Hair does not grow post mortem ~ it is already dead.
Only that part of the hair which was alive at the moment of death can 'die'. That is the root. Which is why I mentioned 'root' in my post and the lack of which may be why the PJ request was "ignored".
Although it has been generally accepted within the forensic hair community that decompositional changes in the form of an identifiable banding pattern can occur in the root area of hairs after death, little detailed information with regard to this phenomenon is known(e.g., rates at which this occurs and conditions that cause this banding).
http://www.academia.edu/11721363/Taphonomy_of_Hair_A_Study_of_Postmortem_Root_Banding
harrison brought in the dogs to investigate maddies murder..."In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination......."
In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.
the pj used the dogs to investigate the parents... this was not Harrisons idea
Noted, now, awaiting the response to my other questions especially, or only so not to labour, the cite for Morse being trained ONLY on humans, in your own time
"In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination......."
If you read on you will find these locations within zone 1 which MH recommends searching again more thoroughly are listed. And in that list we find ...
"The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present"
These are MH's words, not Amaral's.
Go back and read my original post in its entirety which you failed to do first time round and see where you went wrong.
If you contend Morse was trained on pig ... fine by me.
True.Nowhere do his terms of reference state he must select that apartment for EVRD search.
But look at Harrison's terms of reference.
He worked to those.
No, you stated Morse was trained solely on humans, it's up to YOU go back this assertion up
Nowhere do his terms of reference state he must select that apartment for EVRD search.
It was he who selected it, not Amaral.
Morse gets a fleeting reference in Grime's PdL profile as (then) a pup.
And here is an article from the Detroit Free Press and the Bianca Jones case:
ugust 24, 2012
The Detroit News
Christine Ferretti
Detroit — A canine expert whose dog allegedly detected a cadaver scent in the home of a missing toddler will be allowed to testify at the murder trial of the girl's father, a judge ruled Friday.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Vonda R. Evans made the ruling after attorneys for D'Andre Lane spent more than two hours trying to discredit the relatively new scientific method. Lane is charged with first-degree murder and child abuse in the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Bianca Jones
"I believe the evidence offered is sufficient to go forward. The people should be allowed to demonstrate to a jury that your client was implicated in this particular murder," Evans told the defense. "I think your argument is to weight as opposed to admissibility."
The court Friday also denied a defense motion to halt proceedings in the case while the state Court of Appeals evaluates efforts by Lane's attorneys to have the case tossed out. The attorneys said they also plan to appeal Friday's ruling.
Two forensic canine experts testified Friday before Evans ruled to admit at trial the potential evidence, which is key for prosecutors in the case against Lane.
Danian Woodson, an attorney for Lane, tried to argue against the cadaver dog evidence. But Evans cut her off and denied the motion.
After the hearing, Woodson said the alleged evidence is "not admissible, not relevant, highly prejudicial and should be excluded."
Lane has claimed Bianca was in the back seat of his 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis on the morning of Dec. 2 when he was approached by armed carjackers near Brush Street and Grand River.
The vehicle was found shortly after, but the child was not inside. Her body has not been found.
Forensic canine expert Martin Grime testified Friday and at Lane's prior preliminary examination that he brought in his victim recovery dog, Morse, two days after the girl went missing. He said the dog detected a cadaver scent inside Lane's car, on the child's blanket and car seat, and in the girl's bedroom and Lane's home.
Grime said the dogs detect only the generic scent of human decomposition. The dogs, he said, cannot determine identity, age, race, gender or the rate of decomposition.
Grime testified in court Friday that Morse has never had a false positive response, and that testing done just prior and after the dog worked in the Jones case was successful.
"I believe that the testimony, his conclusion is based on principles and methods that have been in place for several years," Evans said of Grime.
Also Friday, Rex A. Stockham, a special agent for the FBI who oversees its forensic canine program, said the agency has been studying the science for about a decade.
The FBI began testing contract and volunteer teams for the human scent detection program in 2008, Stockham said. The agency has three full-time dogs working in the country.
The dogs are tested annually to ensure they meet best practices standards. Morse has only been tested one time, Stockham said.
Prosecutors allege Lane beat the toddler to death with an 18-inch stick with a towel wrapped in duct tape at the end over a potty training incident.
Lane's attorney, Terry Johnson, contends Lane did "spank" the child with the stick, but that there was no evidence of child abuse or murder since the girl's whereabouts is unknown.
Lane told Detroit Police he left his home around 7:45 a.m. Dec. 2. He dropped his nephew and 8-year-old daughter off before visiting a gas station, Wayne County Community College in Detroit and, with a friend, near the Greyhound bus station on Howard Street. The carjacking, Lane claimed, occurred just afterward, with only him and Bianca in the vehicle.
FBI agent Christopher Hess testified at Lane's preliminary examination that the defendant was unable to explain where he was for a 45-minute window around the time his daughter disappeared.
Lane's girlfriend, Anjali Lyons, has testified she awoke Dec. 2 to Bianca's screams as Lane used the stick to beat the toddler for urinating in bed. Later the same morning, Lane carried a silent Bianca to his car. She was covered with an animal print blanket.
Lane's trial is slated for Sept. 18.
And that long winded emboldened quote proves Morse was trained solely on humans?
Where?
Do you understand the meaning of the term wasting bandwidth?
No, you stated Morse was trained solely on humans, it's up to YOU go back this assertion up
YOUR post 4241 (as it stands now just in case there are any deletions subsequent to this post)
Where do you suppose Morse was trained?
I do not care to 'back the assertion up'.
I don't "suppose" anything...I have read a BBC report dated Feb 2008 when Grime and his dogs were in the UK....that stated Morse was being trained...so he couldn't have been trained in human cadavers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7263355.stm
ETA to add link!!
I don't "suppose" anything...I have read a BBC report dated Feb 2008 when Grime and his dogs were in the UK....that stated Morse was being trained...so he couldn't have been trained in human cadavers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7263355.stm
ETA to add link!!
Sorry, yes, the apartment was Harrison's recommendation, but not the villa.The application by the PJ to the judge for the villa search warrant stated as its justification the UK dog results of 1st Aug at the apartment.
Is that what you mean?
Maybe he was trained solely on scent pads & historic remains in the UK and on actual human remains when he went to the US with Grime during his full-time role with the FBI.
The application by the PJ to the judge for the villa search warrant stated as its justification the UK dog results of 1st Aug at the apartment.
The application was obviously written by the PJ, however the following excerpt from MH's remit make it likely that he actively contributed to the decision to apply for the villa warrant
"... consider further opportunities or areas for search ... as applicable to the latest intelligence ..."
Maybe he was trained solely on scent pads & historic remains in the UK and on actual human remains when he went to the US with Grime during his full-time role with the FBI.
In the absence of a cite to the contrary we shall just have to accept that Morse was not the real deal but was trained using dead pig.
However, of more relevance to Madeleine's case are the logs which record his training record and for which independent testimony was necessary in court.
There were no independent training records available for Eddie who was not accredited by ACPO when in Praia da Luz
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
Morse was obviously a good dog ... but having read a little of the background to the case, it is evident that Lane had plenty of compelling evidence weighted against him.
There was no evidence against the Drs McCann.
**Snip
The record simply does not support Lane's assertions that Grime and Stockham testified that the dogs were infallible. Rather, Stockham testified that the dogs' accuracy was in the high 90 percent range, and Grime specifically testified that he would not say that the dogs were perfect. The trial court also instructed the jury that it could not convict Lane solely on the basis of the cadaver dog evidence. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html#sthash.V0do5M0B.dpuf
The apartment was Harrison's recommendation, but not the villa.The villa search warrant dated 2nd Aug authorises the searching for, and removal for investigation, of items. And that is what the search team did. The relevance is that many of these items were at the apartment on evening 3rd May.
Why would it be?
Madeleine never lived there ....
There may have been plenty of compelling circumstantial evidence against Lane, but Morse didn't alert to the sofa on which an unresponsive Bianca was seated prior to being placed in the vehicle. Morse did, however, alert to something non-specific in the bedroom she had been in prior to being placed on the sofa.
No cross-contamination on any clothes Lane was wearing or any other articles. Sound familiar?
http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-published/2014/313818.html
I do think Lane was guilty, though - but not because of the cadaver dog evidence.
The villa search warrant dated 2nd Aug authorises the searching for, and removal for investigation, of items. And that is what the search team did. The relevance is that many of these items were at the apartment on evening 3rd May.
This was Harrison's specific recommendation:IMO it was the obvious thing to do, given the new intelligence gained on 1st Aug, to go to the villa and search for and examine items which had been at the apartment on 3 May. This can be compatible with various scenarios in which the parents are completely innocent. They were reportedly pleased that the search team went to the villa
McCann's Apartment.
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. 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. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's.
Murat's House and Garden.
His wording in respect of the villa is completely different: he makes plain that the decision is a collaborative process, rather than his recommendation.
IMO it was the obvious thing to do, given the new intelligence gained on 1st Aug, to go to the villa and search for and examine items which had been at the apartment on 3 May. This can be compatible with various scenarios in which the parents are completely innocent. They were reportedly pleased that the search team went to the villa
IMO it was the obvious thing to do, given the new intelligence gained on 1st Aug, to go to the villa and search for and examine items which had been at the apartment on 3 May. This can be compatible with various scenarios in which the parents are completely innocent. They were reportedly pleased that the search team went to the villa
Disagree.But they were not looking for the missing child there.
I don't see how examination of a place Madeleine never lived in or went near, ever, could have advanced the investigation.
Morse gets a fleeting reference in Grime's PdL profile as (then) a pup.
And here is an article from the Detroit Free Press and the Bianca Jones case:
ugust 24, 2012
The Detroit News
Christine Ferretti
Detroit — A canine expert whose dog allegedly detected a cadaver scent in the home of a missing toddler will be allowed to testify at the murder trial of the girl's father, a judge ruled Friday.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Vonda R. Evans made the ruling after attorneys for D'Andre Lane spent more than two hours trying to discredit the relatively new scientific method. Lane is charged with first-degree murder and child abuse in the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Bianca Jones
"I believe the evidence offered is sufficient to go forward. The people should be allowed to demonstrate to a jury that your client was implicated in this particular murder," Evans told the defense. "I think your argument is to weight as opposed to admissibility."
The court Friday also denied a defense motion to halt proceedings in the case while the state Court of Appeals evaluates efforts by Lane's attorneys to have the case tossed out. The attorneys said they also plan to appeal Friday's ruling.
Two forensic canine experts testified Friday before Evans ruled to admit at trial the potential evidence, which is key for prosecutors in the case against Lane.
Danian Woodson, an attorney for Lane, tried to argue against the cadaver dog evidence. But Evans cut her off and denied the motion.
After the hearing, Woodson said the alleged evidence is "not admissible, not relevant, highly prejudicial and should be excluded."
Lane has claimed Bianca was in the back seat of his 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis on the morning of Dec. 2 when he was approached by armed carjackers near Brush Street and Grand River.
The vehicle was found shortly after, but the child was not inside. Her body has not been found.
Forensic canine expert Martin Grime testified Friday and at Lane's prior preliminary examination that he brought in his victim recovery dog, Morse, two days after the girl went missing. He said the dog detected a cadaver scent inside Lane's car, on the child's blanket and car seat, and in the girl's bedroom and Lane's home.
Grime said the dogs detect only the generic scent of human decomposition. The dogs, he said, cannot determine identity, age, race, gender or the rate of decomposition.
Grime testified in court Friday that Morse has never had a false positive response, and that testing done just prior and after the dog worked in the Jones case was successful.
"I believe that the testimony, his conclusion is based on principles and methods that have been in place for several years," Evans said of Grime.
Also Friday, Rex A. Stockham, a special agent for the FBI who oversees its forensic canine program, said the agency has been studying the science for about a decade.
The FBI began testing contract and volunteer teams for the human scent detection program in 2008, Stockham said. The agency has three full-time dogs working in the country.
The dogs are tested annually to ensure they meet best practices standards. Morse has only been tested one time, Stockham said.
Prosecutors allege Lane beat the toddler to death with an 18-inch stick with a towel wrapped in duct tape at the end over a potty training incident.
Lane's attorney, Terry Johnson, contends Lane did "spank" the child with the stick, but that there was no evidence of child abuse or murder since the girl's whereabouts is unknown.
Lane told Detroit Police he left his home around 7:45 a.m. Dec. 2. He dropped his nephew and 8-year-old daughter off before visiting a gas station, Wayne County Community College in Detroit and, with a friend, near the Greyhound bus station on Howard Street. The carjacking, Lane claimed, occurred just afterward, with only him and Bianca in the vehicle.
FBI agent Christopher Hess testified at Lane's preliminary examination that the defendant was unable to explain where he was for a 45-minute window around the time his daughter disappeared.
Lane's girlfriend, Anjali Lyons, has testified she awoke Dec. 2 to Bianca's screams as Lane used the stick to beat the toddler for urinating in bed. Later the same morning, Lane carried a silent Bianca to his car. She was covered with an animal print blanket.
Lane's trial is slated for Sept. 18.
But they were not looking for the missing child there.
so is Grime saying that Morse did detect cadaver scent or is it just poor reporting in this case
I wouldn't have had any compunction about finding him guilty had I been sitting on that jury.
I also am uneasy about the way dog alerts are beginning to be accepted more often in courts (USA and Scotland) almost as stand alone evidence. Despite the caveats ... people will be taken in by them as more than just indications.
To be credible they have to be consistent. I missed the sofa but wondered about the clothes ... so if her scent was detected in the bedroom it had to be on the sofa and on everything Lane touched and wore.
In a nutshell, the handler of a dog trained to alert to the scent of dead bodies says that the dog alerted in places in 5a and a dog trained to alert to the scent of blood did not alert in the same place.
Uncorroborated cadaver-dog alerts are NOT acceptable as evidence in English courts.
And I'm pretty sure the alerts in the (first) PdL investigation would have been rejected in a Scottish court as well because (among other reasons) of wholesale disregard of the principle of cross-contamination.
I didn't say they did. If you think my statement was incorrect, please point out where?
Eddie's alerts were inherently unreliable in PdL.
Fine so my statement was correct.
Your statement is irrelevant.?{)(**
The dogs were poorly handled and their alerts meaningless.
Your statement is irrelevant.
The dogs were poorly handled and their alerts meaningless.
How many years experience have you as a dog handler ferryman ?
How many years experience have you as a dog handler ferryman ?
How many years' experience have you had?
yes I can...you never learn do you
How many years' experience have you had?
None. That's why I leave it to the experts.
In which case you will pay particular heed to the words of Mark Harrison which I quote above.
However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
(Mark Harrison)
He went on to state that if death has occurred, he thought it most likely that Madeleine's remains had been jettisoned into the sea.
Note the crucial if.
How many years' experience has Harrison had?
The dogs' alerts were unreliable.
Eddie could apparently "find" a scent on clothing in the gym he could find no trace of in the villa.
He could "find" a scent on cuddle-cat after it was hidden in a cupboard he could find no trace of while he could play with it.
And so on ...
Of what value is your opinion, when you are totally biased in favour of the mccanns ?
and try answering Faithlilly's question, which I have asked you many times before with no response on your behalf.
Change the record.
If you read Harrsons' reports carefully, you will find they are his opinions, too.
Perhaps he knows a thing or two ....
I Scotland (I think) uncorroborated dog alerts are accepted as evidence, but not as stand-alone evidence.
There must be other, corroborating, evidence, rather like DNA.
Change the record.
If you read Harrsons' reports carefully, you will find they are his opinions, too.
Perhaps he knows a thing or two ....
So is it Harrison's opinion that the dogs were misdirected because if not then the question is still relevant.
So ferryman how many years have you been a dog handler ?
Of what value is your opinion, when you are totally biased in favour of the mccanns ?
and try answering Faithlilly's question, which I have asked you many times before with no response on your behalf.
Hmmm ... so it appears you and others are of the opinion that if one is a layperson one should not question an 'expert' in his or her particular discipline or pass an opinion.
Have I got that right?
Bearing in mind that juries sitting in judgement are made up of a variety of lay people tasked with making life changing decisions who are in deep trouble if the judge finds out they have used search engines to inform themselves. Lay posters on a forum can at least check out the opinions of a variety of experts to help themselves to be better informed.
I think that fact may be the problem you and others may have with lay people versus professional ... that the information is out there to allow the lay person an informed opinion.
In the field of dog training where even science does not know quite what goes on in the nose and the brain of dogs we can access the ongoing studies ... and believe it or not ... work things out for ourselves.
Hmmm ... so it appears you and others are of the opinion that if one is a layperson one should not question an 'expert' in his or her particular discipline or pass an opinion.
Have I got that right?
Bearing in mind that juries sitting in judgement are made up of a variety of lay people tasked with making life changing decisions who are in deep trouble if the judge finds out they have used search engines to inform themselves. Lay posters on a forum can at least check out the opinions of a variety of experts to help themselves to be better informed.
I think that fact may be the problem you and others may have with lay people versus professional ... that the information is out there to allow the lay person an informed opinion.
In the field of dog training where even science does not know quite what goes on in the nose and the brain of dogs we can access the ongoing studies ... and believe it or not ... work things out for ourselves.
Everyone can have an opinion, but ferryman posts as those his are absolute facts.
It also has to be viewed in terms of his personal bias.
As do yours.
We all have our views on this case, for whatever reason we are on this forum for.
In a nutshell, the handler of a dog trained to alert to the scent of dead bodies says that the dog alerted in places in 5a and a dog trained to alert to the scent of blood did not alert in the same place.no...the dog trained to alert to dead bodies and blood alerted.....the handler was asked whether he could confirm this was to cadaver scent and he does not confirm
Of what value is your opinion, when you are totally biased in favour of the mccanns ?
and try answering Faithlilly's question, which I have asked you many times before with no response on your behalf.
You never have backed up any of your personal claims.
They remain pure fiction.
it is Grime's and Harrison's opinion that the alerts are unreliable
When did either say a dead body could not have been detected ?
How many years experience have you as a dog handler ferryman ?
Everyone can have an opinion, but ferryman posts as those his are absolute facts.
It also has to be viewed in terms of his personal bias.
From what I have seen of Ferryman's posts everything without exception which is stated as fact is backed up with a cite proving just that.
From what you have seen, i.e. those that support your position.
So perhaps you can tell me this, where does Martin Grime state the alerts could not have indicated the presence of a body ?
I answered this question at 11.15 today
I answered this question at 11.15 today
The handler clearly knows that the dogs are not an exact science and do not necessarily get it right 100% of the time either in training or in the field.
I think that is evident from reading his statements, and that of Harrison.
What is the % success rate of locating bodies when Martin Grime utilized Eddie and Keela ?
you make the mistake at looking at figures such as these and relating the directly to remnant scent
The thing is, other professionals who have trained cadaver dogs, some from forensic police training have said that these dogs can give false alerts to decaying vegetation.
Grime says Eddie was an 'enhanced' victim recovery dog, yet the only training Eddie had to become this 'Enhanced dog' was through going to America and being trained to alert to the decaying human bodies, which Grime says smells the same as the decaying pig Eddie was trained on at first, in fact he goes on to say that it was impossible for the dogs to tell the difference between the two and it was impossible to train the dogs to tell the difference between the two.
Now we are to think that Eddie is a super dog better than any other cadaver dog that has been trained in Britain because he had training in America too, even though it really means nothing.
People who have forensic knowledge of what these dog will or will not alert to have said that an alert by a cadaver dog when there is no body to be found needs to be taken with caution as the dog may be alerting to the scent of something such as a bloody rag or a sanitary pad that could have been in the place where the dog is alerting.
Eddie alerts to blood, there is no doubt in my mind that Eddie alerted to blood on the key fob as Keela alerted to it too.
Therefore Eddie could well have been alerting to something that had had blood on it in the bedroom, and was not there any more but the scent remained, or from something that could have been walked in from the garden and had settled in the grout of the tiles, or the scent could have gathered in the bedroom from the garden.
So the alert in the bedroom can only be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion.
In a nutshell, the handler of a dog trained to alert to the scent of dead bodies says that the dog alerted in places in 5a and a dog trained to alert to the scent of blood did not alert in the same place.
A handler with many years experience in training and handling dogs.
What is the % success rate of locating bodies when Martin Grime utilized Eddie and Keela ?
Hmmm ... so it appears you and others are of the opinion that if one is a layperson one should not question an 'expert' in his or her particular discipline or pass an opinion.
Have I got that right?
Bearing in mind that juries sitting in judgement are made up of a variety of lay people tasked with making life changing decisions who are in deep trouble if the judge finds out they have used search engines to inform themselves. Lay posters on a forum can at least check out the opinions of a variety of experts to help themselves to be better informed.
I think that fact may be the problem you and others may have with lay people versus professional ... that the information is out there to allow the lay person an informed opinion.
In the field of dog training where even science does not know quite what goes on in the nose and the brain of dogs we can access the ongoing studies ... and believe it or not ... work things out for ourselves.
how many years experience did Shipman have...I'm not comparing the two but you do not understand that we have the right to question professionals and sometimes those professionals are wrong. Surely you understand that.
and of course he says teh alerts have no evidentail reliability
A handler with many years experience in training and handling dogs.
Say I am a structural engineer designing a simple structure; a topic of which you have no knowledge.
You ask me how I go about it and I am happy to explain. You then tell me one of the sections is too small "in your opinion". What is your opinion worth under those circumstances, having about 60 minutes previously not known gee from haw on the subject? Ask searching questions yes, but presumption on the basis of being able to use Google is a bit fatuous.
Yes, but other professionals in the field have said a cadaver dog could alert to the smell of blood EVEN IF THE BLOOD IS NOT THERE ANYMORE just the scent of it. Keela would not alert to that as she is trained to alert to blood that is there.Kate is a woman. She will have the normal womanly appearances of blood.
Eddie could have been alerting to the scent from the garden in the bedroom, or from something that had been on the floor that had had blood on it.
In Bold.. yeah we hear you Davel loud and clear. Some of us here are questioning medical professionals, much to the annoyance of others, shocking eh?
Say I am a structural engineer designing a simple structure; a topic of which you have no knowledge.
You ask me how I go about it and I am happy to explain. You then tell me one of the sections is too small "in your opinion". What is your opinion worth under those circumstances, having about 60 minutes previously not known gee from haw on the subject? Ask searching questions yes, but presumption on the basis of being able to use Google is a bit fatuous.
Say I am a structural engineer designing a simple structure; a topic of which you have no knowledge.
You ask me how I go about it and I am happy to explain. You then tell me one of the sections is too small "in your opinion". What is your opinion worth under those circumstances, having about 60 minutes previously not known gee from haw on the subject? Ask searching questions yes, but presumption on the basis of being able to use Google is a bit fatuous.
It is not opinion, but fact, that dogs attending a crime-scene and picking stuff up in their mouths and trampling all over stuff they are tasked to inspect is rank bad practise.In reply to "It is not opinion, but fact, that inspection in places Madeleine never lived in or went near was never going to reveal clues about what happened to her (and didn't!)"
It is not opinion, but fact, that inspecting clothing in common circulation as clothing is for fully 3 months after the crime was never going to yield clues about what happened to Madeleine. Especially twice.
It is not opinion, but fact, that inspection in places Madeleine never lived in or went near was never going to reveal clues about what happened to her (and didn't!)
It is not opinion but fact (confirmed by Grime in his rogatory interview) that cross-contamination of a death scent is immediate.
So while packing stuff into cardboard boxes for transportation would (ordinarily) be bad practise, in this instance, it didn't matter, because cross-contamination would long ago already have occurred.
The whole thing was a pile of crock.
Harrison went as far as he dared in his reports in indicating that ....
In reply to "It is not opinion, but fact, that inspection in places Madeleine never lived in or went near was never going to reveal clues about what happened to her (and didn't!)"
If I mysteriously disappear one night, and later police go to relatives and ask if they can have for testing some of the clothing that had been in my flat on the night I disappeared, are you suggesting the relatives should say no?
If you are apart from the clothing they want to test, why would they want your clothing?
Because clothing that doesn't even belong to me (flatmates clothing for example) and that was not even being worn by anyone on the night I disappeared (for example clothing just laying around in the flat that night) can maybe provide further intelligence.
Without the potential for imparting information that might have been gleaned from Madeleine's bedding, her soft toy and blanket had they been immediately isolated and professionally packed to be checked for traces in a forensic laboratory.But there are other cases where police have gone to a place which the missing person had never lived in, and which on the date of disappearance had no connection to the case (because it was moved to months later), and yet police obtain information there to help solve what happened to the missing person.
Checking clothing many months after the event was an irrelevance at best.
a
depends how intelligent you are. Are you suggesting we should never question proffesionals...that is clearly wrong...
professionals get things wrong. Ashya Kings father used google to decide on his son's lifesaving traetment and used the knowledge gained to overule the professionals
So you keep saying.
But as is typical you have failed to address the specific issue as I put it in my post.
Do you think after 60 minutes rough guide you would be in a position to competently decide a section of a structure was too small?. That was the issue I raised NOT Ashya Kings father Googling how many treatments there were.
So you keep saying.Of course you should be able to question
But as is typical you have failed to address the specific issue as I put it in my post.
Do you think after 60 minutes rough guide you would be in a position to competently decide a section of a structure was too small?. That was the issue I raised NOT Ashya Kings father Googling how many treatments there were.
Ashya King's father was the specific issue I raised in my post and you have not addressed that. In what way is your specific issue relevant to the thread ..it isn't...what is relevant is the principle of questioning professionals. If you want specific issues re the construction industry answered might I suggest you start a new board...never mind a new thread as this one concerns the McCann case
Without the potential for imparting information that might have been gleaned from Madeleine's bedding, her soft toy and blanket had they been immediately isolated and professionally packed to be checked for traces in a forensic laboratory.Given the new intelligence obtained on 1st Aug, it became a top priority to apply the same canine resources to items which had been in the apartment in evening 3 May. If Amaral hadn't done so, all the anti Amaral people would now be jumping up and down claiming he was incompetent to not follow up on the NPIA's advice.
Checking clothing many months after the event was an irrelevance at best.
no...the dog trained to alert to dead bodies and blood alerted.....the handler was asked whether he could confirm this was to cadaver scent and he does not confirm
The dog that was trained to alert repeatedly did not alert to objects before being brought back several times and eventually alerted...
the handler stated these alerts had no evidential reliablity..it is clear why
But there are other cases where police have gone to a place which the missing person had never lived in, and which on the date of disappearance had no connection to the case (because it was moved to months later), and yet police obtain information there to help solve what happened to the missing person.
You answered a post I addressed to Brietta. You introduced Ashya King who seems to have little to do with the McCann case.
You seem to have copped out as per usual.
What you and Sadie seem to have done with your examples is to indicate the medical profession aren't much cop if one can keep catching them out by Googling.
But there are other cases where police have gone to a place which the missing person had never lived in, and which on the date of disappearance had no connection to the case (because it was moved to months later), and yet police obtain information there to help solve what happened to the missing person.
You answered a post I addressed to Brietta. You introduced Ashya King who seems to have little to do with the McCann case.But first you introduced structural engineering which has nothing to do with the McCann case. @)(++(*
You seem to have copped out as per usual.
What you and Sadie seem to have done with your examples is to indicate the medical profession aren't much cop if one can keep catching them out by Googling.
You answered a post I addressed to Brietta. You introduced Ashya King who seems to have little to do with the McCann case.
You seem to have copped out as per usual.
What you and Sadie seem to have done with your examples is to indicate the medical profession aren't much cop if one can keep catching them out by Googling.
You answered a post I addressed to Brietta. You introduced Ashya King who seems to have little to do with the McCann case.
You seem to have copped out as per usual.
What you and Sadie seem to have done with your examples is to indicate the medical profession aren't much cop if one can keep catching them out by Googling.
That most certainly was not the case here. Any information arising from using the dogs was directed immediately and pejoratively towards the Drs McCann. In my opinion the opportunity to concentrate on solving Madeleine's case was passed over in the haste to implicate in particular Dr Kate McCann in her disappearance.But that's ridiculous because any unknown perp could have caused the clothes alerts.
Say I am a structural engineer designing a simple structure; a topic of which you have no knowledge.
You ask me how I go about it and I am happy to explain. You then tell me one of the sections is too small "in your opinion". What is your opinion worth under those circumstances, having about 60 minutes previously not known gee from haw on the subject? Ask searching questions yes, but presumption on the basis of being able to use Google is a bit fatuous.
But there are other cases where police have gone to a place which the missing person had never lived in, and which on the date of disappearance had no connection to the case (because it was moved to months later), and yet police obtain information there to help solve what happened to the missing person.
what about if you googled his name and found out he wasn't a structural engineer but a conman who had swindled people out of money on bogus building projects.......would you be so dismissive of google thenI googled a structural engineer of great integrity and found out there is a concerted underhand campaign involving lawyers and surveillence and even political meddling to undermine his whole life, just because he had the audacity to question the structure of a certain house of cards.
Canine searches?I'll check one of the UK cases to find out if k9s were used, Ferryman.
I don't think so.
I googled a structural engineer of great integrity and found out there is a concerted underhand campaign involving lawyers and surveillence and even political meddling to undermine his whole life, just because he had the audacity to question the structure of a certain house of cards.
i'd be absolutely lost without Google.............................................................................................mapsYes it is great for locating offices in Lisbon.
Somewhat curious to know what the state of play is in Lisbon with mr amarals appeal.
try tweeting Leanne Baulch...she should know@)(++(*
Somewhat curious to know what the state of play is in Lisbon with mr amarals appeal.
Canine searches?I checked another case I vaguely remembered , where police searched a house the victim had never lived in, and no-one connected with the case had ever been at until many months after the victim disappeared.
I don't think so.
you must have led a very sheltered life if you think professional negligence is limited to the medical profession. I just knew I would get a much better response as there is so much "doctor hate" on this board. Are you under the illusion that all professionals never make mistakes ...add solicitors, accountants, pharmacists, dentists, opticians,teachers etc etc. The relevance to tHE mccann case which seem to eluding you is tHAt we are quite justified in criticising Grime....it's like pulling teeth.....no...more like having teeth pulled
What are you rabbiting about now?
What are you rabbiting about now?
You answered a post I addressed to Brietta. You introduced Ashya King who seems to have little to do with the McCann case.
You seem to have copped out as per usual.
What you and Sadie seem to have done with your examples is to indicate the medical profession aren't much cop if one can keep catching them out by Googling.
More like googling. 8)--))
you would have to be more than a bit thick not to understand the value of google
Not really dave.
Like I said yesterday, there are books and scientific journals which I read one regular basis.
Perhaps you should do so to.
most journals are on line...you should try googling them...you can also use google to read excerpts from books
is english not your first languageIt's daylight where I am is it where you are?
you must have led a very sheltered life if you think professional negligence is limited to the medical profession. I just knew I would get a much better response as there is so much "doctor hate" on this board. Are you under the illusion that all professionals never make mistakes ...add solicitors, accountants, pharmacists, dentists, opticians,teachers etc etc. The relevance to tHE mccann case which seem to eluding you is tHAt we are quite justified in criticising Grime....it's like pulling teeth.....no...more like having teeth pulled
It wasn't Grime's fault that he and the dogs were deployed to PdL. In case you hadn't noticed, policemen have to obey orders and do what their superiors direct them to do.
It wasn't Grime's fault that he was sent to a long disturbed crime scene in a corner of the world where policing and forensic science were still catching up to what we in the UK expect of our professionals.
Was Grime a UK police officer?
Scrub that - he was still working for SYP.
It wasn't Grime's fault that he and the dogs were deployed to PdL. In case you hadn't noticed, policemen have to obey orders and do what their superiors direct them to do.
It wasn't Grime's fault that he was sent to a long disturbed crime scene in a corner of the world where policing and forensic science were still catching up to what we in the UK expect of our professionals.
It wasn't Grime's fault that he was surrounded by a bunch of incompetents so if you need to apportion blame, look elsewhere.
Yes, he was still a police officer when he attended PdL.
Grime was a freelance dog handler.
And he is certainly culpable for many aspects of the way he handled his dog.
Later.At the time of the PdL searches he was working for SYP
Translation
DVD Rogatory Letters 3rd volume
Martin Grime
Dated May 14 2008
I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
But that's ridiculous because any unknown perp could have caused the clothes alerts.
Was Grime a UK police officer?
Scrub that - he was still working for SYP.
The key is his personal profile.
Whereas Harrison gives as his base the business address of the (now defunct) National Policing Improvement Agency, Grime gives his home address in Oxford.
I googled a structural engineer of great integrity and found out there is a concerted underhand campaign involving lawyers and surveillence and even political meddling to undermine his whole life, just because he had the audacity to question the structure of a certain house of cards.
What is the date of that?
At the time of the searches (August 2007)he was working for SYP.
It may well be that at the time of the reports he was retired.
What is the date of that?
At the time of the searches (August 2007)he was working for SYP.
It may well be that at the time of the reports he was retired.
If it was my child I would take the excellent professional work of Amaral Harrison and Grime very seriously and instead of bandying around insults of them, I would want to find out what very real scenario led to those those alerts.
The critical date is the date of the searches and his employment status at the time.
"I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature."
I rather doubt that he would lie about this. What would be the point?
He may have been on annual leave leading up to retirement which would have made him, technically, still an employee of SYP, but just not representing them in PdL.
SYP would have deployed two dogs and two handlers (or at least dogs to handlers in one-to-one ratio).
That's what we've seen in this, second, enquiry.
But certainly he gave his home address as his base and never wore his police uniform in PdL.
He may have been on annual leave leading up to retirement which would have made him, technically, still an employee of SYP, but just not representing them in PdL.
SYP would have deployed two dogs and two handlers (or at least dogs to handlers in one-to-one ratio).
That's what we've seen in this, second, enquiry.
But certainly he gave his home address as his base and never wore his police uniform in PdL.
Have you any evidence that he was on annual leave ferryman and, if so, he would have been allowed to take two police dogs to Portugal when he was for his own enrichment ?
'Working for the SY police'- doesn't necessarily mean as a PAYE employee - he could have been working for them as a subcontractor. I too have wondered why he didn't wear a police uniform. IIRC the other UK police with dogs wore their uniforms when on duty.
If it was my child I would take the excellent professional work of Amaral Harrison and Grime very seriously and instead of bandying around insults of them, I would want to find out what very real scenario led to those those alerts.
Portugal in August in uniform? A touch warm.
Do the SY police for operation grange wear uniform when in Portugal?
Portugal in August in uniform? A touch warm.Suits ties polished shoes and briefcases IIRC.
Do the SY police for operation grange wear uniform when in Portugal?
The internet is not the be all and end all.
Personally I prefer reading from books or the equivalent.
If I need other material , it is downloaded and printed as and when required.
Enrichment is not the point. The point of one-to-one dog-to-handler ratio at a single crime scene is bias.
The propensity to bias is less if each dog at the same crime scene has its own handler.
Suits ties polished shoes and briefcases IIRC.
However I have seen a photo of the new SIO (on a different case) in forensic gear.
This is the second time you've avoided a question of mine today. Again have you any evidence MG was on holiday when in PDL and do you think he would be allowed to make money from two police dogs ?
That still doesn't appear to be entirely clear to me... I expect that there's an untaken leave issue that has created the technical ambiguity.
I agree with FM that giving his personal address seems a bit odd for someone still working for SYP.
Must have missed the first one, but I've certainly answered that.
Grime was given possession of both dogs when he retired.
Bug he wasn't retired when in PDL and you still haven't provided evidence that he was even on holiday.
Grime's profile is undated.
SYP would not have deployed two dogs and one handler ....
He never wore his police uniform and he wrote his (undated) profile from the address of his private address in Oxford.
Harrison wrote his report from the business address of the NPIA.
And you know this how? Do you have evidence that SYP who used Mr Grime for years, with the dogs Frankie, Eddie, Keela and Morse at different times, always sent out two handlers in the past? When they used at least two dogs?
I presume it is the second point you are querying?
It's to do with bias.
UK and (mainstream) US policing the same. One handler may handle only one dog at a given crime-scene.
In this second enquiry we've seen that, two dogs deployed and two handlers (one a woman, not that that's relevant).
and what did the foray into Portugal reveal last year ??
Two letters of the alphabet reveal the answer. 8((()*/
are these the same two letters that describe what the alerts tell us
I presume it is the second point you are querying?
It's to do with bias.
UK and (mainstream) US policing the same. One handler may handle only one dog at a given crime-scene.
In this second enquiry we've seen that, two dogs deployed and two handlers (one a woman, not that that's relevant).
I don't profess to know the rules, what I do know is that Mr Grime has been used before PDL in other cases with two dogs, and no other handler, so therefore that puts your claim that SYP wouldn't do this in question.
It is not as if in PDL Mr Grime used both dogs at the same tme, hence, it was always one handler one dog at any given time, don't really see the problem ....but of course in your mind it's bias, profit, conscious cueing, lying in his CV, getting people in personnel to doctor his credentials, and all sorts...please yourself
I think you'll find Grime was deployed alone with Eddie or with another handler (Ellis) and another dog (Frankie).
Not sure Keela and Eddie were ever deployed together on the same assignment.
??
I think you'll find Grime was deployed alone with Eddie or with another handler (Ellis) and another dog (Frankie).
Not sure Keela and Eddie were ever deployed together on the same assignment.
So basically, it boils down go you have no clue. Not a great position to come from when asserting this that and the other.
So basically, it boils down go you have no clue. Not a great position to come from when asserting this that and the other.
I appear to have more of a clue than you.
No need to get personal, your last post was decidedly unsure in the second part and assertive in the first but with no back up, and seeing as you frequently state things which later are proven false, it really would be in your best interest to back up any claim you make
No need to get personal, your last post was decidedly unsure in the second part and assertive in the first but with no back up, and seeing as you frequently state things which later are proven false, it really would be in your best interest to back up any claim you make
can you back up your claim that Grime said the dogs alerted to cadaver odour
I already gave it yesterday, don't you remember?
In Grime's professional opinion the EVRD dog alerts were suggestive of cadaver scent contaminant...except for his opinion after the garage searches where it was his opinion the alerts suggested cadaver scent contaminant or blood
!
AS anyone would expect from a cadaver dog giving alerts!
Cue nitpicking claptrap
If you didn't know that it is standard policy to deploy dogs and handlers in one-to-one ratios, then I have informed you of something.
That's not personal.
One to one it was, Grime worked with one dog at a time
You haven't provided evidence any other handler was with Grime on searches previous to PDL and that SYP would never have sent one handler out with two dogs, but never mind, I'm not going to lose sleep over it
so you cannot back up your claim as I pointed out..
I bow to your superior knowledge, intellect and perception...I am in total awe.....now is that enough for you to go away and stop snapping at my heels all over the forum?
Grime said suggest because a cadaver dog alert suggests , synonyms, indicates shows, explains,exactly that which it has been trained for...cadaver scent.....if Grime thought it suggested anything else he would have said so.....deal with it, it will never go away just for you....you are at liberty though to think Eddie alerted to someone's remnant scent of sweat, used nappy or a clipped toenail though...it's a free world
8)--))
I shall post as I wish...Grime made it quite clear he did not know what caused the alert
Why would he, it was cadaverscent contaminant, in his professional opinion,(unlike yours) where it came from is what Grime did not know
oh dear...so you still think Grime said it WAS cadaver odour..he didn't
It is Ok always trying or wanting to have the last word, it is a facet of human nature ...in some....it shows you're a bad loser too, but you cannot change his words, it was in his opinion, suggestive/indicative etc etc etc , for the last time CADAVER SCENT contaminant most of the time
I really do not understand your vehemence in not accepting this
oh well
No-one has noticed a problem re of one of Amaral's ideas Why would anyone put anything in a cupboard that doesn't belong there and then take it out again. What's the point. It achieves absolutely nothing.
I don't accept it because it isn't true and you are exhibiting gross stupidity to claim it is..Grime said it was suggestive of cadaver odour...that is not confirmation
So, you are saying what Mr Grime SAID is not true, well, you're at Liberty to call him a liar, but that is your problem, not mine, also reported for breaking forum rules in name calling/ad hom, something you seriously need to get out of your system if you ever want to get anywhere near to be taken seriously...that's all chuck
It is Ok always trying or wanting to have the last word, it is a facet of human nature ...in some....it shows you're a bad loser too, but you cannot change his words, it was in his opinion, suggestive/indicative etc etc etc , for the last time CADAVER SCENT contaminant most of the time
I really do not understand your vehemence in not accepting this
oh well
I can't and don't argue with what Grime said...but you are misquoting him which the whole forum can seenope not misquoted him, why would I, stop being silly
nope not misquoted him, why would I, stop being silly
Could you provide a cite for that?
Because in a more contemporaneous report,Grime suggests that Eddie is alerting to blood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
nope not misquoted him, why would I, stop being silly
so it seems there is a secret report available only to mercury where grime says eddie alerts to cadaver most of the time
and to think mercury had the gall to criticise my post...absolutely priceless
It is all there in that report. All along I have said Mr Grime said blood could be a reason for the EVRD dog alerts in the car searches in the garage but in the villa/clothing and in his summary he states just cadaverscent contaminant
This bit? "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant"
This bit? "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant"
It's also a fact that Eddie could not tell Grime how old the scent was, or whether it was from above or below ground, or whether the original source was at the spot where he barked or whether the scent had drifted there from elsewhere. Or even if it had been innocently transferred there from an outside source by cross contamination.
Hence his statement that the alerts are of no use unless they can be corroborated. Without corroboration there are just too many variances which could have nothing to do with Madeleine which could have resulted in an alert.
So ultimately - they add nothing to the investigation.
Quote from Amarals book:
Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it’s Keela’s turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it’s probably there that the death occurred.
Unquote
Amaral was obviously unaware (or chose to ignore) that Eddie also alerted to blood - which included blood from living people - and so what he claims in his book is patently seriously flawed. I cannot help but wonder how many people who read it - believed what he claimed and judged the McCanns guilty as a result.
Yes, JP, all "those bits"
Did you have a further question?
Cadaver dog news was all over the papers in August 2007, and beyond,can't blame Amaral for that now, since h book was a whle year after, steady on
Yes, JP, all "those bits"
Did you have a further question?
Cadaver dog news was all over the papers in August 2007, and beyond,can't blame Amaral for that now, since h book was a whle year after, steady on
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant"
Now Mercury -is that the complete statement from Grime?
And was it written before,or after,the FSS report?
IMO Mercury there is a big difference between newspaper articles and a claim made in a book written by the Lead investigator of a case. That latter fact alone would carry a lot of clout with his readers IMO.
No-one has noticed a problem re of one of Amaral's ideas Why would anyone put anything in a cupboard that doesn't belong there and then take it out again. What's the point. It achieves absolutely nothing.Bumping this again, give us a clue Pegasus
Well, I disagree with your opinion as books TV online reports are all interchangeable these days...the fact remains the cadaver alerts were a massive turning point and under major discussion in all media by many a whole year before the book...you cannot lay that on Amaral, but you are free to bash
IMO criticism of Amaral's lack of understanding of the abililties of the dogs is deserved. Of all people - as the Lead Investigator he should have scrupulously acquainted himself with the correct facts concerning such an important subject. IMO either he didn't do that - or he cherry picked the facts which suited him and studiously ignored the facts which didn't. Having read his book its my opinion that he did the latter.
No it obviously isn't his complete statement but the point under discussion was whether he said the dog alerts were connected with cadaver scent....fast forward.....it doesn't matter when it was written...the FSS have no ability to test cadaver scent....
Funny that......
So you quoted only part of that paragraph, presumably hoping that nobody would notice the other bit that was relevant but not quite so helpful to your argument.
"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."
Mercury -a tip - don't, whatever you do, consider a career in the law, or any other profession which requires honest argument and appraisal.
____________
In the more detailed body of the report, Grime says (excerpt):
All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications
were at apartment 5a, the reported scene.
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.
The dog's behaviour for these alerts led me to the following opinions:
MINISTERIO PUBLICO DE PORTIMAO
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.
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
on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was
in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely
presence of human blood.
The forensic science support officers were then deployed to recover items for
laboratory analysis.
and
Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at
Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details, were
parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle
placement video recording and management of the process was conducted
by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a
vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family,
the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert
indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and
barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from
the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door.
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and
no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the
vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the
boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a
forensic laboratory in the U.K.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent'
contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can
be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating
evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without
any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Bumping this again, give us a clue Pegasus
It wasn't his job to do so, just as it wasn!t his job to interview the Mccanns or "meet them"
Just another stick to beat Amaral with
If you believe it wasn't his job to fully inform himself of the abilities of the sniffer dogs before making claims about them in order to implicate the McCanns, then I can only assume that your expectations of the Lead Investigator are no different to those of reporters writing sensational articles about the case in order to sell papers. Personally I would expect far more from a professional police officer.
(off to bed now - goodnight Mercury)
I would think Pegasus would say:- Why would someone put a cadaver in a wardrobe with a pile of laundry then take it out again?
I'm sure he/she will correct me if I have misinterpreted that.
Err no I don't think that is what Pegasus was referring to, if you hid a cadaver in a wardrobe you would take it out again asap before police got there...what????
logging off, catch up tomorrow
!
I would think Pegasus would say:- Why would someone put a cadaver in a wardrobe with a pile of laundry then take it out again?
I'm sure he/she will correct me if I have misinterpreted that.
Is that a trick question? You can hide something in a wardrobe if you are meant to be somewhere else.
When does Amaral state that Madeleine died?
His theory in the documentary was that Maddy heard her father's voice outside and when trying to look though the window fell from the sofa and died. Kate later discovered the body and hid it in the wardrobe which I don't agree with. Maddy was moved out of the apartment before 9:30 in my theory but where was she when moved out - in bed, behind the sofa or hiding in the wardrobe?
His theory in the documentary was that Maddy heard her father's voice outside and when trying to look though the window fell from the sofa and died. Kate later discovered the body and hid it in the wardrobe. In my theory, Maddy was moved out of the apartment before 9:30 but where was she at that time - in bed, behind the sofa or hiding in the wardrobe?
If she was moved before 9.30, why would her cadaver have been placed in the wardrobe? Then, how do you explain the presence of the cadaver scent behind the sofa?
You put it in the wardrobe until it's dark. Who says there was cadaver scent behind the sofa? Blood was detected by Keela, so Eddie could have been alerting to blood there also.
So at what time do you think Madeleine died? It was dark by nine o'clock.
If Eddie was correct (he has a 50/50 chance either way) a cadaver was in the parent's bedroom, on the balcony outside the parent's bedroom, and in a flowerbed below. Allowing time for the scent to develop there would have had to have been a cadaver in the bedroom by at least 8pm, maybe earlier.
If Eddie was correct (he has a 50/50 chance either way) a cadaver was in the parent's bedroom, on the balcony outside the parent's bedroom, and in a flowerbed below. Allowing time for the scent to develop there would have had to have been a cadaver in the bedroom by at least 8pm, maybe earlier.
Nothing to do with some sort of transference then?
8pm or earlier? How did that happen. Madeleine died and no one made any attempt to help her? Just dumped her in the flower bed, on the balcony and in the wardrobe. Where did they dump her first, do you think?
Madeleine fell from the balcony to the flowerbed shortly after her parents left the apartment. Gerry found body shortly before 22.00 and initially laid it in the bedroom. Scent pools so cadaver scent is detected in the corner of the bedroom next to the wardrobe. Simple really.. Absolutely ridiculous but that is the best you can do
Madeleine fell from the balcony to the flowerbed shortly after her parents left the apartment. Gerry found body shortly before 22.00 and initially laid it in the bedroom. Scent pools so cadaver scent is detected in the corner of the bedroom next to the wardrobe. Simple really.
Madeleine fell from the balcony to the flowerbed shortly after her parents left the apartment. Gerry found body shortly before 22.00 and initially laid it in the bedroom. Scent pools so cadaver scent is detected in the corner of the bedroom next to the wardrobe. Simple really.
Who would have hidden the cadaver, which according to Amaral was behind the sofa, in the wardrobe - and when & why would they have done that?
Nothing to do with some sort of transference then?
8pm or earlier? How did that happen. Madeleine died and no one made any attempt to help her? Just dumped her in the flower bed, on the balcony and in the wardrobe. Where did they dump her first, do you think?
I think you mean 21.00. But if Madeleine fell and died just after 8.30 and Gerry removed the body at 9pm how could there have been any death scent in the flower bed or on the balcony?
Jesus, this is beginning to sound like The Butler Done It.
No I meant shortly before 10 Eleanor. We have no independent witness to Gerry's whereabouts after 9.15. Madeleine's name is heard being expressed quietly sometime around 9.30 which could have been Gerry searching for her and having found her in the flowerbed takes her to the bedroom where he considers what to do next. The sofa alert, I believe, was to historic blood.
No I meant shortly before 10 Eleanor. We have no independent witness to Gerry's whereabouts after 9.15. Madeleine's name is heard being expressed quietly sometime around 9.30 which could have been Gerry searching for her and having found her in the flowerbed takes her to the bedroom where he considers what to do next. The sofa alert, I believe, was to historic blood.
Grime never mentions the word cadaver...your post is pure speculation with no evidence to support it
Apart from the fact that Gerry was in the Tapas bar at 9.30.
No I meant shortly before 10 Eleanor. We have no independent witness to Gerry's whereabouts after 9.15. Madeleine's name is heard being expressed quietly sometime around 9.30 which could have been Gerry searching for her and having found her in the flowerbed takes her to the bedroom where he considers what to do next. The sofa alert, I believe, was to historic blood.
Says who ?
Says who ?
Russell O'Brian for one, he says that Gerry came back to the table about 9.25/9.30 and they started eating their dinner.
Russell O'Brian for one, he says that Gerry came back to the table about 9.25/9.30 and they started eating their dinner.
But why would Gerry have been at the apartment just before 10pm to even know that she was missing? He'd did his check at 9pm, and then Matthew at 9.30. It was Kate's turn at 10pm.
Russell O'Brian for one, he says that Gerry came back to the table about 9.25/9.30 and they started eating their dinner.
If he was so late returning, why did Kate decide to check at 9.30pm? Did she intend not to eat her dinner? Did Matt and Russell leave just as dinner was served?
If he was so late returning, why did Kate decide to check at 9.30pm? Did she intend not to eat her dinner? Did Matt and Russell leave just as dinner was served?
we don't have every detail so you can make up anything you like...but that's all it is...make believe
as could be the mccanns version of events.
that would be for the experts to decide...the police...who are investigating a stranger abduction
No dave.
That is in a court of law.
a court of law does not decide innocence as I have explained to you before
so maddie fell off the balcony onto a very soft landing on the bushes below and immediately died...it's more probable she was abducted by aliens
A court of law decides 'not guilty or guilty' dave.
It's not up to the police.
so no one decides innocence...
the police decide who to investigate...without investigation no evidence...no evidence no court case..
so the police decide who to investigate...who they believe and therefore who goes to court...you would have to agree
we don't have every detail so you can make up anything you like...but that's all it is...make believe
What are you on about innocence dave ?
The assumption is a person is not guilty, unless deemed guilty by a jury, or a magistrate(s).
its up to the police who they gather evidence against and present it to the CPS.....if the police believe the mccanns are innocent...as they seem to do...then they have no evidence to take to the CPS
They appear to have no evidence of anything, other than belief.
Besides dave, the crime occurred in Portugal.
I'm looking at the evidence we do have, not making things up at all. I leave that to others whose flights of fancy take them to some amazing places.
if the mccanns lied then fraud occurred in the UK...it's down to whether SY believe the McCanns or not and what evidence they have against them. Sy are investigating a stranger abduction so they believe the McCanns and they are the experts
That first part I agree with.
Now as regards the police, the PJ believed the parents were involved. Now what makes SY right and the PJ wrong ?
Tell me one thing sincerely, do you think this case will ever be solved ?
the pj suspected the mccanns because they did not understand the evidence....they made a cock up which they admitted in the archiving report...now the evidence is understood the mccanns are not suspects...
probably the only chance there is of solving the case rests with SY....if they have found nothing...then I think the case will not be solved...we just do not know yet
The PJ suspected the mccanns for a variety of reasons.
No one has been charged with anything.
SY found nothing in Portugal.
The case remains at ground zero.
the evidence against the mccanns was all discounted in the archiving report...you don't have a clue what SY have found.
No I meant shortly before 10 Eleanor. We have no independent witness to Gerry's whereabouts after 9.15. Madeleine's name is heard being expressed quietly sometime around 9.30 which could have been Gerry searching for her and having found her in the flowerbed takes her to the bedroom where he considers what to do next. The sofa alert, I believe, was to historic blood.Just commenting on "The sofa alert, I believe, was to historic blood."
"The sofa alert, I believe, was to historic blood."
Yes it is possible it is historic IMO.
Probably during construction the tiler got a small cut while cutting a tile.
A few drops of blood dripped onto the cement then tiles were laid on the cement.
What year was this block built?
I agree. Chipped pieces of tiles are lethal.
you have just admitted to speculation...if you do not know exactly where everyone was at every specific time then your timeline is made upThat is bad news for the professors in the History Department.
Just commenting on "The sofa alert, I believe, was to historic blood."
Yes it is possible it is historic IMO.
Probably during construction the tiler got a small cut while cutting a tile.
A few drops of blood dripped onto the cement then tiles were laid on the cement.
What year was this block built?
Not sure. Mid- to late- '80s?Thanks. Found an advert says the similar block 4 was built 1991.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052055/Holiday-apartment-Madeleine-McCann-went-missing-goes-sale-250-000.html
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm
PJ forensics of the tiles and cement.
Then sent to a UK lab.
Do we have a link for the tile cement results from UK lab?
A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material on the swab (3A) from the apartment floor. An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material on the wet swab (3B) from the same area was unsuccessful in that no profile was obtained.We can't tell which of the tile or cement samples was the blood Keela alerted to.
(Will add more in an edit)
A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material recovered from the edges of tile 2 286/2007-CRL(2) from the apartment floor. An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from a further area on tile 2 and two areas on tile 3 (286/2007-CRL(3) were unsuccessful in that no profiles were obtained.
(And more to follow) ......
We can't tell which of the tile or cement samples was the blood Keela alerted to.
We can't tell which of the tile or cement samples was the blood Keela alerted to.
We can't tell which of the tile or cement samples was the blood Keela alerted to.
so no one decides innocence...
the police decide who to investigate...without investigation no evidence...no evidence no court case..
so the police decide who to investigate...who they believe and therefore who goes to court...you would have to agree
Madeleine's name features just once in John Lowe's report:
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 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 attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
It doesn't say whereabouts in the villa that was taken from.
Stephen is correct. One cannot be declared innocent, because the presumption is that one is innocent.
The role of the police is to investigate, not to decide upon guilt or innocence.
Stephen is correct. One cannot be declared innocent, because the presumption is that one is innocent.
The role of the police is to investigate, not to decide upon guilt or innocence.
Although it is not the police role to decide guilt or innocence that is exactly what they often do. in the mccanns case the police decided that the McCanns were guilty and steered the investigation in taht direction..
In the Colin Stagg case again the police decided Stagg was guilty and did exactly the same
Davel -you need to consider the respective roles of the police, the prosecutor and the court.
In very simple terms:
The police - their role is to investigate, to gather evidence and put together a case -to "solve" the crime to the best of their ability.
The prosecutor - in England this is CPS, who decide on the strength of the case, the chance of a conviction and decide whether to bring the matter to trial.
The court - it's role is to "try" the case, and weigh the case presented by the prosecution and the defense, and to decide on a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty".
We are told that in this sort of case best police practice is to investigate the parents first and then rule them in or out.....the police make that decision
They would look at the last person who saw the missing person first so in this case it would be Gerry.
they would certainly look at this person...interview them and make a judgement...that's what I am saying...the police make a judgement
We are told that in this sort of case best police practice is to investigate the parents first and then rule them in or out.....the police make that decisionAs Redwood said
You can't make a judgement on one interview when in subsequent interviews the story changes or more evidence is gathered which changes it like the dog alerts or a sighting.
A tiler caused the dogs to alert 8(>(( Yeah and only in the apartment where the girl went missing from. You will have to do better than that.
If a cadaver was placed temporarily in the wardrobe, as Amaral stated, why didn't the dog later indicate in the gym inspection to all the clothes or the suitcase that were in the pile of laundry on the 3rd?
If a cadaver wasn't placed in the wardrobe, how can the apparent cadaver scent be accounted for? None of the clothing in there was being worn after 8.30pm.
If a cadaver was placed temporarily in the wardrobe, as Amaral stated, why didn't the dog later indicate in the gym inspection to all the clothes or the suitcase that were in the pile of laundry on the 3rd?In that hypothetical situation you would have direct contact with only a few of the items on the same shelf, and no direct contact with any items on different shelves.
(snip)
The cadaver may have been on the bottom shelf and not touching any clothes. You need to be in contact with a cadaver to be contaminated or touch something like a diary or sit down on a sofa with contaminated clothes probably like Adrian Prout did.
Although it is not the police role to decide guilt or innocence that is exactly what they often do. in the mccanns case the police decided that the McCanns were guilty and steered the investigation in taht direction..
In the Colin Stagg case again the police decided Stagg was guilty and did exactly the same
There was neither cadaver nor cadaver scent detected in the 2007/8 (shelved) enquiry ....
Precisely Mercury it would be a bizarre exercise in pointlessness to hide something from noone.
Precisely Mercury it would be a bizarre exercise in pointlessness to hide something from noone.
If you had a corpse in your house you may hide it away and not leave it on the sofa to admire.that's a point I suppose....but still PF, stick it in the wardrobe?
that's a point I suppose....but still PF, stick it in the wardrobe?
I just c ant picture Gerry or Kate walking into their flat finding their daughter dead and sticking her in the wardrobe....
That depends on whether they wanted anybody to know about it.If there WAS a corpse the scent could have settled in the wardrobe without it being there ever....and as I posted earlier this evening the scent could have contaminated some clothes if it did even without touching them
That depends on whether they wanted anybody to know about it.
Bung her in the wardrobe & run to the Tapas Bar screaming for help......yes, that sounds like a plan. Only in the world of a deluded detective.Did Amaral say that? Cite then!!
Bung her in the wardrobe & run to the Tapas Bar screaming for help......yes, that sounds like a plan. Only in the world of a deluded detective.
Madeleine's name features just once in John Lowe's report:
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 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 attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
It doesn't say whereabouts in the villa that was taken from.
Don't you mean 5A, not "villa"?"286A/2007 CRL 3a" (see post above).
It appears to be from one of the tiles behind the sofa.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/V/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2192_a.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3216.jpg
and
Conclusions:
On 4 August there were collected at [the above address]:
- Three (3) spots from the floor, numbered as trace evidence 1 to 3;
- Ten (10) spots from the wall, numbered as trace evidence 4 to 13;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm
If there WAS a corpse the scent could have settled in the wardrobe without it being there ever....and as I posted earlier this evening the scent could have contaminated some clothes if it did even without touching them
it is a conundrum isn't it....but not a conundrum to the point some have pulled it in the most ridiculous ways such as remnant scent of blood, saliva, BO etc....the dog question will NEVER go away because it has NOT been answered..many have tried and failed
Don't you mean 5A, not "villa"?
It appears to be from one of the tiles behind the sofa.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/V/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2192_a.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3216.jpg
and
Conclusions:
On 4 August there were collected at [the above address]:
- Three (3) spots from the floor, numbered as trace evidence 1 to 3;
- Ten (10) spots from the wall, numbered as trace evidence 4 to 13;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm
Bung her in the wardrobe & run to the Tapas Bar screaming for help......yes, that sounds like a plan. Only in the world of a deluded detective.
What we need is a photo of this whole area of tiles (with spots labelled) before the tiles were taken up
I think the whole accident scenario is impossible for lots of reasons.....as regards moving the body...why not move the body before raising the alarmIf you read my post you'll see that is exactly what my suspects do in my little detective novel. The alarm is raised on the evening of the 3rd. The body is transported during the afternoon of the 3rd. After all the 'accident' has in reality happened on the 2/3 rd.
If I wrote a deluded detective story, I WOULD have the suspects placing the body in a wardrobe away from prying eyes but only if the 'accidental death' happened on the 2/3 rd and I was waiting for a friend to bring along a car to transport it elsewhere. But then that would also leave the car vulnerable to cadaver scent wouldn't it? Fortunately I'm no writer of detective stories!
There are photos, but of individual tiles. Not 100% certain, but it would seem likely (IMO), in context. that the photos were taken prior to having been taken up.Yes before taking the tiles up they did close up labelled photos of individual tiles but I can't find photo showing them all at once.
How, otherwise, could the spots of interest have been assigned markers?
If you read my post you'll see that is exactly what my suspects do in my little detective novel. The alarm is raised on the evening of the 3rd. The body is transported during the afternoon of the 3rd. After all the 'accident' has in reality happened on the 2/3 rd.
There are photos, but of individual tiles. Not 100% certain, but it would seem likely (IMO), in context. that the photos were taken prior to having been taken up.
How, otherwise, could the spots of interest have been assigned markers?
Yes before taking the tiles up they did close up labelled photos of individual tiles but I can't find photo showing them all at once.
why cover up an accident if it happened earlier...there's no neglect
There most certainly IS neglect if the accident happens whilst you're out enjoying yourself with your friends!!
Am I the only one who finds the constant dog "alert" discussions mad?
I say this maybe due to naivety, but, surely if a corpse had been in that apartment or anywhere close to either McCann or their clothes etc, the dogs would have gone on alert immediately and not have to be coaxed into mild alerts if you can call them that?
Martin Grime himself said that without corroboration (of which there was none) the alerts are meaningless (or words to that effect).
Coaxed into mild alerts? Some might agree with you but many wouldn't. What you see is what you get with dog alerts. It's the way they are and it's the way they work...................... very successfully I might add .
I'd have thought a missing child was corroboration enough ...........................a child that hasn't been seen since !
not according to the PJ ...the dogs totally ignored things several times before "alerting"...that isn't the way I have seen any scent dogs working
Brings me back to this.
"surely if a corpse had been in that apartment or anywhere close to either McCann or their clothes" - the dogs would have reacted strongly.
I don't believe there was a corpse. I believe the child was taken.
Brings me back to this.
"surely if a corpse had been in that apartment or anywhere close to either McCann or their clothes" - the dogs would have reacted strongly.
I don't believe there was a corpse. I believe the child was taken.
I thought that their training was thorough and their noses were very sensitive so no coaxing would be needed.
I've also got lots of experts in my little book who know even more than the recognised professionals. Funny that!
Im sorry to say I think you are slightly befuddled
Well YOU would wouldn't you? I'm sorry to say I think YOU are slightly biased.
When the 'do it yourself experts' think they know more than the recognised professionals I can't help but smile. ?{)(**
Well YOU would wouldn't you? I'm sorry to say I think YOU are slightly biased.
When the 'do it yourself experts' think they know more than the recognised professionals I can't help but smile. ?{)(**
Brings me back to this.
"surely if a corpse had been in that apartment or anywhere close to either McCann or their clothes" - the dogs would have reacted strongly.
I don't believe there was a corpse. I believe the child was taken.
If you read my post you'll see that is exactly what my suspects do in my little detective novel. The alarm is raised on the evening of the 3rd. The body is transported during the afternoon of the 3rd. After all the 'accident' has in reality happened on the 2/3 rd.
Brings me back to this.
"surely if a corpse had been in that apartment or anywhere close to either McCann or their clothes" - the dogs would have reacted strongly.
I don't believe there was a corpse. I believe the child was taken.
Brings me back to this.
"surely if a corpse had been in that apartment or anywhere close to either McCann or their clothes" - the dogs would have reacted strongly.
I don't believe there was a corpse. I believe the child was taken.
Are you referring to me when you say blood is a ridiculous as a remnant scent? I remind you it was a forensic scientist who said that.
Me too.
Welcome back Ben. Hope you keep well.
No, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the fact that AFAIAW cadaver dogs can alert to the remnant scent of decomposed human tissue after death, not the remnant scent of fluids from living people, which are not items used to train these dogs.
I've also got lots of experts in my little book who know even more than the recognised professionals. Funny that!
But that's part of what this never-ending argument is about.
Eddie would alert to dried blood from a living person. Why? Because it was a decomposing human substance.
There is nothing in the PJ files, nor from what I've read in the Jersey reports that would substantiate that Eddie wouldn't react to other decomposing fluids of a living person.
What Grime HAS said is that KEELA wouldn't react to semen, urine or faeces unless blood was present.
He never said anything of that nature about Eddie that I've seen.
Rather snarky reply.
I happened to be stating the obvious and I never claimed it to be from an expert.
It's not obvious to me . It's not obvious to Kate McCann either. When presented with the alerts on Cuddle Cat she immediately explained it away by stating that she had previously taken the child's toy to work with her and that it could have been contaminated there. I think to make such a statement ( which IMO is highly improbable ) she must have felt the dogs were on to something n'est-ce-pas?
It's not obvious to me . It's not obvious to Kate McCann either. When presented with the alerts on Cuddle Cat she immediately explained it away by stating that she had previously taken the child's toy to work with her and that it could have been contaminated there. I think to make such a statement ( which IMO is highly improbable ) she must have felt the dogs were on to something n'est-ce-pas?
But that's part of what this never-ending argument is about.
Eddie would alert to dried blood from a living person. Why? Because it was a decomposing human substance.
There is nothing in the PJ files, nor from what I've read in the Jersey reports that would substantiate that Eddie wouldn't react to other decomposing fluids of a living person.
What Grime HAS said is that KEELA wouldn't react to semen, urine or faeces unless blood was present.
He never said anything of that nature about Eddie that I've seen.
I don't think Edddie does react to the remnant scent of dried blood as dried blood does not produce cadaver odour. He only reacts to the presence of dried blood
Check MG's rogatory statements. IMO he makes it clear the dog what the dog is trained on, and what he isn't trained on. IIRC you once suggested Eddie may have been reacting to sweat and shed skin cells on the cuddle toy....do you seriously believe if that were even possibly true he wouldn't have been barking at every spot he walked over? As you say, the never ending story.!
Thank you Sadie. I don't come in often as it seems to be the same convos over and over again. %£&)**#May I ask you if you were in the area at the time Madeleine disappeared? I can appreciate that a 'local' would be getting a bit fed up by now, so I am curious.
Check MG's rogatory statements. IMO he makes it clear the dog what the dog is trained on, and what he isn't trained on. IIRC you once suggested Eddie may have been reacting to sweat and shed skin cells on the cuddle toy....do you seriously believe if that were even possibly true he wouldn't have been barking at every spot he walked over? As you say, the never ending story.!
I love the idea of Eddie only alerting to the presence of dried blood and not to its remnant scent.
So how does he recognise it as dried blood? Answers on a post card to......................
Re sweat and skin cells...
We all perspire. We all shed skin cells. In everyday life, we shower, we sweep, dust, whatever.
But, explain to me the overwhelming pong of a broken limb in a cast. What do you think that that odour is due to? I'm not the only person commenting on the case who came to that conclusion as a possibility.
It's not obvious to me . It's not obvious to Kate McCann either. When presented with the alerts on Cuddle Cat she immediately explained it away by stating that she had previously taken the child's toy to work with her and that it could have been contaminated there. I think to make such a statement ( which IMO is highly improbable ) she must have felt the dogs were on to something n'est-ce-pas?
That would be true of course, Mercury. I do believe however that the dog has to be commanded to start working/searching.Yes, true, but in all his deployments he never once alerted anywhere else, in PDL, surely someone will have shed skin cells! or do they take more than five minutes to find?
Looking at the films MG would clap his hands or say "Find".
The point is the cadaver dog trainer/handler does not give any of these spurious possibilities a single mention..sweat and skin cells! . If they were possibilities he would IMHO, but on the whole would make the whole science of using cadaver detection dogs a mockery and a waste of police time energy and money. Also he has never said the cadaver dog will react to remant scent of blood, saliva, scent, teeth...etc etc
Ps Never smelt a broken limb in a cast, so cannot comment, and never heard of dogs used or trained to detect the misfortunes....or reported to have alerted to them
@)(++(*
That would be true of course, Mercury. I do believe however that the dog has to be commanded to start working/searching.
Looking at the films MG would clap his hands or say "Find".
as I have said Eddie wasn't a properly trained cadaver dog because he had been trained to react to blood too
So after the command to start working has been issued, what stops Eddie alerting to the shed skin cells which would still be on site?
In work mode or not, those apparent alert trigger contaminants would still be present.
he was a very well trained EVRD, one EVRD among a few
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7263355.stm
Of course you will have a cite that shows no properly trained cadaver dog reacts to blood or is also trained to do so, won't you?
It's not obvious to me . It's not obvious to Kate McCann either. When presented with the alerts on Cuddle Cat she immediately explained it away by stating that she had previously taken the child's toy to work with her and that it could have been contaminated there. I think to make such a statement ( which IMO is highly improbable ) she must have felt the dogs were on to something n'est-ce-pas?
I've read that best practice is that cadaver dog's should not alert to blood...the cite is somewhere on this thread...Morse, Grimes latest dog does not alert to blood. if you think about it , it makes perfect sense.
I'm not going to bother asking you to waste your time looking for a cite to prove that ... for the simple reason there isn't one. Dr Kate McCann neither said that she took CuddleCat to work ... nor did she say she had been in contact with six dead bodies at her work.And you know this how?
If a blood dog is used in tandem maybe it does, as it would remove any doubt for some of the alerts, but not all, and may have been more helpful in Portugal overall.
You have alerts given by Eddie where no blood was there....they have yet to be explained away
If a blood dog is used in tandem maybe it does, as it would remove any doubt for some of the alerts, but not all, and may have been more helpful in Portugal overall.
You have alerts given by Eddie where no blood was there....they have yet to be explained away
And you know this how?
Unless you thnk/know the author of the Star of Madeleine (IIRC) completely fabricated this in his book?
Just asking so that we can tick another myth off with proof it was a myth iyswim
If a blood dog is used in tandem maybe it does, as it would remove any doubt for some of the alerts, but not all, and may have been more helpful in Portugal overall.
You have alerts given by Eddie where no blood was there....they have yet to be explained away
they don't have to be explained away...they have to be confirmed...as Morse...Grime's new dog is not trained on blood it seems Grime agrees with me
if Eddie alerts to remnant scent of blood then he would alert and keela would not
It's a Myth. Fabricated by Cristovao.
Not explained away but explained.
Cuddle-cat: an error of omission, or commission?
Clothing not alerted to in the villa, transported in bog-standard cardboard boxes to a gym and apparently alerted to.
Which was right?
No alert in the villa?
Or alert in the gym?
Should police dogs attending a crime scene both trample all over stuff they are tasked to inspect and (one dog) pick stuff up in its mouth?
I'd be amazed if that is best practise ...
That would be true of course, Mercury. I do believe however that the dog has to be commanded to start working/searching.
Looking at the films MG would clap his hands or say "Find".
And you know this how?
if you cannot provide evidence or proof then what you say is as much a myth surely?
Just for reference
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic11923.html
Chapter 8
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 Tavared replies - and the death rate at the medical center where you work twice a week is extremely high...
It's true - the arguido replies
And you know this how?
if you cannot provide evidence or proof then what you say is as much a myth surely?
Just for reference
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic11923.html
Chapter 8
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 Tavared replies - and the death rate at the medical center where you work twice a week is extremely high...
It's true - the arguido replies
Apart from your own opinion, do you have any evidence that screening clothes is not done...then you have the parents bedroom and verandah alerts to "explain"
And you know this how?
if you cannot provide evidence or proof then what you say is as much a myth surely?
Just for reference
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic11923.html
Chapter 8
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 Tavared replies - and the death rate at the medical center where you work twice a week is extremely high...
It's true - the arguido replies
Apart from your own opinion, do you have any evidence that screening clothes is not done...then you have the parents bedroom and verandah alerts to "explain"
And you know this how?
if you cannot provide evidence or proof then what you say is as much a myth surely?
Just for reference
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic11923.html
Chapter 8
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 Tavared replies - and the death rate at the medical center where you work twice a week is extremely high...
It's true - the arguido replies
Not explained away but explained.
Cuddle-cat: an error of omission, or commission?
Clothing not alerted to in the villa, transported in bog-standard cardboard boxes to a gym and apparently alerted to.
Which was right?
No alert in the villa?
Or alert in the gym?
Should police dogs attending a crime scene both trample all over stuff they are tasked to inspect and (one dog) pick stuff up in its mouth?
I'd be amazed if that is best practise ...
I agree Anna, or Eddie would be barking at anyone who carries a bloody tissue from cutting themselves or from having a nose bleed, a child who could have cut itself falling over etc. etc. The dog finds when commanded to.
At the villa, did the dogs have access to the clothing samples packed in boxes for inspection at the gym?
The packing of clothes seems to have taken place before the dogs arrived.
It seems unclear and unconfirmed that the dog alerted to the same clothing in the gym which had been previously ignored in the villa.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
Does the contamination result of nose-bleeds, bloody tissues and children falling over disappear then after the dog has been commanded to search?
Mercury, that's from Cristovão's "novel"...
PPC did not work on the investigation & his book was released as fiction well before the case was shelved.
An extract from Cristovao's Book. A complete fabrication.
Who mentioned the 48 questions? KM was interviewed for hours before that questioning
Hmmm ... so what other of the 48 questions did the arguida answer?
You have posted complete and utter falsehood here and the sad thing is you cannot fail to know that is exactly what it is.
Everything is explained by inconsistent results which does not enable us to draw any inference whatever from dog reactions.There was nothing inconsistent about alerts to the parents bedroom or verandah
Are you confusing him with the novel written by Marcos Correia, the girls from the stars?
If you read the introduction, it is clear it is not, as in the other example, a "novel"
I know he did not, but there is nothing to say he was not told certain thngs, and again, please show where it was released as fiction...
I already asked you for evidence or proof that it was such, none forthcoming??!
Who mentioned the 48 questions? KM was interviewed for hours before that questioning
What I have posted is quotes from a source, what is actually sad is your deriding my attempt to challenge a claim on here that you made...with some kind of authority....well, show us the proof that Kate McCann never uttered these words, a simple denial from her will also do.....I would have thought the attempt to clear up "myths" would be applauded by you, but seems you are satisfied to just declare without back up?
Hmmmm
It may well be it was "fabricated"...but does the "say so" of a few internet posters with nothing to back up their belief given, just prove it? Why the "horrendous" reaction in any case? Is it beyond the realms of possibility KM said words to that effect? Her sister in law said any cadaver scent may have come from work as they were both doctors.
You posted up the quote from Cristovao's Book. You must know where it came from.
Never has such a conversation appeared anywhere in The Files.
It is a fabrication, and stupid with it.
KM statement 6th September 2007
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta5
Who mentioned the 48 questions? KM was interviewed for hours before that questioning
What I have posted is quotes from a source, what is actually sad is your deriding my attempt to challenge a claim on here that you made...with some kind of authority....well, show us the proof that Kate McCann never uttered these words, a simple denial from her will also do.....I would have thought the attempt to clear up "myths" would be applauded by you, but seems you are satisfied to just declare without back up?
Hmmmm
Yes:
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
[/color]
Clothing laid out all over the villa, but not alerted to, was packed into cardboard boxes and transported to the gym so the dogs could have a second stab ....
One thing I am unprepared to do is discuss proven lies from the most dubious source possible ... as if they deserved any credence whatsoever. The fact that a nasty work of fiction is all you have in support of your argument reveals exactly how shallow that argument is and devalues everything else you have to say on the matter.
And you know this how?When my son died in his bed at home, two GP's had to come to our house and quickly examine him, then verify that he was indeed dead. I think that was to make sure that a living person was not sealed in a coffin.
if you cannot provide evidence or proof then what you say is as much a myth surely?
Just for reference
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic11923.html
Chapter 8
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 Tavared replies - and the death rate at the medical center where you work twice a week is extremely high...
It's true - the arguido replies
When my son died in his bed at home, two GP's had to come to our house and quickly examine him, then verify that he was indeed dead. I think that was to make sure that a living person was not sealed in a coffin.
I doubt that is an uncommon scenario. GP's have to do those sort of thngs quite often.
I think the whole accident scenario is impossible for lots of reasons.....as regards moving the body...why not move the body before raising the alarm
When my son died in his bed at home, two GP's had to come to our house and quickly examine him, then verify that he was indeed dead. I think that was to make sure that a living person was not sealed in a coffin.
I doubt that is an uncommon scenario. GP's have to do those sort of thngs quite often.
yes, I did, and I know where it came from, the book!
the files do NOT contain the interrogation of KM before her arguido statements
You still have to give evidence it is a fabrication...or you can refuse to and say, well, I just think that
Finally, no it's not stupid, unless you think her sister in law is stupid too, then again, yeah, KM was a GP not a mortuary technician..hmmmm
I think, in your apparent state of enragement, you might have become confused. I had no argument, I just questioned various peoples declarations, such as yours, that the reference to KM saying she was in touch with dead bodies was a lie... You mention, yet again proven lies, but provide no proof, how odd, neither do you provide any evidence that the book was a nasty work of fiction...as for your declaration that anythng I say here is devalued because of your flawed argument has just been turned on its head!
8((()*/
Usually certain doctors from each practice, frequently at an undertakers and always wearing gloves.
So easy to prove, you have to wonder why it wasn't.
After examination - surely their gloves would cross contaminate anything else they touched - like their own clothing for instance?
It seems unclear..........The clip in blue doesn`t tie in with the snip from the villa search which records only Eddie present, not Keela. How can it state that Keela possibly indicated blood odours on clothing there?
Was Keela deployed at the villa?
*snip*
"Official record of the canine inspection at 18h14 on 2 August 2007 at the current residence of the McCann couple situated at Rua das Flores, 27, Praia da Luz, Lagos.
The five participants are indicated as two PJ Inspectors; UK NPIA officer (Harrison); UK dog handler (Grime); UK English Springer spaniel (Eddy)."
Both dogs are reported to have been deployed at the gym.
*snip*
"Official record of the canine inspection at 23h20 on 2 August 2007 at the Municipal Pavilion of Lagos, [situated in] Lagos.
The ten participants are indicated as being five PJ Chief Inspectors (2)/Inspectors (3); The UK NPIA officer (Harrison); the UK dog handler (Grime); the Portuguese-speaking officer from Scotland Yard (Freitas); and the two UK English Springer spaniels - Eddy and Kila"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
(Sorry....it could be a comprehension malfunction on my part! )
After examination - surely their gloves would cross contaminate anything else they touched - like their own clothing for instance?
yes, I did, and I know where it came from, the book!
the files do NOT contain the interrogation of KM before her arguido statements
You still have to give evidence it is a fabrication...or you can refuse to and say, well, I just think that
Finally, no it's not stupid, unless you think her sister in law is stupid too, then again, yeah, KM was a GP not a mortuary technician..hmmmm
Perhaps they take them off and throw them away afterwards? 8(>((
yes, I did, and I know where it came from, the book!
the files do NOT contain the interrogation of KM before her arguido statements
You still have to give evidence it is a fabrication...or you can refuse to and say, well, I just think that
Finally, no it's not stupid, unless you think her sister in law is stupid too, then again, yeah, KM was a GP not a mortuary technician..hmmmm
Does the contamination result of nose-bleeds, bloody tissues and children falling over disappear then after the dog has been commanded to search?
After examination - surely their gloves would cross contaminate anything else they touched - like their own clothing for instance?
Usually certain doctors from each practice, frequently at an undertakers and always wearing gloves.That was not the case with my son.
So easy to prove, you have to wonder why it wasn't.
Does anyone know when Cristovao's book was published?
Sorry, Off Topic but the knowledge might help.
And you would of course wear your work clothes on holiday!! Especially those check pyjama like trousers. 8(*(
Can't pinpoint the exact date, but it seems to have been summer 2012
Kate has been close to six bodies in last two weeks at work
TimesOnline 10.09.2007
Mrs McCann is reported to have explained that in her work as locum GPshe came into contact with six corpses in the weeks leading up to Algarve holiday.
Kate has been close to six bodies in last two weeks at work
TimesOnline 10.09.2007
Mrs McCann is reported to have explained that in her work as locum GPshe came into contact with six corpses in the weeks leading up to Algarve holiday.
That was not the case with my son.
Both doctors came in independantly, but no gloves were worn.
The one doctor was a neighbour, not our usual doctor, but from our practice. The other doctor was a friend of his and of us. The first doctor called him in, cos two were needed.
As far as I am aware neither had any links with an undertaker.
People are dying in their own homes all the time. Such is life .... and doctors have to verify they are dead.
Kate could have been to one such unhappy happening in the days before they came on holiday.
It only takes one to pass the cadavar scent on.
But we dont know.
Does anyone know when Cristovao's book was published?
Sorry, Off Topic but the knowledge might help.
Should have been easy to prove.
"Reported to have explained." TimesOnLine.
Which paper was it that has lately been forced to issue a retraction, and paid a sum of money for the lie?
Yes strange that.
The parents of missing child Madeleine McCann have sued The Sunday Times for libel over a story which they said gave the impression they had hindered the investigation into her disappearance.
However they DIDN'T sue over the supposed lies and myths spouted by the Times Online over the six dead bodies. They missed an opportunity there!
Depends on the job really. No way would Kate McCann be wearing those check pyjama bottoms for signing death certificates or whatever. Hardly professional. I used to wear skirts and jackets for work and the first thing I did before my holiday started was put them aside for the cleaning specialists before getting out my 'real' clothes to party.
Yes strange that.
The parents of missing child Madeleine McCann have sued The Sunday Times for libel over a story which they said gave the impression they had hindered the investigation into her disappearance.
However they DIDN'T sue over the supposed lies and myths spouted by the Times Online over the six dead bodies. They missed an opportunity there!
March 2008
http://galaxiadoslivros.blogspot.com/2011/01/paulo-pereira-cristovao.html
Should have been easy to prove.
So he hadn't read The Files then. Or had he?
Now if not from the Mccanns or their 'sources', where would the claim of Kate Mccann seeing 6 bodies come from ?
He stated that his sources were conversations with police officers and the media. Some aspects do correspond to the general thinking of Amaral & co., and some more or less accurate details, but others must be gleaned from mangled tabloid reports of half-truths, in themselves largely initially leaked by the PJ anyway.
Now if not from the Mccanns or their 'sources', where would the claim of Kate Mccann seeing 6 bodies come from ?
Where is your evidence that a claim regarding ''six bodies'' was ever made by the McCanns or their 'sources'?
If Kate had been in contact with 6 cadavers as a GP then that would be easy for the police to substantiate. They could simply look at her work records. Therefore nothing to by gain by the McCanns by claiming she did - if she didn't.
If the McCanns did make that claim to the PJ - then it undoubtedly would have been recorded in the files. The fact that AFAIK it doesn't even get a mention says it all IMO.
Why wasn't it one of the 48 questions?
Why would anyone who didn't believe the mccanns make that story up, which has been around since early on.
( To Eleanor )How do we know Christavo made that claim up ?
and why would he need to ?
Bit of gossip intended to "rev up" his book and help sell it? Money ?.
Also a bit of Mccann smacking and obfuscation if untrue. To help his old mate Amaral ?
May I ask you if you were in the area at the time Madeleine disappeared? I can appreciate that a 'local' would be getting a bit fed up by now, so I am curious.
Why would anyone who didn't believe the mccanns make that story up, which has been around since early on.
( To Eleanor )How do we know Christavo made that claim up ?
and why would he need to ?
He wasn't present at any of the interviews, and nowhere is it mentioned in The Files, which incidentally, hadn't even been released at the time.
So did someone who was there tell him this, and if so, why is there no official record of this?
Why did he make it up? To make money. The man is a known liar and a thief, and is currently on trial for much more imaginative crimes.
Did he make any money from this book?
How would it make him money ?It was an obfuscation seemingly stephen.
It would go against the case they were pursuing ?
and more pertinently, this story originated somewhere.
Where is the proof it came from him ?
It would go against the theory of parental involvement.
Also, the sheer likelihood of any Doctor, bar in an emergency confirming 6 dead bodies in two weeks, doesn't add up.
How would it make him money ?
It would go against the case they were pursuing ?
and more pertinently, this story originated somewhere.
How would it make him money ?
It would go against the case they were pursuing ?
and more pertinently, this story originated somewhere.
Correio da Manhã
(Translated by Ines)
7 September 2007
“KATE McCann Explains Death Scent Was Due To Her Profession”
Madeleine’s mother, Kate McCann was confronted for the first time yesterday with the fact that two pieces of clothing (jeans and a T-shirt) as well as the cuddly toy that has always accompanied her during these months were alerted to in July by English sniffer dogs as being impregnated with cadaver odour. Kate did not deny this, having immediately justified the fact due to her profession.
Whilst she was a doctor at Leicester Health Centre she attended at least six situations of deaths during the time immediately preceding her arrival in Portugal for holiday.
As regards the justification given for the odour present on the cuddly toy, she gave the same reason. For unknown reasons, the doctor had her daughter’s soft toy with her whilst she worked at the health centre in question.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post218079.html#p218079
That's the one Carana 8((()*/......I missed it.
This is what I call Good Off Topic Stuff, Anna. Which I would, since I am engaged in it. And thanks for your input. Golly good, as always.
And anyway, this is a really interesting discussion, wherein no one is actually insulting anyone. That has to be a bonus.
That's the one Carana 8((()*/......I missed it.
It's not really off topic, as it concerns an alleged explanation of ChequeredTrouserSniffGate.
That was published on the same day (7 Sept) as the interview with Phil.
If the origin is indeed the interview with Phil, it's just another example of how these half-truths became factoids.
ETA: The CdM article refers to her interview prior to being made arguida (but was published on the same day as Phil's media interview) ... in which Kate apparently answered all the questions put to her. So why doesn't her alleged explanation appear in the 6 Sept statement?
That was published on the same day (7 Sept) as the interview with Phil.
If the origin is indeed the interview with Phil, it's just another example of how these half-truths became factoids.
ETA: The CdM article refers to her interview prior to being made arguida (but was published on the same day as Phil's media interview) ... in which Kate apparently answered all the questions put to her. So why doesn't her alleged explanation appear in the 6 Sept statement?
Seemingly this detail came from CdM.
O Correio da Manhã titula "Mãe de Maddie apertada pela PJ".
O jornal diz que terá sido detectado sangue no carro do casal e adianta que Kate McCann terá justificado o odor de cadáver nas roupas e no peluche com o facto de ser médica e de ter estar em contacto com seis corpos antes das férias em Portugal.
http://www.zebananas.com/POR/Setembro7.htm
I remember that article.
So was it a total fabrication or was it from yet another source ???
So it is possible that Cristovao picked up on Philomena's interview and ran with it.
But as you say, it never appeared anywhere else.
Why can no-one else see the complete injustice in this example of accusing a person based on a clothing alert?
Here is a fact - clothing spends most of its time NOT being worn. Probably 98% of its time. Just laying around in your house or flat. Have a look around your place and it proves it.
So before you even think of suspecting a person based on clothing alert you have to look at all the many possible scenarios that fit in that 98% where even if the alert were valid the person is completely innocent.
I think the sequence might have been a bit different. In the interview with Phil, she's just speculating about a potential explanation. That then gets picked up and mangled by CdM, which then gets picked up by UK media.
Cristovão did say he got some of his "info" from the media...
Kate's 6 Sept pre-arguida interview:Yes that is what the witness was wearing.
After David left, Kate dressed and sat with the children, Madeleine on her lap. She was wearing a top, she doesn't remember what colour it was, a green long-sleeved t-shirt, blue denim pants. Trainers (tennis shoes) and white socks.
(...)
They left by the veranda door, which they left closed but not locked. Main door was closed but not locked. She thinks it could be opened from the inside but not from the outside. She thinks she was wearing a cream coloured polar fleece with a zip, and on top a blue raincoat also with a zip. As regards Gerry, she doesn't know if he was wearing other items of clothing.
Why can no-one else see the complete injustice in this example of accusing a person based on a clothing alert?
Here is a fact - clothing spends most of its time NOT being worn. Probably 98% of its time. Just laying around in your house or flat. Have a look around your place and it proves it.
So before you even think of suspecting a person based on clothing alert you have to look at all the many possible scenarios that fit in that 98% where even if the alert were valid the person is completely innocent.
Yes that is what the witness was wearing.
Green long-sleeved t-shirt, blue denim pants, trainers, white socks, cream fleece, blue raincoat.
And before that - jogging clothes.
All theories which invent otherwise are utterly unjust and go straight in my bin.
It's not even clear if she took those trousers with her on holiday: they could have been brought out as extra clothing by family members.
And none of that explains the dog's reaction to the little blue shorts, little red t-shirt, etc., nor why Grime didn't keep a record of the items alerted to, nor even why some items were thrown in the air and others just nuzzled.
It just seems totally bizarre to me, but I suppose it might have impressed a jury suddenly faced with such "evidence" in a courtroom in the absence of an adversarial approach.
It's not even clear if she took those trousers with her on holiday: they could have been brought out as extra clothing by family members.
And none of that explains the dog's reaction to the little blue shorts, little red t-shirt, etc., nor why Grime didn't keep a record of the items alerted to, nor even why some items were thrown in the air and others just nuzzled.
It just seems totally bizarre to me, but I suppose it might have impressed a jury suddenly faced with such "evidence" in a courtroom in the absence of an adversarial approach.
It's not even clear if she took those trousers with her on holiday: they could have been brought out as extra clothing by family members.IMO this clothing was in the apartment throughout dinner.
(snip)
dog's alerts.....meaningless...for lots of reasons as confirmed by Grime
It seems obvious that Mr Amaral and the PJ quite simply had no understanding of that. Is there perhaps an element of culpability that no-one in authority from the British side took them aside and explained in the simplest language possible exactly where the dogs were in the food chain of an investigation.
Or was it the 'perfect storm' of misunderstanding all round. Quite frankly I don't think Mr Amaral was qualified to be the lead investigator in a missing child case. That there were a few indications of concern about that can be read between the lines ... but given the PJ reputation for excellence could anyone in authority on the British side be expected to have foreseen that not only would the function of the dogs be misunderstood but that there would be misunderstanding of forensics into the bargain and an apparent failing to seek help from experts on that ... and don't tell me there are no DNA experts in Portugal.
Possibly, but she was wearing them on the 6th May
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzmothersdaypicd.jpg)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id170.html
I should stress, I am crap at reading body-language, but even I can see (in that photograph) the communication of abject misery and despair in that photograph of Kate and Gerry ....
it is very telling that some poeple on this forum do not understand what "no evidential reliability" means...it really is quite simple
That photo could bring a tear to anybody's eye. Its so, so, Sad. And tells all, about the pain that they were suffering.
That photo could bring a tear to anybody's eye. Its so, so, Sad. And tells all, about the pain that they were suffering.
Never mind, they soon felt better.
(http://8(>(()
What absolute heartless rubbish. So they have lost their daughter.....and you have no sympathy.....what is wrong with you and others on here.
Possibly, but she was wearing them on the 6th May
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzmothersdaypicd.jpg)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id170.html
They look very unhappy in the picture, but does that mean they felt unhappy? There are pictures a few days later where they look really happy, but you and others say they weren't feeling happy. Seems we can't judge how they feel by looking at photos of them.
It seems obvious that Mr Amaral and the PJ quite simply had no understanding of that. Is there perhaps an element of culpability that no-one in authority from the British side took them aside and explained in the simplest language possible exactly where the dogs were in the food chain of an investigation.
Or was it the 'perfect storm' of misunderstanding all round. Quite frankly I don't think Mr Amaral was qualified to be the lead investigator in a missing child case. That there were a few indications of concern about that can be read between the lines ... but given the PJ reputation for excellence could anyone in authority on the British side be expected to have foreseen that not only would the function of the dogs be misunderstood but that there would be misunderstanding of forensics into the bargain and an apparent failing to seek help from experts on that ... and don't tell me there are no DNA experts in Portugal.
Someone (on the Portuguese side) Carana has mentioned often but whose reports (I confess) I have never come across is Court-Real (not sure if that's the right spelling) who seems to have been from the Portuguese forensic lab?
Perhaps I should read the reports of the Portuguese forensic lab more closely.
But certainly the Portuguese forensic laboratory seems to have been highly competent, but limited in their ability to shed clues on the mystery of what happened to Madeleine because of the paucity of raw data they were fed to work with by the PJ.
photos take a snapshot...anyone with any humanity would understand that they are broken inside at the loss of their daughter...your attitude appalls me
I can show a lot of photos with the mccanns laughing , including that little video with mccann laughing his head off days after Madeleine's disappearance.
I have sympathy for Madeleine and her siblings. Her parents remain responsible for her misfortune and date, unless proved otherwise.
so you have no sympathy for her parents...that's quite a cruel attitude to have...says a lot about you
Their arrogance was their downfall and Madeleine suffered the consequences.
I can show a lot of photos with the mccanns laughing , including that little video with mccann laughing his head off days after Madeleine's disappearance.
I think your arrogance could be your downfall....people bereft of compassion tend to be very unhappy in their own lives
I have compassion for starving people and those suffering who get caught up on wars, victims of extremists.
Not for the mccanns .
They don't deserve it.
so no compassion for victims of crime...not the mccanns but victims in general...the Needhams for instance
No you can't.
What you can show is a lot of doctored photos ....
For genuine victims yes.
Utter rubbish.
Stop makings things up.
Utter rubbish.
Stop makings things up.
i can show you two photographs of a teenager at the funeral of her family who were all killed by a psychopath...she survived.
In one she is smiling happily...do you think she doesn't care
I doubt you are able to show us the photos or the video...in fact i'm sure you cannot show us a video of Gerry laughing his head off
a 2 second grainy video with no sound...rubbish
I wonder why Eddie was trained to alert to blood?
No dave.
It was taken a few days after Madeleine disappeared and he's laughing and joking.
and ferryman this wasn't doctored.
so are you suggesting Gerry was happy a few days after maddie disappeared
I wonder why Eddie was trained to alert to blood?
You tell me dave.
(http://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/mccanns-12-may-2007.jpg)
AND THERE ARE A LOT MORE.
So your theory is Maddie is dead and within a couple of days of the death the mccanns were deleriously happy
Do you think your theory makes any sense
Oh dave.so you think the mccanns are happy when their daughter has recently died...it is an utterly ridiculous idea
Can't you do any better than that ?
Can you remind me of when these photos of the mccanns were taken ?
Oh dave.
Can't you do any better than that ?
Can you remind me of when these photos of the mccanns were taken ?
so you think the mccanns are happy when their daughter has recently died...it is an utterly ridiculous idea
I didn't say that dave.
Do you think the photographs reflects parents worried about the disappearance of their daughter ?
Or do you agree with ferryman, saying the photos are doctored ?
I didn't say that dave.
Do you think the photographs reflects parents worried about the disappearance of their daughter ?
Or do you agree with ferryman, saying the photos are doctored ?
One captured frame from a video ... have you looked at the rest of the footage?
I have seen other extracts, have you ?
It was Madeleine's birthday, Stephen.
Do you know, why Kate and Gerry were smiling?………………
Because, Balloons blew into their faces. (see video below)
The idea that the McCanns are happy days after the disappearance of maddie is totally stupid...and it seems that is what you think is happening.
I have seen other extracts, have you ?
do you have any experience of bereaved parents...obviously not...they laugh and they cry....and your criticism of two parents whose daughter you believe died a few days before these photos were taken is disgraceful and says a lot about the sort of person you are
Tell me dave, what would be more important.
Going to a church or searching for a missing child ?
Guess what I would have been doing ?
I do have experience of bereavement dave.
They weren't smiling occasions.
Anna.
I know that full well.
However, it was not a smiling occasion.
Their daughter had been missing a few days.
Speaking personally, I would have been doing something far more pertinent.
SEARCHING.
so now you try to change the subject...you don't know what you would be doing because you have never been in that position...cue another change of subject
Balloons blew into their faces. Do you think they should have cried or smiled at whoever was responsible?
It was her birthday, they were where they should have been..... at church
Changing subjects ?
You asked a question, and you got answers with more questions.
Now dave, what experience do you have of missing children ? &%+((£
so what do you make of the photo I posted of the young lady at her families funeral...as she happy too
you didn't answer the question....do you think the mccanns were happy a few days after maddies disappearance..
try answering the question
So, by your logic everyone should laugh at a funeral ???
I'm afraid giving orders to me won't work.
you claimed you had answered the question and you hadn't...so by your definition you are a ****
try reading the post ...I said people laugh and people cry...often within minutes of each other
Oh dear, so predictable.
I'm afraid to say your standard tactics aren't going to work with me.
The McCann's should have been searching.
As other people in the area had been doing, day and night.
everyone can see you didn't answer the question
the McCanns should not have been searching
The McCann's should have been searching.
As other people in the area had been doing, day and night.
Professional advice would contradict that assertion ... for more reasons than one if you stop to think about it.
**Snip
Your Role in the Search: The First 48 Hours
In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators.
Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search.
You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child.
But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself.
Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child.
http://www.o[Name removed]dp.gov/pubs/childismissing/ch1.html
Would you have searched if your daughter or son had gone missing ?
Or would you just do nothing at all ?
Changing subjects ?
You asked a question, and you got answers with more questions.
Now dave, what experience do you have of missing children ? &%+((£
in the first 48 hours the parents would not be in the right physical or mental state to search
How would you know ?
Are you speaking for everyone dave ?
More pertinently, what did they do in tube days afterwards ?
Then of course we have the setting up of the 'fund'.
Did the Needham's set up a 'fund' dave within days of Ben's disappearance ?
you posted photos and a video and you haven't got the balls to tell us what you think they meanAh, here goes the insults yet again.
Would you have searched if your daughter or son had gone missing ?
Or would you just do nothing at all ?
it's patently obvious to any intelligent person...that's why it hasn't dawned on you.....the Needhams should have set up a fund a certainly anyone would now do the same
you posted photos and a video and you haven't got the balls to tell us what you think they mean quote]
Ah, here goes the insults yet again.
As to balls dave, I've got two, and they are both fully functional.
no insult...just a statement of fact
not sure if you have noticed..we now have gofundme...how long has that been out.....the McCanns saw that the fund was the best thing to do
in the first 48 hours the parents would not be in the right physical or mental state to search
Did they have a PR team and government backing dave ?
Now that is pretty pathetic, are you saying no parents of a suddenly noticed missing child would be able to go out,run, search, shout for their child? Steady on.....a parent finding their kid missing might experience panic and shock but would also spark an urge to go look in places she might be, knock on neighbours doors, garner others...wait 48 hours? What garbage!
and the illuminate...don't forget the illuminati
no one said wait 48 hours but you do have problems reading....this wasn't a missing child ..this was an abducted child
No I wasn't there that night. 8(>((
Looking at the pages since I first posted again, just proves to me my thoughts. Whilst dogs can, and are very useful tools, in this case they proved zero.
And as usual most of the posts/claims here are based around the BS that appeared first in PT "Newspapers" then UK "Newspapers" therefore I'm outta here again.
and the illuminate...don't forget the illuminati
Nothing to do with them.
Just PR and high level government assistance.
FACTS.
did you think I was serious
Why can no-one else see the complete injustice in this example of accusing a person based on a clothing alert?How rubbish is that post? the Mccanns were suspected before the dogs were brought in, their alerts confirmed the PJs suspicions or at least strengthened them and you can't judge them for that! As Bob Small is said to have said, people get arrested in the UK for less...the whole industry surrounding the notion that the Mccanns should never have been suspects is a joke basically
Here is a fact - clothing spends most of its time NOT being worn. Probably 98% of its time. Just laying around in your house or flat. Have a look around your place and it proves it.
So before you even think of suspecting a person based on clothing alert you have to look at all the many possible scenarios that fit in that 98% where even if the alert were valid the person is completely innocent.
On reading back I see the 6 dead bodies argument was argued over but not resolved...par for the course I guess on this forum...can't be bothered to reignite it for proof and evidence either way...too many people having kittens over whether Km ever mentioned anything....as IF that would be a lie or crime if she did
@)(++(*
it's been resolved...there is no proof that Kate ever said it
Or didn't say it for that matter.
How rubbish is that post? the Mccanns were suspected before the dogs were brought in, their alerts confirmed the PJs suspicions or at least strengthened them and you can't judge them for that! As Bob Small is said to have said, people get arrested in the UK for less...the whole industry surrounding the notion that the Mccanns should never have been suspects is a joke basically
yes...like the loch ness monster..fairies at the bottom of the garden....ghosts..... mediums...no proof either way
Wonder if you have an independent cite for Bob Small saying that.
there won't be a quote...
but like the loch ness monster....and the claim that stephens got two balls...who knows
Funny you said that after all your claims. *&*%£
I can prove all my claims
no one said wait 48 hours but you do have problems reading....this wasn't a missing child ..this was an abducted child
I have far fewer problems than you seem to...btw no one except the mother thought it was an abducted child..was it the foreign office or Ark Warner who said no mention of abduction was made for days???!..and, oh yes, hang on, if she was so sure of this why did she, according to her in her book, say she run up and down the road looking for her, barf!
I have far fewer problems than you seem to...btw no one except the mother thought it was an abducted child....and, oh yes, hang on, if she was so sure of this why did she, according to her I her book, say she run up and down the road looking for her, barf!
Wonder if you have an independent cite for Bob Small saying that.
Funny that SY and the PJ investigations are going exactly with the fact that a stranger abducted Madeleine ... and they seem to be taking pains to find him / her.
I think it was Ark Warner
about as independent as all of yours...it's a quote, deal with it
Have they found Madeleine ?
Have they found an 'abductor'
Or have they found absolutely nothing at all ?
it's been resolved...there is no proof that Kate ever said it
Wonder if you have an independent cite for Bob Small saying that.
Tell us what they have found the einstein
Tell us what they have found the einstein
he's dead, they don't need to find him, he never went missing
Oh you know the answer to that one already. 8)-)))
did you read that in a book
I reckon it's something you do on a regular basis
no I don't and neither do you...fact
So what have they found. ?
So what have they found. ?
Par for the course.
Against forum rules dave.
Yet you keep doing exactly the same 5hing.
read the post Einstein..
no I don't and neither do you...fact
The new detective Nicola Hall? Renowned apparently for solving cases quickly, taking no prisoners etc you get the picture, has made no embarrassing gmtv interviews or released any info or answered questions at any press conference, or made any crimewatch pleas,, it's in her hands at the mo, we know nothing...
I thought you liked an open playing field....now you bleat about forum rules
That's exactly right...we know nothing...but Stephen thinks he knows exactly what SY have found...good you agree with me on this one..over to you stephen
Hey who has been swanking about his tackle and about his Mathematical abilities and about his Chemistry abilities
Talk about bigging YOURself up ! Jeez, it has been quite embarrasing to see.
So we are all agreed, Kate did not come into contact with any bodies prior to going to PdL?
So we are all agreed, Kate did not come into contact with any bodies prior to going to PdL?
So we are all agreed, Kate did not come into contact with any bodies prior to going to PdL?
So we are all agreed, Kate did not come into contact with any bodies prior to going to PdL?no one can answer that, we have anecdotal evidence that a mention was made,(some say it's a vicious lie - but why would it be a vicious lie hmm) she has stayed silent on the issue for some reason, so who knows?
Seems likely she didn't.
rather than ask me to do it why don't you just include it in your own postWasn't asking you anythng sunshne...why don't you concentrate on your problem as to why a cadaver dog alerted in a flat where a missing child was last seen, your super duper brain should cre up with relevant possibilities
Wasn't asking you anythng sunshne...why don't you concentrate on your problem as to why a cadaver dog alerted in a flat where a missing child was last seen, your super duper brain should cre up with relevant possibilities
Nope, not having non existent corroboration for remnant scent of death can't be called BS, only your posts can be called that, try exercising the grey matter a little, it might help
that would be described as a quadruple negative and like most of your posts makes no sense...lets keep this simple....
what do you think the alerts tell us
Nope, it is a fact there is no corroboration for remnant death scent picked up by dogs (barring confessions, remains found later which are linked back etc)
So yes let's keep it simple
you are talking utter **...remains found later...so remains are going to be found later...cite please *&*%£ *&*%£ *&*%£
I've always wondered what the problem is with yiu when you reply to a post, then you reply to the same post a second time stead of editing your first reply, oh well, enjoy you're psycopathic seeming writhing, Tara for now
Oh and YES remains HAVE BEEN FOUND LATER that WERE at the place a CADAVER dog alerted to.... >>>>>>>
Given the number of places the cadaver dogs apparently alerted, I would think the likelihood of a cadaver having been there at some time during the last 100 years would be significantly higher than average.
That's fine you're allowed to be deluded brainwashed biased or influenced
Fact = Only place a cadaver dog alerted was last place a child was seen...YOUR problem....nite nite
so amaral got it all wrong...the alerts had no evidential reliability yet he claimed they proved Maddie died in the apartment. Fortunately other members of the PJ thought the alerts were proper BSThe alerts were vauable intelligence Dave1.
The alerts were vauable intelligence Dave1.
It's remarkable thet you dont pick up on this:-
If the clothing was unattended and laying in a wardrobe at the time, the later alert of it in NO WAY implies any guilt whatsoever of the individual person who happened to own the clothes but was 50m away and couldn't even see them, does it?
Are you interested in proving this witness is innocent? I have just given you a very good argument to prove that point - but you won't be interested. Why not?
We are merely pointing out, calmly and rationally, why the alerts are not worth an incriminating bean.
Ask the experts like Mark Harrison and Corte Real (from the Portuguese lab) ...
It is the people trying to suggest otherwise that are having apoplectic fits.
The dog alerts are not worthless they indicate areas to be forensically tested. Forensics are not yet able to extract usable information in all cases. UK law does not allow uncorroborated dig alerts as evidence, hence Grimes caveats.what's UK law got to do with anything?
The dog alerts are not worthless they indicate areas to be forensically tested. Forensics are not yet able to extract usable information in all cases. UK law does not allow uncorroborated dig alerts as evidence, hence Grimes caveats.
The only visible fits are those like you DESPERATELY trying to discredit the dogs indications for all you are worth.why are you desperately trying to persuade us that the dog alerts have evidential value?
If they had no value you would not be typing day in day out on this topic.
why are you desperately trying to persuade us that the dog alerts have evidential value?
what's UK law got to do with anything?
However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Mark Harrison.
Who are these people who pretend to know better than the experts?
In other legal jurisdictions, uncorroborated dog alerts are accepted as evidence.
In other legal jurisdictions, uncorroborated dog alerts are accepted as evidence.The McCanns would not have been tried in the UK, so what has UK law got to do with it?
Mark Harrison wasn't the expert.
Desperate ???So the alerts tell us there was a 50/50 chance that a corpse lay in Apt 5a. Big wow.
They are indications.
2 options, a body was detected or there wasn't.
Now tell me alfred, what else has emerged in this case ?
Then who was?
You?
The McCanns would not have been tried in the UK, so what has UK law got to do with it?
So the alerts tell us there was a 50/50 chance that a corpse lay in Apt 5a. Big wow.
Grime
Any answer to this yet?
Do you consider it coincidence that Grime wore the protective anti-cross contamination gear of his trade for just one inspection (the inspection of the vehicles)?
Do you consider it a further coincidence that he was handed that video so that he could use it to promote himself in his (further) progression of his career as a freelance dog handler?
Modify message
However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Mark Harrison.
Who are these people who pretend to know better than the experts?
You have no data to arrive at such a specific figure
I challenged this before and you were unable to back it up
So on what data do you claim80/20 as the probability there was a cadaver in the apartment
That claim is rubbish without supporting data
Go believing that dave.
Meanwhile keep posting your claims which have no backup whatsoever.
Stephen tells us that either a body was detected or it wasn't. As far as I'm concerned that's no better than a 50/50 guess. Now tell me different.
you cannot make a specific claim with no data...what you have proved is that you are no scientist
Refer to the study dave.
It would help.
you cannot take one study and use those figures...junk science at it's worse...
there are many more factors involved
in your opinion.
and what is that worth, more than anyone else's ?
It may have dawned on Harrison that the PJ were placing too much store on the mere fact that the dogs alerted.
If he'd followed the news at all, the PJ were dropping the hint that she may have died in the apartment as early as 4 August and that the parents / T9 would have known so as of 5 August.
in Sol on August 4, 2007:
a report by Felicia Cabrita with Margarida Davim
Looking for Maddie’s body
(...)
Sol could find out that the English dogs are trained for different tasks. One, to detect human remains originating from dead flesh, and the other one to detect human blood or fluids. A specialist that was contacted by Sol explains that the technique of these animals rests on scientific bases, and that while “one of the dogs can distinguish between natural death or death by accident that does not involve bloodshed, the other one can diagnose whether someone died a violent death, with bloodshed or other spilled fluids”.
Tuesday night, a black and white springer spaniel that is trained to detect death, spent several hours in the apartment that the McCann family occupied in the Ocean Club resort, and from where Maddie disappeared on May 3. According to sources within the investigation, the dog marked the death of the child inside the apartment.
Madeleine possibly killed in the apartment
by Tânia Laranjo / Henrique Machado / Paulo Marcelino - 05Aug2007
(...)
Policia Judiciaria (PJ) believes that Madeleine may have been killed in the Algarve apartment where she spent her holidays with her parents and siblings, in May. The specially trained dogs from the english police, cocker spaniel, that have been sniffing for the trail of the missing child, have detected residues that point to the presence of a corpse on those premises.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic159.html
And a different version (also CdM):
(...)
The lead that is now being followed by authorities, which was revealed by ‘Sol’ yesterday and confirmed by CM, complements another piece of data that misled the PJ’s elements at the beginning of the investigation. A sniffer dog used by GNR tracked the child between the apartment where Madeleine was sleeping and another house within the same resort, which led elements from PJ to never dismiss the possibility that the girl was taken by someone who knew her.
The clue that was now detected in the McCanns’ apartment refocuses the investigation on the close circle to the girl’s parents and friends, although it sheds no light on the reasons that led to the child’s death. PJ is being especially careful in this phase, and the names of the main suspects are omitted.
(...)
CM could further discover that the investigation met a turnaround over the last few weeks. The arrival of the english dogs and their presence in the holiday apartment has the purpose to confirm that possibility, given the fact that suspicions are now centered on the McCanns’ close circle, the only persons who can explain the alleged death of the child, while still at home.
The kidnapping theory, according to a source with PJ that was contacted by CM, is being increasingly dismissed, as it would only fit a scenario where the child would have been alive. Yesterday’s searches, which were duly ordered by a court, started around 7.30 a.m.
Corpse in the house for over 2 hours
The body only smells like a corpse at least two hours after dead, “until that point it remains warm and transmits a living person’s smell to the dog”, subcomissaire Paulo Brissos, a former second commander of the PSP’s sniffer dog operation team, has guaranteed to CM.
This means that for the english authorities’ thingyer spaniel to have marked the death of Madeleine within the apartment where she slept, at the ‘Ocean Club’, the girl had to be dead inside the apartment for “between 2 and 4 hours”.
And by 6 August the story had got mangled - with claims that "blood" had been found in the parents' bedroom. :
Jornal de Noticias6.8.07
Blood in the McCanns’ bedroom
Traces of blood from a dead person, presumably from little Madeleine, have been discovered on a wall in the bedroom that was occupied by the McCann couple, in the apartment at the ‘Ocean Club’, in Lagos, from where the girl vanished on May 3. This fact locates the child’s death inside the apartment, but the investigators do not take it as certain that this was a homicide, although according to the clues that were collected by forensics experts, somebody tried to clean up these traces. On the contrary, JN knows that the explanation that is seen as more likely at the moment to explain Maddie’s death – practically given as certain – is that this was an accident.
New elements of proof were apparently discovered early last week, through the use of dogs that are specially trained to detect the biological residues of dead persons, independently of the time that has passed after they were left. Investigators are convinced that the blood belongs to Madeleine, but they wait for more detailed analysis in order to confirm their suspicions.
The day before yesterday and in the early morning yesterday, the McCanns’ apartment was still being subject to intense technical examinations by the PJ’s technical staff, namely using ultra-violet light sources. JN could witness that numerous pictures were also taken.
New interrogations
The discovery has led to an entirely new perspective on this case and may focus the investigation on the child’s family circle and the McCanns’ close friends. The possibility of new interrogations on these persons has not been dismissed.
Hmmmmm!
Press reports may have played a part (if Harrison kept abreast of them).
But clearly what did dawn on Harrison is that (whether knowingly or unknowingly, and the question which has long intrigued me) he was selling an unsustainable lie, and, as is plain from his summary of all searches, he simply stopped trying.
Always a hostage to fortune to speculate on such things, but I think there's a chance that if Harrison hadn't shown that backbone, the McCanns might have landed still deeper in the mire than they did.
At the same time, I am critical of Harrison that he didn't make more plain than he did his critique of Grime's heedless and cavalier approach.
Not quite alfred.I'm working at the moment but will show you where you are wrong later
More like 80/20.
Not quite alfred.
More like 80/20.
you are using the figure from the study you quoted...80% accuracy to support your figure. This is wrong on so many counts.
Firstly the dogs were correct 80% of the time, that means if the dog alerted 5 times we would expect 4 to be correct and one wrong. so if Eddie alerted 5 times ...based on your reasoning....we would expect 4 of those alerts to be 100% correct.....they patently were not....therefore your reasoning is flawed
Inconclusive forensic results, does not mean the dogs indicated incorrectly dave.
We need a watertight definition of correct, and of incorrect.
The only two definitions relevant to the quest to discover the truth of what happened to Madeleine are:
Correct (results which reveal information germane to the quest).
Incorrect (results which reveal nothing germane to the quest).
All forensic results from the shelved enquiry (including the alert to Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car) came into the second category.
Inconclusive forensic results, does not mean the dogs indicated incorrectly dave..
Do you have any relevant comments to make?
Unfortunately, the mccanns and associates contaminated the crime scene.
Unfortunately, the mccanns and associates contaminated the crime scene.
Harrison recommended Grime ... and it's not entirely clear why in particular.
I do seem to recall (and sadly cannot remember where from so don't shoot me) that Harrison was in the past a dog handler, and had worked with Grime.
So that may be why he was specifically recommended
I do seem to recall (and sadly cannot remember where from so don't shoot me) that Harrison was in the past a dog handler, and had worked with Grime.
So that may be why he was specifically recommended
Inconclusive forensic results, does not mean the dogs indicated incorrectly dave.
Indeed. this is where people get all confused or try to confus other by putting their own take on things!
I don't put my own take on things
I simply accept what grime says
Madeleine was not last seen in the flower bed, the wardrobe or behind the sofa in 5a, nor was she seen in the Renault Scenic between 3 & 10 weeks later.
So what do the alerts tell usGrime says they suggest cadaverscent contaminant...somethng it seems you are incapable of letting sink in for some reason. There is exactly where the base lies, whatever is on top!
Can you answer that question because no one else can
Grime says they suggest cadaverscent contaminant...somethng it seems you are incapable of letting sink in for some reason. There is exactly where the base lies, whatever is on top!
apologies for typos- cold hands... brrr
So what is the issue then?. The dogs alerted to something...
who says the dogs alerted to something
according to the PJreport they did not alert until being repeatedly led back to places they had ignored
Grime? the video... police files...
There's also this, from Grime's PdL profile:
I am an U.K.A.C.P.O. accredited police dog training instructor in post at the
Operational Support Services. I am a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E.
and specialist homicide canine search advisor. In support of the national Homicide
Search Advisor, Mark Harrison, I advise Domestic and International Law
enforcement agencies on the operational deployment of Police Dogs in the role of
Homicide investigation.
It seems that claim was investigated by the enquiry into Haut de la Garenne and found to be untrue ....
you are right for once...he says they suggest...not that they confirm
grime says the alerts are suggestive.....the videos are heavily edited...the police files question the alerts
A) I am frequently right, sometimes wrong, not the other way around
B) Suggest/indicate is good enough for me from a professional and ( officially said) an uncorroborated cadaver dog alert is justifiable cause for concern....especially if it is in the last place a missing person was......logic dictates this anyway....
C) Unsure why you use the word confirm when no one else uses it here, is it because you are backtracking from...means nothing at all/rubbish ??
8)--))
You will have proof of this heavy editing then? can't wait....
I haven't seen anything about him being an advisor in canine deployment to be untrue.
What seems to have gone wrong in Jersey was what you'd posted earlier in this thread: he ended up being the de facto deputy crime scene manager to the forensic service manager. And I haven't seen anything to suggest that he was qualified for that job.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3566.msg263530#msg263530
Reading up, FM.
It was Harper who'd stated that Grime was "also the NPIA search
coordinator". No idea where Harper got that idea from.
might be good enough for you but that is of no consequence...I use the word confirm because that is the word used in the files re Grimes rogatory questions...it's rather an important word
yes it is in the files.......it has already been discussed and accepted to be true
As things stand, the cadaver dog alerts remain as unconfirmed cadaverscent....reread the last word previous to "reread"
yes it is in the files.......it has already been discussed and accepted to be true
Is there any particular reason why you never give links to support your statements? IE, in this case, where in the files is there proof that the dog videos have been heavily edited?
They stand as unconfirmed (as in meaningless)Only in your mind though FM not in reality
it's on this thread about a week ago...doesn't matter if you don't accept it...it's a fact
Only in your mind though FM not in reality
it's on this thread about a week ago...doesn't matter if you don't accept it...it's a fact
Been discussed, not accepted.that's a matter of opinion
As things stand, the cadaver dog alerts remain as unconfirmed cadaverscent....reread the last word previous to "reread"
I shan't re-hash (yet again!) the words of Mark Harrison which confirms what I say as true.
no, do not, we have all read them as well as other things a million times over, everyone knows what is in the files, the problem lies in the "interpretation" of
Without "interpretation" Harrison said without corroboration the alerts remain unconfirmed indications.....it's not hard to work out what that means, and it does not mean meaningless...
To be frank, I'm bored now, so carry on having fun with your libelling and twisting....
&8#£%
that's right...unconfirmed...there is no evidence the dog alerted to cadaver odour
Oh but a cadaver dog alerting is exactly that..a lot of the time....deal with it....the blank denial is breathtaking
It seems in your mind Eddie may have been alerting to primroses as much as anythng else, plain logic tells us you are wrong...
Is there any particular reason why you never give links to support your statements? IE, in this case, where in the files is there proof that the dog videos have been heavily edited?[/b]
you are rambling..if you cannot tell us what the alerts mean they are meaningless..no wonder you run away
Can you produce a video of Eddie, literally, playing with cuddle cat?
We know it be true that he did, because PJ Inspector Dias records it in his report (on line).
the question was where was Davel's proof for what he said, ie that the evidence for a heavily edited video was in the files,one thing at a time dear, no twisting, derailing or obfuscation required
the question was where was Davel's proof for what he said, ie that the evidence for a heavily edited video was in the files,one thing at a time dear, no twisting, derailing or obfuscation required
The dog inspection videos weren't on the DVD, presumably. Whether they were available to any journalist who requested them isn't clear, either.
The full footage of the dog inspections hasn't been made accessible, AFAIK. Have you seen footage of the dogs on the beach?
There are most definitely edits to the footage in the extended clips that we have seen. I pointed one out the other day. Unless you were paying attention, you wouldn't have noticed that just after Grime says that he didn't intend to put Eddie in the car, there's a cut and Grime opens the door for Keela. In the meantime, the car had apparently undergone a forensic inspection on a different floor.
Where's this report been hiding...
I believe that this report was Feb 2008.
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
Doesn't the red highlight ring any alarm bells...no wonder the arguido status was removed
I would say that proves the videos have been heavily edited to make the alerts seem more impressive than they actually are
In reality to make a correct judgement, the unedited recordings would have to be viewed.
I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....He does not use the word "certainly".
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman
He does not use the word "certainly".
Mr Amaral writes in Portuguese not English.
Here are the exact words he wrote. As Carana said, the portuguese word for "certainly" is not there.
"Concluiu-se, então, que aquele odor de cadáver só poderia ser proveniente de uma pessoa: Madeleine Beth McCann"
" We conclude , then, that that cadaver odor could only come from a person : Madeleine Beth McCann " G Amaral
Sounds pretty definitive to me.
Well let's face it, if it was from a body, who else would it have been from ?
No No, it was the sea bass - or was it the menstrual fluids? I forget.
No No, it was the sea bass - or was it the menstrual fluids? I forget.
Well let's face it, if it was from a body, who else would it have been from ?
no one has been able to explain why the dogs ignored locations repeatedly before eventually alerting after being led back several times....alerts...meaningless
Deja vu.
Try researching.
no one has been able to explain why the dogs ignored locations repeatedly before eventually alerting after being led back several times....alerts...meaningless
I have researched
No scent dogs behave like this
They are led once down a line of ripple or objects and are not repeatedly called back
No one needs to, the professionals concluded the alerts were due to what the dogs were trained for, they were under no obligation to explain the minutiae of how dogs work and that should be the end of the story. But labour it ad infinitum, even Hercules stopped at 12
Martin Grime is onLinkedIn...as a professional yourself garnering a thousand pound a day if you could, you could join and email him for the answer, it's not hard
The professionals reached no such conclusion
You are a perfect example of a sceptic who does not understand the evidence
No one needs to, the professionals concluded the alerts were due to what the dogs were trained for, they were under no obligation to explain the minutiae of how dogs work and that should be the end of the story. But labour it ad infinitum, even Hercules stopped at 12
Martin Grime is onLinkedIn...as a professional yourself garnering a thousand pound a day if you could, you could join and email him for the answer, it's not hard
Rubbish. You quoted "drug and explosives dogs"... A rather very very different scenario.
I meant to add, - so many excuses.
Eddie alerted at one place in the garden - why?.
Was Eddie's alert in the garden consistent in style with his other alerts?
Not in the slightest ... I would have difficulty in recognising it as an alert at all in comparison to the occasions when he barked his head off.
Was Eddie's alert in the garden consistent in style with his other alerts?
Considering the alerts were correct in to alerting what was trained for and considering the lack of physical remains, both garden and the verandah alerts (both one bark each IIRC) may well have been different to a concentrated and not a "dispersed in the environment remnant scent"
Was Eddie trained to give different numbers of barks dependant on how concentrated the odour he was trained to detect actually smelt?I'm pretty sure he probably wasn't but
Was Eddie trained to give different numbers of barks dependant on how concentrated the odour he was trained to detect actually smelt?
No but any outdoor scent would be weaker if a death happened in the apartment. If there was a body inside then it had to be moved out and Eddie indicated the way. If you leave that way you can see the tapas table and if the coast is clear and if it wasn't then any body would have to be placed down out of sight. MG wanted to further investigate that area with his dogs.
Can you see up & down the street Rua DFGM from the balcony?
You could see if any checkers had left the table. Body next to the wall in the garden and retrieve it after checking all his clear. That is a safer way because you are not seen carrying anything until you know it's clear. The dark path was a safe route if it was never used at night. Jes used the lit road pavement route and so did the checkers so it would be foolish to go that same way.
No one needs to, the professionals concluded the alerts were due to what the dogs were trained for, they were under no obligation to explain the minutiae of how dogs work and that should be the end of the story. But labour it ad infinitum, even Hercules stopped at 12
Martin Grime is onLinkedIn...as a professional yourself garnering a thousand pound a day if you could, you could join and email him for the answer, it's not hard
Rubbish. You quoted "drug and explosives dogs"... A rather very very different scenario.
Quote- the professionals concluded the alerts were due to what the dogs were trained for unquote
Yes, true, which could have been pig blood in Eddie's case, or scent left from something that was there and then removed [another professional]
Can you see people who may be walking up & down the street Rua DFGM from the balcony or the garden - or do you have to exit the garden gate first? Simple question.
At the time you claim move 1 took place Jez's route did not enter into the equation.
You only have to look out over the side gate in both directions. Very simple. I showed a safer way - retrieving from the wall separating the McCann/Oldfield apartments and taking the dark path route.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Bal.png)
Did Eddie indicate in the location to which you refer?
Eddie indicated the garden and MG wanted to further investigate it. You can simply check up and down the road and leave by the side gate. It only takes seconds to get on to the dark path.
Is this the path that is closed off by a high wall at the far end?
Eddie indicated the garden and MG wanted to further investigate it. You can simply check up and down the road and leave by the side gate. It only takes seconds to get on to the dark path.
Eddie indicated the garden and MG wanted to further investigate it. You can simply check up and down the road and leave by the side gate. It only takes seconds to get on to the dark path.
Did Eddie indicate in the precise area in the garden where you state the body was retrieved from?
And you still haven't explained why the gate handles weren't contaminated.
Did Eddie indicate in the precise area in the garden where you state the body was retrieved from?
And you still haven't explained why the gate handles weren't contaminated.
I haven't mentioned nothing about gate handles and everybody uses handles. You won't catch anyone that way. There is a possibility that somebody came but it doesn't mean Smithman didn't leave the side gate way and get to the path in seconds. What is important is how it was done and who had the opportunity and was later seen with the lookalike child. As the only people seen out on the streets that night were crecheman, Jes and the checkers it is easy to leave with a child (if you know everyone else is still at the table - patio side exit) without being noticed.
What sort of contamination are you thinking of?
I won't mention the fact that whoever moved the cadaver-leaking corpse didn't have their clothes contaminated.
I won't that whoever moved the cadaver-leaking corpse did so without contaminating their hands.
The Sperrys went to dinner at the Tapas Bar.
The Carpenters left the Tapas Bar.
The Moyses walked back to their apartment.
The Edmonds left the Tapas Bar.
JW was walking around with his child in the pushchair.
Just a few off the top of my head.
The cleaning supervisor (whose name I will look up) was wandering around in Block 4.
All within your timeframe for the first move. Yet no-one saw your carrier. Was that because it just didn't happen the way you said?
Eddie gave a possible indication in the flowerbed immediately underneath the verandah according to Grime. How does that fit in with the verandah & the wardrobe in thesis' timeline?
I won't mention the fact that whoever moved the cadaver-leaking corpse didn't have their clothes contaminated.
I won't that whoever moved the cadaver-leaking corpse did so without contaminating their hands.
The Sperrys went to dinner at the Tapas Bar.
The Carpenters left the Tapas Bar.
The Moyses walked back to their apartment.
The Edmonds left the Tapas Bar.
JW was walking around with his child in the pushchair.
Just a few off the top of my head.
The cleaning supervisor (whose name I will look up) was wandering around in Block 4.
All within your timeframe for the first move. Yet no-one saw your carrier. Was that because it just didn't happen the way you said?
Eddie gave a possible indication in the flowerbed immediately underneath the verandah according to Grime. How does that fit in with the verandah & the wardrobe in thesis' timeline?
Indeed, it would seem almost impossible for any sort of abduction to take place at all, given all that activity you describe.
...Maria Vegas.
The cleaning supervisor (whose name I will look up) was wandering around in Block 4.
...
And yet possible for the McCanns to have done something nefarious with Madeleine?
How do you work that out?
Indeed, it would seem almost impossible for any sort of abduction to take place at all, given all that activity you describe.
That's because the abduction happened at around 9.30pm, not in the period when there was so much activity.
I agree. Almost impossible for anything to have happened, yet it did.
If there could have been time for an abduction, there would be clearly the same amount of time for an inside job.
Really? How do we know that for certain?
She wasn't seen by anyone between Gerry's visit at 9 ish and Kate's at 10 ish
So who that that be then?
I will leave that for you do find as direct reference is not permissible on this forum.
I will leave that for you do find as direct reference is not permissible on this forum.
That's because the abduction happened at around 9.30pm, not in the period when there was so much activity.
You quoted the files, so you should provide the name.
Can I assume, therefore, that it doesn't exist?
Quote- the professionals concluded the alerts were due to what the dogs were trained for unquoteNope.We have done this a million times. There is no evidence Eddie alerts to remnant scent of blood, not once mentioned by any UK police officer, adviser, handled or anyone else, both in discussion of this case, previous ones and in training.Besides, what the heck would pigs be doing bleeding in bedrooms and gardens. I'd leave it if I were you...you have your notions, I have yet to read anything remotely similar regarding Grimes' dogs. As a last aside, you would have to find evidence that Keela was trained to disregard so called "remnant scent of blood".
Yes, true, which could have been pig blood in Eddie's case, or scent left from something that was there and then removed [another professional]
When Matt and Russell went to check?
Where is it stated Grime wanted to further investigate the garden?
Nope.We have done this a million times. There is no evidence Eddie alerts to remnant scent of blood, not once mentioned by any UK police officer, adviser, handled or anyone else, both in discussion of this case, previous ones and in training.Besides, what the heck would pigs be doing bleeding in bedrooms and gardens. I'd leave it if I were you...you have your notions, I have yet to read anything remotely similar regarding Grimes' dogs. As a last aside, you would have to find evidence that Keela was trained to disregard so called "remnant scent of blood".
I recommend checking what Mr Grime has to say on a range of things ... particularly his confirmation the Eddie did indeed alert to blood.
**Snip
'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Did my post go over your head? yet again? What shall I do with you Brie cheese lol, at least do TRY to follow the conversation and all its details instead of repeating pointless mantras which don't really add but detract
So rude. And so wrong.
According to his handler, Martin Grime, Eddie does (did) alert to dried blood.
If you don't believe it, then I suggest you argue the toss with Grime. ?{)(**
Did my post go over your head? yet again? What shall I do with you Brie cheese lol, at least do TRY to follow the conversation and all its details instead of repeating pointless mantras which don't really add but detract
Hmmm ... let me get this right ... you posted ...A) Where I comment there is no evidence there is no need for me to provide a cite, the onus rests on the person making x claim
"There is no evidence Eddie alerts to remnant scent of blood, not once mentioned by any UK police officer, adviser, handled or anyone else, both in discussion of this case, previous ones and in training."
You have not backed that statement up with a cite.
His handler has indicated the exact opposite of what must undoubtedly be your opinion. I have provided a cite to substantiate that.
But there you are ... why let the facts of the matter get in the way of utter fantasy.
A) Where I comment there is no evidence there is no need for me to provide a cite, the onus rests on the person making x claim
B)I thnk you need to take a few steps back to clear your head.....Mr Grime has never said Eddie reacts to the remnant scent of blood..the fantasy is all yours
Nope.We have done this a million times. There is no evidence Eddie alerts to remnant scent of blood, not once mentioned by any UK police officer, adviser, handled or anyone else, both in discussion of this case, previous ones and in training.Besides, what the heck would pigs be doing bleeding in bedrooms and gardens. I'd leave it if I were you...you have your notions, I have yet to read anything remotely similar regarding Grimes' dogs. As a last aside, you would have to find evidence that Keela was trained to disregard so called "remnant scent of blood".
Nope.We have done this a million times. There is no evidence Eddie alerts to remnant scent of blood, not once mentioned by any UK police officer, adviser, handled or anyone else, both in discussion of this case, previous ones and in training.Besides, what the heck would pigs be doing bleeding in bedrooms and gardens. I'd leave it if I were you...you have your notions, I have yet to read anything remotely similar regarding Grimes' dogs. As a last aside, you would have to find evidence that Keela was trained to disregard so called "remnant scent of blood".
Referring to blood:
It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent.
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.
She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for minute human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles.
In training she has accurately located minute samples of blood on property up to thirty-six years old.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Grime stated it in the dog video, IIRC something like, the area warranting further investigation the next day
Ah!
I can't listen to those.
My speakers have packed up.
A) Where I comment there is no evidence there is no need for me to provide a cite, the onus rests on the person making x claim
B)I thnk you need to take a few steps back to clear your head.....Mr Grime has never said Eddie reacts to the remnant scent of blood..the fantasy is all yours
A) Where I comment there is no evidence there is no need for me to provide a cite, the onus rests on the person making x claim
B)I thnk you need to take a few steps back to clear your head.....Mr Grime has never said Eddie reacts to the remnant scent of blood..the fantasy is all yours
Not wanting to spoil the party but what exactly is a 'remnant scent of blood'? &%+((£
A remnant scent of whatever decomp substances were within Eddie's training parameters, which included dried blood from a living human being.
Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood, we are told.
according to the latest research you can add the smell of newly cut grass as a scent the dogs will alert to
A remnant scent of whatever decomp substances were within Eddie's training parameters, which included dried blood from a living human being.
Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood, we are told.
But surely dried blood has no scent?
Ask the dogs... they alert to it.
Eddie is the cadaver dog and goes in first. Keela found no blood where Eddie first alerted nor on the clothes or CC. If death happened then it's most probable that cadaver scent and blood would be located in the same spot. That doesn't mean the cadaver dog is alerting to blood when the cadaver scent is stronger. Keela has to get in real close to sniff and identify microscopic blood as it's a weaker scent.
Except in the gym, where Keela was deployed first without alerting: then Eddie was deployed.
So far as I can make out, before PdL, Eddie and Keela were never deployed in tandem.
It's just as well gun dogs aren't as kin useless as all other sorts of dogs.
Imgine downing a partridge only to have your Labrador try to bring back a live pig.
Yes we know that because they are screening clothes separately so Keela has to rule out blood first before Eddie goes in.
Nothing Eddie picked up in his mouth was sent to the FSS
Why is that?
Because it was contaminated, peut etre?
I had to google peut etre.
But seems a good answer to me ....
Nothing Eddie picked up in his mouth was sent to the FSS
Why is that?
What could they have tested for? There is no test which detects cadaver odour.
What could they have tested for? There is no test which detects cadaver odour.
Agreed.
Bringing me back to my original question.
Why was Eddie deployed?
Agreed.
Bringing me back to my original question.
Why was Eddie deployed?
Bodily fluids from a cadaver
Can they do that on a whole garment? How?
Can they do that on a whole garment? How?
And this was only 3 months later. Plenty of washes in that time.
They do something called a DNA sweep
That's what they should have done on the bedclothes too instead of sending them to the laundry
So would the scent survive plenty of washes
Amaral agrees - none of those sheets should have been removed.
THE REPORTS LEAVE A LOT TO BE DESIRED
The examination of the premises by the investigator and the representative of the forensic police just after the announcement of the disappearance turns out to be quite unproductive. A concise report, where their observations are written up, is accompanied by numerous photographs taken inside and outside apartment 5A - which don't give an account of, according to us, everything they could have observed. This error is explained by the absence of procedures in case of a child's disappearance, notably concerning the actions to be taken when examining the scene.
Lots of people were already in place; however, nobody appeared in the photos. We don't know, for example, how they were dressed. Such observations can turn out to be important later on. The report mentions that the twins were asleep in their bed, but there is no proof to confirm it; on the contrary, in the photographs, you can see empty cots, where only the mattresses remain - the sheets and blankets having been removed. Why have their beds been stripped? If the sheets had not been removed, traces of their presence could have been found there. (TOTL)
CADAVER SCENT
The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.
Amaranth agrees with me... That's going to upset a few people
They do something called a DNA sweep
That's what they should have done on the bedclothes too instead of sending them to the laundry
Who sent the bedclothes to the laundry and when? Do you have the cite?
Doesn't answer the question.... How many washes would it take to remover cadaver scent
Every wash dilutes the scent until there is non left
I don't know.
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. The scent detection threshold of the dog is greatly enhanced. (MH)
You asked the same question last week and the cite was supplied...we've just had a quote where Saint amaral agrees with meYou must be mixing me up with someone else...and I don't recall reading either the question from another or the cite provided, and Amaral in your latest quote makes no mention of laundering the bedclothes either, so you are making it up as you go along it seems, unless you can prove I'm mistaken...go ahead, happy to be corrected
You must be mixing me up with someone else...and I don't recall reading either the question from another or the cite provided, and Amaral in your latest quote makes no mention of laundering the bedclothes either, so you are making it up as you go along it seems, unless you can prove I'm mistaken...go ahead, happy to be corrected
Be happy
You are corrected
1. Eddie didn't alert to pig's blood, he alerted to human blood.
2, Even if he did alert to pig's blood, how did it get there? Do you think some previous holiday maker had smuggled their pet pot-bellied pig into the apartment and it had an accident?
Sorry. I refuse to believe that Cadaver Scent can't be washed out, even after only three or four washes, if as many as that.
You do know I presume organic remains millions of years old have been found ?
That's the whole point
There were no remains in Pdl
You wouldn't get rid of a dinosaur in 2 or 3 washes
You do know I presume organic remains millions of years old have been found ?
You do not know that.
it depends on the effectiveness of the sampling method, and if the samples were taken from the correct locations.
You appear to be talking about organic remains. I am talking about Cadaver Scent where there are no remains. If Cadaver Scent had an infinite life then we would all be stinking of it, including the other appartments occupied by the rest of The McCann Friends.
Who said infinite ?
Eleanor, I hate to disappoint you, but cadaver scent is organic.
As i have said before, there are several variables as to what compounds may persist in a given environment and/or on a given material(s).
just remember that dogs olfactory receptors are far more sensitive than our own, and will of course detect the presence of molecules well below the human threshold.
Who said infinite ?
Eleanor, I hate to disappoint you, but cadaver scent is organic.
As i have said before, there are several variables as to what compounds may persist in a given environment and/or on a given material(s).
just remember that dogs olfactory receptors are far more sensitive than our own, and will of course detect the presence of molecules well below the human threshold.
That's the whole pointLOL.
There were no remains in Pdl
You wouldn't get rid of a dinosaur in 2 or 3 washes
Who said infinite ?
Eleanor, I hate to disappoint you, but cadaver scent is organic.
As i have said before, there are several variables as to what compounds may persist in a given environment and/or on a given material(s).
just remember that dogs olfactory receptors are far more sensitive than our own, and will of course detect the presence of molecules well below the human threshold.
seems the dogs get up supporters noses @)(++(* dogs can smell 1000s of times more then humans they can even detect low blood sugar and sezuires etc and cancer just by a humans scent
Goodness me. I thought we were discussing Cadaver Scent from no such thing as an actual Cadaver. Please correct me if I am wrong
'Cadaver Scent from no such thing as an actual Cadaver' ?
and that means precisely what ?
LOL.
Enjoyed this!
There was no Cadaver.
If only they'd develop a cyberdog that sniffed out and barked loudly at forum bullshit, then I'd be happy. @)(++(*
Can you cite the evidence for that ?
Can you cite the evidence for that ?
Can you cite the evidence for that ?
Well Stephen.
Whilst there is a theoretical possibility that there was a cadaver at the scene which nobody noticed, the chance of that happening are quite low.
So for practical purposes I think it is reasonable to assume that there was no cadaver at the time of the searches.
Will that do you? ?{)(**
Oh, you mean they found a Cadaver? What a silly reply that was. My reply I mean. We all know that they didn't.
But supposing they had done, who could have said who killed the poor child, presuming of course, that she is dead. Which I am not prepared to believe at the moment.
Was that tens of millions of years later ?I have seen the feathers of both the 'original' dinosaurs and their modern equivalent. I take it that you have seen these also.
Perhaps you would like to see their feathers as well. @)(++(* @)(++(*
I wasn't talking in reference to the time of the searches.
I was referring to the residual compounds that would be present and could do so for extensive periods of time. I did not state a body was present when the dogs were deployed.
Will that do for you too ?
no residual compounds were detected......
The dogs indicated.
So there were residual compounds.
The dogs indicated.
So there were residual compounds.
The dogs indicated.not necesarily
So there were residual compounds.
The dogs were a huge success in locating some obscure spots of blood and cellular material which must have contained blood. Unfortunately they were less successful in finding any trace of Madeleine McCann either dead or alive.
The forensic analysis was inconclusive as to whether her genetic material from her was found.
The recorded results were also inconclusive: no reaction to cuddle-cat first time, (apparent) "reaction" second time; no reaction to clothing in the villa, (apparent!) "reaction" to the same clothing second time in the gym. (If a dog picking stuff up in its mouth it has first trampled all over can be counted as a "reaction") ...
A brief reminder if needed.
Inconclusive is not a negative.
but it is useless as any type of evidence
True.
But Stephen will get upset if you say things like that ...
If you think I am upset you are sorely mistaken.
I am not the person who has attacked Martin Grime relentlessly without even any experience of this area of forensic work whatsoever.
It merely adds to the distinct impression that what the dogs indicated is of paramount importance and every effort is being made therefore to attack Grime, and inplicitly the dogs as well.
If you think I am upset you are sorely mistaken.
I am not the person who has attacked Martin Grime relentlessly without even any experience of this area of forensic work whatsoever.
It merely adds to the distinct impression that what the dogs indicated is of paramount importance and every effort is being made therefore to attack Grime, and inplicitly the dogs as well.
how can it be important when grime himself say the alerts have no evidential reliability
Yet you and other mccann supporters keep posting on this thread.
8)--)) 8((()*/
My dogs brilliant
Was on a shoot (edited) and when it came to totting up although I only had two pheasants I explained that the dog had alerted in15 other places and someone must have removed them giving me a total of 17..my explanation that dogs don't lie was met with ridicule
Edited ?
Where exactly ?
I think you are quite mistaken when you make the claim that posters are denigrating Mr Grime when in fact they are supporting what he clearly says in his statements.
not by me
I am deeply critical of Martin Grime.
I think he was heedless and cavalier.
I am deeply critical of Martin Grime.
I think he was heedless and cavalier.
I am deeply critical of Martin Grime.
I think he was heedless and cavalier.
Irrelevant.
Even after Amaral has lost his appeal?
Tell me dave, what is the consequence of shooting pheasants outside the period of October 1st to January 31st which is regulated by UK law?
https://www.gov.uk/hunting/overview
I was on a family holiday in Portugal at the time
I was on a family holiday in Portugal at the timeFascinating. Did you pick up and move the pheasants you shot? What did you carry them in? And did you place that in your rental car? What did you use to unlock the car?
Fascinating. Did you pick up and move the pheasants you shot? What did you carry them in? And did you place that in your rental car? What did you use to unlock the car?
I can sympathise with that. But I think there was far more put on his shoulders than would be normal practice in an investigation where he would be working with another handler and reporting to senior management who knew what they were about using the dogs as a tool not as a conclusion.
He was used to turning up with his dogs ... doing the job with them ... reporting back ... and that was that. On to the next job and next report.
I don't think there would have been all this "dogs don't lie" nonsense but for the false leaks to the press about forensics bolstered by the release of the videos on the internet. That wasn't down to Martin Grime and I think he was probably quite dismayed by it.
Absolutely not
I think someone had been watching me all week and took the pheasants
The police were not interested and blamed me
The (I gather now late) blogger steel magnolia wrote a blog alleging that Grime complained that an English official (he didn't name!) had leaned on him to say, in his reports, that no evidential reliability could be placed on the dog-alerts.IMO that official would not have been MH. And your ideas that MH "turned his back on ...." and that MG "largely disregarded the direction of ...." are incorrect IMO.
I've never seen independent verification of the claim.
But it actually wouldn't surprise me in the least if that turned out to be true.
And if it was true, the English official would have been Harrison, who certainly turned in his back on Grime's worst excesses in handling his dog, and particularly (largely) disregarding the direction of Harrison.
IMO that official would not have been MH. And your ideas that MH "turned his back on ...." and that MG "largely disregarded the direction of ...." are incorrect IMO.
If you watch the videos you will see these two experts working very efficiently together.
The (I gather now late) blogger steel magnolia wrote a blog alleging that Grime complained that an English official (he didn't name!) had leaned on him to say, in his reports, that no evidential reliability could be placed on the dog-alerts.
I've never seen independent verification of the claim.
But it actually wouldn't surprise me in the least if that turned out to be true.
And if it was true, the English official would have been Harrison, who certainly turned in his back on Grime's worst excesses in handling his dog, and particularly (largely) disregarding the direction of Harrison.
not by me
In common with the many other unprecedented things which happened in Madeleine's case I think it was unheard of for dogs and their handlers to achieve such prominence in an investigation.
Maybe a mention if they actually found human remains ... but I don't recall them achieving a mention even then.
The total misunderstanding of their role and over reliance on what he had been told their capabilities were led Mr Amaral down the wrong road to entirely the wrong conclusion.
What a waste of time that could have been better spent looking for Madeleine.
I have posted this before, but I will do so again.In the videos I see no sign of MH turning his back on MG, nor of MG disregarding the directions of MH.
Mark Harrison's summary of all searches:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
I don't think it coincidence that Grime acknowledges the input of Grime and his dogs in those searches he recommended, the places Madeleine either had been or (conceivably) might have been, the holiday apartments, areas in and around PdL and the Murats' place.
Both inspections at villa and gym, Harrison summaries as PJ exercises.
And while Harrison did recommend an inspection of vehicles, only 2 (of 3!) vehicles he recommended be inspected made the final line-up of 10.
The exception was a vehicle Murat hired that never made the line-up; while 8 vehicles Harrison never said anything about made it (including the Renault Scenic).
Harrison gives no clue who took part in that exercise.
'.........Last week.....'
Words removed. *&*%£
In the videos I see no sign of MH turning his back on MG, nor of MG disregarding the directions of MH.
MH's recommendation "all vehicles RM has had access to" accounts for all but 2 of the vehicles inspected by Eddie.
The mystery is who removed the words
IMO that official would not have been MH. And your ideas that MH "turned his back on ...." and that MG "largely disregarded the direction of ...." are incorrect IMO.
If you watch the videos you will see these two experts working very efficiently together.
With respect, Pegasus, when I look at the parts of the videos we have had access to I believe I watched something which were not fit for purpose and would probably never have seen the light of day in a court.
You saw what you wished to see, and made your judgement on your clear total support of the mccanns.
Regardless of anything else.
So you would deny total support for Amaral?
You saw what you wished to see, and made your judgement on your clear total support of the mccanns.
Regardless of anything else.
Robert Murat had access to 3 vehicles.
Two were in the line-up
One wasn't.
With respect, Pegasus, when I look at the parts of the videos we have had access to I believe I watched something which was not fit for purpose and would probably never have seen the light of day in a court.If you think it is important then tell us what it is.
Absolutely notIf you only shot 2 pheasants, your dog's 15 alerts mean that the thief (who you claim stole the pheasants before your dog could even get to them) must have moved the birds after stealing them, and if you tell us the alert locations, we may be able to find the perp.
I think someone had been watching me all week and took the pheasants
The police were not interested and blamed me
If you only shot 2 pheasants, your dog's 15 alerts mean that the thief (who you claim stole the pheasants before your dog could even get to them) must have moved the birds after stealing them, and if you tell us the alert locations, we may be able to find the perp.
If you think it is important then tell us what it is.
But you did recognise both MH and MG in the videos?
Did you notice them turning backs on or disregarding each other?
Looks like a very efficient team to me.
I saw neither efficiency or a team.What makes you think it is not a team?
What makes you think it is not a team?
Why do you think it is inefficient?
What is the thing in the dog videos which you have a problem with?
The dogs found not a jot of evidence in 2007 which made them a total irrelevance then and even more of an irrelevance now.
You wish. SY have got springer spaniels back on the case.If it hadn't been for a sighting deflecting all attention exclusively to the east and northeast, NPIA might IMO have selected for EVRD all garden type areas around 5 and 4 and also immediately west over road.
The dogs found not a jot of evidence in 2007 which made them a total irrelevance then and even more of an irrelevance now.
Which one was that? And are you inferring somethng?
Pegasus is right btw that 8/10 of the vehicles inspected were related to Murat (his own, his mothers, his gf and her ex, and Malinka) the other two being the Mccanns and the Gorrods
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
993 to 994 External diligence re: Robert Murat rental vehicle 2007.05.13
04 Volume IV, pp. 993 to 994
The PJ had a search warrant for the same vehicle for the cadaver dog inspection but the car never made it to the underground parking lot.
Which one was that? And are you inferring somethng?
Pegasus is right btw that 8/10 of the vehicles inspected were related to Murat (his own, his mothers, his gf and her ex, and Malinka) the other two being the Mccanns and the Gorrods
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
993 to 994 External diligence re: Robert Murat rental vehicle 2007.05.13
04 Volume IV, pp. 993 to 994
The PJ had a search warrant for the same vehicle for the cadaver dog inspection but the car never made it to the underground parking lot.
It has to be said the whole dog anathema = protesteth too much with period pads pig blood toenails and plasters and all the other bollocks
some peopel have to realise/accept, yes, it IS a possibility Madeline McCann died in that flat, whether it can be worked out when and how, or not, and not bust their guts to try and prove that she couldn't "possibly" have done so
TAKE NOTE
it will do you good
It has to be said the whole dog anathema = protesteth too much with period pads pig blood toenails and plasters and all the other bollocks
some peopel have to realise/accept, yes, it IS a possibility Madeline McCann died in that flat, whether it can be worked out when and how, or not, and not bust their guts to try and prove that she couldn't "possibly" have done so
TAKE NOTE
it will do you good
It has to be said the whole dog anathema = protesteth too much with period pads pig blood toenails and plasters and all the other bollocks
some peopel have to realise/accept, yes, it IS a possibility Madeline McCann died in that flat, whether it can be worked out when and how, or not, and not bust their guts to try and prove that she couldn't "possibly" have done so
TAKE NOTE
it will do you good
I really think you are quite arrogant calling what experienced people in their field have said bollocks.
I think it would do YOU good to realise that it is a possibility that Eddie alerted to something which had blood on it and was removed, something that any one of the family who stayed in 5a after the McCann's could have deposited then removed.
Eddie didn't really bother with the bedroom at all, he would have just ran out from there if Grime hadn't called him back on numerous occasions.
In the end I think the poor dog just barked at a scent he recognised [blood] just to finish the whole exercise.
If Grime hadn't known it was the McCann's apartment would that have happened?
Perhaps you should accept that Grime was the expert in this. He knew how to use his dogs and he knew what they did and did not alert to - he trained them and tested them constantly. Fantasising about what Eddie was thinking and about what you think he was alerting to is also arrogant in my opinion.re: your last sentence: isn't that what the "Dogs Don't Lie" brigade have been doing for the last 8 years?
Perhaps you should accept that Grime was the expert in this. He knew how to use his dogs and he knew what they did and did not alert to - he trained them and tested them constantly. Fantasising about what Eddie was thinking and about what you think he was alerting to is also arrogant in my opinion.
Perhaps you should accept that Grime was the expert in this. He knew how to use his dogs and he knew what they did and did not alert to - he trained them and tested them constantly. Fantasising about what Eddie was thinking and about what you think he was alerting to is also arrogant in my opinion.
I totally agree.
Then it is hardly surprising given what the mccans actually admitted in the hacking inquiry, which was more than plainly obvious.
it's interesting you agree with a poster who has managed to get so much wrong...not my opinion but a fact
It is pleasant for once to have woken up and see a BS claim to have been removed from the forum , on this thread.
I presume any more will be dealt with in the same way.
what claim was that
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
re: your last sentence: isn't that what the "Dogs Don't Lie" brigade have been doing for the last 8 years?
You mean my experience with the remnant scent of pheasants...I think most people realise that was a wind up...
Most people realize it for exactly what it was. 8)--))
they would have to be stupid not too
Actually most people know pure BS when they see it. 8)-)))
apart from you it seems...
Perhaps you should accept that Grime was the expert in this. He knew how to use his dogs and he knew what they did and did not alert to - he trained them and tested them constantly. Fantasising about what Eddie was thinking and about what you think he was alerting to is also arrogant in my opinion.
I am not being arrogant, just quoting what other experts have said about cadaver dogs whilst studying them. Of course Eddie wouldn't come into this category would he, he being a very special cadaver dog.
I don't call the alerts bollocks, I just give the evidence that these very experienced people have found about cadaver dogs. I would say dismissing these people and what they have written is arrogance.
Grime did train Eddie, he may well test his dogs regularly, but Eddie was trained to find blood, he was trained on pig carcasses. Grime wouldn't be able to say that Eddie did NOT alert to blood that had been on an article and taken away because he wouldn't know what Eddie was alerting to. He covered everything when he said without a body the alerts more or less mean nothing.
Please remind me of what traces of pig residue was found.
Please stop repeating these silly questions.
Was the soil of the garden tested?
I am not being arrogant, just quoting what other experts have said about cadaver dogs whilst studying them. Of course Eddie wouldn't come into this category would he, he being a very special cadaver dog.
I don't call the alerts bollocks, I just give the evidence that these very experienced people have found about cadaver dogs. I would say dismissing these people and what they have written is arrogance.
Grime did train Eddie, he may well test his dogs regularly, but Eddie was trained to find blood, he was trained on pig carcasses. Grime wouldn't be able to say that Eddie did NOT alert to blood that had been on an article and taken away because he wouldn't know what Eddie was alerting to. He covered everything when he said without a body the alerts more or less mean nothing.
You have read about other dogs and other experts, but two dogs and one expert were involved in this case.The handler had trained and used Eddie for years, so in my opinion he is the only expert who can comment on the dog's capabilities. Eddie alerted in two ways. When he barked with his head in the air he was alerting to a scent he had been trained to find, but the source of the scent wasn't there. This is what he did in the bedroom. When he barked at a certain spot, the source of the scent was still there. That's what he did behind the sofa, as Keela confirmed.
Grimes opinion was that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent contamination in the bedroom. Not blood, toenails, dead pigs or fertilizer, he alerted to the smell of a dead human being. I will take the word of the man who had the dog since he was a puppy, who trained him and used him for eight years over any other opinions relating to other dogs and other circumstances.
The dogs don't 'think' by the way, their response is a Pavlovian response, a simple cause and effect operation. They smell something, they alert. After eight years of deployment Eddie wouldn't have been used if he was unreliable. He wouldn't have still been working if he alerted to all sorts of random substances.
It is not a silly question.
You are claiming that some of the alerts could be due to pigs.
and you can whine on until the end of time, but there were no traces of pig residue in the samples collected.
You have read about other dogs and other experts, but two dogs and one expert were involved in this case.The handler had trained and used Eddie for years, so in my opinion he is the only expert who can comment on the dog's capabilities. Eddie alerted in two ways. When he barked with his head in the air he was alerting to a scent he had been trained to find, but the source of the scent wasn't there. This is what he did in the bedroom. When he barked at a certain spot, the source of the scent was still there. That's what he did behind the sofa, as Keela confirmed.
Grimes opinion was that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent contamination in the bedroom. Not blood, toenails, dead pigs or fertilizer, he alerted to the smell of a dead human being. I will take the word of the man who had the dog since he was a puppy, who trained him and used him for eight years over any other opinions relating to other dogs and other circumstances.
The dogs don't 'think' by the way, their response is a Pavlovian response, a simple cause and effect operation. They smell something, they alert. After eight years of deployment Eddie wouldn't have been used if he was unreliable. He wouldn't have still been working if he alerted to all sorts of random substances.
Anyone else think there would have been more blood behind the sofa if Madeleine had hit her head and bled?
I find it strange that if Madeleine had fallen hit her head and bled behind that sofa, that a larger area of tiles would have had some blood under them.
Just a tiny miniscule of blood under one tile.
Q: What do you think is the meaning of the blood behind the sofa?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html
Grime never said that...you are perpetuating lies. Your's...and the whole sceptic case is based on a lie
Grime is not a forensic scientist either.
It was never his job to interpret the results of the forensic examination.
Grime is not a forensic scientist either.
It was never his job to interpret the results of the forensic examination.
Q: What do you think is the meaning of the blood behind the sofa?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html
Which of those articles from the link should we be reading?
read the post...I am referring to the fact that it is a lie to say Grime said the dogs alerted to cadaver scent
Now more crucially, did he say they didn't ?
A: Possibly from an attempt at resuscitation. (GA)
no he didn't...but anyone with any intelligence...and that rules a few out...understands that the alerts may or may not be to cadaver scent...not that they are
Dogs don't have an agenda.
They are trained to respond to certain stimuli.
These dogs did. 8)-)))
Why did the forensics cop need resuscitating? His was the only DNA that provided a reasonable match.The FSS got two matches in the area, one from the forensics chappie under the tile, thus presumably deposited after the tile was lifted, and another from on top of a tile. The spot on top of the tile matched Madeleine (according to the FSS) but in miniscule quantity and not tested for or identified as blood.
Dogs don't have an agenda.
They are trained to respond to certain stimuli.
These dogs did. 8)-)))
The FSS got two matches in the area, one from the forensics chappie under the tile, thus presumably deposited after the tile was lifted, and another from on top of a tile. The spot on top of the tile matched Madeleine (according to the FSS) but in miniscule quantity and not tested for or identified as blood.
Gonçalo was speculating as to what might have happened re alerts and some DNA from Madeleine.
Grime doesn't say that..you are perpetuating lies
Dogs don't have an agenda.
They are trained to respond to certain stimuli.
These dogs did. 8)-)))
it wasn't a match for Maddie
According to Lowe -
"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."
Try giving a logical and coherent reply.
Why could Eddie "detect" an odour on cuddle cat only after it had been hidden, not while he could sniff it, pick it up and play with it?
Would could Eddie "detect" an odour on clothing in the gym he could find no trace of when the same clothing was in the villa?
Is it good practice for dogs to trample all over stuff being examined for (for possible) forensic significance?
Or for a dog to pick stuff up in its mouth?
I see you are now trying to be an expert in forensics.
Do you have any academic qualifications in science. I'm not asking for personal details. Just a generic inquiry ?
According to Lowe -
"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."
Grimes OPINION was that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent contamination in the bedroom, well that's just his opinion isn't it, nothing factual.
are you an expert in forensics...on what authority do you claim eddie alerted to cadaver when Grime cannot confirm that
The opinion of the man who trained dogs for years and who worked with Eddie for years, so an informed opinion, not 'just' an opinion.
Precisely.
then we have the google experts who think they know more than Grime...........................
I'm in total agreement with grime it is you and gunit who is not
Grime does not confirm cadaver odour
He uses the word suggestive
You are putting words in my mouth, yet again.
Try to refrain from such habits.
Grime never said that...you are perpetuating lies. Your's...and the whole sceptic case is based on a lie
Grime doesn't say that..you are perpetuating lies
Your post is there for all to see
I accept everything Grime says as being true
I don't believe Eddie reacted to cadaver odour
I'm in total agreement with grime it is you and gunit who is not
Grime does not confirm cadaver odour
He uses the word suggestive
I'm in total agreement with grime it is you and gunit who is not
Grime does not confirm cadaver odour
He uses the word suggestive
I'm getting somewhat fed up of being called a liar. the next person to do so will be reported.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
With your scientific interests i expect you know this, but anyway;
Scientists and researchers often use the word suggestive to describe results that indicate a strong possibility of something without decisively proving it:
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/suggestive
What do you believe he meant by :
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
Given even the most basic definition of the adjective "suggestive".
What do you believe he meant by :your forum name suggests that you are the female of the species. Most people called Alice are female, with one or two exceptions.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
Given even the most basic definition of the adjective "suggestive".
Then please stick to the truth
I don't accept that argument at all
Grime is not a scientist
your forum name suggests that you are the female of the species. Most people called Alice are female, with one or two exceptions.
Alice is uncommon as a baby name for boys. At the modest height of its usage in 1906, 0.014% of baby boys were given the name Alice. It ranked at #504 then. The baby name has since markedly declined in popularity, and is today of infrequent use.Indeed.
http://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Alice/m
What I or anyone else thinks is totally irrelevant
Grime needs to explain what he said
No reason given? No alternative definition of 'suggestive'? No basis for your declaration therefore.
(No-one said Grime was a scientist, but you have been known to claim scientific knowledge, so I thought you may have known what 'suggestive' meant. Obviously not)
I agree, your thoughts are irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of an experienced dog trainer and handler.Grime should explain to whom? To you? Why? It seems perfectly clear to me.
I agree, your thoughts are irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of an experienced dog trainer and handler.Grime should explain to whom? To you? Why? It seems perfectly clear to me.If it's perfectly clear to you then what conclusions have you drawn regarding the presence or otherwise of a cadaver in Apartment 5a in May 2007?
No reason given? No alternative definition of 'suggestive'? No basis for your declaration therefore.
(No-one said Grime was a scientist, but you have been known to claim scientific knowledge, so I thought you may have known what 'suggestive' meant. Obviously not)
your forum name suggests that you are the female of the species. Most people called Alice are female, with one or two exceptions.
I don't know what grime means by suggestive and neither do you
Having established you don't know what it means does it follow that others don't either?
No evidence was forthcoming as a result of the dogs visit to Praia da Luz ... in other words, they found nothing ... and are therefore an irrelevance.
Well that is 'suggestive' of the value of their visit to me.
Was anything the dogs turned up sent for analysis by FSS ?
No evidence was forthcoming as a result of the dogs visit to Praia da Luz ... in other words, they found nothing ... and are therefore an irrelevance.
Well that is 'suggestive' of the value of their visit to me.
If of no value why post on this thread ? *&*%£
For the simple reason ... it pleases me to exercise my human right to freedom of speach.
Do what you wish.
It won't change people's minds on here as regards this.
Yes.
Having established you don't know what it means does it follow that others don't either?Yes
Do what you wish.
It won't change people's minds on here as regards this.
Then it is subject to the report by Mr John Lowe ?
I think grime was severely embarrassed at the result of his trip to PDL and was deliberately vague
Alf you are trolling.No I am not. I am giving a practical demonstration of the meaning of "suggestive". 8)--))
I think grime was severely embarrassed at the result of his trip to PDL and was deliberately vague
He put one embarrassment behind him and marched on triumphantly to another embarrassment at HdLg.
Albeit a very lucrative embarrassment.
Well, lots of opinions given but the fact remains experienced dog Eddie alerted in an empty bedroom and his experienced trainer and handler said the alert was suggestive of an alert to cadaver scent contamination, or the smell of a dead human body. Clearly we can't smell this odour until it has developed further, but dogs can and do. Eddie had alerted to this scent before, so Grime should know an alert when he sees it.
Some have said the dog was tired, or was alerting to other things, or was 'clearing his nose'(?), or his handler was cuing him. He was taken to a lot of locations, however, and alerted only to items belonging to the McCanns.
It isn't admissible evidence, so why try to discredit the dog and his handler?
Well, lots of opinions given but the fact remains experienced dog Eddie alerted in an empty bedroom and his experienced trainer and handler said the alert was suggestive of an alert to cadaver scent contamination, or the smell of a dead human body. Clearly we can't smell this odour until it has developed further, but dogs can and do. Eddie had alerted to this scent before, so Grime should know an alert when he sees it.
Some have said the dog was tired, or was alerting to other things, or was 'clearing his nose'(?), or his handler was cuing him. He was taken to a lot of locations, however, and alerted only to items belonging to the McCanns.
It isn't admissible evidence, so why try to discredit the dog and his handler?
Well, lots of opinions given but the fact remains experienced dog Eddie alerted in an empty bedroom and his experienced trainer and handler said the alert was suggestive of an alert to cadaver scent contamination, or the smell of a dead human body. Clearly we can't smell this odour until it has developed further, but dogs can and do. Eddie had alerted to this scent before, so Grime should know an alert when he sees it.
Some have said the dog was tired, or was alerting to other things, or was 'clearing his nose'(?), or his handler was cuing him. He was taken to a lot of locations, however, and alerted only to items belonging to the McCanns.
It isn't admissible evidence, so why try to discredit the dog and his handler?
Well, lots of opinions given but the fact remains experienced dog Eddie alerted in an empty bedroom and his experienced trainer and handler said the alert was suggestive of an alert to cadaver scent contamination, or the smell of a dead human body. Clearly we can't smell this odour until it has developed further, but dogs can and do. Eddie had alerted to this scent before, so Grime should know an alert when he sees it.Maybe for the same reason that you take every opportunity to discredit the McCanns? Just a thought...
Some have said the dog was tired, or was alerting to other things, or was 'clearing his nose'(?), or his handler was cuing him. He was taken to a lot of locations, however, and alerted only to items belonging to the McCanns.
It isn't admissible evidence, so why try to discredit the dog and his handler?
Maybe for the same reason that you take every opportunity to discredit the McCanns? Just a thought...
The work of the dogs is a fascinating subject about which there is a myriad of unbiased information available. Mr Grime's being one of the expert opinions available to us through the medium of his statements in the files.
So enlightenment lies not with me but just a read away ~ I recommend it to you.
It was misunderstanding of the dogs capabilities which led Mr Amaral down the wrong path; I get the impression that he didn't take expert advice when it was on hand ... anyone know if he met and spoke with Mr Grime after the dogs had been out on the job?
no one in authority takes the alerts seriously
They weren't taken seriously at the time because they had no evidential value ... nothing has changed in the interim.
my opinion is if keela and eddies alerts didnt mean anything mcann supporters wouldnt even be worred about them but they are so???....
I don't. Only in the minds of those who think that pointing out inconsistencies in their story is discrediting them.Erm...yes, I do, just as pointing out inconsistencies in the dog alerts you would interpret as discrediting them.
Erm...yes, I do, just as pointing out inconsistencies in the dog alerts you would interpret as discrediting them.
The 'inconsistencies' in the dog alerts are in the eye of the beholder. They are opinions. The inconsistencies in the McCann's stories are documented. They are facts.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.
The 'inconsistencies' in the dog alerts are in the eye of the beholder. They are opinions. The inconsistencies in the McCann's stories are documented. They are facts.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
This case starts and finishes with the mccanns, unless proved otherwise.
Provide the link to the report.
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.
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.
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.
Somewhere in that Operation Havern report, too, you will find confirmation that Eddie, indeed, reacted to a coconut ....
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 ?
That's an old one ferryman.
What about secondary transfer ?
It would be hardly surprising in the circumstances.
Thanks to the record of the PJ in the Madeleine enquiry, we know how searches are supposed to be conducted.
You get a dog to screen an area in advance to rule out pre-existing scents, then you inspect whatever you want to inspect.
If the area where the coconut was tested was not pre-screened before testing of the actual coconut, then Grime didn't do his job properly.
and here's one for those who say dogs can't be trained to detect specific substances.
' 47,000 PHOTOS & 3000 VIDEOS of Child Pornography on a hidden flash drive which was found by a sniffer dog '
http://archive.greatfallstribune.com/videonetwork/4445679263001/Electronic-sniffer-dog-found-Jared-Fogel-s-flash-drive-with-child-porn-stash
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.
Out of curiosity who (at least here!) has ever said dogs can't be trained to detect specific substances?
and here's one for those who say dogs can't be trained to detect specific substances.
' 47,000 PHOTOS & 3000 VIDEOS of Child Pornography on a hidden flash drive which was found by a sniffer dog '
http://archive.greatfallstribune.com/videonetwork/4445679263001/Electronic-sniffer-dog-found-Jared-Fogel-s-flash-drive-with-child-porn-stash
Out of curiosity who (at least here!) has ever said dogs can't be trained to detect specific substances?
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.
I haven't read the report completely, but i have skimmed it. The report was critical of the Police officers in charge of the investigation. I found criticism of the decision to use Grime in a role other than that of dog handler. I found criticism of officers telling the media about unconfirmed findings following the dog alerts. I found no direct criticism by the inquiry of Grime. If anyone can cut and paste the section showing criticism of Grime and his dogs by the inquiry I would be most grateful.
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 ?
and here's one for those who say dogs can't be trained to detect specific substances.
' 47,000 PHOTOS & 3000 VIDEOS of Child Pornography on a hidden flash drive which was found by a sniffer dog '
http://archive.greatfallstribune.com/videonetwork/4445679263001/Electronic-sniffer-dog-found-Jared-Fogel-s-flash-drive-with-child-porn-stash
There doesn't have to be evidence of abduction Stephen, thank god you are not a police officer.
Anyway that question was off topic.
Can you tell me what that has to do with cadaver dogs Stephen?
You are kidding, aren't you ?
No evidence, no case, no prosecution.
As to policing , the mccanns and associates should all have been interviewed formally at the start of the SY investigation.
They have never said they did, as they have with other people.
The suggestion that the dogs somehow contributed something meaningful to the sum of knowledge about what happened to Madeleine?
Yes, it does ....
No, no one knows what a cadaver dog can smell, this dog could be trained with a scent that the trainer knows it will recognise.
Why would SY say they interviewed the McCann's? They no doubt started at the beginning and the beginning would be to interview the McCann's and friends, because they don't put a notice in the paper saying 'Look we are interviewing the McCann's' didn't mean they didn't.
With you the abductor [yes I believe Madeleine was abducted] would have had to leave a selfie before you believed she was abducted.
Have you read your own post here ?
Dogs are trained to respond to specific stimuli, as in the example I gave earlier.
What don't you understated about that ?
No one knows what makes up the scent of cadaver that the dogs smell, it's not something a trainer can mix up in a bowl.
So when a cadaver dog alerts, it could be a number of things, they could even alert to decaying vegetation.
Where as a dog trained to alert to drugs or whatever can be given that scent as the trainer would know what to give the dog.
There is a huge difference between criticism based on opinion and inconsistencies which are recorded and factual.I don't need to know you - I judge you by your posts alone and IMO it is hypocritical to lament the fact that Grime and his dogs have been criticised here, whilst at the same time repeatedly and often criticising the McCanns. You may think you are entitled to, but who put Grime and the dogs above criticism in your view?
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.
Eddie trained with real pure human cadaver scent.
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. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material. (MG)
Oh dear, here we go again.
Dogs are trained to respond to a specific group of compounds.
It is then up to the forensic team to collect and analyse samples collected.
As a reminder, no pig residues were found.
You cannot compare a cadaver dog with other dogs trained to detect drugs etc.
Can I ask you, what did Eddie alert to in Jersey? Could it have been decaying vegetation? What did Grime say about the alert?
Another snip for you Stephen -
(1) Sometimes they get waylaid by any decaying organic matter (e.g. a rotten log), and similar chemical signatures make it impossible for them to distinguish between humans and pigs. Thus, handlers are taught always to be on the alert for false positives; and
Eddie trained with real pure human cadaver scent.
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. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material. (MG)
Here's a little snip for you.
I already know that.
No rotten logs were in the apartment.
No pig residue was detected.
Next................
Doh, it doesn't have to be a log, decaying vegetation Stephen, like what you would find in the garden?
No pig residue was detected because they didn't test the soil in the garden.
Now do you see why Cadaver dogs can't be compared to other dogs?
I was being sardonic.
You simply do not get it.
You're just clutching at straws.
I think it's you who doesn't get it.
No one knows what makes up the scent of cadaver that the dogs smell, it's not something a trainer can mix up in a bowl.
So when a cadaver dog alerts, it could be a number of things, they could even alert to decaying vegetation.
Where as a dog trained to alert to drugs or whatever can be given that scent as the trainer would know what to give the dog.
In the Uk the dogs are trained using decaying piglets because the scent is very similar. In parts of the US dogs are trained using human remains. Eddie was trained using both. It's not just the handler who cannot replicate the smell; scientists can't. Just because it can't be replicated doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Trained dogs know the scent they are searching for and alert when they find it. Speculating about other things they may alert to is useless. They alert to the scent they have been trained to find. They do this often enough for law enforcement people to have confidence in them. That's why they use them.
I don't need to know you - I judge you by your posts alone and IMO it is hypocritical to lament the fact that Grime and his dogs have been criticised here, whilst at the same time repeatedly and often criticising the McCanns. You may think you are entitled to, but who put Grime and the dogs above criticism in your view?
You are missing my point again. If people use an objective factual basis for criticism I don't have a problem with that. Most of the criticism of Grime and the dogs is opinion-based. Use objective facts for criticism, not your own opinions and I will debate using objective facts. Opinion is subjective so it's not relevant.t
In the Uk the dogs are trained using decaying piglets because the scent is very similar. In parts of the US dogs are trained using human remains. Eddie was trained using both. It's not just the handler who cannot replicate the smell; scientists can't. Just because it can't be replicated doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Trained dogs know the scent they are searching for and alert when they find it. Speculating about other things they may alert to is useless. They alert to the scent they have been trained to find. They do this often enough for law enforcement people to have confidence in them. That's why they use them.
You are missing my point again. If people use an objective factual basis for criticism I don't have a problem with that. Most of the criticism of Grime and the dogs is opinion-based. Use objective facts for criticism, not your own opinions and I will debate using objective facts. Opinion is subjective so it's not relevant.
No, I get exactly what you're doing.
Clutching at straws, again and again and again.................................
So how am I clutching at straws?
I have given you written evidence from experienced people in the field of cadaver dogs. They say they can alert to rotten vegetation, saliva and pig, as all of those have certain scents in relation to the odour of cadaver scent.
Tell me how this is wrong and Eddie is separate from this, and how he is separate from this.
Supporters of the mccanns are very fond of 'evidence'.
Now for the last time, what evidence was collected and showed any other organic residues, other than human in origin ?
Even for you that is a very strange post to make. Evidence is the basis of any justice system ... with the obvious exception of kangaroo courts on the internet.
Quite simply put ... there was no meaningful evidence uncovered by the dogs.
Yet you persist in posting on this thread............................
You won't change my mind as to what the dogs indicated.
You are missing my point again. If people use an objective factual basis for criticism I don't have a problem with that. Most of the criticism of Grime and the dogs is opinion-based. Use objective facts for criticism, not your own opinions and I will debate using objective facts. Opinion is subjective so it's not relevant.OK - what independent testing of their abilities were Eddie and Keela subjected to? We know Grime's opinion of their abilities but where is the objective truth (ie: like a 3rd party report) about them?
Yet you persist in posting on this thread............................
You won't change my mind as to what the dogs indicated.
You are missing my point again. If people use an objective factual basis for criticism I don't have a problem with that. Most of the criticism of Grime and the dogs is opinion-based. Use objective facts for criticism, not your own opinions and I will debate using objective facts. Opinion is subjective so it's not relevant.
you talk about using objective facts but you posted yesterday that Grime said the dogs alerted to cadaver odour which is untrue
I posted information from Grime's report, which I provided a link to. Are you calling him a liar?
Grime gave his opinion, he didn't state a fact. As an expert his opinion may carry more weight than most, but it is still only an opinion, and it was expressed with all sorts of caveats. An expert opinion isn't always correct anyway, which is why, in healthcare for example, a second opinion is often recommended and sought by patients.
The factual part is that I never gave my opinion, I gave his, with a link to show where I got it.??? So you have no opinion on Grime or his opinion? LOL.
The factual part is that I never gave my opinion, I gave his, with a link to show where I got it.
You didn't give a true acount of what Grime said
You missed out the word suggestive
You then gave your opinion of what Grime meant by suggestive
Those are the facts
You have read about other dogs and other experts, but two dogs and one expert were involved in this case.The handler had trained and used Eddie for years, so in my opinion he is the only expert who can comment on the dog's capabilities. Eddie alerted in two ways. When he barked with his head in the air he was alerting to a scent he had been trained to find, but the source of the scent wasn't there. This is what he did in the bedroom. When he barked at a certain spot, the source of the scent was still there. That's what he did behind the sofa, as Keela confirmed.
Grimes opinion was that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent contamination in the bedroom. Not blood, toenails, dead pigs or fertilizer, he alerted to the smell of a dead human being. I will take the word of the man who had the dog since he was a puppy, who trained him and used him for eight years over any other opinions relating to other dogs and other circumstances.
The dogs don't 'think' by the way, their response is a Pavlovian response, a simple cause and effect operation. They smell something, they alert. After eight years of deployment Eddie wouldn't have been used if he was unreliable. He wouldn't have still been working if he alerted to all sorts of random substances.
there you are,,,the memory loss is yours as expected
You didn't give a true acount of what Grime said
You missed out the word suggestive
You then gave your opinion of what Grime meant by suggestive
Those are the facts
Same difference.@)(++(*
@)(++(*
Correct like he would have said about Eddie's alerts in the Theresa Parker and Kate Prout cases or any case without a body. Their husbands were found guilty without any evidence of a body. Cadaver dogs alerted in the Suzanne Pilley case but no body has been found.
Suzanne Pilley was a 38-year-old bookkeeper from Edinburgh, Scotland, who went missing on the morning of 4 May 2010. Following a highly publicised appeal for information on her whereabouts and intensive police enquiries, her former lover, David Gilroy, was arrested and charged with her murder. He was found guilty by majority verdict on 15 March 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case is controversial because the prosecution obtained a murder conviction without a body. The body of Suzanne Pilley has never been found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley
Scottish law allows uncorroborated dog alerts as evidence.
English law doesn't.
No but English police use cadaver dogs to find cadavers and remant scents of them, (not spit and saliva or rotting salads) no one would ask for anything less, and YES, the Met and SURREY police have evrds, I gave you Links last week, you ignored it, as you would, but continued to state as a fact that there are NO EVRDS apart from Eddie....as if it was some kind of lie, tell porkies, get caught outThere was a Met case where the perp is now in jail due entirely to an EVRD (our SIO had worked on this case). Was that a Met EVRD, or borrowed from another force, anyone know?
There was a Met case where the perp is now in jail due entirely to an EVRD (our SIO had worked on this case). Was that a Met EVRD, or borrowed from another force, anyone know?
There was a Met case where the perp is now in jail due entirely to an EVRD (our SIO had worked on this case). Was that a Met EVRD, or borrowed from another force, anyone know?
Don't know about your case but Tito and Muzzy were brought in to search for Alice Gross.I was thinking of the Hazell case which was a Met case (and our now SIO was reportedly part of the team).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alice-gross-missing-madeleine-mccann-4348073
Don't know about your case but Tito and Muzzy were brought in to search for Alice Gross.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alice-gross-missing-madeleine-mccann-4348073
thousands of posts re the dogs but no sceptic will answer the question...what do the alerts tell us
that is what is important
I will go with Grime, the man who trained and deployed the dogs. His professional opinion is of value because of his years of experience and his close relationship with the dogs. He tells us what they were trained to find, where they alerted, and what that means in his professional opinion. He quite properly points out that the alerts have no evidential or intelligence reliabilty without supporting evidence, but he's clear about what he thinks Eddie alerted to. Policemen are very aware of the need for facts and of the dangers of relying on opinion, but he still chose to express his opinion. That suggests confidence in Eddie's abilities.
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.
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.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
thousands of posts re the dogs but no sceptic will answer the question...what do the alerts tell us
that is what is important
As a result of the alerts was anything found that was sent to FSS for analysis?So still no answer
I will go with Grime, the man who trained and deployed the dogs. His professional opinion is of value because of his years of experience and his close relationship with the dogs. He tells us what they were trained to find, where they alerted, and what that means in his professional opinion. He quite properly points out that the alerts have no evidential or intelligence reliabilty without supporting evidence, but he's clear about what he thinks Eddie alerted to. Policemen are very aware of the need for facts and of the dangers of relying on opinion, but he still chose to express his opinion. That suggests confidence in Eddie's abilities.
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.
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.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
So still no answer
What have the alerts told us
What help have they been to the investigation apart from the fact that the best dogs in the world found no evidence Maddie died in the apartment
When I asked Brietta the same question she answered in the affirmative.
By your body swerve, I take it you agree with her and that the dogs did indeed alert to something that was sent to FSS.
I cannot understand why so many posters put so much faith in the dogs. Eddie alerted according to his training but the cause of that alert is not known and might never be known.
This is so but does not sit well with the supporters.
The thrust of the FSS report was that nothing could be ruled in and nothing could be ruled out ie it might be or it might not be. The dogs alerts contributed to this. It is far from the "dogs is crap there ain't no evidence to suggest blah de bloody dah.........." we are regaled with every hour on the hour as it were! The FSS were going to play a straight bat as at that time the efficacy of the LCN technique was beginning to be called into question.
The tiles, grout, plant fragments and curtain were sent to FSS, Alice. Tell us what you are thinking. Don't leave me in suspenders.
My thoughts are what the dogs did or didn't do was superseded by anything they turned up that was sent for analysis and reported on by the FSS. The dog was a specialist coarse screening tool nothing more nothing less.
As a result the FSS appear to have said "we can't say it is nor can we say it isn't" which will have a different significance depending upon whether you are The Courts or The Cops.
When I asked Brietta the same question she answered in the affirmative.
By your body swerve, I take it you agree with her and that the dogs did indeed alert to something that was sent to FSS.
My thoughts are what the dogs did or didn't do was superseded by anything they turned up that was sent for analysis and reported on by the FSS. The dog was a specialist coarse screening tool nothing more nothing less.
As a result the FSS appear to have said "we can't say it is nor can we say it isn't" which will have a different significance depending upon whether you are The Courts or The Cops.
absolutely and the sample told us nothing...so in effect the dog's alert told us nothingSo if you had to write a short summary of the case, can we assume the dogs would not get a mention?
absolutely and the sample told us nothing...so in effect the dog's alert told us nothing
This is so but does not sit well with the supporters.
The thrust of the FSS report was that nothing could be ruled in and nothing could be ruled out ie it might be or it might not be. The dogs alerts contributed to this. It is far from the "dogs is crap there ain't no evidence to suggest blah de bloody dah.........." we are regaled with every hour on the hour as it were! The FSS were going to play a straight bat as at that time the efficacy of the LCN technique was beginning to be called into question.
It has certainly raised many questions though some of which even Gerry McCann felt he had to answer.If you'd been accused of concealing a body and a cadaver dog alerted to your property you'd just accept it would you? Not attempt to explain it as possibly having another cause?
Another fact which has always bothered me is why Eddie only alerted in 5a and not the other properties?
Another fact which has always bothered me is why Eddie only alerted in 5a and not the other properties?
5A:
31st jul 2007
From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10 (should it be 9.10?) The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. (3 mins)
5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. (5 mins)
5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. (3 mins)
4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. (3 mins) second apartment for mccanns
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
9.49 to 10pm: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.(11 mins
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
McCanns apartment search- 50 mins and garden11mins= 61mins
Other apartments 3x3 mins 1X5 mins maximum
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
This timing can be seen here
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
because grime encouraged him to by repeatedly calling him backThe handler cued Eddie to the wicker chair from the bedroom about 50 times.
The handler cued Eddie to the wicker chair from the bedroom about 50 times.
But Eddie did not alert to it.
Cueing and calling back does not cause alerts Dave.
Another fact which has always bothered me is why Eddie only alerted in 5a and not the other properties?
none of us know what caused the alerts...even grime...that's about it...what we do know is they have no evidential reliabilityIf I was a parent desperate to find what happened to my child I would take Eddie's alerts in the apartment very seriously and be discussing all the scenarios which that intelligence indicates.
Don't know if chemicals were used in the initial searches for blood. Can't find anything in the forensic reports about the 'Northern European male blood samples' allegedly found.
There is also little in the literature about what exactly the inhibiting factor is, to which Mark Harrison referred ... although I think it destroys the scent of everything for the dogs ... which is probably why it is only used after the dogs have been through an area or in places too difficult for the dogs to access.
"An inhibiting factor will be on areas where Luminol has been used."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
We've seen the photographs of the fingerprint powder all over the place, and it is mentioned in the forensic report.
Just my opinion, because I can't find information on the effects of luminol apart from the fact it does have an effect on the dogs ~ use of such chemicals and powders may well have left a 'crime scene smell' which the dog recognised and thus was primed to give a learned response in the area of what its nose was telling it there usually was one.
If I was a parent desperate to find what happened to my child I would take Eddie's alerts in the apartment very seriously and be discussing all the scenarios which that intelligence indicates.
Not just dismissing them with a wave and a "no evidential value".
This is not a court case Dave, this is about finding closure for the innocent relatives.
5A:
31st jul 2007
From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10 (should it be 9.10?) The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. (3 mins)
5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. (5 mins)
5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. (3 mins)
4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. (3 mins) second apartment for mccanns
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
9.49 to 10pm: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.(11 mins
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
McCanns apartment search- 50 mins and garden11mins= 61mins
Other apartments 3x3 mins 1X5 mins maximum
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
This timing can be seen here
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
ETA
correction missed
In apartment 5A:
* between 20h16 (typing error in the report shows 21h16) and 20h30 the "cadaver" dog alerted:
- at 20h20 in the area of the wardrobe of the main bedroom
- at 20h22 in the lounge, specifically behind the sofa next to the window that overlooks the street.
* between 20h47 and 21.20 the "blood" dog alerted:
- at 21h10 in the lounge, specifically on the floor behind the sofa next to the wondow that overlooks the street.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
If I was a parent desperate to find what happened to my child I would take Eddie's alerts in the apartment very seriously and be discussing all the scenarios which that intelligence indicates.
Not just dismissing them with a wave and a "no evidential value".
This is not a court case Dave, this is about finding closure for the innocent relatives.
Don't know if chemicals were used in the initial searches for blood. Can't find anything in the forensic reports about the 'Northern European male blood samples' allegedly found.Luminol etc also is not a good idea if DNA analysis of samples is going to be done.
There is also little in the literature about what exactly the inhibiting factor is, to which Mark Harrison referred ... although I think it destroys the scent of everything for the dogs ... which is probably why it is only used after the dogs have been through an area or in places too difficult for the dogs to access.
"An inhibiting factor will be on areas where Luminol has been used."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
We've seen the photographs of the fingerprint powder all over the place, and it is mentioned in the forensic report.
Just my opinion, because I can't find information on the effects of luminol apart from the fact it does have an effect on the dogs ~ use of such chemicals and powders may well have left a 'crime scene smell' which the dog recognised and thus was primed to give a learned response in the area of what its nose was telling it there usually was one.
Apparently apartment 5A was given a disproportionate amount of time in relation to other apartments visited.
If the apartment had been given the same amount of time as any of the others ... or if any or all of the others had been given the same amount of time as that given to 5A ... there may have been different responses recorded as demonstrably people do have innocent bleeds.
That could not have been unique to 5A. At one time or another blood must have been shed in the other apartments.
Luminol etc also is not a good idea if DNA analysis of samples is going to be done.
This is why, in early Aug 2007, no chemicals were used by PJ forensics to locate samples on the lounge floor and wall behind the sofa, just special lights.
It's sits very well with the supporters. The FSS said the sample could have come from just about anyone so could not exclude maddie...plus...so what if Maddie's dna was found in the car...what would that tell us...nothing again.
What we have on the net is non scientists trying to interpret scientific results. The LCN technique has never been questioned...it's the interpretation of the results that is questionable.
Using lcn dna my dna could be found in hundreds of places I had never been...do posters understand that
Regina v Hoey ? which was running at the time and caused the suspension of LCN techniques until an investigation was carried out.
Don't you think the parents will have already agonised over just that, Pegasus? The anguish they must have felt when Tito and Muzzy were searching the mound must have been unbearable.Looking at debate on this forum i've never seen any supporter suggest the "Eddie was right and it was a third party who entered the apartment and did it and both parents are completely innocent" theory. Mr Redwood was obviously considering it IMO. It's not anti-parent at all. So why do no supporters consider it? It could explain the bedroom lounge and garden alerts (and the clothing and vehicle alerts by transference onto clothes that were laying around in apartment that night).
Their questioning and any feelings they may have expressed will have been done privately and discretely.
caused the suspension of lcn being used as evidence....nothing wrong with lcn analysis...its the interpretation of the results that's the problem
That is not quite what the judge said.
the judge was imprecise....LCN DNA is accepted as being accurate so why did the case collapse...it collapsed because even if the match was 100% accurate it could not be proved that the dna present was due to direct contact due to the small amounts involved in lcn analysis
Looking at debate on this forum i've never seen any supporter suggest the "Eddie was right and it was a third party who entered the apartment and did it and both parents are completely innocent" theory. Mr Redwood was obviously considering it IMO. It's not anti-parent at all. So why do no supporters consider it? It could explain the bedroom lounge and garden alerts (and the clothing and vehicle alerts by transference onto clothes that were laying around in apartment that night).
Looking at debate on this forum i've never seen any supporter suggest the "Eddie was right and it was a third party who entered the apartment and did it and both parents are completely innocent" theory. Mr Redwood was obviously considering it IMO. It's not anti-parent at all. So why do no supporters consider it? It could explain the bedroom lounge and garden alerts (and the clothing and vehicle alerts by transference onto clothes that were laying around in apartment that night).
If Madeleine was lifted by a predator it was done within a very tight time frame ... a very few minutes. There simply was no time for anyone to hang around with a body and there would have been many more areas of contamination to cause 'alerts'.The very tight time frame could be solved if a hypothetical third party perp reenters the apartment to retreive something, long after the alarm. Anyone could walk in and out.
Did Eddie once even cast a glance at a door handle?
I firmly believe madeleine was alive when she left the apartment.
With reference to the DCI and his thoughts ... it is my opinion that the investigation latterly came into possession of intelligence which suggested the worst case scenario that Madeleine was dead. This had to be checked out ... and I believe that is why Tito and Muzzy checked out the mound area.
14 minutes in total for all the other apartments, and just short of an hour for apartment 5aI had no idea there was such a huge discrepancy in the time spent on the apartment searches (of course a similar discrepancy on the car searches is obvious from watching the video). No doubt the dog apologists will have a good reason for this.
Doubtless that was the dogs' fault ....
I had no idea there was such a huge discrepancy in the time spent on the apartment searches (of course a similar discrepancy on the car searches is obvious from watching the video). No doubt the dog apologists will have a good reason for this.
Have you seen the unedited videos ?I've seen the long version of the car search, and no video whatsoever of the non-5a apartment searches.
I had no idea there was such a huge discrepancy in the time spent on the apartment searches (of course a similar discrepancy on the car searches is obvious from watching the video). No doubt the dog apologists will have a good reason for this.Eddie was in 5A longer because of the large amount of interest he showed from the moment of reaching the front door.
Eddie was in 5A longer because of the large amount of interest he showed from the moment of reaching the front door.It would be interesting to compare his behaviour on entering 5a with his behaviour on entering one of the other apartments - why are those videos not available? Were those searches actually video'ed at all?
It would be interesting to compare his behaviour on entering 5a with his behaviour on entering one of the other apartments - why are those videos not available? Were those searches actually video'ed at all?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8&feature=youtu.be&t=38m10s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8&feature=youtu.be&t=38m10sThanks. Never seen that before. Why were these searches done at night but Apt 5a during daylight hours, anyone know? What body language is Eddie not exhibiting as he enters the other apartments that he does within 2 minutes of entering Apt 5a?
It's on this video.
Also, why does Grime ask Eddie to smell inside a washing machine? And he did seem very interested in under the beds in one of the other apartments, despite what Grime tells us - that he wasn't interested!
Also, why does Grime ask Eddie to smell inside a washing machine? And he did seem very interested in under the beds in one of the other apartments, despite what Grime tells us - that he wasn't interested!
Also, why does Grime ask Eddie to smell inside a washing machine? And he did seem very interested in under the beds in one of the other apartments, despite what Grime tells us - that he wasn't interested!
If Madeleine was lifted by a predator it was done within a very tight time frame ... a very few minutes. There simply was no time for anyone to hang around with a body and there would have been many more areas of contamination to cause 'alerts'.I like your line of thought, but I have to raise some questions.
Did Eddie once even cast a glance at a door handle?
I firmly believe madeleine was alive when she left the apartment.
With reference to the DCI and his thoughts ... it is my opinion that the investigation latterly came into possession of intelligence which suggested the worst case scenario that Madeleine was dead. This had to be checked out ... and I believe that is why Tito and Muzzy checked out the mound area.
I like your line of thought, but I have to raise some questions.Did the PJ not have any input into these searches? If not, why not?
The mound is not unimportant to Luz, as media reports intimated at the time. Quite the opposite, it is central, and an integral part of the traffic system, particularly the one way system. By this, I mean it is not quiet, it is fairly busy.
Changing tack, here is Kirsty Louise Maryann, childcare worker who participated in the search on 3 / 4 May 07.
"Questioned, the deponent states that beyond this situation, on another occasion, an event caught her attention. An individual of the male sex, in Praia da Luz, next to a café, whose name she does not know, was playing a guitar until the day of the facts, now under investigation. on the night Maddie disappeared and while she was involved with a group searching, mentioned prior, they encountered a vehicle, whose make and model she does not know, of while colour, commercial, parked on top of a hill, where, she cannot identify. At this point, some of the group elements banged on the window of the vehicle and the back doors and saw the person who habitually played the guitar on the beach. He was covered with blankets, reading a book and drinking a beer, with the help of a flashlight. Questioned, they did were not able to observe in detail the interior of the vehicle. She add that the individual was asked whether he had seen a minor of about four years of age and the same responded, jocularly, that on that night, no one knocked on the doors of his vehicle."
There are two areas within Luz where people park overnight their camper vans or, in this case, a Ford Escort van.
One is south of the Paraíso - not the restaurant, but the urbanisation immediately west of the mound. That area is flat as a pancake, so it can be ruled out.
The other is on top of the mound, up a hill that Kirsty had no reason to recognise.
Nor did SY, since they have not visited the crime scene, in any real sense.
For these reasons, I do not think that SY was working on intelligence. If I am gracious, I think they were working on nearness. If I am not, they were working on ignorance.
Does anyone know how minutes between entering Apt5a and the dog's first alert?
It would be interesting to compare his behaviour on entering 5a with his behaviour on entering one of the other apartments - why are those videos not available? Were those searches actually video'ed at all?
How long have you followed this case? And you do not know if the other apartment searches were video'd? Interesting.I thought you'd decided to ignore my shameful, worthless posts? If I did know that there was video footage ofthe other apartment searches I had forgotten. Unlike some people I did not do an MA in McCann Studies and only got a C at A-Level, I do apologise.
The answer to your questionfrom Pegasus a short while ago on this thread:-
Behaviour outside each apartment http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8
5A 13:15
5B 38:10
5D 41:39
5H 46:37
4G 49:58
As for your being perplexed about day and night searches, the apartment searches commenced early evening when still light and finished when it was dark, AFAIAW the dogs abilities are not affected by any lack of vitamin D in the atmosphere....
This is interesting:
Inspection of the apartments.
Date: July 31st 2007 - 8pm. Report:
Participants:
PJ: Tavares A. & Ricardo P. Inspectors
UK: Mark Harrison, Martin Grime (UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert),
Eddie & Keela (English Springers)
Silvia B. Manager of the Ocean Club complex.
On that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A:
From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road. [/u]
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10 (should it be 9.10?) The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
9.49 to 10pm: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.
Date: 01 ao? 2007 - 06h00
I may be missing something (I frequently do) but from that record, it would seem that Eddie's first alerts were 10 minutes and 8 minutes respectively before he set paw inside the apartment.
They are fiendishly clever, these dogs ....
I thought you'd decided to ignore my shameful, worthless posts? If I did know that there was video footage ofthe other apartment searches I had forgotten. Unlike some people I did not do an MA in McCann Studies and only got a C at A-Level, I do apologise.
Look at it again, Alfred.
The dogs went through between 8.30 and 9.20
The first alerts are recorded at 8.20 and 8.22, 10 minutes and 8 minutes respectively before the dogs entered the apartment ....
It is obviously a typo, hardly anythng to get excited about, or make anyone think dogs were psychic, but it would help if you only posted information from the PJ files and not blogs...and we have gone over this before, why you would want to keep regurgitating stuff is anyone's guess
*&*%£
I did but on this occasion responded to a normal question so as a helpful human being ie I decided to be helpful....if that bothers you then I shall refrain in the future, and let you do your own donkey work, thanks for the thanks as wellThank you for being helpful.
8((()*/
As for sarcastic remarks about a levels and MAs, it's as simple as being well informed as much as possible before you stick your oar in and arguing about any case...uninformed comments and questions are ok, the worst offenders are those that pretend they have read ALL the files but make themselves look so silly when they never even quote them or pass comment, you will be glad to hear you're not in that particular tribe
I was posting information from the files:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
No you were posting something that got shoved into the online official files but is not a PJ document...and you KNOW this so I yet again find you extremely disingenuousWhy would the blogger herself draw attention to the fact that it didn"t make sense then? Obviously it wasn't her mistake.
Would it be fair to assume that the dog searches of Apt 5a began at 8pm or not?
Thank you for being helpful.So much appreciated
Why would the blogger herself draw attention to the fact that it didn"t make sense then? Obviously it wasn't her mistake.No it was the other bloggers mistake once you find the actual PJ document it might help
The relevant section is the 4th down marked by the dark blue band in this link.
Make your own judgment:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
No it was the other bloggers mistake once you find the actual PJ document it might helpFor some reason the source document does not appear together with the blogger's translation. If you can find it I'd be much obliged once again.
For some reason the source document does not appear together with the blogger's translation. If you can find it I'd be much obliged once again.
For some reason the source document does not appear together with the blogger's translation. If you can find it I'd be much obliged once again.
The source document for the NON PJ document, is lost in the ether as that blog doesn't exist anymore, the only relevant piece of info here is the PJ document of the apartment searches with times, Here you go (first entry) albeit there is another typo it seems at the start, the essence is all there...it took four minutes from entry into 5a (a question you or someone else asked before) to first cadaver dog alertThanks, but where on that PJ document does it make that clear? I can't see it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm#2054
I am totally lost.
How on earth are the uninitiated supposed to know what is allegedly a bloggers work when it is presented as part and parcel of the files? Why is Anna Esse's translation more suspect than all the others?
Thanks, but where on that PJ document does it make that clear? I can't see it.
After the first few paragraphs under IN APARTMENT 5A:-OK, but then what is the reference to 20.00hrs at the top of the report for? What was happening in the 20 mnutes prior to Eddie entering the apartment?
At 2020
(Given the search began at 2016, IE 2020-2016=4)
Would copy and paste but my tablet is temperamental
OK, but then what is the reference to 20.00hrs at the top of the report for? What was happening in the 20 mnutes prior to Eddie entering the apartment?
I really don't know Alfred, perhaps that's the time they all congregated and talked procedure or something...further down its pretty clear specific times are given for entry and alerts...that's allOK, thanks for your help.
OK, thanks for your help.
it's very touching you are concerned with "uniniated" people who might just stumble on the files and maybe fret about a missing ten minutes
No one said Anna Ese's translation was suspect or more or less susoect than any others
the source document is the non existent entity, a wasted half an hour "initiated"by ferryman which was a much ado about nothng of essence, typos are a plenty in both British and Portuguese documents, it doesn't take much brain power to see past them,oh well
OK, thanks for your help.
Please try if at all possible to be a bit less aggressive and rude in your responses. The uninitiated to whom I refer in my post is me. As far as I can see that particular entry in the files has as much validity as anything else contained therein yet apparently it is not kosher for some.
In my opinion it most certainly is a perfect example of the unreliability of the internet files and why reliance on them is a mugs game.
same advice to you
NO that entry has NOT the same validity, it has NO PJ file connected to it..if YOU want to connect that SINGLE erroneous entry in the files to all the files and then label all the files as unreliable then your illogical prerogative....what you thnk it contains that is so important anyway to make a fuss about it like a ferryman did is beyond me.
Mark Harrison stated that the videos taken by the PJ were date and time stamped.Eddie does seem to have more vim and vigour to him in 5a but then am I right in thinking it was the first (and longest) search. Perhaps his appetite for sniffing out corpses had waned slightly as the night wore on...?
The videos posted by Levy on the internet have no date and time stamp. They are therefore not the videos mentioned by Mark Harrison.
Between 2:10 and 2:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lrrMoUr3OA there are glimpses of the viewfinder of another camcorder and the shadow of the cameraman. In my opinion taking the official evidential video complete with the necessary date and time stamp.
No wonder Eddie was excited and doing his stuff for the cameras ... he had more of them pointing at him in that confined space than Princess Diana on a bad day.
Eddie does seem to have more vim and vigour to him in 5a but then am I right in thinking it was the first (and longest) search. Perhaps his appetite for sniffing out corpses had waned slightly as the night wore on...?
There is an explanation for his demeanor in 5A;
Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
There is an explanation for his demeanor in 5A;
Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
so what do the alerts tell us...nothing
There is an explanation for his demeanor in 5A;Yes, that is one explanation, however as an ex-dog owner myself I too am famiiar with the over-excited animal that is let off the leash on the first walk of the day. The over-exuberance does eventually subside. Please note, I'm not saying Eddie was not alerting to cadaver odour, or trying to diss him in any way, just thinking out of the box.
Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The only way the dogs would have told us nothing was if they didn't alert. They did alert, which tells us there could have been a dead body in 5A.
The only way the dogs would have told us nothing was if they didn't alert. They did alert, which tells us there could have been a dead body in 5A.
why do supporters fear the dogs so much??
There is nothing whatsoever for anyone (even the McCanns) to fear from the dogs. Their alerts were (and remain) meaningless without corroborating evidence. As it is extraordinarily unlikely that corroborating evidence to support these alerts will be found now, it's really time for everyone to move on, dog lovers and sceptics alike.
There is nothing whatsoever for anyone (even the McCanns) to fear from the dogs. Their alerts were (and remain) meaningless without corroborating evidence. As it is extraordinarily unlikely that corroborating evidence to support these alerts will be found now, it's really time for everyone to move on, dog lovers and sceptics alike.
but we know that without the dogs...
How?
Wot and dump a thread that has pushing 50 posts a day? Anyway how long do you think it would be before Mr Grime, Sr Amaral and the dogs are worked into a thread about, say, which travel agent the party used?
Not forgetting dissing Grime and doggy talk diverts from talking about what the FSS said.
the reason the thread lasts so long is the sceptics simply don't understand the significance of the alerts...as amaral didn't
According to whom?
An expert on the utilisation of K9s in the field or a few internet Googlers?
According to whom?
An expert on the utilisation of K9s in the field or a few internet Googlers?
According to whom?
An expert on the utilisation of K9s in the field or a few internet Googlers?
why do supporters fear the dogs so much??
According to whom?
An expert on the utilisation of K9s in the field or a few internet Googlers?
They have forgotten it seems Alice, they we can see through them, and their motives for posting on here in defense of the mccanns.
Please try to remember that we all have right to do that.
They have forgotten it seems Alice, they we can see through them, and their motives for posting on here in defense of the mccanns.
the fact that you think you understand my motive for posting on here shows how deluded you are
Most importantly, by making the comments (and employing the tactics!) he does, Stephen betrays his own motives ....
Now that's another classic coming from you. *&*%£
Indeed! Some posts are quite clearly meant to goad - never removed but mine are always a good target. I get so bored with it.... I'm Off.Who do you perceive as the b........s on here then?
T/C DLTBGYD! ?>)()< 8**8:/:
OK, but then what is the reference to 20.00hrs at the top of the report for? What was happening in the 20 mnutes prior to Eddie entering the apartment?20:00 would be the scheduled time when the UK/PJ team's vehicles arrive and park opposite block 5.
20:00 would be the scheduled time when the UK/PJ team's vehicles arrive and park opposite block 5.Really? OK, if you say so.
Your 20 minutes is simply the time for the UK and PJ elements of the team to congregate, briefly go over the plan of action, meet with the holder of keys, and unlock the first apartment.
They have forgotten it seems Alice, they we can see through them, and their motives for posting on here in defense of the mccanns.
according to me...
did you see the posts where three posters claimed Grime had stated that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour...they are still there.....that's absolute proof they do not understand the alerts
Really? OK, if you say so.I watched the video.
I would argue that it's those who want us to believe that these trained experienced dogs alert to saliva, garden fertilizer and pig's blood who don't understand the alerts.
and I would argue that as you claimed Grime said eddie alerted to cadaver odour you do not understand the alertsI agree that even highly experienced UK police officers are capable of completely misinterpreting an EVRD alert.
I watched the video.Is there a 20 minute unedited section showing the activities you describe?
Would you not say that by waiting until after both inspections at villa and gym to issue PJ personnel with translated NPIA instructions on how to conduct inspections in buildings and vehicles, Harrison was tacitly calling into question the expertise of Grime?
Is there a 20 minute unedited section showing the activities you describe?No. What would be the the point of filming the vehicles arriving and the UK/PJ elements meeting and key holder arriving and the door being unlocked? Those minutes are irrelevant.
I would say this is nothing to do with whether or not sceptics understand the alerts which was the subject of my post.
we have established that amaral misunderstood the alerts...without any expert opinion neededAre you perchance a member of one of the world's royal families?
we have established that amaral misunderstood the alerts...without any expert opinion needed
and I would argue that as you claimed Grime said eddie alerted to cadaver odour you do not understand the alerts
My reply to that is that you didn't understand what Grime said. 8(>((
if you want to pretend you cannot follow the perfect logic I have posted on this matter so be it. It's a bit tiresome when sceptics such as yourself continually criticise posts such as mine but ignore some absolute BS posted by your fellow sceptics...it lowers the tonewell said!
No. What would be the the point of filming the vehicles arriving and the UK/PJ elements meeting and key holder arriving and the door being unlocked? Those minutes are irrelevant.I have not claimed anything of the sort, you claimed that you knew what had happened in the first 20 minutes because you had watched the video, however if the first 20 minutes were not videoed then your explanation is flawed, is it not?
You could claim all the dog videos are false, because they show no-one using the toilet, which is impossible with that many UK and PJ in the team, surely one of them must have. Again - it was not filmed, because it is irrelevant.
You could claim that all the dog intelligence is meaningless, because in the video Eddie and his handler sometimes appear to teleport instantly from one apartment to the next. Etc Etc
By 'we' I assume you mean yourself and like minded posters. I for one am not in agreement with you on most points.Amaral claims in his book that the dog alerts prove that Madeleine's body had lain in Apartment 5a. Is he correct?
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
well said!Perhaps you would like to post a link where someone more than a mere gash hand on the topic has stated "The sceptics do not understand the dog alerts".
I would say this is nothing to do with whether or not sceptics understand the alerts which was the subject of my post.
Perhaps you would like to post a link where someone more than a mere gash hand on the topic has stated "The sceptics do not understand the dog alerts".
Otherwise we a dealing with semantics.
Perhaps you would like to post a link where someone more than a mere gash hand on the topic has stated "The sceptics do not understand the dog alerts".
Otherwise we a dealing with semantics.
we are dealing with facts...with what Grime actually states...
Harrison understood the dog alerts and reached no firm conclusion about whether Madeleine was alive or dead.It's remarkable how "critisism" can conjured up out of thin air and semantics.
He also expressed (tacit) criticism of Grime.
It's remarkable how "critisism" can conjured up out of thin air and semantics.
Someone not mentioning something, that is very obvious, is not critisism
For example MH flew over PDL in a helicopter in July 2007 and his report of that flight mysteriously fails to even mention the pilot. Is that (tacit) critisism of the pilot? No.
A brief reminder.
The dogs made alerts.
That is what they were trained to do.
Dogs have no agenda, they respond to stimuli, as these did
The forensic results indicated human remains but no more than that.
Since the 3 rd May 2007, not one trace of Madeleine, despite all the publicity surrounding the case.
Those who want to believe she will return alive and unharmed are welcome to their fantasies.
@Ferryman MH's contract stated that he was to provide enduring advice as the investigation progressed.
It is IMO obvious he was involved in the decision on 1st/2nd Aug 2007 to get a warrant for the villa.
Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the villa EVRD search?
Strange, I imagined I saw him in that video.
Can you supply the reference, please?Reference for MH's remit, or the villa warrant approved on 2nd Aug 2007, or for the villa video?
Perhaps you would like to post a link where someone more than a mere gash hand on the topic has stated "The sceptics do not understand the dog alerts".What is a gash hand? It is not a term I am familiar with, sorry.
Otherwise we a dealing with semantics.
What is a gash hand? It is not a term I am familiar with, sorry.
Reference for MH's remit, or the villa warrant approved on 2nd Aug 2007, or for the villa video?
What is a gash hand? It is not a term I am familiar with, sorry.
Gash Hand is a Naval term for someone surplus to requirements.It seems that Eddie is surplus to the requirements of some theories
You would place sceptics' understanding of alerts above the understanding of Harrison?
It seems that Eddie is surplus to the requirements of some theories
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gash-handWell you learn something new every day. So, what is it you want me to post a link to anyway, and why? I was simply agreeing with Davel's post, I need supply nothing apart from proof of my agreement, which you already have.
gash hand
Definition of gash hand in English:
noun
A person not assigned a particular job; a general dogsbody.
Origin
1940s; earliest use found in The British Medical Journal.
In my profession generally further refined to mean someone without the necessary specialist knowledge of or training in the subject matter under discussion.
As Harrison is or was a visiting professor in his subject I doubt anyone on here has a superior knowledge and understanding of his particular field.
Mr (professor?) Harrison appears to have said many things but I believe these to be relevant.
“The use of a specialist EVRD and CSI dog could potentially indicate on whether Madeleine’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 has been removed”. He later in the same document qualifies this to say it is “intelligence rather than evidence”. So we have a sort of dichotomy: intelligence v evidence.
He also says:
“This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive”.
As Harrison is or was a visiting professor in his subject I doubt anyone on here has a superior knowledge and understanding of his particular field.
Mr (professor?) Harrison appears to have said many things but I believe these to be relevant.
“The use of a specialist EVRD and CSI dog could potentially indicate on whether Madeleine’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 has been removed”. He later in the same document qualifies this to say it is “intelligence rather than evidence”. So we have a sort of dichotomy: intelligence v evidence.
He also says:
“This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive”.
As Harrison is or was a visiting professor in his subject I doubt anyone on here has a superior knowledge and understanding of his particular field.
Mr (professor?) Harrison appears to have said many things but I believe these to be relevant.
“The use of a specialist EVRD and CSI dog could potentially indicate on whether Madeleine’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 has been removed”. He later in the same document qualifies this to say it is “intelligence rather than evidence”. So we have a sort of dichotomy: intelligence v evidence.
He also says:
“This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive”.
The part I underline is perplexing, I do agree.
I can't think Harrison didn't know that we don't send (and never have sent) dogs to America to be trained on human remains.
There are at least two (separate) FOI answers that confirm Eddie was no exception to the general rule.
It is clear from Harrison's reports that he simply quit trying to sustain an untruth he realised was unsustainable.
On your other point, yes, Harrison seems to have been (genuinely) impressed with the efforts of the GNR dog-handlers to try to find Madeleine, and I am very happy to respect Harrison's professional judgement on that one.
To what personal advantage?
No.
Tacit criticism (of Grime) is Harrison referring to the participation of Grime and his dogs in inspections he (Harrison!) recommended: holiday apartments, the Murats' villa and areas in and around PdL; but excluding reference to Grime and his dogs in inspections he (Harrison) had nothing to do with; the places or things Madeleine never went near:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
I can only find one mention of Grime by Harrison, when he refers in his rog interview to a meeting with various people including Grime. I can't find any other mention of Grime by name.
A brief reminder.
The dogs made alerts.
That is what they were trained to do.
Dogs have no agenda, they respond to stimuli, as these did
The forensic results indicated human remains but no more than that.
Since the 3 rd May 2007, not one trace of Madeleine, despite all the publicity surrounding the case.
Those who want to believe she will return alive and unharmed are welcome to their fantasies.
P.S. Not one piece of evidence, let alone forensics to indicate abduction. The investigation remains at ground zero. So no change on that.
Now who said this I wonder ?
'The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.'
&%+((£
The part I underline is perplexing, I do agree.
I can't think Harrison didn't know that we don't send (and never have sent) dogs to America to be trained on human remains.
There are at least two (separate) FOI answers that confirm Eddie was no exception to the general rule.
It is clear from Harrison's reports that he simply quit trying to sustain an untruth he realised was unsustainable.
On your other point, yes, Harrison seems to have been (genuinely) impressed with the efforts of the GNR dog-handlers to try to find Madeleine, and I am very happy to respect Harrison's professional judgement on that one.
From Harrison's report, this is where he makes reference to the places Madeleine neither lived in nor went near:
In complying with these terms [Harrison's terms of reference] I undertook a series of briefings and site visits. These were with GNR and PJ personnel who had been involved in the previous searches conducted the week following Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in Praia da Luz.
The output of this process of reconnaissance and review was a written document entitled “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document” (see appendix 2) and submitted to the PJ with copies supplied to Leicestershire Police and NPIA on 23-07-07.
It recommended considering re searching:
- All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.
- The villa and garden occupied by Robert Murat and any vehicles he had access to.
- Areas of wasteland adjacent to Murat’s and the McCann’s apartment.
- Areas of the beach in Praia da Luz.
- A portion of the coastline east of Praia da Luz.
These recommendations were based on the fact that these areas had not been previously searched with the specific intent to locate Madeleine McCann’s concealed and deceased body and that the areas recommended afforded likely and obvious places to consider for concealment in such an investigation.
Do you get the impression Harrison words that as if they are his recommendations?
I don't.
And notice a conspicuous absence: no reference to the gym.
How did that come about?
The only explanation I am aware of is the one in Amaral's book.
Now who said this I wonder ?
'The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.'
&%+((£
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
He (Eddie) 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's "Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-16.html
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
He (Eddie) 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's "Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-16.html
Are you saying that he didn't write and submit the Report 'Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document'?
Martin Grime.
Clearly not referring to Eddie's shall I/Shan't I uncertainty with cuddle-cat.
Or the clothing he could find no trace of a scent of in the villa, but could, apparently, detect in the gym
SYP confirmed in an FOI answer that Eddie's training was in conformance with standard ACPO guidelines, then it gave a link to the ACPO dog training manual which says nothing about sending dogs to America to be trained on human remains.
And they confirmed in a separate answer (I have) that no report confirming this apparent training in America was received by SYP.
No report was received by SYP. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means no report was received.
Have you seen the unedited videos ?
The dogs are trained to react and that is what they did.
No report was received by SYP. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means no report was received.
Have you seen the unedited videos ?
The dogs are trained to react and that is what they did.
Harrison is.
It recommended .... (Harrison's words)
You are wrong;
The terms of assistance we agreed to provide were directed by the PJ Regional Director, Guilhermino ENCARNACO after consultation with DI Neil HOLDEN of the Leicestershire Police and myself, the details of which are on page two of the document I authored, titled “Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann” dated 23.07.2007 and presented as evidence MH4.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
Semantics.
Harrison submitted a report containing other people's ideas and recommendations (as well as his own)
Cite?
Bit like claiming to have a science degree but not having the certificate to back it up.
Cite already given.
Read upstream of this thread ....
, sorry,
Bit like claiming to have a science degree but not having the certificate to back it up.Oh , do we have another a Grime libeller and believer in Ferrymans twisted personal interpretations of info as facts? Steady on! It will get you nowhere fast. Why don't you write to the FBI? ASk them if Grime is lying in his CV? You will be sent away with a flea in your ear.
Apology richly deserved and accepted.
In your dreams! You suggested that Harrison didn't write the report titled 'Decision support document in the search for Madeleine McCann'. I provided a reference where he said he wrote it. You then accepted he wrote it but stated it contained other people's ideas as well as his. You haven't provided anything which demonstrates the truth of that statement.
You need to read my subsequent post.
I fell into the trap of your strawman (non)'argument', then corrected.
No fault of the dog, but Eddie contributed nothing to the sum of knowledge about what happened (or didn't happen!) to Madeleine.I am most interested to learn how Eddie confirmed that.
Perhaps not strictly true.
Eddie certainly confirmed that Madeleine went nowhere near the Renault Scenic.
But after that, you struggle ....
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please, do us both a favour and provide back-up for your statement that harrison's report contained other people's ideas. Otherwise I can only conclude that you are waffling.
I am most interested to learn how Eddie confirmed that.
Surely if his alerts are as meaningless as you say, nothing can be deduced from them?
Eddie alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key, but didn't alert to the boot.Eddie was never put in the boot.
Eddie was never put in the boot.
He alerted to air coming out of the drain hole in the bottom of the driver's door.
He alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key (twice)Before that, he alerted to air coming out of the interior of the car.
Before that, he alerted to air coming out of the interior of the car.
His nose was exactly at the driver door drain hole.
The air he was sniffing was IMO a well-mixed combination of air from every part of the car interior.
Including for example the area in the boot floor where the 3rd row of seats goes when they are down, but which when the 3rd row of seats is up provides an extra luggage space under a boot floor panel.
Before that, he alerted to air coming out of the interior of the car.
His nose was exactly at the driver door drain hole.
The air he was sniffing was IMO a well-mixed combination of air from every part of the car interior.
Including for example the area in the boot floor where the 3rd row of seats goes when they are down, but which when the 3rd row of seats is up provides an extra luggage space under a boot floor panel.
I think accumulating is the wrong word. Assuming the molecules Eddie alerted to came from a bag of grass cuttings (there was an article about grass recently), that bag would only have been in the car for about five minutes, so the mown grass smell would only accumulate for about five minutes, after that I think it would over weeks gradually reduce.
How long had the scent been accumulating in the car, bearing in mind the unnamed witness Amaral introduced who had seen the Scenic boot open every night?
Read upstream of the thread. It's all there.
I think accumulating is the wrong word. Assuming the molecules Eddie alerted to came from a bag of grass cuttings (there was an article about grass recently), that bag would only have been in the car for about five minutes, so the mown grass smell would only accumulate for about five minutes, after that I think it would over weeks gradually reduce.
I have and it isn't.
The car was parked and the engine off when Eddie inspected it.
Would you not expect the molecules to be pushed to the rear of the car & out through the ventilation vents there when the vehicle was being driven & the air conditioning in use? Why didn't Eddie alert at the tailgate seal?
Yes it is
The car was parked and the engine off when Eddie inspected it.
If air-conditioning was on during the drive from PDL to the pretendy meeting and then to the garage, the air inside the car would be much cooler than outside. So after it was parked, the air flow would be heavy cool air going out the lower vents, replaced by warmer outside air going in the higher vents.
Thankyou Misty.
I'm afraid childish argument isn't my thing. I rest my case.
So you'll be conceding defeat with good grace, then!
That's good.
no sane rational logical person could or would concede so called defeat to a bunch of twisted lies which everyone can see so dream on FM but do have such a lovely evening thnking up some more
8((()*/
We don't know what the air temperature was in the underground car park to determine what temperature change may have taken place in the Scenic but Eddie should have indicated at all the lower vents if there was cadaver odour in the car?Convection currents inside a parked car may cause air to come out one hole more than another IMO.
The key fob would never have been stored in the side pocket as a matter of course, so how long would it have had to be in situ before the odour from the tiny blood speck had diffused to 3-5m from the vehicle?
You've been reading Amaral's book?
That'll learn you ....
Sleep well.
But don't let Amaral's book give you nightmares ....
Convection currents inside a parked car may cause air to come out one hole more than another IMO.
IMO Eddie's alert at base of driver door was alert to mixed air coming from every part of the interior passenger/boot areas.
Why not the passenger door also?The drain hole is same size.
The drain hole is same size.
But the seal on the driver door is much more worn than the seals on the passenger doors or boot door.
That's a bit of speculation on your part, I think. IMO the passenger door would have been equally as well used (if not more so with the passengers accessing the rear) whilst the Scenic was on hire to the McCanns. I believe the car only had around 3000km on the clock when they hired it.The driver door is the most used, it gets used every journey..
The driver door is the most used, it gets used every journey..
The 3 passenger doors are used only when there are passengers.
Would you not expect the molecules to be pushed to the rear of the car & out through the ventilation vents there when the vehicle was being driven & the air conditioning in use? Why didn't Eddie alert at the tailgate seal?
I would presume the vehicle would have had air conditioning, which would have a significant impact on the dispersal of airborne materials.
Does Eddie's alert in the garage merit further interminable discussion?
It is proven that when Eddie was given the choice of alerting to a vehicle some still think was reeking of cadaver odour ... and alerting to a key fob buried in sand ... Eddie chose the key fob.
Were samples of the 'sand' taken to be tested ?
I take it you are being facetious. The test was carried out by the best specialists to hand at the time ... are you questioning the methodology they used?
I take it you are being facetious. The test was carried out by the best specialists to hand at the time ... are you questioning the methodology they used?
what about the bucket the sand was in.....what about everything the sand and bucket had been in contact with...and of course...had any of the police involved had contact with a cadaver...the list is endless and that is why the alerts themselves are meaningless
I have always had my reservations about the key fob actually being in the sand. It seemed a strange thing to do. More like the demonstration of a party trick than a genuine investigation.
I have always had my reservations about the key fob actually being in the sand. It seemed a strange thing to do. More like the demonstration of a party trick than a genuine investigation.
The big difference however being that a party trick has a predetermined outcome whereas an investigation by its very nature is just that, an investigation. Unless of course you are claiming the outcome was engineered??
The big difference however being that a party trick has a predetermined outcome whereas an investigation by its very nature is just that, an investigation. Unless of course you are claiming the outcome was engineered??
I don't think for a minute that the outcome was engineered ... my initial concern was contamination of some kind since the fob was in direct contact with the sand.
Usually evidence is bagged immediately.
My concern was way before watching the numerous training exercises available on the internet, reading blogs and papers. But having read all that ... I still do not understand what went on with the sand and the key fob.
This was no training exercise using known quantifiable materials. The key fob was evidence in the case of a missing child and my gut feeling is that was not the way to handle evidence. Once removed from the vehicle and the vehicle ignored by the cadaver dog ... surely it wasn't necessary for the investigators on the ground to establish that there was blood on the key fob ... that was for a forensic examination to determine.
The big difference however being that a party trick has a predetermined outcome whereas an investigation by its very nature is just that, an investigation. Unless of course you are claiming the outcome was engineered??
So you'll be conceding defeat with good grace, then!
That's good.
'... known quantifiable materials...'
What precisely do you think that means ?
Are you referring to the presence of specific 'substances' which would be qualitative, and/or concentrations of specific substances ?
To which substances are you referring to exactly ?
It's kind of like a long stop.
The dogs alert but:
the alerts are meaningless; the dogs will alert to any substance you care to name; the dogs can be "gerrymandered"; the handler is bent; the handlers handler is bent; it was all a trumped up job. One of them has to stick surely? 8(0(*
Nonetheless these views did not form part of the archiving process. Mind you following the usual trains of thought the archiving process was imprecise, based on fallacious information or just plain bent.
It's kind of like a long stop.
The dogs alert but:
the alerts are meaningless; the dogs will alert to any substance you care to name; the dogs can be "gerrymandered"; the handler is bent; the handlers handler is bent; it was all a trumped up job. One of them has to stick surely? 8(0(*
Nonetheless these views did not form part of the archiving process. Mind you following the usual trains of thought the archiving process was imprecise, based on fallacious information or just plain bent.
You seem to be misunderstanding my post in which I refer to training materials. Unless it is your opinion that there is a haphazard selection of substances used in training of which the trainers have no knowledge.
I don't quite see how that would work.
I understand you perfectly well.
The dogs, in whatever field of perorations they are used, are trained on a certain group of substances.
I presume you do understand the difference between 'qualitative and quantitative' ?
I understand you perfectly well.
The dogs, in whatever field of perorations they are used, are trained on a certain group of substances.
I presume you do understand the difference between 'qualitative and quantitative' ?
I'm back, refreshed and ready to make my point again. I don't need an answer unless supported by references, thank you.
Your first assertion was that Harrison criticised Grime (tacitly). To support this assertion you suggested that Harrison only referred to Grime and the dogs when he spoke about searches recommended by Harrison, not when referring to the searches Harrison had nothing to do with (places or things which Madeleine never went near).
All the searches carried out were chosen following Harrison's recommendations in his reports, with the possible exception of the screening of items taken from the McCann's villa. I would guess that the decision to carry out those screenings arose after the alerts in G5A.
The part I underline is wrong. Harrison's wording of those searches he recommended is very different from Harrison's wording for those searches he had nothing to do with; the places Madeleine never lived in or went near. It is undoubtedly deliberate (by Harrison) that those searches Harrison recommended he acknowledges the input of Grime and his dogs.
Your second assertion was that Harrison didn't write the report 'Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document'.
Later amended to Harrison included in his report recommendations not his (which is correct)
Harrison actually wrote two reports for the PJ. The one above and another one entitled 'Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann—Praia da Luz & Marina'
Harrison wrote 3 reports.
The reports were submitted and then a meeting was held;
At both meetings, PJ agents were present and they were presided over by the Regional Director of the PJ Guilhermino ENCARNCAO who selected and established the priorities for the search areas.
Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
In my original post I said ...
"I have always had my reservations about the key fob actually being in the sand. It seemed a strange thing to do. More like the demonstration of a party trick than a genuine investigation."
The only interpretation I can put on your response is one of total misunderstanding.
The big difference however being that a party trick has a predetermined outcome whereas an investigation by its very nature is just that, an investigation. Unless of course you are claiming the outcome was engineered??
Once you understand the role of the dogs is to find evidence and it's the evidence they find which is important not the alerts..... Then it will all make sense to you
I understood the role of dogs long before I signed up here.I don't understand the role of the dogs, so what is it?
The real question, where the jury remains out, is do you?
Please provide references for your replies.
I understood the role of dogs long before I signed up here.
The real question, where the jury remains out, is do you?
I don't understand the role of the dogs, so what is it?
The role of the dogs is to find evidence
Am I wrong
I'm certainly not
Yet you post as if you believe you do &%+((£I thought I did but you've made me doubt myself so I'd be grateful if you could enlighten me, thanks in advance.
The role of the dogs is to detect and react to scents it has been trained to react to.There is a quote by Harrison where he says the role of the dogs is to discover forensically retrievable evidence
Sometimes those scents will be germane to a criminal enquiry; sometimes not.
And sometimes (mostly if the dog is poorly handled) a reaction will be for reason(s) other than the presence of a scent it is trained to react to ....
There is a quote by Harrison where he says the role of the dogs is to discover forensically retrievable evidence
I guess it all turns on specific definition of role; intended or specific purpose: raison d'etre
Occasionally, the role will not be fulfilled, even where a dog reacts within it scent and training range.
Still, the role remains the same ...
Probably is right ....
The role of the dogs is to detect and react to scents it has been trained to react to.
Sometimes those scents will be germane to a criminal enquiry; sometimes not.
And sometimes (mostly if the dog is poorly handled) a reaction will be for reason(s) other than the presence of a scent it is trained to react to ....
................ 'if the dog is poorly handled' @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
So speaketh one of 'team mccann'. 8(*(
Why, in your opinion, did Harrison describe both inspections at villa and gym as PJ exercises?
Do you think it significant that Harrison waited until after both those inspections to issue the PJ with translated instructions on how to conduct inspections in buildings and vehicles?
I thought I did but you've made me doubt myself so I'd be grateful if you could enlighten me, thanks in advance.
It's simple really try this first: "For what would you use an M20 ring spanner"?Had the dog recovered any human remains that would be evidence
So by extension:
"The role of the dogs is to assist in the locating of deceased human’s remains. Victim Remains Recovery Dogs are trained to smell decomposition. Blood Screening Dogs are trained to smell blood. The dogs are used as a coarse screening tool to narrow down search areas for the CSIs, SOCOs call ‘em what you will".
Just as an aside verbal cues and directional cues are common practice.
Like I don't know of an M20 spaniard that will jump on a bolt without me cuing it !
The dog's a tool nothing more nothing less.
It's simple really try this first: "For what would you use an M20 ring spanner"?Hot dang! I DID know what the role of the dogs was after all, but thanks for confirming. What was their role in Apartment 5a though, where it was pretty obvious there were no bits of body lying about?
So by extension:
"The role of the dogs is to assist in the locating of deceased human’s remains. Victim Remains Recovery Dogs are trained to smell decomposition. Blood Screening Dogs are trained to smell blood. The dogs are used as a coarse screening tool to narrow down search areas for the CSIs, SOCOs call ‘em what you will".
Just as an aside verbal cues and directional cues are common practice.
Like I don't know of an M20 spaniard that will jump on a bolt without me cuing it !
The dog's a tool nothing more nothing less.
Hot dang! I DID know what the role of the dogs was after all, but thanks for confirming. What was their role in Apartment 5a though, where it was pretty obvious there were no bits of body lying about?
Have already done so, but I will do so again.
Harrison's recommendations
In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.
Mark Warner Creche at Praia Da Luz.
This is the location of the last confirmed sighting by a person independent of family members of Madeleine McCann. Although this location was within the original search area it may well benefit from a further search using enhanced detecting methods for human remains. This will depend on the size of any outside grounds and concealed areas inside the building.
McCann's Apartment.
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. 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. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's.
Murat's House and Garden.
The property has been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however the house and gardens may benefit from a fully invasive specialist search to preclude the presence of Madeleine McCann.
A method previously employed on similar cases has been to use the below assets.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
Deploy the CSI dog to search the house to locate any human blood.
This will act in support of the forensic examination already completed.
An inhibiting factor will be on areas where Luminol has been used.
Page 2228 :
Deploy geophysical instruments in the house and garden to detect any burial of a body or concealment in voids.
These specialists should be supported by physical search teams exploring and accessing all areas where concealment of a child's body could be made typically 0.5m.
Murat's Vehicles.
All vehicles Murat has had access to have been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however they may all benefit from a full search by the EVRD and CSI dogs. They may be able to detect whether a dead body has been transported in one of the vehicles for intelligence purposes or detect human blood deposits that can be recovered and
examined in a laboratory for Madeleine McCann's blood.
Open Area to East of Praia Da Luz.
This open area between the village urban limits and the Boavista golf club to the east and includes a plateau on which sits a trig point and mobile phone mast.
This area has been previously searched by officers and dogs walking through the area to check for Madeleine McCann's visible remains. However considering the new scenario of Homicide and concealed deposition this area affords many opportunities to dispose of a body. Within this area there are old empty properties, wells, thick vegetation, pockets of soft sand and natural fissures in the cliffs. Whilst there is no intelligence she is buried or concealed in this land it would be a natural place an offender may choose dose to the Village using the least effort principle. A proportionate response may therefore be considered to conduct a search of this area using a team of Victim Recovery Dogs (VRD) that are specifically trained to located concealed human remains.
Prior to undertaking this task it would be beneficial to consult with a Forensic Anthropologist with knowledge of this region of Portugal to give opinion as to the likely state of any remains to be found. Further research could also be conducted with regards to the natural scavenging predators in the area.
An inhibiting factor is that since the disappearance of the child an old empty house adjacent to the Trig Point on the Rocha Negra has been demolished and all rubble removed, If she was concealed within this property the search would be unlikely to detect her now.
Praia Da Luz Beach and Shoreline.
The beach and shoreline are bounded by high cliffs and shallow waters. The beach has fine granular sand and provides easy digging. However the beach is extensively used by tourists and locals and af?rds minimal areas of cover from view for concealment. It may be considered appropriate to use the VRD dog team supported by geophysical GPR to sweep the beach. This would be
Page 2229 :
a considerable time and cost undertaking and should be weighed in the absence of specific intelligence.
Search Duration.
If all the described assets were deployed it would be likely all assets would complete their searches within one week.
I have attempted to help you by underlining those parts that indicate Harrison's direct recommendations.
Note three absences: no reference to the villa (where Madeleine never lived); no reference to the gym (where Madeleine never went near); no reference to vehciles other than those owned or driven by Murat.
Taken from 'Madeleine McCann Search Decision support document' written by Harrison and dated 23rd July;
It recommended considering re searching:
- All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.
- The villa and garden occupied by Robert Murat and any vehicles he had access to.
- Areas of wasteland adjacent to Murat’s and the McCann’s apartment.
- Areas of the beach in Praia da Luz.
- A portion of the coastline east of Praia da Luz.
More in an edit:
(Something went wrog with my attempt to add an edit).
Will attempt again.
Seconds out, take 2:
Here is where Harrison makes reference to places or things Madeleine never lived in or went near.
This is the first reference to places Madeleine never lived in or never went near.
And Harrison's wording is very different.
The output of this process of reconnaissance and review was a written document entitled “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document” (see appendix 2) and submitted to the PJ with copies supplied to Leicestershire Police and NPIA on 23-07-07.
It recommended considering re searching:
- All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.
- The villa and garden occupied by Robert Murat and any vehicles he had access to.
- Areas of wasteland adjacent to Murat’s and the McCann’s apartment.
- Areas of the beach in Praia da Luz.
- A portion of the coastline east of Praia da Luz.
These recommendations were based on the fact that these areas had not been previously searched with the specific intent to locate Madeleine McCann’s concealed and deceased body and that the areas recommended afforded likely and obvious places to consider for concealment in such an investigation.
This document was discussed on 23-07-07 with the PJ Director, myself and the Leicestershire Police liaison officer DI Neil Holden who made relevant notes.
On 25-07-07 the PJ Director decided his officers would re-search some of the areas suggested within the report. He also decided the order of their priority. These were the accommodation the McCann’s and their friends have occupied in Praia da Luz, the villa and the grounds occupied by Robert Murat, wasteland that surrounds these locations and any known vehicles the suspect, the McCanns and their friends had access to when Madeleine disappeared.
Still no reference to the gym ....
Nevertheless the recommendations come from a report written and submitted by Harrison, quoted above.
And it won't go away that in his summary of all searches, Harrison references Grime and his dogs only in those searches he (Harrison) recommended:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
Why, in your opinion (for instance) does Harrison summarise both inspections at villa and gym as PJ exercises?
Apart from your definition of "remains" seemingly being a bit more prescriptive than is the case you mean?So a dog is like the canine version of a metal detector, a tool that helps its user to find stuff, though it can't tell its owner precisely what it is alerting to, it's up to the user(s) to find the stuff that might have triggered the alert and try to make head and tail of it. I expect I got that wrong and you will educate me some more. 8((()*/
Recap:
The dogs are used as a coarse screening tool to narrow down search areas for the CSIs, SOCOs call ‘em what you will". Then it's up to the SOCOs to find or not, things that dogs alert to.
Recap: that being, scent of decomposition and blood among other things they are trained to alert to.
Then when the SOCOs have found something it goes to a lab for analysis and report.
Then in this instance the report says, effectively, "we can rule nothing in and can rule nothing out".
End of the line for anything stout enough to stand up in court but intelligence enough for a competent IO to park it until something does rule it in or out.
So a dog is like the canine version of a metal detector, a tool that helps its user to find stuff, though it can't tell its owner precisely what it is alerting to, it's up to the user(s) to find the stuff that might have triggered the alert and try to make head and tail of it. I expect I got that wrong and you will educate me some more. 8((()*/
When you say he referred to some searches 'without mentioning Grime' so what? It's just the way he's written it and not of any significance. The significance you think you've found is just your opinion.
After all the fuss, the only place Harrison didn't recommend searching is a gym? Why would he recommend that? In reality the screening in the gym happened because they decided to remove items form the villa. I'll allow you that - he never recommended screening clothes. How that arose we don't know.
Wow alfred.
That's amazing. Dogs don't talk. 8(*(
Actually the user doesn't find the 'stuff'.
That's the job of the forensic scientists.
I have pointed out before, and am happy to repeat, that there was never the slightest justification for inspection of clothing; let alone two inspections of the same clothing in two different places.
Inspection of clothing is something else Harrison made literally no reference to.
Do you not think it significant that Harrison waited until after both inspections at villa and gym to issue PJ personnel with instructions on how to conduct canine inspections in buildings?
And given disregard of principles of cross-contamination in the way clothing was transferred to the gym, does that not make a mockery of apparent preoccupation with the possibility of pre-existing scents in the gym?
Or did the PJ crib off this translated literature Harrison gave them on how to conduct canine inspections in buildings and vehicles?
Apart from your definition of "remains" seemingly being a bit more prescriptive than is the case you mean?
Recap:
The dogs are used as a coarse screening tool to narrow down search areas for the CSIs, SOCOs call ‘em what you will". Then it's up to the SOCOs to find or not, things that dogs alert to.
Recap: that being, scent of decomposition and blood among other things they are trained to alert to.
Then when the SOCOs have found something it goes to a lab for analysis and report.
Then in this instance the report says, effectively, "we can rule nothing in and can rule nothing out".
End of the line for anything stout enough to stand up in court but intelligence enough for a competent IO to park it until something does rule it in or out.
I have pointed out before, and am happy to repeat, that there was never the slightest justification for inspection of clothing; let alone two inspections of the same clothing in two different places.
Inspection of clothing is something else Harrison made literally no reference to.
Do you not think it significant that Harrison waited until after both inspections at villa and gym to issue PJ personnel with instructions on how to conduct canine inspections in buildings?
And given disregard of principles of cross-contamination in the way clothing was transferred to the gym, does that not make a mockery of apparent preoccupation with the possibility of pre-existing scents in the gym?
Or did the PJ crib off this translated literature Harrison gave them on how to conduct canine inspections in buildings and vehicles?
Wow alfred.Dogs don't talk but some people believe that when Eddie barked he was telling us that Madeleine's body was in the apartment and hire car. There's nowt so queer as folk!
That's amazing. Dogs don't talk. 8(*(
Actually the user doesn't find the 'stuff'.
That's the job of the forensic scientists.
Dogs don't talk but some people believe that when Eddie barked he was telling us that Madeleine's body was in the apartment and hire car. There's nowt so queer as folk!
I have no interest in debating how and why the searches were conducted. My only interest was in correcting your assumptions about Harrison and your assertions that he tacitly criticised Grime (not demonstrated) and that he didn't suggest certain search areas (incorrect, he did).
Why was there no justification for inspection of clothing ?
Have you know become an expert in forensics as well ? 8**8:/:
The inspection came 3 months after the crime.
and...........
Among other things, dogs bark when they indicate.It seems you don't as you claimed the dogs found human remains
You do realize of course there is a subtle difference between a body being present, and 'residues' being detected from one ? 8(>((
Ah well.
Ernest try, but you failed.
would you class drops of blood as human remains?
Remains includes materials left behind. A very broad term used in a variety of contexts.
Remains includes materials left behind. A very broad term used in a variety of contexts.
for your edification....human remains means a cadaver or body parts.
Blood comes from organs/parts/remains of bodies dave, including humans.So you would class specks of blood as human remains would you...? &%+((£
So you would class specks of blood as human remains would you...? &%+((£
Perhaps you should read my last answer more carefully. 8)-)))Perhaps you should answer my question with a straightforward yes or no.
Perhaps you should answer my question with a straightforward yes or no.
So tell me, where does blood come from ?
So tell me, where does blood come from ?That is not answering my question with a straightforward yes or no, it is answering my question with another question. Human blood comes from a human body, as does saliva, semen, ear wax and toenail clippings. Now, do you class blood as human remains or not?
That is not answering my question with a straightforward yes or no, it is answering my question with another question. Human blood comes from a human body, as does saliva, semen, ear wax and toenail clippings. Now, do you class blood as human remains or not?
What does the word remains mean alfred ?So, I take it from the above that you would class blood, saliva, semen, ear wax and toenail clippings as human remains. Thanks - we've got that sorted then. *&*%£
This might help.
debris,
remnants,
detritus,
leavings,
leftovers,
remainder,
remnants,
residue,
etc.
i.e. a word carrying many meanings.
So alfred can blood come from a body as well ?
So, I take it from the above that you would class blood, saliva, semen, ear wax and toenail clippings as human remains. Thanks - we've got that sorted then. *&*%£
Well how would you classify them alfred ?
You have a long list to choose from. 8(>((
Human remains is a specific term referring to a cadaver or body parts
A massive mistake by stephen
So a dog is like the canine version of a metal detector, a tool that helps its user to find stuff, though it can't tell its owner precisely what it is alerting to, it's up to the user(s) to find the stuff that might have triggered the alert and try to make head and tail of it. I expect I got that wrong and you will educate me some more. 8((()*/
Then in this instance the report says, effectively, "we can rule nothing in and can rule nothing out".
Nope.
Doesn't say that, effectively or literally.
It says nothing at all.
Nil.
Zilch
Blank.
Try again another day ...
Nope.
and do stop calling me a liar or accuse me of telling lies. All future breaches will be reported, as was done this morning.
Nope.
and do stop calling me a liar or accuse me of telling lies. All future breaches will be reported, as was done this morning.
Stephen - you are taking your usual tactic of arguing that black is white without any corroboration to a ridiculous extent here.
To take a few at random from a google search:
The OED - Human Remains - "a person's body after death"
Duhaime legal - "Human remains ... means the body of a deceased person, regardless of its stage of decomposition, and cremated remains." But cremated remains, essentially just ashes but often including bone fragments, are not always included in the definition of human remains. "
Oregan legal ""Human remains" or "remains" means the body of a deceased person in any stage of decomposition or after cremation."
3. DEFINITION OF HUMAN REMAINS
We acknowledge the definition of human remains given in the DCMS guidelines and base our definition on that. We use the term human remains to mean the bodies, and parts of bodies, of once living people from the species Homo sapiens (defined as individuals who fall within the range of anatomical forms known today and in the recent past) and any evolutionary earlier hominins with which modern humans today may share a common ancestor (e.g. Homo neanderthalensis). This includes osteological material (whole or part skeletons, individual bones, or fragments of bone or teeth), soft tissue including organs and skin, embryos and slide preparations of human tissue. In line with the Human Tissue Act 2004, the definition does not include hair and nails. Human remains also include any of the above which may have been modified in some way by human skill and/or may be physically bound-up with other non-human materials to form an artefact composed of several materials. This definition includes artworks composed of human bodily fluids and soft tissue.
Remains has many meanings.There were no human remains found
I gave a list of some earlier.
You can continue to quibble over the meaning as you wish.
Your choice.
So what human remains were found in PDL
I was just posting an English definition of human remains rather than have to rely on Oregon State.
What did the reports say? Were analyses done for DNA?
You said:In my opinion it does, and as we know all opinions are equally valid. ?>)()<
I thought I did but you've made me doubt myself so I'd be grateful if you could enlighten me, thanks in advance.
I gave you my opinion. It may be right it may be wrong but that is the opinion I stick with. Make of it what you will it is fairly well laid out and doesn't really need interminable questions to clarify it.
There were no human remains found
You are propagating a lie
Propagating a lie is not telling a lie...
You do not know if human remains/residues were found that indicated a body.
THE FORENSIC RESULTS WERE INCONCLUSIVE.
Do you actually know what "inconclusive" means?
Here is a link to the FSS reports from the files.
Can you find anything at all in these reports which supports the view that the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse?
I do know what inconclusive means.
The forensic reports did neither confirm or dismiss , that the dogs alerted to a body.
This is old ground and you are not going to change my views on the case.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html
Here is the link - a challenge.
Can you find one thing in the FSS report (upon which you are apparently basing your opinions) that supports the view that the dogs were alerting to Madeleine's corpse?
Or are you of the "my mind is made up, please do not confuse me with the facts" brigade. 8(0(*
It is quite absurd for anyone to suggest that human remains were discovered in the Madeleine McCann case, honestly some people and their semantic games.... ?8)@)-)
You mean the FSS sent a report saying:
Nil.
Zilch
Blank.
Odd that.
What game am I playing? Is it correct to say that human remains have been discovered in the McCann case? Seriously??
It is you and your fellows playing games alfred.
That's par for the course though.
Have a good afternoon. 8((()*/
Perhaps you should read again.
As to making up your mind, what about you jp ?
So do you believe she was abducted, when there is no evidence whatsoever to show that she did ?
You do not know if human remains/residues were found that indicated a body.
THE FORENSIC RESULTS WERE INCONCLUSIVE.
You do not know if human remains/residues were found that indicated a body.
THE FORENSIC RESULTS WERE INCONCLUSIVE.
And your definition confirmed no human remains were found
In my opinion it does, and as we know all opinions are equally valid. ?>)()<
You mean the FSS sent a report saying:
Nil.
Zilch
Blank.
Odd that.
What was the DNA taken from?
The FSS had as much clue about what might have happened to Madeleine after processing material forwarded to the laboratory as they had before: that is, none.
So by that token they could neither rule anything in nor rule anything out.
So by that token they could neither rule anything in nor rule anything out.so maddie could have been abducted by aliens
What was the DNA taken from?unless it is confirmed that the dna was taken from a dead person then it was not from human remains
unless it is confirmed that the dna was taken from a dead person then it was not from human remains
So?
I thought you were well informed about the background to the case.
here is the FSS report.
Enjoy (if that's the right word?)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html
I do not believe I ever said that. I just get p****d off with people playing duck and drakes with reports we have all read, by quoting from the body not the conclusions and making inane comments like "I understand it better than you my dad works in the court/police station/hospital/laboratory (delete as necessary)so I should know". So asking questions is always good for a laugh if somewhat like pulling teeth.What's your opinion of those who quote from the Interim Report to try and make a case for the McCanns' guilt?
What's your opinion of those who quote from the Interim Report to try and make a case for the McCanns' guilt?Pretty much the same old stick. Likely to come up with the wrong or right answer by accident rather than design if all the info is not available.
then Stephen is wrong to say human remains were found
Pretty much the same old stick. Likely to come up with the wrong or right answer by accident rather than design if all the info is not available.It's easy to understand but as usual posters put different interpretations on it
This is Lowes conclusion btw:
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.
Now that is not too hard to understand is it.
So?
Pretty much the same old stick. Likely to come up with the wrong or right answer by accident rather than design if all the info is not available.It doesn't say anything about human remains though does it?
This is Lowes conclusion btw:
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.
Now that is not too hard to understand is it.
So by that token they could neither rule anything in nor rule anything out.
Pretty much the same old stick. Likely to come up with the wrong or right answer by accident rather than design if all the info is not available.
This is Lowes conclusion btw:
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.
Now that is not too hard to understand is it.
so it looks like you've given up trying to defend his absurd claim
It doesn't say anything about human remains though does it?
Prior says that the partial profile was also a match for many of the scientists in Birmingham......So how significant was the partial match...more how insignificant was it...very
Did he?yes
So the FSS could rule out that anything they analysed progressed the investigation, or provided insight into what might have happened to Madeleine.
The position was the same before the FSS report as after it.
yesI thought Prior was a copper.
Did he?
I thought Prior was a copper.
What was his authority for the statement if he made it ?
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.
John Lowe
many sceptics think this is because the scientists contaminated the sample @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
The position was that from the samples analysed using techniques available at the time the FSS could not say whether MM was a contributor or whether she was not a contributor.
Why are you dissatisfied with Lowe's own wording in his conclusion? Do you think he is wrong?
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.
John Lowe
So Davel was incorrect then.
So Davel was incorrect then.
Is that where it came from?
I've often wondered ....
Key phrase............
' In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion. '
i.e. The results are inconclusive
Neither affirming or dismissing the presence of Madeleine's D.N.A.
So the probability of solving the case ???
NO evidence of abduction.
Case remains unsolved.
Key phrase............
' In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion. '
i.e. The results are inconclusive
Neither affirming or dismissing the presence of Madeleine's D.N.A.
So the probability of solving the case ???
NO evidence of abduction.
Case remains unsolved.
No.
There is no evidence of abduction.
The case is at ground zero as it was and still is.
what are the odds that maddie was abducted..in your opinion
Since you raised the issue before and said on the balance of probability, abduction was most likely, explain how you came to that conclusion.
With logical facts of course, and not a belief.
I've explained it all before...start with parents ruled out
Not sufficient, for reasons given before.
When you can come up with some logical scenario backed up with evidence, we may have something to discuss.
tell me where the human remains were found
Try your abduction thesis first.
I await to read it in the morning before I start work.
I wont be explaining it again..SY agree with me...who agrees with you
Really ?
What have they found dave ?
Madeleine ?
NO.
How she has disappeared ?
NO.
So let's see what logical reasons and clear cut uneqivocal evidence of abduction is there ?
Don't bother referring to the other thread again, there is no evidence there.
no..there never were any human remains...Stephen was incorrect...I think Alice was incorrect too but I lost the will to live after two posts...Lowe was definitely correct whilst amaral was incorrect...if I have remembered correctly...
Lowe says that the partial profile was also a match for many of the scientists in Birmingham......So how significant was the partial match...more how insignificant was it...very
Lowe was a scientistHow come you bootlegged my original post?
You said
Ferryman's quote says elements not partial profile. Very different.
the sample was a soup from 3 different people and contained 15 of maddie's alleles,,,there was no way of knowing if these 15 alleles had come from one person in the group or was a contribution from all three..
you and others are making far too much of this statement and even if a few cells of madeleine's dna had been found in the car..so what..
The absence of any credible explanation of anything else.
Two (possibly relevant) independent witness sightings.
Unidentified DNA from the apartment.
Following a shaving mishap this morning I'm sorry to report that there are human remains all over the bathroom... 8(8-))
Following a shaving mishap this morning I'm sorry to report that there are human remains all over the bathroom... 8(8-))
There is an old English joke which I could apply there Alfred, but it might be removed. 8)--))There's something rather rude I could say about someone on here being an old English joke but it might be removed too... 8)--))
There's something rather rude I could say about someone on here being an old English joke but it might be removed too... 8)--))
What about the 'Madeleine walking out of the apartment' scenario ?
Read Kate's book!
2 possibly relevant sightings ?
Absence of any other credible explanation ?
You would hardly say anything else would you ?
What about the 'Madeleine walking out of the apartment' scenario ?
Unidentified D.N.A. ?
Have all the previous occupants and cleaners of the flat been tested ?
Didn't you know about the unidentified D.N.A Stephen?
I would imagine they would have seen if it matched any of the previous occupants and cleaners, or they wouldn't call it 'unidentified'.
Oh dear, I am sorry. 8(8-))
Actually you did refer to me before on here in rather unceremonious terms.
8(0(*
Ah, you mean the Mills and Boon special ? ?{)(**
I wasn't referring to Amaral's book at all ...
Yes, I read the report.
Have they done that ?
Have all the people who have been known to be in the apartment been traced ?
Actually you did refer to me before on here in rather unceremonious terms.
8(0(*
I did once say, way back in the beginning that DNA wasn't all it was being cracked up to be. Still isn't, actually. I was subjected to a torrent of abuse which quite shocked me. Sadly, I have become accustomed to that now.
As has been proved in this case, there are too many variables, especially in the absence of a body, which could suggest in itself that there isn't one.
And even with a 99% match, it still wouldn't prove anything, unless it was from a complete stranger.
What with that and ferryman and davel tampering with posts (duly reported to admin) it's getting like a bleedin' kindergarten round here.
I think sometimes there is a lot to be learned from various sites on the internet ... quite a few American ones featuring discussion among dog trainers ... one or two discussing criminal cases etc.
Posters seem to be eager to share information (and yes Madeleine McCann's case does feature) discuss differences and to actually absorb the information given out and once a fact has been established that is it until something new and compelling supersedes what has gone on before.
**Snip
". . . The rapid proliferation of law enforcement and ancillary personnel making widely varied claims about the use of dogs trained to cadaver scent, and the lack of any significant literature on the subject, prompted the authors to research what training and performance requirements might be important for consideration in the use of dogs in the gathering of evidence having forensic importance. . ."
". . . Cadaver Dog
A narrow term, used in a search-and-rescue context, to indicate a canine primarily trained as a tracking or air-scent dog that has also received cross training in the location of dead human bodies.
Decomp Dog
A term used to describe a canine that will indicate when a scent source is human tissue, blood, semen, urine, feces, and materials that have been handled and worn by humans; often cross trained for other purposes.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue. . ."
". . .There is dispute within the scientific community about what it actually is that an animal scents that allows differentiation. Some researchers maintain that bacterial action on biological material results in an outgassing of volatile fatty acids, methane, urea, cadaverine, and various ionic compounds.
-3 Others believe that individual recognition occurs by differentiation at the level of the major histocompatability complex (MHC) which causes unique protein markers to form on the surface of cells.
-4 In any case, some form of chemical marking occurs that probably has evolutionary and organism-survival significance. . . ."
(Note: The following exerpt was 3 points out of 7 total. All need to be read. Only 3 were quoted so as to not be quoting too much material in keeping with the WS TOS.)
". . . Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions:
Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue;
precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent.
Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc.
Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert. . ."
". . . 1) There is a significant potential for a dog handler to offer unintentionally misleading or improper testimony about the presence or absence of residual scent from decomposed human tissue.
2) Dogs specifically trained to detect scent of decomposed human tissue can be invaluable in resolving issues related to evidence gathering and determination of investigative direction.
It is crucial, however, that dogs be used in situations appropriate to their training level, and that dog handlers are able to support their testimony about dog behavior with accurate training logs.
Any canine used for forensic purposes in the location of the scent of decomposed human tissue should never be cross-trained for any other type of scent work if the results of the animal's activities and handler's opinions are to be used for the development of probable cause.
3) Existing training and testing techniques in the general community of handlers now working do not address the specific and rigorous training needs for dogs that are expected to reliably detect and alert on residual scent. . ."
http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
http://www.k9forensic.org/AAFSpaper.html
What happened as far as the dogs Eddie and Keela are concerned in 2007 ... must be frozen in 2007: nothing of importance was gleaned from their 'alerts' and much of what was gleaned was misinterpreted.
So perhaps if posters would take cognisance of what evidence there is from 2007 and recognise that constant discussion and trying to change what cannot be changed by constant revisiting it ... we could all move on and have adult non-repetitive discussion on the subject.
Which is actually quite a fascinating one if followed with an open mind.
Naturally, as you would expect Eleanor, i disagree with you as regards a body.
Even Redwood admitted Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive, which then beggars the question of the dogs.
The sheer fact that no trace of her has been found since that fateful day, adds to the conclusion that she died.
'...with an open mind......' ?
An open mind doesn't mean considering just one possibility.
So how about the scenario of Madeleine getting out of the apartment by herself, which some people view as a distinct possibility ?
Now you see, this is an example of a grown-up sensible post, it will be interesting to read Alice and Stephen's grown-up and sensible replies.
Do you honestly think that I, let alone the rest of those of my thinking, have not considered other possibilities, even that of The McCanns being involved in some way?
Of course we have, down to the very last boring detail. But it simply does not make sense. The time, the place, the opportunity, or the motive. And the absence of anything in the work of forensics to suggest this.
Whether or not Madeleine died by the hand of a stranger is something that I don't want to think about. And why should I? It isn't the purpose of this Forum at the moment.
Brietta's post merely reflects the only scenario is 'abduction' approach.Brietta's post didn't mention abduction once as far as I can see. Why don't you actually read it and comment on what it says, rather than what you think it says?
Perhaps you should take time yet again to consider what you post before the insults fly once again.
Brietta's post didn't mention abduction once as far as I can see. Why don't you actually read it and comment on what it says, rather than what you think it says?
It is well known on this forum, that abduction is the only scenario she agrees with.Yes it is, just as your views on abduction are well known too. Putting that aside for a minute what specifically in Brietta's post did you have a problem with? Let's discuss that, not Brietta herself!
RESIDUAL SCENT IN BUILDINGS
One of the questions we are commonly asked as forensic canine handlers is "How long will scent last in any given situation?" This is a very complicated question, but we want to begin to unravel the secrets. We know some of the elements that will affect residual scent are heat/sun, wind, humidity and rain.
Our first project was conducted in a closed, unused building. Items were placed in different rooms for 5 hours and then removed.
What is Residual Scent?
Residual is defined by Webster's dictionary as - leaving a residue remaining effective for some time.
Within this paper we are using the term in conjunction with decomposing human scent. Residual scent searches are those conducted when no physical form is present. Residual scent is what is left when the decomposing item has been removed. It is something we cannot see and humans cannot necessarily smell.
Introduction
This project began by accident, so was not preplanned as a residual scent research paper. We make no claims to having ruled out all variables, but are using this project to learn what the variables are and how to more effectively set up our next residual scent project.
Our goal in this paper is to look at residual scent in a closed, unused building and see if we can find out how long a trained cadaver / forensic evidence dog can locate the original scent location. All the dogs used in this project ranged from those with some basic training in the finding of cadaver scent to specialized trained dogs in forensic evidence / body recovery. We see this as just the beginning of ongoing residual scent undertakings.
On November 9, 1996 several items were placed in different areas of a building. The building used was built in the 1930's and was used as classrooms up until 1995. It is part of a large developmental hospital that was built before 1900. Most of the furniture is now gone. There is still human clothing around, chairs, desks, shelves with things on them, wardrobes, curtains, and boxes of books and general effects. The facility has been closed down and most of the buildings are scheduled to be demolished.
Room #11 was used as an activity or day room. It is a large open room. The scent sources were blood (3cc) left to dry on the floor and door in the room.
Room #16 is a closet/storage room off room #11. The scent source was blood (approx. 1cc) on paper on the floor.
Room #5 is a large storage room with closets and shelves. The scent source was a soil sample with dried fluids from a gunshot to the head suicide enclosed in a 50ml vented container. The upper window has been open the whole time in this room.
Room #18 is a large living room. Scent sources were; hair mixed with cadaver scent in the fireplace flue, and a very small amount of blood inside a trash can.
Room #9 is a tiled utility area across the hall from a kitchen area. Scent source was hair and blood in a 50ml container placed in the foot of standing ironing board, so the sample was 5 feet off the ground.
Since the original set up date on November 9, 1996, we have returned to the building 4 times: January 8, 1997, April 2, 1997, July 23, 1997 and December 7, 1997. On our visit in April we found that they had removed most of the original furniture and some boxes of trash, so the building had little left in it. Two of the objects (the ironing board and a box of trash), that had held scent sources were now missing.
Results
Each dog participating in this project was able to find most or all of the locations where the decomposing scent articles had been. We saw dogs, which varied, from full alert and pinpointing to general interest in the room or area.
What we have found so far is; residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.
Each time we have worked the problem we have included teams that had not worked the area before. We now have had 16 teams work the residual scent problem. The dogs have ranged from veteran cadaver trained certified teams to 1 year old puppies (who have been training from 8 weeks of age on cadaver and residual scent).
Observations
We noticed that there was a big difference between teams that do mainly live person searching and teams that specialize in forensic evidence / body recovery searches. The general difference being, forensic evidence / body recovery dogs are searched slower, have been taught to do a fine search, check items for scent sources, and alert without seeing an object. Most live human search dogs are trained to keep looking until they find the person and then to alert. Younger and less experienced dogs had fewer problems and were willing to commit to an alert more readily than some of the mainly live human search dogs.
Questions, Variables, Problems, Future Ideas
One of the questions that we have wondered about after observing dogs who have worked the problem prior is; do the dogs remember where items were previously placed or where they alerted before and how long do they remember?
Also, what effect does having an observer that is knowledgeable of all the locations have on the team? Can the handler and or dog read body language that gives them information as to where they should look or alert?
Plans for our next visit include having first time teams work the building by themselves without an observer on deck. The handler will then report any alerts or interest to the observer by showing them on a diagram of the building. This way the handler will have to commit to what the dog has done without any input from the observer. The observer will not be able to influence the team while they are searching.
No food reward will be allowed in the building.
Our next residual scent projects will employ measurable scent items. Example: 3cc of blood mixed with 2oz of human hair, or a specific human bone. This way we can control and repeat the scent items more closely in different conditions.
Room with the blood (3cc) is not a true residual scent problem, as we have defined it, because the blood has been left on the floor and door. But we now have data on how long dogs can locate dried blood.
Our next step in studying residual scent is to set up problems in different environments. We want to compare our results with problems set up in open areas, areas with sun and shade and no building to protect the scent.
Room #11 - dried blood - dogs able to show dried blood on door and floor
Room #5 - soil with dried fluids - dog showing
inside closet where source had been
Room #18 - Hair with scent - all dogs indicated
flue area of chimney where source had been
Room #18 - area where trash can had been - dogs all indicated
area and showed pile of curtains now on floor but had been
hanging above trash can originally. Curtains are porous and
holding scent.
http://www.csst.org/residual_scent.html
Given that the actual dimensions of the rooms are not recorded the closest equivalent to the bedroom in apartment 5A would be ...
"Room #16 is a closet/storage room off room #11. The scent source was blood (approx. 1cc) on paper on the floor."
Even that is supposition as no window or other source of ventilation is mentioned in the study.
In the study the rooms remained undisturbed; apartment 5A was the hub of activity for other holidaymakers with cleaners during and between visits and the possibility of the patio doors being opened regularly.
But definitely a good article demonstrating the type of information to be gained from quantifiable and known sources using the dogs' nose.
Given that the actual dimensions of the rooms are not recorded the closest equivalent to the bedroom in apartment 5A would be ...
"Room #16 is a closet/storage room off room #11. The scent source was blood (approx. 1cc) on paper on the floor."
Even that is supposition as no window or other source of ventilation is mentioned in the study.
In the study the rooms remained undisturbed; apartment 5A was the hub of activity for other holidaymakers with cleaners during and between visits and the possibility of the patio doors being opened regularly.
But definitely a good article demonstrating the type of information to be gained from quantifiable and known sources using the dogfs' nose.
So how long would we expect scent in the flower bed to last
Not 3 months
Dogs detect residual scent and Eddie was an expert at detecting cadaver residual scent. SY are using the dogs so I know what they think so who cares what you think.
Do you mean within the plants and/or soil ?
I did once say, way back in the beginning that DNA wasn't all it was being cracked up to be. Still isn't, actually. I was subjected to a torrent of abuse which quite shocked me. Sadly, I have become accustomed to that now.
As has been proved in this case, there are too many variables, especially in the absence of a body, which could suggest in itself that there isn't one.
And even with a 99% match, it still wouldn't prove anything, unless it was from a complete stranger.
A 99% match would be mathematically impossible.
There are 20 markers, so 19 markers (out of 20) would be 95%, the higest possible score short of 100%
So other people could have the same DNA. Unlikely in the same vicinity, but not impossible.
So other people could have the same DNA. Unlikely in the same vicinity, but not impossible.
Yes, and when there is, in the mix, likely to be DNA of up to 4 other people direct blood relatives (parents plus two siblings) the likelihood of a high number of alike markers is substabtially increased.
I've always found it a little odd that there could be 7 other people in the world wandering around with the same 20 alleles as me. But in the UK, they only look at 10 marker areas (20 alleles) for criminal forensic purposes, unless they've added more since I blinked. So change where the test is done (i.e. a country that uses more marker sites) and that likelihood diminishes.
Ah!
Markers and alleles!
I'm not sure how many brain-cells I've destroyed trying to work out the difference between the two, but it's far too many ...
Carana knows ...
Dogs detect residual scent and Eddie was an expert at detecting cadaver residual scent. SY are using the dogs so I know what they think so who cares what you think.
As a reminder.........
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
UNDISPUTED FACTS.
As I have said before the sceptics such as you do not understand the evidence...what you are claiming simply isn't true
IT would be interesting to know who else thinks these are proven facts..or is Stephen totally on his own
They are from the Portuguese Court judgement which you liked so much.
Unfortunately, you can't cherry pick which ones you dislike as being untrue.
UNDISPUTED FACTS.
Why didn't the mccanns dispute these points in court ?
Page 08
Moreover, as evidenced in the copy of pp. 2158 and 2159 ("reqto" of the claimants of January 23, 2015), the referred claimants own since July 16, 2010 a decision of the same court for the minor Madeleine to tale part in the action against the four defendants.
These data being present, the irregularity of the representation detected in accordance with the article 29° of the Civil Procedure Code will be deemed remedied and therefore reject the objection raised by the defendant Gonçalo Amaral.
*
The assumptions of timely appreciated instance remain valid, not befalling nor subsisting exceptions, annulments or previous issues that could prevent the appreciation of the merits of the case.
*
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
the facts are not proven...you are wrong...this has been discussed before..Carana can no doubt explain it better than me....the whole sceptic movement is based on lies such as this
If those were undisputed facts the McCanns, at the very least, would have lost the libel trial, at most probable, would now be in a Portuguese jail.
They are not in jail and they won the libel trial.
Hence those are not undisputed facts.
FROM THE COURT FILES.
Probably from Anne Guides, who also brought us that Alan Pike portrayed himself as a psychiatrist.
Alan Pike never did ....
Wrong.
So are you telling me these pages are fabricated ?
YES or NO ?
and therefore are you accusing me of supplying fabricated documents, because if you are, be prepared to back yourself up.
Just read the files, Stephen ....
I have read the court documents.
Have you ?
Now are you calling these court documents FABRICATED, YES or NO ?
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Mark Harrison.
I would suggest you take up what you quote with Anne Guides ....
I repeat that if what you quote were true, the McCanns would be in jail.
At the very least, they would have lost the libel trial.
They are not in jail
They were not charged
They won the libel trial
There was no cadaver scent, 'proved' or otherwise ....
I repeat that if what you quote were true, the McCanns would be in jail.
At the very least, they would have lost the libel trial.
They are not in jail
They were not charged
They won the libel trial
There was no cadaver scent, 'proved' or otherwise ....
In fact, it doesn't even say "cadaver scent"; it says cadaver.
Whose body was found?
The mccanns were not on trial in Portugal, were they ?
They 'won' one small section of the libel trial, which is now subject to appeal.
Whose body was found?
BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR WITHDRAW IT.
However, first read the court judgement.
You back up yours.
Where, in the files (apart from Almeida) is there an assertion of "proven" cadaver scent.
Where does Grime say anything about "proven" cadaver scent?
I don't need to ferryman.
What counts in law, is the court judgement.
NOTHING ELSE.
Okay. That's enough. All future posts in this vein will be deleted.
Sorry, Eleanor. You were quicker than me and I missed your post. Please delete my post if you wish.
Page 08
(snipped)
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
I presume they are referring to the 2 occasions when both dogs alerted in the same place and swabs were obtained - (the key fob in the car and behind the settee in 5a)
Didn't they know that like Keela - Eddie would also alert to blood? IIRC on both occasions it was concluded that it was blood that both dogs had alerted to.
Why didn't they claim that Eddie had alerted to 'cadaver' in all the other places where he barked as 'indisputed facts'?
IMO they appear to have interpreted the alerts which they do mention - as being alerts by Eddie to a dead body - which were then confirmed by Keela's alert to blood at the same place. As we know because Eddie also alerted to blood - that interpretation (if that is what it was) cannot be claimed as a fact.
Did you manage to figure it out? Do share if you have, if not, perhaps Carana can.
I am sorry Benice, but your opinion is not relevant.
Have you read through the entirety of the court judgement from Portugal ?
the entire judgement is not available...what you are quoting is out of context and does not mean what you think...you have been duped...back later
As a reminder.........
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
UNDISPUTED FACTS.
I think I see what the issue is...
"Undisputed facts" in the judgement refers to untested statements of fact that can be found in the police files in some form or other. The judge's job was not to judge what the dogs were actually alerting to (the remit of a criminal court if the McCanns had been charged), but to ascertain the degree to which Amaral had sourced his material from the files.
@ Stephen
if I had given a statement to the police that you microwaved puppies for breakfast and "Expert A" wrote a book drawing on that statement, the judge would still have listed that as an "undisputed fact" for the purposes of the civil trial.
It doesn't mean that you do actually engage in such practices, just that an untested statement in the police files to that effect does in fact exist.
I think I see what the issue is...
"Undisputed facts" in the judgement refers to untested statements of fact that can be found in the police files in some form or other. The judge's job was not to judge what the dogs were actually alerting to (the remit of a criminal court if the McCanns had been charged), but to ascertain the degree to which Amaral had sourced his material from the files.
FROM THE COURT FILES.
Back to the dogs now please.
Even if, hypothetically, it were accepted that Gerald and Kate McCann could be responsible for the death of the child, always be left to explain how, where, when, with what means, with the help of who and where released from your body in the strict timeline that, therefore, would have laid out. Moreover, their daily routine until May 3 shall confine it to the narrow limits of the village "Ocean Club" and the beach is adjacent to it, knowing OSM surrounding land and, in addition to English friends with them summering there had not friends or contacts known in Portugal. (...)
were carried out tests and analyzes in two of the most prestigious and accredited institutions for that purpose - National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Science Service laboratory British - whose final results not positively valued the collected traces, nor corroborate the canine markings. (...)
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html
Thought this was interesting although the dogs used in the study were 'civilians' ... but I think it illustrates that dogs use many more senses than humans are aware of.
Just Martin Grime's opinion of Eddie's behaviour might have been sufficient to communicate itself to the dog which was probably as adept at reading 'body language' as he was at everything else.
Why a dog's sense of smell is overrated: Canines use their MEMORY to find buried bones rather than following their nose
- Scientists played a version of the cup and ball game with 500 pet dogs
- The animals were asked to find a treat they had seen hidden in a cup
- Most failed to find the snack as they used memories instead of their nose
- It suggests dogs do not rely on sense of smell as much as was thought
By FIONA MACRAE, SCIENCE EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 19:09, 16 September 2015 | UPDATED: 21:23, 16 September 2015
You may think Fido would use his acute sense of smell to sniff out a long-buried bone.
In fact, a dog relies on its memory more than its nose to find hidden treats, according to new research.
The discovery was made by US scientists who analysed the results of a game played by 500 pet dogs from around the world.
Each dog watched as its owner placed two cup upside down in front of them, then placed a treat under one of the cups.
The dog's eyes were then covered and the food moved to the second cup.
When the dog was able to see again, it was called over by its owner.
If the pooch was using their sense of smell to find the food, it should have headed for the correct cup.
However, most got it wrong, simply running towards where they had last seen the food.
Researcher Evan MacLean, of Duke University in North Carolina, said: 'Most people think dogs use their sense of smell for everything.
'But actually dogs use a whole range of senses when solving problems.'
Dr MacLean, who studies almost all animals other than cats, said: 'It is hard for me to think of a situation where having a good memory would not be an advantage.
'Memory is important for any sort of planning and understanding patterns and for making predictions about the world.
'Memory is crucial for all of that for any animal.'
The study, which used the internet to recruit and test dogs in their own homes, also investigated the phenomenon of contagious yawning.
Some research has shown that just as one person often seems to yawn after someone else yawns, a dog can 'catch' its owner's yawns.
Dr MacLean said: 'The idea is that it is a very primitive form of empathy.
'The dog is not necessarily feeling bad because its owner is feeling bad but it is tuning into their emotional state in its own way.'
Dr MacLean's study, published in the journal Public Library of Science One, did not find any evidence of the phenomenon.
But it did find that different dogs have different strengths.
Some dogs had a better memory, others were better at taking their master's perspective or at communicating.
Co-researcher Brian Hare said: 'Most people think of intelligence as a glass that is more or less full.
'But intelligence is more like ice cream. Everybody has different flavours.
'Being good at one thing doesn't mean you'll be good at everything else.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3237289/Why-dog-s-sense-smell-overrated-Canines-use-MEMORY-buried-bones-following-nose.html#ixzz3lzlFDRiz
Thought this was interesting although the dogs used in the study were 'civilians' ... but I think it illustrates that dogs use many more senses than humans are aware of.
Just Martin Grime's opinion of Eddie's behaviour might have been sufficient to communicate itself to the dog which was probably as adept at reading 'body language' as he was at everything else.
Why a dog's sense of smell is overrated: Canines use their MEMORY to find buried bones rather than following their nose
- Scientists played a version of the cup and ball game with 500 pet dogs
- The animals were asked to find a treat they had seen hidden in a cup
- Most failed to find the snack as they used memories instead of their nose
- It suggests dogs do not rely on sense of smell as much as was thought
By FIONA MACRAE, SCIENCE EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 19:09, 16 September 2015 | UPDATED: 21:23, 16 September 2015
You may think Fido would use his acute sense of smell to sniff out a long-buried bone.
In fact, a dog relies on its memory more than its nose to find hidden treats, according to new research.
The discovery was made by US scientists who analysed the results of a game played by 500 pet dogs from around the world.
Each dog watched as its owner placed two cup upside down in front of them, then placed a treat under one of the cups.
The dog's eyes were then covered and the food moved to the second cup.
When the dog was able to see again, it was called over by its owner.
If the pooch was using their sense of smell to find the food, it should have headed for the correct cup.
However, most got it wrong, simply running towards where they had last seen the food.
Researcher Evan MacLean, of Duke University in North Carolina, said: 'Most people think dogs use their sense of smell for everything.
'But actually dogs use a whole range of senses when solving problems.'
Dr MacLean, who studies almost all animals other than cats, said: 'It is hard for me to think of a situation where having a good memory would not be an advantage.
'Memory is important for any sort of planning and understanding patterns and for making predictions about the world.
'Memory is crucial for all of that for any animal.'
The study, which used the internet to recruit and test dogs in their own homes, also investigated the phenomenon of contagious yawning.
Some research has shown that just as one person often seems to yawn after someone else yawns, a dog can 'catch' its owner's yawns.
Dr MacLean said: 'The idea is that it is a very primitive form of empathy.
'The dog is not necessarily feeling bad because its owner is feeling bad but it is tuning into their emotional state in its own way.'
Dr MacLean's study, published in the journal Public Library of Science One, did not find any evidence of the phenomenon.
But it did find that different dogs have different strengths.
Some dogs had a better memory, others were better at taking their master's perspective or at communicating.
Co-researcher Brian Hare said: 'Most people think of intelligence as a glass that is more or less full.
'But intelligence is more like ice cream. Everybody has different flavours.
'Being good at one thing doesn't mean you'll be good at everything else.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3237289/Why-dog-s-sense-smell-overrated-Canines-use-MEMORY-buried-bones-following-nose.html#ixzz3lzlFDRiz
@ Stephen
if I had given a statement to the police that you microwaved puppies for breakfast and "Expert A" wrote a book drawing on that statement, the judge would still have listed that as an "undisputed fact" for the purposes of the civil trial.
It doesn't mean that you do actually engage in such practices, just that an untested statement in the police files to that effect does in fact exist.
snipped from the document linked by Stephen 25000.
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
[/i]
When is an undisputed fact not an undisputed fact? I can find no caveat for this term in the document linked so presumably it can be taken as a strict definition?.
Was the term [undisputed fact] put in the document just for laugh or because the author believed it or because the author was yet another person who failed to understand the situation as well as the posters on here? &%+((£
snipped from the document linked by Stephen 25000.
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
[/i]
When is an undisputed fact not an undisputed fact? I can find no caveat for this term in the document linked so presumably it can be taken as a strict definition?.
Was the term [undisputed fact] put in the document just for laugh or because the author believed it or because the author was yet another person who failed to understand the situation as well as the posters on here? &%+((£
As a reminder.........
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
UNDISPUTED FACTS.
so you believe it as well...great...two sceptics who are wrong...Where did I say that?
so what does it mean in English...the dog alerted to cadaver...what does that actually mean because it makes no sense
Where did I say that?
Do you understands what a question mark is customarily used for ?
so what does alinea AS and Alinea AR signify
Alinea means subheading or paragraph
Where did I say that?
Do you understands what a question mark is customarily used for ?
What do "alinea AR" and "alinea AS" actually state?
I don't know!
Whatever it states the author of the judgement thought it was an undisputed fact otherwise why list it as such?
so you don't believe itI didn't say that either.
I didn't say that either.
Try again.
the statement is qualifies by the paragraph AR...perhaps therein lies the answer..what we do know is that the statement is untrue..it's a lie believed by the sceptic movement..all two of you
Oxford Bloo noted....."Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"Correct. It's bloody Groundhog Day here every day.
A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.
So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.
Oxford Bloo noted....."Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"
A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.
So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.
There's a thread on the DNA "misunderstanding" somewhere, which I can't find for the moment. In the meantime...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5498.100
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2123.50
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2123.25
Thought this was interesting although the dogs used in the study were 'civilians' ... but I think it illustrates that dogs use many more senses than humans are aware of.
Just Martin Grime's opinion of Eddie's behaviour might have been sufficient to communicate itself to the dog which was probably as adept at reading 'body language' as he was at everything else.
Why a dog's sense of smell is overrated: Canines use their MEMORY to find buried bones rather than following their nose
- Scientists played a version of the cup and ball game with 500 pet dogs
- The animals were asked to find a treat they had seen hidden in a cup
- Most failed to find the snack as they used memories instead of their nose
- It suggests dogs do not rely on sense of smell as much as was thought
By FIONA MACRAE, SCIENCE EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 19:09, 16 September 2015 | UPDATED: 21:23, 16 September 2015
You may think Fido would use his acute sense of smell to sniff out a long-buried bone.
In fact, a dog relies on its memory more than its nose to find hidden treats, according to new research.
The discovery was made by US scientists who analysed the results of a game played by 500 pet dogs from around the world.
Each dog watched as its owner placed two cup upside down in front of them, then placed a treat under one of the cups.
The dog's eyes were then covered and the food moved to the second cup.
When the dog was able to see again, it was called over by its owner.
If the pooch was using their sense of smell to find the food, it should have headed for the correct cup.
However, most got it wrong, simply running towards where they had last seen the food.
Researcher Evan MacLean, of Duke University in North Carolina, said: 'Most people think dogs use their sense of smell for everything.
'But actually dogs use a whole range of senses when solving problems.'
Dr MacLean, who studies almost all animals other than cats, said: 'It is hard for me to think of a situation where having a good memory would not be an advantage.
'Memory is important for any sort of planning and understanding patterns and for making predictions about the world.
'Memory is crucial for all of that for any animal.'
The study, which used the internet to recruit and test dogs in their own homes, also investigated the phenomenon of contagious yawning.
Some research has shown that just as one person often seems to yawn after someone else yawns, a dog can 'catch' its owner's yawns.
Dr MacLean said: 'The idea is that it is a very primitive form of empathy.
'The dog is not necessarily feeling bad because its owner is feeling bad but it is tuning into their emotional state in its own way.'
Dr MacLean's study, published in the journal Public Library of Science One, did not find any evidence of the phenomenon.
But it did find that different dogs have different strengths.
Some dogs had a better memory, others were better at taking their master's perspective or at communicating.
Co-researcher Brian Hare said: 'Most people think of intelligence as a glass that is more or less full.
'But intelligence is more like ice cream. Everybody has different flavours.
'Being good at one thing doesn't mean you'll be good at everything else.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3237289/Why-dog-s-sense-smell-overrated-Canines-use-MEMORY-buried-bones-following-nose.html#ixzz3lzlFDRiz
Irrelevant.
I reported from the court judgement with no alterations or amendments.
8)><( *&*%£
How do pooches with a good memory when trained and worked as cadaver dogs do remembering remnant scent of saliva, clipped toenails, and bad breath? Sheesh, I expect the whole population of any country would not want cadaver dogs entering their homes....! quick, hide the pork chops, empty the bins, the bacons in there, and the smelly old socks!! Hoover up the nails (though I'm sure some here will argue Eddie could have smelt through a Henry Hoover bag's contents). My list is growing longer, I've just read cadaver dogs alert to freshly mown lawns or some insanity like that, not to mention the other day two kids were fighting and one pulled the others hair out... I am waiting for the dust mites to hit the stage any time soon.Carry on though. It's very entertaining as well as being so bloody pathetic it's unreal.
Eddie helped to convict murderers not toe clippers 8(0(*
Eddie helped to convict murderers not toe clippers 8(0(*
8)><( *&*%£
How do pooches with a good memory when trained and worked as cadaver dogs do remembering remnant scent of saliva, clipped toenails, and bad breath? Sheesh, I expect the whole population of any country would not want cadaver dogs entering their homes....! quick, hide the pork chops, empty the bins, the bacons in there, and the smelly old socks!! Hoover up the nails (though I'm sure some here will argue Eddie could have smelt through a Henry Hoover bag's contents). My list is growing longer, I've just read cadaver dogs alert to freshly mown lawns or some insanity like that, not to mention the other day two kids were fighting and one pulled the others hair out... I am waiting for the dust mites to hit the stage any time soon.Carry on though. It's very entertaining as well as being so bloody pathetic it's unreal.
No wonder the dog threads go on forever when the sceptics cannot understand the basics.
It is impossible to prove remnant scent...that is something we have all agreed on..impossible
so Stephen and others are misinterpreting the judgement
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
READ THE JUDGEMENT. There is no misinterpretation. It is in black and white.
No deflection from you and others will change that.
Oh dear - it seems you are still completely missing the point Stephen.
Just to remind you:
@ Stephen (from Carana)
if I had given a statement to the police that you microwaved puppies for breakfast and "Expert A" wrote a book drawing on that statement, the judge would still have listed that as an "undisputed fact" for the purposes of the civil trial.
It doesn't mean that you do actually engage in such practices, just that an untested statement in the police files to that effect does in fact exist.
[/b][/u]
Oh dear - it seems you are still completely missing the point Stephen.
Just to remind you:
@ Stephen (from Carana)
if I had given a statement to the police that you microwaved puppies for breakfast and "Expert A" wrote a book drawing on that statement, the judge would still have listed that as an "undisputed fact" for the purposes of the civil trial.
It doesn't mean that you do actually engage in csuch practices, just that an untested statement in the police files to that effect does in fact exist.
[/b][/u]
...and in a trial Stephen would, I'm sure, challenge the puppy statement. Strangely enough the alerts weren't challenged in this one.
...and in a trial Stephen would, I'm sure, challenge the puppy statement. Strangely enough the alerts weren't challenged in this one.
...and in a trial Stephen would, I'm sure, challenge the puppy statement. Strangely enough the alerts weren't challenged in this one.
Gerald McCann tried to bring the subject up and the judge told him to shut it as I recall.
It's my understanding that whether anything written was true or not was irrelevant. It was proof that statements made were from the files as claimed by Amaral - that was being sought. And not whether those statements were factually correct.
Isn't that what the Judge explained to GM? (from memory)
Can you please explain what is meant by the phrase 'UNDISPUTED FACTS' ?
P.S. I'm not shouting.
Sorry Stephen - No can do. Taxi is on its way and I'm off on my hols for the next 10 days. Carana has already explained it all to you - maybe she might have another go at it.
Bye for now.
Posters already have done
Can you please explain what is meant by the phrase 'UNDISPUTED FACTS' ?
P.S. I'm not shouting.
Sorry Stephen - No can do. Taxi is on its way and I'm off on my hols for the next 10 days. Carana has already explained it all to you - maybe she might have another go at it.
Bye for now.
Posters already have done
Residual scent cannot be proved...fact
What you are proving is how poorly you understand the facts in the case
8)><( *&*%£
How do pooches with a good memory when trained and worked as cadaver dogs do remembering remnant scent of saliva, clipped toenails, and bad breath? Sheesh, I expect the whole population of any country would not want cadaver dogs entering their homes....! quick, hide the pork chops, empty the bins, the bacons in there, and the smelly old socks!! Hoover up the nails (though I'm sure some here will argue Eddie could have smelt through a Henry Hoover bag's contents). My list is growing longer, I've just read cadaver dogs alert to freshly mown lawns or some insanity like that, not to mention the other day two kids were fighting and one pulled the others hair out... I am waiting for the dust mites to hit the stage any time soon.Carry on though. It's very entertaining as well as being so bloody pathetic it's unreal.
You still don't get it.
Read the judgement.
If you don't like it, take it up with the Portuguese judicial system.
I get it
Residual scent cannot be proved.... An absolute fact
I get it
Residual scent cannot be proved.... An absolute fact
It could only be proved if it were possible to use equipment capable of collecting and allowing analysis of the sample gases.
Decomp dogs are tools which cannot be calibrated because we simply do not know what they are telling us unless their alert leads to the discovery of whole or partial remains.
Without firm corroboration using a tool which is calibrated and capable of giving measurable consistent readings allowing an interpretation of the gases present ... the dog alerts mean nothing.
So you don't agree with stephen
That has b****r all to do with what was said in the judgement which is the topic of this conversation; less or more.
the judgement is qualified by paragraph AR and AS...do you have any idea what those paragraphs state...without that the statement is incomplete...
Deleting shortly because this is boring me half to death.
With the possible exception they are alerting to what they have been trained to alert to.
From the article you linked:
"Dogs are better at the job than any "electronic nose" would be, Dr Williams pointed out".
Really ?
Then prove me wrong.
'indisputable facts'.
Cherry picking the bits which fit and ignoring the bits which don't fit really adds nothing at all to the debate.
Dr Williams and most other researchers have explained exactly the circumstances in which dogs are "better" or certainly the more appropriate tool to be used from the tool box.
Quote
She said: "They have distinct advantages over e-noses. They can go into dangerous environments and they can assess and adjust their behaviour according to the situation they're in.
"We hope this research combined with training will lead to greater success in finding bodies." end Quote
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/national/13651311.Decomposing_bodies_have_cut_grass_accent/
Researcher Dr Anna Williams also mentioned that in the different stages of decomposition and that it gets really smelly when the "bacteria get involved" producing other "death compounds" ...
- "indole, reeks "very strongly" of faeces"
- "trimethylamine, produces a powerful fishy pong"
- "while others smell of paint thinner and nail varnish remover"
The "smell of death" isn't really as cut and dried as some would have us believe ... or why are Universities and scientists continuing researching and studying all aspects of human decomposition for as many reasons as there are studies?
Just following normal forum practice.
I notice you cherry picked the bit of my post you wished to respond to and ignored the first part.
"6. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]."
Just following normal forum practice.
I notice you cherry picked the bit of my post you wished to respond to and ignored the first part.
Indeed.
Also, it is not 'indole', since there are a group of indoles.
The one giving rise to the main smell in faeces and in cadavers is 3-Methyl Indole/Skatole.
The concentrations of Trimethylamine would increase over time. At the start the the concentrations would be very low in tissues and organs.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11596-008-0603-x#page-1
As to the other substances mentioned. 'paint thinner and nail varnish remover' rather imprecise terms I might add, would hardly be easy to detect early on.
It is the point that the substances mentioned replicate the components of the "scent of death" to which cadaver dogs are trained to respond.
"In the first few days the body is going through a process of autolysis, which is basically the self-digestion of cells."
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/national/13651311.Decomposing_bodies_have_cut_grass_accent/
Do we know if the process of autolysis described by Dr Anna Williams was part of Eddie's trained response?
What is it you fail to understand about scientific studies which have identified that new mown grass emits the same chemical as that given off by a fresh cadaver?
http://nextinform.com/the-summery-whiff-of-freshly-cut-grass-is-also-the-smell-of-death-same-chemical-is-given-off-by-fresh-cadavers-study-reveals/
It is not an off the cuff opinion formulated by self appointed 'experts' on internet fora in conjunction with their own prejudice and that of others.
It is the result of scientific research undertaken to understand and ascertain exactly what the cadaver dog can smell at various stages of decomposition and as a result how best to improve the training of cadaver dogs.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/national/13651311.Decomposing_bodies_have_cut_grass_accent/
I think the problem some people may have with the continuing scientific research leading to better understanding is that it upsets their singular personal view of an event encapsulated in one small moment in time.
One which they were told at the time had no evidential value ... the exact reasons for which have become clearer as a result of various scientific studies.
The latest of which are categorical in that ...
- dogs sometimes ignore what they are capable of smelling for what they remember
- yaaawn ... dogs are capable of succumbing to outside influences
- new mown grass gives off the same chemicals that a fresh cadaver emits
If you have a problem with the results of the research ... perhaps you will be able to come up with similar relevant studies to substantiate your point of view and bring the information to the forum.
There isn't a lawn at apartment 5A!
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/apartment5aflowerbed.jpg)
There isn't a lawn at apartment 5A!
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/apartment5aflowerbed.jpg)
I look forward to the next time our police dog handlers bring out their dogs and stop in amazement as the dogs alert madly all over the suspect's lawn. Priceless! @)(++(*
It only happens if you've sprinkled your lawn with peat-based MiracleGro.
Not bonemeal? 8(0(*
Not bonemeal? 8(0(*
It is the point that the substances mentioned replicate the components of the "scent of death" to which cadaver dogs are trained to respond.
"In the first few days the body is going through a process of autolysis, which is basically the self-digestion of cells."
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/national/13651311.Decomposing_bodies_have_cut_grass_accent/
Do we know if the process of autolysis described by Dr Anna Williams was part of Eddie's trained response?
It would seem probable it was. Unless someone has incontrovertible evidence that it didn't ie proof that all the
piggy bits that were ever used in his training were older than a few days.
I think by now you should understand my position on the alerts
I don't believe there was a cadaver on 5a
The alert to blood was obviously correct
So by your own admission the alerts were not total BS?
Eddies couldn't be, doesn't mean they were wrong, another fact which some people won't accept as a possibility, that he DID react to remnant scent of a dead body... He wasn't trained sniffing lawns or live humans sweat or bad breath or whatever else s going to come out as a pathetic possiblity...sheesh
I don't think anyone is questioning Keela's alerts as they were all corroborated.
Eddies couldn't be, doesn't mean they were wrong, another fact which some people won't accept as a possibility, that he DID react to remnant scent of a dead body... He wasn't trained sniffing lawns or live humans sweat or bad breath or whatever else s going to come out as a pathetic possiblity...sheesh
grime says the alerts have no intelligence reliability so your claim they are intelligence is wrong. I call them BS because they tell us nothing...perhaps you could tell us what the alerts actually tell us that we do not already know
no answer to my specific questions? Oh well, never mind Brie, guess you can't manage to find a sensible one to any?
a cadaver trained dog alerting does tell us something...not nothing!
As for YOUR claim that Grime says the alerts are not intelligence, that is untrue, he said they have no reliability if uncorroborated.....and as we know they can't be corroborated unless by other evidence...forensics from blood found by the blood dog or other investigative findings forensically or otherwise...to say dog alerts mean nothing and are BS is a little childish...no police force would utilise them in search of remnant death scent if they couldn't alert to it
Your specific questions have been addressed ad nauseam in this dog thread and on every dog thread on the forum.Your post ridiculing the study which has found that newly cut grass emits hexanol which is also one of the VOCs emitted by early decomposing human remains is the originator of the recent posts I have made on the subject of the dogs and Mr Amaral's misinterpretation of their significance.
If you wish to continue the discussion it might be useful to draw a line through groundhog day and move to where the scientific evidence has taken us in 2015.
so once again..what do they tell us...do you have an answer
a cadaver trained dog alerting does tell us something...not nothing!
As for YOUR claim that Grime says the alerts are not intelligence, that is untrue, he said they have no reliability if uncorroborated.....and as we know they can't be corroborated unless by other evidence...forensics from blood found by the blood dog or other investigative findings forensically or otherwise...to say dog alerts mean nothing and are BS is a little childish...no police force would utilise them in search of remnant death scent if they couldn't alert to it
Can you prove that the child is alive and Eddie was wrong? Eddie has alerted in many cases and the missing person has never turned up alive. So probability tells you what is most likely like SY digging last summer for a body.
so once again..what do they tell us...do you have an answer
shame no one can answer the question
its true...
grime says,,,,,,It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent'
contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can ..
So, once again, they tell us that the cadaver dog sent in by the UK reacted to cadaver odour..what it is trained to do, trained on decomposing bodies,it really isn't that difficult to comprehend but you can spend all day and all night in here saying no it wasn't or might not have been
Whatever floats your boat
it REMAINS intelligence for the people in charge and Redwood has hinted IMO the dog did find the scent when he said "there is no CLEAR DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE" that Madleine is dead...why didn't he just say there is not a scrap of evidence? Like the Mccanns say all the time?
&%+((£
it might help if you read past only what you want to read around what is posted in totality, then you might not go jaunting off on some false trail that wastes everyone's time
the very fact that SY believe Maddie may still be alive is proof they do not believe eddie alerted to the remnant scent from a cadaver in 5a
Very poor logic that. It is quite possible that SY believe that Madeleine is dad but accept that she may be alive.very good logic in fact...if maddie is still alive...as SY believe is possible then SY believe all eddies alerts may be wrong...that is no vote of confidence
Your beliefs are based on falsehoods as I have demonstratedyou have demonstrated zilch
Grime has not confirmed the alert was to cadaver...grime has said the alerts have no intelligence reliability..the whole basis of your posts is based on falsehoods
please don't ignorantly let alone nauseatingly patronisingly presume and then ignorantly dictate what my posts are based on, thanks ever so much...I must give you a wide berth now as I'd rather spend time discussing with adults in a discussing way iyswim
but maybe not
*bye*
very good logic in fact...if maddie is still alive...as SY believe is possible then SY believe all eddies alerts may be wrong...that is no vote of confidence
Nope. It is more logical that SY believe that Madeliene is dead but accept there is a possibility she is alive. There is nothing in their statements that contradict that position.agree with that, well said
Nope. It is more logical that SY believe that Madeliene is dead but accept there is a possibility she is alive. There is nothing in their statements that contradict that position.
If they accept there is a possibility Madeleine may be alive, then they set absolutely no store by Eddie's alert and intelligence that she may be dead is not, at all, based on Eddie's alerts.
Yet Redwood said Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
i.e. They don't have a clue.
I dismiss any suggestion that thinking is based on Eddie's alerts (or Keela's, come to that).
Nope. It is more logical that SY believe that Madeliene is dead but accept there is a possibility she is alive. There is nothing in their statements that contradict that position.at last you seem to understand...SY accept it is possible that maddie may still be alive...that's what I said in my post......so they do not accept that the dogs alerted to maddie's cadaver
What value is your opinion on what Redwood said ?
at last you seem to understand...SY accept it is possible that maddie may still be alive...that's what I said in my post......so they do not accept that the dogs alerted to maddie's cadaver
They accept it is possible that the dogs alerted to Madeleine's cadaver.how do you know that...you are stating your opinion as fact..
how do you know that...you are stating your opinion as fact..
my opinion is that they do not accept that..
if the parents are not suspects then there is no time for cadaver odour to develop
A nonsensical argument.
The possibility of her death in the apartment has not been eliminated even by Redwood.
redwood has said the parents are not suspects...maddie may have died in the apartment at the hands of a stranger but there would be no time for cadaver odour to develop........
If she died in the apartment, you cannot rule out other possibilities.
There is no forensic evidence of an abduction.
What value is your opinion on what Redwood said ?
When did Redwood say anything about Eddie (or Keela)?
So why would he say she could have died in the apartment ?
Magical intuition ?
So why would he say she could have died in the apartment ?
Magical intuition ?
Because of reports of break-ins to apartments in the area.
Nothing to do with dogs.
Unfortunately no evidence which will stand up in court of that.
Eddie's reactions, you mean?
Aside from the word unfortunately, quite right ....
Sniffer dog Eddie was relieved of his police duties
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Google+
Share by email
By Gerard Tubb, Sky News correspondent
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.
The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.
"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.
"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.
The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.
The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.
The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.
A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.
But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.
"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
Nope. It is more logical that SY believe that Madeliene is dead but accept there is a possibility she is alive. There is nothing in their statements that contradict that position.
I am of the opinion they are looking for a live child and hopefully there will be a positive outcome to that.
If it is confirmed however, that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment on 3rd of May ... it is my opinion that it is important that the perpetrator of the crime is found.
I agree with the other posters who think that Eddie and Keela have no bearing on the present inquiries being carried out by the PJ and SY.
Thanks Carana, I haven't the time to read through loads of threads right now, can't you just describe what is the difference between alleles and markers?
I imagine most people have no idea, and unfortunately scientific explanations don't always help.
The easiest way to think of it is 1 marker = 1 pair of alleles.
Forensic DNA markers represent the specific sites (locations) used by labs to examine bits of genetic code, which are the alleles.
At each of these marker locations, there are two alleles (one comes from mummy and the other from daddy). What's confusing is that "marker" is often used to mean the pair of alleles.
In the UK, they examine 10 marker (locations), i.e. 20 alleles. In PT, they examine 15, i.e., 30 alleles.
They "measure" each allele and record its "length" (it's actually the number of times the bit of code repeats iteself). However, as the "length" will be within a tiny range of possibilities, even unrelated people will have a number of alleles of identical "length". In isolation, therefore, there is no way of knowing whether Allele A with an identical "length" (e.g. 9) is yours or mine.
Now, remember that there should be two alleles at each marker location. While you and I might share an identical Allele A, it is rarer that we will also share an identical Allele B, although that does happen.
If, at Marker 1, your reading is 7, 9 (the "length" of each of the two alleles) and my reading is also 7, 9, then we happen to share an identical marker.
So, move on to Marker 2. Your reading is 6, 7 and mine is 8, 9. That clearly differentiates us.
The problem arises when the sample is degraded (some of the alleles have gone AWOL) and / or contaminated (alleles from several people). You then get a soup of alleles some of which could be yours or could be mine and some that can't belong to either of us. And, evidently, family members will share far more of them than total strangers. And that was the issue in bootgate.
In the latter sentence, of course you do. You would not say anything else.
You've got that wrong Stephen.
If there was evidence to support that Eddie and Keela were as important to the present investigation as some would like them to be ... I would say so. But there is no danger of that because we have had investigators on the job who are familiar with dogs' ranking in the scheme of things, unlike Mr Amaral.
The 2007 dogs visit confirmed that Madeleine McCann's remains were not in any of the places they searched. One would have supposed this might have led to renewed vigour in trying to locate her ... unfortunately for Madeleine and fortunately for whoever took her ... that did not happen.
No, wrong again.
The dogs alerts in 2007 didn't confirm one way or the other.
Try to be accurate.
Likewise, another forum myth, that Madeleine was not extensively searched for.
She was.
if the dog findings had not been mad epublic would the supporters still be as upset about it 8 years later?? clearly the dog findings worry them more then they are prepared to let on imo
No, wrong again.
The dogs alerts in 2007 didn't confirm one way or the other.
Try to be accurate.
Likewise, another forum myth, that Madeleine was not extensively searched for.
She was.
My post says that ... "The 2007 dogs visit confirmed that Madeleine McCann's remains were not in any of the places they searched." and I think that is as accurate as one can be.
In what way did making Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos advance the search for her?
Thank you so much for that. I now feel vaguely able to explain this to someone else.
But how many Markers does any one person's DNA actually have? Or can it vary?
If you mean bits of genetic code, rather a lot...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
I didn't understand the Lowe report, either, when I first read it. Lowe actually talks about "components", which are the alleles.
I'm not a scientist, but I was intrigued enough to try to discover what people were talking about. It was obvious that they were getting muddled, but I wasn't sure why.
Anyway, that is just my understanding of the difference between alleles and markers in the context of the forensic nuclear DNA tests.
To understand bootgate, perhaps the easiest thing is to think of a Venn diagram, something like this:
(http://ndstudies.gov/sites/default/file/3_circle_venn.gif)
That only has 3 circles (DNA contributors), and the actual sample was between 3 and 5 contributors.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there were 3.
The central area where all 3 overlap is where Madeleine's components (alleles) were found. However, because it is where the circles overlap, the content is also shared by other circles / contributors. There is therefore no way of knowing whether the shared alleles were actually from Madeleine herself (an invisible extra circle) or simply the combination of those she shared with the others.
In missing children s cases, parents are investigated.
It's a matter of course.
Great, now we have Venn diagrams as well.
especally when the parents are the last to see them ie kate mcann
If you mean bits of genetic code, rather a lot...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
I didn't understand the Lowe report, either, when I first read it. Lowe actually talks about "components", which are the alleles.
I'm not a scientist, but I was intrigued enough to try to discover what people were talking about. It was obvious that they were getting muddled, but I wasn't sure why.
Anyway, that is just my understanding of the difference between alleles and markers in the context of the forensic nuclear DNA tests.
To understand bootgate, perhaps the easiest thing is to think of a Venn diagram, something like this:
(http://ndstudies.gov/sites/default/file/3_circle_venn.gif)
That only has 3 circles (DNA contributors), and the actual sample was between 3 and 5 contributors.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there were 3.
The central area where all 3 overlap is where Madeleine's components (alleles) were found. However, because it is where the circles overlap, the content is also shared by other circles / contributors. There is therefore no way of knowing whether the shared alleles were actually from Madeleine herself (an invisible extra circle) or simply the combination of those she shared with the others.
Is that an issue?
Well, what exactly do you intend to achieve with these ?
Perhaps P( A ∩ B ∩ C ) ???
its very clear what Carana has achieved by her post..I'm surprised you cannot understand it
Oh dave.
Wrong again. 8)--))
Oh dave.
Wrong again. 8)--))
if you understood it you would see what she has achieved
Unfortunately dave, I do know know what Venn diagrams are and when to apply them.
Next.
In missing children s cases, parents are investigated.
It's a matter of course.
then you should understand what a stirling job Carana has done
So if I had copied and pasted that, would I have done a sterling job ? @)(++(*
no
You two. @)(++(*
I found a way of understanding the issue as a non-scientist. Some people may find it helpful, others won't.
If my understanding of the issue is manifestly wrong, then do help by providing a correct explanation in words of one syllable or less in a way that anyone can comprehend.
Here is what Lowe said in his email:
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.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -
When was the DNA deposited -
How was the DNA deposited -
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from -
Was a crime committed -
These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance
And here is my Venn diagram again:
(http://ndstudies.gov/sites/default/file/3_circle_venn.gif)
...
In the UK, they examine 10 marker (locations), i.e. 20 alleles. In PT, they examine 15, i.e., 30 alleles.
...
Do you have a cite for the second part of that?
Does this mean that sending samples for DNA testing to the FSS was a waste of time, as the 'evidence' would not be allowed in a Portuguese court, given that it does not meet Portuguese requirements?
Do you have a cite for the second part of that?
Does this mean that sending samples for DNA testing to the FSS was a waste of time, as the 'evidence' would not be allowed in a Portuguese court, given that it does not meet Portuguese requirements?
A DNA profile is simply a count of these short tandem repeats at particular locations on the genome. The CODIS database developed by the FBI uses STR at 13 places, and the UK National DNA database uses STR at 10 places.
from the little I have read no one these forums really understands the DNA evidence. It is further complicated by the fact that some allelles are far more common than others. if maddie had some of these rare allelles then the sample would be more significant...if the allelles were common ..much less significant.
A DNA profile is simply a count of these short tandem repeats at particular locations on the genome. The CODIS database developed by the FBI uses STR at 13 places, and the UK National DNA database uses STR at 10 places.
from the little I have read no one these forums really understands the DNA evidence. It is further complicated by the fact that some allelles are far more common than others. if maddie had some of these rare allelles then the sample would be more significant...if the allelles were common ..much less significant.
Picking up on a point re legal issues, there is a difference between either party stating that a significant proportion of Madeleine's DNA was present (again with the caveat that such tests are limited) and establishing your identity in a paternity / maternity suit.
In the former, there is a possibility that you were in a certain location when the swabs were taken.
But you can't go to court and state that you are definitely the child of X based on a degraded and contaminated sample taken 3 months later from a car boot used by a multitude of people including close family.
I have no idea where it has been stated that results would be inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se, other than in blogs and TV pundit "experts". I see no reason why they couldn't be, but simply not submitted as conclusive evidence.The 'inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se" was merely a question my brain invented.
The 'inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se" was merely a question my brain invented.
Let me try this again, if you would be so kind.
What is the number of matches required within Portugal in order for it have any kind of validity in court?
If the FSS tried 20, found Madeleine had one duplicate, then 15 out of 19 sounds close (before anyone piles in, I mean in a superficial manner).
However, if Portugal's standard was 30, and Madeleine still had say, just the 1 duplicate, then 15 out of 29 sounds, at the same superficial level, as a waste of time.
That was the thinking behind my request for a cite.
Does Portugal test 15x2 all the time, or a sub-set thereof (pick any 10 from 15), and how far up the stats does it have to go to have any form of legal credibility?
I think it has to be a 95% match. But I could be wrong about thisDon't all human beings have a 95% DNA match to chimpanzees? Well some do anyway... @)(++(*
Don't all human beings have a 95% DNA match to chimpanzees? Well some do anyway... @)(++(*
Actually Alfred it's approx. 98%The question is - would a dog alert to a chimp cadaver...? &%+((£
I did hear once that a chimpanzee called Lucy, had a higher I.Q. than an ex-President of the United States.
That could be a rumour though. ?{)(**
The question is - would a dog alert to a chimp cadaver...? &%+((£
The 'inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se" was merely a question my brain invented.
Let me try this again, if you would be so kind.
What is the number of matches required within Portugal in order for it have any kind of validity in court?
If the FSS tried 20, found Madeleine had one duplicate, then 15 out of 19 sounds close (before anyone piles in, I mean in a superficial manner).
However, if Portugal's standard was 30, and Madeleine still had say, just the 1 duplicate, then 15 out of 29 sounds, at the same superficial level, as a waste of time.
That was the thinking behind my request for a cite.
Does Portugal test 15x2 all the time, or a sub-set thereof (pick any 10 from 15), and how far up the stats does it have to go to have any form of legal credibility?
The 'inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se" was merely a question my brain invented.
Let me try this again, if you would be so kind.
What is the number of matches required within Portugal in order for it have any kind of validity in court?
If the FSS tried 20, found Madeleine had one duplicate, then 15 out of 19 sounds close (before anyone piles in, I mean in a superficial manner).
However, if Portugal's standard was 30, and Madeleine still had say, just the 1 duplicate, then 15 out of 29 sounds, at the same superficial level, as a waste of time.
That was the thinking behind my request for a cite.
Does Portugal test 15x2 all the time, or a sub-set thereof (pick any 10 from 15), and how far up the stats does it have to go to have any form of legal credibility?
I think it has to be a 95% match. But I could be wrong about this
It depends what you're trying to establish.
You can't be 95% someone's child. Either all the marker components examnined match or they don't. If some don't, then you're not that person's child.
If you're trying to establish that a victim / or a perp was somewhere at a certain time, I see no reason why one party or the other couldn't try to add that possibility / probability as one factor among others. Depending on the system, the judge might chuck it out or not. The defence for the other side might contest it. Or no one contests it and jurors nod like donkeys.
People are on death row for far less.
It depends what you're trying to establish.
You can't be 95% someone's child. Either all the marker components examnined match or they don't. If some don't, then you're not that person's child.
If you're trying to establish that a victim / or a perp was somewhere at a certain time, I see no reason why one party or the other couldn't try to add that possibility / probability as one factor among others. Depending on the system, the judge might chuck it out or not. The defence for the other side might contest it. Or no one contests it and jurors nod like donkeys.
People are on death row for far less.
Surely the part I underline needn't, strictly, be true if there is more than one contributor to the mix?
Surely now that the alerts have been proved to be undisputed facts by the Portuguese courts then the Portuguese courts would have to accept them as evidence
I don't think there was ever any doubt that the dogs alerted, was there?
there is according to Grime so I will stick with his opinion
When did Grime say his dogs didn't alert?
Do you have a cite for the second part of that?
Does this mean that sending samples for DNA testing to the FSS was a waste of time, as the 'evidence' would not be allowed in a Portuguese court, given that it does not meet Portuguese requirements?
the question you raised is what did they alert to..grime was asked on two occasions in his rogatory interview to confirm the alert to cadaver odour...he dodged the question on both occasions
The only results from the car were via LCN (as there was insufficient DNA), which isn't used in Portugal.
Rebelo did get the car boot bits retested by the INML when the PJ got them back.
TRANSLATION BY INES
15 Processos Vol XV Page 3891
15VOLUMEXVa_Page_3891
To: The Director
INML
Lisbon
Ref: NUIPC 201/070 GALGS
4th Brigade
Inspector Joao Carlos
Date: 12th December 2007
Subject: Request for Forensic Examination
I am delivering the following to you, a component covered with fibre and a plastic component, both extracted from the luggage boot of the Renault Scenic vehicle used by the parents of Madeleine McCann, material which has already been examined by the forensic lab of the FSS in Birmingham, UK and which was returned to us, requesting your collaboration in the sense of proceeding to carry out the necessary examinations of the material in question, using the appropriate methodology, bearing in mind the detection of eventual biological vestiges that might not have been detected in the first examination that they were subject to.
With compliments
The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
Paulo Rebelo
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
There is only one result that I can find that seems to correspond to the PT test - and which did yield a full DNA profile...
Table 1 - Autosomic STRs of vestigios.
01-02 -OUTROS APENSOS I - volume II pages 284-299
Only it most definitely isn't Madeleine, as it's from a male. And the male isn't Gerry, as in some of the markers, neither allele corresponds to hers.
Don't know what happened there. Either the FSS missed it, or the boot piece got contaminated somewhere en route to the INML.
the question you raised is what did they alert to..grime was asked on two occasions in his rogatory interview to confirm the alert to cadaver odour...he dodged the question on both occasions
Surely now that the alerts have been proved to be undisputed facts by the Portuguese courts then the Portuguese courts would have to accept them as evidence
No I didn't. I was replying to your post below. No mention of what they alerted to, just that they alerted, which is 'an undisputed fact'.
No, that is not an undisputed fact. It is very much disputed. The only undisputed fact is that it was said.
I simply do not understand why you can't see this.
But probably pointless to try to explain. It is a Point of Law that escapes most people.
If he hadn't misinterpreted the dogs findings and the FSS results, it would be finished.....No evidence and no media untruths.
If these untruths hadn’t been reported by the investigator who misinterpreted the findings……which proved nothing, I might add. Who else apart from those involved in the case, could be responsible for DNA and dogs, media reports? Judicial secrecy my bum!
And now the latest investigations are not leaking as much as a drip.
Which investigator are you referring to? You seem to forget that this investigation was the work of more than one coordinator. BTW, most people agree that it was the late Guilhermino da Encarnação who was responsible for the leaks.
No matter what, you will never believe that there was evidence against the McCanns.
Wot? The Big Chief was doing the leaking? You have really shocked me now. Lies and distortions right from the top. What a shower.
Wot? The Big Chief was doing the leaking? You have really shocked me now. Lies and distortions right from the top. What a shower.
Can you at least let readers decide for themselves what any file means or doesn't mean and not selectively quote from it, but put the FULL text in, if it's not too much trouble, including the link so as the whole context can be seen
09-Processos Vol IX Page 2419
Vol IX Page 2419
Reply from the Forensics Institute (INML) to Goncalo Amaral
22-08-2007
Reply to Queries
- We inform you that none of the samples received by this institute were designated as supposedly belonging to the missing girl and we therefore, cannot reply to this query.
- Samples were studied - hair and a piece of cloth - nuclear DNA profiles only being obtained from 4 samples, which upon comparison with the DNA profiles of Kate and Gerry, could not belong to the girl.
- The samples were then studied using mitochondrial DNA analysis, the same was done for the other samples, giving the results in accordance with our report of 9th July No. 2007/000226 LX-BC.
- As requested in point 5, it was determined that the profile obtained by the British lab could belong to a son/daughter of the McCanns.
- The comparison of the profiles obtained in autossomic STR from Kate and Gerry McCann with the profile obtained was carried out.
Signed
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
Which investigator are you referring to? You seem to forget that this investigation was the work of more than one coordinator. BTW, most people agree that it was the late Guilhermino da Encarnação who was responsible for the leaks.
No matter what, you will never believe that there was evidence against the McCanns.
Dear oh dear.
Weren't the FSS accused of contaminating DNA samples?
Didn't that derive from John Lowe commenting that certain markers in Madeleine's DNA profile were the same as markers from the profiles of workers at the FSS, including himself?
It could be a journalistic error, but if it's true there were 4, how come day after day we saw only 2?
What breaks my heart is that Maddie trusted her mum to look after her, and care for her. And it didn't happen. And no amount of hand-holding, and Lorraine, and Crimewatch, and make-up and hair will convince me.
What breaks my heart is that Maddie trusted her mum to look after her, and care for her. And it didn't happen. And no amount of hand-holding, and Lorraine, and Crimewatch, and make-up and hair will convince me.
I just read a welsh article stating that SY took 4 dogs to PDL.
Strange, all the press photos of the publicised search sites there show only 2 of them.
Daily ExpressThanks Misty.
Met Police to send sniffer dogs to shop where man with Madeleine McCann lookalike was seen
SCOTLAND Yard detectives want to send sniffer dogs into a shop where a man with a Madeleine McCann lookalike was seen around the time she vanished.
By: Gerard Couzens
Published: Fri, July 4, 2014
Officers fired off more than 250 questions at the four suspects, who include a 51-year-old heroin addict and 38-year-old ex Ocean Club worker.
*snippe*
They asked them: "Did you kill Madeleine?", and "Did You Hide Her Body?"
Afterwards two South Wales sniffer dogs similar to ones employed in ground searches in Praia da Luz last month swept one suspect's mum's car for any evidence Madeleine had been in it.
No evidence linking the vehicle to Madeleine was found and the police quizzes are not thought to have yielded any bombshell information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't say if they were cadaver dogs or not.
Fascinatng.....Here are all 4 dogs
Here are all 4 dogs
http://i4.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8461067.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/snifferdogs.jpg