UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: misty on August 06, 2018, 02:57:39 AM
-
I was drawn to review the cadaver dog examination & alert in 5A following a recent discussion elsewhere.
On watching the sequence of events starting at 19m 16s on the attached link (full screen on a laptop/desktop is recommended) https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1156 right through to the time of Eddie's alert, it is very interesting to note where Eddie's nose can briefly be seen before he turns around behind the sofa & starts barking. His tail is visible, showing his position when alerting.
I have included a still shot where you can see his nose just before the alert.
Contrast this with the commentary Grime provided on the location of the source of the alert at the time:-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
*snipped*
"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."
What observations do other posters have regarding what appears to be the real source of Eddie's alert?
-
Martin Grime is in the better position to observe what Eddie is doing behind the couch than what we are.
I agree he sniffs under the sofa but scent is in the air, it could be moving from a certain spot.
What difference would it make if he located an area with a metre of another spot?
-
I was drawn to review the cadaver dog examination & alert in 5A following a recent discussion elsewhere.
On watching the sequence of events starting at 19m 16s on the attached link (full screen on a laptop/desktop is recommended) https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1156 right through to the time of Eddie's alert, it is very interesting to note where Eddie's nose can briefly be seen before he turns around behind the sofa & starts barking. His tail is visible, showing his position when alerting.
I have included a still shot where you can see his nose just before the alert.
Contrast this with the commentary Grime provided on the location of the source of the alert at the time:-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
*snipped*
"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."
What observations do other posters have regarding what appears to be the real source of Eddie's alert?
In my opinion Eddie is a blunt instrument instrument. From what I recall of his performance in the villa the focus of his attention was indeterminate when giving his bark indication ... take your pick between the chair at the table ~ on top of the cupboard ~ or inside where cuddle cat was lurking.
His priority seems to be turning to directly face his owner when barking.
In this instance his owner was behind him and to the left at the far end of the sofa.
-
Another example of an error? Has the handler been accused of previous errors? By whom? Was it proved that he was guilty of these accusations? By whom?
-
Another example of an error? Has the handler been accused of previous errors? By whom? Was it proved that he was guilty of these accusations? By whom?
I can think of a few times. Where is the footage of Eddie alerting to Cuddle cat outside the villa? I have not seen it and yet it is written about in the file.
-
I can think of a few times. Where is the footage of Eddie alerting to Cuddle cat outside the villa? I have not seen it and yet it is written about in the file.
What does 'outside the villa' mean?
-
What does 'outside the villa' mean?
To me it means somewhere other than inside the villa. What does it mean to you?
-
Another example of an error? Has the handler been accused of previous errors? By whom? Was it proved that he was guilty of these accusations? By whom?
I seem to recall less than positive criticism within the pages of Operation Rectangle ... well worth a read to broaden the horizons, if you haven't already.
-
I can think of a few times. Where is the footage of Eddie alerting to Cuddle cat outside the villa? I have not seen it and yet it is written about in the file.
Is there any reason why you should have access to such footage?
-
Martin Grime is in the better position to observe what Eddie is doing behind the couch than what we are.
I agree he sniffs under the sofa but scent is in the air, it could be moving from a certain spot.
What difference would it make if he located an area with a metre of another spot?
How large a gap in both space & time should a cadaver dog be permitted between source & alert? Would a delay in alerting or a misinterpreted source of alert have an adverse effect on the collection of possible forensic evidence?
-
A question, which we cannot answer but gives food for thought:-
Which came first - the birth of Amaral's hypothesis or the arrival of the dogs?
I have asked this based on Grime's attention to the examination of the window sill by Keela & also the area of the boot to which Eddie hadn't given a prior alert.
-
I seem to recall less than positive criticism within the pages of Operation Rectangle ... well worth a read to broaden the horizons, if you haven't already.
I’d love to read that Brietta. Do you have a cite ?
-
I’d love to read that Brietta. Do you have a cite ?
Certainly. It is a terribly simple thing to access.
If one types - operation rectangle - into a search engine ... one will arrive at a page where a choice can be made from various references ... choosing one will generally take one here https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf it takes about thirty seconds max to arrive at ~ well it did when I tried it.
I can thoroughly recommend the technique to you.
If you have a real interest ... allow me to also recommend you to ... https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
Both links appear in the forum on a quite a few occasions. Good reading to you.
-
So if the dogs were not handled correctly and their alerts not evidence anyway in your opinions, why the constant need to discredit them. All IMO of course.
-
So if the dogs were not handled correctly and their alerts not evidence anyway in your opinions, why the constant need to discredit them. All IMO of course.
I don't think there is any question about the handling of the dogs. In my opinion the handler is an expert in his field.
In my opinion the problem arises when interpretation has been made in the total absence of supporting evidence.
Misty made a totally new observation of a point which might be worth discussing before we embark on the same old same old set of accusations.
-
Certainly. It is a terribly simple thing to access.
If one types - operation rectangle - into a search engine ... one will arrive at a page where a choice can be made from various references ... choosing one will generally take one here https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf it takes about thirty seconds max to arrive at ~ well it did when I tried it.
I can thoroughly recommend the technique to you.
If you have a real interest ... allow me to also recommend you to ... https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
Both links appear in the forum on a quite a few occasions. Good reading to you.
Excellent. Thank you.
-
Is there any reason why you should have access to such footage?
That was the point they were making that the VRD alerts were backed by video proof. Basically if there is no video we don't know if it really happened.
-
How large a gap in both space & time should a cadaver dog be permitted between source & alert? Would a delay in alerting or a misinterpreted source of alert have an adverse effect on the collection of possible forensic evidence?
No because samples are only collected from places where Keela alerted to. AFAIK. You can't test for cadaver odour. In Eddie's case if there isn't a chunk of flesh in sight there is nothing to test for.
-
No because samples are only collected from places where Keela alerted to. AFAIK. You can test for cadaver odour. In Eddie's case if there isn't a chunk of flesh in sight there is nothing to test for.
Keela had to have her nose very close to the source before she would alert. However, Grime stated that Eddie had alerted to the floor tiles , whereas his nose appears to be directed at the sofa fabric right before the barking.
Was Keela given the opportunity to examine the sofa at close quarters?
Was the cellular material beneath the floor tiles a chance finding rather than what Eddie actually alerted to?
Could realisation of a sofa alert have been useful to the investigation?
There is a method of testing for some elements of cadaver odour contaminant, not dissimilar to the methods used for his scent transfer pads as a training aid. It was used in the Casey Anthony case.
http://www.orlandomagazine.com/Blogs/Casey-Anthony-Trial/April-2011/You-want-Orders-with-those-Fryes/
*snipped*
There are still outstanding motions the judge must rule on. They include plant root growth where Caylee’s remains were found, plus chloroform levels and air samples from the trunk of Casey’s car. State witness Dr. Arpad Vass is a research scientist and forensic anthropologist at Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory who is well known in the field of decomposition odor analysis. He ran gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer tests on air and carpet samples from Casey’s trunk and found evidence of human decomposition and a high level of chloroform. The defense claims the chloroform was from Caylee’s bathing suit. If Judge Perry allows this evidence at trial, he will be the first judge in the U.S. to do so.
-
Keela had to have her nose very close to the source before she would alert. However, Grime stated that Eddie had alerted to the floor tiles , whereas his nose was appears to be directed at the sofa fabric right before the barking.
Was Keela given the opportunity to examine the sofa at close quarters?
Was the cellular material beneath the floor tiles a chance finding rather than what Eddie actually alerted to?
Could realisation of a sofa alert have been useful to the investigation?
There is a method of testing for some elements of cadaver odour contaminant, not dissimilar to the methods used for his scent transfer pads as a training aid. It was used in the Casey Anthony case.
http://www.orlandomagazine.com/Blogs/Casey-Anthony-Trial/April-2011/You-want-Orders-with-those-Fryes/
*snipped*
There are still outstanding motions the judge must rule on. They include plant root growth where Caylee’s remains were found, plus chloroform levels and air samples from the trunk of Casey’s car. State witness Dr. Arpad Vass is a research scientist and forensic anthropologist at Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory who is well known in the field of decomposition odor analysis. He ran gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer tests on air and carpet samples from Casey’s trunk and found evidence of human decomposition and a high level of chloroform. The defense claims the chloroform was from Caylee’s bathing suit. If Judge Perry allows this evidence at trial, he will be the first judge in the U.S. to do so.
Sorry, Misty but I'm exhausted. We won't be able to turn the clock back on this aspect. I think you have a point but I haven't the energy today sorry.
-
Sorry, Misty but I'm exhausted. We won't be able to turn the clock back on this aspect. I think you have a point but I haven't the energy today sorry.
No worries. Look at it when you can.
-
Grime imagines what is going on inside his dog's head. No one can really argue because who would know?
It was interesting that the smell of death could be picked up by gas chromatography. That could be very species specific in the future.
-
Grime imagines what is going on inside his dog's head. No one can really argue because who would know?
It was interesting that the smell of death could be picked up by gas chromatography. That could be very species specific in the future.
I have just had a look at Arpad Vass who brought his patented process to that trial. I am amazed that the judge let him do this as it had never been allowed in a trial before and hadn't been accepted by the scientific community either.
Snipped from a longer article
"A courtroom isn't a scientific lab and evidence shouldn't come in before it has been accepted in a relevant scientific community," Schwartz said.
Vass acknowledged several shortcomings in his testing that detracted from its credibility: He didn't collect the samples, someone in Florida did, and sent them to his lab in Tennessee; as controls in his analysis, he used chloroform obtained from two vehicles unrelated to the case; after obtaining readings from the samples, he compared them to a proprietary database that was not revealed to the defense.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/15/casey.anthony.forensic.evidence/index.html
According to this article it may be the use of this mans testimony that was partially the reason for Caylees mother being found not guilty.
Misty do you think that Martin Grime is cuing the dog to alert in the videos, rather than just making sure the dog searches everywhere. I have seen some people making that claim and that is why I ask.
In my opinion whether the dogs head is up or down before an alert probably depends on the dog and not the exact source of the odour and I have to say I can't see any reason to suggest there was anything wrong with this sequence but perhaps I am just thick or something.
-
Eddie alerted behind the sofa. Keela was brought in and alerted more specifically. Forensic samples containing DNA were found as a result. It seems to me that Grime's dogs did what was expected of them.
-
I have just had a look at Arpad Vass who brought his patented process to that trial. I am amazed that the judge let him do this as it had never been allowed in a trial before and hadn't been accepted by the scientific community either.
Snipped from a longer article
"A courtroom isn't a scientific lab and evidence shouldn't come in before it has been accepted in a relevant scientific community," Schwartz said.
Vass acknowledged several shortcomings in his testing that detracted from its credibility: He didn't collect the samples, someone in Florida did, and sent them to his lab in Tennessee; as controls in his analysis, he used chloroform obtained from two vehicles unrelated to the case; after obtaining readings from the samples, he compared them to a proprietary database that was not revealed to the defense.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/15/casey.anthony.forensic.evidence/index.html
According to this article it may be the use of this mans testimony that was partially the reason for Caylees mother being found not guilty.
Misty do you think that Martin Grime is cuing the dog to alert in the videos, rather than just making sure the dog searches everywhere. I have seen some people making that claim and that is why I ask.
In my opinion whether the dogs head is up or down before an alert probably depends on the dog and not the exact source of the odour and I have to say I can't see any reason to suggest there was anything wrong with this sequence but perhaps I am just thick or something.
Thank you for that article, Sunny. IMO it goes someway towards proving that until there is a reliable & proven scientific test to validate cadaver dogs' alerts to remnant scent where no body has been found, the alerts should not be allowed as evidence in any body-less murder case.
With regards to the cueing - when drug detection dogs are scenting people/their luggage, would you expect to see the handler tapping the person/luggage to indicate areas to be searched? Surely the dogs' scenting abilities are such that no prompting whatsoever is required & the dogs should be left to seek out any potential source?
All my opinion.
-
Eddie alerted behind the sofa. Keela was brought in and alerted more specifically. Forensic samples containing DNA were found as a result. It seems to me that Grime's dogs did what was expected of them.
We all know what was reported. It would be helpful if you could comment on where Eddie's nose can be seen immediately before his alert. If his alerts are only "general location" how should we view the alerts to the clothing he picked up in his mouth?
-
We all know what was reported. It would be helpful if you could comment on where Eddie's nose can be seen immediately before his alert. If his alerts are only "general location" how should we view the alerts to the clothing he picked up in his mouth?
I'm not that interested, to be honest. I was just pointing out that he wasn't trained to home in on things like Keela was. Eddie said 'There's something around here', Keela said 'It's right THERE'
-
We all know what was reported. It would be helpful if you could comment on where Eddie's nose can be seen immediately before his alert. If his alerts are only "general location" how should we view the alerts to the clothing he picked up in his mouth?
I have previously covered that, but the clothing tests could possibly be a police ruse IMO.
-
I have previously covered that, but the clothing tests could possibly be a police ruse IMO.
Eddie's alerts to the 3 items of clothing were presented as evidence within the files. Those same alerts formed part of the facts in Amaral's book as declared by the Portuguese Courts. If they were actually a police ruse, how much other evidence was also a ruse?
-
Eddie's alerts to the 3 items of clothing were presented as evidence within the files. Those same alerts formed part of the facts in Amaral's book as declared by the Portuguese Courts. If they were actually a police ruse, how much other evidence was also a ruse?
It was only the fact that there was video of Eddie and Keela working that it became possible to identify the possible ruse with Eddie in particular.
As Davel would have pointed out the dog alerts were not evidence, they just needed explaining. Kate could not explain them and "neither could they".
-
It was only the fact that there was video of Eddie and Keela working that it became possible to identify the possible ruse with Eddie in particular.
As Davel would have pointed out the dog alerts were not evidence, they just needed explaining. Kate could not explain them and "neither could they".
Who ?
-
Who ?
Absent friend Davel.
-
Thank you for that article, Sunny. IMO it goes someway towards proving that until there is a reliable & proven scientific test to validate cadaver dogs' alerts to remnant scent where no body has been found, the alerts should not be allowed as evidence in any body-less murder case.
With regards to the cueing - when drug detection dogs are scenting people/their luggage, would you expect to see the handler tapping the person/luggage to indicate areas to be searched? Surely the dogs' scenting abilities are such that no prompting whatsoever is required & the dogs should be left to seek out any potential source?
All my opinion.
I don't think that the article I shared was actually about the dog alerts it was about some process that the man had developed to find cadaver molecules that hadn't been tested.
With regards to any cueing, I can't possibly comment as the video all made sense to me and I didn't see anything odd all I saw was Grime encouraging the dog from time to time.
IMO when the dog alerted IMO it had scented cadaver odour, others believe as I do now and others do not. IMO it could possibly give the impression that you are accusing Grime of being so unprofessional as to train the dog to make false alerts. I have seen others make that very claim and I hope I am wrong about your posts.
-
I don't think that the article I shared was actually about the dog alerts it was about some process that the man had developed to find cadaver molecules that hadn't been tested.
With regards to any cueing, I can't possibly comment as the video all made sense to me and I didn't see anything odd all I saw was Grime encouraging the dog from time to time.
IMO when the dog alerted IMO it had scented cadaver odour, others believe as I do now and others do not. IMO it could possibly give the impression that you are accusing Grime of being so unprofessional as to train the dog to make false alerts. I have seen others make that very claim and I hope I am wrong about your posts.
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick if you think that anyone has accused Mr Grime of anything of the sort regarding training his dogs to make false alerts.
No-one on this forum ever has ... any such suggestion is libellous.
There is an enormous difference in what you suggest and in the proven existence of the 'clever Hans effect'.
-
Apologies Brietta, it wasn't on this forum that I read the claims it was elsewhere.
I will look up the clever Hans effect as have never heard of it.
Also apologies to misty for doubting you. *%^^&
So I guess you think the alerts are a subconscious cueing by Grime that made the dog alert. That is what I understood by the "clever Hans effect anyway. The only problem I have is that grime and his dogs have found cadavers haven't they.
-
I don't think that the article I shared was actually about the dog alerts it was about some process that the man had developed to find cadaver molecules that hadn't been tested.
With regards to any cueing, I can't possibly comment as the video all made sense to me and I didn't see anything odd all I saw was Grime encouraging the dog from time to time.
IMO when the dog alerted IMO it had scented cadaver odour, others believe as I do now and others do not. IMO it could possibly give the impression that you are accusing Grime of being so unprofessional as to train the dog to make false alerts. I have seen others make that very claim and I hope I am wrong about your posts.
Misty is not doing that IMO.
-
I don't think that the article I shared was actually about the dog alerts it was about some process that the man had developed to find cadaver molecules that hadn't been tested.
With regards to any cueing, I can't possibly comment as the video all made sense to me and I didn't see anything odd all I saw was Grime encouraging the dog from time to time.
IMO when the dog alerted IMO it had scented cadaver odour, others believe as I do now and others do not. IMO it could possibly give the impression that you are accusing Grime of being so unprofessional as to train the dog to make false alerts. I have seen others make that very claim and I hope I am wrong about your posts.
My first point was based on scientific attempts in the form of collecting gases from the car boot to prove that the dogs had indeed alerted to cadaver odour. Until such a time as scientists have isolated the VOC's unique to human decomposition & limited the dogs' training to same, then I do not consider that either set of evidence should be permitted in a body-less criminal trial.
I do not know what Eddie was alerting to or why. It can clearly be seen in the video that he neither alerts to CC at any time, despite Grime's claim Eddie did, nor that the last place he scented in the sofa area before barking was really the floor area behind the sofa. From one perspective, it appears that Grime may have been given some guidance as to where the scenting exercises should be concentrated. From another perspective, Grime may have simply been mistaken re. what Eddie was really alerting to - hence all the clothing in the rental villa being taken away for further examination despite no obvious alerts.
I think it would be quite hard to train a dog to give false alerts without totally confusing it. There is always the risk that something within its training parameters may be present at the location of the false alert, later proven by forensics.
All IMO.
-
My first point was based on scientific attempts in the form of collecting gases from the car boot to prove that the dogs had indeed alerted to cadaver odour. Until such a time as scientists have isolated the VOC's unique to human decomposition & limited the dogs' training to same, then I do not consider that either set of evidence should be permitted in a body-less criminal trial.
I do not know what Eddie was alerting to or why. It can clearly be seen in the video that he neither alerts to CC at any time, despite Grime's claim Eddie did, nor that the last place he scented in the sofa area before barking was really the floor area behind the sofa. From one perspective, it appears that Grime may have been given some guidance as to where the scenting exercises should be concentrated. From another perspective, Grime may have simply been mistaken re. what Eddie was really alerting to - hence all the clothing in the rental villa being taken away for further examination despite no obvious alerts.
I think it would be quite hard to train a dog to give false alerts without totally confusing it. There is always the risk that something within its training parameters may be present at the location of the false alert, later proven by forensics.
All IMO.
I understand your post but as far as I was aware Arpad Vass' test wasn't to confirm the dogs he was simply trying to produce a process that would bypass them. That is what I understood the cite I gave to mean.
I can imagine that dogs and handlers may make mistakes, we all make mistakes but there were a large number of alerts on the McCanns property and none anywhere else as far as I can remember.
All IMO and thank you for responding.
-
I understand your post but as far as I was aware Arpad Vass' test wasn't to confirm the dogs he was simply trying to produce a process that would bypass them. That is what I understood the cite I gave to mean.
I can imagine that dogs and handlers may make mistakes, we all make mistakes but there were a large number of alerts on the McCanns property and none anywhere else as far as I can remember.
All IMO and thank you for responding.
there were a large number of alerts on the McCanns property and none anywhere else was the "Please explain" given to Kate McCann early Sept 2007.
Kate had no explanation and she says neither did they. (That is more or less from her book)
From her arguido statement "46 --- Signalled the presence of human blood in the trunk of the same vehicle, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm
-
Misty you mentioned Eddie's head was up and Keela's was down, perhaps this will help explain why.
Grime added Eddie did not seem interested in the vehicles but in a scent that was wafting in the air, based on the way the dog held his nose upward. Grime said Eddie then "hit" on an abandoned house next door. Testimony shows that house was never repaired after a fire gutted the inside and killed a child several years ago.
He did add
During lengthy cross-examination Grime said there is no evidence to show Eddie smelled anything incriminating against or linked to Mr. Parker. Like Higgins, Grime said cadaver dogs can only prove useful when there is other evidence that corroborates the dog's "hits."
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
This is in the Sam Parker murder case by the way. I don't know anything about it but saw Grime mentioned in relation to it & found this.
-
Apologies Brietta, it wasn't on this forum that I read the claims it was elsewhere.
8)--))
Also apologies to misty for doubting you. *%^^&
So I guess you think the alerts are a subconscious cueing by Grime that made the dog alert. That is what I understood by the "clever Hans effect anyway. The only problem I have is that grime and his dogs have found cadavers haven't they.
Well worth doing. Going to the tree is always best rather than picking up some mushy windfall.... 8(>((
snip>>>>>>
Other scientists, however, remained sceptical.
In 1907, Oskar Pfungst, in collaboration with Stumpf, re-tested Hans in a classic case of psychology. A group of thirteen scientists was assembled, known as the "Hans Commission".>>>>>>snip.
"The other major finding, was that Hans could only answer correctly if the questioner also knew the answer to the question. When the questioner did not know the answer to the question, Hans could not find the answer".
Join up the dots on that one.
-
Misty you mentioned Eddie's head was up and Keela's was down, perhaps this will help explain why.
Grime added Eddie did not seem interested in the vehicles but in a scent that was wafting in the air, based on the way the dog held his nose upward. Grime said Eddie then "hit" on an abandoned house next door. Testimony shows that house was never repaired after a fire gutted the inside and killed a child several years ago.
He did add
During lengthy cross-examination Grime said there is no evidence to show Eddie smelled anything incriminating against or linked to Mr. Parker. Like Higgins, Grime said cadaver dogs can only prove useful when there is other evidence that corroborates the dog's "hits."
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
This is in the Sam Parker murder case by the way. I don't know anything about it but saw Grime mentioned in relation to it & found this.
Eddie was originally trained as an air-scenting dog which is why his head was often raised to detect scent. His method of alerting was not standard for a cadaver dog.
-
Eddie was originally trained as an air-scenting dog which is why his head was often raised to detect scent. His method of alerting was not standard for a cadaver dog.
I think all cadaver dogs are air-scenting dogs.
-
Eddie was originally trained as an air-scenting dog which is why his head was often raised to detect scent. His method of alerting was not standard for a cadaver dog.
I was attempting to answer this post of yours misty
Keela had to have her nose very close to the source before she would alert. However, Grime stated that Eddie had alerted to the floor tiles , whereas his nose was appears to be directed at the sofa fabric right before the barking.
Was Keela given the opportunity to examine the sofa at close quarters?
Was the cellular material beneath the floor tiles a chance finding rather than what Eddie actually alerted to?
Could realisation of a sofa alert have been useful to the investigation?
Perhaps eddie was not alerting to the sofa at all.
-
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 interview ... Dated May 14 2008
The problem as I see it is that Martin Grime's professional opinion, that anyone who likes can interpret whatever meaning they like from the dogs' reaction, gets totally ignored.
Once the dog has done it's bit ... it is then up to the human component to make sense of what the dog is indicating and to prove or disprove its value using technology which is acceptable to a court and the result of which is capable of being explained and understood by that court.
Martin Grime has explained it in words of one syllable ... why is it that people disregard his professional opinion and are still chanting ... 'dogs don't lie' ?
-
The fact that technology does not support the dog alert doesn't mean the alert is wrong, merely that it could not be confirmed.
-
The fact that technology does not support the dog alert doesn't mean the alert is wrong, merely that it could not be confirmed.
I have provided a quote from the dog owner in support of my opinion ... where is yours?
-
I have provided a quote from the dog owner in support of my opinion ... where is yours?
I don't need one . What I have posted is indisputable logic.
The tecnhology does not prove the dog is wrong.
-
I don't need one . What I have posted is indisputable logic.
The tecnhology does not prove the dog is wrong.
Wrong about what? The dog owner has stated more than once that the dog indications have to be confirmed. Exactly as some were.
For example we know that the key fob was alerted to ... we also know the key fob tested positive for a cellular substance and the contributor identified.
That is how it works. Wishful thinking or guesswork might be entertaining for members of some fora ... this one requires the best positive information to be going on with.
That information has been given by forensic testing backed up by the dog owner's confirmation of the appropriate procedure.
In the interim ... to get back to Misty's question ... any ideas what exactly was Eddie barking at?
-
I don't need one . What I have posted is indisputable logic.
The tecnhology does not prove the dog is wrong.
Isn't that rather like saying the dog is always correct until proven otherwise? If the source of the alert cannot be determined, how can anyone ever prove the dog is wrong?
So much "evidence" against the McCanns is based on what cannot be dis-proven.
All IMO.
-
I was attempting to answer this post of yours misty
Keela had to have her nose very close to the source before she would alert. However, Grime stated that Eddie had alerted to the floor tiles , whereas his nose was appears to be directed at the sofa fabric right before the barking.
Was Keela given the opportunity to examine the sofa at close quarters?
Was the cellular material beneath the floor tiles a chance finding rather than what Eddie actually alerted to?
Could realisation of a sofa alert have been useful to the investigation?
Perhaps eddie was not alerting to the sofa at all.
Eddie may not have been alerting to the end of the sofa but that's the last place he can be seen sniffing before alerting. Isn't that the way alerts are supposed to work? He had previously sniffed at the area in the centre of the wall/floor juncture but not alerted IMO; he bypassed the same area before he reached the r/h end of the sofa.
As I said previously, under the guidance of Grime, Keela was deployed to examine the floor & wall area behind the sofa, where Eddie had barked. Were the findings under the tile chance? Why were swabs taken from stains on the same wall area & back of sofa where Keela had not alerted but widely reported to have been blood?
When talking about scent pooling in the wardrobe area of the parents' bedroom, where Eddie also alerted, Grime attributed it to the apartment having been closed off for the summer. Unbeknown to him, the apartment had been let out to 4 families since 3/5/07, the most recent occupation terminating 5 days before Eddie was deployed.
-
Forensic people were deployed to get the evidence from 5A. They were directed by Jonathan Smith from the FSS. Before they began they watched the film showing KEELA's alerts behind the couch and took up 4 tiles. KEELA was then used again and another tile was taken up.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Eddie's alert behind the couch, it seems, wasn't the important one, Keela's alerts are what mattered.
-
Forensic people were deployed to get the evidence from 5A. They were directed by Jonathan Smith from the FSS. Before they began they watched the film showing KEELA's alerts behind the couch and took up 4 tiles. KEELA was then used again and another tile was taken up.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Eddie's alert behind the couch, it seems, wasn't the important one, Keela's alerts are what mattered.
So why did the team take swabs from stains on the wall & sofa back at the same time if Keela hadn't alerted in those places?
-
So why did the team take swabs from stains on the wall & sofa back at the same time if Keela hadn't alerted in those places?
I didn't read the whole report so I don't know.. All I know is that it was the Brits who organised it all.
-
I don't need one . What I have posted is indisputable logic.
The tecnhology does not prove the dog is wrong.
Confessions also help when you have numpties involved. Gerry later repeated the same thing to Sandra Felgueiras, "The dogs were too unreliable."
16 September 2007
"They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin.
The couple's lawyers have already contacted Zapata's defence team, who are now sending their large file on the matter to Britain.
Zapata's estranged wife, flight instructor Jeanette Zapata, was 37 when she vanished on October 11 1976 after seeing her three children off to school. Her body has never been found.
Detectives suspected Zapata of involvement in her disappearance but did not charge him because of a lack of evidence.
Police decided to conduct new searches using cadaver dogs, a new investigative technique, when an old friend of Mrs Zapata contacted them about the case in 2004.
Zapata, 68, was charged with first-degree murder last year after the dogs indicated they sniffed human remains in a small basement "crawl space" at the former family home in Madison and other properties linked to him.
But Dane County Judge Patrick Fiedler ruled last month that the evidence that led to the charge could not be put before the jury.
He said the dogs were too unreliable in detecting the odour of remains and noted that no remains were actually found."
-
I didn't read the whole report so I don't know.. All I know is that it was the Brits who organised it all.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm
The same CSI team which lifted the tiles took swabs of the wall & sofa stains? Why, if the forensic team hadn't found them during the sweep on 4/5/07?
-
Isn't that rather like saying the dog is always correct until proven otherwise? If the source of the alert cannot be determined, how can anyone ever prove the dog is wrong?
So much "evidence" against the McCanns is based on what cannot be dis-proven.
All IMO.
I think we have all agreed that the dogs have not been proved correct, but equally they have not been proved incorrect. Their alert is a fact. What it means is uncertain.
-
I think we have all agreed that the dogs have not been proved correct, but equally they have not been proved incorrect. Their alert is a fact. What it means is uncertain.
It is also a fact that cadaver dog evidence has been used in at least one trial in the UK which would certainly mean that they are considered evidence even if that evidence may need to be corroborated. See David Gilroy case.
Martin Grime is a professional man who has many years experience working for the UK police and the FBI for any one to imply he was deliberately cuing any dog is libel IMO.
-
It is also a fact that cadaver dog evidence has been used in at least one trial in the UK which would certainly mean that they are considered evidence even if that evidence may need to be corroborated. See David Gilroy case.
Martin Grime is a professional man who has many years experience working for the UK police and the FBI for any one to imply he was deliberately cuing any dog is libel IMO.
Has anyone on this forum made that accusation?
-
Yes luckily it was removed today.
-
It is also a fact that cadaver dog evidence has been used in at least one trial in the UK which would certainly mean that they are considered evidence even if that evidence may need to be corroborated. See David Gilroy case.
Martin Grime is a professional man who has many years experience working for the UK police and the FBI for any one to imply he was deliberately cuing any dog is libel IMO.
Do you have a cites for cases where Grime + Eddie located a body or helped solve a crime in an overseas jurisdiction pre-2007 which justified the "internationally renowned" reputation?
-
Has anyone on this forum made that accusation?
Who knows? Stuff gets deleted all the time.
-
Do you have a cites for cases where Grime + Eddie located a body or helped solve a crime in an overseas jurisdiction pre-2007 which justified the "internationally renowned" reputation?
Did I say he had an "internationally renowned" reputation, whether in 2007 or not. No I did not so don't put words into my mouth. I suggest you read my post again Misty.
-
Yes luckily it was removed today.
Hmmmm ... I must have missed that in the log.
-
I think we have all agreed that the dogs have not been proved correct, but equally they have not been proved incorrect. Their alert is a fact. What it means is uncertain.
Those particular dog alerts can never be proven to be incorrect.
-
Those particular dog alerts can never be proven to be incorrect.
Indeed, they will remain for ever in the suspicious category - unless Madeleine makes a surprise live appearance.
-
Did I say he had an "internationally renowned" reputation, whether in 2007 or not. No I did not so don't put words into my mouth. I suggest you read my post again Misty.
You stated that he had several years experience with the UK police & FBI. Was all that work done using Eddie?
Sometimes the dog may not be all that it is cracked up to be. For instance, in 2004 this is how Eddie was reported in the media:-
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/wuff-justice-doggy-sleuths-on-the-trail-of-murder-victims-1-2543216
The two officers set out looking for high-drive working dogs, which they could train to be the best, and found two border collies – Frankie and a similar dog. Their first deployment was to investigate the murder of Barnsley man Shane Collier, but only Frankie proved suitable, and the other dog had to be retired early. That was when they began to train up springer spaniel Eddie instead, a dog whose owner was finding him simply "unmanageable".
By 2008. Eddie's origins were reported to be a specialist dog breeder.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm
(How can a dog sniff through concrete? BBC News
Page last updated at 13:23 GMT, Tuesday, 26 February 2008
WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers...
"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. He is currently training two new dogs, Morse and Lewis."
2 words jumped out at me from the Yorkshire Post article - "business plan".
-
Hmmmm ... I must have missed that in the log.
@Twas from my post containing the occupancy issue.
-
@Twas from my post containing the occupancy issue.
I am glad you admit that so I retract my apology to you Misty.
Back on topic. When I made my post about Martin Grime I was not distinguishing pre 2007 or post 2007 I was simply making the point that he seems to be highly thought of even by the FBI. Did I mention that all the work was with Eddie? You are putting words into my mouth again. Please desist. Where is a sensible moderator to or modify your posts. I also see the @ Misty. are you a twitterer?
-
You stated that he had several years experience with the UK police & FBI. Was all that work done using Eddie?
Sometimes the dog may not be all that it is cracked up to be. For instance, in 2004 this is how Eddie was reported in the media:-
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/wuff-justice-doggy-sleuths-on-the-trail-of-murder-victims-1-2543216
The two officers set out looking for high-drive working dogs, which they could train to be the best, and found two border collies – Frankie and a similar dog. Their first deployment was to investigate the murder of Barnsley man Shane Collier, but only Frankie proved suitable, and the other dog had to be retired early. That was when they began to train up springer spaniel Eddie instead, a dog whose owner was finding him simply "unmanageable".
By 2008. Eddie's origins were reported to be a specialist dog breeder.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm
(How can a dog sniff through concrete? BBC News
Page last updated at 13:23 GMT, Tuesday, 26 February 2008
WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers...
"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. He is currently training two new dogs, Morse and Lewis."
2 words jumped out at me from the Yorkshire Post article - "business plan".
Perhaps we should have a post-of-the-day thread. That was very interesting. 8((()*/
-
Perhaps we should have a post-of-the-day thread. That was very interesting. 8((()*/
That is a matter of opinion. Someone telling me what I posted when I didn't will never make post-of-the-day IMO.
Mind you this is interesting about a 2 and a half year old Eddie
SNIFFING out tiny traces of blood in murder cases and tracking down buried human remains is a job only two specialists in Britain are qualified to do. Two-and-a-half-year-old springer spaniel Eddie and partner Frankie – a four-year-old border collie – are experts who come second to none in their line of work. Their keen noses take them under floorboards, through rivers and woodland, and into lofts and caves. They are fully passported, and have been transported far and wide by plane and helicopter. And their professionalism and success rate are such that when the FBI called on their services recently, they were simply too busy to help.
Read more at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/wuff-justice-doggy-sleuths-on-the-trail-of-murder-victims-1-2543216
-
I am glad you admit that so I retract my apology to you Misty.
Back on topic. When I made my post about Martin Grime I was not distinguishing pre 2007 or post 2007 I was simply making the point that he seems to be highly thought of even by the FBI. Did I mention that all the work was with Eddie? You are putting words into my mouth again. Please desist. Where is a sensible moderator to or modify your posts. I also see the @ Misty. are you a twitterer?
There was nothing wrong with referring to the CC alert as a fiasco IMO. It seems less libellous than posts still standing which say the McCanns invented stories for the media. But hey ho.....
Would you supply a cite from the FBI that he was highly regarded, please, as his evidence was not permitted in the actual trial of Sam Parker?
Eddie was the dog in question here, with his handler. Was Eddie infallible? Would Grime claim his dog was actually trained to pick up evidence with his mouth or dig at the possible burial site of a murder victim?
I am not @Misty on twitter.
-
I was talking about Grime not Eddie but you have already provided a cite that the FBI wanted Grime and a 2 and a half year old Eddie.
It wasn't your reference to the CC episode that I was referring to when I said I retract my apology it was the following sentence.
-
Indeed, they will remain for ever in the suspicious category - unless Madeleine makes a surprise live appearance.
No, even if Madeleine turns up alive it will still be impossible to prove them incorrect.
-
No, even if Madeleine turns up alive it will still be impossible to prove them incorrect.
That would be a miracle.
-
I was drawn to review the cadaver dog examination & alert in 5A following a recent discussion elsewhere.
On watching the sequence of events starting at 19m 16s on the attached link (full screen on a laptop/desktop is recommended) https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1156 right through to the time of Eddie's alert, it is very interesting to note where Eddie's nose can briefly be seen before he turns around behind the sofa & starts barking. His tail is visible, showing his position when alerting.
I have included a still shot where you can see his nose just before the alert.
Contrast this with the commentary Grime provided on the location of the source of the alert at the time:-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
*snipped*
"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."
What observations do other posters have regarding what appears to be the real source of Eddie's alert?
Eddie appeared to be interested in a scent coming from under the settee but I agree misty, he alerted at the end of the settee by the curtains.
-
Eddie appeared to be interested in a scent coming from under the settee but I agree misty, he alerted at the end of the settee by the curtains.
Thank you, Angelo.
Keela couldn't access that end of the sofa because the small table was in the way.
-
That would be a miracle.
I was reading a report that a man had kept a girl in a cave for 15 years.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indonesia-shaman-sex-slave-cave-tolitoli-central-sul
-
Perhaps we should have a post-of-the-day thread. That was very interesting. 8((()*/
I don't think it qualifies as post of the day but the links certainly provided food for thought. I wonder how he managed to train Morse & Lewis based on the date of the report as he was in Jersey under Operation Rectangle for the next 4 months?
-
@Twas from my post containing the occupancy issue.
Thank you Misty. I have now located the offending post.
-
Thank you Misty. I have now located the offending post.
Topic
-
Topic
Yes, the redacted sentence referred to was on topic ... unfortunately it failed another necessary criterion.
-
Yes, the redacted sentence referred to was on topic ... unfortunately it failed another necessary criterion.
"redacted" what does that mean?
redact
verb
past tense: redacted; past participle: redacted
edit (text) for publication.
"a confidential memo which has been redacted from 25 pages to just one paragraph"
censor or obscure (part of a text) for legal or security purposes."
OMG we are getting clever!
-
How large a gap in both space & time should a cadaver dog be permitted between source & alert? Would a delay in alerting or a misinterpreted source of alert have an adverse effect on the collection of possible forensic evidence?
Having looked at the 'problem' highlighted it seems there isn't one. The collection of forensic evidence from the area of the couch had nothing to do with Eddie the cadaver dog's alert. The forensics were collected after viewing the filmed alerts of Keela the blood dog. She was used during the collection process also to make sure nothing was missed;
they watched the films of the searches performed by the dog specialised in detection of human blood so that they obtained an understanding of the area from where the tiles should be collected and how many tiles they should collect.
After seeing the images and in agreement with the officers of DIC of Portimao it was defined that the undersigned should proceed with the recovery of four tiles. It was also defined that this operation of recovery of the tiles would also be filmed.
After the recovery of the four tiles and the skirting board the dog specialised in the detection of traces of human blood was put into the area from where the tiles had been recovered, the English police officer who coordinated the movement of the dog, Martin Grime, having informed the undersigned that they should proceed with the recovery of another piece of tile that was close to the area from where the tile identified as number 1 had been lifted, that terminating the recovery of the tiles signalled by the dog.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_EDDIE-KEELA.htm
-
There was nothing wrong with referring to the CC alert as a fiasco IMO. It seems less libellous than posts still standing which say the McCanns invented stories for the media. But hey ho.....
Would you supply a cite from the FBI that he was highly regarded, please, as his evidence was not permitted in the actual trial of Sam Parker?
Eddie was the dog in question here, with his handler. Was Eddie infallible? Would Grime claim his dog was actually trained to pick up evidence with his mouth or dig at the possible burial site of a murder victim?
I am not @Misty on twitter.
I do hope it's not me who is being accused of libelling the McCanns..
-
I do hope it's not me who is being accused of libelling the McCanns..
No one was being accused of libeling the McCanns another poster was accused of possibly libeling someone else.
-
No one was being accused of libeling the McCanns another poster was accused of possibly libeling someone else.
Thank you Misty. I thought this;
snip
It seems less libellous than posts still standing which say the McCanns invented stories for the media. But hey ho.....
was something to do with my posts on another thread.
-
Thank you Misty. I thought this;
snip
It seems less libellous than posts still standing which say the McCanns invented stories for the media. But hey ho.....
was something to do with my posts on another thread.
Have you ever suggested that the McCanns passed on false stories to the media?
-
Have you ever suggested that the McCanns passed on false stories to the media?
In my opinion I have not.
-
In my opinion I have not.
What, not even hinted at it? I feel you are mistaken...
reply #671
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9913.660
-
Back to the dogs please.
-
Having looked at the 'problem' highlighted it seems there isn't one. The collection of forensic evidence from the area of the couch had nothing to do with Eddie the cadaver dog's alert. The forensics were collected after viewing the filmed alerts of Keela the blood dog. She was used during the collection process also to make sure nothing was missed;
they watched the films of the searches performed by the dog specialised in detection of human blood so that they obtained an understanding of the area from where the tiles should be collected and how many tiles they should collect.
After seeing the images and in agreement with the officers of DIC of Portimao it was defined that the undersigned should proceed with the recovery of four tiles. It was also defined that this operation of recovery of the tiles would also be filmed.
After the recovery of the four tiles and the skirting board the dog specialised in the detection of traces of human blood was put into the area from where the tiles had been recovered, the English police officer who coordinated the movement of the dog, Martin Grime, having informed the undersigned that they should proceed with the recovery of another piece of tile that was close to the area from where the tile identified as number 1 had been lifted, that terminating the recovery of the tiles signalled by the dog.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_EDDIE-KEELA.htm
I beg to differ that the collection of forensics behind the sofa had nothing to do with Eddie. It was Eddie's alert, interpreted by Grime as being at the central wall/floor juncture, which led to Keela being deployed in that very place. But not to worry if potentially incriminating forensics were actually on the end of the sofa.
-
I beg to differ that the collection of forensics behind the sofa had nothing to do with Eddie. It was Eddie's alert, interpreted by Grime as being at the central wall/floor juncture, which led to Keela being deployed in that very place. But not to worry if potentially incriminating forensics were actually on the end of the sofa.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Which seems to be that Martin Grime misinterpreted his dog's alert. Readers will just have to decide who to believe then. An internet 'armchair detective' with no experience of training or deploying dogs or a police officer with years of experience in doing both.
-
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Which seems to be that Martin Grime misinterpreted his dog's alert. Readers will just have to decide who to believe then. An internet 'armchair detective' with no experience of training or deploying dogs or a police officer with years of experience in doing both.
Having watched the video ... I feel you are being a tad harsh in your criticism. Particularly as Martin Grime has made it abundantly clear that all dog indications require to be substantiated by forensics. I think his caveat is largely ignored ... but it really shouldn't be ... it is pivotal.
-
Having watched the video ... I feel you are being a tad harsh in your criticism. Particularly as Martin Grime has made it abundantly clear that all dog indications require to be substantiated by forensics. I think his caveat is largely ignored ... but it really shouldn't be ... it is pivotal.
Only if the Portuguese court nominated him as the court's expert. Otherwise it matters not. The dog alerts will just be added to a heap of other circumstantial evidence.
-
Having watched the video ... I feel you are being a tad harsh in your criticism. Particularly as Martin Grime has made it abundantly clear that all dog indications require to be substantiated by forensics. I think his caveat is largely ignored ... but it really shouldn't be ... it is pivotal.
I don't follow, sorry.
-
Only if the Portuguese court nominated him as the court's expert. Otherwise it matters not. The dog alerts will just be added to a heap of other circumstantial evidence.
Well, this is the crux isn't it really. There is no evidence that the dogs got a whiff of MBM's cadaver scent, or her blood. AND Grime makes no claims of this. His claim is they did in fact sniff scents which they were trained to do.
As has been mentioned previously regarding pigs. The police or SY may well have the facility to contact the couple who rented the apartment with the Asian sounding name, to ask if they had pig meat in the lounge and bedroom. I would doubt those Asian sounding named persons would be Muslim or Sikhs or Hindu's as they collectively do not eat mean or pigs in particular. So that narrows it down to Christian Asians.
The cross contamination is interesting,however as Sunny says.. strange no scent in the kitchen or patio
-
Well, this is the crux isn't it really. There is no evidence that the dogs got a whiff of MBM's cadaver scent, or her blood. AND Grime makes no claims of this. His claim is they did in fact sniff scents which they were trained to do.
As has been mentioned previously regarding pigs. The police or SY may well have the facility to contact the couple who rented the apartment with the Asian sounding name, to ask if they had pig meat in the lounge and bedroom. I would doubt those Asian sounding named persons would be Muslim or Sikhs or Hindu's as they collectively do not eat mean or pigs in particular. So that narrows it down to Christian Asians.
The cross contamination is interesting,however as Sunny says.. strange no scent in the kitchen or patio
The Portuguese police made the claim, though, despite Grime's caveat & the claim was repeated outwith the investigation.
-
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Which seems to be that Martin Grime misinterpreted his dog's alert. Readers will just have to decide who to believe then. An internet 'armchair detective' with no experience of training or deploying dogs or a police officer with years of experience in doing both.
My opinion is based on what I can actually see happening, not idle speculation. I am not the only person who can see where Eddie's nose was immediately before the alert but, in Grime's defence, he probably couldn't either at the time. However, any officer analysing the video afterwards should have, imo, noticed where the dog's nose was in relation to the source as reported by Grime.
Hence my earlier question - what gap in both time & space should be allowed between the dog scenting a source & then alerting to it? I think it's a very important point to consider when watching each of Eddie's alerts.
-
My opinion is based on what I can actually see happening, not idle speculation. I am not the only person who can see where Eddie's nose was immediately before the alert but, in Grime's defence, he probably couldn't either at the time. However, any officer analysing the video afterwards should have, imo, noticed where the dog's nose was in relation to the source as reported by Grime.
Hence my earlier question - what gap in both time & space should be allowed between the dog scenting a source & then alerting to it? I think it's a very important point to consider when watching each of Eddie's alerts.
Did Eddie normally alert immediately after sniffing the exact spot where human blood could be found?
-
Did Eddie normally alert immediately after sniffing the exact spot where human blood could be found?
The only example we have of an alert by Eddie where blood was definitely located was to the key fob when situated in the side pocket of the Scenic.
-
"It is not an exact science". - Kate McCann
-
The only example we have of an alert by Eddie where blood was definitely located was to the key fob when situated in the side pocket of the Scenic.
So you can't compare Eddie's alert behind the sofa with any of his other alerts?
-
So you can't compare Eddie's alert behind the sofa with any of his other alerts?
Was the alert to the clothing a precise alert or a general area alert? Was the alert to CC a general area alert or a precise alert? Was the alert in the garden a precise alert or general area alert? Can you see how the handler could have made a decision? E.g. was the purported alert to CC in the villa really an alert to something on the table, the chair or the far cupboard? Keela wasn't deployed so there may well have been blood deposits at any one of the aforementioned places - a possible lost forensic opportunity. "
-
I don't follow, sorry.
That's a pity ... so sorry about that ... but it seems perfectly clear to me so I can't help you any further than I have already.
I think it is perfectly valid to discuss what Eddie was doing at the couch from which Amaral thought Madeleine had fallen to her death ... making it quite an important piece of the jigsaw.
-
Was the alert to the clothing a precise alert or a general area alert? Was the alert to CC a general area alert or a precise alert? Was the alert in the garden a precise alert or general area alert? Can you see how the handler could have made a decision? E.g. was the purported alert to CC in the villa really an alert to something on the table, the chair or the far cupboard? Keela wasn't deployed so there may well have been blood deposits at any one of the aforementioned places - a possible lost forensic opportunity. "
Let's continue to debate the alert which led to this thread being created; the one behind the couch. The alert which you claim is an example of a potentially crucial error by the dog's handler.
How do you know???? Obviously not by comparing that alert with other alerts, so how?
-
That's a pity ... so sorry about that ... but it seems perfectly clear to me so I can't help you any further than I have already.
I think it is perfectly valid to discuss what Eddie was doing at the couch from which Amaral thought Madeleine had fallen to her death ... making it quite an important piece of the jigsaw.
I also think it's valid to discuss Eddie's alert behind the couch. That's why I'm trying to ascertain on what basis a poster is accusing the dog handler of making a mistake.
-
"It is not an exact science". - Kate McCann
So?
Neither is mechanical engineering.
-
So?
Neither is mechanical engineering.
Or medicine.
-
I also think it's valid to discuss Eddie's alert behind the couch. That's why I'm trying to ascertain on what basis a poster is accusing the dog handler of making a mistake.
Absolutely admirable ... and the way to do that is in my opinion through amicable discussion ... ultimately bearing the dog owner's repeated caveat in mind.
-
Let's continue to debate the alert which led to this thread being created; the one behind the couch. The alert which you claim is an example of a potentially crucial error by the dog's handler.
How do you know???? Obviously not by comparing that alert with other alerts, so how?
I can see that the dog's nose is at the end of the sofa prior to the alert. The dog by-passes the area to which Grime stated the alert related to - you can see the movement of the curtains behind the sofa, then see the dog's nose, then see the dog's tail after it turns around & barks.
Can you show what evidence there is that Eddie was alerting to the location Grime stated any more than you can show what evidence there was Eddie alerted to CC - apart from the word of the handler?
-
So?
Neither is mechanical engineering.
Why isn't it?
-
I can see that the dog's nose is at the end of the sofa prior to the alert. The dog by-passes the area to which Grime stated the alert related to - you can see the movement of the curtains behind the sofa, then see the dog's nose, then see the dog's tail after it turns around & barks.
Can you show what evidence there is that Eddie was alerting to the location Grime stated any more than you can show what evidence there was Eddie alerted to CC - apart from the word of the handler?
You would need multiple cameras following Eddie to keep track of his every move.
-
I can see that the dog's nose is at the end of the sofa prior to the alert. The dog by-passes the area to which Grime stated the alert related to - you can see the movement of the curtains behind the sofa, then see the dog's nose, then see the dog's tail after it turns around & barks.
Can you show what evidence there is that Eddie was alerting to the location Grime stated any more than you can show what evidence there was Eddie alerted to CC - apart from the word of the handler?
As we don't know what Eddie alerted to behind the couch we can't judge if the position of his nose just before the alert mattered or not. Grime said on 31st July, during the inspection;
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
The really significant alert was given by Keela;
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
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
-
You would need multiple cameras following Eddie to keep track of his every move.
And to make your opinion worthy of consideration you would need to explain why your opinion is more valid than that of his very experienced handler.
-
And to make your opinion worthy of consideration you would need to explain why your opinion is more valid than that of his very experienced handler.
In rugby games they often revert to the video referee for confirmation. Same here, everything is happening, blink and you've missed it. The only reason we are discussing this thread is that the camera angle was different to what Martin Grime could see.
-
Why isn't it?
The posh way of putting it is because materials particularly alloys are not homogeneous with consistent properties.
Sections are made to standard sizes not a calculated size.
"MacInhairies" used to describe it best referring to a "factor of ignorance" when calculating safety factors.
-
In rugby games they often revert to the video referee for confirmation. Same here, everything is happening, blink and you've missed it. The only reason we are discussing this thread is that the camera angle was different to what Martin Grime could see.
I rather incline to the view it is only being discussed because posters know what a dog is.
See "The Bicycle Shed" in C Northcote Parkinsons book ?{)(**
or Bike Shedding.
-
As we don't know what Eddie alerted to behind the couch we can't judge if the position of his nose just before the alert mattered or not. Grime said on 31st July, during the inspection;
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
The really significant alert was given by Keela;
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
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I asked if those 2 alerts by Keela were fortuitous rather than based on what Grime believed Eddie had alerted to. We will never know what forensics may have been harvested from the end of the sofa because the opportunity was missed.
-
I asked if those 2 alerts by Keela were fortuitous rather than based on what Grime believed Eddie had alerted to. We will never know what forensics may have been harvested from the end of the sofa because the opportunity was missed.
Unless, of course, your opinion is wrong and the handler's was correct. I have seen nothing which suggests that your opinion is more valid than his.
-
Unless, of course, your opinion is wrong and the handler's was correct. I have seen nothing which suggests that your opinion is more valid than his.
And isn't that the joy of internet discussion ... we are all experts on anything we decide we want to be ... sort of empowering in a way, I think.
Now let's us non-dog-expert civilians look at it from the point of view of a jury likewise made up of non-dog-expert civilians ... do we, the jury, make up our minds guided by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or do we make up our minds guided by the evidence of the defence witnesses ... or do we take the revolutionary step of weighing one against the other and working it out for ourselves?
In my opinion in such a situation the dog handler would be asked to state the facts ... not his opinion ... and the facts are chiels that winna ding (beyond dispute).
-
I can see that the dog's nose is at the end of the sofa prior to the alert. The dog by-passes the area to which Grime stated the alert related to - you can see the movement of the curtains behind the sofa, then see the dog's nose, then see the dog's tail after it turns around & barks.
Can you show what evidence there is that Eddie was alerting to the location Grime stated any more than you can show what evidence there was Eddie alerted to CC - apart from the word of the handler?
Are you doubting the word of the professional handler Misty?
-
Unless, of course, your opinion is wrong and the handler's was correct. I have seen nothing which suggests that your opinion is more valid than his.
My opinion may be wrong but the video doesn't lie - and to the best of my knowledge no-one on internet fora has ever discussed this issue before, let alone the PJ back in 2007.
-
1)And isn't that the joy of internet discussion ... we are all experts on anything we decide we want to be ... sort of empowering in a way, I think.
2)Now let's us non-dog-expert civilians look at it from the point of view of a jury likewise made up of non-dog-expert civilians ... do we, the jury, make up our minds guided by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or do we make up our minds guided by the evidence of the defence witnesses ... or do we take the revolutionary step of weighing one against the other and working it out for ourselves?
In my opinion in such a situation the dog handler would be asked to state the facts ... not his opinion ... and the facts are chiels that winna ding (beyond dispute).
1) Provided one is cognisant of the age old advice; "To you the poster may be an expert, others may think the poster is an expert but to an expert he's no expert".
2)That will not necessarily apply in Portugal.The court has the option to appoint its own expert to give explanation to the court if the judge deems it necessary.
-
My opinion may be wrong but the video doesn't lie - and to the best of my knowledge no-one on internet fora has ever discussed this issue before, let alone the PJ back in 2007.
I've not seen it mentioned let alone discussed and I thought there was nothing left to say about 'the dogs' ... seems there is still plenty of mileage in it yet.
-
Are you doubting the word of the professional handler Misty?
Based on video evidence - yes.
-
Based on video evidence - yes.
Even the best of them will make the odd mistake. Think of the video referee situation, the ref on the field doesn't get it right all the time. Grime should have reviewed the video as well. The end of the sofa may have been given a more thorough check. The case could have progressed. Who knows and too late now.
-
I asked if those 2 alerts by Keela were fortuitous rather than based on what Grime believed Eddie had alerted to. We will never know what forensics may have been harvested from the end of the sofa because the opportunity was missed.
When you can prove that Eddie's nose position is connected to his alerts you might have a point. In my opinion that's not how Eddie worked.
-
When you can prove that Eddie's nose position is connected to his alerts you might have a point. In my opinion that's not how Eddie worked.
Well how do you know what he is alerting to?
-
Well how do you know what he is alerting to?
He alerts to the things he was trained to find;
Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain.....
The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
-
He alerts to the things he was trained to find;
Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain.....
The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
That makes it sound as if Eddie could be 100 metres from the deposition site and still alert. It seems to depend on where he picks up the scent in the air not the location of the deposit.
-
That makes it sound as if Eddie could be 100 metres from the deposition site and still alert. It seems to depend on where he picks up the scent in the air not the location of the deposit.
Which is why, in my opinion, the position of his nose just before he alerts means nothing.
-
That makes it sound as if Eddie could be 100 metres from the deposition site and still alert. It seems to depend on where he picks up the scent in the air not the location of the deposit.
Very much a blunt instrument as opposed to a precision tool then which is fine if there is actually something there to be found as the source and the location will be immediately obvious.
In a more esoteric situation when there is nothing there to be found and where there may never have been anything there to be found ... the importance of the exact point of reference is critical in my opinion.
When there is an indication but there nothing visible to prompt that indication ... Martin Grime is on record on numerous occasions including his report on Jersey, as stating that dog indications must be backed up by forensics.
Misty has noted that even in the close confines of the sofa and around it there is absolutely no way of knowing exactly why Eddie was barking.
I don't think second guessing a dog is a great idea ... particularly if it results in flawed conclusions which are specifically contrary to the professional advice given by the dog's handler.
-
Which is why, in my opinion, the position of his nose just before he alerts means nothing.
How does that explain the alerts to specific items of clothing & the garden alert where Grime even picked up something from the ground?
-
He alerts to the things he was trained to find;
Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain.....
The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
And if there is no deposition site?
-
How does that explain the alerts to specific items of clothing & the garden alert where Grime even picked up something from the ground?
Does it have to?
-
And if there is no deposition site?
Where was there 'no deposition site'?
-
Does it have to?
If the position of Eddie's nose prior to an alert meant nothing, as you stated, then how could anyone be sure he wasn't just playing with the clothes he picked up but alerting to something entirely different somewhere in the vicinity?
-
Where was there 'no deposition site'?
There was no deposition site in 5A.
-
There was no deposition site in 5A.
Is that an opinion or a fact?
-
Is that an opinion or a fact?
No trace of a body was found in 5A.
-
No trace of a body was found in 5A.
There's a possibility that the scent of a cadaver was detected in 5a by the dog Eddie. Is that what you mean by a 'trace'?
-
There's a possibility that the scent of a cadaver was detected in 5a by the dog Eddie. Is that what you mean by a 'trace'?
A possibility is not a fact.
Do you believe the dog alerted to areas inside 5A which had been cleaned at least 3 times after the McCanns departed?
-
Which is why, in my opinion, the position of his nose just before he alerts means nothing.
It may or may not mean nothing. The PJ should follow up on all leads even if some do end up with nothing.
-
There's a possibility that the scent of a cadaver was detected in 5a by the dog Eddie. Is that what you mean by a 'trace'?
There may be a possibility that one or other of the constituent components of 'cadaver scent' night have been detected by the dog ... but as emphasised by Martin Grime, that would be the province of forensics to verify that.
As far as 5A is concerned such forensic verification wasn't achieved either as an early result of the work of Portuguese scientific officers or of the later dog indications.
-
It may or may not mean nothing. The PJ should follow up on all leads even if some do end up with nothing.
I think that already happened, Robitty.
-
Grime used the words possible... And suggestive.... The problem is he doesn't say how, suggestive... Which is, rather remiss if him.. Imo
-
A possibility is not a fact.
Do you believe the dog alerted to areas inside 5A which had been cleaned at least 3 times after the McCanns departed?
I didn't say it was. I don't do beliefs, really. I believe what I see or hear. I saw alerts which may have been triggered by cadaver scent.
I assume you are stating a fact when you describe where Eddie's nose was just before he alerted behind the couch. You haven't managed to demonstrate that it matters, though.
-
I didn't say it was. I don't do beliefs, really. I believe what I see or hear. I saw alerts which may have been triggered by cadaver scent.
I assume you are stating a fact when you describe where Eddie's nose was just before he alerted behind the couch. You haven't managed to demonstrate that it matters, though.
May... Or may not
-
I didn't say it was. I don't do beliefs, really. I believe what I see or hear. I saw alerts which may have been triggered by cadaver scent.
I assume you are stating a fact when you describe where Eddie's nose was just before he alerted behind the couch. You haven't managed to demonstrate that it matters, though.
What was the basis for Grime stating where Eddie had alerted to a specific area behind the sofa and what happened next?
-
What was the basis for Grime stating where Eddie had alerted to a specific area behind the sofa and what happened next?
That's for him to know and you to find out. No doubt he had his reasons.
-
That's for him to know and you to find out. No doubt he had his reasons.
Grime stated the reason on video. I'm curious to know why G-Unit believes the location of Eddie's's nose bore no relation to what happened next.
-
Grime stated the reason on video. I'm curious to know why G-Unit believes the location of Eddie's's nose bore no relation to what happened next.
I wonder why it was felt necessary to video the dog searches
-
What was the basis for Grime stating where Eddie had alerted to a specific area behind the sofa and what happened next?
Are you trying to convince me you're right by asking me questions? Just make your case.
-
I wonder why it was felt necessary to video the dog searches
I guess they can be used to study & improve on handling techniques & training, a well as for evidential purposes. I recall reading that there was several videos on the UK Police Database showing the dogs in action on previous cases.
-
Are you trying to convince me you're right by asking me questions? Just make your case.
Grime's own words on the video re. where the dog was scenting heavily - i.e. he had his nose near the spot. Eddie didn't stop at the area under the window a second time, he bypassed it & went to the r/h end of the sofa.
https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1471
-
What was the basis for Grime stating where Eddie had alerted to a specific area behind the sofa and what happened next?
Probably many years of experience.
-
Probably many years of experience.
How long had Grime been handling cadaver dogs & how many dogs had he handled?
-
Grime's own words on the video re. where the dog was scenting heavily - i.e. he had his nose near the spot. Eddie didn't stop at the area under the window a second time, he bypassed it & went to the r/h end of the sofa.
https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1471
And?
-
Are you trying to convince me you're right by asking me questions? Just make your case.
Please keep the debate polite and sweet. Thank you.
-
When you can prove that Eddie's nose position is connected to his alerts you might have a point. In my opinion that's not how Eddie worked.
Was Eddie's nose position not a determining factor in Grime's assessment of the source of the delayed alert?
-
There was no deposition site in 5A.
That is the big $64,000 question.
-
Was Eddie's nose position not a determining factor in Grime's assessment of the source of the delayed alert?
You tell us.
-
Was Eddie's nose position not a determining factor in Grime's assessment of the source of the delayed alert?
I'd imagine the reaction time to a smell is around 0.5 seconds.
I have not been able to find an actual study on this topic but looking at this training video it seems the decision making process takes a full second or two. https://youtu.be/KJZ7rlP77zY?t=94
1:41 is her first pass over the cover, and 1:44 is when she lifts her paw to scratch. I'm sure a trained dog following a scent trail will be faster than this.
-
Was Eddie's nose position not a determining factor in Grime's assessment of the source of the delayed alert?
Grime said 'strong scenting'. It's not just where the dog's nose is that matters, it's when he's using it. The handler watches and listens, because a dog which is scenting strongly can be heard sniffing.
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 wonder why it was felt necessary to video the dog searches
So the investigation team could review it naturally.
-
I've always found it strange that what could be evidence in any forthcoming criminal charges could be available for public viewing.
-
I've always found it strange that what could be evidence in any forthcoming criminal charges could be available for public viewing.
I suppose it's because any trial would take place before professional judges, rather than amateur jurists.
Maybe it's also a recognition that any trial wouldn't be based solely on any evidence so far revealed.
-
So the investigation team could review it naturally.
What do they need to review.... It would have been far more beneficial to have recorded the statements of the McCann's and tapas.... The video... IMO... Was made to use as a promotional film for Grimes new business.... As it was
-
I suppose it's because any trial would take place before professional judges, rather than amateur jurists.
Maybe it's also a recognition that any trial wouldn't be based solely on any evidence so far revealed.
Yes of course.... The latest sceptic conspiracy.... It seems it's become a proven fact that there is compelling hidden evidence we know nothing about... Sounds a bit barmy to me
-
What do they need to review.... It would have been far more beneficial to have recorded the statements of the McCann's and tapas.... The video... IMO... Was made to use as a promotional film for Grimes new business.... As it was
So you are saying that the video was made as a promotional tool for Martin Grime's business Davel. Do you have a cite for that? I see the IMO but the "....As it was" contradicts your IMO, in my opinion.
-
So you are saying that the video was made as a promotional tool for Martin Grime's business Davel. Do you have a cite for that? I see the IMO but the "....As it was" contradicts your IMO, in my opinion.
Grime used it as a promotional video to tout his services for the Jersey case
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7855.75
-
Grime made a presentation, showing him [Harper] a video of the dog finding the "scent of death" in Kate and Gerry McCann's car,' the detective said.
Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html
-
Grime used it as a promotional video to tout his services for the Jersey case
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7855.75
There was no need for him to do so if full training records were available & the NPIA could access police videos of his dogs in action in previous UK cases. IMO.
-
There was no need for him to do so if full training records were available & the NPIA could access police videos of his dogs in action in previous UK cases. IMO.
Grime did it so he must have felt it was necessary..... Using videos in this manner to promote a business suggests a conflict of interests imo
-
Grime did it so he must have felt it was necessary..... Using videos in this manner to promote a business suggests a conflict of interests imo
I find it strange that Grime apparently wanted copyright of any data pertaining to the dogs in Jersey to become the property of the (very recently deceased) CC of GMP.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
Page 38 snipped
It was not until 25 March 2008, thirty seven days into his
deployment, that a draft written contract was sent via e-mail by Mr
Grime to FSM Coupland. This document (i) omitted the dates of
agreed deployment; (ii) stated that remuneration for the first five
days of the deployment would be £750 per day and £600 per day
thereafter – although a subsequent clause stated that non-UK
mainland daily rates would be negotiated separately; (iii) stated
that the copyright of ‘all data and information provided’ would rest
with the ‘Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police’ (sic); and
(iv) was never signed either by Mr Grime or by a representative of
the States of Jersey Police.
ƒ It is worth stating at this point that the NPIA ‘Practice Advice on
the Management of Expert Advisers’ already referred to,
recommends in Section 3 (headed ‘Your Responsibilities’) that
expert advisors are provided with terms of reference and a contract
before work begins (our emphasis).
ƒ
-
I think the PJ suspected they would rub the McCanns noses in the video of the cadaver dogs barking in their apartment.
-
Grime said 'strong scenting'. It's not just where the dog's nose is that matters, it's when he's using it. The handler watches and listens, because a dog which is scenting strongly can be heard sniffing.
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
The second time Eddie went behind the sofa he bypassed the centre of the wall completely without making any sniffing noises.
-
The second time Eddie went behind the sofa he bypassed the centre of the wall completely without making any sniffing noises.
Eddie is not a machine, he is a conscious being having to make an important decision. To bark or not to bark that is the question.
-
Eddie is not a machine, he is a conscious being having to make an important decision. To bark or not to bark that is the question.
It's equally important for the handler to be sure exactly what the dog is alerting to. Who'd want to be stopped at the airport by a narcotics dog handler whose canine barked somewhere near them when they were standing in a queue of people?
-
It's equally important for the handler to be sure exactly what the dog is alerting to. Who'd want to be stopped at the airport by a narcotics dog handler whose canine barked somewhere near them when they were standing in a queue of people?
They would need to spread the people out to be sure who the dog is sitting beside.
But Eddie is going at a thousand miles an hour and his brain has a reaction time so you won't get a definite identification.
-
They would need to spread the people out to be sure who the dog is sitting beside.
That's the whole point, Rob. The dog needs to be as precise as possible for the handler, not leave the handler to fathom out which person in the general area may be carrying drugs.
-
That's the whole point, Rob. The dog needs to be as precise as possible for the handler, not leave the handler to fathom out which person in the general area may be carrying drugs.
That is why they worked Eddie with Keela, one seemed to identify a general location and the other an exact spot.
-
That is why they worked Eddie with Keela, one seemed to identify a general location and the other an exact spot.
That works if you are only looking for blood......
-
That works if you are only looking for blood......
Or a body or a body part. Something substantial. Other than blood what else was there going to be? I don't think Madeleine was stuffed into the base of the couch. I hope they did turn it over and have a look.
After 3 months you wouldn't need a cadaver dog to find a body in the apartment it would be apparent even to a human nose.
-
That works if you are only looking for blood......
Do you have a cite for that?
-
Do you have a cite for that?
Yes. Keela only alerted to blood. She would not alert to any other biological residues at a site unless they contained blood. A blood deposit does not a cadaver maketh.
-
Do you have a cite for that?
I corrected Misty - blood or a body (including body parts).
Keela was trained to find dried human blood.
Eddie was trained to find decomposed bodies.
It should have been pretty obvious there was no body in apartment 5A so that left only blood left to find.
It might be possible Madeleine fell and dislodged a tooth. And that tooth had not yet been found but then blood would be expected from that as well. But to die from a dislodged tooth???
-
Yes. Keela only alerted to blood. She would not alert to any other biological residues at a site unless they contained blood. A blood deposit does not a cadaver maketh.
Both your's and my post relies on logic. I don't think there is an actual cite for this.
-
I corrected Misty - blood or a body (including body parts).
Keela was trained to find dried human blood.
Eddie was trained to find decomposed bodies.
It should have been pretty obvious there was no body in apartment 5A so that left only blood left to find.
It might be possible Madeleine fell and dislodged a tooth. And that tooth had not yet been found but then blood would be expected from that as well. But to die from a dislodged tooth???
Why would it leave only blood left to find? Eddie would have alerted to nail clippings as well as human teeth. What about Cerebrospinal fluid which can leak from the ear or nose after blunt force trauma - no blood mixed with that.
-
Why would it leave only blood left to find? Eddie would have alerted to nail clippings as well as human teeth. What about Cerebrospinal fluid which can leak from the ear or nose after blunt force trauma - no blood mixed with that.
When would nail clippings ever develop cadaver odour. Nail clippings would be found all around may residential premises, so if you are right there would be no validity in doing a cadaver dog check inside a residence.
The only time nail clippings could have cadaver odour on them would be if the cadaver at least 2 hours old had its nails clipped before it was removed. Is that likely?
-
When would nail clippings ever develop cadaver odour. Nail clippings would be found all around may residential premises, so if you are right there would be no validity in doing a cadaver dog check inside a residence.
The only time nail clippings could have cadaver odour on them would be if the cadaver at least 2 hours old had its nails clipped before it was removed. Is that likely?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOsbDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=cadaver+dogs+alert+to+nail+clippings&source=bl&ots=NE70MqYAtB&sig=nGArNSCqPMuCSxGfqMW91qrAPck&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilor7Z3OPcAhUDCsAKHeEvAtA4ChDoATADegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=cadaver%20dogs%20alert%20to%20nail%20clippings&f=false
1st paragraph. Toenail clippings used in training.
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOsbDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=cadaver+dogs+alert+to+nail+clippings&source=bl&ots=NE70MqYAtB&sig=nGArNSCqPMuCSxGfqMW91qrAPck&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilor7Z3OPcAhUDCsAKHeEvAtA4ChDoATADegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=cadaver%20dogs%20alert%20to%20nail%20clippings&f=false
1st paragraph. Toenail clippings used in training.
The author writes "I was told they used ...nail clippings ..." So it is an unreliable statement, for the author is unsure of where the nail clippings came from. It is hearsay at best.
You didn't answer my question to you. "When would nail clippings ever develop cadaver odour?"
How does anyone get nail clippings impregnated with cadaver odour?
-
The author writes "I was told they used ...nail clippings ..." So it is unreliable statement for the author is unsure of where the nail clippings came from. Hearsay at best.
You didn't answer my question to you. "When would nail clippings ever develop cadaver odour?"
How does anyone get nail clippings impregnated with cadaver odour?
Nail clippings are dead keratinized tissue. No cadaver required. The same alpha-keratin protein is also found in the epidermis layer of human skin.
-
https://www.oregon.gov/OEM/Documents/ossa_k9_standard.pdf
snipped
Cadaver Evaluation
Search a wilderness area 300 feet by 300 feet (or equivalent
square footage) 6 hot items will be hidden and 3 blanks items
will be hidden for a total of 9 items. K9 must locate 4 hot items
within 60 minutes. In this test the 60 minutes is inclusive of K9
reward and break time. The dog must work through natural
occurring contamination and distractions. Only one false alert
is permitted. Samples (hot items) will be supplied by the
handler being tested. Samples must be able to fit into a 12
inch cylinder tube with a 1 ½ inch diameter. Blank items shall
be used to simulate contamination and distractions and will be
supplied by the OSDC testing officer and/or examiner. These
can include, but are not limited to food, tennis balls, dog toys,
etc. Items will be placed 30 minutes prior to testing under the
direct observation of the testing officer and examiner. Since
samples are difficult to obtain, hair, nail clippings, extracted
teeth, and when the dog has trained with them, synthetic
chemicals such as "pseudocorpse" may be used.
-
Nail clippings are dead keratinized tissue. No cadaver required. The same alpha-keratin protein is also found in the epidermis layer of human skin.
So in the way you think about this, is the cadaver odour only developing in the finger nail clipping after it was cut or is it happening as the finger nail is growing?
Like could a lady with quite long fingernails be attractive to a cadaver dog while she is still alive?
Or does the cadaver odour only develop after the nail is cut?
Personally I don't believe finger nails would ever become decomposed unless they were deliberately dampened down to encourage them to rot.
-
The second time Eddie went behind the sofa he bypassed the centre of the wall completely without making any sniffing noises.
Grime had already noted that he was scenting, or showing interest, which is why he sent him back in. His dog, his job, his knowledge. You don't have any of that knowledge, so I can't see how you can suggest he didn't know what he was doing.
-
Grime had already noted that he was scenting, or showing interest, which is why he sent him back in. His dog, his job, his knowledge. You don't have any of that knowledge, so I can't see how you can suggest he didn't know what he was doing.
The whole episode sounds very imprecise which explains why the alerts themselves have no value or reliability as evidence
-
That's the whole point, Rob. The dog needs to be as precise as possible for the handler, not leave the handler to fathom out which person in the general area may be carrying drugs.
Drug dogs working with people will obviously need to identify which person is of interest, just as drug dogs screening baggage will need to identify which piece of luggage is of interest. There would be no point in the dog barking at a conveyor belt full of luggage, would there?
The cadaver dog's job is different. They work in widely different locations and the scent isn't always in the same place as the body.
-
Drug dogs working with people will obviously need to identify which person is of interest, just as drug dogs screening baggage will need to identify which piece of luggage is of interest. There would be no point in the dog barking at a conveyor belt full of luggage, would there?
The cadaver dog's job is different. They work in widely different locations and the scent isn't always in the same place as the body.
The difference is the only reference to remnant scent is, with cadaver dogs..... It doesn't seem to be mentioned with other forensic dogs.. And it's, detection is unreliable... If there is a body present the scent will be with the body
-
The difference is the only reference to remnant scent is, with cadaver dogs..... It doesn't seem to be mentioned with other forensic dogs.. And it's, detection is unreliable... If there is a body present the scent will be with the body
Does that post make sense? Sorry it doesn't to me. As regards unreliability of cadaver dogs, just ask the family of D'Andre Louis Lane's victim what they think of the dog's evidence.
-
Why would it leave only blood left to find? Eddie would have alerted to nail clippings as well as human teeth. What about Cerebrospinal fluid which can leak from the ear or nose after blunt force trauma - no blood mixed with that.
If cadaver dogs alert to nail clippings there wouldn't be much point in using them imo.
-
Does that post make sense? Sorry it doesn't to me. As regards unreliability of cadaver dogs, just ask the family of D'Andre Louis Lane's victim what they think of the dog's evidence.
Read my post again..... Alerts to remnant scent are unreliable.... That is a fact....
-
Read my post again..... Alerts to remnant scent are unreliable.... That is a fact....
Is it a "fact", didn't Stockham say that Grime's dogs (Morse etc) had a reliability in tests in the high 90's percent. I wouldn't call that unreliable.
Can you find a cite that "remnant scent" alerts are...unreliable.
-
Is it a "fact", didn't Stockham say that Grime's dogs (Morse etc) had a reliability in tests in the high 90's percent. I wouldn't call that unreliable.
Can you find a cite that "remnant scent" alerts are...unreliable.
remnant scent alerts are unreliable according to grime and harrison........You cite this 90% calim but havent given any details of what it refers to...is it remnant scent...you dont know
-
remnant scent alerts are unreliable according to grime and harrison........You cite this 90% calim but havent given any details of what it refers to...is it remnant scent...you dont know
High 90s. Cite for your first sentence.
-
High 90s. Cite for your first sentence.
but still no cite as to how this figure was arrived at...doesnt matter if its 100%...it has no relevance unless we know the details of the tests
-
High 90s. Cite for your first sentence.
mark harrison...
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
-
The difference is the only reference to remnant scent is, with cadaver dogs..... It doesn't seem to be mentioned with other forensic dogs.. And it's, detection is unreliable... If there is a body present the scent will be with the body
If drugs have been in a person's luggage a drug dog will alert even though the drugs have been removed. If a cadaver has lain in a room a cadaver dog will alert in the room even though the cadaver has been removed.
-
If drugs have been in a person's luggage a drug dog will alert even though the drugs have been removed. If a cadaver has lain in a room a cadaver dog will alert in the room even though the cadaver has been removed.
the dog will alert if there are physical traces of the drug remaining....imo..and these can be tested for physically
-
If drugs have been in a person's luggage a drug dog will alert even though the drugs have been removed. If a cadaver has lain in a room a cadaver dog will alert in the room even though the cadaver has been removed.
for how long will the cadaver odour remain detectable in the room
-
for how long will the cadaver odour remain detectable in the room
No acknowledgement that your previous post about 'remnant scent' wasn't strictly correct?
-
mark harrison...
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
So you don’t have a cite?
-
the dog will alert if there are physical traces of the drug remaining....imo..and these can be tested for physically
So anyone alerted to by a drug dog is a druggie?
-
So anyone alerted to by a drug dog is a druggie?
No.. Cross contamination
-
So you don’t have a cite?
I've provided a cite... If you dispute they are unreliable then you are claming they are reliable... Do you really believe that
-
Is it a "fact", didn't Stockham say that Grime's dogs (Morse etc) had a reliability in tests in the high 90's percent. I wouldn't call that unreliable.
Can you find a cite that "remnant scent" alerts are...unreliable.
If the reliability was 90% 1 case in 10 will be likely to be incorrect. If there is not corroborating evidence how can you tell if this is the unreliable one?
-
If the reliability was 90% 1 case in 10 will be likely to be incorrect. If there is not corroborating evidence how can you tell if this is the unreliable one?
I think that's the problem - you can't. The alerts are inconclusive, but cannot be dismissed.
The dogs alerted at more than one point, so it would be difficult to argue that every single alert was false just because there wasn't corroborating evidence, though I'm sure some will try.
-
I think that's the problem - you can't. The alerts are inconclusive, but cannot be dismissed.
The dogs alerted at more than one point, so it would be difficult to argue that every single alert was false just because there wasn't corroborating evidence, though I'm sure some will try.
It's very easy to argue that none of the alerts was a positive confirmation to cadaver....the alerts can be dismissed because none were confirmed
Without any proper scientific tests no one can make any real inference from the alerts
-
I've provided a cite... If you dispute they are unreliable then you are claming they are reliable... Do you really believe that
Davel neither you nor Gerry McCann have provided a cite that cadaver dogs are unreliable. All your cite says is that Grime and Harrison say they need to be corroborated. Nothing at all about being unreliable.
Perhaps you could kindly furnish us with one that actually gives us this information (if it is indeed true).
-
Davel neither you nor Gerry McCann have provided a cite that cadaver dogs are unreliable. All your cite says is that Grime and Harrison say they need to be corroborated. Nothing at all about being unreliable.
Perhaps you could kindly furnish us with one that actually gives us this information (if it is indeed true).
I haven't said cadaver dogs are unreliable.... Kindly read my posts again..lol
-
OK then, cite for this...lol
Perhaps you owe me an aplogy
-
OK Davel I apologise, now can I have my cite thing.
Both Harrison and Grime say unconfirmed alerts have no reliability as evidence or.. In Harrison's case... Evidence or intelligence... No reliability means unreliable
-
Both Harrison and Grime say unconfirmed alerts have no reliability as evidence or.. In Harrison's case... Evidence or intelligence... No reliability means unreliable
No they didn't
mark harrison...
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
They said they couldn't be used as evidence not that they were not reliable (as evidence or otherwise). Perhaps you can show me where they use the word "reliable" or even unreliable" The UK law stance appears to me anyway that dog evidence is not allowed in court (although the David Gilroy case may have changed this), it doesn't mean that the dogs are not allowed just that they are/were not admissable as evidence.
That is my take on Harrison's statement and I believe he was making no reference to reliability or unreliability.
-
No they didn't
They said they couldn't be used as evidence not that they were not reliable (as evidence or otherwise). Perhaps you can show me where they use the word "reliable" or even unreliable" The UK law stance appears to me anyway that dog evidence is not allowed in court (although the David Gilroy case may have changed this), it doesn't mean that the dogs are not allowed just that they are/were not admissable as evidence.
That is my take on Harrison's statement and I believe he was making no reference to reliability or unreliability.
You need to do a little more reading... And you owe me a, second apology... Both Grime and Harrison used the words ...no reliability
Have a look at their witness and rog statements
-
You need to do a little more reading... And you owe me a, second apology... Both Grime and Harrison used the words ...no reliability
Have a look at their witness and rog statements
Perhaps you could point out where Grime says "no reliability" here
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
In his search evidence he says
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
But we knew that already, that dog evidence is not (or was not) allowed in court that doesn't mean the dogs were unreliable. IMO.
So again a cite where he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts.
-
Perhaps you could point out where Grime says "no reliability" here
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
In his search evidence he says
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
But we knew that already, that dog evidence is not (or was not) allowed in court that doesn't mean the dogs were unreliable. IMO.
So again a cite where he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts.
I haven't said the dogs are unreliable... Neither has grime... Both grime and harrison have clearly stated the alerts have no reliability as evidence... Or in Harrison s case.. Evidence orintelligence
Read the witness, statements... I'm out at the moment so can't cut and oaste easily
-
The alerts cannot be used in court because they have no reliability.... They are therefore unreliable...
-
the dog will alert if there are physical traces of the drug remaining....imo..and these can be tested for physically
There are not always physical traces of the drug imo.
-
I've provided a cite... If you dispute they are unreliable then you are claming they are reliable... Do you really believe that
You said the alerts were unreliable, your cite talked about evidence and information taken from the alerts. Two different things.
-
You said the alerts were unreliable, your cite talked about evidence and information taken from the alerts. Two different things.
If no evidence or information can be taken from the alerts they are therefore quite useless... What is their point... It was grime who talked of their reliability
-
My conclusion is that the answer to the thread title is no. The position of Eddie's nose just before he alerted behind the sofa is not an example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler. In my opinion the thread is just another Grime bashing thread.
-
My conclusion is that the answer to the thread title is no. The position of Eddie's nose just before he alerted behind the sofa is not an example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler. In my opinion the thread is just another Grime bashing thread.
There is no possibility of bashing grime on this forum.... Legitimate criticism yes
-
My conclusion is that the answer to the thread title is no. The position of Eddie's nose just before he alerted behind the sofa is not an example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler. In my opinion the thread is just another Grime bashing thread.
I fail to see any of the "Grime bashing" being referred to ... please elucidate.
-
If no evidence or information can be taken from the alerts they are therefore quite useless... What is their point... It was grime who talked of their reliability
This is what Harrison said about why the dogs are useful;
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
-
This is what Harrison said about why the dogs are useful;
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
I don't see Harrison using the word useful...
-
I fail to see any of the "Grime bashing" being referred to ... please elucidate.
The thread title says it all. What errors has Grime been proved to have made in this thread or in previous discussions? None, in my opinion, despite all the efforts which have been made.
-
I don't see Harrison using the word useful...
I never said he did. He was identifying their usefulness nevertheless.
-
I never said he did. He was identifying their usefulness nevertheless.
In what way are they useful... We already know Maddie may have died in the apartments... We don't need a barking dig to tell us that... At least I dont
-
My conclusion is that the answer to the thread title is no. The position of Eddie's nose just before he alerted behind the sofa is not an example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler. In my opinion the thread is just another Grime bashing thread.
The irony is you don't seem to appreciate Grime's potential error may have denied the PJ of the crucial piece of evidence they were looking for.
-
The irony is you don't seem to appreciate Grime's potential error may have denied the PJ of the crucial piece of evidence they were looking for.
I get the point ... it was assumed that the point of Eddie's interest was behind the couch at the place confirmed by very directional Keela ... and precluded any further investigation as to why Eddie barked immediately he lifted his nose.
The 'smoking gun' could very well have been the couch ... and even evidence which could have cleared Kate and Gerry of unwarranted suspicion.
-
Perhaps you could point out where Grime says "no reliability" here
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
In his search evidence he says
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
But we knew that already, that dog evidence is not (or was not) allowed in court that doesn't mean the dogs were unreliable. IMO.
So again a cite where he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts.
Where does Davel say "he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts".
You can't ask for a cite for something not claimed.
Post the URL to the post where Davel says this please. Either that or stop goading Davel.
-
I never said he did. He was identifying their usefulness nevertheless.
OK the dog alerted we can't deny that.
But without corroborating evidence we can't say what the alert was to.
It is possible a cadaver was there and removed (leaving no corroborating evidence), so that just becomes an unproven possibility.
-
In what way are they useful... We already know Maddie may have died in the apartments... We don't need a barking dig to tell us that... At least I dont
Died and left there long enough to be tracked by a cadaver dog 3 months later, did you ever think that was possibility?
-
Where does Davel say "he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts".
You can't ask for a cite for something not claimed.
Post the URL to the post where Davel says this please. Either that or stop goading Davel.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915)
-
Died and left there long enough to be tracked by a cadaver dog 3 months later, did you ever think that was possibility?
Would cadaver scent last 3 months in an open building
Would it last 3 months in a, flower bed with wind and rain
I think it's no to both these but as there have been no scientific tests we don't know...
-
Where does Davel say "he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts".
You can't ask for a cite for something not claimed.
Post the URL to the post where Davel says this please. Either that or stop goading Davel.
I've given the cite Re the unreliability of unconfirmed alerts several times
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915)
OK and the words used were:
"remnant scent alerts are unreliable according to grime and harrison........You cite this 90% calim but havent given any details of what it refers to...is it remnant scent...you dont know"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915)
We know their reliability depended on the finding of corroborating evidence at the location.
But Madeleine had been living at that location so finding her DNA there was never going to be enough.
In fact finding her blood there was unlikely to be enough, for a kid can get a bleeding nose and that doesn't mean she died.
Does the corroborating evidence have to be found at the site of the alert. They don't actually say that do they. So if her body was found at another location would that be corroborating evidence?
-
OK and the words used were:
"remnant scent alerts are unreliable according to grime and harrison........You cite this 90% calim but havent given any details of what it refers to...is it remnant scent...you dont know"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915)
We know their reliability depended on the finding of corroborating evidence at the location.
But Madeleine had been living at that location so finding her DNA there was never going to be enough.
Of course it wasn't and that applies to many cases
-
I've given the cite Re the unreliability of unconfirmed alerts several times
You gave a cite regarding the reliability of conclusions drawn from remnant scent alerts not the alerts themselves.
-
You gave a cite regarding the reliability of conclusions drawn from remnant scent alerts not the alerts themselves.
The only value the alerts have is the information that can be derived from them... Which is unreliable
-
I get the point ... it was assumed that the point of Eddie's interest was behind the couch at the place confirmed by very directional Keela ... and precluded any further investigation as to why Eddie barked immediately he lifted his nose.
The 'smoking gun' could very well have been the couch ... and even evidence which could have cleared Kate and Gerry of unwarranted suspicion.
I asked myself why (if a body had lain behind the sofa long enough for cadaver odour to develop) the absorbent fabric of the back of the sofa was not contaminated & alerted to as per the German carpet squares non-contact cadaver experiment. That's what led me to examine the footage again & question why Grime was so sure that Eddie had alerted to the wall/floor juncture.
-
You gave a cite regarding the reliability of conclusions drawn from remnant scent alerts not the alerts themselves.
We can see and hear the dog bark. But we don't know what made him bark, we presume it was to cadaver odour but we can't be sure, until it is confirmed there is a cadaver somewhere in the location (even possible distant location).
-
Where does Davel say "he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts".
You can't ask for a cite for something not claimed.
Post the URL to the post where Davel says this please. Either that or stop goading Davel.
Davel didn't say "he said that the dogs were unreliable regarding the unconfirmed alerts" if you had read the entirety of my post you would see I was talking about Martin Grime and Davel's claims about what Grime said eg
Davel's post
Both Harrison and Grime say unconfirmed alerts have no reliability as evidence or.. In Harrison's case... Evidence or intelligence... No reliability means unreliable
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478956#msg478956
I wanted a cite from Davel that Grime said they were "unreliable". I haven't had one.
Davel is changing Grime and Harrisons words IMO. No reliability as evidence does not mean unreliable.
-
Davel didn't say "he said that the dogs were unreliable regarding the unconfirmed alerts" if you had read the entirety of my post you would see I was talking about Martin Grime and Davel's claims about what Grime said eg
Davel's post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478956#msg478956
I wanted a cite from Davel that Grime said they were "unreliable". I haven't had one.
Davel is changing Grime and Harrisons words IMO. No reliability as evidence does not mean unreliable.
Yes it does. ..imo.... And if you disagree then tell us, what reliability the alerts have.... If you cannot... Then you must accept they have no reliability
-
The only value the alerts have is the information that can be derived from them... Which is unreliable
I don't think that is scientific. The alert is the action of a dog. You are not going to derive anything from that.
-
Davel didn't say "he said that the dogs were unreliable regarding the unconfirmed alerts" if you had read the entirety of my post you would see I was talking about Martin Grime and Davel's claims about what Grime said eg
Davel's post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478956#msg478956
I wanted a cite from Davel that Grime said they were "unreliable". I haven't had one.
Davel is changing Grime and Harrisons words IMO. No reliability as evidence does not mean unreliable.
What, essentially is the main difference between no reliability as evidence and unreliable ?
-
I don't think that is scientific. The alert is the action of a dog. You are not going to derive anything from that.
But posters here insist they can
-
Davel didn't say "he said that the dogs were unreliable regarding the unconfirmed alerts" if you had read the entirety of my post you would see I was talking about Martin Grime and Davel's claims about what Grime said eg
Davel's post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478956#msg478956
I wanted a cite from Davel that Grime said they were "unreliable". I haven't had one.
Davel is changing Grime and Harrisons words IMO. No reliability as evidence does not mean unreliable.
Splitting hairs there mate.
-
Splitting hairs there mate.
I have said the unconfirmed alerts are unreliable.... ie . They cannot be relied on... Perhaps Sunny or Slarti could explain in what way the alert s are reliable ...I don't expect them to be able to respond
-
I have said the unconfirmed alerts are unreliable.... ie . They cannot be relied on... Perhaps Sunny or Slarti could explain in what way the alert s are reliable ...I don't expect
Have you ever thought what evidence would confirm an alert?
-
Splitting hairs there mate.
It is a serious distinction, think about it.
-
It is a serious distinction, think about it.
then provide your reaons for thinking the alerts are relaible
-
Have you ever thought what evidence would confirm an alert?
I prefer to clarify this point first rather than cloud the issue
-
I have said the unconfirmed alerts are unreliable.... ie . They cannot be relied on... Perhaps Sunny or Slarti could explain in what way the alert s are reliable ...I don't expect them to be able to respond
We have been told that the dogs are high 90%s accurate, that means their alerts. Obviously an alert can’t point to a victim or perpetrator without forensic confirmation, hence they cannot be relied upon in trial. It is still the most likely scenario however that cadaver odour was alerted to in 5a. Where that odour originated is unknown.
-
We have been told that the dogs are high 90%s accurate, that means their alerts. Obviously an alert can’t point to a victim or perpetrator without forensic confirmation, hence they cannot be relied upon in trial. It is still the most likely scenario however that cadaver odour was alerted to in 5a. Where that odour originated is unknown.
90% accurate in what way....you have failed miserably to answer that question...cadaver odour is not th most likely scenario imo...you are stating your opinion as fact which is against forum rules
-
Robittybob1 and Vertigo Swirl
Unreliable
un·re·li·a·ble (ŭn′rĭ-lī′ə-bəl)
adj.
Marked by or exhibiting a lack of reliability.
unreliable (ˌʌnrɪˈlaɪəbəl)
adj
not reliable; untrustworthy: an unreliable witness.
I don't believe that the above is what Martin Grime (they were talking about not relying on the alerts as evidence not them in themselves being unreliable) nor this
Both Harrison and Grime say unconfirmed alerts have no reliability as evidence or.. In Harrison's case... Evidence or intelligence... No reliability means unreliable
Do you not see the glaring difference?
-
We have been told that the dogs are high 90%s accurate, that means their alerts. Obviously an alert can’t point to a victim or perpetrator without forensic confirmation, hence they cannot be relied upon in trial. It is still the most likely scenario however that cadaver odour was alerted to in 5a. Where that odour originated is unknown.
lets assume the test involved 10 freshly contaminated carpet tiles..oozing with cadaverine contaminant fro a stinking cadaver...then I would expect a high scrore...but you cannot simply extrapolate those figures to pdl...it is a ridiculous...or to use angelos words...stupid...suggestion ..
Or perhaps the test was not remnant scent at all...but rotting pork......when you can tell me how the test was conducted we can evaluate the 90%...until then the figure has no value
-
Robittybob1 and Vertigo Swirl
Unreliable
un·re·li·a·ble (ŭn′rĭ-lī′ə-bəl)
adj.
Marked by or exhibiting a lack of reliability.
unreliable (ˌʌnrɪˈlaɪəbəl)
adj
not reliable; untrustworthy: an unreliable witness.
I don't believe that the above is what Martin Grime (they were talking about not relying on the alerts as evidence not them in themselves being unreliable) nor this
Both Harrison and Grime say unconfirmed alerts have no reliability as evidence or.. In Harrison's case... Evidence or intelligence... No reliability means unreliable
Do you not see the glaring difference?
they are unreliable.....if they are not...then they must be reliable...tell me how they are reliable
-
they are unreliable.....if they are not...then they must be reliable...tell me how they are reliable
Slartibartfast has already mentioned my earlier cite where Grime's later dogs achieved high 90's in percentage terms in their tests on alerts. I would call that very reliable imo.
You are using a legal term to call the dog alerts unreliable IMO.
-
Slartibartfast has already mentioned my earlier cite where Grime's later dogs achieved high 90's in percentage terms in their tests on alerts. I would call that very reliable imo.
You are using a legal term to call the dog alerts unreliable IMO.
read my post above...in what scenario was 90% achieved...without knowing that the figure has no meaning
-
Slartibartfast has already mentioned my earlier cite where Grime's later dogs achieved high 90's in percentage terms in their tests on alerts. I would call that very reliable imo.
You are using a legal term to call the dog alerts unreliable IMO.
At trial, FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham testified as an expert in forensic canine operation. Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham's protocol called for regular single-and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives. Stockham's program had three full-time handlers in its program, including Martin Grime. Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime's dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range. Stockham testified that dogs have been able to smell the odor of decomposition as soon as 2 hours after a victim's death, or years after a victim's burial.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html)
-
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html)
At trial, FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham testified as an expert in forensic canine operation. Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham's protocol called for regular single-and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives. Stockham's program had three full-time handlers in its program, including Martin Grime. Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime's dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range. Stockham testified that dogs have been able to smell the odor of decomposition as soon as 2 hours after a victim's death, or years after a victim's burial.
again....for the 5 th time...what does the 90% figure refer to...is it body parts...dead pigs remnant scent on tiles...you dont know and therefore we cannot judge the value of that figure...its clear...imo...you just do not understand science and evidence
Lets make it simple.....I recently scored 90% in a maths test...does that qualify me as being competent in maths
-
At trial, FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham testified as an expert in forensic canine operation. Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham's protocol called for regular single-and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives. Stockham's program had three full-time handlers in its program, including Martin Grime. Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime's dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range. Stockham testified that dogs have been able to smell the odor of decomposition as soon as 2 hours after a victim's death, or years after a victim's burial.
again....for the 5 th time...what does the 90% figure refer to...is it body parts...dead pigs remnant scent on tiles...you dont know and therefore we cannot judge the value of that figure...its clear...imo...you just do not understand science and evidence
Lets make it simple.....I recently scored 90% in a maths test...does that qualify me as being competent in maths
I have provided the cite, high 90s % accurate.
-
No you haven’t, you just wish to ignore it.
Thats your opinion again and incorrect..I would like to evaluate it....but to make a proper evaluation I would need details of the test carried out...you have blindly accepted the figure..imo
-
Thats your opinion again and incorrect..I would like to evaluate it....but to make a proper evaluation I would need details of the test carried out...you have blindly accepted the figure..imo
I have accepted expert testing.
-
I have accepted expert testing.
testing of what exactly...you dont really know...do you
-
Were bodies or body parts used in the tests or was it just about residual scent?
-
Were bodies or body parts used in the tests or was it just about residual scent?
precisely..
-
testing of what exactly...you dont really know...do you
If an expert says he has tested something and it is high 90%s accurate it is self explanatory. IMO you are trying to cast uncertainty and doubt onto it.
-
If an expert says he has tested something and it is high 90%s accurate it is self explanatory. IMO you are trying to cast uncertainty and doubt onto it.
Im asking what he tested....you just say its something...it needs to be a little more precise than that...so what was tested that impresses you so much...the uncertainty is what was tested...which you are trying to ignore
-
Im asking what he tested....you just say its something...it needs to be a little more precise than that...so what was tested that impresses you so much
I was speaking generally in that post about experts and testing.
-
I was speaking generally in that post about experts and testing.
experts tell us what was tested...its no good giving a result but not explaining what was tested...taht is worthless and im surprised you cant see that...
you are quoting the results of a test...but dont know what was tested...
-
experts tell us what was tested...its no good giving a result but not explaining what was tested...taht is worthless and im surprised you cant see that
You asked for a cite, you got a cite. Readers can look up Rex Stockham’s CV and experience and make their own minds up about his veracity.
-
You asked for a cite, you got a cite. Readers can look up Rex Stockham’s CV and experience and make their own minds up about his veracity.
you quote the results of the test but dont know what was tested.
-
You asked for a cite, you got a cite. Readers can look up Rex Stockham’s CV and experience and make their own minds up about his veracity.
I absolutely accept his figure...but without knowing the deatils of his tests we cannot put the figure into context..
I think maddie was abducted.....and 99.999% of child abductions are carried out by parents...think about it
-
The irony is you don't seem to appreciate Grime's potential error may have denied the PJ of the crucial piece of evidence they were looking for.
You don't seem to appreciate that you have failed to demonstrate that Grime committed an error.
-
I absolutely accept his figure...but without knowing the deatils of his tests we cannot put the figure into context..
I think maddie was abducted.....and 99.999% of child abductions are carried out by parents...think about it
You have failed to show that Martin Grime said that the dog alerts were unreliable and that the alerts were actually unreliable in themselves. Just because they weren't admissible in court doesn't make them unreliable.
We don't need to know the details of Stockham's tests all we need to know is what job he did and that he was considered an expert witness at the D'Andre Lane trial.
Do we have all the full details of how the drug tests were carried out on the twins and Kate no we don't, yet you accept the result of them.
-
You have failed to show that Martin Grime said that the dog alerts were unreliable and that the alerts were actually unreliable in themselves. Just because they weren't admissible in court doesn't make them unreliable.
We don't need to know the details of Stockham's tests all we need to know is what job he did and that he was considered an expert witness at the D'Andre Lane trial.
Do we have all the full details of how the drug tests were carried out on the twins and Kate no we don't, yet you accept the result of them.
You clearly don't understand science and evidence IMO... So further discussion is pointless...
-
You clearly don't understand science and evidence IMO... So further discussion is pointless...
So explain to me then Davel. I think I do, you think I don't. Show me the evidence.
-
So explain to me then Davel. I think I do, you think I don't. Show me the evidence.
i already have done...you are quoting the result of a test ....and drawing conclusuions...with no knowledge of the test or what it entailed...that is unscientific and cannot support your evidence...
-
You don't seem to appreciate that you have failed to demonstrate that Grime committed an error.
Neither has anyone managed to demonstrate that Grime didn't make a potential error simply because no-one can determine precisely what Eddie is alerting to when he barks.
-
Neither has anyone managed to demonstrate that Grime didn't make a potential error simply because no-one can determine precisely what Eddie is alerting to when he barks.
like cuddle cat
-
i already have done...you are quoting the result of a test ....and drawing conclusuions...with no knowledge of the test or what it entailed...that is unscientific and cannot support your evidence...
Perhaps as is your claim that the alerts were unreliable as regards remnant scents then Davel.
-
Perhaps as is your claim that the alerts were unreliable as regards remnant scents then Davel.
so you have given up your claim taht the 90% is relevant...teh alerts are unreliable...you have not been able to show in what sense they are reliable...what do they reliably tell us...nothing...so they are unreliable
-
so you have given up your claim taht the 90% is relevant...teh alerts are unreliable...you have not been able to show in what sense they are reliable...what do they reliably tell us...nothing...so they are unreliable
Just because something is not considered for court purposes doesn't make it unreliable as you well know. The high 90s percent test results are relevant as Stockham was an expert witness and not just any expert witness IMO. He would know whether Grime's dogs had a lot of false alerts and he said they did not.
That is all we need to know. You are putting words into Grime and Harrison's mouths and in the process disrespecting both them and and Rex Stockham as well.
-
Just because something is not considered for court purposes doesn't make it unreliable as you well know. The high 90s percent test results are relevant as Stockham was an expert witness and not just any expert witness IMO. He would know whether Grime's dogs had a lot of false alerts and he said they did not.
That is all we need to know. You are putting words into Grime and Harrison's mouths and in the process disrespecting both them and and Rex Stockham as well.
absolute rubbish..if you read my posts you would see I accept stockholms figures........never mind court...what do the alerts reliably tell us...nothing...so they are unreliable......
-
Just because something is not considered for court purposes doesn't make it unreliable as you well know. The high 90s percent test results are relevant as Stockham was an expert witness and not just any expert witness IMO. He would know whether Grime's dogs had a lot of false alerts and he said they did not.
That is all we need to know. You are putting words into Grime and Harrison's mouths and in the process disrespecting both them and and Rex Stockham as well.
If the evidence is reliable it would be acceptable to all US courts & the judge would not have to first consider the competence of the dog. No-one is questioning Stockham's ability when assessing Morse & Grime but it is important to bear in mind he was developing a canine programme at the time. Testing therefore may or may not have been bog-standard minimum requirement or advanced scientifically based.
-
If the evidence is reliable it would be acceptable to all US courts & the judge would not have to first consider the competence of the dog. No-one is questioning Stockham's ability when assessing Morse & Grime but it is important to bear in mind he was developing a canine programme at the time. Testing therefore may or may not have been bog-standard minimum requirement or advanced scientifically based.
Thank you for your sensible answer Misty. You may have a point but i believe that Stockham would have been rigorous in his testing from the get go but I am willing to concede your point. Stockham wasn't new to the FBI as had been an expert in explosives before.
-
absolute rubbish..if you read my posts you would see I accept stockholms figures........never mind court...what do the alerts reliably tell us...nothing...so they are unreliable......
Can you point me to your post where you accept Stockham's figures? I see this one
and I have shown why your cite is meaningless...the fact you do not realise taht is very telling..imo
This one
Thats your opinion again and incorrect..I would like to evaluate it....but to make a proper evaluation I would need details of the test carried out...you have blindly accepted the figure..imo
And this one
experts tell us what was tested...its no good giving a result but not explaining what was tested...taht is worthless and im surprised you cant see that...
you are quoting the results of a test...but dont know what was tested...
In none do you accept the results of Stockham's tests.
-
Thank you for your sensible answer Misty. You may have a point but i believe that Stockham would have been rigorous in his testing from the get go but I am willing to concede your point. Stockham wasn't new to the FBI as had been an expert in explosives before.
He also had a degree in Chemistry, something Grime hasn't got, which in 2012 gave him a far better understanding of the complexities of cadaver odour than Grime did back in 2007.
-
Neither has anyone managed to demonstrate that Grime didn't make a potential error simply because no-one can determine precisely what Eddie is alerting to when he barks.
The person qualified to interpret Eddie's alerts was Grime. You chose to disagree with his interpretation based on your observation of the position of the dog's nose. You suggested that Grime didn't notice what you noticed, but you can't know that. It's just as likely that he didn't mention the position of the dog's nose because it wasn't important. I think you're barking up the wrong tree suggesting that your observations and conclusions are superior to those of the dog's trainer and handler.
-
The person qualified to interpret Eddie's alerts was Grime. You chose to disagree with his interpretation based on your observation of the position of the dog's nose. You suggested that Grime didn't notice what you noticed, but you can't know that. It's just as likely that he didn't mention the position of the dog's nose because it wasn't important. I think you're barking up the wrong tree suggesting that your observations and conclusions are superior to those of the dog's trainer and handler.
Have you ever been assessed as to how accurate you are at barking up the right tree?
-
You have failed to show that Martin Grime said that the dog alerts were unreliable and that the alerts were actually unreliable in themselves. Just because they weren't admissible in court doesn't make them unreliable.
We don't need to know the details of Stockham's tests all we need to know is what job he did and that he was considered an expert witness at the D'Andre Lane trial.
Do we have all the full details of how the drug tests were carried out on the twins and Kate no we don't, yet you accept the result of them.
An expert witness in Britain is expected to be neutral but in America it is big business the rates for which I have heard are very lucrative.
There are also ethical problems arising from their use in america. On a forum like ours we must be aware of exactly what we are discussing and to bear in mind that to us an expert witness is something entirely different from the American model.
(http://www.tasanet.com/Portals/0/Images/TASAGroup_logo.png)
Technical Advisory Service for Attorneys (TASA): Quality Expert Witnesses, Exceptional Personal Service
TASA delivers timesaving, targeted referrals to quality expert witnesses in all fields and all locations, for plaintiff or defense. Our experienced referral advisors work with you to pinpoint your specific expert witness criteria and connect you with expert witnesses who are available to discuss your case. There is no charge for our search and referral services unless you designate or engage an expert witness we refer. As a client, you will benefit from TASA’s years of experience and innovation since 1956. We invite you to explore our website and its features, search expert witness profiles within TASA’s 11,000+ categories of expertise, submit an expert witness request, and tap the Knowledge Center for archived expert-led webinars and case-relevant articles written by TASA-referred expert witnesses. Trust TASA to help you identify the best expert witness for your case.
https://www.tasanet.com/expertrequestgooglelanding?source=goog&kw=expertwitnesses&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-PPJ1-_l3AIVorztCh2R7wxvEAAYASAAEgLJdvD_BwE
Snip
England has also recently instituted what Adrian Zuckerman, the author of a 2006 treatise there, called “radical measures” to address “the culture of confrontation that permeated the use of experts in litigation.” The measures included placing experts under the complete control of the court, requiring a single expert in many cases and encouraging cooperation among experts when the parties retain more than one. Experts are required to sign a statement saying their duty is to the court and not to the party paying their bills.
There are no signs of similar changes in the United States. “The American tendency is strictly the party-appointed expert,” said James Maxeiner, a professor of comparative law at the University of Baltimore. “There is this proprietary interest lawyers here have over lawsuits.”
American lawyers often interview many potential expert witnesses in search of ones who will bolster their case and then work closely with them in framing their testimony to be accessible and helpful. At a minimum, the process results in carefully tailored testimony. Some critics say it can also produce bias and ethical compromises.
“To put it bluntly, in many professions, service as an expert witness is not considered honest work,” Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in the Wisconsin Law Review. “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html
-
An expert witness in Britain is expected to be neutral but in America it is big business the rates for which I have heard are very lucrative.
There are also ethical problems arising from their use in america. On a forum like ours we must be aware of exactly what we are discussing and to bear in mind that to us an expert witness is something entirely different from the American model.
(http://www.tasanet.com/Portals/0/Images/TASAGroup_logo.png)
Technical Advisory Service for Attorneys (TASA): Quality Expert Witnesses, Exceptional Personal Service
TASA delivers timesaving, targeted referrals to quality expert witnesses in all fields and all locations, for plaintiff or defense. Our experienced referral advisors work with you to pinpoint your specific expert witness criteria and connect you with expert witnesses who are available to discuss your case. There is no charge for our search and referral services unless you designate or engage an expert witness we refer. As a client, you will benefit from TASA’s years of experience and innovation since 1956. We invite you to explore our website and its features, search expert witness profiles within TASA’s 11,000+ categories of expertise, submit an expert witness request, and tap the Knowledge Center for archived expert-led webinars and case-relevant articles written by TASA-referred expert witnesses. Trust TASA to help you identify the best expert witness for your case.
https://www.tasanet.com/expertrequestgooglelanding?source=goog&kw=expertwitnesses&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-PPJ1-_l3AIVorztCh2R7wxvEAAYASAAEgLJdvD_BwE
Snip
England has also recently instituted what Adrian Zuckerman, the author of a 2006 treatise there, called “radical measures” to address “the culture of confrontation that permeated the use of experts in litigation.” The measures included placing experts under the complete control of the court, requiring a single expert in many cases and encouraging cooperation among experts when the parties retain more than one. Experts are required to sign a statement saying their duty is to the court and not to the party paying their bills.
There are no signs of similar changes in the United States. “The American tendency is strictly the party-appointed expert,” said James Maxeiner, a professor of comparative law at the University of Baltimore. “There is this proprietary interest lawyers here have over lawsuits.”
American lawyers often interview many potential expert witnesses in search of ones who will bolster their case and then work closely with them in framing their testimony to be accessible and helpful. At a minimum, the process results in carefully tailored testimony. Some critics say it can also produce bias and ethical compromises.
“To put it bluntly, in many professions, service as an expert witness is not considered honest work,” Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in the Wisconsin Law Review. “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html
It’s a good job America is irrelevant then...
-
It’s a good job America is irrelevant then...
How is America irrelevant when an American expert witness testified for the prosecution about the competence of a UK based cadaver dog team?
-
Have you ever been assessed as to how accurate you are at barking up the right tree?
I endeavour to provide evidence to support my choice of tree, rather than relying on my opinion.
-
I endeavour to provide evidence to support my choice of tree, rather than relying on my opinion.
thats waht all sensible posters do
-
Please stop arguing unnecessarily on this thread.
-
The person qualified to interpret Eddie's alerts was Grime. You chose to disagree with his interpretation based on your observation of the position of the dog's nose. You suggested that Grime didn't notice what you noticed, but you can't know that. It's just as likely that he didn't mention the position of the dog's nose because it wasn't important. I think you're barking up the wrong tree suggesting that your observations and conclusions are superior to those of the dog's trainer and handler.
I have the benefit of video evidence and do consider that the last position of the dog's nose before alerting was very important, especially so in light of the PJ's list of McCann-related items reportedly alerted to..
Why do you think VAR has been introduced into football if not to facilitate reviewing infringements the referee may have missed in real-time action? I see no record of Grime reviewing Harrison's mobile video footage before confirming some of the places alerted to.
-
I have the benefit of video evidence and do consider that the last position of the dog's nose before alerting was very important, especially so in light of the PJ's list of McCann-related items reportedly alerted to..
Why do you think VAR has been introduced into football if not to facilitate reviewing infringements the referee may have missed in real-time action? I see no record of Grime reviewing Harrison's mobile video footage before confirming some of the places alerted to.
I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for evidence that the position of a cadaver dog's nose just before it alerts is significant. Twenty one pages and not a sign of it.
-
Surely you must know by now, there is ONLY ONE PLACE within 5A where there was any chance that there might have been a cadaver scent and that was up the wall between the bed and wardrobe. That is just the sort of position where a bedside table might had sat possibly with the ashes of a previous owner who died or even his bedclothes that he died in, IMO. A comforting place for his widow, a bedside table close to her head where she could reach out and easily touch them.
Now how do you think that a cadaver of a child of nearly four, could have got so high up that wall? Doesn't make sense that Madeleines cadaver could have lain so high up a wall. Doncha think?
AIMO
-
I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for evidence that the position of a cadaver dog's nose just before it alerts is significant. Twenty one pages and not a sign of it.
The proof is on the video if you believe Eddie alerted to specific items of McCann clothing, the wardrobe area or the corner of the garden.
-
Surely you must know by now, there is ONLY ONE PLACE within 5A where there was any chance that there might have been a cadaver scent and that was up the wall between the bed and wardrobe. That is just the sort of position where a bedside table might had sat possibly with the ashes of a previous owner who died or even his bedclothes that he died in, IMO. A comforting place for his widow, a bedside table close to her head where she could reach out and easily touch them.
Now how do you think that a cadaver of a child of nearly four, could have got so high up that wall? Doesn't make sense that Madeleines cadaver could have lain so high up a wall. Doncha think?
AIMO
AIMO
Are you also claiming to know the exact spot which triggered Eddie's alert? His handler certainly didn't try to do that.
-
The proof is on the video if you believe Eddie alerted to specific items of McCann clothing, the wardrobe area or the corner of the garden.
The key word being 'area'. The clothing alerts were specific because he was given access to specific items of clothing,
-
The key word being 'area'. The clothing alerts were specific because he was given access to specific items of clothing,
Eddie picked up more than one item of clothing at separate times & continued to bark when standing beside other items. Was he alerting to one of them, some of them or all of them & why did Grime opt not to specify the items alerted to on camera?
-
Eddie picked up more than one item of clothing at separate times & continued to bark when standing beside other items. Was he alerting to one of them, some of them or all of them & why did Grime opt not to specify the items alerted to on camera?
This was a finding on a previous thread IIRC.
-
This was a finding on a previous thread IIRC.
It may well have been but I don't remember it. I am trying to establish if the dog's tool of trade prompts an immediate or delayed response after identifying the strongest source of scent.
-
This was a finding on a previous thread IIRC.
It was also noted that all of the items taken to the gymnasium for testing had been in the rented villa when Eddie carried out his check ... and he did not alert to them there.
-
It was also noted that all of the items taken to the gymnasium for testing had been in the rented villa when Eddie carried out his check ... and he did not alert to them there.
You would wonder how Martin Grime explains that.
-
It may well have been but I don't remember it. I am trying to establish if the dog's tool of trade prompts an immediate or delayed response after identifying the strongest source of scent.
So by your own admission you don't know whether you are observing 'errors' or not.
-
So by your own admission you don't know whether you are observing 'errors' or not.
I have never rated the videos in relation to what people on internet fora have made of them. In my opinion it has been categorically proven that there were alerts in the garage NONE of which were to cadaver odour or directly to Madeleine McCann.
From start to finish Martin Grime has said that dog indications must be substantiated by forensics. What is not to understand about that?
-
I have never rated the videos in relation to what people on internet fora have made of them. In my opinion it has been categorically proven that there were alerts in the garage NONE of which were to cadaver odour or directly to Madeleine McCann.
From start to finish Martin Grime has said that dog indications must be substantiated by forensics. What is not to understand about that?
Despite what Grime said, some people are still examining those videos in minute detail with the aim of discrediting Grime. That suggests to me that they aren't convinced that the alerts can be dismissed.
-
Despite what Grime said, some people are still examining those videos in minute detail with the aim of discrediting Grime. That suggests to me that they aren't convinced that the alerts can be dismissed.
Again I disagree.....I'm convinced the alerts have no evidential value and no inference can be drawn from them.... Basically useless... Imo
-
Despite what Grime said, some people are still examining those videos in minute detail with the aim of discrediting Grime. That suggests to me that they aren't convinced that the alerts can be dismissed.
()678% its been 11 years they are still in denial about it IMO
-
()678% its been 11 years they are still in denial about it IMO
I think it's the sceptics who are clearly in denial Re the alerts
None more so than amaral
-
Again I disagree.....I'm convinced the alerts have no evidential value and no inference can be drawn from them.... Basically useless... Imo
You're not one of those poring over videos and trying to highlight 'errors' by Grime though, are you?
-
You're not one of those poring over videos and trying to highlight 'errors' by Grime though, are you?
You already know the, answer to that... But I see nothing wrong with posters trying to establish the truth... Do you
It could be said you have pored over the files trying to discredit the McCanns
-
()678% its been 11 years they are still in denial about it IMO
It seems that it's not enough to be told that the alerts aren't evidence. They seem to think it's important to go a step further and try to prove that the alerts weren't 'real' alerts anyway.
-
i always think eddie and keela were right dogs can smell better then humans hence why they use them in police and airports etc
-
It seems that it's not enough to be told that the alerts aren't evidence. They seem to think it's important to go a step further and try to prove that the alerts weren't 'real' alerts anyway.
What do you think about the alert to cuddle cat.... Why should grime and the dogs be beyond criticism.... You don't really make, any sense imo
-
You already know the, answer to that... But I see nothing wrong with posters trying to establish the truth... Do you
It could be said you have pored over the files trying to discredit the McCanns
I don't see how a poster's opinion of where a cadaver dog's nose is when it alerts will help to establish the truth.
-
It seems that it's not enough to be told that the alerts aren't evidence. They seem to think it's important to go a step further and try to prove that the alerts weren't 'real' alerts anyway.
Rather than attack the poster and their motives why not actually address the rather valid points she has made regarding the alert to the clothes?
-
I don't see how a poster's opinion of where a cadaver dog's nose is when it alerts will help to establish the truth.
Assessing the validity of the alerts will help establish the, truth... You seem oversensitive to any criticism of grime or the, alerts..... And I'm sure I know, why
-
Rather than attack the poster and their motives why not actually address the rather valid points she has made regarding the alert to the clothes?
Validity is a matter of opinion, seemingly yours.
-
Validity is a matter of opinion, seemingly yours.
mcann supporters have always been afraid of the dogs it makes you wonder why doesnt it?? just because dogs cant talk doesnt mean they dont understand what they are trained to do
-
mcann supporters have always been afraid of the dogs it makes you wonde r why doesnt it?? just because dogs cant talk doesnt mean they dont understand what they are trained to do
What rubbish ...some sceptics misguidedly think this, when the reality is that supporters better understand that the, alerts, which are basically meaningless
-
What rubbish ...some sceptics misguidedly think this, when the reality is that supporters better understand that the, alerts, which are basically meaningless
Not meaningless. IMO
-
Not meaningless. IMO
Then tell me what they mean to you
-
Then tell me what they mean to you
They are clues that must fit into the final scenario (with a fair degree of certainty).
They are a form of intelligence.
Intelligence:
1.
2.
the collection of information of military or political value.
"the chief of military intelligence"
synonyms: information gathering, surveillance, observation, reconnaissance, spying, espionage, undercover work, infiltration, ELINT, cyberespionage, humint; informalrecon
"a former agent for British military intelligence"
-
What rubbish ...some sceptics misguidedly think this, when the reality is that supporters better understand that the, alerts, which are basically meaningless
You forgot the IYO.
-
Validity is a matter of opinion, seemingly yours.
Every time G-Unit posts we are remind to Accept Nothing, Believe No-One, and Confirm Everything. Why should the dog handler and his alerts be exempt from such scrutiny, and if questions are raised, then their validity discussed, not brushed over in ad hom attacks?
-
mcann supporters have always been afraid of the dogs it makes you wonder why doesnt it?? just because dogs cant talk doesnt mean they dont understand what they are trained to do
You forgot the IYO (just pointing this out as SIL seems to have forgotten to do so).
-
You forgot the IYO (just pointing this out as SIL seems to have forgotten to do so).
To be honest I don't think carlymichelle's post needed an IMO, since I became interested in the case and have looked at forums, twitter etc the dogs seem to be the main point discussed by the supporters, that and of course Goncalo Amaral and the sceptics themselves. All IMO but based on my views of forums etc.
-
What rubbish ...some sceptics misguidedly think this, when the reality is that supporters better understand that the, alerts, which are basically meaningless
You forgot IMO Davel.
-
To be honest I don't think carlymichelle's post needed an IMO, since I became interested in the case and have looked at forums, twitter etc the dogs seem to be the main point discussed by the supporters, that and of course Goncalo Amaral and the sceptics themselves. All IMO but based on my views of forums etc.
So, it's a proven fact that "supporters have always been afraid of the dogs" is it? What insulting rot.
-
So, it's a proven fact that "supporters have always been afraid of the dogs" is it? What insulting rot.
If supporters are not "afraid of the dogs" why all the threads and posts about them and all trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs. This thread is just one example of my "proof".
-
If supporters are not "afraid of the dogs" why all the threads and posts about them and all trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs. This thread is just one example of my "proof".
Well they are hard to explain away.
-
If supporters are not "afraid of the dogs" why all the threads and posts about them and all trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs. This thread is just one example of my "proof".
This thread is no proof of supporters being afraid of the dog alerts and I think it's a pretty silly suggestion... And a baseless accusation....
-
Well they are hard to explain away.
I think they are quite easy to explain away.... Grime himself tells us the alerts could be the result of several different scenarios... Shame he didn't list them
-
If supporters are not "afraid of the dogs" why all the threads and posts about them and all trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs. This thread is just one example of my "proof".
It's as daft as suggesting sceptics are afraid of the McCanns because they start so many threads trying to discredit their story. It is pure opinion, to which you are all entitled but don't please dress it up as fact, or excuse the lack of "IMOs" that this forum sets such great store by.
-
It shows how little sceptics understand if they think supporters are frightened if the dogs... It really is a ridiculous suggestion... Imo
-
It's as daft as suggesting sceptics are afraid of the McCanns because they start so many threads trying to discredit their story. It is pure opinion, to which you are all entitled but don't please dress it up as fact, or excuse the lack of "IMOs" that this forum sets such great store by.
As far as I have seen the supporters have a limited choice of things to discredit and very little to point to abduction. The sceptics on the other had appear to have a wider choice of things to discuss and possibly as you say "discredit".
Remember one poster on here has directly accused Martin Grime of not being honest. The post may be gone but the intention was there. I have also seen other posters particularly a couple on twitter calling Martin Grime a "liar".
I stand by what I said although perhaps I wouldn't have said "afraid" I would say that supporters are keen to discredit the dogs because they point away from their approved abduction scenario.
With this in mind though why can't supporters see there is a possibility that the abductor accidentally may have killed Madeleine then decided to remove the body so they wouldn't be found guilty for murder. That is a possibility however remote IMO.
-
As far as I have seen the supporters have a limited choice of things to discredit and very little to point to abduction. The sceptics on the other had appear to have a wider choice of things to discuss and possibly as you say "discredit".
Remember one poster on here has directly accused Martin Grime of not being honest. The post may be gone but the intention was there. I have also seen other posters particularly a couple on twitter calling Martin Grime a "liar".
I stand by what I said although perhaps I wouldn't have said "afraid" I would say that supporters are keen to discredit the dogs because they point away from their approved abduction scenario.
With this in mind though why can't supporters see there is a possibility that the abductor accidentally may have killed Madeleine then decided to remove the body so they wouldn't be found guilty for murder. That is a possibility however remote IMO.
The timing is wrong for this.
An alleged abductor was in and out in 'no time at all', so not sufficient time for a body to lie anywhere and leave a cadaver scent.
That is why the dogs must be dissed . A cadaver scent points directly at parental involvement.
-
As far as I have seen the supporters have a limited choice of things to discredit and very little to point to abduction. The sceptics on the other had appear to have a wider choice of things to discuss and possibly as you say "discredit".
Remember one poster on here has directly accused Martin Grime of not being honest. The post may be gone but the intention was there. I have also seen other posters particularly a couple on twitter calling Martin Grime a "liar".
I stand by what I said although perhaps I wouldn't have said "afraid" I would say that supporters are keen to discredit the dogs because they point away from their approved abduction scenario.
With this in mind though why can't supporters see there is a possibility that the abductor accidentally may have killed Madeleine then decided to remove the body so they wouldn't be found guilty for murder. That is a possibility however remote IMO.
All your incorrect opinion...
If an abductor had killed Maddie in the, apartment the body would have to have lain for some time for cadaver odour to develop... So not possible
-
As far as I have seen the supporters have a limited choice of things to discredit and very little to point to abduction. The sceptics on the other had appear to have a wider choice of things to discuss and possibly as you say "discredit".
Remember one poster on here has directly accused Martin Grime of not being honest. The post may be gone but the intention was there. I have also seen other posters particularly a couple on twitter calling Martin Grime a "liar".
I stand by what I said although perhaps I wouldn't have said "afraid" I would say that supporters are keen to discredit the dogs because they point away from their approved abduction scenario.
With this in mind though why can't supporters see there is a possibility that the abductor accidentally may have killed Madeleine then decided to remove the body so they wouldn't be found guilty for murder. That is a possibility however remote IMO.
With regard to your last paragraph, how do you figure out there is a possibility for that scenario to explain the dog alerts?
As for the rest of your post, there are plenty of questions and criticisms that can be levelled by supporters regarding the original investigation and the way it was handled, don't you worry about that.
-
The timing is wrong for this.
An alleged abductor was in and out in 'no time at all', so not sufficient time for a body to lie anywhere and leave a cadaver scent.
That is why the dogs must be dissed . A cadaver scent points directly at parental involvement.
How long does a body have to be in situ for it to leave cadaver scent, do you or does anyone actually know the answer to that? Because it really is a very important question if we are to believe the McCanns hid their child's body.
-
Estimates vary, but seem to be considerably longer than 5 or 10 minutes.
-
The timing is wrong for this.
An alleged abductor was in and out in 'no time at all', so not sufficient time for a body to lie anywhere and leave a cadaver scent.
That is why the dogs must be dissed . A cadaver scent points directly at parental involvement.
If the alerts, are to cadaver scent then it points directly at the parents and I would expect them to be arrested and charged..... That hasn't happened which suggests the alerts are not regarded as being to a cadaver
-
Estimates vary, but seem to be considerably long than 5 or 10 minutes.
Quite a lot longer - 2 hours seems to be the accepted minimum (don't ask me for a cite, I said "seems") but some have said less. If it was two hours in this case then the child was dead before the McCanns went to dinner. Now, does that seem very likely? On the other hand if we take 90 minutes as the bare minimum then that means the sleeping child got up the second her parents left the apartment and had an instantly fatal accident. Again, what are the chances? What sort of accident, whereabouts?
-
This cite appears to say that cadaver dogs can scent cadaver as early as after 1 hour 25 minutes (after death).
Below is snipped from test results. It is worth reading the rest IMO.
TRIALS BEGUN: January 1997
NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
-
This cite appears to say that cadaver dogs can scent cadaver as early as after 1 hour 25 minutes (after death).
Below is snipped from test results. It is worth reading the rest IMO.
TRIALS BEGUN: January 1997
NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
SOunds like a bit of a one off, but nonetheless point taken - the consensus suggests 2.5-3 hours, and I wonder were these tests conducted within hours of the samples taken of the deceased or three months after the samples had been taken?
-
90 minutes, 2 & a half hours, still far too long for an abductor.
-
90 minutes, 2 & a half hours, still far too long for an abductor.
And still quite tricky to explain a plausible scenario of parental involvement.
-
Might explain why the Portuguese came to no conclusion and why the British don't seem to be doing any better.
-
Might explain why the Portuguese came to no conclusion and why the British don't seem to be doing any better.
Personally I don't think the dog alerts have any bearing on the British investigation but might explain why the Portuguese one went off track to arrive at precisely nothing after a year or so.
-
Whereas, several years on, OG hasn't come up with anything either.
-
Whereas, several years on, OG hasn't come up with anything either.
How do you know what they have or haven't come up with? Do they brief you regularly?
-
How do you know what they have or haven't come up with? Do they brief you regularly?
I thought it had been established beyond doubt that police forces keep things secret
-
Rather than attack the poster and their motives why not actually address the rather valid points she has made regarding the alert to the clothes?
They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.
There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.
-
They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.
There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.
The questions were perfectly on topic IMO as they related to the dog's alerts of the clothing and how it was decided what the dog was actually alerting to.
-
They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.
There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.
In my opinion you are wrong with reference to the opening post ... "The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts."
Not only did the dog use it's nose in the gymnasium ... it used it's mouth to fling the evidence around. So might well be in accord with the theme of the thread but your not wishing to discuss that aspect of the dog's behaviour ( which basically is what this thread is about) doesn't automatically rule it OT.
The editors will decide that.
-
The questions were perfectly on topic IMO as they related to the dog's alerts of the clothing and how it was decided what the dog was actually alerting to.
You beat me to it ... but agreed.
-
In my opinion you are wrong with reference to the opening post ... "The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts."
Not only did the dog use it's nose in the gymnasium ... it used it's mouth to fling the evidence around. So might well be in accord with the theme of the thread but your not wishing to discuss that aspect of the dog's behaviour ( which basically is what this thread is about) doesn't automatically rule it OT.
The editors will decide that.
I am answering one question as quoted. I have experienced the manner in which an opening subject becomes lost as threads develop. I don't want to discuss clothing alerts, I wish to discuss the alert behind the couch. I reject any suggestion that bringing other alerts into the discussion adds to it; in my opinion it detracts from it.
-
I am answering one question as quoted. I have experienced the manner in which an opening subject becomes lost as threads develop. I don't want to discuss clothing alerts, I wish to discuss the alert behind the couch. I reject any suggestion that bringing other alerts into the discussion adds to it; in my opinion it detracts from it.
It was sunny on the first page who brought up alerts in general
-
It was sunny on the first page who brought up alerts in general
My post concerned alerts in general in relation to the initial posters claims about Martin Grime. I didn't suggest we go through all alerts one by one. Perhaps that is for another thread Davel.
And of course it was not me that widened the topic it was Brietta with this as her post was prior to my own.
In my opinion Eddie is a blunt instrument instrument. From what I recall of his performance in the villa the focus of his attention was indeterminate when giving his bark indication ... take your pick between the chair at the table ~ on top of the cupboard ~ or inside where cuddle cat was lurking.
-
It was sunny on the first page who brought up alerts in general
Threads wander all the time. My point is that I don't intend to.
-
I am answering one question as quoted. I have experienced the manner in which an opening subject becomes lost as threads develop. I don't want to discuss clothing alerts, I wish to discuss the alert behind the couch. I reject any suggestion that bringing other alerts into the discussion adds to it; in my opinion it detracts from it.
If the alert behind the sofa was the only alert there would be no bone of contention. In an effort to substantiate my suspicion there may have been an error with that particular alert it was necessary to introduce the nose position in other alerts made by Eddie but you appear to class that as irrelevant. Perhaps you would do me the courtesy in future of not asking for proof you have no intention of giving any consideration to.
-
Surely you must know by now, there is ONLY ONE PLACE within 5A where there was any chance that there might have been a cadaver scent and that was up the wall between the bed and wardrobe. That is just the sort of position where a bedside table might had sat possibly with the ashes of a previous owner who died or even his bedclothes that he died in, IMO. A comforting place for his widow, a bedside table close to her head where she could reach out and easily touch them.
Now how do you think that a cadaver of a child of nearly four, could have got so high up that wall? Doesn't make sense that Madeleines cadaver could have lain so high up a wall. Doncha think?
AIMO
An entirely possible scenario Sadie and one which would account for the alert you refer to. However, that doesn't explain the alerts to clothing in the gym?
-
The question is... IF the alerts are as reliable as some think.... 90+%........why do they have no evidential value.... And why isn't grime saying in his opinion the alerts are to cadaver scent
-
An entirely possible scenario Sadie and one which would account for the alert you refer to. However, that doesn't explain the alerts to clothing in the gym?
What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?
-
I am answering one question as quoted. I have experienced the manner in which an opening subject becomes lost as threads develop. I don't want to discuss clothing alerts, I wish to discuss the alert behind the couch. I reject any suggestion that bringing other alerts into the discussion adds to it; in my opinion it detracts from it.
I doubt there is a single thread on the McCann board which does not in one way or another veer entirely off topic , some even into the realms of fantasy.
In my opinion the post to which you refer reflected the very issue which you appear to think should be discussed.
In my opinion discussion does not occur in isolation without benefit of explanation of information leading to enabling informed opinion leading to informed debate.
I have illustrated Eddie's body language using the dog videos, just as Misty has done, to comment on the opening post.
My post to which you object is reprised as follows ...
In my opinion Eddie is a blunt instrument . From what I recall of his performance in the villa the focus of his attention was indeterminate when giving his bark indication ... take your pick between the chair at the table ~ on top of the cupboard ~ or inside where cuddle cat was lurking.
His priority seems to be turning to directly face his owner when barking.
In this instance his owner was behind him and to the left at the far end of the sofa.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg477930#msg477930
The point I was making and which you appear not to have grasped is that Eddie was giving no indication of exactly what was the source of his alert.
I have observed that when barking ~ and with reference to one or two examples of which there are more ... Eddie does so having turned to face Martin Grime and not what has caused him to bark.
For example, had his owner been standing at the opposite end of the sofa from where he did ... Eddie would have turned and faced in that direction.
You may agree or disagree with my observations ... that is your prerogative ... but please desist from decrying on topic posts as off topic when it suits you.
In my opinion that does nothing to further debate.
-
If the alert behind the sofa was the only alert there would be no bone of contention. In an effort to substantiate my suspicion there may have been an error with that particular alert it was necessary to introduce the nose position in other alerts made by Eddie but you appear to class that as irrelevant. Perhaps you would do me the courtesy in future of not asking for proof you have no intention of giving any consideration to.
Your opinion was that Grime made a mistake when he described/interpreted Eddie's alert behind the sofa. You thought Eddie may have alerted to a different spot than Grime said he alerted to. You then mentioned the alert to the clothing.
#25 smip
If his alerts are only "general location" how should we view the alerts to the clothing he picked up in his mouth?
I didn't reply to that because I could see no connection between the two alerts or how the position of Eddie's nose immediately prior to them was important.
In my opinion your criticisms of the alerts rest solely on your opinions of how Eddie should behave. I can't see why your opinions should be seen as having more value than the opinions of an experienced dog handler. Sorry.
-
This cite appears to say that cadaver dogs can scent cadaver as early as after 1 hour 25 minutes (after death).
Below is snipped from test results. It is worth reading the rest IMO.
TRIALS BEGUN: January 1997
NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
The other thing not considered is the time interval between taking the test sample away and the time the dogs are brought in.
In the McCann case that is 3 months and IMO the concentration of the cadaver odour would need to be higher to remain detectable after that length of time.
-
Might explain why the Portuguese came to no conclusion and why the British don't seem to be doing any better.
It certainly isn't easy.
-
The other thing not considered is the time interval between taking the test sample away and the time the dogs are brought in.
In the McCann case that is 3 months and IMO the concentration of the cadaver odour would need to be higher to remain detectable after that length of time.
These cadaver dogs found a body decades after the person died.
MEXICO, N.Y. -- A well-trained cadaver dog almost never gets it wrong, according to experts.
If the dog has the proper training in picking up the full range of scents of human decomposition, his accuracy rate is about 95 percent, said Sharon Ward, a cadaver dog trainer in Portland, Ore.
"So if a dog says it's there, there's a darn good chance it is," she said tonight. "They're pretty darn accurate."
A New York State Police cadaver dog alerted twice in the same area Monday outside a cabin in Mexico where Oswego County sheriff's investigators are looking for the remains of 1994 kidnap victim Heidi Allen, according to a lawyer for the man imprisoned on a conviction of kidnapping her.
The dog indicated it smelled a body in an area around a fresh footprint, Federal Public Defender Lisa Peebles said she was told by Oswego County District Attorney Greg Oakes.
The footprint is unlikely the source of the scent the dog picked up, Ward said.
"Any properly trained dog will ignore a fresh-set print," she said.
The fact that it was a state police dog makes it more likely its owner knows very well when the dog has found a body, she said.
.
"The handler, especially a state police handler, should know if a dog lies to him or not," said Ward, a trainer with Pacific Crest Search Dogs, a nonprofit that uses the dogs to find human remains in Oregon and the state of Washington.
Depending on the type of soil, its aeration and the presence of tree roots in the ground, a cadaver dog can pick up the scent of remains deep underground, Ward said. She cited a case where police asked her if her three cadaver dogs could pick up a scent of remains 30 feet deep.
" I said, 'I have no idea. I've never trained on that, but I'll try,'" she said.
All three dogs put their noses in the same area and alerted, she said. She told the police to bring in a bulldozer, and they found a body 15 feet down, Ward said.
Cadaver dogs are trained to not alert on dead animals in the area -- only human remains, she said.
"In my yard, I have a cow bone and and elk bone out," she said. "If my dog hits on one of those, he's in trouble."
How old can the skeletal remains be? Hundreds of years, said Cat Warren, a cadaver dog expert from North Carolina who published a book, "What the Dog Knows: The Science and Wonder of Working Dogs."
But she and Ward both warned that the dogs are like people. They do make mistakes sometimes.
"The dogs are not magic," Warren said. "It depends on their training."
https://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html
-
These cadaver dogs found a body decades after the person died.
MEXICO, N.Y. -- A well-trained cadaver dog almost never gets it wrong, according to experts.
If the dog has the proper training in picking up the full range of scents of human decomposition, his accuracy rate is about 95 percent, said Sharon Ward, a cadaver dog trainer in Portland, Ore.
"So if a dog says it's there, there's a darn good chance it is," she said tonight. "They're pretty darn accurate."
A New York State Police cadaver dog alerted twice in the same area Monday outside a cabin in Mexico where Oswego County sheriff's investigators are looking for the remains of 1994 kidnap victim Heidi Allen, according to a lawyer for the man imprisoned on a conviction of kidnapping her.
The dog indicated it smelled a body in an area around a fresh footprint, Federal Public Defender Lisa Peebles said she was told by Oswego County District Attorney Greg Oakes.
The footprint is unlikely the source of the scent the dog picked up, Ward said.
"Any properly trained dog will ignore a fresh-set print," she said.
The fact that it was a state police dog makes it more likely its owner knows very well when the dog has found a body, she said.
.
"The handler, especially a state police handler, should know if a dog lies to him or not," said Ward, a trainer with Pacific Crest Search Dogs, a nonprofit that uses the dogs to find human remains in Oregon and the state of Washington.
Depending on the type of soil, its aeration and the presence of tree roots in the ground, a cadaver dog can pick up the scent of remains deep underground, Ward said. She cited a case where police asked her if her three cadaver dogs could pick up a scent of remains 30 feet deep.
" I said, 'I have no idea. I've never trained on that, but I'll try,'" she said.
All three dogs put their noses in the same area and alerted, she said. She told the police to bring in a bulldozer, and they found a body 15 feet down, Ward said.
Cadaver dogs are trained to not alert on dead animals in the area -- only human remains, she said.
"In my yard, I have a cow bone and and elk bone out," she said. "If my dog hits on one of those, he's in trouble."
How old can the skeletal remains be? Hundreds of years, said Cat Warren, a cadaver dog expert from North Carolina who published a book, "What the Dog Knows: The Science and Wonder of Working Dogs."
But she and Ward both warned that the dogs are like people. They do make mistakes sometimes.
"The dogs are not magic," Warren said. "It depends on their training."
https://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html
weve seen taht before...but in that case there were remains...not remnant scent...we simply do not know how long remnant scent would survive in a building that was in use....and then we have an alert in a flower bed...open to all the elements...
so this article says 95 % when remains are present...but does not mention rates for remnant scent
-
weve seen taht before...but in that case there were remains...not remnant scent...we simply do not know how long remnant scent would survive in a building that was in use....and then we have an alert in a flower bed...open to all the elements...
so this article says 95 % when remains are present...but does not mention rates for remnant scent
How about this one then Davel
A Kane County judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors in a 1990 murder case could use testimony based on the use of dogs trained to find human remains, perhaps the first time such evidence has been found admissible in a state case.
Judge Timothy Sheldon’s ruling could clear the way for dog handlers to provide corroborating evidence in the case of Aurelio Montano, a former Aurora resident and convicted double-murderer who is awaiting trial for the slaying of his wife, Guadalupe Montano.
Prosecutors want to present testimony that the so-called cadaver dogs showed signs they had detected human remains on a DuPage County farm where authorities allege Montano buried his wife after strangling her in July 1990.
Other states have approved cadaver dog testimony at trial, and Illinois courts have upheld the use of evidence obtained by drug-sniffing dogs in narcotics prosecutions. But Kane prosecutors said they could find no Illinois state case law supporting the use of dogs who detect human remains.
The judge’s ruling came after several hours of testimony from Susan Stejskal, a Michigan resident with a doctorate in toxicology who has trained cadaver dogs and written a book on the subject.
Dogs, she testified, rely on their sense of smell, which is substantially better than a person’s.
The average human may have 5 million sensory receptors for smell, compared to 300 million for a bloodhound, she said.
“We can’t smell the detail the dogs can,” Stejskal said.
That ability means dogs can be reliably trained to detect the presence of human decomposition, she said, and conversely, taught to disregard odors of decomposition from other animals.
Prosecutors say cadaver dogs alerted their handlers to the presence of human remains on a Hobson Road horse farm where Montano allegedly buried his wife’s body. Montano’s brother worked there in 1990 and reportedly told relatives that he helped his brother bury the body, according to court documents.
Convinced that his wife was unfaithful, Montano allegedly strangled Guadalupe. He then rolled up her body in a rug, which he placed in his pickup truck and drove to the farm, police allege.
In December 2007, Aurora police conducted a forensic dig at the farm and recovered pieces of a rug. Family members identified it as the rug from the Montano home.
Three cadaver dogs sniffed the remnant and gave positive alerts for the presence of human remains, according to court documents.
The farm dig, however, did not produce the victim’s body.
Other family members reported to police that Montano exhumed his wife’s body about four months after he allegedly killed her. Her body has never been recovered.
A nephew of Aurelio Montano’s told police that about a year after Guadalupe disappeared, he and Montano were having drinks at Montano’s home. Montano, the nephew said, brought him into the garage where he produced a plastic grocery bag that he said contained body parts of his wife.
The nephew, who said he feared Montano, said his uncle placed the bag in the trunk of the nephew’s car and they drove off.
“At some point, the defendant told (the nephew) to stop, get out and dispose of the bag,” according to court documents.
Montano was not charged with his wife’s murder until 2008.
By then, he was already serving a life sentence in prison after being convicted of participating in the 1996 drug-related murders of a Texas couple who were hanged in the basement of an Aurora house that Montano was restoring.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-04/news/chi-kane-co-judge-evidence-from-cadaver-dogs-ok-in-murder-trial-20121004_1_cadaver-dogs-body-parts-decomposition
This one is remnant scent after years and years.
-
What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?
Good question Misty
Does seem strange.
-
How about this one then Davel
A Kane County judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors in a 1990 murder case could use testimony based on the use of dogs trained to find human remains, perhaps the first time such evidence has been found admissible in a state case.
Judge Timothy Sheldon’s ruling could clear the way for dog handlers to provide corroborating evidence in the case of Aurelio Montano, a former Aurora resident and convicted double-murderer who is awaiting trial for the slaying of his wife, Guadalupe Montano.
Prosecutors want to present testimony that the so-called cadaver dogs showed signs they had detected human remains on a DuPage County farm where authorities allege Montano buried his wife after strangling her in July 1990.
Other states have approved cadaver dog testimony at trial, and Illinois courts have upheld the use of evidence obtained by drug-sniffing dogs in narcotics prosecutions. But Kane prosecutors said they could find no Illinois state case law supporting the use of dogs who detect human remains.
The judge’s ruling came after several hours of testimony from Susan Stejskal, a Michigan resident with a doctorate in toxicology who has trained cadaver dogs and written a book on the subject.
Dogs, she testified, rely on their sense of smell, which is substantially better than a person’s.
The average human may have 5 million sensory receptors for smell, compared to 300 million for a bloodhound, she said.
“We can’t smell the detail the dogs can,” Stejskal said.
That ability means dogs can be reliably trained to detect the presence of human decomposition, she said, and conversely, taught to disregard odors of decomposition from other animals.
Prosecutors say cadaver dogs alerted their handlers to the presence of human remains on a Hobson Road horse farm where Montano allegedly buried his wife’s body. Montano’s brother worked there in 1990 and reportedly told relatives that he helped his brother bury the body, according to court documents.
Convinced that his wife was unfaithful, Montano allegedly strangled Guadalupe. He then rolled up her body in a rug, which he placed in his pickup truck and drove to the farm, police allege.
In December 2007, Aurora police conducted a forensic dig at the farm and recovered pieces of a rug. Family members identified it as the rug from the Montano home.
Three cadaver dogs sniffed the remnant and gave positive alerts for the presence of human remains, according to court documents.
The farm dig, however, did not produce the victim’s body.
Other family members reported to police that Montano exhumed his wife’s body about four months after he allegedly killed her. Her body has never been recovered.
A nephew of Aurelio Montano’s told police that about a year after Guadalupe disappeared, he and Montano were having drinks at Montano’s home. Montano, the nephew said, brought him into the garage where he produced a plastic grocery bag that he said contained body parts of his wife.
The nephew, who said he feared Montano, said his uncle placed the bag in the trunk of the nephew’s car and they drove off.
“At some point, the defendant told (the nephew) to stop, get out and dispose of the bag,” according to court documents.
Montano was not charged with his wife’s murder until 2008.
By then, he was already serving a life sentence in prison after being convicted of participating in the 1996 drug-related murders of a Texas couple who were hanged in the basement of an Aurora house that Montano was restoring.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-04/news/chi-kane-co-judge-evidence-from-cadaver-dogs-ok-in-murder-trial-20121004_1_cadaver-dogs-body-parts-decomposition
This one is remnant scent after years and years.
a rug that is buried with the body would also contaminate the soil around it....cadaverine would be entombed underground with nowhere to escape...trapped...unlike an open apartment. The rug would also be heavily contaminated over many months in contact with a cadaver...quite different
-
a rug that is buried with the body would also contaminate the soil around it....cadaverine would be entombed underground with nowhere to escape...trapped...unlike an open apartment. The rug would also be heavily contaminated over many months in contact with a cadaver...quite different
I think you miss the point. The dogs alerted to remnant odour, there was no body. Do you expect me to find an exact scenario of what happened in 5a?
-
I think you miss the point. The dogs alerted to remnant odour, there was no body. Do you expect me to find an exact scenario of what happened in 5a?
you can do what you like im not bothered.....a decaying body wrapped in a carpet for four moths...and buried...may well have been cadaver tissue attached to the carpet....it then wouldnt even be remnant scent
-
I think you miss the point. The dogs alerted to remnant odour, there was no body. Do you expect me to find an exact scenario of what happened in 5a?
Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?
-
Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?
No I trust Martin Grime, he said
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
By the way I wasn't far off with my Eddie not alerting to bacon butties post I see.
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. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I.
-
What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?
Does washing remove the scent?
Is it a fact that a contaminated piece of clothing will contaminate another piece of clothing stored nearby?
-
Does washing remove the scent?
Is it a fact that a contaminated piece of clothing will contaminate another piece of clothing stored nearby?
That depends on how light the scent is. Do you have to use a special detergent to launder your clothes after you've visited a deceased person in the chapel of rest or morgue?
If clothes smell of smoke & they are hung next to other clothes does the smell not transfer at all?
-
No I trust Martin Grime, he said
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
By the way I wasn't far off with my Eddie not alerting to bacon butties post I see.
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. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I.
How does that answer the question posed by Misty?
Misty asked "Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?"
-
How does that answer the question posed by Misty?
Misty asked "Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?"
Misty - What was the answer to your question?
-
That depends on how light the scent is. Do you have to use a special detergent to launder your clothes after you've visited a deceased person in the chapel of rest or morgue?
If clothes smell of smoke & they are hung next to other clothes does the smell not transfer at all?
There are lots of myths about cadaver odour being unable to be removed but I'm sure it can be removed by washing.
But I do admit a cadaver odour can permeate a person's skin. As a vet I used to have to work on decomposed calves still inside the dam and the odour would be noticeable for at least a week afterwards no matter how much soap was used. But it never lasted forever.
-
Misty - What was the answer to your question?
Remnant cadaver odour was far more likely to have been absorbed by the fabric sofa & remained detectable 3 months later than on a hard floor which should have been cleaned before the subsequent guests arrived after the place was cleared to re-let. IMO.
-
There are lots of myths about cadaver odour being unable to be removed but I'm sure it can be removed by washing.
But I do admit a cadaver odour can permeate a person's skin. As a vet I used to have to work on decomposed calves still inside the dam and the odour would be noticeable for at least a week afterwards no matter how much soap was used. But it never lasted forever.
-
Remnant cadaver odour was far more likely to have been absorbed by the fabric sofa & remained detectable 3 months later than on a hard floor which should have been cleaned before the subsequent guests arrived after the place was cleared to re-let. IMO.
OK that is your view. There is no test for remnant cadaver odour, there is only a test for DNA and to know where to swab they relied on Keela identifying a spot. Did you say Keels never sniffed the end of the couch? But if Madeleine's DNA was found on the couch would that prove anything?
-
I wonder if that stuff will defeat a cadaver dog?
-
OK that is your view. There is no test for remnant cadaver odour, there is only a test for DNA and to know where to swab they relied on Keela identifying a spot. Did you say Keels never sniffed the end of the couch? But if Madeleine's DNA was found on the couch would that prove anything?
In my opinion it would not. There wouldn't be the slightest surprise in finding Madeleine's DNA anywhere in the apartment.
-
OK that is your view. There is no test for remnant cadaver odour, there is only a test for DNA and to know where to swab they relied on Keela identifying a spot. Did you say Keels never sniffed the end of the couch? But if Madeleine's DNA was found on the couch would that prove anything?
On the part of the video available to the public I cannot see that Keela is given the opportunity to screen the sofa. Neither is there any mention Keela indicated to the stains on the back of the sofa. Much would depend on the amount of any recoverable forensics to determine if it was consistent with evidence of a crime against Madeleine but the opportunity was lost.
-
I wonder if that stuff will defeat a cadaver dog?
No idea as far as residual scent is concerned ... which definitely does dissipate after a time anyway.
-
How does that answer the question posed by Misty?
Misty asked "Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?"
I see what Misty is saying but as I am not a expert with cadaver dogs I don't think I can say much. Grime had worked with Eddie for years, he would know what Eddie was alerting to. Was Misty referring to Eddie's nose before he went around the back of the sofa or whilst he was behind it? If it was before he went around the back it may simply be that the scent was pooling behind the sofa and was therefore stronger at the bottom of the sofa where there would be a gap between this and the floor. Therefore Eddie's nose would point to the bottom of the sofa. I have seen the video but I haven't yet managed to see what Misty means.
-
That depends on how light the scent is. Do you have to use a special detergent to launder your clothes after you've visited a deceased person in the chapel of rest or morgue?
If clothes smell of smoke & they are hung next to other clothes does the smell not transfer at all?
If you have no evidence how washing and storing clothes affects any cadaver scent attached to them why ask the question? Perhaps washing and storing have no effect on the scent at all.
#380
What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?
-
On the part of the video available to the public I cannot see that Keela is given the opportunity to screen the sofa. Neither is there any mention Keela indicated to the stains on the back of the sofa. Much would depend on the amount of any recoverable forensics to determine if it was consistent with evidence of a crime against Madeleine but the opportunity was lost.
An opportunity was lost in your opinion. It hasn't been shown to be a fact.
-
I see what Misty is saying but as I am not a expert with cadaver dogs I don't think I can say much. Grime had worked with Eddie for years, he would know what Eddie was alerting to. Was Misty referring to Eddie's nose before he went around the back of the sofa or whilst he was behind it? If it was before he went around the back it may simply be that the scent was pooling behind the sofa and was therefore stronger at the bottom of the sofa where there would be a gap between this and the floor. Therefore Eddie's nose would point to the bottom of the sofa. I have seen the video but I haven't yet managed to see what Misty means.
Grime watched and listened. He described Eddie as 'scenting'. He seems to have meant that Eddie sniffed more robustly in certain spots than in others. So it was where he sniffed that counted with Grime, not where his nose pointed when he alerted.
-
If you have no evidence how washing and storing clothes affects any cadaver scent attached to them why ask the question? Perhaps washing and storing have no effect on the scent at all.
#380
What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?
Should questions only be asked if you already know the answers?
-
Grime watched and listened. He described Eddie as 'scenting'. He seems to have meant that Eddie sniffed more robustly in certain spots than in others. So it was where he sniffed that counted with Grime, not where his nose pointed when he alerted.
It’s all frightfully inexact isn’t it?
-
Should questions only be asked if you already know the answers?
Some questions aren't really questions. They're speculations presented in the form of questions.
-
Some questions aren't really questions. They're speculations presented in the form of questions.
I think they were good questions, and if there is no answer readily available then again it shows how under-researched and i exact the art of cadaver dog alerts to non-existent bodies really is.
-
I think they were good questions, and if there is no answer readily available then again it shows how under-researched and i exact the art of cadaver dog alerts to non-existent bodies really is.
One set of armchair detectives questioning the actions of an expert to another set of armchair detectives doesn’t really increase the knowledge of the expert.
-
It’s all frightfully inexact isn’t it?
Perhaps it seems like it to those with no knowledge of how it works. The police forces who continue to fund the training and upkeep of these dogs seem to think it's worthwhile though.
-
One set of armchair detectives questioning the actions of an expert to another set of armchair detectives doesn’t really increase the knowledge of the expert.
Indeed, perhaps it is time to shut down the forum completely, after all isn’t that all this forum is about really?
-
Perhaps it seems like it to those with no knowledge of how it works. The police forces who continue to fund the training and upkeep of these dogs seem to think it's worthwhile though.
If it’s been said once it’s been said a thousand times - the dogs are a tool, they are great for finding bodies and bits of body, but when they give us only barks at seemingly nothing, it’s impossible to know precisely what they are barking at, whose body they think they have sniffed, and precisely where this odour has contaminated. Now, if I’m wrong in my assessment, kindly provide the cites to prove it.
-
If it’s been said once it’s been said a thousand times - the dogs are a tool, they are great for finding bodies and bits of body, but when they give us only barks at seemingly nothing, it’s impossible to know precisely what they are barking at, whose body they think they have sniffed, and precisely where this odour has contaminated. Now, if I’m wrong in my assessment, kindly provide the cites to prove it.
That is a fairly accurate summary of the dogs. The problem arises when some supporters say that the alerts are unimportant and some sceptics say it is proof of Madeleine’s death. The alerts add to the sum of all knowledge it is just not sure how yet.
-
I think they were good questions, and if there is no answer readily available then again it shows how under-researched and i exact the art of cadaver dog alerts to non-existent bodies really is.
A good question is 'Does washing eliminate cadaver scent from clothing'? A bad question is 'What are the odds that a cadaver dog will alert to clothing which has been washed?'
The first is an honest question asking for information. The second is designed to suggest that washing clothes does indeed get rid of cadaver scent.
-
That is a fairly accurate summary of the dogs. The problem arises when some supporters say that the alerts are unimportant and some sceptics say it is proof of Madeleine’s death. The alerts add to the sum of all knowledge it is just not sure how yet.
in what way do they add to the sum of knowledge...by your own admission they dont...you think they do but you dont know how...the alerts tell us nothing...so my premise that they are unimportant is perfectly valid
-
A good question is 'Does washing eliminate cadaver scent from clothing'? A bad question is 'What are the odds that a cadaver dog will alert to clothing which has been washed?'
The first is an honest question asking for information. The second is designed to suggest that washing clothes does indeed get rid of cadaver scent.
IYO.
-
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.
Grime was asked a simple question....to which the answer was ...no....
why did he not answer the question
-
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.
Grime was asked a simple question....to which the answer was ...no....
why did he not answer the question
He can't say "yes" as he has "no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy".
-
He can't say "yes" as he has "no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy".
The question is simple...the answer is no
Was CC retained by the police
-
That is a fairly accurate summary of the dogs. The problem arises when some supporters say that the alerts are unimportant and some sceptics say it is proof of Madeleine’s death. The alerts add to the sum of all knowledge it is just not sure how yet.
Exactly! so why dismiss the dogs when it wasn't established who's cadaver was picked up! Jumping right in there prematurely I think.
-
Exactly! so why dismiss the dogs when it wasn't established who's cadaver was picked up! Jumping right in there prematurely I think.
It hasn't been established a cadaver was picked up
-
The question is simple...the answer is no
Was CC retained by the police
Retained - yes I believe so, but for how long? When Kate and Gerry went to Huelva in Spain did Kate have Cuddle Cat with her?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id168.htm (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/huelvabusstation5.jpg)
-
Misty - did you note this that the tiles removed were found to be underneath the sofa
"When looking at the images referred to above it was observed that the floor tiles to be recovered were situated in an area of the living room next to a window where there was a sofa and that the tiles referred to were underneath that sofa." 12 Volume XII pages 3195 to 3206.
So that might explain why Eddie sniffs the end of the sofa and then within a moment alerts behind the sofa.
-
I see what Misty is saying but as I am not a expert with cadaver dogs I don't think I can say much. Grime had worked with Eddie for years, he would know what Eddie was alerting to. Was Misty referring to Eddie's nose before he went around the back of the sofa or whilst he was behind it? If it was before he went around the back it may simply be that the scent was pooling behind the sofa and was therefore stronger at the bottom of the sofa where there would be a gap between this and the floor. Therefore Eddie's nose would point to the bottom of the sofa. I have seen the video but I haven't yet managed to see what Misty means.
"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." Martin Grime
Martin Grime has been consistent throughout.
He assesses his dog's performance and reports back and as far as everything else is concerned the investigation is out of his hands and is transferred to those responsible for collecting evidence from the places indicated by the dog and testing it.
I think the fact is that testing produced positive conclusions which had nothing to do with Madeleine however it is dressed up.
-
"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." Martin Grime
Martin Grime has been consistent throughout.
He assesses his dog's performance and reports back and as far as everything else is concerned the investigation is out of his hands and is transferred to those responsible for collecting evidence from the places indicated by the dog and testing it.
I think the fact is that testing produced positive conclusions which had nothing to do with Madeleine however it is dressed up.
What leads you to that conclusion?
-
"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." Martin Grime
Martin Grime has been consistent throughout.
He assesses his dog's performance and reports back and as far as everything else is concerned the investigation is out of his hands and is transferred to those responsible for collecting evidence from the places indicated by the dog and testing it.
I think the fact is that testing produced positive conclusions which had nothing to do with Madeleine however it is dressed up.
Italics... this doesn't make sense to me? are you saying people are claiming it is absolutely MBM's cadaver scent- in spite of what Grime says? Or are you dismissing a fact that the cadaver scent and MBM's disappearance should not be looked upon as being circumstantial evidence along with other circumstantial evidence?
-
What leads you to that conclusion?
Was there a positive forensic test for blood underneath the floor tiles?
Was there a positive forensic test to the key fob?
-
Italics... this doesn't make sense to me? are you saying people are claiming it is absolutely MBM's cadaver scent- in spite of what Grime says? Or are you dismissing a fact that the cadaver scent and MBM's disappearance should not be looked upon as being circumstantial evidence along with other circumstantial evidence?
If you start treating the alerts as circumstantial evidence you are assigning "a motive or suspect" yet Grime clearly states "this does not however suggest a motive or suspect ..."
-
Italics... this doesn't make sense to me? are you saying people are claiming it is absolutely MBM's cadaver scent- in spite of what Grime says? Or are you dismissing a fact that the cadaver scent and MBM's disappearance should not be looked upon as being circumstantial evidence along with other circumstantial evidence?
I am quoting what Martin Grime says regarding the dog alerts and the official position regarding them. If you accept his professionalism you really have to accept his knowledge of the law as regards it.
-
If you start treating the alerts as circumstantial evidence you are assigning "a motive or suspect" yet Grime clearly states "this does not however suggest a motive or suspect ..."
Absolutely, Robbie.
In my opinion people have been beguiled by the dog videos they have seen ... which actually form a very small part of their time in Luz ... and have totally disregarded what Martin Grime said regarding them on numerous occasions.
In my opinion they have started off forming their opinion on a lack of knowledge and a false premise of what the alerts actually mean.
-
If you start treating the alerts as circumstantial evidence you are assigning "a motive or suspect" yet Grime clearly states "this does not however suggest a motive or suspect ..."
A little girl has disappeared, alerts don’t provide motive or suspect but do provide circumstantial evidence of a body in the area. No policeman would discount that alert just because no bits of body were found IMO, they would want to find out why.
-
A little girl has disappeared, alerts don’t provide motive or suspect but do provide circumstantial evidence of a body in the area. No policeman would discount that alert just because no bits of body were found IMO, they would want to find out why.
As long as that policeman doesn't assign motive or suspect without the requisite yet unspecified corroborating evidence.
-
A little girl has disappeared, alerts don’t provide motive or suspect but do provide circumstantial evidence of a body in the area. No policeman would discount that alert just because no bits of body were found IMO, they would want to find out why.
Do you have a cite for the alerts being circumstantial evidence... They have no evidential reliability
-
Absolutely, Robbie.
In my opinion people have been beguiled by the dog videos they have seen ... which actually form a very small part of their time in Luz ... and have totally disregarded what Martin Grime said regarding them on numerous occasions.
In my opinion they have started off forming their opinion on a lack of knowledge and a false premise of what the alerts actually mean.
I couldn't agree more. Some have become so beguiled by the dog videos that they have turned to examining them in minute detail. Despite their lack of knowledge of how these dogs work, they have formed opinions which they think suggest that Grime was incompetent.
I wonder why they have bothered when he told them himself that the alerts weren't evidence.
-
Do you have a cite for the alerts being circumstantial evidence... They have no evidential reliability
Someone needs to define "circumstantial evidence". https://youtu.be/iSLAWdUGwME
-
I couldn't agree more. Some have become so beguiled by the dog videos that they have turned to examining them in minute detail. Despite their lack of knowledge of how these dogs work, they have formed opinions which they think suggest that Grime was incompetent.
I wonder why they have bothered when he told them himself that the alerts weren't evidence.
But you have examined the statements in minute detail and done exactly the, same....
-
But you have examined the statements in minute detail and done exactly the, same....
I have been criticised too. Those who have criticised my actions don't seem to object when others do it though.
-
I couldn't agree more. Some have become so beguiled by the dog videos that they have turned to examining them in minute detail. Despite their lack of knowledge of how these dogs work, they have formed opinions which they think suggest that Grime was incompetent.
I wonder why they have bothered when he told them himself that the alerts weren't evidence.
In my opinion the alert to which you refer did provide evidence ... but I don't think it was relevant to Madeleine's case.
-
The alerts were suggestive of cadaver odour but according to Grime himself, had no "evidential reliability".
-
I couldn't agree more. Some have become so beguiled by the dog videos that they have turned to examining them in minute detail. Despite their lack of knowledge of how these dogs work, they have formed opinions which they think suggest that Grime was incompetent.
I wonder why they have bothered when he told them himself that the alerts weren't evidence.
Is examining things in minute detail something you now disapprove of? This from someone who has obviously spent considerable time “wondering” about what the twins are looking at on a bus and why Gerry appears grumpy, and all this despite her lack of knowledge of the people involved or the situation on the bus, and all to arrive at a negative opinion of Dr McCann.
-
I have been criticised too. Those who have criticised my actions don't seem to object when others do it though.
I try and be even handed so please explain.
-
Is examining things in minute detail something you now disapprove of? This from someone who has obviously spent considerable time “wondering” about what the twins are looking at on a bus and why Gerry appears grumpy, and all this despite her lack of knowledge of the people involved or the situation on the bus, and all to arrive at a negative opinion of Dr McCann.
You won't find me poring over videos of police dog alerts because along with most people I know nothing about how they are carried out. Does it matter where a dog's nose is? I've no idea and in my opinion neither does anyone else.
When it comes to interpersonal relationships I have lots of experience and therefore feel able to offer an opinion. It's not necessary to know people to judge their moods.
-
You won't find me poring over videos of police dog alerts because along with most people I know nothing about how they are carried out. Does it matter where a dog's nose is? I've no idea and in my opinion neither does anyone else.
When it comes to interpersonal relationships I have lots of experience and therefore feel able to offer an opinion. It's not necessary to know people to judge their moods.
Could you judge a person’s mood from a photograph? No? But you could from a two or three second glimpse on a shaky video? Just because we don’t know the answers doesn’t mean we can’t raise valid questions. It seems to me you are quite keen to close down discussion on this issue. I wonder why? Whatever is discussed has no real bearing on anything anyway. so why shouldn’t the dog alerts be “pawed” over?
-
You won't find me poring over videos of police dog alerts because along with most people I know nothing about how they are carried out. Does it matter where a dog's nose is? I've no idea and in my opinion neither does anyone else.
When it comes to interpersonal relationships I have lots of experience and therefore feel able to offer an opinion. It's not necessary to know people to judge their moods.
I find this attitude that Grime is an expert and therefore cannot be questioned or criticised extremely naieve
-
I find this attitude that Grime is an expert and therefore cannot be questioned or criticised extremely naieve
Yet you believe him unquestionably when he says the dog alerts have no evidentiary value.
-
I find this attitude that Grime is an expert and therefore cannot be questioned or criticised extremely naieve
That was your best post IMO.
-
I couldn't agree more. Some have become so beguiled by the dog videos that they have turned to examining them in minute detail. Despite their lack of knowledge of how these dogs work, they have formed opinions which they think suggest that Grime was incompetent.
I wonder why they have bothered when he told them himself that the alerts weren't evidence.
How do you assess the competence of the police who, without waiting for forensic results, viewed the video & assessed from it that the alerts meant Madeleine had died in the apartment? Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?
-
How do you assess the competence of the police who, without waiting for forensic results, viewed the video & assessed from it that the alerts meant Madeleine had died in the apartment? Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?
Misty did you see my post about the tiles with the blood being found underneath the sofa, so it appears Grime was wrong and only after studying the video and bringing Keela back in did they get the location sorted. That is how I understood it all.
-
How do you assess the competence of the police who, without waiting for forensic results, viewed the video & assessed from it that the alerts meant Matdeleine had died in the apartment? Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?
It's even worse than that.... Amaral is on record saying 15 markers might not be God enough for the FSS but it was good enough for him... So amaral thinks he knows better than the experts
-
How do you assess the competence of the police who, without waiting for forensic results, viewed the video & assessed from it that the alerts meant Madeleine had died in the apartment? Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?
It is interesting that you spend half your time deriding Grimes skill as a dog handler and the other half promoting his opinion.
-
I find this attitude that Grime is an expert and therefore cannot be questioned or criticised extremely naieve
Especially when we are told this by someone who prides themselves in accepting nothing, believing no one and confirming everything.
-
It is interesting that you spend half your time deriding Grimes skill as a dog handler and the other half promoting his opinion.
That isn't Grimes opinion.... It's a well known fact... Amongst dog handlers
-
How do you assess the competence of the police who, without waiting for forensic results, viewed the video & assessed from it that the alerts meant Madeleine had died in the apartment? Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?
This is incorrect IMO, so perhaps you need to distinguish your facts from that which is merely your opinion.
"Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?" If you can show that the PJ had Grime's or Harrison's evaluation of the dog results by the date of Kate or Gerry's arguido interviews, now would be a good time to produce it.
It would save us all hours of digging. TY.
-
Misty did you see my post about the tiles with the blood being found underneath the sofa, so it appears Grime was wrong and only after studying the video and bringing Keela back in did they get the location sorted. That is how I understood it all.
Yes, I saw it Rob. The forensics don't refer to blood, just cellular material so did they validate Keela's alerts?
-
This is incorrect IMO, so perhaps you need to distinguish your facts from that which is merely your opinion.
"Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?" If you can show that the PJ had Grime's or Harrison's evaluation of the dog results by the date of Kate or Gerry's arguido interviews, now would be a good time to produce it.
It would save us all hours of digging. TY.
What possible reason could there be to delay the results of Grime’s evaluation of the sniffer dog results for so many weeks? Also weren’t the McCanns asked to explain the dog alerts in their arguido interviews?
-
This is incorrect IMO, so perhaps you need to distinguish your facts from that which is merely your opinion.
"Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?" If you can show that the PJ had Grime's or Harrison's evaluation of the dog results by the date of Kate or Gerry's arguido interviews, now would be a good time to produce it.
It would save us all hours of digging. TY.
It's in Harrison's rog... And alaral himself has told us he would not accept the FSS report on the 15 markers
-
This is incorrect IMO, so perhaps you need to distinguish your facts from that which is merely your opinion.
"Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?" If you can show that the PJ had Grime's or Harrison's evaluation of the dog results by the date of Kate or Gerry's arguido interviews, now would be a good time to produce it.
It would save us all hours of digging. TY.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
9 Processos Vol IX Page 2461
09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2461
Policia Judiciaria
NUIPC 201/07. GALGS
Terms of Joining
On this date I join to the case files the translations of the verbal reports made in English by the police sniffer dog trainer Martin Grime, referring to the sniffer dog inspections carried out with the cadaver odour detection dog Eddie and the human blood detection dog, Keela.
These translations were made working from the audio-visual recordings of each of the inspections.
These terms of joining were elaborated and will be signed.
Portimao 23 August 2007
Inspector Paiva
-
This is incorrect IMO, so perhaps you need to distinguish your facts from that which is merely your opinion.
"Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?" If you can show that the PJ had Grime's or Harrison's evaluation of the dog results by the date of Kate or Gerry's arguido interviews, now would be a good time to produce it.
It would save us all hours of digging. TY.
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
-
Yes, I saw it Rob. The forensics don't refer to blood, just cellular material so did they validate Keela's alerts?
Keela smells the blood, she isn't seeing the blood cells, whereas the detectives want to see blood, and the lab technicians can only presume there were cells (for the DNA is inside cells, but they don't get to see cells either).
Keela's ability to detect blood took everyone into a zone where words haven't been invented to describe it properly.
Like the "past presence of a blood microdot" or "the residual presence of a blood microdot". would that be it? Hardly a murder zone.
-
It is interesting that you spend half your time deriding Grimes skill as a dog handler and the other half promoting his opinion.
What a conundrum that must be for those who think I am biased. ?{)(**
-
Yes, I saw it Rob. The forensics don't refer to blood, just cellular material so did they validate Keela's alerts?
I edited my previous post.
-
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
Thank you. *&(+(+
-
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
Same question as before. What physical evidence did Harrison have in mind?
-
Same question as before. What physical evidence did Harrison have in mind?
Human remains
-
I find this attitude that Grime is an expert and therefore cannot be questioned or criticised extremely naieve
I have no problem with Grime being questioned. I do have a problem when he is accused of incompetence with no supporting evidence. In my opinion that's defamation of character. .
-
How do you assess the competence of the police who, without waiting for forensic results, viewed the video & assessed from it that the alerts meant Madeleine had died in the apartment? Why did they ignore the opinion & advice of the handler if he was considered competent?
Are you suggesting that the Portuguese police judged Grime incompetent?
-
I have no problem with Grime being questioned. I do have a problem when he is accused of incompetence with no supporting evidence. In my opinion that's defamation of character. .
But to accuse the McCann's of perury and fraud... Of covering up an accident and hiding a body... Isn't defamation... Iyo
-
Same question as before. What physical evidence did Harrison have in mind?
I suppose they were hopeful of finding the missing child's blood and DNA somewhere.
-
But to accuse the McCann's of perury and fraud... Of covering up an accident and hiding a body... Isn't defamation... Iyo
Wasn't this one of several valid theories based on the evidence available to them in 2007?
-
Are you suggesting that the Portuguese police judged Grime incompetent?
Did the PJ take on board all the opinions given by the expert witness , thus judging both him & the dogs reliable - or did they just cherry-pick the parts which suited them, demonstrating their own lack of understanding?
I previously asked a question about what dog evidence the Portuguese courts would most likely accept:-
a) UK cadaver dog handler's
b) GNR tracker dog handler's
c) whichever supported the prosecution's case.
If someone other than the McCanns is ever charged in Portugal with abduction in the absence of a body, IMO the emphasis the PJ placed on the competence & reliability of the dogs will provide a strong defence tool.
-
Wasn't this one of several valid theories based on the evidence available to them in 2007?
There was no validity in the statement... In the next hour I will prove the child died in the apartment
-
There was no validity in the statement... In the next hour I will prove the child died in the apartment
What did Amaral base that statement on iyo?
-
I don't think there is any question about the handling of the dogs. In my opinion the handler is an expert in his field.
In my opinion the problem arises when interpretation has been made in the total absence of supporting evidence.
Misty made a totally new observation of a point which might be worth discussing before we embark on the same old same old set of accusations.
What evidence is there that amaral is an expert in his field... How difficult is it to train a cadaver dog... He's a competent professional... That doesn't make him an expert
-
What did Amaral base that statement on iyo?
He produced the evidence.. Based on the evidence of a dog that had detected a body under a concrete slab in Jersey... And together, with his partner had solved, 200 cases...
We know for a fact he could not prove Maddie died in the apartment so his claim was untrue
-
Grimes expert credentials;
I am a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E.(National Center for Policing Excellence)
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
-
What a conundrum that must be for those who think I am biased. ?{)(**
Not really. Needs must I suppose.
-
Grimes expert credentials;
I am a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E.(National Center for Policing Excellence)
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Have you ever read what a poster named... Poacher... said about Grime and his claims
I had never seen the posts and had made my own mind up... It was quite a surprise to read them
-
I suppose they were hopeful of finding the missing child's blood and DNA somewhere.
Madeleine had been playing for the best part of a week in the apartment, you expect to find her DNA and possibly a speck of blood if she was prone to nose bleeds.
-
Human remains
Finally you have answered the question, thank you.
Where could the remains be found that would corroborate the cadaver alerts? If the remains were found dumped in Huelva after the 3rd of August that might be evidential but if they had been there since the 4th of May what would be the connection to the apartment?
I think you are right but there would still need to be some evidence Madeleine was not alive when she was taken from the apartment.
Like, and I'm sure you would agree, if she wandered (alive) and was subsequently killed by a car (dead), unless someone first brings her back home why would a cadaver have been in the apartment?
-
Finally you have answered the question, thank you.
Where could the remains be found that would corroborate the cadaver alerts? If the remains were found dumped in Huelva after the 3rd of August that might be evidential but if they had been there since the 4th of May what would be the connection to the apartment?
I think you are right but there would still need to be some evidence Madeleine was not alive when she was taken from the apartment.
Like, and I'm sure you would agree, if she wandered (alive) and was subsequently killed by a car (dead), unless someone first brings her back home why would a cadaver have been in the apartment?
Unlike you Rob I think the alerts are a total red herring
-
Have you ever read what a poster named... Poacher... said about Grime and his claims
I had never seen the posts and had made my own mind up... It was quite a surprise to read them
Found a few quoted by nessling.
-
Found a few quoted by nessling.
I think they make very interesting reading...
-
Unlike you Rob I think the alerts are a total red herring
IMO the alerts to the clothing would be very difficult to defend as anything other than cadaver dog error should someone other than the McCanns be prosecuted.
-
Unlike you Rob I think the alerts are a total red herring
You've been telling me for about 2 and a half years that corroborating evidence was required and now claim they are a "red herring".
What does that mean? "a clue or piece of information which is or is intended to be misleading or distracting."
"synonyms: bluff, blind, ruse, feint, deception, subterfuge, hoax, trick, ploy, device, wile, sham, pretence, artifice, cover, smokescreen, distraction, expedient, contrivance, machination;"
Who would do such a thing? Plenty of people have had access to the apartment in the meantime so it would be definitely possible to set someone up. Is that what you mean someone set up a deception?
-
IMO the alerts to the clothing would be very difficult to defend as anything other than cadaver dog error should someone other than the McCanns be prosecuted.
Apartment and the clothes who had access to both those? Eddie didn't alert to the clothes while they were at the villa, but it was a different story after they had been boxed by the PJ.
-
You've been telling me for about 2 and a half years that corroborating evidence was required and now claim they are a "red herring".
What does that mean? "a clue or piece of information which is or is intended to be misleading or distracting."
"synonyms: bluff, blind, ruse, feint, deception, subterfuge, hoax, trick, ploy, device, wile, sham, pretence, artifice, cover, smokescreen, distraction, expedient, contrivance, machination;"
Who would do such a thing? Plenty of people have had access to the apartment in the meantime so it would be definitely possible to set someone up. Is that what you mean someone set up a deception?
I'm referring to the alerts, as a distraction... Not a hoax
I don't believe there was ever a cadaver in 5a
-
I'm referring to the alerts, as a distraction... Not a hoax
I don't believe there was ever a cadaver in 5a
I don't think belief are a legitimate method of sorting this out. The alerts are visible on video, either they are real or they are a deception being played on the McCanns.
-
I don't think belief are a legitimate method of sorting this out. The alerts are visible on video, either they are real or they are a deception being played on the McCanns.
I think I agree with you...was the alert to cuddle cat real
-
I think I agree with you...was the alert to cuddle cat real
Grime talks of an alert on CC that I've yet to see on video tape. Maybe we don't have the full story yet.
-
Grime talks of an alert on CC that I've yet to see on video tape. Maybe we don't have the full story yet.
Eddie never alerted to Cuddle Cat despite the claims to the contrary. We have all seen with our own eyes Eddie lifting Cuddle Cat out of the toy box and throwing the stuffed toy across the floor. Minutes later we are expected to believe that Eddie alerted to the toy which was strategically placed inside a sideboard cabinet.
-
Grime talks of an alert on CC that I've yet to see on video tape. Maybe we don't have the full story yet.
Do you have a link for that please?
-
Eddie never alerted to Cuddle Cat despite the claims to the contrary. We have all seen with our own eyes Eddie lifting Cuddle Cat out of the toy box and throwing the stuffed toy across the floor.
Are you calling him a liar then? I'll find his actual words, if you like, I think Grime calls him a soft toy.
Do you have a link for that please?
I read it again not more that 2 days ago, so it should be available.
-
Are you calling him a liar then? I'll find his actual words, if you like, I think Grime calls him a soft toy.
I read it again not more that 2 days ago, so it should be available.
I know what I saw Robbie and it certainly wasn't an alert by any stretch of the imagination. When Eddie alerted he sat down and barked, he didn't do that despite having Cuddle Cat in his mouth. He later alerted in front of the sideboard with the cat placed inside, what he alerted to at that point is open to interpretation.
-
Are you calling him a liar then? I'll find his actual words, if you like, I think Grime calls him a soft toy.
I read it again not more that 2 days ago, so it should be available.
“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”.
-
There are 3 places various people say Eddie alerted to the pink soft toy known by me as Cuddle Cat.
I don't have links but I'll give you enough information to find the reference.
1. - "18h36 - the dog Eddy, that detects cadaver odour, 'marked' [alerted in] the area of a cupboard in the lounge, it being confirmed that the dog indicated a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine Beth McCann." location: 08 -PROCESSO 8 PAGES 2098 TO 2109
2. "6.36pm - The dog Eddie, who detects cadaver odours, "marked" the area of a cupboard in the living room. On checking, the dog was indicating a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine McCann." Location: EDDIE & KEELA REPORT
2186 to 2188 Dog inspection report of cars searched in subterranean garage
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
08-Processo Volume 8 pages 2186 to 2188"
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD.
The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in
the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened
separately.
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.
Location: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
"'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."
Location: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
ok MAYBE I READ THAT BIT WRONG. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened
separately.
The CSI dog did a separate screen and did not alert. Do we have the video of that?
Wasn't Eddie involved here as well?
But we still have the confusion over what happened in the sideboard.
-
1. - "18h36 - the dog Eddy, that detects cadaver odour, 'marked' [alerted in] the area of a cupboard in the lounge, it being confirmed that the dog indicated a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine Beth McCann." location: 08 -PROCESSO 8 PAGES 2098 TO 2109
2. "6.36pm - The dog Eddie, who detects cadaver odours, "marked" the area of a cupboard in the living room. On checking, the dog was indicating a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine McCann." Location: EDDIE & KEELA REPORT
2186 to 2188 Dog inspection report of cars searched in subterranean garage
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
08-Processo Volume 8 pages 2186 to 2188"
Maybe those two are the same but one in the 24 hour clock for one? In the video CC is in a cupboard, in the lounge he was in a container.
It says "on checking" which definitely relates to MG opening the doors to the sideboard and revealing CC inside which wasn't in the lounge IMO.
-
1. - "18h36 - the dog Eddy, that detects cadaver odour, 'marked' [alerted in] the area of a cupboard in the lounge, it being confirmed that the dog indicated a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine Beth McCann." location: 08 -PROCESSO 8 PAGES 2098 TO 2109
2. "6.36pm - The dog Eddie, who detects cadaver odours, "marked" the area of a cupboard in the living room. On checking, the dog was indicating a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine McCann." Location: EDDIE & KEELA REPORT
2186 to 2188 Dog inspection report of cars searched in subterranean garage
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
08-Processo Volume 8 pages 2186 to 2188"
Maybe those two are the same but one in the 24 hour clock for one? In the video CC is in a cupboard, in the lounge he was in a container.
It say "on checking" which definitely relates to MG opening the doors to the sideboard and revealing CC inside.
Can you see the dog showing great interest in the cupboard, scenting strongly or going back to check the strongest source of what he was trained to find right before he alerted? There is no explanation for Grime looking in the wrong cupboard first.
-
"4 - In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);" Location: "LEGAL SUMMARY PRIOR & LOWE
Archiving of the Madeleine Process" http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Same place "Half an hour later (22.00), according to their reports, Kate Healy went to the apartment to check on the children. She entered via the sliding doors, which she closed upon entering, and saw that the children’s bedroom door was slightly wider open than they had left it when they went to dinner. Upon closing the bedroom door, she felt a current of air, which led her to inspect the bedroom more carefully, and she noticed that her daughter Madeleine, had disappeared. The bedroom window was wide open, the shutters were raised and the curtains were drawn open. The bed was practically untouched, her daughter’s soft toy at the head."
-
Are you calling him a liar then? I'll find his actual words, if you like, I think Grime calls him a soft toy.
I read it again not more that 2 days ago, so it should be available.
Here is the reference I was initially referring to. Maybe it is a typo error or something but this is what it reads:
"6. In the clothes and belongings of the MCCANN family;
dead body scent dog:
*in two pieces of cloth of KATE HEALY
*in one piece of cloth of the minor MADELEINE
*Possibly, in the cuddly toy of MADELEINE (the dead body scent was detected while the cuddly toy was still inside the house where the family stayed at that time).
*the alert was confirmed outside the house;"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm
There is an * beside the words "*Possibly, in the cuddly toy of MADELEINE (the dead body scent was detected while the cuddly toy was still inside the house where the family stayed at that time)." The * meaning "the alert was confirmed outside the house".
* is an asterisk.
-
Can you see the dog showing great interest in the cupboard, scenting strongly or going back to check the strongest source of what he was trained to find right before he alerted? There is no explanation for Grime looking in the wrong cupboard first.
IMO something was badly missed at this location.
-
Have you ever read what a poster named... Poacher... said about Grime and his claims
I had never seen the posts and had made my own mind up... It was quite a surprise to read them
A search of Poacher associated with case brings up some interesting characters.
-
A search of Poacher associated with case brings up some interesting characters.
I've always found it difficult to reconcile the alerts, with all the other evidence and had my own thoughts... Poachers views explain everything including the alert to cuddlecat
-
Here is the reference I was initially referring to. Maybe it is a typo error or something but this is what it reads:
"6. In the clothes and belongings of the MCCANN family;
dead body scent dog:
*in two pieces of cloth of KATE HEALY
*in one piece of cloth of the minor MADELEINE
*Possibly, in the cuddly toy of MADELEINE (the dead body scent was detected while the cuddly toy was still inside the house where the family stayed at that time).
*the alert was confirmed outside the house;"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm
There is an * beside the words "*Possibly, in the cuddly toy of MADELEINE (the dead body scent was detected while the cuddly toy was still inside the house where the family stayed at that time)." The * meaning "the alert was confirmed outside the house".
* is an asterisk.
All very ambiguous.
-
All very ambiguous.
I have a feeling we haven't pinpointed where Martin Grime says the alert on CC occurred.
"The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD.
The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
To me the room called the lounge is the one with the sofas in them, the room where Eddie knocks over the rubbish bin and carries CC across the room. Was that the lounge?
The room with the table in it looked more like the dining room.
-
A search of Poacher associated with case brings up some interesting characters.
Is that a search here?
-
Is that a search here?
I will pm later with my thoughts if you would like...imo they put the alerts in perspective and explain CC...what we know for certain is taht grime used the video of the alerts to promote his peronal business
-
I will pm later with my thoughts if you would like...imo they put the alerts in perspective and explain CC...what we know for certain is taht grime used the video of the alerts to promote his peronal business
Well he was allowed IMO.
-
Well he was allowed IMO.
he was allowed
-
The dog alerting in front of the sideboard is open to interpretation. In my opinion Eddie sought out the scent of the toy cat which he had in his mouth minutes earlier. Yes he found Cuddle Cat in the sideboard but it was Cuddle Cat he was after and not cadaver scent. I think the entire episode was shoddy and unprofessional and offered no credibility whatsoever to the search.
-
The dog alerting in front of the sideboard is open to interpretation. In my opinion Eddie sought out the scent of the toy cat which he had in his mouth minutes earlier. Yes he found Cuddle Cat in the sideboard but it was Cuddle Cat he was after and not cadaver scent. I think the entire episode was shoddy and unprofessional and offered no credibility whatsoever to the search.
Is it just me ... or was Martin Grime surprised to see CC in the cupboard?
-
Is it just me ... or was Martin Grime surprised to see CC in the cupboard?
Earlier in the video he was on the floor in the lounge and now he is in the cupboard or sideboard. I would think Martin Grime would be very surprised as how did Cuddle Cat got from A to B and closed the doors behind himself with such soft legs!
-
Earlier in the video he was on the floor in the lounge and now he is in the cupboard or sideboard. I would think Martin Grime would be very surprised as how did Cuddle Cat got from A to B and closed the doors behind himself with such soft legs!
LOL.
-
LOL.
Grime says he doesn't play tricks with his dogs, but there is something bloody tricky about that IMO.
-
Grime says he doesn't play tricks with his dogs, but there is something bloody tricky about that IMO.
If we saw the whole unedited video we might see there is something tricky in the other alerts too... Imo
-
If we saw the whole unedited video we might see there is something tricky in the other alerts too... Imo
What sort of glasses do you have Davel?
-
What sort of glasses do you have Davel?
You have obviously forgotten what the PJ observers said about the other alerts
-
You have obviously forgotten what the PJ observers said about the other alerts
You might have to remind me then. I'm not sure what the PJ observers said about the other alerts. I'm not sure it would be on topic so should we do a new thread?
-
You might have to remind me then. I'm not sure what the PJ observers said about the other alerts. I'm not sure it would be on topic so should we do a new thread?
They said... Why did the dog having walked past a spot several times and not alerted... Alert at the same spot they had previous ly ignored
-
They said... Why did the dog having walked past a spot several times and not alerted... Alert at the same spot they had previous ly ignored
Do you need me to explain that to you?
-
Do you need me to explain that to you?
You mean give me your opinion
-
You mean give me your opinion
No the scientific expert answer. I see expert witness statements are not considered opinion but factual evidence.
-
No the scientific expert answer. I see expert witness statements are not considered opinion but factual evidence.
You mean the one experts opinion....I'm afraid that does not make it factual... Grime talked about scent pooling in a closed building... But the building hadn't been closed and the scent surely would distribute randomnly by Brownian motion.... Probably all out if the open windows, and doors
-
You mean the one experts opinion....I'm afraid that does not make it factual
It isn't an easy question to answer.
"Why did the dog having walked past a spot several times and not alert... Then later Alert at the same spot they had previously ignored?"
-
It isn't an easy question to answer.
"Why did the dog having walked past a spot several times and not alert... Then later Alert at the same spot they had previously ignored?"
It is if you look at the cuddle cat alert
-
It is if you look at the cuddle cat alert
The one part that made me feel the sideboard alert on Cuddle Cat was all wrong was that Eddie didn't take any notice of CC in the lounge after he dropped him in the middle of the room.
So once Cuddle Cat was placed in the sideboard how come the strength of the cadaver odour built up so quickly that Eddie would start barking on the far side of the table?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8&feature=youtu.be&t=100 for the first find of CC.
https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=230 is the time he is first checking the sideboard and starts barking after sniffing the top of the sideboard.
https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=340 is a good place to start to see Grime take CC out of the sideboard.
-
The fact there are 3 descriptions of where the CC alert occurred, plus the fact that the alert in the dining room doesn't make sense, it confirms to me there definitely was an element of doubt.
How many other alerts fell into this category is anyone's guess.
In fact I would say the only alerts that can be trusted were the ones where Keela alerted as well. The sofa and the boot alerts are sure.
What do the other members think about this?
[ edited by senior mod ]
-
I think that accusing people of faking evidence is disgraceful.
I don't think of it is accusing any more, I now say without doubt the PJ faked alerts, but they didn't fake evidence as they never tried to confirm the reality of these personal property alerts.
There was no faking evidence, just the pretence of the alerts on personal items, but if they had no reality as far as Kate was concerned she just brushed them off as she did. Most guilty persons would have buckled and confessed to the lesser charge IMO.
What did she say about the alerts that she couldn't explain? "was it "I couldn't explain it but neither could they". Does that mean she questioned them as to how these alerts occurred? Did they really say they couldn't explain it?
-
"I think that accusing people of faking evidence is disgraceful" - hallelujah! And yet that is the bread and butter of this forum, pretty much.
-
I don't think of it is accusing any more, I now say without doubt the PJ faked alerts, but they didn't fake evidence as they never tried to confirm the reality of these personal property alerts.
There was no faking evidence, just the pretence of the alerts on personal items, but if they had no reality as far as Kate was concerned she just brushed them off as she did. Most guilty persons would have buckled and confessed to the lesser charge IMO.
What did she say about the alerts that she couldn't explain? "was it "I couldn't explain it but neither could they". Does that mean she questioned them as to how these alerts occurred? Did they really say they couldn't explain it?
OK then. I think it's disgraceful to say that the PJ faked alerts.
-
"I think that accusing people of faking evidence is disgraceful" - hallelujah! And yet that is the bread and butter of this forum, pretty much.
I have spent weeks of time watching documentaries on murder cases and plenty of cases have been solved when the police pretend to have evidence that goes against the guilty person, and that situation breaks the guilty person's ability to maintain the lie and they go on to confess to doing the crime.
That isn't considered "disgraceful" but is always considered a very clever tactic.
-
OK then. I think it's disgraceful to say that the PJ faked alerts.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg479938#msg479938
It is a clever tactic when it works.
-
OK then. I think it's disgraceful to say that the PJ faked alerts.
Is it disgraceful to say the McCanns faked an abduction?
-
OK then. I think it's disgraceful to say that the PJ faked alerts.
I gave you 3 locations on the video http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg479912#msg479912 showing how impossible the alert in the dining room was. Can you really in all honesty say that CC tucked away in the sideboard would make Eddie alert when he reached up onto the sideboard?
-
Is it disgraceful to say the McCanns faked an abduction?
I don't know I tend not to be judgemental, how about you?
I don't think even the Portuguese SC passed judgement on that only on the right to say it or write it down.
-
I don't know I tend not to be judgemental, how about you?
I don't think even the Portuguese SC passed judgement on that only on the right to say it or write it down.
The view that the McCanns faked an abduction is very prevalent on this forum, even if only by inference (direct accusation not being permitted of course). If you quote any of the Tapas' group evidence to support the abduction theory it is declaimed as not independent an therefore not reliable, the clear implication being that subterfuge or fakery is involved, yet this accusation largely passes by without censure. Therefore I was surprised to read that accusing someone else of faking evidence is "a disgrace", when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic re: the McCanns themselves.
-
I don't know I tend not to be judgemental, how about you?
I don't think even the Portuguese SC passed judgement on that only on the right to say it or write it down.
It is rather difficult to understand how a society would ever find it OK to say "you faked the abduction of your own child" without a shred of evidence.
People have the right to a good name. If you think I faked the abduction of my own child then prove it and charge me, prove me guilty but don't just defame me.
-
It is rather difficult to understand how a society would ever find it OK to say "you faked the abduction of your own child" without a shred of evidence.
People have the right to a good name. If you think I faked the abduction of my own child then prove it and charge me, prove me guilty but don't just defame me.
We're way off topic,but seemingly the Portuguese courts don't view the argument the same way.
-
OK then. I think it's disgraceful to say that the PJ faked alerts.
It has never been my opinion that the dog alerts were faked in any way whatsoever. From first sight of the video I formed an opinion that something was amiss in the thinking of those who set such store by them.
That observation and subsequent reading of what Martin Grime clearly stated regarding the alerts convinced me that ignorance, incompetence and a total lack of understanding ~ not 'faking' or dishonesty ~ was the hallmark of this particular team of PJ inspectors.
Snip
Q: 'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
A: The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing.
When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Absolutely no beating around the bush there but in my opinion an absolute tragedy of fixed ideas which led to ignoring sightings such as Anna Stam's in Amsterdam which she reported to Dutch Police in June 2007.
-
OK if Grime had made it clear in August 2007 what was expected to confirm an alert what are we to make of any alert that the PJ made no attempt to confirm?
"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."
-
OK if Grime had made it clear in August 2007 what was expected to confirm an alert what are we to make of any alert that the PJ made no attempt to confirm?
"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."
Indeed, if death is brought about by a cause other than blunt physical trauma, what forensic evidence might be expected. For example if death had been by drowning ?
-
Indeed, if death is brought about by a cause other than blunt physical trauma, what forensic evidence might be expected. For example if death had been by drowning ?
Dogs are capable of finding human remains in water.
-
Indeed, if death is brought about by a cause other than blunt physical trauma, what forensic evidence might be expected. For example if death had been by drowning ?
Are we talking about clothing, 3 months after the event. Those clothes would have repeatedly been through the washing machine (in all probability) so what would be the chance of Madeleine's DNA still being on those clothes?
So a DNA test could have theoretically been possible but the other members of the family have the same markers as Madeleine so that might make the whole exercise pointless but it was still attempted for the blood in the lounge and the car.
Even with drowning skin and hair could be rubbed off onto someone carrying the deceased.
I take your comment to apply in a situation where someone found Madeleine had drowned and they took her body back to the apartment, while wondering what to do. Is that what you meant?
-
Yes, something like that - maybe posted in wrong thread
-
A bit of LBTR.
https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/41838/1/Making%20Sense%20of%20the%20Story.pdf
-
The view that the McCanns faked an abduction is very prevalent on this forum, even if only by inference (direct accusation not being permitted of course). If you quote any of the Tapas' group evidence to support the abduction theory it is declaimed as not independent an therefore not reliable, the clear implication being that subterfuge or fakery is involved, yet this accusation largely passes by without censure. Therefore I was surprised to read that accusing someone else of faking evidence is "a disgrace", when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic re: the McCanns themselves.
A huge strawman there.
-
Dogs are capable of finding human remains in water.
That wasn't what I was suggesting, which was what forensic traces might be found if a drowned body had been move from a temporary storage place.
-
A huge strawman there.
In your opinion. Every word of that post is factual, in my opinion.
-
In your opinion. Every word of that post is factual, in my opinion.
You don’t know the default position of every McCann Sceptic. Pretending you do and arguing against that position is a strawman argument.
-
You don’t know the default position of every McCann Sceptic. Pretending you do and arguing against that position is a strawman argument.
I don't see VS claiming his post represents every sceptic on here... Perhaps you misread it
-
I don't see VS claiming his post represents every sceptic on here... Perhaps you misread it
So what do you understand by...
“when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic“
-
The view that the McCanns faked an abduction is very prevalent on this forum, even if only by inference (direct accusation not being permitted of course). If you quote any of the Tapas' group evidence to support the abduction theory it is declaimed as not independent an therefore not reliable, the clear implication being that subterfuge or fakery is involved, yet this accusation largely passes by without censure. Therefore I was surprised to read that accusing someone else of faking evidence is "a disgrace", when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic re: the McCanns themselves.
As you observed, direct accusations are not permitted on the forum, yet I have seen quite a few of them directed at Martin Grime.
-
And the PJ;
I now say without doubt the PJ faked alerts
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg479931#msg479931
-
So what do you understand by...
“when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic“
It would be interesting to learn the definition of "every" that the poster relies.
Is that every every or selective every........ *%87
-
So what do you understand by...
“when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic“
Anyone who is sceptical of the McCann's does not believe them and therefore thinks they may be faking the evidence
-
Anyone who is sceptical of the McCann's does not believe them and therefore thinks they may be faking the evidence
What evidence?
-
What evidence?
Their statements are evidence
-
Their statements are evidence
Really? I thought you'd binned them along with the dog alerts; 'twice translated and non verbatim'.
-
You don’t know the default position of every McCann Sceptic. Pretending you do and arguing against that position is a strawman argument.
It stands to reason that if you are sceptical of the McCanns' version of events you are also accusing them of faking evidence, now tell me where I am wrong there...?
-
It stands to reason that if you are sceptical of the McCanns' version of events you are also accusing them of faking evidence, now tell me where I am wrong there...?
Again, that doesn’t follow for every sceptic.
-
I don't see VS claiming his post represents every sceptic on here... Perhaps you misread it
VS did write "Therefore I was surprised to read that accusing someone else of faking evidence is "a disgrace", when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic re: the McCanns themselves."
if VS had said "Therefore I was surprised to read that accusing someone else of faking evidence is "a disgrace", when basically that is the default position of many McCann sceptics re: the McCanns themselves." VS might have been OK. "Strawman" is not a term I use myself.
-
Really? I thought you'd binned them along with the dog alerts; 'twice translated and non verbatim'.
Then you thought wrong
-
As you observed, direct accusations are not permitted on the forum, yet I have seen quite a few of them directed at Martin Grime.
Cite please.
-
Cite please.
They have been deleted because they were libellous.
-
They have been deleted because they were libellous.
Could you then show me what you consider as examples of libellous statements against Grime please?
-
As you observed, direct accusations are not permitted on the forum, yet I have seen quite a few of them directed at Martin Grime.
If I say that I have proven on this forum that the PJ faked cadaver dog alerts do you take that as a direct accusation again Martin Grime?
Eddie finds faked alerts just the same as real ones.
Grime repeats that alerts themselves are not evidence unless corroborated by DNA etc.
I recall G-unit thought that the claim was disgusting, but that is purely an emotive response she never made any attempt at refuting the arguments I made, in fact it has only been John who has responded directly IIRC.
His response was some what supportive.
-
It stands to reason that if you are sceptical of the McCanns' version of events you are also accusing them of faking evidence, now tell me where I am wrong there...?
More to the point old stick you tell us where it is right?
-
More to the point old stick you tell us where it is right?
It’s self evident.
-
Then you thought wrong
I'll make a note of it.
-
Again, that doesn’t follow for every sceptic.
So, how can you be sceptical of the McCanns whilst at the same time not believe they made anything up or faked any evidence?
-
In the file there are inconsistencies as to where and what happened at the alert given by Eddie to Cuddle Cat. I provided all the cites for that.
The PJ felt the alert was when CC was in the cupboard, yet I have shown that to be scientifically impossible. No one has denied my claims.
The combination of not having a clear alert, and being unsure where it happened, and the position of Eddie when he is barking, clearly allows myself to say that the alert was faked.
No attempt was made by the PJ to corroborate the alert on CC.
All the evidence points to a faked alert on Cuddle Cat.
This is not the same as faking evidence as the alerts are not evidence unless corroborated. So that is not making any libellous remark at anyone for setting up a ruse to encourage a confession is a legitimate police tactic.
-
So, how can you be sceptical of the McCanns whilst at the same time not believe they made anything up or faked any evidence?
I would say don't expect an answer any time soon. Every sceptic may have a slightly different reason they don't support the McCanns. It is the collective nature of that that adds up. If you make a generalisation then it is a straw-man (so we are told).
-
I would say don't expect an answer any time soon. Every sceptic may have a slightly different reason they don't support the McCanns. It is the collective nature of that that adds up. If you make a generalisation then it is a straw-man (so we are told).
It isn't a matter of not supporting them... Sceptics by definition don't believe them.... And if they don't believe them then they think they have lied
-
It’s self evident.
To me it is not self evident.
Perhaps you would care to delineate?
-
It isn't a matter of not supporting them... Sceptics by definition don't believe them.... And if they don't believe them then they think they have lied
They can think it but as moderators we can't delete posts because of what a person thinks. They have to say it, but they don't say it plainly they only imply it and other techniques like that.
-
I might think Martin Grime was aware the PJ were faking alerts, so what? The police are allowed to set up ruses.
-
To me it is not self evident.
Perhaps you would care to delineate?
You’re clever, surely you can work it out yourself. Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there.
-
They can think it but as moderators we can't delete posts because of what a person thinks. They have to say it, but they don't say it plainly they only imply it and other techniques like that.
Can you not see why there is some doubt,a blood relative would have no reason to lie would she?
Trish Cameron, Mr McCann’s sister, said she received a telephone call from her 39-year-old brother, a consultant cardiologist, who was "hysterical and crying his eyes out".
She said: "They had put the kids to bed at 7pm and checked on them every half an hour as they had dinner nearby with the rest of the party. Gerry said the window was open, the shutters broken and the door, which had been locked, hanging open.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1550667/Police-identify-Madeleine-suspect.html
-
Can you not see why there is some doubt,a blood relative would have no reason to lie would she?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1550667/Police-identify-Madeleine-suspect.html
She didn't lie
-
Can you not see why there is some doubt,a blood relative would have no reason to lie would she?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1550667/Police-identify-Madeleine-suspect.html
way off topic, but what Trish says Gerry says is hearsay if you are trying to claim or dispute the truthfulness of what was said.
Yet that confuses me because jailhouse confessions are allowed as evidence, and they are repetitions of conversations just like Gerry talking to Trish. I suppose the meaning and understanding of what is being said comes into play.
If Gerry said the door was open, which door was open? Your impression of which door was open could be different to what Gerry was meaning.
-
You mean the one experts opinion....I'm afraid that does not make it factual... Grime talked about scent pooling in a closed building... But the building hadn't been closed and the scent surely would distribute randomnly by Brownian motion.... Probably all out if the open windows, and doors
Exactly, layering liquids and stratification can happen in gases but what Grimes described was a bit unusual. Was it true?
-
You’re clever, surely you can work it out yourself. Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there.
As I recall I asked you to delineate your position.
In my view your basic posit looks remarkably like one of them reasoning fallacy thingies.
-
As I recall I asked you to delineate your position.
In my view your basic posit looks remarkably like one of them reasoning fallacy thingies.
Explain why.
-
As I recall I asked you to delineate your position.
In my view your basic posit looks remarkably like one of them reasoning fallacy thingies.
Make a full case for what you want. If this conversation continues I will apply to john to make a decision as to how to moderate these types of conversations.
-
Explain why.
Because I said so.
-
Because I said so.
That’s a very grown up response, thanks for that.
-
Time to get back on topic ... Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
-
So, how can you be sceptical of the McCanns whilst at the same time not believe they made anything up or faked any evidence?
You appear to be trying to prove that anyone who doubts the McCanns in print is committing libel?
-
This was a cite I was looking for "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
-
This was a cite I was looking for "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
Which basically confirms what I writ in another thread.
The dogs are intelligent enough to be trained to differentiate.
-
You appear to be trying to prove that anyone who doubts the McCanns in print is committing libel?
What gives you that impression?
-
What gives you that impression?
The lines of reasoning being put forward.
-
The lines of reasoning being put forward.
Well you are wrong. I haven’t mentioned libel and I really couldn’t give a damn if you libelled the McCanns for all eternity, well past caring on that score.