I had read and heard that Gerry says the cadaver dogs were unreliable but today I listened to a YT with an old documentary on the case and found the whole story worth listening to.
For what it is worth
https://youtu.be/cowJu0DHLl8
Thanks for the link, Rob. It was interesting & showed that the dogs' alerts in the concealed chamber were incorrect as far as one deposition site of Jeanette's body was concerned.
How very sad that the daughter who helped police to finally bring Eugene to justice was cut off by her close family after his conviction.
My reply was deleted but I don't know why. I said the dogs were wrong according to a man convicted of homicide. A man, it seems, who was capable of murdering his wife, burying her, digging her up, dismembering her and ridding himself of her in landfill. That's not definitive evidence in my opinion.
There is no definitive evidence as to the reliability if the alerts... Just anectdotal
I was speaking of the reliability of the evidence supplied by the perpetrator.Did he not give a full and frank confession to all the things you detailed above, why would you trust him to be telling the truth about them but not about a detail which throws doubt on the dogs reliability? Perhaps the McCanns put him up to it, eh? 8(0(*
Jeanette Zapatta's body was moved to a storage locker where the dogs alerted. Zapatta has admitted to moving the body to that storage locker and the car he owned at that time.
In 2005, investigators called Eugene, who had remarried and moved to Nevada in 1997, and questioned him. The following day, Eugene cleared out a storage locker which he had rented in 2001. Police searched the locker with cadaver dogs a short time later. The dogs again detected the scent of human remains, and they also indicated the presence of human remains in a vehicle Eugene rented during a visit to Wisconsin in 2004.
http://charleyproject.org/case/jeanette-louise-zapata
Zapata pleaded guilty last month to reckless homicide in the death of Jeanette Zapata, a 37-year-old flight instructor. He told police that he clubbed and strangled his estranged wife and then hid her body in several locations, including a storage locker.
https://www.twincities.com/2008/03/11/man-says-he-would-have-admitted-killing-wifeafter-his-death/
Looks like the dogs were correct.
My reply was deleted but I don't know why. I said the dogs were wrong according to a man convicted of homicide. A man, it seems, who was capable of murdering his wife, burying her, digging her up, dismembering her and ridding himself of her in landfill. That's not definitive evidence in my opinion.I thought it was a judge (in the documentary) who rule that the dogs were unreliable evidence.
What is that in scientific terms Davel? I think you know what is meant, Cadaver dog alerts are unreliable evidence unless confirmed with corroborating evidence. E.g. if they alerted and a body was buried underneath the floor boards no one would be questioning the reliability.
There is no definitive evidence as to the reliability if the alerts... Just anecdotal
Jeanette Zapatta's body was moved to a storage locker where the dogs alerted. Zapatta has admitted to moving the body to that storage locker and the car he owned at that time.Only as correct as one believes his confession. At the time people give in to the questioning by the police most people make a confession of a sort. Not that it is accepted by the jury, or the trial judge.
In 2005, investigators called Eugene, who had remarried and moved to Nevada in 1997, and questioned him. The following day, Eugene cleared out a storage locker which he had rented in 2001. Police searched the locker with cadaver dogs a short time later. The dogs again detected the scent of human remains, and they also indicated the presence of human remains in a vehicle Eugene rented during a visit to Wisconsin in 2004.
http://charleyproject.org/case/jeanette-louise-zapata
Zapata pleaded guilty last month to reckless homicide in the death of Jeanette Zapata, a 37-year-old flight instructor. He told police that he clubbed and strangled his estranged wife and then hid her body in several locations, including a storage locker.
https://www.twincities.com/2008/03/11/man-says-he-would-have-admitted-killing-wifeafter-his-death/
Looks like the dogs were correct.
I have no doubt the dogs are relaible at detecting cadaver odour........what is in dobt is will they alert if there is no cadaver....in the case of 5a...the dog failed to alert to several spots....completely ignore them if my memeory serves me...but when being brought back again ...the dog alerted...this is in the files....another poster may have the location....this would perhaps explain why the dogs only alerted in 5aThis post is not supported by facts Davel.
It was definitely panic stations for the McCanns in September 2007. 'On tenterhooks' all day on Saturday 8th waiting to see of they could leave Portugal. Deciding to go on Sunday 9th instead of waiting until the next day as planned. On 11th it was announced that they had hired Kingsley Napley and by 16th Zapata's legal team had been contacted.
Not that they were concerned by the dog alerts, of course.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482105/Madeleine-McCanns-consult-American-lawyers-cadaver-dog-evidence.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562821/McCanns-hire-high-profile-lawyers.html
I thought it was a judge (in the documentary) who rule that the dogs were unreliable evidence.
That's correct, Rob. The cadaver dogs' alerts were ruled inadmissible in Zapata's first trial.OK the prosecution could have tried to use the cadaver dog evidence, and the defence objected , and the judge made a ruling. There would be a bit more to it than just the judge making a ruling from the start IMO.
IMO They were vconcerned about the IMO incompetent PJ... Amaral was convinced he could prove Maddie died in the apartment
OK the prosecution could have tried to use the cadaver dog evidence, and the defence objected , and the judge made a ruling. There would be a bit more to it than just the judge making a ruling from the start IMO.
I believe it was as the result of the dogs' high rate of failure in a series of tests.That was mentioned as well, but not in the documentary in the OP. "No more reliable than a toss of a coin" I recall those words. Even though I disagreed with the judge on this point, for a coin toss is 50 50 not 70 - 30. A 70% reliability is better than a coin toss.
IMO They were vconcerned about the IMO incompetent PJ.. IMO.. Amaral was convinced he could prove Maddie died in the apartmentWas that all opinion?
IMO They were vconcerned about the IMO incompetent PJ..... Amaral was convinced he could prove Maddie died in the apartment
Your post is too much opinion Davel please use IMO from now on please.
In my opinion they were concerned that they might be taken back to Portugal. It was the lawyers who advised them to get out quickly.
I agree with you... And when we have amaral thinking he could prove mafdie died in the apartment they had every reason to fearBut do you know if Amaral thought like that in Sept 2007?
But do you know if Amaral thought like that in Sept 2007?According to his book.. Yes
According to his book.. YesWhich came out in 2008. What evidence of this in Sept 2007?
Which came out in 2008. What evidence of this in Sept 2007?
Because he describes how he felt in 2007...have you read his bookOf course I have but we were discussing why the McCanns got out of Portugal. I don't think you can use arguments that only become apparent later.
Of course I have but we were discussing why the McCanns got out of Portugal. I don't think you can use arguments that only become apparent later.
The PJ had akready told the McCann's the dogs hade scented death in the apartment ...presented geryvwithbthe DNa evidenceThe McCanns were asked if they could explain it, but they say they couldn't.
The McCanns were asked if they could explain it, but they say they couldn't.Is that a fair test?
Is that a fair test?Yes I think it was. Kate could have easily said if she knew whether Madeleine had died in the apartment or not.
I have investigated the dogs for quite a while now. So it would be a fair question for me, now.
But if someone dumped it on you, out of the blue, when you had no knowledge of what the dogs can and cannot do, would it be a fair question?
Why are police spending hours digging up a garden in Sutton Coldfield when a cadaver dog would pinpoint the spot exactly?https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/30/suzy-lamplugh-police-search-sutton-coldfield-property
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/30/suzy-lamplugh-police-search-sutton-coldfield-propertyI wonder if the Met will be soundedly ridiculed and lambasted if they dig up the garden and nothing is found?
Maybe they have used the dogs already and had no result. But the tip off still needs looking at so they dig up the whole area.
Why are police spending hours digging up a garden in Sutton Coldfield when a cadaver dog would pinpoint the spot exactly?
I do not have any information whether they used dogs but the reason they are taking hours could be that they are having to remove concrete from a garage's foundations.I thought dogs could detect bodies buried under concrete? Not only that but detect residual scent left on the garden, digging tools and house etc, for many many years.
The iron structure had been dismantled and police were particularly interested in what was underneath its concrete floor, Mr Carey said.
The BBC understands work to remove parts of the concrete floor has begun
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46027522
Why are police spending hours digging up a garden in Sutton Coldfield when a cadaver dog would pinpoint the spot exactly?Perhaps they did use them, but had no alerts. If the tip off warranted any investigation, then they may as well go the whole hog and dig the place up irrespective.
“Jim [Name removed], a former deputy chief inspector of the Metropolitan Police, who led a review of the case in 2000, said: “It’s an address that’s been known about for many years and obviously Cannan’s linked to it. We didn’t do any digging because we didn’t think there was sufficient evidence or intelligence that suggested the body had been disposed of there. That’s the beginning and end of it.””. I wonder if they used dogs in 2000?
“As human remains decay, they produce a variety of very distinct odors. While most of us would probably prefer to avoid ever experiencing such odors, for cadaver dogs, the odors are like a signature, because they appear nowhere else in nature. A cadaver dog can actually detect human remains through concrete, buried underground, or at the bottom of a body of water, using its extremely well-honed noses to search for faint traces of theof the chemicals emitted by the human body during decomposition”.The body would have been buried more than 30 years. Recent burial will be different to one 30 years later. Cadaver odours are not going to remain at the same intensity over long periods of time.
The body would have been buried more than 30 years. Recent burial will be different to one 30 years later. Cadaver odours are not going to remain at the same intensity over long periods of time.But should still be detectable by a cadaver dog worth it’s sausages, surely?
Perhaps they did use them, but had no alerts. If the tip off warranted any investigation, then they may as well go the whole hog and dig the place up irrespective.if they used dogs but there were no alerts and then they find a body what can we deduce from this regarding dog reliability? Surely if dogs are that reliable all that needs happen is for dogs to be brought in to the house and garden and if there are no alerts then there can be no body?
But should still be detectable by a cadaver dog worth it’s sausages, surely?
if they used dogs but there were no alerts and then they find a body what can we deduce from this regarding dog reliability? Surely if dogs are that reliable all that needs happen is for dogs to be brought in to the house and garden and if there are no alerts then there can be no body?There may be some protocol that they follow that requires a search irrespective of dog alerts, although this would negate the requirement to send the dogs in.
Do we know cadaver dogs haven’t been used already ?No news report has made mention of them, and often they do when they are being used in a high profile body search.
Why is there all this speculation on whether any dogs alerted on not when we don't even know if the dogs were used to search that site or not.
Pointless IMO.
Why is there all this speculation on whether any dogs alerted on not when we don't even know if the dogs were used to search that site or not.My original question was to ask why, if they had been used, it has beennecessary to do such extensive excavation when dogs are supposed to be able to pinpoint the exact location of a body. If they haven’t been used I wonder why not. If you find my posts pointless then just scroll past them, problem solved.
Pointless IMO.
My original question was to ask why, if they had been used, it has beennecessary to do such extensive excavation when dogs are supposed to be able to pinpoint the exact location of a body. If they haven’t been used I wonder why not. If you find my posts pointless then just scroll past them, problem solved.
My original question was to ask why, if they had been used, it has beennecessary to do such extensive excavation when dogs are supposed to be able to pinpoint the exact location of a body. If they haven’t been used I wonder why not. If you find my posts pointless then just scroll past them, problem solved.
And my answer to yours wasn't that your post was pointless. My answer explained that they were removing concrete. That isn't done in a few minutes VS.I think one factor to be considered is the question - when was the concrete poured? Before or after the victim went missing?
I think one factor to be considered is the question - when was the concrete poured? Before or after the victim went missing?
If the police are digging up the concrete I believe it was obviously after she went missing.One would hope so.
The police had had a specific tip-off back in 2002, which was not properly followed up at the time. Irrespective of any dog alerts, the concrete panel in the garage would require removing anyway. Dogs have been known to fail to alert to buried bodies wrapped in plastic sheeting.
It would be the concrete pad on which the garage stood misty, not a panel.
You say dogs have been know to fail to alert to buried bodies wrapped in plastic sheeting. To me you appear to be implying a general statement that all dogs would not alert. The relevant question IMO is has Eddie ever failed to alert to a buried body wrapped in plastic sheeting. I think the answer to that is no. IMO your statement on this has no validity in the McCann case and could have no validity anywhere else without a cite.
It would be the concrete pad on which the garage stood misty, not a panel.Thick plastic is often used under concrete flooring too. I think the reliability being questioned here is the reliability of an alert rather that a non alert. Looking at what is the chances the dog has made an error (a false positive) rather than the chances of the dog not alerting to an actual body deposition site (called false negative).
You say dogs have been know to fail to alert to buried bodies wrapped in plastic sheeting. To me you appear to be implying a general statement that all dogs would not alert. The relevant question IMO is has Eddie ever failed to alert to a buried body wrapped in plastic sheeting. I think the answer to that is no. IMO your statement on this has no validity in the McCann case and could have no validity anywhere else without a cite.
Please think carefully about the implication of the following statement for which a cite is provided.
The cadaver dog was apparently unable to make an alert when the item for inspection was wrapped in brown paper and only did so when the paper wrapping was slashed on request.
Snip
He said they then went to a Detroit Police Department evidence room, where investigators wrapped Bianca's car seat in brown paper and hid it in an office within a number of rooms.
Grime said there was no response during the first search, when the car seat was sealed inside the brown paper. He then asked officers to put a slit in the paper and move the car seat to another room.
"The second time, when the dog got close to the package, he put his nose in the package and gave a positive response," Grime said.
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.com/2012/10/expert-testifies-that-cadaver-dog-gave.html
Was the dog above Eddie ?From the article it sounds like the dog's name was "Morse".
It would be the concrete pad on which the garage stood misty, not a panel.
You say dogs have been know to fail to alert to buried bodies wrapped in plastic sheeting. To me you appear to be implying a general statement that all dogs would not alert. The relevant question IMO is has Eddie ever failed to alert to a buried body wrapped in plastic sheeting. I think the answer to that is no. IMO your statement on this has no validity in the McCann case and could have no validity anywhere else without a cite.
I wasn't referring to Eddie as I have been reliably informed he has never been proven wrong in 200 cases. However, if a cadaver dog fails to alert to a place where a body is buried, then how is the body to be found without human intervention & thus demonstrating the dog's failure?Interesting Misty. The reason the dog missed the alert could be due to the plastic sheeting. Suggests to me the dogs are sensing substances that could not pass through plastic.
Anyway, in the case of David Guilfoyle, the killer took the police to the approximate burial site (a six inch shallow grave, body wrapped in plastic sheeting) but the cadaver dogs didn't find it. You can read the body recovery story here http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf from page 62 on.
P.S. Was rushing earlier & couldn't retrieve cite at that time.
Interesting Misty. The reason the dog missed the alert could be due to the plastic sheeting. Suggests to me the dogs are sensing substances that could not pass through plastic.
The compounds cadaverine and putrescine would be able to permeate plastic IMO.
"Anticipating the recovery of a body, we had already
got a forensic archaeologist on the team and they, together with a CSI team,
were on standby as we searched the area using the police helicopter, search
teams and specially trained body recovery dogs. To assist the dogs and their
handler to effectively search the area, rod-probes, poles and tape were
systematically placed into the ground. This is in accordance with specialist
search protocols.
It quickly became clear that things might not be as simple as we had hoped. It
was autumn and the ground was wet, heavy and difficult underfoot. More
worryingly, in the years since the body had been buried the area had changed
significantly with trees being felled and replaced and some of the area had
changed from woodland to grouse shooting. We had clearly underestimated the
difficulty that this would pose in trying to follow the directions Fitzpatrick had
given and the indications he had made on the map."
"Based on the previous searches and the areas indicated by Fitzpatrick during his
visit, we identified a number of sites of potential interest and prioritised these for
excavation by the mechanical digger. This proved successful and on the afternoon of Friday 9th November, a piece of blue plastic sheeting was
uncovered. Further examination confirmed the presence of David’s body
wrapped in a plastic sheet located in a shallow grave as described by Fitzpatrick.
Under the supervision of the forensic archaeologist and forensic anthropologist
the body was removed from the grave."
We don't actually have evidence the cadaver dogs actually checked the area where the body was found.
As far as I can gather, the police were searching a very specific area - hence the mechanical diggers later used. I was under the impression that VRDs are deployed in order to cover a large area more effectively & efficiently than human searches alone. Also, doesn't the scent cone? If not, what was Grime's explanation about "the burnt cadaver in the neighbouring property years before" in the Theresa Parker case all about?there are plenty of cases I know nothing about. I don't know the Theresa Parker case sorry.
Extensive excavations ? I believe it’s a certain section of someone’s back garden so hardly ‘extensive’. Even if dogs had pinpointed the site I’ve yet to find one who can dig up concrete, have you ?There are five separate tents set up in the back garden, if extensive is not the right word to describe the digs what word would you choose. As for your second sentence - huh??? Did I suggest the dogs should be digging up concrete??
there are plenty of cases I know nothing about. I don't know the Theresa Parker case sorry.
There are five separate tents set up in the back garden, if extensive is not the right word to describe the digs what word would you choose. As for your second sentence - huh??? Did I suggest the dogs should be digging up concrete??
If dogs are involved why hasn’t the exact location been pinpointed? I thought that’s what they did.
Targeted would be the word I’d choose. Whether dogs were involved in that process is unknown at this point.
If dogs are involved why hasn’t the exact location been pinpointed? I thought that’s what they did.If there was slab of concrete over a body the whole slab could be of interest. No one place to pin point but a general area.
There are lots of references to it on this forum. Here's a link with some of the "scent from a distant source" mentioned in the case.Still didn't see a reference to "the burnt cadaver in the neighbouring property years before". Never mind.
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
There are lots of references to it on this forum. Here's a link with some of the "scent from a distant source" mentioned in the case.
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
Therefore going on those two instances ... of failure to locate cadaver scent from an item wrapped in brown paper ... and failure to locate actual bodily remains wrapped in plastic ... it seems that cadaver dogs are indeed unreliable and are most certainly not infallible.If the dogs don't alert to a cadaver that can't really come into the reliability equation IMO.
I imagine the deposition site indicated by the perpetrator is probably similar to the vast forested area where the police suspect Gilroy hid Suzanne Pilley's remains: it is known he stopped on his 'work' journey at a school where he asked for and was given plastic bags.
It seems that using plastic bags to wrap a body not only defeats VRDs but prevents scavengers locating and scattering human remains from a shallow grave as well as preventing changes in the vegetation from nutrients in the soil.
Therefore going on those two instances ... of failure to locate cadaver scent from an item wrapped in brown paper ... and failure to locate actual bodily remains wrapped in plastic ... it seems that cadaver dogs are indeed unreliable and are most certainly not infallible.
I imagine the deposition site indicated by the perpetrator is probably similar to the vast forested area where the police suspect Gilroy hid Suzanne Pilley's remains: it is known he stopped on his 'work' journey at a school where he asked for and was given plastic bags.
It seems that using plastic bags to wrap a body not only defeats VRDs but prevents scavengers locating and scattering human remains from a shallow grave as well as preventing changes in the vegetation from nutrients in the soil.
A cite for the above would be helpful.
It is actually basic common sense.
That maybe but when claims are made a cite is required. I didn’t make the rules.
This Cite business is getting ridiculous.
I can’t disagree Eleanor but a rule is a rule.
A cite for the above would be helpful.”it seems”, “probably “ etc - no cite needed.
”it seems”, “probably “ etc - no cite needed.
One would have to go a long way to catch Brietta stating Opinion as fact.
It seems to me that she has
Therefore going on those two instances ... of failure to locate cadaver scent from an item wrapped in brown paper ... and failure to locate actual bodily remains wrapped in plastic ... it seems that cadaver dogs are indeed unreliable and are most certainly not infallible.
Dictionary definition.
used for saying that something appears to exist or be true
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/it-seems
So just your Opinion. It isn't my Opinion.
I will be deleting any further Comments arguing this point.
Cadaver dogs can only be seen as unreliable if people's expectations are unrealistic in my opinion. I have never seen a tracking dog labelled 'unreliable' if it doesn't find the person it's looking for. Both types of dogs can be successful and both kinds can be unsuccessful. It's worth using them because until they're used no-one knows what evidence or intelligence might emerge.
So far Brietta has pointed out two cases where dogs didn't alert. In the McCanns case Eddie DID alert so those cases are irrelevant IMO.I mean, it's a fair point. The dogs alerted to something, so if not cadaverous odour, then what? If they're trained to find it, but alert to a discarded Monster Munch* packet, then even martin Grimes would be pulling them out of service.
So far Brietta has pointed out two cases where dogs didn't alert. In the McCanns case Eddie DID alert so those cases are irrelevant IMO.
I mean, it's a fair point. The dogs alerted to something, so if not cadaverous odour, then what? If they're trained to find it, but alert to a discarded Monster Munch* packet, then even martin Grimes would be pulling them out of service.Only the dogs know what the alerts, were to... I'm convinced there was no cadaver in 5a.. I'm certainly not convinced by Grimes claim Re Cuddle Cat.... For me there is a, massive question over the, alerts... When grime says the, alerts have no evidential reliability... It puts them into perspective
*Other brand corn snacks are available.
Only the digs know what the alerts, were to... I'm convinced there was no cadaver in 5a.. I'm certainly not convinced by Grimes claim Re Cuddle Cat.... For me there is a, massive question over the, alerts... Whe grime says the, alerts have no evidential reliability... It puts them into perspectiveI simply don't know. On the one hand, as I mentioned earlier, trained dogs were alerting to the two succinct odours that they are trained to, but then the concept of a dead body lying there and being discovered seems implausible, but not beyond the realms of impossibility.
Only the digs know what the alerts, were to... I'm convinced there was no cadaver in 5a.. I'm certainly not convinced by Grimes claim Re Cuddle Cat.... For me there is a, massive question over the, alerts... Whe grime says the, alerts have no evidential reliability... It puts them into perspective
I simply don't know. On the one hand, as I mentioned earlier, trained dogs were alerting to the two succinct odours that they are trained to, but then the concept of a dead body lying there and being discovered seems implausible, but not beyond the realms of impossibility.
The only way any of this stitches together for me, even remotely, is if Kate finds Madeleine in some state or other. Because I don't care, no sane mother would blithely go along with their husband's plan to conceal / concoct in such a manner.
Even this is almost incomprehensible to me.
Might change my user name to Creosote.
It seems to me that she has
Therefore going on those two instances ... of failure to locate cadaver scent from an item wrapped in brown paper ... and failure to locate actual bodily remains wrapped in plastic ... it seems that cadaver dogs are indeed unreliable and are most certainly not infallible.
Dictionary definition.
used for saying that something appears to exist or be true
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/it-seems
Eleanor has quite rightly shut this meaningless discussion down as per forum rules ... but I beg her indulgence for a right of reply before any more allegations are made about my syntax or content of my posts.
There is absolutely nothing in my original post which cannot be verified as follows ...
Snip
Please think carefully about the implication of the following statement for which a cite is provided.
The cadaver dog was apparently unable to make an alert when the item for inspection was wrapped in brown paper and only did so when the paper wrapping was slashed on request.
Snip
He said they then went to a Detroit Police Department evidence room, where investigators wrapped Bianca's car seat in brown paper and hid it in an office within a number of rooms.
Grime said there was no response during the first search, when the car seat was sealed inside the brown paper. He then asked officers to put a slit in the paper and move the car seat to another room.
"The second time, when the dog got close to the package, he put his nose in the package and gave a positive response," Grime said.
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.com/2012/10/expert-testifies-that-cadaver-dog-gave.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg499466#msg499466
_________________________________________________________________________
Above is my original post … to which Faithlily replied which leads one to presume she read the content which clearly carries a cite for the inability of a cadaver dog to alert through brown paper wrapping paper.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg499470#msg499470
Below is Misty's post which clearly contains reference to the inability of cadaver dogs to smell cadaver through plastic sheeting ... that makes two very recent cites verifying the content of part of my post.
_________________________________________________________________________
Snip
I wasn't referring to Eddie as I have been reliably informed he has never been proven wrong in 200 cases. However, if a cadaver dog fails to alert to a place where a body is buried, then how is the body to be found without human intervention & thus demonstrating the dog's failure?
Anyway, in the case of David Guilfoyle, the killer took the police to the approximate burial site (a six inch shallow grave, body wrapped in plastic sheeting) but the cadaver dogs didn't find it. You can read the body recovery story here http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf from page 62 on.
P.S. Was rushing earlier & couldn't retrieve cite at that time.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg499473#msg499473
Eleanor. Do it then. Brietta picked me up on my use of words then stopped all discussions on it when I tried to explain. Now you try to do the same when I pick up her use of words. This is not fair discussion IMO.
Please provide a cite to substantiate your allegation. If your post has been deleted there will be a record of it ... if not you will be able to link to it with little problem.
You are correct it took no time to find.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10243.705
I hope I can beg to differ regarding your original post and reasons you give for excusing it from a cite.
A cite for the above would be helpful.It has been discussed within this thread. Most is Brietta's opinion and hence doesn't need cites.
It seems to me that she hasWhy not look up “it appears” too while you’re at it?
Therefore going on those two instances ... of failure to locate cadaver scent from an item wrapped in brown paper ... and failure to locate actual bodily remains wrapped in plastic ... it seems that cadaver dogs are indeed unreliable and are most certainly not infallible.
Dictionary definition.
used for saying that something appears to exist or be true
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/it-seems
I simply don't know. On the one hand, as I mentioned earlier, trained dogs were alerting to the two succinct odours that they are trained to, but then the concept of a dead body lying there and being discovered seems implausible, but not beyond the realms of impossibility.
The only way any of this stitches together for me, even remotely, is if Kate finds Madeleine in some state or other. Because I don't care, no sane mother would blithely go along with their husband's plan to conceal / concoct in such a manner.
Even this is almost incomprehensible to me.
Might change my user name to Creosote.
I don't think you should assume things. There's nothing to suggest Gerry was the 'ringleader' in anything as far as I know. I also know of nothing which tells us what 'sane mothers' might or might not do.Come on - I see a relationship very dominated by Gerry.
I don't think you should assume things. There's nothing to suggest Gerry was the 'ringleader' in anything as far as I know. I also know of nothing which tells us what 'sane mothers' might or might not do.Surely your own personal experience of mothers, sane or otherwise is something you know of?
I don't think you should assume things. There's nothing to suggest Gerry was the 'ringleader' in anything as far as I know. I also know of nothing which tells us what 'sane mothers' might or might not do.You're right, I haven't assumed anything. My point being, there's no way, in my irrelevant opinion, with the benefit of my first hand experience of the maternal instinct, that a hypothetical Kate would countenance the premise of concealing an accident or other to one of her hypothetical children. The caveat being, and I stated one such variable, that an impaired / coerced / irrational state of mind may be a factor.
Come on - I see a relationship very dominated by Gerry.
That is something denied by them and all who knew them apart from Auntie Janet Kennedy;I'm basing my opinion on viewing occasions portrayed in videos produced over the years.
"Gerry is a typical male and is very organised, but I feel it is Kate who dominates."
Although she did change that retrospectively;
"Instead of using the term 'is the one who dominates' with regard to the relationship between Kate and Gerry, I would like to state that they respect each other's decisions and all decisions are taken together."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
... and Kate and Gerry's hypothetical relationship as discussed on internet fora has what exactly to do with Zapata and the unreliability of cadaver dogs???
Nothing.Hooray!
About the same as the question turned on its head.
"What has the Zapata case to with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?"
My first and last post on this thread you will be delighted to hear!
Nothing.
About the same as the question turned on its head.
"What has the Zapata case to with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?"
My first and last post on this thread you will be delighted to hear!
From what I can see the Zapata case has nothing to do with cadaver dogs being unreliable, apart from a judge who deemed them no more reliable at that time than a toss of a coin. He was wrong and Zapata was a murderer IMO.
Gerry McCann chose to use this case to claim that all cadaver dogs were "unreliable". Again he was wrong IMO.
Too many sweeping statements are being made claiming CSI dogs are reliable or unreliable imo. The fact is that no two dogs ever get the same training or ever experience the same lifetime events. One cannot bunch all dogs together in a convenient package simply to justify one point of view or another.
CSI, cadaver and tracker dogs can be many things to many people. One dog can be reliable while another could be unreliable, dogs like humans can have bad days too. Its like saying humans are reliable or unreliable, its just silly.
These dogs have over the centuries provided a unique service to mankind in all sorts of situations, every dog has its own ability so please, let's not do them a disservice and classify them otherwise.
An excellent post. As I said previously the McCanns and their lawyers made a mistake in my opinion using evidence about other dogs to try to discredit Grime's dogs. The judge in the Zapata case was talking about the dogs used in that case, not about all cadaver dogs.IMO, there should be one rule for all when it comes to cadaver dog evidence in a court room situation. It is either deemed reliable and therefore acceptable to be presented before the court or it is not. Is it? Should it?
Grime's dogs were trained differently and tested differently to those in America. In the Bianca Jones case Grime's evidence was accepted by an American court because his dogs were very accurate when tested; in the high 90% range according to FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
The dogs in the Zapata case and Grime's dogs were not the same.
IMO, there should be one rule for all when it comes to cadaver dog evidence in a court room situation. It is either deemed reliable and therefore acceptable to be presented before the court or it is not. Is it? Should it?
Does anyone think Grimes assertion that Eddie akerted to CC should be accepted by any court
If the Video is anything to go by, then it won't be. But if anyone should ever try it on, then the Video can be presented as well.
Any Jury would have a great time with that one.
Before that the prosecution and defence lawyers would have their work cut out.
IMO, there should be one rule for all when it comes to cadaver dog evidence in a court room situation. It is either deemed reliable and therefore acceptable to be presented before the court or it is not. Is it? Should it?
Those decisions are made on a case by case basis by the judge in charge. They decide which evidence is admissible in each case. As far as I know there are no 'rules' which apply to all cases.
I wod have thought there are rules relating to evidence in general and the alerts don't satisfy them
Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?
I wod have thought there are rules relating to evidence in general and the alerts don't satisfy them
Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?
They need Evidence. There isn't any.
From what I can see the Zapata case has nothing to do with cadaver dogs being unreliable, apart from a judge who deemed them no more reliable at that time than a toss of a coin. He was wrong and Zapata was a murderer IMO.OK - that was your opinion but the judge in the Zapata case dismissed the dog evidence as it appeared to him some scientific experiment showed they were on average approx 70% reliable.
Gerry McCann chose to use this case to claim that all cadaver dogs were "unreliable". Again he was wrong IMO.
Does anyone think Grimes assertion that Eddie alerted to CC should be accepted by any court
Didn't the Policia Judiciaria inspector question why the dog had walked past the toy more than once, alerting to it only when it had been placed in a cupboard?
If the PJ questioned the accuracy of the alert ... is there the slightest probability any court would ignore that assessment after watching the video confirming it?
Didn't the Policia Judiciaria inspector question why the dog had walked past the toy more than once, alerting to it only when it had been placed in a cupboard?
If the PJ questioned the accuracy of the alert ... is there the slightest probability any court would ignore that assessment after watching the video confirming it?
Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?
Doesn't answer my question to davel's post does it?
It is in my opinion a bit of a cop out to indulge in catch all questioning of a post without making your own case in a counter argument.
I think that is the essence of meaningful debate as apposed to obfuscation,
Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence",[1] which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.
The rules of evidence referred to here.... I didn't have s cite when I made my post but it's clear to me.... That there would have to be rules
All hypothetical imo, it'll never get to court, again imo.
Thank you.
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence",[1] which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.
The rules of evidence referred to here.... I didn't have s cite when I made my post but it's clear to me.... That there would have to be rules
so those rules....and as grime has sated the alerts have no evidential reliabilty...thats why they would not satisfy the rules.
its all common sense and logical to me...Im surprised ..or not...that some posters cant see that
There's 'common sense and logic' and then, on the other hand, there are facts.
In a case where no tangible evidence is found, such as the Suzanne Pilley case, the dog handler's evidence can be admissible;
PC Thompson said the dog gave "positive indications" of a smell of decomposing human remains or blood in the building which housed IML during the probe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17270117
There's 'common sense and logic' and then, on the other hand, there are facts.
In a case where no tangible evidence is found, such as the Suzanne Pilley case, the dog handler's evidence can be admissible;
PC Thompson said the dog gave "positive indications" of a smell of decomposing human remains or blood in the building which housed IML during the probe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17270117
you can only say that the alerts were admissable in the Pilley case....you cannot extrapolate that and say they would be admissable in other cases
Do judges decide by there own value, what constitutes evidence or have they been given training and guidelines... Rules..... To guide them... Logic would say this is the case...
As the alerts have never been used in the UK logic dictates the alerts don't satisfy them
If you have proof of this please provide a cite.
Nothing hypothetical about it. We have all watched the evidential video. We have seen the dog 'toying' with the toy. We have watched him walking past and ignoring it. We have seen it taken from a cupboard and claimed as an 'alert' to cadaver scent.
If you think that is 'safe' ... I don't ... and neither did the PJ final report.
But you are correct ... evidence such as that would never get to court ... in my opinion because it would have been laughed out of court.
...and you are none of you expert dog handlers.
You don't have to be.
If you are trying to contradict an expert witness, you need to be an expert.
If you are trying to contradict an expert witness, you need to be an expert.
...and you are none of you expert dog handlers.
Not on this occasion, I don't think. Besides, Martin Grime did say that alerts need to be backed by Evidence.
There was none.
Or do you wish to argue that point?
And you cannot say that the alerts were never used in UK cases as the Pilley case proves that to be incorrect Davel.
This statement by yourself is incorrect
As the alerts have never been used in the UK logic dictates the alerts don't satisfy them
If you are trying to contradict an expert witness, you need to be an expert.
Didn't the Policia Judiciaria inspector question why the dog had walked past the toy more than once, alerting to it only when it had been placed in a cupboard?
If the PJ questioned the accuracy of the alert ... is there the slightest probability any court would ignore that assessment after watching the video confirming it?
And the alert in the bedroom? Was that questioned by a police force with no experience of using cadaver dogs ?
From Grime’s rogatory:
'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
It's not necessary to be an expert to question the so called alert to CC
It's not necessary to be an expert to question the so called alert to CC
So are you agreeing with the expert or not?
Of course you do, just because you don’t recognise the change in behaviour in the dog, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.It doesn't tell us what the change in behaviour was due to
it was admissable in that case...did the defence challenge it...we dont know..
What we do know is the facts on rule of evidence that I have cited...have you read them.
grime says the alerts have no evidential relaibility and therefore on those grounds they would not be admissable
Grime was, of course, pointing out that dog alerts couldn't be used as evidence on their own. We know that they can be used as part of a body of evidence though, don't we?
No we don't... Grime never mentions a body of evidence... He is crystal clear.... No evidential reliability. You really are making things up
I don't make things up. I have quoted two cases where dog alerts formed part of a body of evidence; Suzanne Pilley and Bianca Jones.
You are making things up... You cannot assume they can be used in such a manner based on 2 cases in the entire world
But the two cases prove that they are used in such a manner.
Of course you do, just because you don’t recognise the change in behaviour in the dog, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
They prove that they have been used..one case in the UK and we don't know if it was challenged by the defence
Of course the defence would challenge the evidence....that’s what they do.
Obviously that challenge was thought to have no merit as the evidence was deemed admissible
Of course the defence would challenge the evidence....that’s what they do.
Obviously that challenge was thought to have no merit as the evidence was deemed admissible
This thread appears to be being used for the ongoing bashing of the dog alerts. As we know, a load of convoluted words won't do.
Having followed the trial reports of the proceedings and reading about the evidence presented I actually fail to see why the prosecution introduced the dog alerts into evidence in the first case.
In my opinion the accused was well and truly nailed by the evidence meticulously gathered by the police. Maybe they just wanted to 'mak siccar'.
It would be interesting to know what the jury made of it ... I would have tended to disregard the dog indications had I been a juror, going instead with the evidence given of the purchase of cleaning materials and the evidence of the witness who testified to the noticeable fresh fragrance and cleanliness of the boot of the car when it was opened for inspection.
Do you know if Zapata's wife's remains, or any physical traces of her remains were recovered from any one of the numerous locations where the cadaver dogs alerted?
Isn’t Zapata’s confession coupled with the dog’s alerts enough ?
The buying of cleaning products and a fresh boot does not a prosecution make. It was the dog alerts that gave the other evidence context.
This thread appears to be being used for the ongoing bashing of the dog alerts. As we know, a load of convoluted words won't do.
The alerts don't need bashing... They have no evidential value...
Except sometimes they can be used in court, even when no forensic evidence is found.
Except sometimes they can be used in court, even when no forensic evidence is found.
I'm actually agreeing with the expert...the alerts have no evidential reliabilityI think in a case where there was sufficient circumstantial evidence any cadaver alerts would or could be part of the circumstantial evidence presented.
I think in a case where there was sufficient circumstantial evidence any cadaver alerts would or could be part of the circumstantial evidence presented.No evidential reliability.... What should a defence lawyer make of that...
No evidential reliability.... What should a defence lawyer make of that...That is the weird thing about circumstantial evidence, none is reliable on its own, but weighs up by the sheer mass of it.
No evidential reliability.... What should a defence lawyer make of that...
Well the defence lawyer in the Bianca Jones case seems to have used similar arguments to those used by people who try to discredit these dogs, but to no avail.Your cite cannot be read... Could you cut and padte the relevant
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-detroit-news/20121004/281706906902738
Those decisions are made on a case by case basis by the judge in charge. They decide which evidence is admissible in each case. As far as I know there are no 'rules' which apply to all cases.Oh? Are cadaver dog alerts without accompanying forensic evidence ever admissible in this country?
Well the defence lawyer in the Bianca Jones case seems to have used similar arguments to those used by people who try to discredit these dogs, but to no avail.
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-detroit-news/20121004/281706906902738
Well the defence lawyer in the Bianca Jones case seems to have used similar arguments to those used by people who try to discredit these dogs, but to no avail.
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-detroit-news/20121004/281706906902738
If you are trying to contradict an expert witness, you need to be an expert.Is this the law?
Except sometimes they can be used in court, even when no forensic evidence is found.True, like that case in Sweden of the serial killer that never was, the dog alerted numerous times to a spot in the forest where he said he’d buried his victims. Only problem was, there were no remains, and he didn’t do it! Good old dog alerts!
Your cite cannot be read... Could you cut and padte the relevant
Defense targets cadaver dog evidence in missing child case
The Detroit News4 Oct 2012BY CHRISTINE FERRETTI
David Coates / The Detroit News Defense attorney Terry Johnson, left, speaks to D'Andre Lane on Wednesday. Lane is charged with felony murder and child abuse.
Detroit — Defense attorneys attempted Wednesday to minimize key evidence from a cadaver-detecting dog in the circumstantial murder trial of a Detroit man accused in the death of his missing toddler.
D’Andre Lane is charged with felony murder and child abuse on allegations he fatally beat 2-year-old Bianca Jones because she wet herself, disposed of her body and fabricated a carjacking to cover up the crime. The child’s body has not been found.
Lane is facing mandatory life if convicted in the case that relies on circumstantial evidence, including a cadaver dog named Morse, who is handled by forensic canine expert Martin Grime.
Defense attorney Terry L. Johnson pointed out during testimony Wednesday in Wayne Circuit Court that the dog’s positive detection of human decomposition in this case — signified with repeated barking — is unsubstantiated because it hasn’t been linked to a corpse.
Johnson, who questioned the forensic canine experts with direction from Texas-based police service dog analyst Steven Nicely, also added that Morse didn’t alert its handler to the scent of decomposition on Lane’s clothing.
“You have no way of telling what Morse responded to,” said Johnson, noting the positive detection hasn’t been connected to the body of Bianca or anyone else. “You don’t know if it was a positive or negative response.”
Grime conceded a determination is usually made when something is found.
“The corroboration would normally be you finding a cadaver, bone or human blood that I could see,” he told Johnson, adding that the dog has never given a false response.
Johnson has called the relatively new scientific method “highly prejudicial” and unsuccessfully fought to have it excluded from Lane’s trial.
Grime testified Wednesday that Morse detected a cadaver scent inside Lane’s car two days after the alleged carjacking. The dog selected the vehicle, which was among 31 others, at a Detroit impound lot.
The dog later alerted Grime of alleged human decomposition on Bianca’s car seat and blanket as well as the girl’s be-
droom inside Lane’s home.
Grime testified that the dog was accurate in tests prior to the visit to Detroit and after.
Grime has said the cadaver dogs cannot determine identity, age, race, gender or the rate of decomposition.
Rex A. Stockham, FBI forensic canine program manager, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.
“I’m aware of no false positives for Morse,” he said. “We’ve never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it’s been shown to be incorrect.”
Lane claims Bianca was in the back seat of his 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis the morning of Dec. 2 when he was approached by armed carjackers near Brush Street and Grand River.
The vehicle was found shortly after, but the child was not inside.
Bianca’s mother, Banika Jones, testified at the opening of the trial that she stands behind Lane and believes her daughter is alive.
Defense targets cadaver dog evidence in missing child case
The Detroit News4 Oct 2012BY CHRISTINE FERRETTI
David Coates / The Detroit News Defense attorney Terry Johnson, left, speaks to D'Andre Lane on Wednesday. Lane is charged with felony murder and child abuse.
Detroit — Defense attorneys attempted Wednesday to minimize key evidence from a cadaver-detecting dog in the circumstantial murder trial of a Detroit man accused in the death of his missing toddler.
D’Andre Lane is charged with felony murder and child abuse on allegations he fatally beat 2-year-old Bianca Jones because she wet herself, disposed of her body and fabricated a carjacking to cover up the crime. The child’s body has not been found.
Lane is facing mandatory life if convicted in the case that relies on circumstantial evidence, including a cadaver dog named Morse, who is handled by forensic canine expert Martin Grime.
Defense attorney Terry L. Johnson pointed out during testimony Wednesday in Wayne Circuit Court that the dog’s positive detection of human decomposition in this case — signified with repeated barking — is unsubstantiated because it hasn’t been linked to a corpse.
Johnson, who questioned the forensic canine experts with direction from Texas-based police service dog analyst Steven Nicely, also added that Morse didn’t alert its handler to the scent of decomposition on Lane’s clothing.
“You have no way of telling what Morse responded to,” said Johnson, noting the positive detection hasn’t been connected to the body of Bianca or anyone else. “You don’t know if it was a positive or negative response.”
Grime conceded a determination is usually made when something is found.
“The corroboration would normally be you finding a cadaver, bone or human blood that I could see,” he told Johnson, adding that the dog has never given a false response.
Johnson has called the relatively new scientific method “highly prejudicial” and unsuccessfully fought to have it excluded from Lane’s trial.
Grime testified Wednesday that Morse detected a cadaver scent inside Lane’s car two days after the alleged carjacking. The dog selected the vehicle, which was among 31 others, at a Detroit impound lot.
The dog later alerted Grime of alleged human decomposition on Bianca’s car seat and blanket as well as the girl’s be-
droom inside Lane’s home.
Grime testified that the dog was accurate in tests prior to the visit to Detroit and after.
Grime has said the cadaver dogs cannot determine identity, age, race, gender or the rate of decomposition.
Rex A. Stockham, FBI forensic canine program manager, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.
“I’m aware of no false positives for Morse,” he said. “We’ve never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it’s been shown to be incorrect.”
Lane claims Bianca was in the back seat of his 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis the morning of Dec. 2 when he was approached by armed carjackers near Brush Street and Grand River.
The vehicle was found shortly after, but the child was not inside.
Bianca’s mother, Banika Jones, testified at the opening of the trial that she stands behind Lane and believes her daughter is alive.
in red...that is untrue...grime cannot state that as a factWhat was the case when it was not true?
What was the case when it was not true?
Is this the law?
It’s common sense, using none experts is a recipe for failure.
“GP – What exactly is your profession?
AP answer he is a Crisis Counsellor.
GP asks whether he is a psychologist?
AP says he has some competences in psychology (psychology was one of the elements in his degree).
GP asks again "are you a psychologist?"
AP says no.”
It’s common sense, using none experts is a recipe for failure.Let’s hear no more criticism or contradictions of the police, or of doctors, or journalists of PR men or anyone else who is an expert in their field then. I trust you will set a good example, seeing as how you’re a mod and all.
“GP – What exactly is your profession?
AP answer he is a Crisis Counsellor.
GP asks whether he is a psychologist?
AP says he has some competences in psychology (psychology was one of the elements in his degree).
GP asks again "are you a psychologist?"
AP says no.”
Let’s hear no more criticism or contradictions of the police, or of doctors, or journalists of PR men or anyone else who is an expert in their field then. I trust you will set a good example, seeing as how you’re a mod and all.
absolutely...no more criticism of SY who are the leading experts
No more criticism of the Portuguese police either Davel?
Let’s hear no more criticism or contradictions of the police, or of doctors, or journalists of PR men or anyone else who is an expert in their field then. I trust you will set a good example, seeing as how you’re a mod and all.
I think the point being made was that AP wasn't an expert witness.
I think the point being made was that AP wasn't an expert witness.No, I think Slarti was playing a game of Top Trumps. No one can contradict Grime, he is the Top Trump.
No, I think Slarti was playing a game of Top Trumps. No one can contradict Grime, he is the Top Trump.
has every alert given by morse been confirmed...its basically impossible to prove a dog wrong...if maddie turned up tomorrow it would not prove eddie wrongThat was the point I was making. Unless you have a case where he was wrong Grime can claim he was never wrong. That does not discount those cases that are not determined.
no...slarti has maintained that a lay person cannot criticise a so called expert...which imo ...is patently ridiculous
A lay person's criticism is just an opinion. An expert's opinion is based upon their training, knowledge and experience.What are AP’s qualifications?
If I call a plumber to mend a leak and the leak continues after he's gone I'm entitled to criticise his work. I'm not qualified to say why his work was sub-standard.
AP was allowed to waffle on about 'secondary trauma' but as he wasn't a qualified psychologist his opinion wasn't an expert opinion.
A lay person's criticism is just an opinion. An expert's opinion is based upon their training, knowledge and experience.I've heard of cases where surgeons remove the wrong body part. You don't have to be an expert to criticise that.
If I call a plumber to mend a leak and the leak continues after he's gone I'm entitled to criticise his work. I'm not qualified to say why his work was sub-standard.
AP was allowed to waffle on about 'secondary trauma' but as he wasn't a qualified psychologist his opinion wasn't an expert opinion.
I've heard of cases where surgeons remove the wrong body part. You don't have to be an expert to criticise that.
I have a 2:1in Film Studies. Unless you have equivalent on better than me you cannot contradict my opinion on films. The end.
In my opinion you have misunderstood the level of expertise a 2:1 bestows. I don't claim that no-one can contradict my opinion on politics using the same criteria.So what level of expertise would I need to achieve before you felt you could not contradict my opinion on film?
Matthew Parris in the Times today writes an article entitled “Our police are institutionally incompetent”. I think he makes many valid points and many ex-policemen agree with him. Matthew Parris is not however, nor ever has been a polceman. Does that invalidate his opinion?
I believe that everyone has the right to an opinion on anything that they choose. There is a caveat though, and that is that they make it clear that it is simply their opinion.So I would need 25 years work experience in films to be able to voice an opinion that could not be contradicted by someone with less or no experience of film making?
I can have an opinion on a film and you can have one regarding cadaver dogs but both of these opinions are simply opinions and should be clearly marked as such.
A 2.1 degree does not make you an expert in films unless you have spent the last 25 years working in films and achieving success in the same.
So I would need 25 years work experience in films to be able to voice an opinion that could not be contradicted by someone with less or no experience of film making?
No as someone with no or little experience would still be entitled to their opinion. However you would have more standing in the discussion and probably could give information on the correct procedure of film making etc.You’d be entitled to say (if it were true) that I wasn’t a very competent film maker who’d make an absolute stinker of a movie, poorly directed, acted and edited despite never having directed, acted in or edited a movie in your life, and no one should be able to tell you that because you haven’t made a film yourself that you cannot voice a perfectly valid criticism of it, least of all on a not very important internet chat room. IMO.
I can have an opinion on a finished film but would find it more difficult to discuss the film making process. As would you unless you had considerable hands on experience.
Martin Grime worked with cadaver dogs for decades. He wouldn't still be doing that profession if he wasn't very proficient and successful in this job. He is not just still working with cadaver dogs he is highly thought of by the FBI so I would consider him an expert in that field.
You’d be entitled to say (if it were true) that I wasn’t a very competent film maker who’d make an absolute stinker of a movie, poorly directed, acted and edited despite never having directed, acted in or edited a movie in your life, and no one should be able to tell you that because you haven’t made a film yourself that you cannot voice a perfectly valid criticism of it, least of all on a not very important internet chat room. IMO.
Anyone is allowed to post an opinion on anything - as long as they make it clear that it is only an opinion.Because I am allowed to post my opinion. This forum is not very important IMO, but if you have reason to believe it is then that’s entirely your prerogative. As for criticising the dog alerts I’m sure you’ve heard the reasons a thousand times, but that’s not what we were discussing. There has been an attempt to shut down all criticism of the dogs and their handler with the premise that only someone as experienced or more experienced than Grime may condtradict or criticise him and his dog alerts. Stuff and nonsense I say.
You can criticise Martin Grime as long as you give reasons, as I can criticise your hypothetical expertise in movie making.
Again you belittle this forum by calling it a "not very important chat room". Why do you do this?
Anyone is allowed to post an opinion on anything - as long as they make it clear that it is only an opinion.
You can criticise Martin Grime as long as you give reasons, as I can criticise your hypothetical expertise in movie making.
Again you belittle this forum by calling it a "not very important chat room". Why do you do this?
Can we return to the topic please. of the relevance of cadaver dog alerts.
Today I listened to a few YouTube videos on Bianca Jones and I'm surprised that her father has been found guilty of murdering his child. IMO there is some similarity to the McCann case.
I agree.
The child did have a habit of wetting herself, not unusual in a child of that age. Urine is a body fluid that decomposes. Do we know if Morse was trained not to alert to Urine?
Incidentally, the other children said that Bianca was in her car seat in the car when they were taken to school. If I recall correctly.
...and on with the myths...
...and on with the myths...
So what level of expertise would I need to achieve before you felt you could not contradict my opinion on film?
I think we're getting away from the thread point, which is about expert witnesses in a criminal trial. In the Zapata case, as someone in the McCann camp leaked to the media, a dog handler's evidence was rejected because his/her dogs didn't have a particularly good track record. The plan was to use this in the McCann's defense if the Portuguese decided to prosecute them. Gerry McCann went so fat as to describe cadaver dogs as incredibly unreliable.
Gerry's sweeping statement about cadaver dogs was ignored by Martin Grime, who never commented publicly on it. It was answered when his evidence was accepted in the US in the Bianca Jones case because his dogs had an exemplary track record, which upheld his status as an expert in his field.
Her father said she was in the car when he took the children to school. I think that was the point.
Eddie Alerted to Urine, so what's Mythical about that?
I think we're getting away from the thread point, which is about expert witnesses in a criminal trial. In the Zapata case, as someone in the McCann camp leaked to the media, a dog handler's evidence was rejected because his/her dogs didn't have a particularly good track record. The plan was to use this in the McCann's defense if the Portuguese decided to prosecute them. Gerry McCann went so far as to describe cadaver dogs as incredibly unreliable.
Gerry's sweeping statement about cadaver dogs was ignored by Martin Grime, who never commented publicly on it. It was answered when his evidence was accepted in the US in the Bianca Jones case because his dogs had an exemplary track record, which upheld his status as an expert in his field.
...and on with the myths...Which bits of that post were myths?
Could you explain how the alerts in Portugal could ever be used as evidence when the expert has said the alerts have no evidential reliability
Where and when did this supposed alert occur?
Which bits of that post were myths?
The alerts themselves have no evidential reliability. Alerts by a reliable dog can be used successfully as part of a collection of circumstantial evidence though.
I think we're getting away from the thread point, which is about expert witnesses in a criminal trial. In the Zapata case, as someone in the McCann camp leaked to the media, a dog handler's evidence was rejected because his/her dogs didn't have a particularly good track record. The plan was to use this in the McCann's defense if the Portuguese decided to prosecute them. Gerry McCann went so far as to describe cadaver dogs as incredibly unreliable.In America they still execute people. I don’t think that is acceptable, nor do I think it is acceptable that American judges permit dog alert evidence without accompanying forensic evidence, simply on the word of the dog handler and his “expert” buddies in the same field. This is my opinion, like it or not.
Gerry's sweeping statement about cadaver dogs was ignored by Martin Grime, who never commented publicly on it. It was answered when his evidence was accepted in the US in the Bianca Jones case because his dogs had an exemplary track record, which upheld his status as an expert in his field.
Grime claims this exemplary record which includes this..
“I’m aware of no false positives for Morse,” he said. “We’ve never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it’s been shown to be incorrect.”
This statement sounds impressive but the alert to CC has not been shown to be incorrect ...which puts the claim into perspective... It could be that many of the dogs alerts are false positives... We just dont know... And neither does grime
Morse and Keela were tested by the FBI who confirmed Morse's impressive success rate.How were these tests conducted?
The alerts themselves have no evidential reliability. Alerts by a reliable dog can be used successfully as part of a collection of circumstantial evidence though.
Martin Grime stated that Eddie alerted to Decomposing Body Fluids, of which Urine is one.
Morse and Keela were tested by the FBI who confirmed Morse's impressive success rate.
The point is though at what point in the chemical action of decomposing does urine cease to be urine,neither I nor any one else on here can say I venture, so to say the dog alerted to urine is a not stictly true.
According to whom... A cite is certainly required for such a claim
In America they still execute people. I don’t think that is acceptable, nor do I think it is acceptable that American judges permit dog alert evidence without accompanying forensic evidence, simply on the word of the dog handler and his “expert” buddies in the same field. This is my opinion, like it or not.
There will always be cases where no forensic evidence can be found. In some of those cases circumstantial evidence can be used to secure a conviction. Allowing the use of alerts by cadaver dogs as part of that evidence has helped to secure convictions in the US, Scotland and England. In at least two cases the perpetrator has eventually confessed that they did indeed commit the crime. In my opinion that justifies permitting such evidence to be heard.
According to whom... A cite is certainly required for such a claim
Rex A. Stockham, FBI forensic canine program manager, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.
“I’m aware of no false positives for Morse,” he said. “We’ve never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it’s been shown to be incorrect.”
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg499809#msg499809
Could you explain how the alerts in Portugal could ever be used as evidence when the expert has said the alerts have no evidential reliabilityIt might if there was additional circumstantial evidence that corroborates the alerts.
I agree on this occasion.
Rex A. Stockham, FBI forensic canine program manager, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.
“I’m aware of no false positives for Morse,” he said. “We’ve never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it’s been shown to be incorrect.”
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg499809#msg499809
May I ask for a cite supporting your assertion that Eddie alerted to urine?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg499860#msg499860
Body Fluids start to decompose the minute they leave the body. And of course, Urine is in situ as it were This can happen when someone is still alive, along with Sperm and Menstrual Blood.
This child appears to have had a habit if wetting herself, although I don't find that a problem at her age.
There will always be cases where no forensic evidence can be found. In some of those cases circumstantial evidence can be used to secure a conviction. Allowing the use of alerts by cadaver dogs as part of that evidence has helped to secure convictions in the US, Scotland and England. In at least two cases the perpetrator has eventually confessed that they did indeed commit the crime. In my opinion that justifies permitting such evidence to be heard.And in Sweden a dog alerted all over a forest floor at sites pointed out by a self-confessed serial killer. The only problem was, the so-called serial killer was nothing of the sort. So should the dog alerts have been used to secure a conviction in that instance?
If Morse alerted to urine and the child was known to wet themselves don’t you think Grime would have conceded that that may have been the cause of the alert ? Do you think he was being deliberately disengenous ?
Further why didn’t the defence put urine forward as the cause of the alert ? Surely that would have been enough to totally discredit the alerts ?
Rex A. Stockham, FBI forensic canine program manager, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.Well if that’s good enough for you and good enough for the US courts... but what happened to “accept nothing, believe no one, confirm everything”?
“I’m aware of no false positives for Morse,” he said. “We’ve never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it’s been shown to be incorrect.”
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg499809#msg499809
If Morse alerted to urine and the child was known to wet themselves don’t you think Grime would have conceded that that may have been the cause of the alert ? Do you think he was being deliberately disengenous ?The defence could have very easily discredited the alerts imo, there certainly were plenty of questions that could have been asked that weren’t. Not everyone gets a great defence in court, particularly not if you are poor.
Further why didn’t the defence put urine forward as the cause of the alert ? Surely that would have been enough to totally discredit the alerts ?
The defence could have very easily discredited the alerts imo, there certainly were plenty of questions that could have been asked that weren’t. Not everyone gets a great defence in court, particularly not if you are poor.
Was the defence inadequate then ?It’s possible isn’t it? Or would you argue that it wasn’t?
If Morse alerted to urine and the child was known to wet themselves don’t you think Grime would have conceded that that may have been the cause of the alert ? Do you think he was being deliberately disengenous ?
Further why didn’t the defence put urine forward as the cause of the alert ? Surely that would have been enough to totally discredit the alerts ?
Martin Grime was there to promote his Dogs. It wasn't his place to decide why.
There is much more sense talked on this Forum about Body Fluids. Perhaps The Defence didn't know, and Martin Grime was hardly likely to tell them. In My Opinion.
Martin Grime stated, as everyone knows, that Eddie alerted to decomposing Body Fluids. Urine is one of those.
A friendly word of advice - I find it helps to keep a sense of humour and perspective when posting on this forum. 8**8:/:
What's far more entertaining is the continual efforts by some to put me down.... As though I would be bothered by comments towards me on the forum... I'm far too successful to be bothered...
In my opinion that's an assumption. Grime may have been including normally excreted urine in his reference to body fluids. but he didn't say he was. In my opinion that would have made the deployment of a cadaver dog a waste of time in any household containing small children.
What's far more entertaining is the continual efforts by some to put me down.... As though I would be bothered by comments towards me on the forum... I'm far too successful to be bothered...back to the topic.
In my opinion that's an assumption. Grime may have been including normally excreted urine in his reference to body fluids. but he didn't say he was. In my opinion that would have made the deployment of a cadaver dog a waste of time in any household containing small children.
In my opinion that's an assumption. Grime may have been including normally excreted urine in his reference to body fluids. but he didn't say he was. In my opinion that would have made the deployment of a cadaver dog a waste of time in any household containing small children.
Or anywhere or anyone for that matter,first question before I deploy my dogs does any one suffer from incontinence?
Another who doesn't understand the role of the dogs
So heres your cite for impressive success rate
I see... No dog is perfect but more has been accurate... Then we have the rubbish about not been shown to be incorrect... It's rubbish because it's basically impossible to show a dog is incorrect.... Even the coconut fiasco is defended by sceptics as not proof of a false positive
If true along with each and everyone on this forum,don't try and claim an high ground there isn't one.
Martin Grime stated that Eddie alerted to Decomposing Body Fluids, of which Urine is one.
“Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.”
No it wouldn't....do you not understand why
I do... And there is... So tell me what is the purpose of the dogs... What are they trained for... Can you or anyone tell me off the top of their heads
Grime's dogs, like others, have helped the police to find answers in murder cases. Their work has contributed to bringing murderers to justice. Attempts by the McCanns, their lawyers and their supporters to discredit the dogs and their habdlers are, in my opinion, understandible but not laudable.Can I ask, do you think a propos of Martin Grime and what he says about his dogs one should “Accept Everything, Believe His Every Word, Confirm Nothing”?
How much blood would need to be present in the urine
“Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.”Crikey. Given that blood often appears in nasal and vaginal secretions just how much store can be put in alerts where no forensic evidence is present?
I look forward to your explanation; with cites, obviously.
“Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.”
Can I ask, do you think a propos of Martin Grime and what he says about his dogs one should “Accept Everything, Believe His Every Word, Confirm Nothing”?
I have the answer and cite off the top of my head... Do you
It's not a case of accepting everything Grime says, it's a case of rejecting what has been said by those who are not qualified to contradict him.@)(++(* of course it is! Please supply a list of all those on this forum who are permitted to contradict or criticise Mr Grime. Once it’s been established that no one may, then perhaps we should have it as a forum rule, what say you?
Oh Dear. That was naughty. Your Cite was referring to Keela.
And Keela - source http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
'The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen, sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.'
Did Eddie alert in the toilet?Was he take into the toilet?
Was he take into the toilet?
If as suggested he alerts to urine the toilet is where his nose would have led surely.Unless the door was closed and he was dissuaded from showing interest in there?
Unless the door was closed and he was dissuaded from showing interest in there?
Reliable or not, the dog alerts in only an apartment used by the McCanns and to clothing owned by them is a damning result. The only thing missing is an actual cadaver.
It also could be because no one peed on the floor,not forgetting the cleaners,who one would hope do a decent job,unlike cadaver which can't be washed away.
"Cadaver scent cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces."
Reliable or not, the dog alerts in only an apartment used by the McCanns and to clothing owned by them is a damning result. The only thing missing is an actual cadaver.
Whose Cadaver?
Perhaps I should have made it clear the quotation marks were some one else's words,M Grimes in this instance,as for whose cadaver? whom ever it came from in 5a,yet to be established.
So right you are. If the dogs were so unreliable and alerted to almost anything with blood, why didn't they alert in any of the other houses, apartments and cars?Given that Eddie does alert to blood, it's a bloody good question.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about Bianca Jones. Did they find her corpse?
Reliable or not, the dog alerts in only an apartment used by the McCanns and to clothing owned by them is a damning result. The only thing missing is an actual cadaver.
Unlikely.
"The prosecution claimed Lane took the dead child from his home and disposed of her remains in an incinerator"
https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2018/01/years_after_father_convicted_i.html
So right you are. If the dogs were so unreliable and alerted to almost anything with blood, why didn't they alert in any of the other houses, apartments and cars?
Ive explained this several times...take the car...the dog ignored the car as he ignored the other cars but was only brought back to the mccanns car.....in the apartment the dog ignored sites until called back...this only happened in teh mccanns apartment...a cadaver is missing because there was never one there.....imo.
when did death occurr and allow time for cadaver odour to develop....between 8.30 and 10....just about impossible...do the math.
They know that for a fact, do they?
Grime's dogs, like others, have helped the police to find answers in murder cases. Their work has contributed to bringing murderers to justice. Attempts by the McCanns, their lawyers and their supporters to discredit the dogs and their habdlers are, in my opinion, understandible but not laudable.
You'll have to pose that question to the prosecution lawyers,I'm merely a messenger.
The twins were in nappies. The nappies would contain urine as the baby wipes would also. Those nappies would have been put in the bin.
There was no alert to the bin or the twins cots.
Why would the nappies be put in the bin? Yuck.
The twins were in nappies. The nappies would contain urine as the baby wipes would also. Those nappies would have been put in the bin.Perhaps the nappies were wrapped in brown paper. Everyone knows that brown paper is like a kryptonite barrier to the dogs.
There was no alert to the bin or the twins cots.
Can you tell me where they would taken on a dark evening after the twins last nappy change?
There are so many inventive minds posting here. Taking notice of their suggestions would make the use of cadaver dogs a complete waste of time in my opinion. If they alert to urine, cooked pork, cremains, garden fertilizer and all sorts of other substances then they would be of no use to any police force.
What police officers know, of course, is that cadaver dogs alert to cadavers and the smell thereof. That's why they invest in them and their trainers and handlers and bring them to crime scenes.
There are so many inventive minds posting here. Taking notice of their suggestions would make the use of cadaver dogs a complete waste of time in my opinion. If they alert to urine, cooked pork, cremains, garden fertilizer and all sorts of other substances then they would be of no use to any police force.So are you stating it as fact that dogs never alert to urine, cooked pork, cremains, garden fertilizer and all sorts of other substances? Perhaps you could supply expert cites to prove your point.
What police officers know, of course, is that cadaver dogs alert to cadavers and the smell thereof. That's why they invest in them and their trainers and handlers and bring them to crime scenes.
There are so many inventive minds posting here. Taking notice of their suggestions would make the use of cadaver dogs a complete waste of time in my opinion. If they alert to urine, cooked pork, cremains, garden fertilizer and all sorts of other substances then they would be of no use to any police force.Aren't dog trained to find cadavers and / or forensic evidence? How well did they do at that in the Madeleine McCann case?
What police officers know, of course, is that cadaver dogs alert to cadavers and the smell thereof. That's why they invest in them and their trainers and handlers and bring them to crime scenes.
So are you stating it as fact that dogs never alert to urine, cooked pork, cremains, garden fertilizer and all sorts of other substances? Perhaps you could supply expert cites to prove your point.
In my opinion it's those who make these claims who need to provide 'expert cites' to prove their points.I think Grime has already confirmed that the dogs will alert to a number of those things, not least I seem to recall him excusing a dog alert to a tissue that had been used in an episode of outdoor hanky panky. If a dog will alert to that, then all bets are off IMO.
In my opinion it's those who make these claims who need to provide 'expert cites' to prove their points.
There will always be cases where no forensic evidence can be found. In some of those cases circumstantial evidence can be used to secure a conviction. Allowing the use of alerts by cadaver dogs as part of that evidence has helped to secure convictions in the US, Scotland and England. In at least two cases the perpetrator has eventually confessed that they did indeed commit the crime. In my opinion that justifies permitting such evidence to be heard.
Aren't dog trained to find cadavers and / or forensic evidence? How well did they do at that in the Madeleine McCann case?
There are so many inventive minds posting here. Taking notice of their suggestions would make the use of cadaver dogs a complete waste of time in my opinion. If they alert to urine, cooked pork, cremains, garden fertilizer and all sorts of other substances then they would be of no use to any police force.
What police officers know, of course, is that cadaver dogs alert to cadavers and the smell thereof. That's why they invest in them and their trainers and handlers and bring them to crime scenes.
Are you referring to the ones used at the digs in 2014,not very well would be an answer.I'm referring to all dogs employed in the Madeleine McCann case actually.
Here’s a recent example of a cadaver dog being most probably spot on . https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/cadaver-dog-used-to-search-saudi-consulate-denied-entry-into-consul-generals-residence-3465034 (https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/cadaver-dog-used-to-search-saudi-consulate-denied-entry-into-consul-generals-residence-3465034)Allegedly.
I'm referring to all dogs employed in the Madeleine McCann case actually.
Sure, fill your boots.
It could be argued the humans haven't faired any better either.
Did Eddie alert in the toilet?He preferred to shut the door.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about Bianca Jones. Did they find her corpse?In the Bianca Jones case -
The twins were in nappies. The nappies would contain urine as the baby wipes would also. Those nappies would have been put in the bin.The cots would have been removed from the bedroom by that stage. Eddie is there 3 months after the event.
There was no alert to the bin or the twins cots.
In the Bianca Jones case -
No they kept on seeing her alive. There seemed to be so many closely related children involved I don't know if that person knew exactly who they were looking at.
There was a lot more to the Bianca Jones case than people are making out. The killer was not just convicted because of the dogs alone. There was a great deal of circumstantial evidence ( of which the dog alerts were included) and the witnesses who supposedly saw her alive afterwards were deemed unreliable for various reasons.
DiAndre Lane admitted beating her that night and early morning, he had a 2 feet long stick that he had made especially for beating his kids. His girlfriend heard 'screams' as he was doing it. He felt the need to admit that after the beating, Bianca 'fell and banged her head' and he hit her more to keep her awake in case she fell unconscious. In the morning he put her in the car seat and his other kids said she was 'silent with a blanket over he face'. One of the other kids also testified about her fathers violence and injuries she was caused by having clothing stuffed in her mouth whilst being beaten. Then she disappeared in a 45 minute period that Lane could not account for.
The dogs methods and training was supported in court by Rex Stockham who was in charge of canine training at the FBI. The court was satisfied that training was sufficient and the methods used meant the evidence could be admitted. Stockham was a forensic scientist and he wrote various peer reviewed papers on dog training.
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.
Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs' responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
According to Grime, on December 4, 2011, he took his dogs to an enclosed warehouse that contained 31 vehicles. Grime was told that Bianca was in one of the vehicles at the time of the carjacking, but was not told which vehicle was involved. Morse alerted Grime to the presence of the odor of decomposition in the back seat and trunk of a silver Grand Marquis. Keela later screened the car and did not alert Grime to the presence of human blood.
Grime testified that, after the vehicle screening, he took the dogs to an administrative building to screen the items removed from Dungey's car. Grime did not know where the objects were located in the building, and the objects had been placed in a room filled with “all sorts of things.” Morse alerted Grime to the odor of decomposition in Bianca's car seat and a bag containing Bianca's blanket. Grime later took the dogs to Dungey's house. Morse alerted him to the odor of decomposition in a room that contained bunk beds and a closet without a door."
"......In Norwood, this Court held that tracking dog evidence is sufficiently reliable if the proponent of the evidence shows four things:
(1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was trained and accurate in tracking humans; (3) the dog was placed on the trail where circumstances indicate the alleged guilty party to have been; and, (4) the trail had not become so stale or contaminated as to be beyond the dog's competency to follow it. [16 ]
We reject Lane's argument that, because chemical evidence cannot corroborate whether there was decomposition at the locations Morse identified in this case, the evidence must be excluded as unreliable. Clearly, the four-part test adopted by this Court to ensure the reliability of tracking dog evidence does not exactly correlate to the use of cadaver dogs. However, cadaver dog evidence is not significantly different from other forms of tracking dog evidence. Tracking dogs and cadaver dogs both use a precise sense of smell to identify scents that are outside the range of human ability to detect. Scientific devices can no more follow the scent left on a piece of discarded clothing from the scene of a robbery to a person's home than they can identify the smell of decomposing human remains. Just as it is not a reason to exclude all tracking dog evidence, the lack of scientific verification of the presence of a specific scent is not a reason to exclude cadaver dog evidence in a blanket fashion. We conclude that the trial court must instead consider the reliability of the cadaver dog evidence in each case."
So I don't think the dog evidence was relied on too heavily, or included in the trial without thorough assessment.
D'Andre Lane was proven to be a habitual abuser of his kids and a liar. The dog evidence supports that he lied and that Bianca died as the result of his abuse. In this case Rex Stockam estimated the dogs of having a 90% + accuracy rate , the dog evidence was taken on a case by case basis depending on the accuracy of the training methods and other factors. I don't see any reason why this could not be done in the McCann case.
The problem is in my opinion is that those involved in the testing of dogs are usually those who also have a vested interest in them.
Thank you Gertrude. This case had a lot of circumstantial evidence of which the dog alerts were a part. In the McCann case there was a lack of such evidence, which is probably why the investigators syspected accidental death rather than murder.
The problem is in my opinion is that those involved in the testing of dogs are usually those who also have a vested interest in them.
Was it £450 per day amaral was charging....he's obviously going to praise the abilities of his dogs
And you don't bother to do any research on Rex Stockham, just make a vast sweeping generalisation. Do you usually think that of experts who testify in court, pathologists, doctors, ballistics? Are they all in it to promote themselves?Yes, I’m well aware of all that thanks and was not referring to him but to those who are involved in tests which involve their own dogs, clearly there is a conflict of interests there, if not please explain why not.
He was a forensic scientist, highly regarded, on the boards of government organisations and employed by the FBI, he vote various scientific papers.
https://swgdog.fiu.edu/membership/in-memory-of-rex-stockham/ (https://swgdog.fiu.edu/membership/in-memory-of-rex-stockham/)
"In Memory of Rex Stockham
Rex Aaron Stockham, 53, a Supervisory Special Agent in the Laboratory Division in the FBI, passed away on Saturday, October 8, 2016, after an 18 month battle with cancer.
Rex was a founding member of the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG), served on the Executive Board and co-chaired the Scent Dogs Subcommittee. More recently, Rex was a member of the Dogs and Sensors subcommittee of Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC).
Rex graduated in 1984 with a degree in Chemistry from West Liberty State College in West Virginia and earned a Master’s Degree in Forensic Science from George Washington University.
Rex began his FBI career in 1984 as a Mail Clerk and was promoted to a Technician in the Laboratory Division’s Explosives Unit. He entered New Agents’ Class in May 1988, and upon graduation, was transferred to the Houston Division, where he investigated Violent Crimes. In 1988, he transferred back to the Laboratory Division as an Explosives Examiner in the Explosives Unit. In 2005, he transferred to the Laboratory Division’s Evidence Response Team Unit and was most recently assigned to the Laboratory Division’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center. He was a Board member of the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detection Guidelines (SWGDOG), and a member of the National Institute for Standards and Technology – Dogs and Sensors Subcommittee (NIST), where he was an active contributor for developing training and certification standards for numerous disciplines of detector canines. He had peer reviewed scientific articles published in Forensic Science Communication and Forensic Science International.
Rex worked numerous high profile cases, including the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Bombing in Oklahoma City; Shanksville, Pennsylvania; Amerithrax; the Pentagon and DC Sniper cases; the Boston Bombing, numerous international bombing investigations, and the Jessica Ridgeway, Gabrielle Swainson, and Holly Bobo child abduction and murder investigations.
Rex believed his greatest accomplishment with the Bureau was the work he and his team did in developing the FBI’s Forensic Canine Program, one of the only scientifically backed canine law enforcement programs in the world. He was responsible for creating one of the only researched-based programs used with forensic canines to help augment investigations. He pioneered new techniques and practices for the use of human scent evidence and victim recovery canines in investigations. These techniques and practices are still in use today.
His impact on the advancement of canine training philosophies has assisted numerous law enforcement agencies in canine casework successes. He often partnered with the Behavioral Analysis Unit, Cellular Analysis Survey Team, and Child Abduction Rapid Deployment Team to develop comprehensive search strategies.
Rex was recognized as a subject matter expert for canine testimony and successfully withstood a Daubert challenge for human scent evidence in the 9th Circuit Court.''
What has that got to do with Rex Stockham stating Grime's dogs and training methods were over 90% accurate in the Bianca Jones case?
Yes, I’m well aware of all that thanks and was not referring to him but to those who are involved in tests which involve their own dogs, clearly there is a conflict of interests there, if not please explain why not.
Trainers and handlers don't test their own dogs. The tests are organised by others.
Yes, I’m well aware of all that thanks and was not referring to him but to those who are involved in tests which involve their own dogs, clearly there is a conflict of interests there, if not please explain why not.
Without details of the tests the figure is meaningless..
Trainers and handlers don't test their own dogs. The tests are organised by others.Who tested Eddie and conferred on him the rank of Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog?
Why not refer to him? Your comment came after my one on the Bianca Jones testimony so I thought you may be. He supported what Grime said in the Bianca Jones case and said Grime's dogs and methods were accurate. So why would someone who is a respected scientist and expert witness not consider that Grime was a biased 'self promoter'. Do you not think he weighed that up? If Grime had such a bias into his own dogs and their testing why let Rex Stockham get involved at all, he might expose Grime for being this self promoting charlatan that many accuse him of being. Big chance for Grime to take if he is this flaky self promoter who's dogs are not that good.According to Grime’s LinkedIn page he and Stockham worked closely together on a number of projects prior to the case you refer to. Could he therefore be considered completely independent and impartial?
To me this shows Martin Grime was willing to be tested by others. You state 'conflict of interest', I would say like any other expert he has confidence in his methods, or he wouldn't be deemed an expert.
Who tested Eddie and conferred on him the rank of Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog?
According to Grime’s LinkedIn page he and Stockham worked closely together on a number of projects prior to the case you refer to. Could he therefore be considered completely independent and impartial?
And before that Stockham was what? A very respected scent dog expert who pioneered scientific testing of dogs and wrote peer reviewed papers on it.If you think it’s perfectly impartial and independent testimony then that’s one view, others may disagree.
It's not particularly logical imo that he started working with Grime and then failed to keep up his standards, or indeed that he chose to work with Grime if his dogs and methods were so terrible. He was a scientist who was dedicated to producing peer assessed work and you think he suddenly decided to start misleading courts and became biased for profit?
Then why did the court of Michigan accept Grime's dogs based on Stockham's assessment?Perhaps they were wrong too
If you think it’s perfectly impartial and independent testimony then that’s one view, others may disagree.
And before that Stockham was what? A very respected scent dog expert who pioneered scientific testing of dogs and wrote peer reviewed papers on it.
It's not particularly logical imo that he started working with Grime and then failed to keep up his standards, or indeed that he chose to work with Grime if his dogs and methods were so terrible. He was a scientist who was dedicated to producing peer assessed work and you think he suddenly decided to start misleading courts and became biased for profit?
The court found it acceptable. I never said it was perfectly impartial. Maybe for the reasons I stated they found his testimony good enough, as in his qualifications. Why would he suddenly start misrepresenting his findings after a long respected career? It makes no sense and the court would be able to work that out too. In your scenario he decided to start give biased testimony because he wanted to promote his business? He was already very successful and recognised as a pioneer his field, he didn't need to start misrepresenting his testing methods.Erm, ok, if you say so. I was merely pointing out the lack of independent, impartial testing of the dogs. Unconscious bias is a thing you know.
It would seem the world of scent dog training is bursting at the seems with money grabbing self promoters who have base long careers on their ability to fudge results and misrepresent them, including in courts and peer reviewed journals. ?!
Perhaps they were wrong too
What does 90% accurate mean....it means nothing without details of the, tests
You can't apply Science to Dogs. Dogs don't understand this.
That sounds a bit flippant. If you are serious it's a bit worrying, science can study any animal as far as I'm aware!
Rex Stockham was a scientist who studied scent dogs. You might think it was worthless but the FBI didn't.
Erm, ok, if you say so. I was merely pointing out the lack of independent, impartial testing of the dogs. Unconscious bias is a thing you know.
Was it £450 per day amaral was charging....he's obviously going to praise the abilities of his dogs
That sounds a bit flippant. If you are serious it's a bit worrying, science can study any animal as far as I'm aware!
Rex Stockham was a scientist who studied scent dogs. You might think it was worthless but the FBI didn't.
Do you mean Grime?
Yes I know what bias is. Just every human being on the planet is biased in some way. Stockham wrote peer reviewed studies, that's how science guards against bias. He was a scientist who you believe suddenly started being biased enough to render his judgement worthless when he started working with Grime. Doesn't make sense to me, or the FBI or the court of Michigan.You are totally exaggerating and misrepresenting what I have written. I am at a loss as to why you are so incredibly defensive of Stockham however. From the court testimony
My Dog could find a Cadaver if there is one.
Funny how police forces around the world would spend so much and so many years on studying training methods if that's all it takes.
You are totally exaggerating and misrepresenting what I have written. I am at a loss as to why you are so incredibly defensive of Stockham however. From the court testimony
“Stockham testified that Grime was a recognized expert in the field of animal behavior in the United Kingdom who worked with and trained Morse and Keela. Stockham tested Grime and Morse in 2011. On one occasion, Morse gave a “nonproductive response” when he “barked in a blank room.” No samples were in the room, but Stockham could not exclude the possibility that trace matter was there.
According to Stockham, no instruments can detect and confirm the presence of human remains. It is not clear whether a dog reacts to single compound or a combination of compounds in a decomposing body. Therefore, nonproductive responses cannot be verified as correct or incorrect. Instead, Stockham assumes that the result is correct if the dog has routinely passed testing before and after the incident. Grime admitted that there was no scientific testing method that could corroborate Morse's responses in this case.”
Dogs out walking often do. Or didn't you know that?
I provided a link to the court of Michigan case, which included this;I hadn't seen this information before. Many *&(+(+
"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."
Rex Stockham's scientific papers are available that detail his methods. His qualifications are known to the court, so obviously his statement did mean something to the court. The fact he oversaw the FBI's canine programme and instigated the training methods for the FBI as a whole in the US, obviously carries a bit of weight.
" A New Breed
Scent Dog Program Gets Results
Human scent evidence has been used in federal court before. However, the federal court judge’s ruling sets an important precedent—and by extension acknowledges the Bureau’s efforts to promote the highest standards when scent dogs are used in investigations.
The use of dogs by law enforcement is nothing new. Bloodhounds have traditionally been called upon to pick up the trail of fugitives and missing persons. FBI police and our special agent bomb technicians use dogs trained to sniff for explosives, and we have victim recovery dogs trained specifically to seek out the smell of blood and decomposing bodies.
But our Human Scent Evidence Team (HSET), established in 2002 and now a full-time program in the ERTU, is something of a new breed. After they are trained and certified—a process that can take two to three years—HSET dogs can help point investigators in the right direction when time and resources may be in limited supply—and their efforts may later be scrutinized in the courtroom.
Here’s how the program works:
At the crime scene, in addition to collecting fingerprints, DNA, and other evidence, ERT technicians collect scents by using a trace evidence vacuum similar to those used for collection of hair and fibers. Human scent traces, which can be obtained from almost any object, are vacuumed onto a sterile surgical dressing and placed in an airtight glass jar (they can be stored that way for an extended period of time).
Dogs are trained to smell the collected scent by sniffing the scent pad and indicating either a scent match or a non-match. If there is a matching trail of human odor, the dog will follow an invisible “odor highway” in the same way humans might recognize streets, roadways, and intersections.
In most cases handlers know nothing about the cases they are called in to work. They are simply given a scent pad and asked to follow a trail if one is found.
Stockham is working with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to establish a uniform set of training and certification standards that would apply to all scent dogs used in investigations.
“Our goal is to promote a science-driven program with the highest standards of training, certification, and professionalism,” Stockham explained. “It’s part of the FBI Laboratory’s commitment to provide exceptional forensic science services to our federal, state, local, and international law enforcement partners.”
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/december/scent_122310/scent_122310 (https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/december/scent_122310/scent_122310)
...
Yes I knew dogs can smell bodies, thanks. If it was as simple as the police using any old untrained dog they wouldn't bother with the great expense of training them and testing them in programmes that last for years would they?
Do they? It all sounds a bit hit and miss to me. No one knows what The Standards actually are. Grime said that he trained his dogs to his own standards, but he never said what precisely.
I mean, let's all do our own thing.
Personally, I don't care. But if I ever saw a case of grandstanding then that was it.
Snip
Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs’ responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2014/111314/58542.pdf
There were no standards but someone who worked for years establishing standards in America and was on government boards in the US said Grime and his methods were reliable.
Yes I posted that earlier. The court were satisfied his training and methods were sufficient none the less. In the Bianca Jones case there was strong circumstancial evidence that her father hit her until she died. Grime and his dogs identified her belongings ( car seat, blanket that was covering her face) in a building full of other items. His dog also alerted to the correct car. Coincidence?. Another toss of the coin, random success for Grime?
IMO the dogs could be used in the McCann case on the same terms, supporting other evidence.
Exactly. No Terms at all.
Please explain how that equates to 'no terms at all'? There was stronger circumstantial evidence in the Bianca Jones case yes, but there isn't a complete lack of it in the McCann case. Stronger evidence could have been collected, we have no running commentary from the Pj or SY.
No I don't feel I am exaggerating. The court was satisfied that Grime and his dogs were of a sufficient standard to be deemed evidence and they were satisfied with Stockhams status as an expert in assessing Grime and his dogs. Why would I have to have a personal connection to Stockham to point out that a forensic scientist with a long and influential career was not likely to become so biased to make his testimony of no value?
It's quite funny actually, I sure as 'ell have never been to America or met anyone from the FBI @)(++(*
Yes, I’m well aware of all that thanks and was not referring to him but to those who are involved in tests which involve their own dogs, clearly there is a conflict of interests there, if not please explain why not.The dogs are trained daily but tested independently less often.
No I don't feel I am exaggerating. The court was satisfied that Grime and his dogs were of a sufficient standard to be deemed evidence and they were satisfied with Stockhams status as an expert in assessing Grime and his dogs. Why would I have to have a personal connection to Stockham to point out that a forensic scientist with a long and influential career was not likely to become so biased to make his testimony of no value?It was the extreme defensiveness of your replies to my perfectly (IMO) reasonable posts I was referring to. I did not say any of the things you earlier attributed to me either.
It's quite funny actually, I sure as 'ell have never been to America or met anyone from the FBI @)(++(*
Funny how police forces around the world would spend so much and so many years on studying training methods if that's all it takes.Making a dog only to find human cadavers is the real trick. A lot of dogs will find a dead bird and rub the crap along their backs by rolling in it.
We don't know how the dogs were tested... We don't know how reliable those tests were... We don't know if Stockham introduced double blind testing... We don't know what he meant by 90 % accurate.... Experts witnesses make claims that impress judges who allow the evidence... It does not mean the evidence is reliable... Judges are not normally scientifically trained
Making a dog only to find human cadavers is the real trick. A lot of dogs will find a dead bird and rub the crap along their backs by rolling in it.If that is the dog's normal instinct, the cadaver dogs would need to be trained to alert in a manner that doesn't destroy any of the evidence. The way Eddie had a tendency to pick up items is a potential issue.
In the case of Florida v Harris in 2013 the US Supreme Court ruled that;
the dog's certification and continued training are adequate indication of his reliability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris
So any police dog handler's evidence is likely to be admissible in the US courts, whatever armchair 'experts' think.
In the case of Florida v Harris in 2013 the US Supreme Court ruled that;
the dog's certification and continued training are adequate indication of his reliability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris
So any police dog handler's evidence is likely to be admissible in the US courts, whatever armchair 'experts' think.
The dogs are trained daily but tested independently less often.
Tested how?Written and oral tests .....
If that is the dog's normal instinct, the cadaver dogs would need to be trained to alert in a manner that doesn't destroy any of the evidence. The way Eddie had a tendency to pick up items is a potential issue.
Written and oral tests .....I would expect the dogs to be very good in tests at finding contaminated samples.... Have they ever been tested where there are no samples present but the handler is unaware .
I'd say the testing has to be the same as training, except the hidden sample would be hidden by the independent assessor, not the dog handler as on training days.
That may spark something of an evidencial issues,however, items would have been tested for DNA samples before...
Would there really be any point in sending in un reliable dogs? did Harrleson accuse anyone of anything? what is all this fuss about? there is always a chance ,if we are to believe in an abduction, that the child was killed and hidded before being removed by said abductor. what reasons do the McCanns have for not questioning this scenario?
I would expect the dogs to be very good in tests at finding contaminated samples.... Have they ever been tested where there are no samples present but the handler is unaware .
Just because the dogs can detect cadaverine does not mean every alert is to cadaverine
They could do all manner of tests - no doubt just like what you describe.
Cadaver samples, no cadaver samples, other chemicals and odours, meat food items.
That is a very difficult scenario. So many errors to correct it isn't funny.
Timing problems???
finding something that was hidden????
Why would an abductor abduct a dead child?
But as far as, we know they haventDo you mean generally? Has no one ever described how cadaver dogs are independently tested?
Do you mean generally? Has no one ever described how cadaver dogs are independently tested?
Rob there are serious timing issues throughout this whole fiasco- why are you surprised the time doesn't fit.lol
MBM may not have been dead when hidden and was abducted believing she was alive.
I don't believe any of it... I am just wondering why it is not a scenario the parents cannot accept as a reasonable account. They dimiss the dogs right off, while sniggering. If It was my daughter I would look at all scenarios/thesis, no matter how bad it looked.
Could we have a cite for the McCanns sniggering at the dog alerts, thanks.
Rob there are serious timing issues throughout this whole fiasco- why are you surprised the time doesn't fit.lol
MBM may not have been dead when hidden and was abducted believing she was alive.
I don't believe any of it... I am just wondering why it is not a scenario the parents cannot accept as a reasonable account. They dimiss the dogs right off, while sniggering. If It was my daughter I would look at all scenarios/thesis, no matter how bad it looked.
Could we have a cite for the McCanns sniggering at the dog alerts, thanks.
That's the whole point... We don't know what the tests involveIt would be a mistake to have something constant, like a pad, otherwise you might be training the dog to smell for padding.
I suspect just a hidden contaminated pad
Could we have a cite for the McCanns sniggering at the dog alerts, thanks."ask the dogs"
“The Court did not, however, rule out the questioning of reliability where specific grounds are present.[29] Kagan also stated that "a defendant must have an opportunity to challenge such evidence of a dog’s reliability, whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witnesses. The defendant may contest training or testing standards as flawed, or too lax, or raise an issue regarding the particular alert."[31]
Obviously. Each dog is different. Some, like Grime's, are very impressive, others less so. I expect the same applies when any expert witnesses are called. Each one has to be individually assessed.Yes, by an independent assessor, the problem is there doesn’t appear to be such a thing.
Yes, by an independent assessor, the problem is there doesn’t appear to be such a thing.
No, by the judge in each case.Judges aren’t able to test the reliability and ability of dogs, they can only assess evidence supplied to them by individuals who claim to have put them through rigorous, unbiased testing, individuals who mostly seem to be closely involved in the cadaver dog industry themselves.
No, by the judge in each case.
Judges aren’t able to test the reliability and ability of dogs, they can only assess evidence supplied to them by individuals who claim to have put them through rigorous, unbiased testing, individuals who mostly seem to be closely involved in the cadaver dog industry themselves.
You mean by those who know how to test in the industry- bit like a university testing and marking a thesis? wow new stuff coming out here....lol
You mean by those who know how to test in the industry- bit like a university testing and marking a thesis? wow new stuff coming out here....lol???
I dont think they do know how to test ...what scientific qualifications do these dog handlers haveSelf taught is OK too.
Self taught is OK too.
it is if it reaches scientific standards....anectdotal evidence certainly doesnt and shows how little they understand science
Judges aren’t able to test the reliability and ability of dogs, they can only assess evidence supplied to them by individuals who claim to have put them through rigorous, unbiased testing, individuals who mostly seem to be closely involved in the cadaver dog industry themselves.
Dogs don't do science? ok. how about Quantum Physics? Trig?
Most industries are self assessing/ have regulatory bodies to impose governance. Just look at the telecoms industry or the newspaper industry, enegry industry. who do you think OFCOM and OFGEM are made up from exactly?
I would expect the dogs to be very good in tests at finding contaminated samples.... Have they ever been tested where there are no samples present but the handler is unaware .
Just because the dogs can detect cadaverine does not mean every alert is to cadaverine
Apparently it is called "negative searching".
In my opinion it illustrates what should be a very important part of the training for cadaver dogs who are on occasion asked to respond to residual scent.
Knowing how accurately a dog reacts to substances in training surely must involve the element of knowing when there is nothing there for the dog to react to and his resulting behaviour.
Snip
Learning From SAR Trainers
One concept that I found very interesting was an article by Jonni Joyce (once a law enforcement handler but now specializing in training SAR teams) on “Negative Searching.” Jonni explains that negative searching means devoting training time to searching areas where none of the target scent (scent the dog is trained to indicate on) exists.
Negative searching helps the dog to understand that not every search will result in a find, and extends the dog’s “nose time,” or the amount of time the dog will search effectively without burning out or giving false alerts out of frustration when they don’t encounter the target scent when they think they should.
____________________________________________________________________________
Most detector dog handlers, by the time they are doing intermediate or advanced searches, build some negative
searching time in by searching an area without a hide (substance they are training for) before they go to the area of the hide.
However, many always end the session with a reward at the hide and put the dog up.
The point of Jonni’s article was that handlers should search negative areas before and after they find a hide and, over time, extend the amount of negative searching to extend the amount of time the dog will work effectively without a find.
Handlers should also spend time taking the dog out to search areas with no hides or target scent whatsoever and then reward the dog with play for searching and put the dog back so that the dog doesn’t expect a find every time it is taken out of the vehicle.
https://www.emainehosting.com/mesard/Articles/Negative%20Searching.pdf
You seem to be deliberately misunderstand the judge's role and the fact that most 'experts' are peer reviewed.
Apparently it is called "negative searching".
In my opinion it illustrates what should be a very important part of the training for cadaver dogs who are on occasion asked to respond to residual scent.
Knowing how accurately a dog reacts to substances in training surely must involve the element of knowing when there is nothing there for the dog to react to and his resulting behaviour.
Snip
Learning From SAR Trainers
One concept that I found very interesting was an article by Jonni Joyce (once a law enforcement handler but now specializing in training SAR teams) on “Negative Searching.” Jonni explains that negative searching means devoting training time to searching areas where none of the target scent (scent the dog is trained to indicate on) exists.
Negative searching helps the dog to understand that not every search will result in a find, and extends the dog’s “nose time,” or the amount of time the dog will search effectively without burning out or giving false alerts out of frustration when they don’t encounter the target scent when they think they should.
____________________________________________________________________________
Most detector dog handlers, by the time they are doing intermediate or advanced searches, build some negative
searching time in by searching an area without a hide (substance they are training for) before they go to the area of the hide.
However, many always end the session with a reward at the hide and put the dog up.
The point of Jonni’s article was that handlers should search negative areas before and after they find a hide and, over time, extend the amount of negative searching to extend the amount of time the dog will work effectively without a find.
Handlers should also spend time taking the dog out to search areas with no hides or target scent whatsoever and then reward the dog with play for searching and put the dog back so that the dog doesn’t expect a find every time it is taken out of the vehicle.
https://www.emainehosting.com/mesard/Articles/Negative%20Searching.pdf
You seem to be deliberately misunderstand the judge's role and the fact that most 'experts' are peer reviewed.
this is precisely what I think may have happened in Luz....given the report by the pj that the dog originally did not alert but later alerted to places it had previoulsy ignored
The fact that Eddie didn't alert in Murat's house or any of the other apartments except 5A suggests that he understood very well that not every search required an alert.
The fact that Eddie didn't alert in Murat's house or any of the other apartments except 5A suggests that he understood very well that not every search required an alert.
In U.S., Expert Witnesses Are PartisanNice one. 8((()*/
Snip
In most of the rest of the world, expert witnesses are selected by judges and are meant to be neutral and independent. Many foreign lawyers have long questioned the American practice of allowing the parties to present testimony from experts they have chosen and paid.
The European judge who visits the United States experiences “something bordering on disbelief when he discovers that we extend the sphere of partisan control to the selection and preparation of experts,” John H. Langbein, a law professor at Yale, wrote in a classic article in The University of Chicago Law Review more than 20 years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html
The fact that Eddie didn't alert in Murat's house or any of the other apartments except 5A suggests that he understood very well that not every search required an alert.I think it's a fact that Eddie did not alert in 5a... Same as in the other apartments.. But was given extra time only in 5a
peer reviewed by whom...one of their colleagues
Peers are those who have the knowledge to judge. They may or may not be colleagues.Best if its not a colleague when in a court of law IMO.
It's not just about the reliability of the dog. In the USA the judges consider 4 specific criteria when determining if canine evidence can be allowed in court. In the D'Andre Lane case, the Appeal Court explained why Grime's evidence was admissible and it is clear that, in any hypothetical case against the McCanns, the US would not allow the dogs' evidence in court.
http://www.rumschlaglaw.com/rumschlag/2014/11/14/michigan-court-of-appeals-holds-cadaver-dog-evidence-admissible
*snipped*
We reject Lane’s argument that, because chemical evidence cannot corroborate whether there was decomposition at the locations Morse identified in this case, the evidence must be excluded as unreliable. Clearly, the four-part test adopted by this Court to ensure the reliability of tracking dog evidence does not exactly correlate to the use of cadaver dogs. However, cadaver dog evidence is not significantly different from other forms of tracking dog evidence. Tracking dogs and cadaver dogs both use a precise sense of smell to identify scents that are outside the range of human ability to detect. Scientific devices can no more follow the scent left on a piece of discarded clothing from the scene of a robbery to a person’s home than they can identify the smell of decomposing human remains. Just as it is not a reason to exclude all tracking dog evidence, the lack of scientific verification of the presence of a specific scent is not a reason to exclude cadaver dog evidence in a blanket fashion. We conclude that the trial court must instead consider the reliability of the cadaver dog evidence in each case.
We also conclude that the trial court did not err by applying the tracking dog test to cadaver dog evidence. Essentially, the trial court in this case applied the foundational requirements of Norwood to another form of dog-based evidence. Here, the trial court determined that Grime and Stockham were “more than qualified,” that they had employed sufficient training methods, and that circumstantial evidence supported Morse’s identification of the car, car seat, and blanket because Morse identified those items when neither Morse nor Grime had any prior knowledge that those items were involved in this case. While the trial court did not specifically determine that the evidence was not stale, Grime’s dogs tested the evidence on December 4, 2011, a mere two days after Bianca’s disappearance on December 2, 2011, and there was no evidence that the car, car seat, or blanket were contaminated with human remains.
In sum, we conclude that cadaver dog evidence is sufficiently reliable if the proponent of the evidence establishes the foundation that (1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was trained and accurate in identifying human remains; (3) circumstantial evidence corroborates the dog’s identification; and, (4) the evidence was not so stale or contaminated as to be beyond the dog’s competency to identify it. We conclude that, here, the trial court correctly ruled that the prosecutor provided a sufficient foundation to admit the cadaver dog evidence in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under MRE 702 . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The emboldened sentence explains why, imo, the dogs' evidence was inadmissible in the Zapata case.
All showing how Martin Grime was considered an expert in his field too. Thanks Misty.
All showing how Martin Grime was considered an expert in his field too. Thanks Misty.No one disputes that Martin Grime is considered an expert in his field. Doris Stokes was considered an expert in her field too.
It's not just about the reliability of the dog. In the USA the judges consider 4 specific criteria when determining if canine evidence can be allowed in court. In the D'Andre Lane case, the Appeal Court explained why Grime's evidence was admissible and it is clear that, in any hypothetical case against the McCanns, the US would not allow the dogs' evidence in court.
http://www.rumschlaglaw.com/rumschlag/2014/11/14/michigan-court-of-appeals-holds-cadaver-dog-evidence-admissible
*snipped*
We reject Lane’s argument that, because chemical evidence cannot corroborate whether there was decomposition at the locations Morse identified in this case, the evidence must be excluded as unreliable. Clearly, the four-part test adopted by this Court to ensure the reliability of tracking dog evidence does not exactly correlate to the use of cadaver dogs. However, cadaver dog evidence is not significantly different from other forms of tracking dog evidence. Tracking dogs and cadaver dogs both use a precise sense of smell to identify scents that are outside the range of human ability to detect. Scientific devices can no more follow the scent left on a piece of discarded clothing from the scene of a robbery to a person’s home than they can identify the smell of decomposing human remains. Just as it is not a reason to exclude all tracking dog evidence, the lack of scientific verification of the presence of a specific scent is not a reason to exclude cadaver dog evidence in a blanket fashion. We conclude that the trial court must instead consider the reliability of the cadaver dog evidence in each case.
We also conclude that the trial court did not err by applying the tracking dog test to cadaver dog evidence. Essentially, the trial court in this case applied the foundational requirements of Norwood to another form of dog-based evidence. Here, the trial court determined that Grime and Stockham were “more than qualified,” that they had employed sufficient training methods, and that circumstantial evidence supported Morse’s identification of the car, car seat, and blanket because Morse identified those items when neither Morse nor Grime had any prior knowledge that those items were involved in this case. While the trial court did not specifically determine that the evidence was not stale, Grime’s dogs tested the evidence on December 4, 2011, a mere two days after Bianca’s disappearance on December 2, 2011, and there was no evidence that the car, car seat, or blanket were contaminated with human remains.
In sum, we conclude that cadaver dog evidence is sufficiently reliable if the proponent of the evidence establishes the foundation that (1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was trained and accurate in identifying human remains; (3) circumstantial evidence corroborates the dog’s identification; and, (4) the evidence was not so stale or contaminated as to be beyond the dog’s competency to identify it. We conclude that, here, the trial court correctly ruled that the prosecutor provided a sufficient foundation to admit the cadaver dog evidence in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under MRE 702 . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The emboldened sentence explains why, imo, the dogs' evidence was inadmissible in the Zapata case.
No one disputes that Martin Grime is considered an expert in his field. Doris Stokes was considered an expert in her field too.
Yes and he stated clearly on several occasions the alerts have no evidential reliability
No one disputes that Martin Grime is considered an expert in his field. Doris Stokes was considered an expert in her field too.Doris Stokes = Martin Grime. Who knew?
....but strongly suggestive of cadaver odour all the same?
What a strange comparison.What’s strange about it? There are experts in all fields. Psychics, like dogs, have also been used by various police forces to try and gain a greater understanding of what happened in a case.
To recap. The McCann's expensive lawyers pounced on one case of a cadaver dog handler's evidence being rejected by a US court in the hope that it would help them to discredit Martin Grimes work. Handlers and dogs vary in their expertise and reliability and Grime was an acceptable witness in the UK courts. Sweeping statements such as Gerry McCann's are unwise and incorrect.
What’s strange about it? There are experts in all fields. Psychics, like dogs, have also been used by various police forces to try and gain a greater understanding of what happened in a case.
I can quote cases where cadaver dogs were proved correct. Can you quote cases where psychics have been proved correct?
so what is the regulatory body covering cadaver dogs...there isnt one ..its all anectdotal....and therefore not scientific
No Evidence was collected in The McCann Case. And I am not awfully happy about the evidence in The Bianca Jones case.
To recap. The McCann's expensive lawyers pounced on one case of a cadaver dog handler's evidence being rejected by a US court in the hope that it would help them to discredit Martin Grimes work. Handlers and dogs vary in their expertise and reliability and Grime was an acceptable witness in the UK courts. Sweeping statements such as Gerry McCann's are unwise and incorrect.
Seriously? No evidence was collected? What were the PJ forensics files about then? Can I have a cite for that please?
In the Bianca Jones case her father admitted to beating the child until she started to lose consciousness with a 2 feet long stick. She then she disappeared hours later after he put her in his car, head covered with a blanket and other kids said she was silent and didn't move. He cannot account for the time when she went missing, that is very strong evidence mirrored exactly by what the dogs alerted to.
Grime had no knowledge of what items belonged to Bianca but they alerted to the car seat and blanket and car. No-one seems to want to address that 'coincidence'. Lane was an admitted and witnessed abuser of his children. 100% no doubt, whatsoever about that!
Some seem desperate to dismiss all this evidence of child abuse and probable homicide just because the dogs were involved in a small part of it.
What is the evidence secreted within the PJ forensic files which link Kate and Gerry to the allegations made about them by Amaral in his book?
For certain sure the PJ never found it ... what do you think they missed?
Their entire demeanor following the child's disappearance reeked of guilt but then one could put that down to the shame over the neglect allegations and the consequences which could very well have flowed from them.
To be honest, I found Gerry McCanns intervention into the CSI dog debate as suspicious. He should have tried to explain the alerts rather than attempt to discredit all CSI and search dogs in one go. A lapse in good judgement imo.
As they say in meteorological circles, one cloud doesn't maketh a storm.
What is the evidence secreted within the PJ forensic files which link Kate and Gerry to the allegations made about them by Amaral in his book?
For certain sure the PJ never found it ... what do you think they missed?
To be honest, I found Gerry McCanns intervention into the CSI dog debate as suspicious. He should have tried to explain the alerts rather than attempt to discredit all CSI and search dogs in one go. A lapse in good judgement imo.
As they say in meteorological circles, one cloud doesn't maketh a storm.
Eleanor said there was NO evidence That's not correct is it? The evidence collected was not sufficient.
The archiving report said no evidence but the SC who didn't look at all the evidence changed it... There is no evidence against the mccanns
The archiving report said no evidence but the SC who didn't look at all the evidence changed it... There is no evidence against the mccanns
I can quote cases where cadaver dogs were proved correct. Can you quote cases where psychics have been proved correct?Not off the top of my head, and why should it matter anyway? My point was that in any given field there are those that are considered experts. No doubt it is to them that the police turn to, whether cadaver dog handlers or psychics.
To be honest, I found Gerry McCanns intervention into the CSI dog debate as suspicious. He should have tried to explain the alerts rather than attempt to discredit all CSI and search dogs in one go. A lapse in good judgement imo.How would you have explained the dog alerts if you’d been in his shoes, out of interest? Short of saying “oh that will be the dogs alerting to our dead daughter “ any other reason he might have proffered would have been treated with suspicion and scorn I have absolutely no doubt.
As they say in meteorological circles, one cloud doesn't maketh a storm.
How would you have explained the dog alerts if you’d been in his shoes, out of interest? Short of saying “oh that will be the dogs alerting to our dead daughter “ any other reason he might have proffered would have been treated with suspicion and scorn I have absolutely no doubt.
Not the same as 'no evidence' is it?I read it, my response would be “so what?”
I see people are ignoring the stuff I posted about Forensics regulatory bodies in the US that Rex Stockham was part of.
I think most of us know what Eddie would alert to besides cadaver odour.Do remind us what Eddie would alert to apart from cadaver odour and then advise which one Gerry should have cited to win your approval.
He did have an impressive record of successes though...
EVRD OPERATIONAL CASEWORK EXAMPLES
1. Northern Ireland, UK A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The search of suspects’ 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot-well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim’s DNA. The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of the woman in a river-bank deposition site. Further searches identified a location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offender’s empty next-door dwelling house. When interviewed, the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
2. Wiltshire, England, U.K. A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her ex-boyfriend had taken her to his house. A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert-indicated, and forensically confirmed as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirit level, and a shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its original state.
3. Devon, England, U.K. A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at the alert location revealed a small button off from the girl’s clothing in long grass. The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.
4. Cornwall, England, U.K. A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspect’s house by the EVRD was conducted, and he indicated on the living room carpet. No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently, a diary written by the suspect was alert-indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts stating that the offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead. The diary had in fact been written by the suspect who had handled the body. This was confirmed by the offender in interview.
I read it, my response would be “so what?”
Well of course it would.Who has done that?
Davel insisted there was no regulating Board. I provided proof that there is in the USA and Stockham, who said Grime's dogs were more than 90% accurate, was part of it.
He also said none of it was scientific, it clearly is.
I'm not sure how anyone can read that and dismiss Stockhams testimony and testing as worthless.
Who has done that?
I think most of us know what Eddie would alert to besides cadaver odour.
He did have an impressive record of successes though...
EVRD OPERATIONAL CASEWORK EXAMPLES
1. Northern Ireland, UK A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The search of suspects’ 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot-well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim’s DNA. The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of the woman in a river-bank deposition site. Further searches identified a location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offender’s empty next-door dwelling house. When interviewed, the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
2. Wiltshire, England, U.K. A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her ex-boyfriend had taken her to his house. A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert-indicated, and forensically confirmed as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirit level, and a shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its original state.
3. Devon, England, U.K. A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at the alert location revealed a small button off from the girl’s clothing in long grass. The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.
4. Cornwall, England, U.K. A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspect’s house by the EVRD was conducted, and he indicated on the living room carpet. No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently, a diary written by the suspect was alert-indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts stating that the offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead. The diary had in fact been written by the suspect who had handled the body. This was confirmed by the offender in interview.
Davel said the accuracy rates Stockham gave in the court of Michigan were 'meaningless' IIRC.
What I said was they are meaningless without details of what tests were carried out... And that is a fact..
90 accurate in what... Perhaps you could tell me
https://www.nij.gov/topics/forensics/lab-operations/Pages/scientific-working-groups.aspx
Are there any details of the tests, Stockam carried out
Not off the top of my head, and why should it matter anyway? My point was that in any given field there are those that are considered experts. No doubt it is to them that the police turn to, whether cadaver dog handlers or psychics.
The fact remains that regardless of how anyone views the alerts, they are pretty damning in my opinion. Had there been alerts to other people's belongings or accommodation then there would have been a reasonable argument for thinking that they were sporadic. That was not the case however, Eddie alerted only in accommodation occupied by Madeleine and her parents and only to clothing owned by the McCanns. That is a fact which is extremely hard to explain imo.
IMO the chances of that occurring accidentally must be very small.
I posted what Rex Stockham said about double blind testing in court. You seemed not to see it then wrote 'we don't know if he used blind testing'....well we do.
''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
-5-
dogs. Stockham’s protocol called for regular single- and double-blind testing of dogs throughout
their working lives. ''
Note that is not a direct quote so is a summary of what Stockham said, the court may well have heard much more detail. It was obviously not meaningless to the Court of Michigan or the FBI or the OSAC Scientific Area Committee.
Rex Stockham's peer reviewed scientific papers on testing are available - but not in full as far as I can see unless you are an academic. You can't really say his testing is meaningless if his qualifications are accepted by the FBI, OSAC board - the members of which are fellow scientists - no doubt they have access to his papers on testing, they are fellow scientists.
"OSAC works to strengthen the nation's use of forensic science by facilitating the development of technically sound forensic science standards and by promoting the adoption of those standards by the forensic science community.''
But Stockham decided to give 'meaningless' figures in his testimony? That makes no sense.
The difference being that the police employ over 2,500 dogs in the UK and no psychics..
Stockham knew, exactly what the figure meant.... The judge didnt
Eleanor said there was NO evidence That's not correct is it? The evidence collected was not sufficient.To what evidence do you refer, please?
IMO That claim has been debunked several times..... The dogs IMO initially did not alert to sites in 5a..... But they were given more time to go over the same ground again.... This did not happen in other apartments
The PJ questioned why the dog alerted to sites he had previously ignored... Nothing damning at all
Grime explained that extremely well at the time. If the dog shows no I detest whatsoever in property then there is no point t in going any further. Eddie showed an I detest in 5a the moment he crossed the threshold according to Grime so he had to go further.
Eleanor said there was NO evidence That's not correct is it? The evidence collected was not sufficient.
5a, was the only apartment that had been covered in luminol
Eddie was excited because he was at a crime scene and recognised the odours...
Eleanor is wrong. Police don't make people official suspects in the absence of credible evidence.You are, wring.. The archiving report said none of the evidence used to make the McCann's arguidis was later confirmed
Which would have dispersed long before the English dogs were introduced whereas cadaver odour does not.
In any event the same response didn't occur at the Murat property and he too was an official suspect with the property bei g thoroughly checked forensically.
You can't have it both ways, either CSI presence had an impact or it didn't.
And the similarity is that both are, supported by anectdotal evidence
Eleanor is wrong. Police don't make people official suspects in the absence of credible evidence.If I remember correctly the evidence to which you refer is Piava's allegation that Kate had a dream.
Eleanor is wrong. Police don't make people official suspects in the absence of credible evidence.
You are, wring.. The archiving report said none of the evidence used to make the McCann's arguidis was later confirmed
It's still evidence which may or may not be later used in a trial. Eleanor said there was no evidence which is incorrect. If a body is found in or around Luz at some later date then depending on what the forensic pathologist finds, that evidence could become important. Simply saying that there is no evidence signifies a failure to understand the case evidence correctly imo.
What was this Evidence and what did it point to?
I believe there is a thread on this so I will not divert this topic.
It's still evidence which may or may not be later used in a trial. Eleanor said there was no evidence which is incorrect. If a body is found in or around Luz at some later date then depending on what the forensic pathologist or anthropologist finds, that evidence could become important. Simply saying that there is no evidence signifies a failure to understand the case evidence correctly imo.
Their entire demeanor following the child's disappearance reeked of guilt but then one could put that down to the shame over the neglect allegations and the consequences which could very well have flowed from them. Both would have been struck off and lost their medical careers imo.What even if the practice of leaving kids in the apartments is common practice?
What even if the practice of leaving kids in the apartments is common practice?
That is the problem, it hasn’t been a common practice for many years.
In Your Opinion.
That is the problem, it hasn’t been a common practice for many years.If the Code of professional conduct for a UK doctor was anything like the NZ code for veterinarians http://www.vetcouncil.org.nz/CPC/ProfIntegrity/CPC_ProfIntegrity.php there had to be a charge or conviction for a criminal act first.
Perhaps they were wrong too
What does 90% accurate mean....it means nothing without details of the, tests
You are totally exaggerating and misrepresenting what I have written. I am at a loss as to why you are so incredibly defensive of Stockham however. From the court testimony
“Stockham testified that Grime was a recognized expert in the field of animal behavior in the United Kingdom who worked with and trained Morse and Keela. Stockham tested Grime and Morse in 2011. On one occasion, Morse gave a “nonproductive response” when he “barked in a blank room.” No samples were in the room, but Stockham could not exclude the possibility that trace matter was there.
According to Stockham, no instruments can detect and confirm the presence of human remains. It is not clear whether a dog reacts to single compound or a combination of compounds in a decomposing body. Therefore, nonproductive responses cannot be verified as correct or incorrect. Instead, Stockham assumes that the result is correct if the dog has routinely passed testing before and after the incident. Grime admitted that there was no scientific testing method that could corroborate Morse's responses in this case.”
Maybe he wanted the treat he gets for alerting ?We don't actually see Eddie being rewarded for making an alert in the McCann case.
We don't actually see Eddie being rewarded for making an alert in the McCann case.
I thought it was because the dogs in the Zapara case didn't have Morse's track record?
Yes, you are correct. so 2 of the 4 criteria had not been met. The reliability issue related to 3 dogs but only 2 were shown in the video.
We can only wonder how Eddie's track record would have been corroborated in court, should it have been necessary.
Hopefully not OT but why are no supporters questioning any part of the FSS results. Would that be because the FSS was supportive of the McCanns position?The FSS were working with tangible evidence using a recognised scientific procedure. If the tests were inconclusive then why would they have risked their reputation one way or the other?
If the dogs alerted to Murat's and not the McCanns' property would the supporters agree with the dogs then?
By reference to his performance during his licencing assessments for a start imo.
In the UK, police dogs are used that are trained and licensed to a national standard.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
The FSS were working with tangible evidence using a recognised scientific procedure. If the tests were inconclusive then why would they have risked their reputation one way or the other?
Had the dogs alerted to any Murat property, he would either have been arrested or found himself in the same position as the McCanns did/do, albeit with rather more circumstantial evidence against him. We can only speculate what the McCanns/PJ would have done as a result and how he would have been treated by the MSM & Social Media.
And yet...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/feb/22/topstories3.ukcrime
I don't know what evidence there is about psychics, it's not something I would be interested in. As far as I know it's not reliable enough to get the police interested.Numerous police forces have used psychics in the past, and the recent past too, including the Met .
The difference being that the police employ over 2,500 dogs in the UK and no psychics..
It has been suggested the police use psychics as well as dogs to help them in their work;Yawn.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg500644#msg500644
but when asked they denied it;
Not all forces responded; however, there are enough replies to conclude that the police do not systematically and actively make use of psychics.
http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/paranormal/psychics/do-the-police-use-psychics.php
Yawn.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/08/police-use-psychics-texas-dead-bodies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8369369.stm
Numerous police forces have used psychics in the past, and the recent past too, including the Met .And that’s a fact, folks, like it or not. 8((()*/
Yawn.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/08/police-use-psychics-texas-dead-bodies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8369369.stm
https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-shocking-disappearances-solved-by-psychic-detectives.php
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R000100280009-3.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/us/09psychic.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/detectives-investigating-missing-persons-cases-should-consider-the-advice-of-psychics-10476680.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/psychic-for-cops/
When a psychic contacts the police with information the police will check it out if it's feasible. They check out anything feasible offered by members of the public. That doesn't equate to 'using' psychics in the same way in which the police use dogs.OK now you’re trying to shift goalposts. I said numerous police forces have used pyschics and that is true as my numerous cites prove, get into an argument about semantics by all means, but count me out of this tiresome game.
OK now you’re trying to shift goalposts. I said numerous police forces have used pyschics and that is true as my numerous cites prove, get into an argument about semantics by all means, but count me out of this tiresome game.
All you have shown is that police take notice of all members of the public, which includes psychics and others with interesting outlooks on the world.You see, this is why it's completely pointless providing cites for statements for people like you, it's a thankless task and despite the plethora of cites provided I have still (according to you) failed to prove my assertion that "numerous police forces have used psychics in the past".
In my opinion you can't take a cadaver dogs alert as reliable unless a body is found. Cadaver dogs alert to everything that makes up the scent of a cadaver and one of them is blood.
Yet there are people serving prison sentences for murder when no body has been found. A cadaver dog alert can be used as part of a case using circumstantial evidence.And at least one miscarriage of justice has been revealed as a result.
And at least one miscarriage of justice has been revealed as a result.
Doesn't that need an 'IMO' ?
You see, this is why it's completely pointless providing cites for statements for people like you, it's a thankless task and despite the plethora of cites provided I have still (according to you) failed to prove my assertion that "numerous police forces have used psychics in the past".
I suppose you think the following statement is a true fact then?
"No police force has used psychics in an attempt to solve cases".
Let's leave it there then, if that satisfies you. No police force has ever used psychics. I was completely wrong to say they ever had, and all my cites prove how mistaken i was to even suggest it.
Zapata the liar was unreliable not the dogs is a better thread title. More liars will be exposed in this case and I will give you a clue - it's not a dog.Are you referring to that recent newspaper headline about Amaral?
I don't think so.
Why not? Davel stated it as fact, It is not proven that the dogs got excited because they smelled luminol.
If you want to use that logic I could say Eddie got excited because he smelt the smell of death. I can't prove it so it would only be an opinion. Fair is Fair.
Which is?If I tell you you won’t accept it and move the goalposts so what’s the point?
If one reads the post carefully it will be seen that a cite is not required ...
Quote
5a, was the only apartment that had been covered in luminol
IMO Eddie was excited because he was at a crime scene and recognised the odours...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg500511#msg500511
When checking that out I happened to notice that I have asked you for a cite and you have not complied ... please will you check back and get back and comply with my request.
If one reads the post carefully it will be seen that a cite is not required ...
Quote
5a, was the only apartment that had been covered in luminol
IMO Eddie was excited because he was at a crime scene and recognised the odours...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg500511#msg500511
When checking that out I happened to notice that I have asked you for a cite and you have not complied ... please will you check back and get back and comply with my request.
Perhaps someone could explain why Gertrude's post was deleted and therefore the quote from Davel was also deleted too. This is the post that Eleanor answered.
Here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg500820#msg500820
Yes, it's a bit confusing to be honest. I was sure I saw something then it seemed to have been edited.
It seems to have been edited by Slarti. Here's the original being answered by Angelo;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg500513#msg500513
If I tell you you won’t accept it and move the goalposts so what’s the point?You complained about ad hom. That is getting close IMO.
It seems to have been edited by Slarti. Here's the original being answered by Angelo;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg500513#msg500513
You complained about ad hom. That is getting close IMO.That’s fine, I never said I was an angel in that department anyway :-)
Eleanor is wrong. Police don't make people official suspects in the absence of credible evidence.
I beg to differ on that Angelo. Generally Police do not make people official suspects without credible evidence, but this was different..
See the Cipriano case, and IMO the subhuman way that Leonor was tortured to intimidate her through severe pain into submitting. Had there been ANY real evidence, then the torture would not have been necessary and not used. [Unless they enjoyed torturing, of course]
And IMO there was no evidence against The Mccanns whatsoever ... unless you know of any.
If so please cite it, cos I would like to know about it.
TY.
Surely parents, are always, suspects, when a child disappears which proves Angelo wrongThey might be suspects but are they made arguidos?
They might be suspects but are they made arguidos?
Surely parents, are always, suspects, when a child disappears which proves Angelo wrong
They might be suspects but are they made arguidos?
In a lot of murder cases the suspects are not arrested until the prosecutors have a watertight case. Many times the arrest is delayed in the hope of better evidence to come.
In my opinion if there had been any doubts or suspicions about anyone at that initial stage Portuguese law would have been breached if they had not then been constituted arguidos, particularly as the change in the law which would require firm evidence to allow it was some months away in the future.
In a lot of murder cases the suspects are not arrested until the prosecutors have a watertight case. Many times the arrest is delayed in the hope of better evidence to come.
In my opinion if there had been any doubts or suspicions about anyone at that initial stage Portuguese law would have been breached if they had not then been constituted arguidos, particularly as the change in the law which would require firm evidence to allow it was some months away in the future.
That rumour came, I believe, from the McCann's lawyer.
Carlos Pinto de Abreu spoke out.
He said: "After September 15, a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen to make him an arguido.
"Before September 15, it wasn't necessary. You could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
"Now to constitute anybody as an arguido it is necessary to have evidence in the file.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
This was the lawyer who seemed to think the police had a good case against the parents and who advised Kate to consider 'owning up'. She lost faith in him and used another lawyer afterwards.
According to the Portugal Resident the change in the Penal Code meant;
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
http://portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code
No-one knows whether a judge would have agreed to the McCanns being made arguidos or not because it wasn't tested.
Whatever Operation Grange offered as evidence they were able to have some people made arguidos. It couldn't have been definitive, because they were never charged. Unless, of course, they requested arguido status thenselves for their own protection.
When one reads through the changes made in Portuguese law ... it clarifies in my opinion the rush to have Madeleine's parents constituted arguidos before they came into force and is precisely why it wasn't "tested".
In my opinion if there was no evidence to lay charges after the event ... it stands to reason there was no prior evidence to justify the imposed arguido status.
In my opinion the opportunity for abuse of power involved in the PJ being the sole arbitrators of the imposition of arguidoship might very well have been one of the motivating factors for the necessary change in the law.
Snip
THE 15th revision to the Criminal Procedure Code of the law number 48/2007, which was published on August 29, came into effect on September 15.
The main reasons for this review relate to impositions of International Law, as some rules have been found to be unconstitutional, and the slowness in the criminal process itself.
____________________________________________________________________________
In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before.
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
To protect the suspect’s rights, before the first interview, the person must be informed of the facts that are attributed to them and of the existing evidence, as long as this does not jeopardise the investigation or the fundamental rights of third parties.
Interviews now have a maximum duration of four hours, where previously there was no time limit, and can be resumed for the same period of time but only with a minimum interval of an hour.
Statements made in violation of these limits are considered void.
____________________________________________________________________________
Witnesses can also use the assistance of a lawyer, who can inform them of their rights but cannot intervene in the questioning.On the justice secrecy issue, the changes that were made created a less rigid system. From now on, secrecy may be set aside pending prevailing interests.
http://portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code
It all rests on that difference of opinion, doesn't it? Insufficient evidence v No evidence. It would have been one judge's opinion and we don't know what he would have decided.I'd imagine it didn't take much evidence either, even the hint of a discrepancy might be enough. I'm surprised that Neil Berry didn't get made an arguido.
It all rests on that difference of opinion, doesn't it? Insufficient evidence v No evidence. It would have been one judge's opinion and we don't know what he would have decided.
When one reads through the changes made in Portuguese law ... it clarifies in my opinion the rush to have Madeleine's parents constituted arguidos before they came into force and is precisely why it wasn't "tested".Was not the date, made public by the McCanns, for their planned departure from Portugal before this change?
In my opinion if there was no evidence to lay charges after the event ... it stands to reason there was no prior evidence to justify the imposed arguido status.
In my opinion the opportunity for abuse of power involved in the PJ being the sole arbitrators of the imposition of arguidoship might very well have been one of the motivating factors for the necessary change in the law.
Snip
THE 15th revision to the Criminal Procedure Code of the law number 48/2007, which was published on August 29, came into effect on September 15.
The main reasons for this review relate to impositions of International Law, as some rules have been found to be unconstitutional, and the slowness in the criminal process itself.
____________________________________________________________________________
In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before.
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
To protect the suspect’s rights, before the first interview, the person must be informed of the facts that are attributed to them and of the existing evidence, as long as this does not jeopardise the investigation or the fundamental rights of third parties.
Interviews now have a maximum duration of four hours, where previously there was no time limit, and can be resumed for the same period of time but only with a minimum interval of an hour.
Statements made in violation of these limits are considered void.
____________________________________________________________________________
Witnesses can also use the assistance of a lawyer, who can inform them of their rights but cannot intervene in the questioning.On the justice secrecy issue, the changes that were made created a less rigid system. From now on, secrecy may be set aside pending prevailing interests.
http://portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code
Absolutely ... and the criteria for any case at all against Madeleine's parents did not exist as far as the Portuguese prosecutors are concerned.
Snip
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media – before the police – was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child’s death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-pjs-final-report-the-archiving-dispatch/#adi9
No evidence is insufficient evidence... The archiving report said no evidence... They were the ones who reviewed all the evidence... I think it's clear there is no real evidence against the mccanns... I also think it's clear that neither the UK or Portuguese police are investigating the mccanns
I wouldn't rely on the archiving report if I were you. That's what the McCanns did and they lost their case.
I wouldn't rely on the archiving report if I were you. That's what the McCanns did and they lost their case.
Was not the date, made public by the McCanns, for their planned departure from Portugal before this change?
Damn it, and The McCanns still haven't been arrested.
I wouldn't rely on the archiving report if I were you. That's what the McCanns did and they lost their case.
More significantly (for them) they haven't been cleared as they have claimed.
More significantly (for them) they haven't been cleared as they have claimed.
I wonder what Murat would say to that were you to ask him or his lawyer in the street ... but of more interest to me ... is what the European Court of Human Rights might make of it.
The Supreme Court never discussed Robert Murat, just the erroneous claims made by the McCann's lawyers.
Why not? Davel stated it as fact, It is not proven that the dogs got excited because they smelled luminol.
If you want to use that logic I could say Eddie got excited because he smelt the smell of death. I can't prove it so it would only be an opinion. Fair is Fair.
What does that post mean? ... I am afraid you have lost me.The SC appeared to have said they were not entitled to the presumption of innocence... That's, erroneous
What does that post mean? ... I am afraid you have lost me.
The Supreme Court said that the archiving report should have been carried out under 277/2 rather than 2771. They were, at the time, discussing the McCann couple, not Murat. It's possible therefore that 277/1 was correct in his case.
Could the case be archived under two different codes
Well there were two separate declarations, so it could be that they were only referring to the one concerning the McCanns;
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Sauce for the goose ... ?
Think I'll wait for what the ECHR has to say about it rather than the interpretation of internet 'experts'.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drquv7BW4AA1VOM.jpg:large)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17403590
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drquv7BW4AA1VOM.jpg:large)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17403590
Was the same contaminated square used over and over again?Maybe they just recognised the square........
In 2017 Avon and Somerset, Wiltshire and Gloucester Police had 40 police dogs in service between them. Each dog cost £44.5k to maintain. That covers handler pay, dog kennelling, dog food, vet fees, equipment and travel/accommodation. It doesn't include the costs involved in training the handlers and the dogs.
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/154017-police-dogs-and-kennelling-costs
It's clear that the police find dogs extremely useful and worth funding. If a dog which detects drugs or explosives is useful then so is a cadaver dog; they all use their sense of smell.
No one has, said the dogs are not useful.... Grime explains it very well
Are you saying that calling all cadaver dogs 'incredibly unreliable' doesn't amount to trying to cast doubt on their usefulness?
Are you saying that calling all cadaver dogs 'incredibly unreliable' doesn't amount to trying to cast doubt on their usefulness?
Within THREE HOURS OF DEATH!!
Exactly!
Do you mind if I asked you a question G-Unit? You don't have to answer obviously.
Do you believe that Eddie's alerts were reliable?
No I don't think it does... It depends on the context.... Grime himself explains that the alerts themselves are not reliable enough to be used as evidence
He didn't question their reliability Davel. He simply said that no evidential reliability could be made without corroborating evidence. As you well know.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I don't know what you mean by 'reliable', but I believe that Grime's evidence could have been used in court as part of a body of circumstantial evidence just as a dog handler's evidence was used in the Suzanne Pilley case.
I will take Grimes opinion rather than yours... No evidential reliability
I expect he said exactly the same about Morse's alerts in the Bianca Jones case, but his evidence helped to convict her killer. You don't seem to understand that Grime was referring to the alerts on their own. As part of a collection of other corroborating evidence they are very useful.
I expect he said exactly the same about Morse's alerts in the Bianca Jones case, but his evidence helped to convict her killer. You don't seem to understand that Grime was referring to the alerts on their own. As part of a collection of other corroborating evidence they are very useful.
I doubt very much he said the same... Do you ha e a cite
I have already given one Davel, to which you replied. Here it is again.
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.
It is quite clear what he is saying and it is NOT that the dog was unreliable.
What other Corroborating Evidence?That was up to the PJ to find some.
A cite fir the bianca Jones case... Read the post again... If the alerts were reliable they would need no corrobirationEven if Eddie was 100% accurate at identifying cadaver odour, he still can't say "Madeleine", so in that situation you would still not be able to say for definite the cadaver odour came from her. The PJ tried to show that it was Madeleine, by DNA testing and trying to show there were no other known deaths in 5A.
I don't know what you mean by 'reliable', but I believe that Grime's evidence could have been used in court as part of a body of circumstantial evidence just as a dog handler's evidence was used in the Suzanne Pilley case.
So are you saying that Madeleine lay dead in 5a for up to three hours?
There was a meticulously worked volume of evidence collected by the police to enable a prosecution to take place concerning Suzanne Pilley's murder.
What evidence do you think was there against Kate or Gerry McCann?
Insufficient.
I didn't just accuse you of not understanding, I explained why. Grime quite correctly said the alerts aren't evidence. He's right. No-one has been charged on the strength of a cadaver dog alert. People have been charged on the strength of a cadaver dog alert plus other corroborating evidence. That evidence doesn't have to include forensic evidence.
I didn't just accuse you of not understanding, I explained why. Grime quite correctly said the alerts aren't evidence. He's right. No-one has been charged on the strength of a cadaver dog alert. People have been charged on the strength of a cadaver dog alert plus other corroborating evidence. That evidence doesn't have to include forensic evidence.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8k2GkZ7llcI strongly object to that Davel. I have listened to what Martin Grimes says, and he says "Merc" rather than
Have alook at this video of grime in the Bianco Jones case...at about 2 mins...grime refers to the accused as the murdr......and then stops himself...its hard to believe he wasnt kicked out the courtroom
I strongly object to that Davel. I have listened to what Martin Grimes says, and he says "Merc" rather than
"Murd". IMO he was about to describe the make and model but changed that to Mr D'Lane's car.
https://youtu.be/M8k2GkZ7llc?t=120
you accused me of not understanding...the post is still there
what car was D'Lane drivingThe police would know. I don't know, and Grime wasn't that sure either IMO.
I didn't just accuse you of not understanding, I explained why. Grime quite correctly said the alerts aren't evidence. He's right. No-one has been charged on the strength of a cadaver dog alert. People have been charged on the strength of a cadaver dog alert plus other corroborating evidence. That evidence doesn't have to include forensic evidence.Thanks.
Thanks.
Davel do you accept the premise "that Grime was referring to the alerts on their own. As part of a collection of other corroborating evidence they are very useful."?
G-unit and I accept that.
I dont accept the alerts are evidence....Grime does not refer to them as evidence. The alerts are useful in pointing out where to look for evidence...gunit claimed the alerts had been used in an english court...no cite supllied despite asking 3 times because it isnt trueSo you didn't answer the specific question.
I dont accept the alerts are evidence....Grime does not refer to them as evidence. The alerts are useful in pointing out where to look for evidence...gunit claimed the alerts had been used in an english court...no cite supllied despite asking 3 times because it isnt true
Every action made by the PJ and Portuguese police is seen through a fog of distrust and bias IMO of course.It was her opinion.
sunny is accusing all those who criticise the ph as beeing biased...why dont you give it a rest
You seem to be denying that the evidence of cadaver dog handlers about their dog's alerts can be used in court.
You seem to be denying that the evidence of cadaver dog handlers about their dog's alerts can be used in court.Davel posted a link with Grime giving evidence in court http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg502047#msg502047 so he can't be denying it happens.
I will take Grimes opinion rather than yours... No evidential reliability
If you look in the official files held by the court under this reference : Document Ref No(201/07.0GALGS, p. 2477)Ate you suggesting this file is available on the net... Surely not
You will find what Mr Grime said in his deposition. Your version, unfortunately, is abbreviated to suit your own argument.
If you look in the official files held by the court under this reference : Document Ref No(201/07.0GALGS, p. 2477)Which official files would these be? The ones locked away in some Portuguese police station?
You will find what Mr Grime said in his deposition. Your version, unfortunately, is abbreviated to suit your own argument.
To get back to the thread topic cadaver dogs are not 'incredibly unreliable', Gerry McCann made a mistake in my opinion when he said that. I wonder if he enlightened Grime's supervisor Meredith Hughes when he contacted him?
We know now that the dogs relied on by the McCanns and their lawyers to demonstrate 'unreliability' alerted correctly in the Zapata case, despite their less than perfect track record. We also know that they were very different from Grime's dogs, who had such an impressive track record that Grime's evidence was not just allowed, it helped to convict a child murderer.
IMO dog alerts are reliable, what dogs cannot do is tell you whose body or how it got there which is why they need corroborating evidence.
To get back to the thread topic cadaver dogs are not 'incredibly unreliable', Gerry McCann made a mistake in my opinion when he said that. I wonder if he enlightened Grime's supervisor Meredith Hughes when he contacted him?
We know now that the dogs relied on by the McCanns and their lawyers to demonstrate 'unreliability' alerted correctly in the Zapata case, despite their less than perfect track record. We also know that they were very different from Grime's dogs, who had such an impressive track record that Grime's evidence was not just allowed, it helped to convict a child murderer.
The dogs cannot tell you if there has been a body there ...that is a factSo what did the cadaver dog alerts actually tell us then?
So what did the cadaver dog alerts actually tell us then?
So what did the cadaver dog alerts actually tell us then?Probably soiled nappies, sea bass and rotting meat.
So what did the cadaver dog alerts actually tell us then?
Not a lot, as far as I can see.
I don't know what you mean by 'reliable', but I believe that Grime's evidence could have been used in court as part of a body of circumstantial evidence just as a dog handler's evidence was used in the Suzanne Pilley case.
Nothing we didn't already know... Imo... They tell us it is possible there was, a cadaver in 5a......and a little girl is missing at the same time. 'What could it mean, Holmes?' 'I have no idea, Watson, but there would appear to be some sort of link'.
So what did the cadaver dog alerts actually tell us then?
...and a little girl is missing at the same time. 'What could it mean, Holmes?' 'I have no idea, Watson, but there would appear to be some sort of link'.
...and a little girl is missing at the same time. 'What could it mean, Holmes?' 'I have no idea, Watson, but there would appear to be some sort of link'.
And there again there might not.. It really is that simpleBit of a coincidence isn't it? Alerts in the apartment where a little girl was missing from, but not in any other apartments? What's the chances?
Harrison goes further and says no inference can be drawn from the alerts
Bit of a coincidence isn't it? Alerts in the apartment where a little girl was missing from, but not in any other apartments? What's the chances?
They should have called Eddie back numerous times, then maybe...Yeh, curious. Maybe a fastidious cleaning regime?
Strange though isn't it, Eddie alerts to blood also, yet no blood found in these other apartments, neither fresh nor ancient, very strange.
Yeh, curious. Maybe a fastidious cleaning regime?
They would have a hell of a job trying to find it first wouldn't they [if it was ancient]Not if they cleaned it up when it wasn't ancient. It's a holiday resort, I'm fairly sure the cleaners will automatically clean blood quite vigorously for the next tenants.
I doubt it very much. The court would only have to see Eddie passing by the bedroom only to be called back. him playing with Cuddle Cat, playing with the clothes and passing by the car to be called back. IMO
Bit of a coincidence isn't it? Alerts in the apartment where a little girl was missing from, but not in any other apartments? What's the chances?
It's not up to judges, lawyers or juries to decide whether a dog performed satisfactorily or not.
It's not up to judges, lawyers or juries to decide whether a dog performed satisfactorily or not.Who is it up to then?
It was only in 5a that the dig was, repeatedly called back to places he ignored... So it isn't strange... There us, a, simple, answer to prettyvwel all the points, sceptic think incriminate the McCanns....and hence they are not suspects in either investigation...If a maintenance operative is asked to fix a washing machine in Apartment 5a, he doesn't go to Apartment 5j.
If a maintenance operative is asked to fix a washing machine in Apartment 5a, he doesn't go to Apartment 5j.
If a dog handler is asked to get his dogs to check for cadaverine and blood in Apartment 5a, he goes there and does it. He goes to other apartments as a baseline and to provide rigour. The focus wasn't anywhere else, the focus was on the last place the wee mite was seen alive.
It was only in 5a that the dig was, repeatedly called back to places he ignored... So it isn't strange... There us, a, simple, answer to prettyvwel all the points, sceptic think incriminate the McCanns....and hence they are not suspects in either investigation...
The dog only showed interest in 5a. That is clear from Grime’s testimony.
From the files... The dogs were brought back to places they had previously ignored... The PJ found it strange it seems
Please provide the actual cite.
They tell us that Eddie smelt 'something' having been called back numerous times. As Eddie was trained to alert to blood decomposing body parts, who knows what he smelt. Other families stayed in 5a before the dogs were brought in.
What I can't understand is how the items of clothing that Eddie alerted to { well I say alerted to, cadaver dogs are trained not to touch evidence, yet Eddie picked them up with his teeth] were side by side how weird is that what are the odds of that happening?
Of course it is
In my opinion the same clothing which was not alerted to in the villa(A) but alerted to when transferred to the gymnasium(B) must have been cross contaminated between (A) and (B).Cross contaminated with what?
No it isn't.
From the files... The dogs were brought back to places they had previously ignored... The PJ found it strange it seemsThe PJ may have been unfamiliar with the use of dogs with the attributes of Eddie and Keela but in my opinion they were quick to learn enough to make their own conclusions.
Cross contaminated with what?
Please provide the actual cite.
The PJ may have been unfamiliar with the use of dogs with the attributes of Eddie and Keela but in my opinion they were quick to learn enough to make their own conclusions.
Snip
This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'
__________________________________________________________________________________________
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
Something or other reminiscent of cadaver scent ... take your pick.So a remarkable scent to have contaminate anything whilst on a family holiday and your daughter is missing.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg502287#msg502287
So a remarkable scent to have contaminate anything whilst on a family holiday and your daughter is missing.
David Payne - no scent, Fiona - no scent, Russ - no scent, thingy - no scent, Janie - no scent, Kate - dog goes postal.
The odds are incalculable.
Just like others who are unfamiliar with how cadaver dogs work the PJ had questions. What they did was ask the expert (the dog's trainer and handler) to explain. What they didn't do was assume that they could answer those questions themselves. Others appear to think their opinions have more value than the expert's.
Just like others who are unfamiliar with how cadaver dogs work the PJ had questions. What they did was ask the expert (the dog's trainer and handler) to explain. What they didn't do was assume that they could answer those questions themselves. Others appear to think their opinions have more value than the expert's.
Depends how well you rate the reliability of the, alerts... SY believe madfie may still be aliveNot really, if the dogs are only alerting in the premises and on the belongings of the people whose daughter is missing, then that is corroboration. It doesn't matter how reliable the dog is; it's alerted only to that flat, that car and their belongings. If they were that unreliable they'd be alerting to everyone, or a random selection, or only the one who ate sausages that day, or only the ones with nice faces.
They asked grine two questions in his rog... He didn't answer either
The experts say no evidential reliability
Just like others who are unfamiliar with how cadaver dogs work the PJ had questions. What they did was ask the expert (the dog's trainer and handler) to explain. What they didn't do was assume that they could answer those questions themselves. Others appear to think their opinions have more value than the expert's.
no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I counted 14 questions. Do you have a different version of the files than mine?
So a remarkable scent to have contaminate anything whilst on a family holiday and your daughter is missing.
David Payne - no scent, Fiona - no scent, Russ - no scent, thingy - no scent, Janie - no scent, Kate - dog goes postal.
The odds are incalculable.
Not really, if the dogs are only alerting in the premises and on the belongings of the people whose daughter is missing, then that is corroboration. It doesn't matter how reliable the dog is; it's alerted only to that flat, that car and their belongings. If they were that unreliable they'd be alerting to everyone, or a random selection, or only the one who ate sausages that day, or only the ones with nice faces.
Not really, if the dogs are only alerting in the premises and on the belongings of the people whose daughter is missing, then that is corroboration. It doesn't matter how reliable the dog is; it's alerted only to that flat, that car and their belongings. If they were that unreliable they'd be alerting to everyone, or a random selection, or only the one who ate sausages that day, or only the ones with nice faces.
What would be the point of Martin Grime and the concept of detection dogs if they were to be dismissed so readily. All those unsafe convictions in airports for people being sniffed out for crystal meth secreted in their rear fire escapes, all those caches of PIRA semtex that turned out to be modelling clay that we never found in the provinces, those useless, unreliable dogs, goddamit. I'm rambling again. PTSD.
He was asked twice if the alert confirmed cadaverine... He dodged the question both times imo
He was asked twice if the alert confirmed cadaverine... He dodged the question both times imo
Can you give a cite for this Davel. I have looked and read the rogatory statement and I can't see where it is.Cadaverine is a specific chemical with the molecular formula C5H14N2
Perhaps you can help me.
Can you give a cite for this Davel. I have looked and read the rogatory statement and I can't see where it is.
Perhaps you can help me.
So a remarkable scent to have contaminate anything whilst on a family holiday and your daughter is missing.Swedish Bloke says he murdered a bunch of people and brought their body parts to a clearing in a forest. Cadaver dog is brought to the spot as directed by Swedish bloke. Dog alrets to multiple spots in the clearing. Swedish bloke goes to jail for a long, long time until it turns out he was innocent all along and had nothing to do with the murders. Of all the spots in Sweden he should choose to take the polcce and their dogs to, he chose somewhere contaminated by invisible cadavers. The odds are incalculable.
David Payne - no scent, Fiona - no scent, Russ - no scent, thingy - no scent, Janie - no scent, Kate - dog goes postal.
The odds are incalculable.
It is the role of the interviewing officer to make sure all questions were answered.
'With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver'
Grime dodged the question.. The answer is yes or no
'With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver'
Grime dodged the question.. The answer is yes or no
Then it should have a caveat.. They were not corroborated.You say it as fact but he said it as opinion. We are not comparing like with like.
It is the role of the interviewing officer to make sure all questions were answered.
Swedish Bloke says he murdered a bunch of people and brought their body parts to a clearing in a forest. Cadaver dog is brought to the spot as directed by Swedish bloke. Dog alrets to multiple spots in the clearing. Swedish bloke goes to jail for a long, long time until it turns out he was innocent all along and had nothing to do with the murders. Of all the spots in Sweden he should choose to take the polcce and their dogs to, he chose somewhere contaminated by invisible cadavers. The odds are incalculable.Was this in a film?
Was this in a film?No, real life. Google “Swedish serial killer that never was” .
Passing by more than once in an uninterested way... If there cadaver why no alert the first time
Exactly!! What use would that have been when searching for a cadaver out doors? Grime couldn't have found the cadaver and hidden it in a cupboard then could he?
Do you have any criticism of Grime's methods by his peers? Has anyone with knowledge of training and deploying cadaver dogs criticised his methods? That would carry far more weight than the opinions of people who know nothing about the subject.
Do you have any criticism of Grime's methods by his peers? Has anyone with knowledge of training and deploying cadaver dogs criticised his methods? That would carry far more weight than the opinions of people who know nothing about the subject.IMO it's a close-knit exclusive little club, the world of free-lance cadaver dog handlers (look at the links between Grime and Stockham for example), and it wouldn't really do for one lot to cast aspersions on the other as it would risk exposing the whole independent cadaver dog business to unwanted third party scrutiny and testing. IMO.
IMO it's a close-knit exclusive little club, the world of free-lance cadaver dog handlers (look at the links between Grime and Stockham for example), and it wouldn't really do for one lot to cast aspersions on the other as it would risk exposing the whole independent cadaver dog business to unwanted third party scrutiny and testing. IMO.That is surprising that you have that opinion.
Well how do you suppose Grimes methods would work if Eddie was searching for a cadaver out doors?
I have never given an opinion on Grime's methods because I have no idea whether they were good or bad. I can only judge him and his dogs by looking at the evidence that exists. There is no evidence to support people's negative opinions. There is evidence that Grime was very well regarded by the UK police and, later, by the FBI.
Dogs cannot be guaranteed to be 100% fail safe ... whatever they may be trained to sniff out ...
But do they need to be? Why is it always churned out...100%, fail safe? Ground penetrating radar isn't an exact science; the results need to be interpreted - the scan doesn't show a neatly packaged corpse under some soil, it shows subtle, nuanced changes in strata. Admittedly things have moved on, but it's not your panacea of 100%.Would you? Really? When they alerted to your own car an possessions months after her disappearance? Oh, ok then.
The dogs give an indication, an assistance to the investigation or a search; it's also not 100% and until we develop the technology to hold a conversation with a dog, assuming that dog has developed a level of comparable sentience, (preferably in human language, as opposed to dog) it will always be that way.
Look how far DNA has developed in the last 30 years, we're prosecuting way more now due to these advances, but it doesn't mean that we weren't using embryonic DNA analysis to catch bad guys 30 years ago - what percentage of 'fail safe' do you reckon that was?
If evidence is produced at a trial that proves 'beyond reasonable doubt', then the weight of all evidence gathered, including specialist investigation techniques, is achieving the objective. It might be that, actually, in a trial, the evidence of an EVRD or CSI dog was a mere footnote; another layer to weigh against or for. It might be dismissed out of hand, or argued by a skilled barrister that it's inadmissable or irrelevant because it's 'not 100%'.
But why wouldn't you use it? It's a relatively common place, widely used investigation tool.
Putting myself in the McCann's shoes as best as one can without knowing the multitudinous factors imposing opun them at the time, if I was told that these dogs were scenting cadaver / blood in the apartment my little girl went missing from, I wouldn't be researching and castigating the dogs, I'd be absolutely hellbent on finding out what in the name of Zeus' cat is going on - because essentially it means that it's now way more likely something terrible happened to her prior to going missing. I'd be beside myself and I would be imploring them to do it again, extend the search, get more of those dogs, follow the trail. Anything.
Grime wasn't very well regarded by Jersey have you read the financial report? You need to scroll down to where they speak about Grime -
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
Would you? Really? When they alerted to your own car an possessions months after her disappearance? Oh, ok then.
Would you? Really? When they alerted to your own car an possessions months after her disappearance? Oh, ok then.Unless I had something to hide, absolutely.
Grime wasn't very well regarded by Jersey have you read the financial report? You need to scroll down to where they speak about Grime -
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
To me their response was, in effect, an ad hominem attack on the dogs.@)(++(* of course it was, the dog alerts were an "ad hominem" attack on them!
Unless I had something to hide, absolutely.Ermmm...isn't that what Gerry has been criticised for doing, for the last 11 years?
Otherwise I'd be disparaging those incredibly unreliable dogs to anyone who cared to listen.
@)(++(* of course it was, the dog alerts were an "ad hominem" attack on them!
Ermmm...isn't that what Gerry has been criticised for doing, for the last 11 years?Maybe he's also got something to hide? Don't know, IMO, etc.
Maybe he's also got something to hide? Don't know, IMO, etc.So you’re happy to criticise him for not doing something he has done, ok.
The dog's alerts were an attack on no-one. They were a response to the smell of the substances the dogs were trained to find.The alerts were used as the basis of an attempt to charge the McCanns with hiding a child’s body, no wonder they were a bit defensive about them!
The alerts were used as the basis of an attempt to charge the McCanns with hiding a child’s body, no wonder they were a bit defensive about them!
How does that make the alerts 'an ad hominem attack' on the couple?It makes them as much an attack on the couple, as does anything said by the couple being an "ad hominem" attack on the dogs. You know dogs are animals, right?
\
It makes them as much an attack on the couple, as does anything said by the couple being an "ad hominem" attack on the dogs. You know dogs are animals, right?Surely it can only be ad hom if they are aware of it? The McCann's, not the dogs.
Surely it can only be ad hom if they are aware of it? The McCann's, not the dogs.If it's only an ad hom if they are aware of it then it is impossible to attack the dogs with ad homs. Stupid good for nothing hounds. 8)--))
It makes them as much an attack on the couple, as does any post on here being an "ad hominem" attack on the dogs. You know dogs are animals, right?
By calling into question the reliability of all cadaver dogs used by law enforcement Gerry McCann was using a fallacious argumentative strategy. He took one case where the evidence of these dog's handler was deemed inadmissible as evidence and tried to suggest that all handler's evidence would be inadmissible as all their dogs were unreliable. It was a smear attempt pure and simple in my opinion.So you'd expect him to say "yes, the dogs are nearly always right, therefore Madeleine obviously died in the apartment and we are obviously guilty of hiding her body as there can be no other explanation for the alerts in the apartment or in our hire car or on our clothes", right?
So you'd expect him to say "yes, the dogs are nearly always right, therefore Madeleine obviously died in the apartment and we are obviously guilty of hiding her body as there can be no other explanation for the alerts in the apartment or in our hire car or on our clothes", right?
Or perhaps be upset that his daughter had died in the apartment and her remains taken away by persons unknown.How would that scenario explain the dog alerts to the hire car and the clothing? It wouldn't so it makes no sense for him to think the alerts meant his daughter had died in the apartment and removed by persons unknown.
Why did Gerry think it a appropriate to speak with Martin Grimes superior at South Yorkshire Police?
So you'd expect him to say "yes, the dogs are nearly always right, therefore Madeleine obviously died in the apartment and we are obviously guilty of hiding her body as there can be no other explanation for the alerts in the apartment or in our hire car or on our clothes", right?
If I informed a police officer whose drug detection dog had alerted to me or my possessions that those dogs were incredibly unreliable would he;The latter obviously but so what? The police had already searched the McCanns and their property and found nothing, leading to Gerry’s conclusion that they were very unreliable, and why shouldn’t he say so if that was his opinion? What should he have said about the dogs? That they were almost always right and that therefore Madeleine must have died and somehowbeen transported in the hire car 23 days after her death, without him noticing?
a) Apologise and let me get on with my day,
b) Search me and my possessions thoroughly.
Question for dog supporters: if the dogs are highly reliable, and nearly always right, does that mean Madeleine’s corpse was in the hire car?
The latter obviously but so what? The police had already searched the McCanns and their property and found nothing, leading to Gerry’s conclusion that they were very unreliable, and why shouldn’t he say so if that was his opinion? What should he have said about the dogs? That they were almost always right and that therefore Madeleine must have died and somehowbeen transported in the hire car 23 days after her death, without him noticing?
The right time and place to present a defence is when charged and in court.So in your opinion Gerry is not allowed to voice an opinion about the dog alerts EVER until or unless he faces a prosecution lawyer? What abject nonsense.
It certainly gets confusing when we realise Eddie alerted at the door seal and later to the key fob. So could the alert just be to the key fob inside the car to begin with. Eddie was never put into the boot, yet the dog Keela alerted in the boot.Thanks for your response. I look forward to reading the views of the strident dog defenders too.
I think the results are inconclusive.
IMO Eddie needed to have alerted to the boot when the key fob had been taken out of the car.
Thanks for your response. I look forward to reading the views of the strident dog defenders too.The funny thing was I started off defending the dog, thinking there was a cadaver in the boot, but I deleted that bit before posting my comment.
So in your opinion Gerry is not allowed to voice an opinion about the dog alerts EVER until or unless he faces a prosecution lawyer? What abject nonsense.
As an advocate of free speech I uphold the right of everyone to voice their opinions. It's not always advisable to do so, however. Especially when the opinion expressed is abject nonsense imo.What about VS's post was "abject nonsense"?
As an advocate of free speech I uphold the right of everyone to voice their opinions. It's not always advisable to do so, however. Especially when the opinion expressed is abject nonsense imo.No it is not, IMO, it is perfectly sensical in the circumstances.
What about VS's post was "abject nonsense"?
I was referring to Gerry McCann's opinion that cadaver dogs are incredibly unreliable.Not all cadaver dogs would demonstrate the same ability, Some might be unreliable even "incredibly unreliable".
It certainly gets confusing when we realise Eddie alerted at the door seal and later to the key fob. So could the alert just be to the key fob inside the car to begin with. Eddie was never put into the boot, yet the dog Keela alerted in the boot.
I think the results are inconclusive.
IMO Eddie needed to have alerted to the boot when the key fob had been taken out of the car.
The issue of the key fob has always been a determining factor in my opinion of Grime's handling of the vehicle examination. A key fob is not routinely placed in a side pocket for long durations & imo there was insufficient time, after the PJ officer/driver had placed it in the pocket & left the vehicle parked, for a speck of blood to produce sufficient effused odour to facilitate Eddie's alert. My question has always been why Grime was so sure the key was the only source of the alert that he failed to remove it from the vehicle & deploy Eddie inside for a secondary examination.
Not all cadaver dogs would demonstrate the same ability, Some might be unreliable even "incredibly unreliable".Therefore it would be true to say cadaver dogs (generally) are unreliable would it not?
Therefore it would be true to say cadaver dogs (generally) are unreliable would it not?
No, not unless you have a cite to that. Some cadaver dogs are very reliable I am sure, so could I say that cadaver dogs (generally) are reliable then?If some are reliable and some are not then how can you rely on them, generally speaking? If You were buying a car and you knew that with a certain make and model a small percentage had a serious fault would you describe that make and model generally as very reliable?
If some are reliable and some are not then how can you rely on them, generally speaking? If You were buying a car and you knew that with a certain make and model a small percentage had a serious fault would you describe that make and model generally as very reliable?
Would you buy one?No I wouldn’t, would you?
No I wouldn’t, would you?
If some are reliable and some are not then how can you rely on them, generally speaking? If You were buying a car and you knew that with a certain make and model a small percentage had a serious fault would you describe that make and model generally as very reliable?
No, not unless you have a cite to that. Some cadaver dogs are very reliable I am sure, so could I say that cadaver dogs (generally) are reliable then?I tend to think each dog needs its own reliability rating.
I tend to think each dog needs its own reliability rating.
What a very sensible idea.It appears Eddie was around 95% reliable "High 90s". Where as the Zapata dog was around 70% accurate. Which isn't that bad but had too much doubt to be reliable.
Except we are not talking makes and models, it’s more like saying because a Peugeot 208 has reliability issues then a Toyota Yaris is unreliable.Specially trained specialist cadaver dogs are a make and a model of dogs IMO. Dogs generally are unreliable anyway, they are animals.
It appears Eddie was around 95% reliable "High 90s". Where as the Zapata dog was around 70% accurate. Which isn't that bad but had too much doubt to be reliable.
if the dogs are highly reliable, and nearly always right, does that mean Madeleine’s corpse was in the hire car?
As I recall there was blood in the hire car according to Keela.
As I recall there was blood in the hire car according to Keela.So we can be sure there was blood but no corpse?
Specially trained specialist cadaver dogs are a make and a model of dogs IMO. Dogs generally are unreliable anyway, they are animals.
Specially trained specialist cadaver dogs are a make and a model of dogs IMO. Dogs generally are unreliable anyway, they are animals.
So we can be sure there was blood but no corpse?
That's my opinion. Blood on the key fob and in the boot.
That's my opinion. Blood on the key fob and in the boot.
The blood on the key fob was Gerry's, there was no blood in the boot.
How do you know that there was blood on the key fob? The FSS were unable to identify the substance. They didn't obtain a full DNA match either, it was incomplete. They don't say how incomplete, just that the components found matched those of Gerry McCann.It's a valid point, Keela was 100% bang on when finding the substance she was trained to find.
If you accept there was blood on the key fob you are accepting Keela's alert. Why are you denying her alert in the boot?
It's a valid point, Keela was 100% bang on when finding the substance she was trained to find.Well then what does Martin Grime say Keela found in the boot?
Well then what does Martin Grime say Keela found in the boot?
I have to disagree misty. Transfer of cadaver scent doesn't take a long period of time it can be instantaneous.
Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.
From Martin Grime's statement
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
It says here that cadaver dog training aids can be produced by wiping a gauze pad over a deceased body. That wouldn't take a lot of time, or do you believe it would Misty?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ppDNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=cadaver+scent+transfer&source=bl&ots=CvD5xtEXgu&sig=mz0pcsxVai6lJepF-Xnz9kZAMSs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip9paL39XeAhXqLsAKHU3LAJA4ChDoATABegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q=cadaver%20scent%20transfer&f=false
And your point was?
Was Grime correctly interpreting what Eddie was really alerting to?
Do you mean that cadaver scent could have been transferred onto the McCanns belonging or simply wrong about it being cadaver scent that was alerted to by Eddie?
Do you mean that cadaver scent could have been transferred onto the McCanns belonging or simply wrong about it being cadaver scent that was alerted to by Eddie?
Grime never said it was cadaver scentI think he did:
I think he did:
'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm)
That's right... He didn't answer the question... You just think he did .
Does anyone believe that was an alert
That's right... He didn't answer the question... You just think he did .Whether it was an alert or not, whether you think it was or not, he answered the question. In fact he was so confident of an alert at the time he told them to bag it and tag it. So a trained man is brought in with his trained dogs, the trained dogs do their job, he does his in quite a robust manner and goes home.
Does anyone believe that was an alert
Whether it was an alert or not, whether you think it was or not, he answered the question. In fact he was so confident of an alert at the time he told them to bag it and tag it. So a trained man is brought in with his trained dogs, the trained dogs do their job, he does his in quite a robust manner and goes home.
This is one of dozens of cases. He's got no vested interest. He hasn't made this whole thing up. An authority such as Mark Harrison, an expert in his field I think we can all agree, deemed Martin Grime and the dogs to be pertinent.
Disparage the evidence and disparage the method as much as you like, but as long as world renowned experts rely on it, and courts accept its veracity, there will be a place. I predict [places index fingers to temples and closes eyes] that these methods will be extended far reachingly (is that even a word?) in crime and other instances.
He didn't answer the question.... Markbiob Harrison who you refer to said no inferences can be drawn from the alerts... Afaik the alerts have never been accepted as evidence in an English court... World-wide it's less than a, handful... Grime sayscthey are not corroborated as I have quoted.......and yet the overwhelming majority of all stakeholders were accepting of Martin Grime, the method and the dogs. Except Gerry McCann.
There is no evidence there ever was, a cadaver in 5a
....and yet the overwhelming majority of all stakeholders were accepting of Martin Grime, the method and the dogs. Except Gerry McCann.
No... SY particularly are not convinced of a death in the apartmentYou may as well have said 'SY don't like the Algarve'. What's SY's opinion on EVRD dogs, more pertinently, and specifically at the time, in 2007?
You may as well have said 'SY don't like the Algarve'. What's SY's opinion on EVRD dogs, more pertinently, and specifically at the time, in 2007?We've got grimes and Harrisons opinion... No evidential value or reliability.... No inference can be drawn
Whether it was an alert or not, whether you think it was or not, he answered the question. In fact he was so confident of an alert at the time he told them to bag it and tag it. So a trained man is brought in with his trained dogs, the trained dogs do their job, he does his in quite a robust manner and goes home.I predict that the, alerts will not be used extensively ...ever... Unless they can be supported by evidence... LCN DNA was used, extensively until it was challenged
This is one of dozens of cases. He's got no vested interest. He hasn't made this whole thing up. An authority such as Mark Harrison, an expert in his field I think we can all agree, deemed Martin Grime and the dogs to be pertinent.
Disparage the evidence and disparage the method as much as you like, but as long as world renowned experts rely on it, and courts accept its veracity, there will be a place. I predict [places index fingers to temples and closes eyes] that these methods will be extended far reachingly (is that even a word?) in crime and other instances.
We've got grimes and Harrisons opinion... No evidential value or reliability.... No inference can be drawnHowever the McCann's were accepting of an absolute weapon with a 'Triangulating Person Finding Machine'.
However the McCann's were accepting of an absolute weapon with a 'Triangulating Person Finding Machine'.
I can now see the logic behind all this.
You will need a cite for that..Fill yer boots: https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/mccanns-danie-krugel-and-quantum.html (https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/mccanns-danie-krugel-and-quantum.html)
Fill yer boots: https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/mccanns-danie-krugel-and-quantum.html (https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/mccanns-danie-krugel-and-quantum.html)
Probably not a site you would prefer to naivgate to, but a cite nevertheless.
Whether it was an alert or not, whether you think it was or not, he answered the question. In fact he was so confident of an alert at the time he told them to bag it and tag it. So a trained man is brought in with his trained dogs, the trained dogs do their job, he does his in quite a robust manner and goes home.
This is one of dozens of cases. He's got no vested interest. He hasn't made this whole thing up. An authority such as Mark Harrison, an expert in his field I think we can all agree, deemed Martin Grime and the dogs to be pertinent.
Disparage the evidence and disparage the method as much as you like, but as long as world renowned experts rely on it, and courts accept its veracity, there will be a place. I predict [places index fingers to temples and closes eyes] that these methods will be extended far reachingly (is that even a word?) in crime and other instances.
I've read the site extensively... I don't see the McCann's saying they trusted him
According to Kate's book they certainly helped him.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PIT6SeWkVcAC&q=+%E2%80%98matter+orientation+system%E2%80%99#v=snippet&q=%E2%80%98matter%20orientation%20system%E2%80%99&f=false
Kate says how vulnerable and close to the edge they were and it wouldn't hurt to try it.. Try anything probably... That doesn't mean they were convinced it worked
Mark Harrison didn't rate Krugel
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Danie_Krugel.htm
And neither do I.
Is this true
Let’s turn momentarily to Danie Krugel. Contact with Krugel is initiated on June 9th, when at 21:48 Gerry calls him for 12 minutes 38 seconds. According to the records in the PJ Files, he had been recommended via email (also from South Africa). It will be over a month before Krugel arrives in Portugal. During this time – and just after he leaves – there are a smattering of contacts between Gerry, Krugel and Susan Puren (an South African investigative journalist). It is later said that whilst in Portugal, the McCanns effectively ignored Krugel, and when they finally met – before Krugel and Puren left – it was a very abrupt meeting in which the South Africans were ‘made to feel like they were meeting Royals’.
This is rather at odds with the fact that it was Gerry who initiated contact. Why initiate contact and request help, only to completely ignore that help until the last possible moment?
Whilst Krugel was on site, Mark Harrison was brought in – but more on that later.
Krugel produced a map, showing the areas he had searched, and which he felt would be worth further investigation.
http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2016/12/mccann-case-house-on-black-rock.html
Did Gerry Call, Danie Krugel in June 2007 and instigate the search by him?
Kate says how vulnerable and close to the edge they were and it wouldn't hurt to try it.. Try anything probably... That doesn't mean they were convinced it worked
Gerry may well have called.... They were desperate tobtry anything..
Christopher Hitchens... A lifelong vical atheist... Turned to God when he was about to die... That's, what desperation does to people
Davel so you change from "I've read the site extensively... I don't see the McCann's saying they trusted him" to they instigated the contact with Krugel. Whether they trusted him or not it was their decision to use him to search. The police didn't think much of his wonderful machine it appears.
Did The Laboratory find any Forensic Evidence on Cuddle Cat? Kate had it back in no time at all.
Kate says how vulnerable and close to the edge they were and it wouldn't hurt to try it.. Try anything probably... That doesn't mean they were convinced it worked
For a woman who describes herself as a scientist she didn't mind considering unscientific possibilities like psychics and weird machines. Then she criticised cadaver dogs as unscientific lol.
For a woman who describes herself as a scientist she didn't mind considering unscientific possibilities like psychics and weird machines. Then she criticised cadaver dogs as unscientific lol.
If your child was missing wouldn't you clutch at any hope?
Keela was trained to alert to blood and nothing else.But does he describe what she found. Maybe it was "traces of blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement".
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human
blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic
science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Did she? Cites required for both assertions, please.
Please take note of my compliance. Unlike some, I don't ignore requests for cites.
We’re scientists and we don’t believe in hocus pocus or crackpot inventions
The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science
[madeleine]
But does he describe what she found. Maybe it was "traces of blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement".
Blood on knife wash that knife clean 3 times. Keela still can detect blood on the knife? Was there blood on the knife? It beats me as to what is on the knife after being washed 3 times! Has some part of it penetrated the metal?
Until you were desperate enough to rely on " hocus pocus"
Some see prayers and religion as such.
Whatever you need at a time of deperation
You have to accept that a dog's sense of smell is vastly superior to human sight and scientific tests. They can smell things that you can't see and scientists can't always test.
I have experienced terrible desperation and heartbreak. I didn't turn to any if those things.
Please take note of my compliance. Unlike some, I don't ignore requests for cites.That is funny considering they asked Danie Krugel to turn up!
We’re scientists and we don’t believe in hocus pocus or crackpot inventions
The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science
[madeleine]
You have to accept that a dog's sense of smell is vastly superior to human sight and scientific tests. They can smell things that you can't see and scientists can't always test.I'm trying to figure out where the substances could be that the CSI dog keeps on smelling even after the knife has been washed 3 times.
You have to accept that a dog's sense of smell is vastly superior to human sight and scientific tests. They can smell things that you can't see and scientists can't always test.
Do we have a cite apart from grime that the dogs can detect what science cannot... How can that be confirmed.. It canthe said at that time. Scientific methods could improve.
he said at that time. Scientific methods could improve.
How can he be sure the dog has alerted to something if it can't be tested to be present.... It doesn't make any sense... That's why I've asked if anyone apart from grime has, ever said this
They go through the process.It depends how well the knife was cleaned
1. Get the knife and check it against a CSI dog. - no alert
2. take same knife put blood on it, wash it 3 times and test whether the CSI dog alerts.
If it alerts after step 2. what did it alert too?
It depends how well the knife was cleanedDoes it?
How would that scenario explain the dog alerts to the hire car and the clothing? It wouldn't so it makes no sense for him to think the alerts meant his daughter had died in the apartment and removed by persons unknown.
The only way Eddie could have found cadaver odour relating to Madeleine in the apartment, on clothing and in a hire car hired some time after the disappearance was if someone had been in contact with her cadaver and had been responsible for secondary transfer.
I would agree with that but if it was secondary transfer from someones clothes then surely it would have been all over the apartment not just a couple of places...it would also pretty much prove the mccanns guilty
cadaver odour could also be a result of secondary transfer from a policeman...had any of the police in 5a been in touch with a cadaver
Gerry may well have called.... They were desperate tobtry anything..Wow. Desperate to try anything, including a barnpot with a plastic box with a housebrick in it, but not desperate enough to try EVRD dogs.
Christopher Hitchens... A lifelong vical atheist... Turned to God when he was about to die... That's, what desperation does to people
Wow. Desperate to try anything, including a barnpot with a plastic box with a housebrick in it, but not desperate enough to try EVRD dogs.
And the Christopher Hitchens story, that he took Pascal's Wager at the bitter end, is utterly refuted by his son:
On the deathbed conversion – I spent my father’s final weeks and days at his bedside and watched him draw his final breath and die, and can assure you that there was no hint of any sort of conversion (as I’m sure you have already guessed). In fact, we barely spoke about religion at all except for joint expressions of frustration at the god botherers who made the rounds in the ICU and other units where dying people could be preyed upon by vulturous Christians.
The book that made that scurrilous allegation was written by a fundamentalist, Larry Taunton, who pours scorn on anyone who refutes god; Rushdie, Krauss, Fry, Hitchens' own father. Hitchens himself predicted such assertions: “It’s considered perfectly normal in this society to approach dying people whom you don’t know, but who are unbelievers, and say: ‘Now are you going to change your mind?’ … As you know, there’s a long history of fraud about this. People claim that Darwin had a deathbed recantation. They made up lies about Thomas Paine. It goes on all the time. It’s a very nasty little history… They’ve even tried it on me, when I’ve had not the vinegar I’d like to have had, in a hospital bed. ”
I'm quite glad to hear Hitchins didn't convert
People make their minds up about these questions and should stick with their decisions in extremis in my opinion. The McCanns turned to religion but had never previously rejected it as far as I know. I was surprised that they were willing to consider psychics and cranks, though, especially so early on with the Marina 'vision'.They were more than happy, in their desperation, to employ Krugel and his amazing magic machine, but were happy to dismiss and disparage the dogs. Which would have been more likely to be of assistance in finding your missing daughter, irrespective of whether you believed the dogs were '100%'? A quick Google search of Krugel, rather than the efficacy of cadaver dogs, would have given Gerry enough information to make an informed decision.
They were more than happy, in their desperation, to employ Krugel and his amazing magic machine, but were happy to dismiss and disparage the dogs. Which would have been more likely to be of assistance in finding your missing daughter, irrespective of whether you believed the dogs were '100%'? A quick Google search of Krugel, rather than the efficacy of cadaver dogs, would have given Gerry enough information to make an informed decision.In what way were the cadaver dogs deployed in 2007 to try and find Madeleine McCann that Gerry should have been grateful for?
In what way were the cadaver dogs deployed in 2007 to try and find Madeleine McCann that Gerry should have been grateful for?They would have wanted closure as they say. If someone had killed her or she had died by accident the parents would still want to find her remains IMO.
In what way were the cadaver dogs deployed in 2007 to try and find Madeleine McCann that Gerry should have been grateful for?
They searched Murat's house and various cars connected with him. They also searched areas around the village. Would alerts in any of those locations have led to criticism of the dogs? Not in my opinion.What areas around the village specifically and on what basis were they selected?
They searched Murat's house and various cars connected with him. They also searched areas around the village. Would alerts in any of those locations have led to criticism of the dogs? Not in my opinion.
What areas around the village specifically and on what basis were they selected?Mark Harrison, NPIA
And did that policeman rub up against Kate's clothes?
Martin Grime, NPIA???
What areas around the village specifically and on what basis were they selected?
Questions, questions....
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
They were selected by Mark Harrison.
The criticism isn't of the dogs but of what you and others think Re the significance of the alerts
Pardon? Those 'incredibly unreliable' dogs, do you mean?
If you read what in posted yesterday Re reliability you would understand.... The alerts, certainly are not reliable imoWould they have to be 100% reliable before you would call them reliable?
Would they have to be 100% reliable before you would call them reliable?
AM »Excuses excuses. Every time, a new case, where cadaver dogs are used will be a new situation. so your objection will never be satisfied.
Eleven years og arguing about whether the dogs are relaible yet no one has defined what is meant by reliable...
If there are 10 gauze pads 5 with and 5 without cadaver odour ...then we would expect the dog to find the contaminated ones...at that they are reliable and the test proves it.
however if they alert in a house....is that a relaible alert to cadaver odour.....we simply dont know because the dogs have not been tested in this sort of scenario. It would need the dog being taken to hundreds of sites...some with no known contaminant...some with luminol...etc etc....This would then give an idea as to how relaible the alerts are.
grime said the alert was possibly to cadaver...suggests cadaver...and that eddie alerted to a scent he was trained for...all totally vague statements. He could easily have said....in his opinion the alert was to cadaver...he didnt
Excuses excuses. Every time, a new case, where cadaver dogs are used will be a new situation. so your objection will never be satisfied.
Not excuses at all to anyone who understands scientific methodology... And that is probably the problem on this forum.. If a dog scores 95 % on a gauze pad test then posters here think his alerts ad in 5 a would be 95 % accurate... That isn't trueTake the errors out of this post or it will be deleted
Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidenceCan you suggest what sort of physical evidence would confirm an alert?
That's, what Harrison said about the alerts... Sceptics want to ignore the expert
Take the errors out of this post or it will be deleted
Not excuses at all to anyone who understands scientific methodology... And that is probably the problem on this forum.. If a dog scores 95 % on a gauze pad test then posters here think his alerts ad in 5 a would be 95 % accurate... That isn't true
Largely empirical and iterative.
Delete it of you wish... What rule covers, thisNo one can understand it, so it must be wrong. I would edit myself if I was unable to understand it.
No one can understand it, so it must be wrong. I would edit myself if I was able to understand it.
Not excuses at all to anyone who understands scientific methodology... And that is probably the problem on this forum.. If a dog scores 95 % on a gauze pad test then posters here think his alerts ad in 5 a would be 95 % accurate... That isn't trueWhat are you trying to say?
Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence
That's, what Harrison said about the alerts... Sceptics want to ignore the expert
That is no reason to delete a, post.. Alice replied so understood... You could ask for it to be, edited, without the unfair threat of deletion... Totally unfairMaybe someone else can rephrase it then.
As do you Davel. He wasn't saying that it wasn't cadaver that Eddie scented only that it would need further evidence to confirm if it was.
Please will you stop insulting all people who don't believe everything that the mccanns have done, constantly.
Do you believe anything the McCanns have said or done?
It does seem to me that sceptics doubt and criticise every deed and spoken word of Madeleine's parents.
It does appear to me that it weakens the sceptics argument when every word and deed is criticised. iMO.
Actually I do believe some things they say and I do not criticise everything they do either. There are things I criticise and some I don't believe but not everything by a long chalk.
AM »
Eleven years og arguing about whether the dogs are relaible yet no one has defined what is meant by reliable...
If there are 10 gauze pads 5 with and 5 without cadaver odour ...then we would expect the dog to find the contaminated ones...at that they are reliable and the test proves it.
however if they alert in a house....is that a relaible alert to cadaver odour.....we simply dont know because the dogs have not been tested in this sort of scenario. It would need the dog being taken to hundreds of sites...some with no known contaminant...some with luminol...etc etc....This would then give an idea as to how relaible the alerts are.
grime said the alert was possibly to cadaver...suggests cadaver...and that eddie alerted to a scent he was trained for...all totally vague statements. He could easily have said....in his opinion the alert was to cadaver...he didnt
Well trained cadaver dogs like Eddie are reliable and will find what they are trained to find. The problem arises when dogs like Eddie are trained and retrained on several substances. The only really reliable dog imo is one which is trained solely on cadavers. Training such a dog in the UK is prohibited by law so any dog trained to such a standard would have to go to specialised facilities in America and that would be uneconomic.You seem to be saying that Eddie is not really very reliable.
Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence
That's, what Harrison said about the alerts... Sceptics want to ignore the expert
In his report dated 23 July he recommended searching the apartment;”may suggest” is quite vague isn’t it, for dogs that are supposedly nearly always right...
McCann's Apartment.
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
The search was carried out on 31st July, and the EVRD did alert in the apartment. Harrison produces another report dated 8th August, but now he seems to be contradicting himself;
I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
So before 5A was searched, an alert might suggest that a body had been present then removed. After it was searched and the dog alerted he seems to be changing his mind.
In his report dated 23 July he recommended searching the apartment;
McCann's Apartment.
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
The search was carried out on 31st July, and the EVRD did alert in the apartment. Harrison produces another report dated 8th August, but now he seems to be contradicting himself;
I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
So before 5A was searched, an alert might suggest that a body had been present then removed. After it was searched and the dog alerted he seems to be changing his mind.
Well trained cadaver dogs like Eddie are reliable and will find what they are trained to find. The problem arises when dogs like Eddie are trained and retrained on several substances. The only really reliable dog imo is one which is trained solely on cadavers. Training such a dog in the UK is prohibited by law so any dog trained to such a standard would have to go to specialised facilities in America and that would be uneconomic.
So now you are finding inconsistencies in Harrison's statements. To me he us qualifying his initial statement.... Confirming that physical evidence is required to confirm the alert...
His qualification if his statement may be because he felt the PJ were putting too much significance into the alerts
In my opinion Harrison either misled the PJ in his first report or he didn't.
In my opinion Harrison either misled the PJ in his first report or he didn't.Is that all options? Can you explain that to the forum please?
You seem to be saying that Eddie is not really very reliable.
In his report dated 23 July he recommended searching the apartment;
McCann's Apartment.
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
The search was carried out on 31st July, and the EVRD did alert in the apartment. Harrison produces another report dated 8th August, but now he seems to be contradicting himself;
I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
So before 5A was searched, an alert might suggest that a body had been present then removed. After it was searched and the dog alerted he seems to be changing his mind.
In the US an alert by a cadaver dog is classed as 'reasonable suspicion'.
Reasonable suspicion is defined as a "particularized and objective basis for suspected legal wrongdoing". In this case, the wrongdoing may be a suspect, a track or trail of a suspect or scent line up.
The dog alert is simply one indicator of wrongdoing. Now, the peace officer in charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a crime."
These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial
evidence.
http://www.policek9.com/Fleck/Cadaver%20Dogs.pdf
Well trained cadaver dogs like Eddie are reliable and will find what they are trained to find. The problem arises when dogs like Eddie are trained and retrained on several substances. The only really reliable dog imo is one which is trained solely on cadavers. Training such a dog in the UK is prohibited by law so any dog trained to such a standard would have to go to specialised facilities in America and that would be uneconomic.
If you read the articles posted by sunny Re Stockham this is exactly the scientific testing he was, suggesting
In the US an alert by a cadaver dog is classed as 'reasonable suspicion'.Eliminating Police Bias When Handling Drug-Sniffing Dogs
Reasonable suspicion is defined as a "particularized and objective basis for suspected legal wrongdoing". In this case, the wrongdoing may be a suspect, a track or trail of a suspect or scent line up.
The dog alert is simply one indicator of wrongdoing. Now, the peace officer in charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a crime."
These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial
evidence.
http://www.policek9.com/Fleck/Cadaver%20Dogs.pdf
The widely conflicting accounts by Kate McCann and David Payne relating to the apartment visit a matter of hours before Maddie disappeared was picked up by Amaral as being suspicious. How could two professional doctors fail to explain such an encounter in simple terms unless of course there was more to it?
These are highly significant timings imo.
5.30pm Last time Maddie was seen in public.
6.30pm. David Payne calls at 5a.
8.30pm. Parents turn up at tapas restaurant.
9.05pm. Gerry McCann returns to 5a.
9.15pm. Man seen carrying child near 5a.
9.20pm. Gerry McCann returns to tapas restaurant.
10.00pm. Maddie discovered/reported missing.
10.05pm. Man seen carrying child in town near beach.
Eliminating Police Bias When Handling Drug-Sniffing Dogs
November 20, 2017
MARTIN KASTE
Seven years ago, a researcher named Lisa Lit published a study https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/20110223_drug_dogs.html that she now calls "a real career-ender."
On the surface, the study tested the abilities of fourteen certified sniffer dogs to find hidden "targets." In reality, the dogs' human handlers were also under the magnifying glass. They were led to believe there were hidden target scents present, when in fact there were none. Nevertheless, the dogs "alerted" to the scents multiple times — especially in locations where researchers had indicated a scent was likely.
"I think the findings were a little surprising," Lit says. "I don't think the number of incorrect responses was what anybody was really anticipating out of this study."
Police dogs searching for drugs sometimes "alert" for them when they're not there. That raises questions about the influence of the dogs' handlers. As NPR learned, there is now an effort by some in the training community to eliminate the influence of their handlers' suspicions to make dog searches more fair.
Lit's study made headlines in the U.S. and abroad, as it seemed to question the impartiality of police K9 teams. In most states, an alert by a certified drug-sniffing dog gives police the right to search your car; some cops jokingly refer to the dogs as "probable cause on four legs." With this study, that probable cause looked shakier.
Dog trainers and handlers denounced the study and its methods, and Lit couldn't get their cooperation for further research. Dr. Cynthia Otto, another researcher who runs the Penn Vet Working Dog Center at the University of Pennsylvania, recalls the backlash.
"At the time it was extremely contentious, mostly because it felt like people were duped," Otto says. "That [the handlers] were kind of tricked into this and taken advantage of."
But now that some time has gone by, Otto says there are trainers and handlers who are willing to put those emotions behind them and look at the problem identified by the study: dogs are very good at reading humans.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite?t=1542457935206
Worth reading the full article in conjunction with the study.
If cadaver scent was found in 5a it could only have got there by secondary transfer given that it takes several hours for this scent to develop after death. The only other explanation was that a body had lain in 5a for several hours which was not impossible but also unlikely imo.Some good reasoning there.
Criminal statistics are enough fir reasonable suspicion.... That's, why parents, are always suspectsBut they don't lock up a person just because they are a parent.
But they don't lock up a person just because they are a parent.
Remember G-unit said "In the US an alert by a cadaver dog is classed as 'reasonable suspicion'."
Thats because statistics are intelligence...not evidence
Some good reasoning there.
Remember G-unit said "In the US an alert by a cadaver dog is classed as 'reasonable suspicion'."
Can they use stats as 'reasonable suspicion' to arrest someone?
"Reasonable Suspicion And Probable Cause: What’s The Difference?
.....
When Do the Police Need Probable Cause?
The police need only reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and question him or her, and they may search for weapons if they believe that the person is armed or presents an imminent threat of bodily harm. Probable cause must exist for the police to be able to arrest someone or obtain a search warrant."
https://www.taylorlawco.com/blog/reasonable-suspicion-and-probable-cause-what-s-the-difference.cfm
And if she died in the apartment in daytime hours how are you going to remove the body without being noticed by many witnesses e.g. carrying a big black bag? There are less witnesses about in the dark as proven by witness statements that night.Are you just limiting the time to after 5:30 PM?
Are you just limiting the time to after 5:30 PM?
From the sane article...
The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog/handler teams erroneously “alerted,” or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present.
This is what I mean by more vigourous and varied testing
One then has to decide whether or not a test devised for "explosive and drug sniffing dogs" may be extrapolated* straight across into "cadaver scenting dogs" with no need for further observation/modification/results of behaviour on the medium under consideration.It would be likely to be similar.
* inference of the unknown from the known assuming that existing similar methods will remain applicable.
One then has to decide whether or not a test devised for "explosive and drug sniffing dogs" may be extrapolated* straight across into "cadaver scenting dogs" with no need for further observation/modification/results of behaviour on the medium under consideration.
* inference of the unknown from the known assuming that existing similar methods will remain applicable.
One then has to decide whether or not a test devised for "explosive and drug sniffing dogs" may be extrapolated* straight across into "cadaver scenting dogs" with no need for further observation/modification/results of behaviour on the medium under consideration.
* inference of the unknown from the known assuming that existing similar methods will remain applicable.
No I'm talking about the death hypothesis happening in the daytime regardless of the exact time. How to remove a body with witnesses about? Do you remove immediately or wait until it's dark and safer with far less witnesses about?
The Portuguese prosecutors did give the conundrum some serious thought and reached logical conclusions ... unfortunately largely ignored because they don't fit with all the baggage of blinding personal prejudice carried for some unfathomable reason by some.
Snip
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child’s death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so.
Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-pjs-final-report-the-archiving-dispatch/#adi4
The results of a study of one set of handlers and dogs apply only to those handlers and those dogs. Unlike inanimate objects living creatures are all different. Even the same creatures change from day to day. Different results could have been obtained by repeating the study a week later. It's very difficult to study living beings and get consistent results.
Did the prosecutor get his information from the McCanns and their friends?
what the test tells us is that dogs who are trained to alert to a scent IN THIS STUDY gave false alerts when the target scent was not present ...but the handler thought it was....at the very least it raises doubts about alerts in the field...so the dogs in the mccann case alerted in a place where the handler thought it may be present....
there would need to be more tests to see how significant this finding was but it certainly raises questions about the reliability of the alerts
what is also of interest is that this study has not been used to challenge the admission of cadaver dog evidence...it certainly should be
It would be likely to be similar.On what scientific or mathematic basis do you arrive at that conclusion?
On what scientific or mathematic basis do you arrive at that conclusion?
LOL...asking for scientific basis when previously if martin said YES...that was enough...in fact he didnt say yes...he said maybe...and that was still enough
Show me where I ever said that.
All I ever have ever said is that you and other supporters persist in misrepresenting what is written in Mr Grime's deposition which is in the official files in the court archive.
Show me where I ever said that.
All I ever have ever said is that you and other supporters persist in misrepresenting what is written in Mr Grime's deposition which is in the official files in the court archive.
It is all in the training.There is no proof there is only one scent involved with EVRD dogs. Would decayed blood scent the same as a bone or a tooth. The dog may have to make decisions regarding previous experiences. Who knows how it is done?
Train a dog on a specific scent and it will alert to that scent whether drugs ~ explosives ~ dead or live human bodies.
On what scientific or mathematic basis do you arrive at that conclusion?Can you suggest any reason it would be different? Basically the same breeds are used, same anatomy, similar training methods I'd imagine (dogs rewarded for successful find).
There is no proof there is only one scent involved with EVRD dogs. Would decayed blood scent the same as a bone or a tooth. The dog may have to make decisions regarding previous experiences. Who knows how it is done?
look at my post 862....the study raises questions about all dogs .....questions that can only be answerred by scientific tests...until thos equestions are answerred any claim that eddies alerts in 5a are 90 % accurate have no evidence to support them
Do you suspect the Portuguese prosecutors were "init" too?
The Policia Judiciaria having toiled to present a report for the perusal of the Prosecutors exhaustively detailing all aspects of the investigation from start to where they were I rather imagine the prosecutors may have taken the time to peruse that in their decision making.
Why would you think it would be otherwise?
No. It raised questions only about the dogs being tested,
No.. It raises questions about dogs and handlers in general
It also raises questions about how the dogs, are tested.... Without knowing how grime and stockham test there, dogs, we cannot judge how accurate the alerts, are
What is also interesting is, that the, dogs were tested in precisely the way I suggested, a, few, days, ago... Pethaps I understand the, situation better than you think
It should be noted that the performance of teams used in such small scale research studies, is not
necessarily indicative of operational performance capabilities. The data collected from these 18
participating detection teams cannot be extrapolated to the thousands of deployed teams across the
world.
https://swgdog.fiu.edu/news/2012/swgdog-response-to-lit-k9-study/swgdog_response_to_lit_study.pdf
The prosecutor says the McCanns stayed at the Ocean Club all week and they had no contacts in Portugal. That information, in my opinion, came from the McCanns and their friends as I can see no evidence that the PJ investigated those matters.
Really??? Exactly just how incompetent do you believe the Policia Judiciaria to have been when conducting the investigation into Madeleine's case?
It says it's not necessarily indicative and cannot be extrapolated... I would add it cannot be ignored
Suggesting it raises questions about other dogs and handlers does not contradict either statement...
It raises, serious questions that need to be answered to understand the true reliability of the alerts
It says not necessarily indicative.... Not.... Not indicative
No matter what you say, this study has no relevance to any other dog trainer.handler.
That's your opinion and is totally wrong... It is absolutely relevant... Operator bias has already been discussed re the alerts... This, study proved it can be a major factor
As far as I know the experiment was never repeated, therefore it was never verified. In order to be scientifically reliable repeatability is required. One study doesn't create data which can be used to generalise.
No matter what you say, this study has no relevance to any other dog trainer.handler.Why not?
Why not?
Did the prosecutor check or just assume?
its probably the most significant information re the alerts in the last 10 yearsThe suggestion that the study needs to be repeated is sensible.
The suggestion that the study needs to be repeated is sensible.
of course it is....the suggestion it has no relevance isnt...
the whole point is that there are not enough studies to make claims about reliability...there needs to be more if the alerts are tobe taken seriously
The question is why are dog handlers not organising more proper studies... are they frightened at being caught out
Can you suggest any reason it would be different? Basically the same breeds are used, same anatomy, similar training methods I'd imagine (dogs rewarded for successful find).
Why not?
If another group of handlers and dogs took the same test the results could be completely different.
If another group of handlers and dogs took the same test the results could be completely different.
I do not knowI gave mine " Basically the same breeds are used, same anatomy, similar training methods I'd imagine (dogs rewarded for successful find".
The question was why do YOU think it will be the same or similar?
The test has given an indication that handler bias plays a part in the alerts... Itis a significant result
In that test with those handlers and their dogs. It would only be significant if it was repeated with other teams and the same results were obtained.
It is significant as it stands.... It is one piece of evidence....
I gave mine " Basically the same breeds are used, same anatomy, similar training methods I'd imagine (dogs rewarded for successful find".
it happens in the human population too. If there is frustration a false alert could be raised. I was thinking of unsolved crime.
Does that indicate that the tests or the dog/handler are unreliable?
One study of 18 handlers and their dogs cannot be seen as significant when considering all handlers and their dogs.
So you believe all other variables are irrelevant? and only the dogs and handlers should be taken into consideration?No there could be other factors I haven't considered as yet.
As significant as Eddie's barks in Praia Da Luz. That was one piece of evidence IMO.
As significant as Eddie's barks in Praia Da Luz. That was one piece of evidence IMO.
Single tests are only reliable when they point in the direction of the posters interest.
Single tests are only reliable when they point in the direction of the posters interest.
Does that indicate that the tests or the dog/handler are unreliable?
Has anyone defined reliability in this context?
Or are we conflating reliablity and repeatability?
I very much doubt it could be repeatable. Therefore it isn't scientific in the same way as a litmus test, for example.
It is a, scientific test.... And it may well be repeatable but there, seems no desire from the canine industry to carry out scientific testing....
I assume you accidentally missed putting this was your opinion Davel.
It is a, scientific test.... And it may well be repeatable but there, seems no desire from the canine industry to carry out scientific testing....
Tell us how you would conduct tests then.
I very much doubt it could be repeatable. Therefore it isn't scientific in the same way as a litmus test, for example.Why not? If there were two cadaver dogs and they both alerted what would you say then?
Just started reading this so haven't formed an opinion yet ... but I thought this pertinent to the discussion.Looks like one to stack up for my coffee and biscuits at elevenses. *&(+(+
Page 6
1.1.2 Effectiveness and Limitations
Cadaver dogs have been a forensic tool for over 50 years, but there is little scientific research into their effectiveness and limitations.
Unlike DNA analysis, cadaver dogs have not been scientifically validated and thus, their evidence in court is often viewed with caution
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/62158/2/02whole.pdf
Looks like one to stack up for my coffee and biscuits at elevenses. *&(+(+"elevenses: a short break for light refreshments, usually with tea or coffee, taken at about eleven o'clock in the morning."
The test described would be a good start and the sort of thing I had already suggested
Would you care to elaborate on that. The comment is a bit vague and the tests conducted by Lit have been called into question.
Called into question by whom.... The dog handlers who were caught out
A very well run scientific study... The only criticism coming from those who were caught out by it.... The dog handlers
A bit like anyone “caught out” by a dog alert criticising it.
criticising it in what way.......the alerts have no evidential value or reliability,....that isnt criticism its a fact.Can you state there was no cadaver? How do you place the odds of there being the past presence of a cadaver to their being no past presence of a cadaver?
What I have noticed is that both Harrison and Grime made their statements in english......so how much did the PJ actually understand them.....I think they genuinely believed that the alerts were reliable re cadaver....a mistake that started their suspicion re the mccanns
Can you state there was no cadaver? How do you place the odds of there being the past presence of a cadaver to their being no past presence of a cadaver?
I've never stated there was no cadaver.... But I have stated there is no confirmed cadaver...... Given that a body takes a couple of hours to produce cadaver then realistically there can only have been a cadaver if the McCann's were involvedThat is what I thought too to begin with but then I noticed the bag in the PJ photos at night, but not there in the daytime photos. If there were items in the bag the bag had been there long enough for cadaver odour to develop overnight.
As they obviously are not.... I don't think there was a cadaver in 5 a
That is what I thought too to begin with but then I noticed the bag in the PJ photos at night, but not there in the daytime photos. If there were items in the bag the bag had been there long enough for cadaver odour to develop overnight.
Are you suggesting Maddie's body was in 5a overnightWe can't name a cadaver or body parts, it is a dog alert only. I believe Madeleine is alive so I can't talk of "Maddie's body".
We can't name a cadaver or body parts, it is a dog alert only. I believe Madeleine is alive so I can't talk of "Maddie's body".
How can one have cadaver alerts if Madeleine is alive. We have a bag that is there after 1:00 AM but not there after 9:00 AM (times are an estimate)
IMO whoever removed the bag removed the cadaver.
What bag?The one in the wardrobe.
We can't name a cadaver or body parts, it is a dog alert only. I believe Madeleine is alive so I can't talk of "Maddie's body".Whose key did the PJ use to lock the apartment when they left around 4:00 AM?
How can one have cadaver alerts if Madeleine is alive. We have a bag that is there after 1:00 AM but not there after 9:00 AM (times are an estimate)
IMO whoever removed the bag removed the cadaver.
That is why it is important to know who had access to the apartment after the PJ left. Did the McCanns hand over their key to the PJ?
The one in the wardrobe.
A mythical blue tennis bag perhaps?All I can tell is that there is a bag on the 3rd shelf in the first photo (night time) but it doesn't seem to be there next day time. Was it moved? Who moved it?
Called into question by whom.... The dog handlers who were caught out
A very well run scientific study... The only criticism coming from those who were caught out by it.... The dog handlers
This group:
SWGDOG is a recognized group of 55 subject matter experts from local, state, federal, and international agencies including scientists, law enforcement, and practitioners.
Robbitybob1 and others have linked the report earlier.
All I can tell is that there is a bag on the 3rd shelf in the first photo (night time) but it doesn't seem to be there next day time. Was it moved? Who moved it?
They took notice of the study.
This group:
SWGDOG is a recognized group of 55 subject matter experts from local, state, federal, and international agencies including scientists, law enforcement, and practitioners.
Robbitybob1 and others have linked the report earlier.
They took notice of the study.
A group of dog handlers. .....do they have any scientific studies on the topic....is there a study which contradicts the one q
uoted here which caughtbout the dog handlers
Do they have any evidence which contradicts the studyStrangely enough there was a smaller study done by the GNR that contradicted the above study but the 2nd study was a lot harder for me to read (I couldn't download it).
Strangely enough, there was a Portuguese study;
Handler Beliefs Do Not Affect Police Dog Detection Outcomes
https://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/handler-beliefs-do-not-affect-police-dog-detection-outcomes/
Can anyone get the text out of this article? https://en.calameo.com/read/0009488961a26abd0a577
I've read it... It's quite different.Like there were requests that the test should be repeated, but if a variant of the test is performed, does that count?
The handlers, were told that scent was present in some rooms but not others... They were told that there would be zero.. one.. Two.. Or three sources in each room
To replicates lits test there should have been no scent in any room but the handlers told that scent was present in two.. We would then have seen if thehandlers perception caused the dog to alert
Like there were requests that the test should be repeated, but if a variant of the test is performed, does that count?
I think that the requests to repeat the tests came from the authors but the dog handlers were reluctantI was thinking more of the requests made on the forum. We have two papers but not exact replica experiments. Do they compliment each other or do they reveal opposing results?
I've been on black ops for 4 weeks in Chad, I come back to see this topic still being as divisive as ever.Strange. Until this evening no one had commented on this thread for over two weeks... *%6^
What I would say is that I saw wild dogs in the Sudanian Savannah that could track a packet of Hula Hoops 300 miles across arid tundra.
Strange. Until this evening no one had commented on this thread for over two weeks... *%6^Yeh, strange indeed [random emoji]
Yeh, strange indeed [random emoji]I’d like to know more about the tundra you discovered in the Sudan please.
I’d like to know more about the tundra you discovered in the Sudan please.
It's for another time. Maybe when my classifications are lifted I'll be able to tell the full story.
I've been on black ops for 4 weeks in Chad, I come back to see this topic still being as divisive as ever.
What I would say is that I saw wild dogs in the Sudanian Savannah that could track a packet of Hula Hoops 300 miles across arid tundra.
Are you on X Box or PS4Are you trying to ridicule members Davel?
Are you trying to ridicule members Davel?
Ridicule... Do you think the general is, serious and has been on black ops in the Sudan...between you and me... I don't think he's s general eitherThe general rule on the forum is that we don't try and discover the identity details of the members.
The general rule on the forum is that we don't try and discover the identity details of the members.
I will admit that the word tundra used to describe parts of Sudan was a bit unusual.
The dictionary definition of tundra follows:
"tundra
noun
a vast, flat, treeless Arctic region of Europe, Asia, and North America in which the subsoil is permanently frozen.
"tundra vegetation"
There seems to be quite a lot though RobMaybe the General was driving a Toyota Tundra across the desert following the sniffer dogs.
https://www.autoblog.com/used-list/make1-Toyota/model1-Tundra/location-Sudan+TX
Maybe the General was driving a Toyota Tundra across the desert following the sniffer dogs.Can a Toyota Tundra be described as “arid”? I suppose if you forgot to pack your water bottle...
Can a Toyota Tundra be described as “arid”? I suppose if you forgot to pack your water bottle...When we run out of fuel we say "it was bone dry" which is a bit like the description "arid".
Are you on X Box or PS4
When we run out of fuel we say "it was bone dry" which is a bit like the description "arid".Well it’s good to see the discussion about cadaver dog reliability has moved on to the really important stuff. @)(++(*
Well it’s good to see the discussion about cadaver dog reliability has moved on to the really important stuff. @)(++(*We are just waiting for the McCanns, the PJ or SY to make the next move.
We are just waiting for the McCanns, the PJ or SY to make the next move.
I suspect the only thing you will hear any time soon is a Christmas message.
With a pink bedroom full of toys IMO
Yes... How sadOr how wonderful.
Or how wonderful.
Or how wonderful.
Question for the dog experts: until a few weeks ago a cupboard in my bedroom contained “human remains”. My kids’ baby teeth that I pinched from under their pillows in exchange for a pound coin. In a recent fit of unsentimentality I threw them all away in the bin. Now, if one of my kids vanished suddenly and the cadaver dogs were brought in to search the house would they alert in my bedroom?
Question for the dog experts: until a few weeks ago a cupboard in my bedroom contained “human remains”. My kids’ baby teeth that I pinched from under their pillows in exchange for a pound coin. In a recent fit of unsentimentality I threw them all away in the bin. Now, if one of my kids vanished suddenly and the cadaver dogs were brought in to search the house would they alert in my bedroom?I doubt putrification would be permitted to occur in those particular circumstances. As soon as the soggy end of the tooth hit the atmosphere it would start to dry instantaneously, so no amino acid breakdown would occur.That couple with the extremely small sample size, no cadaverine putrescine would be emitted for a 'cadaver dog' to detect.
Well that’s a relief. So the human remains dog overlooks human teeth. Good to know. 8((()*/In your very specific circumstances, probably.
In your very specific circumstances, probably.But you don’t really know. That’s fine.
If the teeth rot inside the mouth of a corpse, then subsequently fall out - could be a different proposition.
But you don’t really know. That’s fine.Well you are looking for a very specific 'expert' on a 'tiny forum'.
In your very specific circumstances, probably.
If the teeth rot inside the mouth of a corpse, then subsequently fall out - could be a different proposition.
Did you check to see they weren't using Fixodent Original Denture Adhesive? @)(++(*Is that Fixodent as good as Polident for holding teeth in place?
From my experience teeth dint fall out of corpses but remain attached to the jawDepends on your experiences. And is that the best you can do - refuting the posited hypothetical scenario? What about the premise of my original point re: putrification versus non-putrification of a newly extracted or lost tooth? Nothing on that, just the possibility of a tooth potentially adhering to the jaw post mortem? Don't attack the point, attack the periphery?
Depends on your experiences. And is that the best you can do - refuting the posited hypothetical scenario? What about the premise of my original point re: putrification versus non-putrification of a newly extracted or lost tooth? Nothing on that, just the possibility of a tooth potentially adhering to the jaw post mortem? Don't attack the point, attack the periphery?
It would depend on how much connective tissue and pulp remnants were present... With a naturally exfoliated teeth there would be little of both...I don't see why teeth would fall out of a jaw post mortem..OK, thanks for that.
Certainly if extracted teeth are left a few days they start to stink... We are talking about naturally exfoliated deciduos teeth in this instance... Which if left a few days... Don't stink
When it corroborates with the crumpled curtain behind the sofa at the crime scene I think they are reliable in this case.
When it corroborates with the crumpled curtain behind the sofa at the crime scene I think they are reliable in this case.
So the alert is corroborated by a crumpled curtain in your view(https://i2.wp.com/www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Processopdf10page66-KateArguidointe.jpg?zoom=2)
The curtain was obviously trapped in that position when the sofa was pushed back against the wall.That doesn't make sense to me. If the curtain was hanging free, it would hang practically straight.
That doesn't make sense to me. If the curtain was hanging free, it would hang practically straight.
The room had been physically searched not least by the GNR soldiers. I would not expect any significance in the crime scene photographs of disturbed curtains or a sofa pulled out or moved around in a desperate search to see if the missing child could have been hiding behind either the drapes or the furniture.Certainly a lot of uncertainty as to what was moved during the searches by the parents, friends, OC staff and the GNR officers. All these searches were done prior the photo being taken.
IMO an incident happened behind that sofa and that explains the abnormal curtain and the reason why both dogs alerted there. I bet if I asked every officer nobody would say they moved that sofa. Up against the wall nobody could hide behind it.propose the order of how, when and why the sofa was moved with respect to the wall then.
The room had been physically searched not least by the GNR soldiers. I would not expect any significance in the crime scene photographs of disturbed curtains or a sofa pulled out or moved around in a desperate search to see if the missing child could have been hiding behind either the drapes or the furniture.
They didn't move the cots or beds so why do you think they moved a sofa up against a wall where Gerry said it was situated?
IMO that crumpled curtain was like that before anybody started searching that apartment, therefore, it's important to the case as the dogs indicated.
Kate had a digital camera there of her own (its on the dining table). Why wouldn't the clients take their own photos of the scene?
It would be interesting if the PJ GNR did take photos of the flat when they got entry without a crowd...
They didn't move the cots or beds so why do you think they moved a sofa up against a wall where Gerry said it was situated?What I see in the crime scene photo is a sofa up against the western wall. Maybe no one looked behind the sofa at all until after the photo was taken. I personally have no personal views on where, when to or who moved the sofa.
IMO that crumpled curtain was like that before anybody started searching that apartment, therefore, it's important to the case as the dogs indicated.
As you believe the McCanns then you can tell me; Who was looking after the children when Kate had her shower at 18:30? If they weren't allowed to go out and play then it's likely they were playing in the living room where that sofa was situated.Who believes the McCanns? Not me, for I don't. They say Madeleine didn't wander but I reckon she did.
The point being it's possible Madeleine was pushed or fell off the sofa whilst they were playing unattended. This was around the time David arrived and everyone knows they contradicted each other about that visit.It was a period that has never been satisfactorily explained.
The point being it's possible Madeleine was pushed or fell off the sofa whilst they were playing unattended. This was around the time David arrived and everyone knows they contradicted each other about that visit.But examined under the topic of the cadaver dogs. The dogs alerted to something, and IMO the least that it could have been was some minor bleeding. Keela alerting to dried blood and Eddie to blood that had gone putrefied within the cracks in the tiles. It doesn't have to be a dead body but just the result of a bleeding nose, something it has been admitted to that Madeleine was prone to have.
It was a period that has never been satisfactorily explained.
Didn't the PJ try and suggest that David and Kate had sex during that time.
For Kate it was 30 seconds, for David it was 30 minutes.
Obviously they are talking about two different events.
Could it be explained by Kate having a nap or a blackout, being just exhausted from the lugging the kids around, the travel and 5 late nights in a row.
The point being it's possible Madeleine was pushed or fell off the sofa whilst they were playing unattended. This was around the time David arrived and everyone knows they contradicted each other about that visit.
I find their account of that whole period strange. Three men walked up from the beach to play tennis. They all agree they did that, but what they did when they arrived is very diifficult to ascertain.
One says he went to the courts to see 'what was happening'. He can't remember what his two companions did.
Matthew decides to speak only for himself; "well I went back to the apartment, got the tennis gear and back onto the courts...........the other guys went to get their stuff."
Russell says he and Matthew went straight to the courts while David went off "to his apartment and I believe, erm, to Gerry and Kate’s apartment as well."
So we're not sure what happened when they drew near to the Tapas entrance and they can't or won't tell us.
(all taken from their rog. statements)
I find their account of that whole period strange. Three men walked up from the beach to play tennis. They all agree they did that, but what they did when they arrived is very diifficult to ascertain.
One says he went to the courts to see 'what was happening'. He can't remember what his two companions did.
Matthew decides to speak only for himself; "well I went back to the apartment, got the tennis gear and back onto the courts...........the other guys went to get their stuff."
Russell says he and Matthew went straight to the courts while David went off "to his apartment and I believe, erm, to Gerry and Kate’s apartment as well."
So we're not sure what happened when they drew near to the Tapas entrance and they can't or won't tell us.
(all taken from their rog. statements)
David doesn't want to talk about the reason why he visited. Kate said she had a shower at 18:30 but they said in their statements that time was kids bath time (normal daily routine which changes on the day Madeleine disappears - fancy that!). He's very vague and says Gerry asked him to check on Kate? Why would Gerry want him to check on her and the kids? IMO IF something happened to Madeleine that is the time to investigate. Smithman knew were he was going to pass nearby wasteland. Don't worry about the dogs because if he is revealed they are corroborated!Were the kids bathed that night?
According to them yes before Gerry left at 6pm but Fiona said Gerry told her at tennis that Kate was bathing them and getting them ready for bed at tennis so that connects to normal routine time.So Gerry says in his statement he bathed them but tells others Kate is bathing them. So do we know if they really did get bathed that night? For if Kate was left to bath them she was on her own. I tend to think they definitely were bathed, as later a towel used by Madeleine was used in the sniffer dog searches.
"Gerry said, were just absolutely knackered and Kate was getting them bathed and ready for bed."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
This discrepancy is important!
David didn't remember Kate dressed in a towel so imo that didn't happen. Gerry said he was gone for 30 minutes 18:30-19:00 (he changed it months later so that means it's important haha). Anybody with an open mind should now see the real reason for that visit which he does not want to reveal!What real reason is that?
The reason is a secret to the closed minded but I have faith in the open minded being able to see!Are you accusing me of being closed minded? Is that not ad hominem? Robbityrob, I’m very offended by this abuse, please sort it out.
Are you accusing me of being closed minded? Is that not ad hominem? Robbityrob, I’m very offended by this abuse, please sort it out.I thought you were more of the open minded type.
David didn't remember Kate dressed in a towel so imo that didn't happen. Gerry said he was gone for 30 minutes 18:30-19:00 (he changed it months later so that means it's important haha). Anybody with an open mind should now see the real reason for that visit which he does not want to reveal!
David comes across as the absent minded dithery sort of man. He saw Kate, didn't take in what she was wearing looked at the children on the sofa all ready for bed and left. David went home to change for tennis, so he could have been gone for about 30 minutes.
David said that Kate was only wearing a towel? Of course he didn't. What gentleman would, even if he noticed?Including making gentlemanly actions with ones finger / mouth at the dinner table, I suppose.
There are some good manners around.
Including making gentlemanly actions with ones finger / mouth at the dinner table, I suppose.
Which was no doubt innocentI'm gettin' the word.....
Mrs Gaspar was sitting between Gerry and David, do you honestly believe it was something other than an innocent remark? It would be ludicrous for them to be talking about anything sinister with her sitting between them.
Including making gentlemanly actions with ones finger / mouth at the dinner table, I suppose.
I'm gettin' the word.....
As an absolute minimum, not the actions of a 'gentleman'.
What did that mean, do you think?I know there's a bait on the end of that hook, and you want me to conclude he's a total nonce, but let's view it evenhandedly; if it's true, then it casts deep aspersions on his proclivities and not someone who should be bathing your kids.
I know there's a bait on the end of that hook, and you want me to conclude he's a total nonce, but let's view it evenhandedly; if it's true, then it casts deep aspersions on his proclivities and not someone who should be bathing your kids.
This is Libel. Don't do this again.No it's not, it's an answer to your question 'What did that mean, do you think?'. So I told you what I thought.
No it's not, it's an answer to your question 'What did that mean, do you think?'. So I told you what I thought.
You can't bait the hook, not quite get the libelous statement you wanted, then tell me it's libelous anyway.
I will Delete any further Libel on this subject.You need a 'false statement' to pass the first libel test. It's all conjecture / opinion. Nothing false in what I wrote.
You need a 'false statement' to pass the first libel test. It's all conjecture / opinion. Nothing false in what I wrote.
No it's not. It's my opinion. It's not a false statement, it's true.
But let's do the switcheroo. In a hypothetical situation, if you had heard that a male had conducted himself in this manner possibly twice, would you be inclined to allow that person to bath your kids? Would you even leave said male alone with the kids, given the repeated context in which it was said?
Even Mrs Gaspar thought he might be 'someone who could be inclined watch child pornography'. Was that libel? No, it was her opinion in a police statement that is now in the public domain. If Mr. Payne thought it was libellous, or it was, it would have been through courts years ago.
conducted himself in what way....i think its likely they were didscussing something like breast feeeding...doctors have a duty to report incidents...however tenuous that might suggest child abuse.... I can only tgink mrs gaspar was taking tghings abit too seriously...does anyone raelly think Gerry would discuss his involvement in abuse knowing gaspar was listening to everything that was said...thats absurdDiscussing breast feeding? Wow.
Discussing breast feeding? Wow.
Discussing breast feeding? Wow.Why not? Do you think it’s more likely they were discussing sex acts with children in polite company?
Why not? Do you think it’s more likely they were discussing sex acts with children in polite company?
Why not? Do you think it’s more likely they were discussing sex acts with children in polite company?The subject matter is one thing, the gesticulations and the context, quite another.
What is polite company? As opposed to what?Polite company would be Dr Gaspar who appeared to have a fit of the vapours at the gesticulation. If Payne was demonstrating sex acts with kiddies then he picked a rather unsuitable audience for his antics. Perhaps he thought she’d be cool with it?
Polite company would be Dr Gaspar who appeared to have a fit of the vapours at the gesticulation. If Payne was demonstrating sex acts with kiddies then he picked a rather unsuitable audience for his antics. Perhaps he thought she’d be cool with it?Once, unlikely. Twice, no.
1485
'Was that off his own back or was he told''
Reply
'No, he said, what did he check off his own back''
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Oh dear David it gets worse - according to your wife, Gerry didn't ask you to go check on Kate at normal kids bath time! It was your own decision!
Once, unlikely. Twice, no.The dog alerts are now completely irrelevant IMO. Next!
Anyway, how about those cadaver dogs, eh? I mean, dogs, right? Smellin' stuff and all that.....
The dog alerts are now completely irrelevant IMO. Next!
On whose say so?
On whose say so?Do you understand what IMO stands for?
Irrelevant *%87Did these dogs make any relevant contributions to the case?
Scotland Yard in Praia Da Luz
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/scotland-yards-police-officers-with-sniffer-dogs-arrive-at-the-area-picture-id450442776?k=6&m=450442776&s=612x612&w=0&h=VaKUpGARbxflqn98uqc40cA3gCKIISYsx_f2dLnoM40=)
Did these dogs make any relevant contributions to the case?
Martin Grime...as no remains were found the only alerts that can become corroborated are the CSI dogs...
Yep,they confirmed the burgalars wot dunnit, didn't.Could you please explain the logic of your statement?
Could you please explain the logic of your statement?
Lordy,lordy,lordy,SY said it was burglars wot dunnit and must have buried the girls remain's in the scrubland,only they didn't and its back to square one.So, the way your logic works is - because the dogs didn’t find a body that means it wasn’t the burglars what dunnit. I see. Please don’t give up the day job. @)(++(*
So, the way your logic works is - because the dogs didn’t find a body that means it wasn’t the burglars what dunnit. I see. Please don’t give up the day job. @)(++(*
Where were they searching for remains,only years later did the cavalry arrive digging up the countryside in a futile attempt to find the girls remains.
I think they may have been acting on information received? ... on aerial observation? ... or because it just hadn't been checked out before?
Is there any specific mention of dog searches on that mound in August 2007?
I'm gettin' the word.....
As an absolute minimum, not the actions of a 'gentleman'.
A 77-year-old man who has lived near the area of scrubland for 13 years told the BBC the latest search was "ridiculous".
"The police have been here before," said the man, who did not want to be named.
"We all helped search this area three or four days after it [Madeleine's disappearance] happened.
"I walk my dog every day and no one was digging holes."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27659905
Did they miss something back in 2007 ?
Did they miss something back in 2007 ?
Madeleine McCann search: detectives focus on pit in Praia da Luz
Forensic experts search a hole that has been hidden beneath corrugated iron sheets and wooden slats in the Algarve resort
By Fiona Govan, Praia da Luz4:39PM BST 04 Jun 2014
Detectives hunting for clues in the case of missing Madeleine McCann were focused on a pit discovered within wasteland a short walk from the holiday apartment from where she went missing seven years ago.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10875565/Madeleine-McCann-search-detectives-focus-on-pit-in-Praia-da-Luz.html
"Did they miss something back in 2007" ?
Oh they missed a hell of a lot of things.
Parents claiming abduction, knowing right away- but searching the flat, and round about the area- who would do that? why would an abductor hang around waiting to be caught- red handed.. DUH.
seperating the Tapas and gathering their statements! real bad missed opportunity.
why Gerry needed to write down who was doing what whenhis daughter was abducted by suspected paedophiles says an awful lot!!!!!!! especially as they claimed it was every half hour 8.30/ 9.00/ 9.30/ 10.00.
Hmm yeah THey did miss a lot of things!
It is possible that even more might have been missed, both by those in 2007, and by OG, in relation to the 2014 dig.
In 2007, two restaurants opened exactly opposite the mound. One was Italian, called Amici, which means friends. I have trotted through the mound to get to a family night out there. It was close by to our house of the time. Our car then held 7. I made 8 so it made sense that I simply walked there.
In Amici, I had fish in lemon sauce, and it was delicious!
The waiter entertaining us told us a story. The new potatoes that I was served came from the mound. Amici did a deal whereby they supplied water to the plot, whilst the grower supplied a share of the crops to Amici. Those potatoes were delicious. Although I grew up in a region that does the best new potatoes in the world.
Next to Amici, there was a Portuguese restaurant. We never visited that one, and I cannot remember its name.
I do not know precisely in 2007 when either restaurant opened. So I cannot say if they were open by May 2007. Open by May 2007 makes sense, to capture the start of the season, but a lot of things in Portugal do not sense. For all I know, they could have started at Xmas 2007.
The relevance to MBM is simple.
When OG dug up the mound, they had a command and control centre right on the top.
The GNR bagged all the parking spaces outside St James, Amici, and the Portuguese restaurant whilst the OG dig was ongoing. I think they might have had a GNR control centre there, but of course I cannot be certain.
Perhaps one of the 'anomalies' that OG investigated was the small plot where my potatoes were grown.
Personally, I am more interested in whether enquiries were made at Amici or the Portuguese restaurant. If those restaurants were open by 1 May 2007, there was car traffic and parking open and overlooking the mound.
are you sure it was open in 2007...either way its changed hands several times so its unlikely the same staff were there at its opening and when when grange dugYup, I'm sure it was open in 2007.
Yup, I'm sure it was open in 2007.
Obviously not.
“Unfortunately the interviews have led to no new developments and we are back where we were seven years ago.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10942089/Madeleine-McCann-suspects-questioning-leads-to-no-new-developments.html
His parents had the gall to attend a candlelit vigil for their son.I thought that he’d only been charged so far, or is that tantamount to being guilty these days, so why bother with a trial?
His father had vowed to take the search into his own hands.
They said they were worried to death about him.
All the while they knew his body was wrapped in plastic buried in a shallow grave.
https://abc7chicago.com/search-continues-for-5-year-old-crystal-lake-boy-father-vows-own-investigation/5262781/
The lying junkie douche-bags.
I thought that he’d only been charged so far, or is that tantamount to being guilty these days, so why bother with a trial?An even cheaper and fun way was to drown the suspects in the village lake. https://youtu.be/dLUUyAufoBg
I thought that he’d only been charged so far, or is that tantamount to being guilty these days, so why bother with a trial?
The parents told the cops where to find his body....I’m not familiar with the details of the case. I assumed that as it had been posted on the cadaver dog thread it was they who told the police where the body was, not the parents. Oh well, hang him without a trial in that case.
But you're right, innocent until proven guilty & all that, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the abductor told them where he buried him & they passed that knowledge on.
The parents told the cops where to find his body....You know what, I'm gonna go with a hunch on this one......
But you're right, innocent until proven guilty & all that, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the abductor told them where he buried him & they passed that knowledge on.
The parents told the cops where to find his body....
But you're right, innocent until proven guilty & all that, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the abductor told them where he buried him & they passed that knowledge on.
So where do the cadaver dogs come into the equation? Bearing in mind this is yet another cadaver dog thread.In one YT sniffer dogs were mentioned. They didn't confirm what specific training the dogs had. Sorry "search dogs" not sniffer dogs.
The first video is a cadaver dog alerting in Watts basement. They brought sniffer dogs into the Cunningham case to tell the police where to look - that kid hadn't been abducted from the property. The parents lied, refused to cooperate with police and hired lawyers. They were fortunate that one confessed or they would be claiming he was abducted from his bed and looking for him FOREVER! It was dog indications that showed the police the way. Cadaver dog alerts at Watt's property told the police he had murdered his family.
The first video is a cadaver dog alerting in Watts basement. They brought sniffer dogs into the Cunningham case to tell the police where to look - that kid hadn't been abducted from the property. The parents lied, refused to cooperate with police and hired lawyers. They were fortunate that one confessed or they would be claiming he was abducted from his bed and looking for him FOREVER! It was dog indications that showed the police the way. Cadaver dog alerts at Watt's property told the police he had murdered his family.
The first video is a cadaver dog alerting in Watts basement. They brought sniffer dogs into the Cunningham case to tell the police where to look - that kid hadn't been abducted from the property. The parents lied, refused to cooperate with police and hired lawyers. They were fortunate that one confessed or they would be claiming he was abducted from his bed and looking for him FOREVER! It was dog indications that showed the police the way. Cadaver dog alerts at Watt's property told the police he had murdered his family.Was that search in the Watts case part of the official investigation. It didn't seem that professional to me.
Was that search in the Watts case part of the official investigation. It didn't seem that professional to me.
It was. Filmed on police body-cam. Watts was outside lying to the media during the dog searches.
Full video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o65xFeVD59E
It was. Filmed on police body-cam. Watts was outside lying to the media during the dog searches.That one looks professional, with the date and time stamp on it.
Full video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o65xFeVD59E
Did the dogs find human remains in either case?
yesterday in the us a 5 year old boy was found dead a week after his parents killed him the dogs alerted to the fathers car and the police took it from there his parents are now in jail
Yes. That is the case of AJ Freund that we were discussing.
https://abc7chicago.com/how-did-crystal-lake-police-crack-the-case-of-aj-freund/5269269/
poor little andrew he had no chance it proves though that dogs are not wrong doesnt it???
No. In both cases the perpetrators have confessed.
yesterday in the us a 5 year old boy was found dead a week after his parents killed him the dogs alerted to the fathers car and the police took it from there his parents are now in jail
It's unclear as yet whether the dogs used in the AJ Freund case were cadaver dogs or tracker dogs.
But, either way, the dogs were correct in as much as the boy appears to have left the property via the boot of his parents car.
I see ... not sure how much of a result that is if the cadaver dogs can't locate human remains and absolutely no idea why you think it appropriate to bring all the cases you do to the McCann board.
They would have a job doing so, in both cases the remains were buried several miles from the scenes of crime.cadaver dogs are very relaible at finding cadavers....but they also seem to alert when there are no cadavers present
I think it's entirely appropriate to bring the cases to this thread for obvious reasons. The thread being named 'Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata' for one.
cadaver dogs are very relaible at finding cadavers....but they also seem to alert when there are no cadavers present
They also alert where cadavers have previously been, & when they want their supper.
That's the problem.. They may well alert when they've had enough ...and want to go home... That's why all alerts need corroboration
That's the problem.. They may well alert when they've had enough ...and want to go home... That's why all alerts need corroborationCorroboration in the form of a detailed confession is the quickest IMO.
They also alert where cadavers have previously been, & when they want their supper.My cadaver dog does not alert when he wants his supper. He has a much more intelligent way of telling me to get off my rear end and cook for him.
In the Watts case the alerts appear to be corroborated by the fact Chris Watts had murdered his wife & children.Do you have a cite?
In the AJ Freund case the scent dog alerts appear corroborated by the fact that the child hadn't left the property under his own steam, but instead, via the boot of his parents car.
Do you have a cite?
For what?Your last sentence, where did you get this apparent information from?
My cadaver dog does not alert when he wants his supper. He has a much more intelligent way of telling me to get off my rear end and cook for him.
Your last sentence, where did you get this apparent information from?
Did the dogs find human remains in either case?
Confessions have proved the dogs were correct in their cadaver scent alerts. A well trained cadaver dog will alert to cadaver odour like Eddie did in Prout, Harron, Parker and others. Later confessions and body retrievals proved him right. This case will be no exception IMO!you are making the assumption that Kate or Gerry actually know the truth. A person can't genuinely confess to something they don't know about.
The scent dog indicated to the boot of the parents car....Thanks, so these were either cadaver dogs or he was still alive when transported or they have multitasking dogs now.
'Investigators in Crystal Lake, Illinois say they're focusing their search on the family's home. Police say K-9 teams have found no evidence of A.J. leaving the home, and that dogs picked up his scent in the trunk of his parents' car.'
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-freund-crystal-lake-illinois-desperate-search-for-missing-5-year-old/
His body was found 8-10 miles from his home. I think we can safely assume his body was transported by car.
I very much doubt he was carried by hand, taxi or teleport.
Why would you think he was alive in the trunk of a car when a body was found? *%87It could be either alive or dead in the boot of a car.
poor little andrew he had no chance it proves though that dogs are not wrong doesnt it???
Why would you think he was alive in the trunk of a car when a body was found? *%87Because the dogs were tracker dogs, not cadaver dogs. At what point does a person stop smelling of themselves and starting smelling of a cadaver?
Why did they get new mobile phones on 4 May 2007? Why did they delete call records on their old mobiles that same day before police examined them? Why didn't they inform the police that they had deleted records?Explain.
The new mobiles prove they had other contacts in Portugal that should be investigated. Did any of them own property in Luz?
4 May 2007And this proves the McCanns had contacts in Portugal does it? LOL.
"I mean, S brother err is a gentleman called Nand N's wife N had got friends out in the Algarve."
"People who were just willing to help us in whatever capacity it was, whether we wanted a room for the night or anything."
"I quickly popped downstairs, got the phones, and took them back into the Police Station."
"There was, there was two err and we ended up, err again, we ended up keeping one and Kate and Gerry had one, I think we gave the second one to Kate and Gerry as well after a while."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
IMO 3 were involved. If any of these contacts had property in Luz then of course that should be investigated. Lace claiming it's impossible is nonsense! It wasn't impossible for them to get keys to the church? The locals thought so @)(++(*Talk us through the chain of events then. The McCanns ask Payne to source keys to a house belonging to a contact on the ground with a convenient freezer, is that it? The conspiracy reaches far and wide does it not?
Talk us through the chain of events then. The McCanns ask Payne to source keys to a house belonging to a contact on the ground with a convenient freezer, is that it? The conspiracy reaches far and wide does it not?
If Madeleine was stolen to order and smuggled out the country then yes the conspiracy reaches far and wide,both are either ridiculous or both have merits,what'll it be?Jeez, you really are the King Of Deflection today aren't you? Explain how BOTH are ridiculous - one being an unforseen accidental death and a hurry to rope in all manner of uninvolved people into the cover up, one being a planned kidnap, stolen to order? In your own time...
Jeez, you really are the King Of Deflection today aren't you? Explain how BOTH are ridiculous - one being an unforseen accidental death and a hurry to rope in all manner of uninvolved people into the cover up, one being a planned kidnap, stolen to order? In your own time...
Jeez, you really are the King Of Deflection today aren't you? Explain how BOTH are ridiculous - one being an unforseen accidental death and a hurry to rope in all manner of uninvolved people into the cover up, one being a planned kidnap, stolen to order? In your own time...
Have you found the getaway vehicle if you believe in a planned abduction? Or don't you think they had a vehicle close by? Who are your suspects? Have you found any leads in the police files?
Have you found the getaway vehicle if you believe in a planned abduction? Or don't you think they had a vehicle close by? Who are your suspects? Have you found any leads in the police files?I haven't the foggiest, nor do I have any idea why you think I should know the answers to these. That said, a getaway car cannot be ruled out can it? What you are doing is deflecting from my point, shame on you!
What Pathfinder said.What DID Pathfinder say that addressed my point regarding your idiotic IMO claim that a conspiracy to cover up an unplanned accident involving innocent people and a conspiracy to steal a child involving criminals planned days, weeks or months in advanced are equally ridiculous?
What DID Pathfinder say that addressed my point regarding your idiotic IMO claim that a conspiracy to cover up an unplanned accident involving innocent people and a conspiracy to steal a child involving criminals planned days, weeks or months in advanced are equally ridiculous?
According to you the first is ridiculous conspiracy,why is not the second one?Firstly “ridiculous” was your word not mine, secondly I’ve just explained why one is far more unlikely than the other, I’m very sorry if you cannot see the difference, what more can I say to help you see it?
I haven't the foggiest, nor do I have any idea why you think I should know the answers to these. That said, a getaway car cannot be ruled out can it? What you are doing is deflecting from my point, shame on you!
Why are you on this forum if you have no idea?I have as much idea as you, in fact IMO I have much more of an idea, therefore I have every right to be on this forum.
I have as much idea as you, in fact IMO I have much more of an idea, therefore I have every right to be on this forum.
Have you informed SY,they are struggling what with no suspects in years.
Is that a fact you can prove or is it just what you wish for?
Is that a fact you can prove or is it just what you wish for?
Why are you here? You have no idea IMO.Why are you here? You have no idea either IMO. Your theory has holes the size of the channel tunnel running through it.
Yes, I informed them that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and they took my word for it and they are now looking for the stranger. ?>)()<
Have you informed SY,they are struggling what with no suspects in years.
Why are you here? You have no idea either IMO. Your theory has holes the size of the channel tunnel running through it.
Enlighten me on my thread and then I will prove you wrong.Sure but first you will need to stop writing in riddles and write a clear and detailed precis of your theory so we all know precisely what you believe and why.
Why did they get new mobile phones on 4 May 2007? Why did they delete call records on their old mobiles that same day before police examined them? Why didn't they inform the police that they had deleted records?
The new mobiles prove they had other contacts in Portugal that should be investigated. Did any own property in Luz?
Nothing is ludicrous (isn't that a McCann favourite word) in an unsolved case until you've properly investigated it. Yes friends in the Algarve brought new mobiles to them on 4 May 2007. Read David Payne's rog.It was a strange event. Has anyone really understood why new phones were issued?
It was a strange event. Has anyone really understood why new phones were issued?The innocent explanation will undoubtedly be that they were turning their own phones in to the police.
It was a strange event. Has anyone really understood why new phones were issued?
It was a strange event. Has anyone really understood why new phones were issued?
It was a strange event. Has anyone really understood why new phones were issued?
I understand,,...particularly then.......using your own mobile abroad was extremely expensive...I always bought a local sim card when i landed somewhere but sim cards dont always fit every phone...if someone can give you a cheap local phone its much betterYeh, that's a stretch Davel. Literally nobody does that. Not sane ones anyway.
Yeh, that's a stretch Davel. Literally nobody does that. Not sane ones anyway.
The innocent explanation will undoubtedly be that they were turning their own phones in to the police.
in your opinionI meant the phones, my good man, not the sims. They got new phones.
then you dont travel much...these days when you arrive at an airport there are booths selling local sim cards.....many phones these days are locked...so its easier to buy acheap local...
Yeh, that's a stretch Davel. Literally nobody does that. Not sane ones anyway.
Which just happened to have a lot of deleted stuff missing.Quite. Seems to be an awful lot of editing and deleting.
I meant the phones, my good man, not the sims. They got new phones.
And I travel extensively; I have bought sim cards from Mombasa to Mogadishu and not all of those transactions went off as well as one would expect. Never at the airport though - too expensive.
looks like your opion isnt fact...but if your normal travel destination is Blackpool you wouldnt really knowWhy always with the veiled insults? Read my later post. I meant the sims, you beautiful, big bear.
If you’re looking to stay connected while travelling overseas, picking up a local SIM card is the way to go. Typically much cheaper than roaming with your cell company from back home or using an “international” SIM card, you’ll often spend under ten dollars for a month’s worth of calls, texts, and data.
toomanyadapters.com/buying-local-sim-cards/
If they put sims in their current mobiles they may well miss calls from home...have you never bought a local phone...sometimes my own phone simply wont accept the local simYes. Sometimes they don't have medium or micro sims in Port Said.
Yes. Sometimes they don't have medium or micro sims in Port Said.
But in 2007 everyone had those big, daft sims the size of a birthday card. No compatibility issues back then old fruit.
it isnt the size of the sims...adapters can be providedOK, it isn't the size of the sims then. Christopher Biggins, man, what would be the point of ex pat friends bringing wonky sim cards for some new handsets for them? They'd be plug and play burners.
OK, it isn't the size of the sims then. Christopher Biggins, man, what would be the point of ex pat friends bringing wonky sim cards for some new handsets for them? They'd be plug and play burners.
'I got those new phones, Gez, but you might have to wangle about with the sim cards, as these ones only take the 2G 2003, Syrian tin foil derivative'.
read the rog again...as i understand they were local expats who gave them local phones...no mystery ... it seems posters couldnt come up with a raesoanable raeson for the phones...I just have...fait accompliBut is your opinion a fact?
Why always with the veiled insults? Read my later post. I meant the sims, you beautiful, big bear.
The innocent explanation will undoubtedly be that they were turning their own phones in to the police.In 2007 weren’t roaming charges very high?
Yeh, that's a stretch Davel. Literally nobody does that. Not sane ones anyway.You cannot be serious.
You cannot be serious.I thought we'd moved on from tennis.....
I thought we'd moved on from tennis.....Gosh you’re a card.
Gosh you’re a card.A sim card?
A sim card?No, a Get Well Soon card.
They were concerned about the incompetent PJ imo.... Amaral was convinced he could prove Maddie died in the apartment
It's a shame he was reportedly obstructed from the start, IMO.It wasn't the British who insisted he have long lunches.
It's a shame he was reportedly obstructed from the start, IMO.Who stopped Amaral doing his job properly?
Who stopped Amaral doing his job properly?Probably just the sheer number of reporters taking photos meant he was restricted in what he could do.
It wasn't the British who insisted he have long lunches.
It was the British who suggested there was something wrong with having a long lunch break.That would be a conflict. Amaral: "Do I take my usual long lunch break or am I going to be pushed around by these Poms?"
Probably just the sheer number of reporters taking photos meant he was restricted in what he could do.
It wasn't the British who insisted he have long lunches.The same 'British' who would love to have long lunches? Who's the fool?
The same 'British' who would love to have long lunches? Who's the fool?
Long lunches? Sign. Me. Up.
The same 'British' who would love to have long lunches? Who's the fool?
Long lunches? Sign. Me. Up.
I dont have a lunch break as such...certainly drinking alcohol during the working day is a complete no...Yeh, same. I'm fed intravenously at my workstation, stopping only to have my bodily waste receptacle (BWR) emptied by my personal dronebot.
Never mind long lunches why wasn’t the Gaspar statement sent immediately?How can we answer that?
How can we answer that?
Never mind long lunches why wasn’t the Gaspar statement sent immediately?
Can you tell me where they would taken on a dark evening after the twins last nappy change?
The twins were in nappies. The nappies would contain urine as the baby wipes would also. Those nappies would have been put in the bin.What evidence is there that cadaver dogs alert to urine?
There was no alert to the bin or the twins cots.
Sunny is long gone.But the case goes on.
But the case goes on.
But replying to their post's and expecting answers won't get you very far.It is a pretty general question. No doubt Davel will know.
It is a pretty general question. No doubt Davel will know.
Q. What evidence is there that cadaver dogs alert to urine?
It is a pretty general question. No doubt Davel will know.
Q. What evidence is there that cadaver dogs alert to urine?
It occurs to me that if these dogs react to urine, they'd never get passed the first lamppost.
It occurs to me that if these dogs react to urine, they'd never get passed the first lamppost.
Cleverer than Davros? I'm not sure such a person exists.
Possibly stale urine and urine in a cadaver would be of a completely different chemical makeup,it'll take someone far cleverer than on here to fathom that one.
So it's established urine contains cadaverine so is it possible a dog would alert to stale urine... Bianca's seat
From what I can see the digs are not tested for other substances... When discussing false positives grime tals of 200 case searches. He doesn't mention testing... The reason is clear imo
Possibly stale urine and urine in a cadaver would be of a completely different chemical makeup,it'll take someone far cleverer than on here to fathom that one.
Your quote mentions urine... Not urine from a cadaver..
What's the link
So it's established urine contains cadaverine so is it possible a dog would alert to stale urine... Bianca's seatIMO Its not cadaverine that a cadaver dog alerts to, otherwise they would bark at all dead animals and patches of urine which in the end are virtually everywhere with kids and pets.
From what I can see the digs are not tested for other substances... When discussing false positives grime tals of 200 case searches. He doesn't mention testing... The reason is clear imo
IMO Its not cadaverine that a cadaver dog alerts to, otherwise they would bark at all dead animals and patches of urine which in the end are virtually everywhere with kids and pets.
It has to be something species specific.
Was Eddie ever tested for dead animalsDo you know? All I know is it was claimed he has never alerted to roadkill etc.
Do you know? All I know is it was claimed he has never alerted to roadkill etc.
Was he ever testedDo you know?
Do you know?
Does anyone know
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51385143_Cadaver_dogs_-_A_study_on_detection_of_contaminated_carpet_squares (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51385143_Cadaver_dogs_-_A_study_on_detection_of_contaminated_carpet_squares)
Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval. Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI<3h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact timen the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination). The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).
A proven cadaver dog alert indicates to the police that the missing person will never again be seen alive after other possibilities are investigated and discarded. They are now looking for a body! You can always provide examples of proven cadaver dogs getting alerts wrong and the missing person turning up alive and well?
The Zapata case is a good example. The husband lied repeatedly like Adrian Prout but in the end they both confessed proving the cadaver dog alerts.
So will none of the owners of those baby teeth in Jersey everbbe seen alive aggain
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_rK0BZWsAATPXO?format=jpg&name=large)
Body found in the hunt for missing British student Hannah Graham: Discovery made in abandoned house near prime suspect's mother's home in Virginia
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798649/search-missing-uva-student-hannah-graham-uncovers-human-remains-abandoned-property-south-disappeared.html
Where dies it say the digs found her bodyMaybe the digs dug it up?
Maybe the digs dug it up?
I think it was yesterday you spelt liable as libel..Not to me its not. Point it out. Anything I right must be written write.
I didn't bother pointing it out.. It's a childish thing to do
Not to me its not. Point it out. Anything I right must be written write.
Another one for the dogs, it would seem 8((()*/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/17/bones-found-in-worcestershire-unlikely-to-be-remains-of-suzy-lamplugh
Dogs will find bones, that's what they do, they bury them they dig them up.
Sniffing out cadaver scent when there is no body or bones is the difficult one.
Not difficult at all, they did it admirably in PDL. IMO
The difficult bit is getting humans to accept their alerts.
But of course, being a supporter , you would want to put them down whenever possible.
When their handler tells us they have no evidential value... I think it's right to take his word for it
When their handler tells us they have no evidential value... I think it's right to take his word for itHow many times does Grime refer to "evidential value" in the white paper
How many times does Grime refer to "evidential value" in the white paper
He has not used the word evidential at all. The word evidence comes up 146 times.
Value seems to be predominately associated with the phrase "value for money".
On page 56/187 of the document http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf he defines how they are to be used in court.
ive already explained this several times...Grime seems to have had a massive change of mind as to what constitutes corroboration of the VRD alerts and has offerred no explanation for this. Based on his views in the white paper the alerts in Luz would be considered corroborated.OK we have the definition of corroboration in the white paper (OK I might go to the bother of making a transcript).
OK we have the definition of corroboration in the white paper (OK I might go to the bother of making a transcript).
So how do you fathom from that "the alerts in Luz would be considered corroborated"?
Because according to the white paper the alerts can be corroborated by anectdotal witness, statementsSo who's witness statements are you thinking of?
So who's witness statements are you thinking of?
Try and look at it with an open mind
If the evidence had been put to a jury
A, cadaver dog with a 95% success rate alerted several times in the McCann, apartment
A man seen carrying a child identified with 60 to 80 % certainty to be Gerry
15 markers of maddies DNa alerted to by a, blood dog.
Kate refusing to answer questions
In a hostile Portuguese court what do you think the verdict would have been
"A, cadaver dog with a 95% success rate alerted several times in the McCann, apartment"
Grime does not say that more alerts improve the reliability.
"A man seen carrying a child identified with 60 to 80 % certainty to be Gerry"
At a time the PJ stressed Gerry had a solid alibi.
"15 markers of maddies DNa alerted to by a, blood dog." John Lowe's report states those markers could come from up to 5 different people. Inconclusive result.
"Kate refusing to answer questions"
As was her right under the law governing aguidos,
I understand all of that... But I think it's quite possible the mccanns would have been found guilty."Grime has changed his mind" - Maybe not.
The point I'm making is Grime has changed his mind..
Anectdital witness statements now corroborate the alerts.
Inconsistent imo
"Grime has changed his mind" - Maybe not.
Anecdotal witness statements now corroborate the alerts. - maybe that has always been the case.
It wasn't the case in Luz... That was made quite clear.. It's a clear massive changeWe'd need the actual words at this stage to compare.
We'd need the actual words at this stage to compare.
ive already explained this several times...Grime seems to have had a massive change of mind as to what constitutes corroboration of the VRD alerts and has offerred no explanation for this. Based on his views in the white paper the alerts in Luz would be considered corroborated.
Maybe he was asked to tone it down in PdL?
ive already explained this several times...Grime seems to have had a massive change of mind as to what constitutes corroboration of the VRD alerts and has offerred no explanation for this. Based on his views in the white paper the alerts in Luz would be considered corroborated.
Corroborated by what davel?
an anectdotal witness statement will now corroborate the alerts according to Grimes latest white paperBut which statements?
But which statements?
We'd need the actual words at this stage to compare.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
witness satements.....its in the white paperI want the PJ file names.
I want the PJ file names.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
"SUMMARY
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."
Eddie is the EVRD and he hasn't said those alerts can never be corroborated. OK there was no direct corroboration (no body) but in that last sentence he still allows for the possibility of something coming up, Grime says "unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence".
Then look for them. Ive reached my conclusions and I think they are absolutely correct. Im not here to convince anyone. I can see exactly whats going on and I know exactly why grime has changed his mind.There are none that implicate the McCanns, and you know that. That is why you can't list the ones you think implicate the McCanns in an anecdotal way.
grime did say they could not be corrobortaed...we discussed it last week and I provided the cite.Well I have just given you a full quote and I've shown quite clearly he is not saying they "could not be corroborated".
in this particular case as no remains were found the ONLY alerts that can become corroborated are the CSI...thats just from memory
Well I have just given you a full quote and I've shown quite clearly he is not saying they "could not be corroborated".Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
Well obviously they weren't corroborated with a body. But he hasn't ruled out the potential of anecdotal confessions that explain the cadaver dog alerts.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
that's crystal clear
OK that is just part of what he said. As in the Zapata case when the father confessed the dog alerts became corroborated by an anecdotal statement.
The same this could happen in the McCann case.
With the evidence on hand and the pending forensic results at the time your quote is correct.
There was no confession in the lane case but grime still presented the alerts in court as evidence ...that's what's changed
You make it sound like Grime decided what was and wasn't evidence in the Lane case. He didn't.he presented his alerts as evidence
he presented his alerts as evidence
What did he say to make you think 'he presented his DOG'S alerts as evidence'?Did you hear what the judge said about the alerts.. Of course they were presented as evidence
Did you hear what the judge said about the alerts.. Of course they were presented as evidence
By whom?
Grime presented the cadaver dog evidence to the court
Did he refer to it as evidence?
Are you suggesting it wasn't considered as evidence... That's absurd
You do understand what "testified " means
Of course they were considered as evidence. Why? Who decided to use them as evidence? Who ruled them admissible as evidence? Not Grime.Grime presented them to the court as evidence...
Grime presented them to the court as evidence...
i know, you keep saying that, but what does it mean? Did he answer the questions he was asked? Was he asked if the alerts were evidence? Did he say yes?
The dog alerts were admitted as evidence...they are only as reliable as the handler claims, they are
Correct. Who admitted them as evidence? The Judge. Did Grime persuade her to do that? Did he tell her the alerts were evidence?
So why did the judge consider the alerts, as evidence...
There was no confession in the lane case but grime still presented the alerts in court as evidence ...that's what's changedIn the Lane case we don't have the court transcript to really follow how Grime thought the anecdotal evidence confirmed the dog alerts.
anecdotalAny witness statement falls into that category.
/ˌanɪkˈdəʊtl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
Grime presented them to the court as evidence...What were the words he said in court?
Did Grime tell her they were evidence?Grime testified..re the alerts... grine submitted the dogs training report into evidence..the court did not exclude the cadaver dog evidence...wahts the oath in the US...in the Uk its...the evidence i shall give
So why did the judge consider the alerts, as evidence...The judge may have been persuaded by the rest of the evidence, and allowed the testimony presented by Grime. If you feel Lane has been wrongly convicted, you could be right, it won't be the first time a jury has come to the wrong conclusion.
What were the words he said in court?
The judge may have been persuaded by the rest of the evidence, and allowed the testimony presented by Grime. If you feel Lane has been wrongly convicted, you could be right, it won't be the first time a jury has come to the wrong conclusion.
the court referred to the alerts as evidence....grime testified ...according to the court report of the appeal...yo testify is to give evidence. THe alerts would ahve no value as evidence wirhout grimes testimonyYou have that wrong. He could say it depends on others doing the lab testing and what others confess to.
You have that wrong. He could say it depends on others doing the lab testing and what others confess to.
Im not wrong...Grime submitted the training records for his dogs....his testimony is essentialHis dogs were trained and tested so why are you objecting to that?
DETROIT (WWJ) – A judge has set bond at $3 million for D’Andre Lane, saying he’s disturbed by evidence submitted that indicates cadaver dogs detected signs of a dead body at the man’s home.So what was at home? Was it the car seat? Knowing how the gangsters work I don't find it surprising "cadaver dogs detected signs of a dead body at the man’s home".
His dogs were trained and tested so why are you objecting to that?
I don't feel lane has been wrongly convicted..from the evidence he appears to be guiltyYou are not being honesty with me Davel. You know full well what you say is ambiguous.
i said grime presented evidence....he did...thats all i said,...why does gunit object to thatIt the way you say it.
You are not being honesty with me Davel. You know full well what you say is ambiguous.
"from the evidence he appears to be guilty" From what evidence? Does that evidence include Grime's testimony that you appear top object to?
What evidence would have proven him guilty without Grime's testimony?
Grime testified..re the alerts... grine submitted the dogs training report into evidence..the court did not exclude the cadaver dog evidence...wahts the oath in the US...in the Uk its...the evidence i shall give
going even further:
We could even add the word "anecdotal" into that sentence for Grime's interpretation will at times be wrong too.
"Grime presented his anecdotal interpretation of the cadaver dog alerts as evidence to the court"
Anecdotal:
(adjective)
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
Was he supposed to refuse to testify? Falsify Morse's records to make him look bad? What?
Probably best for you not to comment on something you don't appear to understandYou are not presenting a comprehensive case. Someone with your self-proclaimed intellect should be able to knock up a comprehensive case.
Another one...I simply said he gave evidence.. You seem to want to argue over nothingAnd what did he testify exactly?
Grime gave evidence as he saw fit.. That's his job
You are not presenting a comprehensive case. Someone with your self-proclaimed intellect should be able to knock up a comprehensive case.
Another one...I simply said he gave evidence.. You seem to want to argue over nothing
Grime gave evidence as he saw fit.. That's his job
And what did he testify exactly?
Different use of evidence.
the court referred to the alerts as evidence....grime testified ...according to the court report of the appeal...yo testify is to give evidence. THe alerts would ahve no value as evidence wirhout grimes testimony
It's all on recordShow us the record?
He gave evidenceOne minute you use the term "testimony" , or "testify", and then equate testimony to evidence.
Another one...I simply said he gave evidence.. You seem to want to argue over nothing
Grime gave evidence as he saw fit.. That's his job
You actually said he presented the alerts as evidence. You gave the impression that that was somehow significant. I've been trying to discover what you meant, but it seems you're now saying that it meant nothing. I'm pleased we've cleared that up.
Are you sure? Morse's ability was on record. The location of his alerts were a matter of record. What did Grime add?
He did present the alerts, as evidence... Thst was significant
Sifnificant how?
did you hear what then judge said about the alertsYes sounds significant but what does it mean?
"Those dogs that were used to find baby Bianca were very instrumental," Evans said. "They were taken to a house on Montgomery (Avenue). Of 10 rooms in the house, they went straight to the bedroom.
the judge said...very instrumenatl...thats sounds significant to me
Grime presented them in court... Testified... Gave evidence"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
Grime testified that, after the vehicle screening, he took the dogs to an administrative building to screen the items removed from Dungey's car
"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.
Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs' responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
According to Grime, on December 4, 2011, he took his dogs to an enclosed warehouse that contained 31 vehicles. Grime was told that Bianca was in one of the vehicles at the time of the carjacking, but was not told which vehicle was involved. Morse alerted Grime to the presence of the odor of decomposition in the back seat and trunk of a silver Grand Marquis. Keela later screened the car and did not alert Grime to the presence of human blood.
Grime testified that, after the vehicle screening, he took the dogs to an administrative building to screen the items removed from Dungey's car. Grime did not know where the objects were located in the building, and the objects had been placed in a room filled with “all sorts of things.” Morse alerted Grime to the odor of decomposition in Bianca's car seat and a bag containing Bianca's blanket. Grime later took the dogs to Dungey's house. Morse alerted him to the odor of decomposition in a room that contained bunk beds and a closet without a door."
They are remarkable. Accuracy (as I stated earlier at 90+%). IMO, to suggest, in the McCann case, that both dogs were wrong eleven times between them... and that when they were wrong by some amazing coincidence this was always in the presence of articles directly related to one family would be an unbelievable suggestion... "Ludicrous" would be a good description, IMO.But no matter how many times the dogs alert at no time will the dog say it was Madeleine's cadaver. At no time will the dogs whisper the McCanns did it. At no time do the dogs agree on the time it happened. All it points to that there was an unidentified cadaver in the room at sometime in the past and we don't know how it got in there.
But no matter how many times the dogs alert at no time will the dog say it was Madeleine's cadaver. At no time will the dogs whisper the McCanns did it. At no time do the dogs agree on the time it happened. All it points to that there was an unidentified cadaver in the room at sometime in the past and we don't know how it got in there.
Yes I agree with that. It seems a cadaver, at some point, also got in the hire car and had contact (directly or indirectly) with Cuddle Cat and KM's clothes, IMO.Yes it is all very mysterious.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7483.0 (Sapo TV interview with Amaral 2010?)I think the heat got to GA.
*snipped*
GA : We are running out of time, you told me so, let's change the format, I'm going to tell you very quickly one important thing : as for the couple McCann, they only mentioned leaving on the day that British dogs arrived to Portugal and after Mr. Gerald McCann learnt the potentialities of those dogs, and to let everything clear and why I wrote the book...
MST : I don't see the connection, if they'd be in London, wouldn't the dogs act the same way?
GA : Here the dogs seem to have failed, it's because of the heat in Algarve.
MST : What difference can they make by being here or not, at the same time as the dogs?
GA : What difference? They knew what was going to happen next, until that, they walked holding hands and the PJ gave them information every week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did Amaral think the dogs had failed? Was he implying they didn't find what they were meant to find?
But no matter how many times the dogs alert at no time will the dog say it was Madeleine's cadaver. At no time will the dogs whisper the McCanns did it. At no time do the dogs agree on the time it happened. All it points to that there was an unidentified cadaver in the room at sometime in the past and we don't know how it got in there.There's no evidence there was ever a cadaver in 5a pm
They are remarkable. Accuracy (as I stated earlier at 90+%). IMO, to suggest, in the McCann case, that both dogs were wrong eleven times between them... and that when they were wrong by some amazing coincidence this was always in the presence of articles directly related to one family would be an unbelievable suggestion... "Ludicrous" would be a good description, IMO.One word - Zampo.
"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.
Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs' responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
According to Grime, on December 4, 2011, he took his dogs to an enclosed warehouse that contained 31 vehicles. Grime was told that Bianca was in one of the vehicles at the time of the carjacking, but was not told which vehicle was involved. Morse alerted Grime to the presence of the odor of decomposition in the back seat and trunk of a silver Grand Marquis. Keela later screened the car and did not alert Grime to the presence of human blood.
Grime testified that, after the vehicle screening, he took the dogs to an administrative building to screen the items removed from Dungey's car. Grime did not know where the objects were located in the building, and the objects had been placed in a room filled with “all sorts of things.” Morse alerted Grime to the odor of decomposition in Bianca's car seat and a bag containing Bianca's blanket. Grime later took the dogs to Dungey's house. Morse alerted him to the odor of decomposition in a room that contained bunk beds and a closet without a door."
There's no evidence there was ever a cadaver in 5a pm
did you hear what then judge said about the alerts
"Those dogs that were used to find baby Bianca were very instrumental," Evans said. "They were taken to a house on Montgomery (Avenue). Of 10 rooms in the house, they went straight to the bedroom.
the judge said...very instrumenatl...thats sounds significant to me
Of course it was significant, it helped to get Lane convicted of the murder of his daughter.
One word - Zampo.
Who has nothing to do with the McCann case.
So grime and an expert witness gave evidence which played a significant part in lanes conviction... Why then have you played silly games
It's not me playing silly games. I have never questioned the importance or significance of Grime's evidence.
There's no evidence there was ever a cadaver in 5a pmThere is intelligence to suggest there had been a cadaver in 5A.
Who has nothing to do with the McCann case.If one cadaver dog can wrongly alert 45 times because his handler thinks he is in a place where a murder may have been committed then any dog can - IMO.
There is intelligence to suggest there had been a cadaver in 5A.
"operationally significant intelligence" page #12/187 file:///C:/Users/Robert/Documents/Madeleine%20Mccann/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20%20(1).pdf
If one cadaver dog can wrongly alert 45 times because his handler thinks he is in a place where a murder may have been committed then any dog can - IMO.
What is meant by intelligence in this context...I prefer the statistic for "family and acquaintances of the family".
The fact that if children are harmed then statistically it's the parents who are most likely to be responsible....is intelligence...but not evidence
If one cadaver dog can wrongly alert 45 times because his handler thinks he is in a place where a murder may have been committed then any dog can - IMO.It would also reflect on those who design the training and certification of these cadaver dogs in that country.
It would also reflect on those who design the training and certification of these cadaver dogs in that country.
A dog will look to its master and pick up cuing from that. Also as I said before if a dog is rewarded every time it alerts rightly or wrongly it will alert more often to get the rewards.
But that should have been picked up by those independently certifying the dog.
What is meant by intelligence in this context...Those papers written by Grime has used the word "intelligence" 164 times. I'll go back through them to see if Grime himself defines what he means by "intelligence".
...snip...
is the training and certification any better in the ukAs far as I know (afaik) it is. I have seen comments about not rewarding the dog in the field for no one can be certain if the find is genuine at that stage.
for those who claim how useful the dogs are...well how useful are they. What has grime acheived with his dogs since 2007....12 years...what success has he had
Owner
Forensic Canine Search Consultancy
August 2007 – Present 12 years
Provision of Canine Search Services to Law Enforcement.
As Grime himself says in the white paper page #12/187:
"Negative searches are as impactive as those that are positive, they provide intelligence to the investigators, so as to assist in focusing resources elsewhere in quick time."
I asked what he had acheived...of course if alerts are false positives then they divert resources and hinder an investigationThe ratio between positive results to negative results were in the high 90s.
I asked what he had acheived...of course if alerts are false positives then they divert resources and hinder an investigationHow can you define success when even negative searches are considered as important.
The ratio between positive results to negative results were in the high 90s.
How can you define success when even negative searches are considered as important.
how can negative results be important if postive results arent...none of the results in Luz or jersey were of any impotance...grime is assuming the alerts are accurateHe should always remember his results are around 95% accurate.
He should always remember his results are around 95% accurate.
that was in controlled tests....its totally false to extrapolate those figures into searches such as LUZ...if it was realistic then there MUST have been a cadaver in 5a...we all know the results do not prove a cadaver was in 5aHow did you come to that conclusion? we all know the results do not prove a cadaver was in 5a
all grimes test show taht the dogs will alert to cadaver if it is present...the tests do not tell anything about how the dogs will react if cadaver isnt present
How did you come to that conclusion? we all know the results do not prove a cadaver was in 5a
What about alerts that we’re not in such a place????
simple....look before you leap.....do the alerts prove there was a cadaver in 5a...its y or nYou are like a frog with a weak leg, hopping around in circles.
simple....look before you leap.....do the alerts prove there was a cadaver in 5a...its y or n
You are like a frog with a weak leg, hopping around in circles.
I have finally found a section on "case intelligence" page #32/187.
???
When you make a post like that it makes me realise I shouldn't bother to reply to any of your postsWhen was the last time you saw a frog? I'd be happy to see a frog with a sore leg. They have just about become extinct in NZ.
The dogs alerted to objects that were not in 5A. They picked out a certain item of clothing, for example.He said he did it consciously?
Besides Grime has absolutely nothing to gain from encouraging the dog to randomly bark in suspects property.
He said he did it consciously?
He said he did it consciously?Is that a question or a questionable statement of fact?
Is that a question or a questionable statement of fact?it’s a typo, I meant to write “who” not “he”.
He couldn’t direct the dogs as far as the clothes go... and how did he direct Keela in the car? Trying to totally discredit the dogs isn’t the best way to defend the parents, IMO.I’m not trying to totally discredit the dogs but if the parents aren’t involved (which even you must admit is a possibility) then understanding how and why the dog alerts may not have the last word on the matter is worth exploring. If you disagree do explain why please.
it’s a typo, I meant to write “who” not “he”.You mean: "Who said he did it consciously?" OK that is a fair question.
Martin Grime said: "To my knowledge a victim has never been found alive in a case where the author's VRD team has provided a related final response."
The DNA found in the apartment did not prove to be Madeleine's. She may be still alive but "the victim" is definitely thought to be dead. Page #48/187.
" Canine responses that are initially categorised as "intelligence may, with reliable corroboration, be put to jurors in criminal trial following judicial review of competency of the handler /canine team." Page #55/187
This is the point I'm making. .it's a seismic shift to what he and Harrison said in Luz. His white paper shows no new studies or evidence to support this change.I think you are wrong. It is much the same in both situations. I have transcribed the text from portions of the white paper. Howabout you finding the text that makes you think they are different?
I think you are wrong. It is much the same in both situations. I have transcribed the text from portions of the white paper. Howabout you finding the text that makes you think they are different?
And we will put them side by side.
It's totally differentwe will compare the text.
we will compare the text.
Shoe me where grime mentions corroboration by witness statements in luzI have this sentence where he says "... corroboration by DNA etc...." he didn't give us the list of things that corroborate an alert. It is in the "ETC" bit.
I have this sentence where he says "... corroboration by DNA etc...." he didn't give us the list of things that corroborate an alert. It is in the "ETC" bit.
I have this sentence where he says "... corroboration by DNA etc...." he didn't give us the list of things that corroborate an alert. It is in the "ETC" bit.
Where does that quote come from..cite..I'm fairly sure that relates to the CSI dogIts in Grime's rogatory interview. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
It's your opinion he's referring to witness statements.
Its in Grime's rogatory interview. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
"They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
how can dna corroborate an evrd alert when it is impossible to tell if the dna is from a live or dead person..
Grime is talking about both dogs...then talks of dna etc...very imprecise
It is the role of forensic scientists to evaluate the evidence and Grime has always said so. It is very unfair to try to discredit him, IMO. To establish why MM DNA was in the car (had that been the case) they would test scientifically certain theories. i.e. Was it from a hair brush? Or a sandal? Also what was in the car with MM's DNA hypothetically speaking but wasn't in Apartment 4G? This would be another hypothesis that scientists could evaluate. It will be just the same in the Jos Brech case. His defence will undoubtedly seek to dispute DNA evidence. They have already claimed that DNA could have been innocently transferred - that it doesn't prove that Brech is linked to Nicky Verstappen's death. I'm sure other forensic scientists for the prosecution will try to show how the DNA evidence is damning.
i dont think its all wrong to question Grime....the point im making is that Grime seems to have changed his postion dramatically in what constitutes corroboration......with no real explanation as to why. There was no mention of anectdotal witness statements in LUz...the emphasis was on physical remains.
It will be interesting to see what the expert says in the redwine case as to how long the scent of death lasts as a remnant scent...
All I have ever seen Grime say (or write) is that the dogs are highly skilled in alerting to what they have been trained to alert to. This alert, he tells us, is just an indicator. It helps a team of scientists recover material for examination and interpretation. That's all he has ever said as far as what I have seen, and this is exactly what happened in the McCann case.thats what he said in Luz...he nows says something different. He sees the alerts themselves as evidence if they are corroborated by anectdotal witness statements
thats what he said in Luz...he nows says something different. He sees the alerts themselves as evidence if they are corroborated by anectdotal witness statements
Well I agree that they are certainly worth considering. We've been "considering" the Keela and Eddie alerts for years!
Here's a hypothetical situation.... If I was on a jury and watched E&K's 17 alerts which were indicators towards only items relating to the McC's ... and the FSS said there were 15 DNA markers but that possible contamination meant it was "too complex for meaningful interpretation"..... and then a witness said(hypothetically speaking) "I saw one of the parents walk quickly towards the beach carrying a lifeless body" ..... In that situation I'd be certainly considering that amount of circumstantial evidence. It wouldn't, for me, pass the test of beyond all reasonable doubt though.
Also surely Grime knows that hearsay is not admissible as evidence in court? Or by "anecdotal" do you mean first hand accounts given in court by the person who saw or heard something?
Ive already suggested what you have posted...if that evidence was presented to a hostile court in portugal the Mccanns would be convicted...but the "evidence " is total bull
i dont think its all wrong to question Grime....the point im making is that Grime seems to have changed his postion dramatically in what constitutes corroboration......with no real explanation as to why. There was no mention of anectdotal witness statements in LUz...the emphasis was on physical remains.
It will be interesting to see what the expert says in the redwine case as to how long the scent of death lasts as a remnant scent...
It'll be interesting to know if its opinion as opposed to fact.
All I have ever seen Grime say (or write) is that the dogs are highly skilled in alerting to what they have been trained to alert to. This alert, he tells us, is just an indicator. It helps a team of scientists recover material for examination and interpretation. That's all he has ever said as far as what I have seen, and this is exactly what happened in the McCann case.But then do you accept that the DNA results did not point conclusively back to Madeleine but as much to someone related to her?
thats what he said in Luz...he nows says something different. He sees the alerts themselves as evidence if they are corroborated by anectdotal witness statementsWhy is that? Isn't it because it has been shown to be highly reliable. How reliable are the statements? How reliable are eyewitness identifications, how reliable are DNA results? Nothing else is 100% reliable as well yet it is allowed, so why not cadaver dog results backed with anecdotal witness statements that support the findings?
Ive already suggested what you have posted...if that evidence was presented to a hostile court in portugal the Mccanns would be convicted...but the "evidence " is total bullThe period covered by the statutes of limitations has already passed, so unless you think the charge will be murder, what charges can they face?
The period covered by the statutes of limitations has already passed, so unless you think the charge will be murder, what charges can they face?
It will..but she is a real scientist. Remember it's the dog handler making the claim so it is up to the prosecution to show the scent would last ...for a year I believe is the claim..I believe you are in no position to refute any claim.
She may just show there's no evidence to support that claim
Why is that? Isn't it because it has been shown to be highly reliable. How reliable are the statements? How reliable are eyewitness identifications, how reliable are DNA results? Nothing else is 100% reliable as well yet it is allowed, so why not cadaver dog results backed with anecdotal witness statements that support the findings?I think you've totally missed the point...why not allow the flip of a coin...it's 50/50..or thereabouts..
The period covered by the statutes of limitations has already passed, so unless you think the charge will be murder, what charges can they face?
I believe you are in no position to refute any claim.
thats what he said in Luz...he nows says something different. He sees the alerts themselves as evidence if they are corroborated by anectdotal witness statements
Evidence can take many forms but as Grime himself admitted, evidence without corroboration has no reliability.
hes changed his mind...and i know why
Interesting thought Rob.
Portugal has a statute of limitations. The UK does not.
The Redwine case is the latest in the US to allow alert evidence...starts in september. should be interesting as there is a real scientist giving evidence for the defence.
An expert for the defense, Mary Cablk, has testified that dogs can be unreliable and removed remains should not be detectable after one week.
It would be interseting to see on what evidence her claims are made ......the alerts in Luz were after 3 months
I think you've totally missed the point...why not allow the flip of a coin...it's 50/50..or thereabouts..Flippant answer.
if you read the post you might see I never claimed to be...Im talking about the defence expert witness..read the post and you will understandWell at least we have established that you are no expert.
Well at least we have established that you are no expert.
Flippant answer.
How about answering: "How reliable are the statements? How reliable are eyewitness identifications, how reliable are DNA results?"
because I think most poeple know the answer...what we dont know is how relaible the alerts areHaven't you read. I'm not sure why there is a range quoted but it was something like 90 - 100%.
Haven't you read. I'm not sure why there is a range quoted but it was something like 90 - 100%.
thats in a very specific situation.....specific circumstances. are you trying to suggest that reflects the accuracy of the alerts in 5aI don't see why not.
Haven't you read. I'm not sure why there is a range quoted but it was something like 90 - 100%.
"because I think most people know the answer." Are you conceding these other accepted evidences are even less reliable than that?
I don't see why not.
I do...grime sdays they have no evidential reliability,....hardly the case if something has a 90% relaibilty
I do...grime says they have no evidential reliability,....hardly the case if something has a 90% relaibilty
hopefully we will see what a real scientific expert says at the Redwine trial in september
She contradicts herself,saying there are no published studies to show how long human remains linger (cadaver smell?) whilst saying maybe detected for no longer than a week.
She argued the organic compounds that emanate the odor of human remains are volatile and may be detected “for no more than one week,” court documents show. She said there are no published studies about how long human remains linger.
https://the-journal.com/articles/145858
you should look at my previous post on this where I predicted this is exactly what she would argue...You havent shown she has contradicted herself as you havent seen her full quote...I predict she hasnt
She contradicts herself,saying there are no published studies to show how long human remains linger (cadaver smell?) whilst saying maybe detected for no longer than a week."Cablk testified to the ephemeral nature of the odor of human remains, saying that, based on her experience, the lingering smell of a decaying human corpse after it has been removed from a location “should be detectable by HRD (human-remains detection) dogs for no more than one week,” Wilson wrote."
She argued the organic compounds that emanate the odor of human remains are volatile and may be detected “for no more than one week,” court documents show. She said there are no published studies about how long human remains linger.
https://the-journal.com/articles/145858
You need to read what she says,"may be detected for no more than one week" then goes onto say,no published studies into how long human remains linger.Its an opinion it seems.
I know,but its been pointed out many times what crimes the UK can prosecute on,for crimes committed abroad, can you imagine the media circus,who'd want the poison chalice.
as I predicted...she is challenging the claim based on there being no published evidence that the odour would last that long
If the prosecution is worth its salt,then that could easily be exposed.There could be more bodies deeper down or nearby.
Exhume a corpse,take the judge and jury to where the body was exhumed from a week or so later and let the dogs loose,if they alert what then.
If the prosecution is worth its salt,then that could easily be exposed.
Exhume a corpse,take the judge and jury to where the body was exhumed from a week or so later and let the dogs loose,if they alert what then.
If the prosecution is worth its salt,then that could easily be exposed.
Exhume a corpse,take the judge and jury to where the body was exhumed from a week or so later and let the dogs loose,if they alert what then.
If the prosecution is worth its salt,then that could easily be exposed.
Exhume a corpse,take the judge and jury to where the body was exhumed from a week or so later and let the dogs loose,if they alert what then.
Eeek! It's only a matter of time now before someone suggests I should nip over to Luz cemetery, exhume a grave, then see if my cadaver doggie alerts to the grave.
so what evidence is there that remnant scent would still be present in 5a after 3 months...absolutely none
Wasn't there an alert in the Shannon Mathews case,way past a week there wasn't it on old furniture.
do you think any posters here believe you have a cadaver dog
I don't care whether they do or don't.Have they checked the area with a cadaver dog? That there isn't a body left behind.
I haven't yet taken him to Luz cemetery to find out if he would be of any use there.
Perhaps I should take him to the old cemetery beside Nossa Senhora da Luz? I understand all the bodies have been exhumed and re-interred in the current cemetery.
thats whats claimed...but no evidence to show its true. thats the whole point...no proper tests...no proper basis to make any calimsIt is one of the considerations listed in the white paper. - deceased estate furniture.
do you think any posters here believe you have a cadaver dogHe finds cadavers but all species at this stage.
Are you questioning whether Keela alerts were to remnant scent too?
so what evidence is there that remnant scent would still be present in 5a after 3 months...absolutely none
Have they checked the area with a cadaver dog? That there isn't a body left behind.
so what evidence is there that remnant scent would still be present in 5a after 3 months...absolutely none
Police on Thursday revived their search for Etan Patz, a 6-year-old who disappeared in 1979 en route to a New York City bus stop, after a cadaver-sniffing dog recently detected the odor of human remains in a basement near Patz’s SoHo home. Can dogs really smell 33-year-old remains?I agreed with what that author writes.
Yes, if you have the right dog.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/04/etan-patz-search-renewed-can-cadaver-dogs-smell-30-year-old-corpses.html
Then take it to the next logical step if that's the case,why were the dogs brought in.
so what evidence is there that remnant scent would still be present in 5a after 3 months...absolutely none
Police on Thursday revived their search for Etan Patz, a 6-year-old who disappeared in 1979 en route to a New York City bus stop, after a cadaver-sniffing dog recently detected the odor of human remains in a basement near Patz’s SoHo home. Can dogs really smell 33-year-old remains?Did they find a body or any trace of it to validate the alerts? No.
Yes, if you have the right dog.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/04/etan-patz-search-renewed-can-cadaver-dogs-smell-30-year-old-corpses.html
Then take it to the next logical step if that's the case,why were the dogs brought in.If Madeleine’s body had been hidden in one of the locations searched by the dogs it would probably have been found.
If Madeleine’s body had been hidden in one of the locations searched by the dogs it would probably have been found.
What does Grime say on the matter?That isn't remnant scent it's remains..,.....it's remnant scent that is being discussed
Page #140/187 http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
"Experimentally the author has identified graves hundreds of years old...."
He finds cadavers but all species at this stage.
Are you questioning whether Keela alerts were to remnant scent too?Afaiaa Keela does not alert to remnant scent
Even if it did (that remnant scent would still be present in 5a after 3 months) you could still object to it as there is no way of proving it. The dog is the only test, as there is no scientific test for this.
Then take it to the next logical step if that's the case,why were the dogs brought in.
It is one of the considerations listed in the white paper. - deceased estate furniture.
That isn't remnant scent it's remains..,.....it's remnant scent that is being discussedNo I was trying to get SIL to checkout the old graveyard.
Police on Thursday revived their search for Etan Patz, a 6-year-old who disappeared in 1979 en route to a New York City bus stop, after a cadaver-sniffing dog recently detected the odor of human remains in a basement near Patz’s SoHo home. Can dogs really smell 33-year-old remains?
Yes, if you have the right dog.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/04/etan-patz-search-renewed-can-cadaver-dogs-smell-30-year-old-corpses.html
No evidence to support it...the expert in the Redwine case doesn't agreeCite please?
I looked at this case before...the dogs alerted to remains...not remnant scentSo were remains found?
Cite please?
So were remains found?
It's already been given...in her experience and opinion remnant scent may last only 1 weekOK that statement.
There is no evidence to support either opinion
OK that statement.Which statement
Which statement"in her experience and opinion remnant scent may last only 1 week" To me in my experience of having to handle deceased animal that seems too short. But you can prove it or disprove it?
It's already been given...in her experience and opinion remnant scent may last only 1 week
There is no evidence to support either opinion
"in her experience and opinion remnant scent may last only 1 week" To me in my experience of having to handle deceased animal that seems too short. But you can prove it or disprove it?
Then the judge having decided the evidence of the dog handlers to be able to be heard in the forthcoming trial is allowing a jury of peers to decide.The judge runs the risk of allowing unproven, unscientific evidence to be presented to the jury that could result in a mistrial
"in her experience and opinion remnant scent may last only 1 week" To me in my experience of having to handle deceased animal that seems too short. But you can prove it or disprove it?
The judge runs the risk of allowing unproven, unscientific evidence to be presented to the jury that could result in a mistrialIYO
IYOYes
Can Grime or any dog handler prove their claims that remnant scent lasts 3 months...one yearAny thought of leaving human bodies lying around decomposing in the name of science seems to be out of the question. It would be easy to do if there were plenty of cadaver dogs and no one cared what happened to the deceased.
She is highlighting the fact that they cannot
Why do you ask her to prove her claim but not grime
Any thought of leaving human bodies lying around decomposing in the name of science seems to be out of the question. It would be easy to do if there were plenty of cadaver dogs and no one cared what happened to the deceased.
I doubt if yo can retest the same dog at the same spot week after week. Each week you'd need a new dog.
You wouldn't need to and this is why I criticise the type of testing dog handlers carry out.How do you get that contaminated material? Can it be direct contact to a cadaver or is it odours that permeate through a plastic bag? How decomposed was the cadaver? How long was the contact?
Take a piece of contaminated material and see if the dog alerts...keep it for 12 months then see if the dog still alerts
Obviously you would need several different types of material to show what happens in different circumstances
How do you get that contaminated material? Can it be direct contact to a cadaver or is it odours that permeate through a plastic bag? How decomposed was the cadaver? How long was the contact?to what odours are the dogs tested now? it could be a cloth that has been in contact with a cadaver. You wouldnt just do it with one sample but perhaps 20......then a test of 20 contminated and 20 not contaminated. To confirm the test would be repeated by different handlers.
To get meaningful results how would you know if an alert say at 1 year later was genuine? Would the likes of you still want some other verification that the alert was to residual odour?
to what odours are the dogs tested now? it could be a cloth that has been in contact with a cadaver. You wouldnt just do it with one sample but perhaps 20......then a test of 20 contminated and 20 not contaminated. To confirm the test would be repeated by different handlers.You could ruin a good dog with a test like that. I'll ask my friend what she thinks.
As for satisfying poeple like me I presume you mean those with a scientific background who understand what scientific evidence is.
without proper scientific testing the alerts are simply opinion.
You could ruin a good dog with a test like that. I'll ask my friend what she thinks.
I don't see how that would ruin a dogWell how many cadaver dogs are there in the UK? How many dogs would get involved in the testing?
Well how many cadaver dogs are there in the UK? How many dogs would get involved in the testing?
It could simply be part of their normal testing ever six months...but if they are not tested they are not scientifically validated..Well put it this way if a human can smell it it is there, do you agree with that. Just use humans instead of cadaver dogs.
So does residual scent last one week or one year....no one can prove either way
Well put it this way if a human can smell it it is there, do you agree with that. Just use humans instead of cadaver dogs.
Multiply what a human can do by 300 times to get what good dog could do.
to what odours are the dogs tested now? it could be a cloth that has been in contact with a cadaver. You wouldnt just do it with one sample but perhaps 20......then a test of 20 contminated and 20 not contaminated. To confirm the test would be repeated by different handlers.
As for satisfying poeple like me I presume you mean those with a scientific background who understand what scientific evidence is.
without proper scientific testing the alerts are simply opinion.
your post doesnt really make any sense......the alerts are not supported by evidencedo the test using people rather than cadaver dogs. If a human can smell the test sample 1 week after a dog will smell it 300 times longer than that for their sense of smell is so much better than ours.
do the test using people rather than cadaver dogs. If a human can smell the test sample 1 week after a dog will smell it 300 times longer than that for their sense of smell is so much better than ours.
If a human can smell the test sample for 1 day later, a dog will smell it 300 times longer than that for their sense of smell is so much better than ours.
Sorry Rob...that's your opinion...very unscientific...and absolute rubbish imoA person can describe what is happening. A dog can't discuss its thoughts with the tester.
Why not just test the dogs
Davel - do you accept a dog's sense of smell is better than that of a human?
If it is, what factor would you say it was?
Sorry Rob...that's your opinion...very unscientific...and absolute rubbish imo
Why not just test the dogs
They are tested. as of course you know.And what happens if cadaver odour is not present...the tests are extremely limited.
Where it is known that human cadaver odour is present, in tests, dogs trained to alert to cadaver odour will correctly alert 92-100% of the time.
And what happens if cadaver odour is not present...the tests are extremely limited.There are so many variables to consider, like:
How long does cadaver odour last as a remnant scent...no data
There are so many variables to consider, like:
1. How long since death occurred.
2. How much decomposition has taken place (environmental temperature)
3. Presence of insect larvae
4. Length of time a cadaver had contact with the surface
5 . Whether there were barriers between the cadaver and the surface.
they could try and answer the simple questions first....Grime is looking for a scientific basis to support the alerts...he doesnt seem to have found one. Would remnant scent have lasted 3 months in 5a...no one knowsThat is why in my theory of a longer period between death and when the body was moved after 4:30 AM is possible and hence works better that the theories that make out she died and was moved out of apartment 5A before 10:00 PM. In my theory there is another 6.5 hours for cadaver odour to develop.
And what happens if cadaver odour is not present...the tests are extremely limited.
How long does cadaver odour last as a remnant scent...no data
dogs are only tested when it is known the scent is present....they are not tested when the scent is not present
5a could be seen as a test then.
for those who think the dogs are tested...this is what a scientific study and report looks like...and an interesting topic re false alerts and handler cuing.
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2?shared_access_token=Vut12Uai65004q4v-y_Xkve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4bHsjVym_Rn1xhUadVArBPtORCcCsdqHrjfpKRHjPPjYb5mMYWDvHEbTHOAv6HV6ANjhZim-a0wggN1S-Kvmj0IeYkWH2nWnXHGCrn5yBcmWOTIMVDV7FUMgrm42lcSdY%3D
Whilst that was an interesting and informative read *&(+(+
it has nothing to do with the deployment of a cadaver dog in Luz 2007
nor does it have anything to do with the deployment of Tito and Muzzy in Luz 2014.
By the way, if that paper had been sent to me now for peer review, I would have rejected it. That experiment is riddled with holes.
Well it wasn't sent to you....and you would have rejected it because you are biased imo...it was posted by a scientist with a PHD ...who had written scientific papers re dogs and had trained detection dogs...by someone who is professionally respected in her field..
So how many scientific papers have you written ..zero I would confidently say
Could you point out where the holes are...no you can't...just empty opinion...you are welcome to prove me wrong
It has everything to do with claimed uncorroborated alerts was the case n Luz in 2007
May I ask what you have written has to do with the price of chips?
If you want to equate explosives dogs to drug dogs to cadaver dogs to blood dogs, go for it. That's an absolute fail.
There were corroborated alerts in Luz 2007. Need I say more?
There were not corroborated alerts in luz...there was one for blood...singular..so there were multiple uncorroborated alerts...and yes...the article applies to handler bias which applies to all detection dogs..
you are still unable to show the so called holes in the article...which is expected
Oh dear, how wrong can you get?
There were more than one corroborated alerts.
Feel free to dispute it until the cows come home. &^&*%
Do you think Grime was told where he thought the body had been placed?
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2?shared_access_token=Vut12Uai65004q4v-y_Xkve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4bHsjVym_Rn1xhUadVArBPtORCcCsdqHrjfpKRHjPPjYb5mMYWDvHEbTHOAv6HV6ANjhZim-a0wggN1S-Kvmj0IeYkWH2nWnXHGCrn5yBcmWOTIMVDV7FUMgrm42lcSdY%3D
"
absolutely not...ive said before.....I think he looked really hard to find any evidence...he didnt want to miss anythingIs that a fault mentioned in that paper?
Is that a fault mentioned in that paper?
Hilarious, however it was possible that the body could have been buried on Murat’s property which was searched, or in the immediate environs of the holiday apartments.
I don't think any one expected a body to still be behind the settee.
Whilst that was an interesting and informative read *&(+(+I notice you haven’t chipped in to tell Robitty that he was wrong to say earlier that dogs have a better sense of smell then humans, how very remiss of you!
it has nothing to do with the deployment of a cadaver dog in Luz 2007
nor does it have anything to do with the deployment of Tito and Muzzy in Luz 2014.
By the way, if that paper had been sent to me now for peer review, I would have rejected it. That experiment is riddled with holes.
I notice you haven’t chipped in to tell Robitty that he was wrong to say earlier that dogs have a better sense of smell then humans, how very remiss of you!
Davel - do you accept a dog's sense of smell is better than that of a human?
If it is, what factor would you say it was?
According to sil humans sense of smell is not better than a dogWell I'm asking your opinion. But what SIL says is true "human's sense of smell is not better than a dog".
what fault...grime wouldnt see that as a fault...I dont see it as a faultIn the study any alert was a false alert, or in my words a fault.
absolutely not...ive said before.....I think he looked really hard to find any evidence...he didnt want to miss anything
And let's not forget:Well he could of course if Amaral had other intelligence indicating something happened behind the couch, and a bag was missing from the wardrobe and he had advised Grime of the theory. When did Amaral first notice the bag was missing?
"It is important to emphasize that this study did not evaluate performance of dogs when presented with scent. Handler-dog teams undergo substantial training and rig-orous certification prior to deployment; all teams includedin this study confirmed prior successful finds during activedeployment. This study only considered number of alerts under the artificially manipulated condition of handler belief of scent when in fact no scent was present."
How would Grime know that there would be no transferable cadaver odour in 4G, for example... and how can he cue Keela to alert at the precise location in the hire car where human cellular material is found?
Well he could of course if Amaral had other intelligence indicating something happened behind the couch, and a bag was missing from the wardrobe and he had advised Grime of the theory. When did Amaral first notice the bag was missing?
for those who think the dogs are tested...this is what a scientific study and report looks like...and an interesting topic re false alerts and handler cuing.
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2?shared_access_token=Vut12Uai65004q4v-y_Xkve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4bHsjVym_Rn1xhUadVArBPtORCcCsdqHrjfpKRHjPPjYb5mMYWDvHEbTHOAv6HV6ANjhZim-a0wggN1S-Kvmj0IeYkWH2nWnXHGCrn5yBcmWOTIMVDV7FUMgrm42lcSdY%3D
The only thing we have heard from grime is anecdotal testing....
How do you know that Grime and his dogs were never tested in a similar manner?
Well I'm asking your opinion. But what SIL says is true "human's sense of smell is not better than a dog".
Do you have a cite for that...I believe sil quoted Vanessa Mae...which didn't make any sense.Do you agree a dog has a more evolved sense of smell than humans?
If that ridiculous idea had any truth in it why does grime bother with the dogs...he could just sniff everything himself
Do you agree a dog has a more evolved sense of smell than humans?
You have told me sil is right and a dog has no better sense of smell than a dog...is that what you thinkAre you drinking? How can anyone ask if "a dog has no better sense of smell than a dog"?
Are you drinking?
You have told me sil is right and a dog has no better sense of smell than a dog...is that what you thinkIt is reported that dogs have vastly more smell receptors than humans do.
Reply 1501I'm being serious.
Stop sniping
I'm being serious.
Do what did you mean by post 1501.. when you said sil was right
Well I'm asking your opinion. But what SIL says is true "human's sense of smell is not better than a dog".
I'm being serious.
No it's a typoNow you blame it on your own typo. Don't you read what you have written?
Sil maintains that dogs have no better sense of smell than humans...so do you now confirm sil is wrong
Now you blame it on your own typo. Don't you read what you have written?
It is not a matter of scoring points against SIL I asked you for your own understanding.
I'm not scoring points...I answered you "I don't consume alcohol or any other intoxicants."
I asked you a question...you won't answer .but expect me to answer yours
I answered you "I don't consume alcohol or any other intoxicants."
Now answer my questions to you.
"Davel - do you accept a dog's sense of smell is better than that of a human?
If it is, what factor would you say it was?"
Why do you expect me to answer your question when you refuse to answer mineWhat question have I refused to answer?
What question have I refused to answer?
Was it "so do you now confirm sil is wrong?" You hadn't put a question mark on it. Now SIL may have also made a typo like you did. IMO he was wrong originally but was it just a typo?
No it wasn't a typo...sil goes into detail on his blog on the subject.and maintains that dogs do not have a better scent ability than humans...and had said the same here. Just wanted to confirm your opinion that sil is wrongNow in your own words what do you think?
Grime himself does not give a factor but this is what he has written:
"Canine olfaction is far more sensitive and discriminatory than that of humans" Page #46/187 http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
I'm sure that has come as an absolute shock to all...who would have thought itDo you agree with Grime on this issue?
How many times better is canine olfaction compared to human olfaction?
You will have to ask the dogs.I heard Eddie bark 15 times. Is that the right answer?
I heard Eddie bark 15 times. Is that the right answer?
Nope. Sorry.Do you know the right answer?
Do you know the right answer?
Of course I don't. Only the dog sniffing something would know how strong the scent was to him, or her.I think I'm talking more a dilution. if Human can smell a scent at a certain strength if it was then diluted 1000 times can a dog pick it up? I think Grime would say some dogs can.
Of course I don't. Only the dog sniffing something would know how strong the scent was to him, or her.To know what the dog is thinking would be extremely difficult to determine.
To know what the dog is thinking would be extremely difficult to determine.
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. (Martin Grime)Is that all a quote from Martin Grime? I'm not sure if exact is the right word. The words "the dogs appear to be extremely exact" is a human thought.
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. (Martin Grime)
Well he could of course if Amaral had other intelligence indicating something happened behind the couch, and a bag was missing from the wardrobe and he had advised Grime of the theory. When did Amaral first notice the bag was missing?
Are you seriously suggesting that there was a joint attempt by Amaral and Grime to frame the McCanns? I think you should keep such ideas to yourself as there's not a scrap of evidence to syggest such a thing.I'm not suggesting that at all, but can you prove they didn't discuss the details prior to the search?
Are you seriously suggesting that there was a joint attempt by Amaral and Grime to frame the McCanns? I think you should keep such ideas to yourself as there's not a scrap of evidence to syggest such a thing.
I'm not suggesting that at all, but can you prove they didn't discuss the details prior to the search?
Is that all a quote from Martin Grime? I'm not sure if exact is the right word. The words "the dogs appear to be extremely exact" is a human thought.
'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
As I understand it's not possible to libel a police force so it is a possibility that cadaver odour was planted by members of the PJ to put pressure on the McCanns to confess...it's a possibilityBoth of those situations are covered in Grime's white paper http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
It's also a possibility that a member of the police force had been in touch with a cadaver and innocently contaminated
5a
Both of those situations are covered in Grime's white paper http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
They were covered by his statement in Luz...2007OK I know I read that somewhere recently. Thanks D mate
OK I know I read that somewhere recently. Thanks D mate
Thanks mate...are we seeing a new era of co-operation and mutual respect....lets hope soEarly days yet. But you know what I said.
Early days yet. But you know what I said.
I know everything youve said rob....ive a memory like a quantum computerI've heard quantum computer are very good at giving answers to difficult questions. You ought to try that too!
I've heard quantum computer are very good at giving answers to difficult questions. You ought to try that too!
My problem with Martin grime is that during the searches in luz he was ceasing to be a policeman and becoming a businessman. As a businessman he has a financial interest in promoting the alerts as valuable.....that to me provides a conflict of interest. Ive no doubt he believes in the ability of his dogs...but can we rule out confirmation bias.Even lawyers have a financial interest in the cases they get involved with. Career boost if they win a case.
Even lawyers have a financial interest in the cases they get involved with. Career boost if they win a case.
Journalists have a financial interest in the cases they get involved with.
Police have a financial interest in the cases they get involved with.
Who doesn't have a financial interest in the cases they get involved with?
From a business perspective Grime has absolutely nothing to gain if the dogs alert randomly and no human cellular material is found.
Obviously not true..there was no confirmed human cellular material in Jersey..around 100k..no cellular material in Detroit..no record of what was paidHe has a fee. There will be others in the market.
He has a fee. There will be others in the market.
From a business perspective Grime has absolutely nothing to gain if the dogs alert randomly and no human cellular material is found.
Alerts are now confirmed by anecdotal witness statements..could be described as a great business move
No I don’t buy that. All you have to do is read what Martin Grime was saying at the time. He was quite clear!
Just think about it - who in there right mind would pay for the services of a dog that barks?!!!!!
You obviously haven't read Grimes latest white paper..Because the intelligence gained saves money in the long run. "Value for money" is a term he often talks about.
And who would pay for a dog that barked...the Americans
That's not opinion..it's fact
WTF?I made no reference to Davel’s link, only to Robitty’s assertion that dogs have a better sense of smell than humans. We know you believe this is nonsense but have remained silent on the subject in this debate which I find slightly curious, that’s all.
What does that have to do with Davel's link???
Answers on a postage stamp please!!!
SIL can we have your latest opinion on cadaver dog's ability to discern odours?
Check my blog.I do read your blog from time to time. It is interesting, but what is the title to the section that covers this aspect.
It's not on my priority list to do an update.
I do read your blog from time to time. It is interesting, but what is the title to the section that covers this aspect.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/ is the menu.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/madeleine-cadaver-dog-senses/ is the section.
"I have also checked on the ability of dogs, in general, to smell. Despite popular belief, scientific research shows dogs do NOT have a superior ability to smell than me."
Well do you think you could do this? https://youtu.be/XPluctLY8Y4 "How Powerful Is a Dog's Nose? | Inside the Animal Mind | BBC Earth". You are in the wrong game if you can.
I've made it clear your questions are not on my to-do list, so kindly cease and desist.what you said was "It's not on my priority list to do an update".
No I don’t buy that. All you have to do is read what Martin Grime was saying at the time. He was quite clear!
Just think about it - who in there right mind would pay for the services of a dog that barks?!!!!!
Because the intelligence gained saves money in the long run. "Value for money" is a term he often talks about.
The report from Jersey was highly critical of the cost of grime...almost 100k.....for zero resultsA mere snip when compared to SY costs and no result.
A mere snip when compared to SY costs and no result.
You obviously haven't read Grimes latest white paper..
And who would pay for a dog that barked...the Americans
That's not opinion..it's fact
No. He still talks about corroborative evidence being required.
That’s an incredibly serious allegation you’re making against Martin Grime. You are accusing him of misleading a criminal investigation deliberately and for his own financial gain. Wow!!
No. He still talks about corroborative evidence being required.
That’s an incredibly serious allegation you’re making against Martin Grime. You are accusing him of misleading a criminal investigation deliberately and for his own financial gain. Wow!!
No. He still talks about corroborative evidence being required.
That’s an incredibly serious allegation you’re making against Martin Grime. You are accusing him of misleading a criminal investigation deliberately and for his own financial gain. Wow!!
'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
My problem with Martin grime is that during the searches in luz he was ceasing to be a policeman and becoming a businessman. As a businessman he has a financial interest in promoting the alerts as valuable.....that to me provides a conflict of interest. Ive no doubt he believes in the ability of his dogs...but can we rule out confirmation bias.
You know nothing about the man but feel entitled to question his integrity. There's no evidence to suggest that finanual gain was his motivation. He served his term in the police and on retirement he offered his services to those who were willing to pay for them.
Mark Harrison quoted the costs charged by SYP for the dogs in 2007;
costs for the EVRD and CSI are available.
The daily rate for this dog team is 1000 Euros. Flight travel costs for handler and dogs could be 2750 Euros. Veterinary costs: U.K. and Portugal to comply with Pet Passports scheme 450 Euros. Accommodation, subsistence and vehicle transportation would incur extra charge.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
They were never a cheap option, but if you want the best you have to pay for it.
You know nothing about the man but feel entitled to question his integrity. There's no evidence to suggest that finanual gain was his motivation. He served his term in the police and on retirement he offered his services to those who were willing to pay for them.
Mark Harrison quoted the costs charged by SYP for the dogs in 2007;
costs for the EVRD and CSI are available.
The daily rate for this dog team is 1000 Euros. Flight travel costs for handler and dogs could be 2750 Euros. Veterinary costs: U.K. and Portugal to comply with Pet Passports scheme 450 Euros. Accommodation, subsistence and vehicle transportation would incur extra charge.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
They were never a cheap option, but if you want the best you have to pay for it.
You know nothing about the man but feel entitled to question his integrity. There's no evidence to suggest that finanual gain was his motivation. He served his term in the police and on retirement he offered his services to those who were willing to pay for them.Which independent arbiter of cadaver dog handlers would you go to for advice on who is the best?
Mark Harrison quoted the costs charged by SYP for the dogs in 2007;
costs for the EVRD and CSI are available.
The daily rate for this dog team is 1000 Euros. Flight travel costs for handler and dogs could be 2750 Euros. Veterinary costs: U.K. and Portugal to comply with Pet Passports scheme 450 Euros. Accommodation, subsistence and vehicle transportation would incur extra charge.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
They were never a cheap option, but if you want the best you have to pay for it.
What I do see is based on the so called evidence provided by Grimes dogs posters are accusing the mccans of covering up their daughters death and using her death for their own financial gain
Based solely on the dog alerts? I don't think so.
Based solely on the dog alerts? I don't think so.Take away the dog alerts and what have you got? Pretty much nothing.
Based solely on the dog alerts? I don't think so.you accept the alerts play some role yet they have no evidential value
I feel entitled to question everything...isn't that your belief
Just because he is regarded as an expert and an expert witness does not make him right...experts have been shown to be wrong in the past
Questioning Grime's expertise is acceptable. You were questioning his personal integrity, which isn't.Why not? The McCanns personal integrity is questioned relentlessly.
Questioning Grime's expertise is acceptable. You were questioning his personal integrity, which isn't.
I haven't ..cite required
In an article in the guardian re the libel trial .almeida said the main evidence against the McCanns was the dogs
I thought you were takling about internet posters? In my opinion there were suspicions about the McCanns before Grime set foot in Portugal.
I haven't ..cite required
You inferred that his impending retirement affected how he behaved in Luz.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg547427#msg547427
You inferred that his impending retirement affected how he behaved in Luz.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg547427#msg547427
it may well have done...not necessarily intentional.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever on which to base your accusations?The fact he was setting up his own consultancy business..I'm not accusing him of anything..I'm simply pointing out he was under different influences
The fact he was setting up his own consultancy business..I'm not accusing him of anything..I'm simply pointing out he was under different influences
So it's just an attempt at mud slinging then? In my opinion his interests lay in doing the best job possible because his reputation relied on it, and it was his reputation which was his main asset.His dogs alerting in the McCann case made him the most cadaver famous dog handler in the world. Kerching.
So it's just an attempt at mud slinging then? In my opinion his interests lay in doing the best job possible because his reputation relied on it, and it was his reputation which was his main asset.
You may see it as mud slinging...I see it as questioning everything...perhaps you need to change your signature..
So who do you think is right...grime or the American canine scientific expert
You pointed out that Grime was about to retire and set up on his own. Based on that fact you decided he had a conflicy of interest. That conclusion is an opinion. You need to provide evidence, not opinion.What’s wrong with opinions?
Which American canine scientific expert?
The report from Jersey was highly critical of the cost of grime...almost 100k.....for zero resultsDid it solve the case?
Grime said in his opinion the alert was suggestive of cadaver odour...another expert Mary Cablk...says in her experience remnant scent in such a situation would only last a week...who do you believe and why?
this is what she says on her FB page...
Welcome! This page is dedicated to conveying science that pertains to and supports detection dog disciplines. I'll post information about the latest peer reviewed research, conferences and other forms of professional communication, and of course, my own expertise based on real-world deployments and training. I welcome handlers to share their questions, challenges and experiences - so that your voice helps inform cutting edge research.
www.facebook.com/pg/DrCablk/posts/
What’s wrong with opinions?
Nothing at all unless they're libellous or slanderous.Hinting that Grime allowed his personal ambitions to affect his work could be seen as crossing a line imo.There are plenty of other libellous inferences going on on this board which don’t seem to bother you one tiny bit. Any reason for that?
Nothing at all unless they're libellous or slanderous.Hinting that Grime allowed his personal ambitions to affect his work could be seen as crossing a line imo.But I haven't said that
Did it solve the case?
There was no case to solve..no missing children ...no murdered children...but Eddie alerted 11 timesThere must have been an issue to begin with. Has that issue gone away?
There was no case to solve..no missing children ...no murdered children...but Eddie alerted 11 timesyou
Mary Cablk is so obviously wrong. Good tracker dogs can pick up a trail older than a week. In the case of a rotten cadaver the odour would be there potentially for years to a well trained cadaver dog and SiL.
There must have been an issue to begin with. Has that issue gone away?
In Luz we are not talking about a rotten cadaver...a fresh cadaver present for minutes if anything
What evidence is there for s tracker dog picking up a week old scent
Is Mary talking specifically about the McCann case? In my theory there is another cadaver that is removed at some later time. So in my theory there is more time for cadaver odour to develop, and hence could permeate the region greater.
Maybe Mary is only considering the case of Madeleine dying in the apartment around 9:00 and being moved before 10:00 PM. Even I would tend to agree with her if that was the actual truth.
The tracker dog comment was not Luz specific, but is known from actual cases.
What actual cases... evidence robI read today that tracker dogs can follow a scent up to a week old. They didn't mention actual cases, but I don't doubt there are cases.
Mary Cablk is so obviously wrong. Good tracker dogs can pick up a trail older than a week. In the case of a rotten cadaver the odour would be there potentially for years to a well trained cadaver dog and SiL.
Is she the 'expert'? She does train and handle dogs and she works for the police on occassion. Civilian dog handlers are often used in America. She claims to be certified, but I can't see who certified her. Without being able to compare her training methods and records, experience, success rate and acreditation with Grime's it's not possible to say if her expertise is superior to his imo.It is Davel who keeps on quoting her as if she is some sort of expert witness.
It is Davel who keeps on quoting her as if she is some sort of expert witness.
Is she the 'expert'? She does train and handle dogs and she works for the police on occassion. Civilian dog handlers are often used in America. She claims to be certified, but I can't see who certified her. Without being able to compare her training methods and records, experience, success rate and acreditation with Grime's it's not possible to say if her expertise is superior to his imo.
I read today that tracker dogs can follow a scent up to a week old. They didn't mention actual cases, but I don't doubt there are cases.
https://www.missinganimalresponse.com/lost-pet-help/how-long-can-scent-survive/
" Kat Albrecht has spent over 20 plus years training and working search dogs, observing other search dogs in training, and learning from search dog authorities across the country. She’s familiar with aged trail experiments performed by experienced Bloodhound trainers. Based on her knowledge of what other credible Bloodhound handlers have experienced, her training through the National Police Bloodhound Association (NPBA), and her personal experience in working successful cases with search dogs that she has personally trained and/or worked with, she is comfortable in estimating that in optimal scent conditions (cool, damp areas with heavy vegetation and no wind) a trained trailing dog is probably capable of following a scent trail that is up to three (possibly even four) weeks old.
She is an expert witness in the upcoming Redwine trial
She is an expert witness in the upcoming Redwine trial
It will be interesting to see which side's evidence convinces.
I haven't ..cite requiredYou suggested he acted in financial self interest.
You suggested he acted in financial self interest.
Corroboration was forensic in Luz...it's now anecdotal witness statements...I haven't accused grime of anything...
I'm quite careful in the use of words..
Corroborative evidence is just that. It’s up to a court to decide how much weight it carries.
So let’s just get this clear you do not assert that Grime (possibly after discussing the case with Amaral) gave cues to the dogs to alert at certain locations connected to the McCann’s because he had ceased acting as a Policeman and was instead acting as a businessman concerned with personal financial gain?
Corroborative evidence is just that. It’s up to a court to decide how much weight it carries.
So let’s just get this clear you do not assert that Grime (possibly after discussing the case with Amaral) gave cues to the dogs to alert at certain locations connected to the McCann’s because he had ceased acting as a Policeman and was instead acting as a businessman concerned with personal financial gain?
How many UK cases did Grime work on after the Jersey fiasco in 2008?
That's eleven years..it must be loads him being the expert
You'd think so. I'll await an informed response from one of the EVRD supporters.
So a scent a week old...ties in with what the American saysDavel we don't want to go back to having rows but unless you make proper sentences will will never make progress.
I think you are confusing me with rob...that's what rob was suggesting...I don't believe that at allNo it is you who is confusing that with me. I've never said anything along those lines.
I’m pretty sure he retired!
The question you should be asking of course is how many times have Police deemed it helpful to use EVRD in investigations since August 2007.
Eddie was apparently the only EVRD in the world.
Retirement didn't prevent Grime working on a case in Sept. '07 or Jersey in Feb '08. Can you cite any UK deployments after Jersey?
Since when were we talking “YK only”? I in my opinion the dog wasn’t wrong in Jersey. Eddie’s work gets questioned mainly only in 2 cases. Is there a link?
Do you think Eddie/Grime's reliability played any part in the lack of UK deployments after Luz & Jersey? Both cases put dog & handler under a level of scrutiny not previously expected or experienced in UK or any other country.
My problem with Martin grime is that during the searches in luz he was ceasing to be a policeman and becoming a businessman. As a businessman he has a financial interest in promoting the alerts as valuable.....that to me provides a conflict of interest. Ive no doubt he believes in the ability of his dogs...but can we rule out confirmation bias.
I have no idea, but in my opinion Grime acted with professionalism and integrity. Eddie did what he was trained to do. In Luz, alongside the alerts of Keela, this helped forensic teams to collect and analyse human cellular material. Some of which was found to have 15 DNA markers that MM had. "Too complex" for the FSS to make a meaningful interpretation, as "more than one person "contributing. A US forensic scientist has claimed he could make a meaningful interpretation of the DNA data within two weeks.
Eddie was not trained to pick up potential evidence with his mouth. Another cadaver dog was not deployed to validate Eddie's alerts. Keela's alerts neither corroborated nor invalidated potential cadaver odour in the areas Eddie barked.Eddie is still very much a dog. Had he come across a tennis ball he may have picked it up, as he did with a soft toy that had a resemblance to a cat. Dogs just love worrying cats. Its their nature.
I'm not interested in what Perlin thinks he can do with a mixed & incomplete DNA test result. Confirming the presence of a speck of Madeleine's DNA would add nothing to the investigation imo.
Eddie is still very much a dog. Had he come across a tennis ball he may have picked it up, as he did with a soft toy that had a resemblance to a cat. Dogs just love worrying cats. Its their nature.
Eddie was not trained to pick up potential evidence with his mouth. Another cadaver dog was not deployed to validate Eddie's alerts. Keela's alerts neither corroborated nor invalidated potential cadaver odour in the areas Eddie barked.
I'm not interested in what Perlin thinks he can do with a mixed & incomplete DNA test result. Confirming the presence of a speck of Madeleine's DNA would add nothing to the investigation imo.
Eddie was not trained to pick up potential evidence with his mouth. Another cadaver dog was not deployed to validate Eddie's alerts. Keela's alerts neither corroborated nor invalidated potential cadaver odour in the areas Eddie barked.
I'm not interested in what Perlin thinks he can do with a mixed & incomplete DNA test result. Confirming the presence of a speck of Madeleine's DNA would add nothing to the investigation imo.
Was the dog rewarded immediately after the find?
I don't know, because I can't remember.
In most dog clips I have seen, the dog in operational deployment is rewarded immediately after the alert.
If you think it through, one cannot wait for an hour or two before humans manage to deny or confirm that the alert is correct. The dog would not remember whether is was being denied a treat, or whether it got it right.
I don't know what happens in training. Do the dogs get rewarded for alerting? For not alerting? For working diligently? I don't know the answer.
However we do know that research in peer reviewed scientific journals show that they are 92-100% when they alert to cadaver odour that is known to be present in trials.
The doggie in my tale was a drug doggie, not a cadaver doggie. Nor a fire doggie, or a cash doggie, or a firearms doggie, or a tracker doggie.
Iv'e no reason at this time to think that one can fit all of those into the same shoebox.
Would you therefore tend to agree that a cadaver dog which deviates from its discipline is unreliable?No because it is a dog. That seems to be stating the obvious, but if a dog wasn't allowed to be a dog it wouldn't be a dog. It would be a machine.
I don't know, because I can't remember.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm (verbal report)
In most dog clips I have seen, the dog in operational deployment is rewarded immediately after the alert.
If you think it through, one cannot wait for an hour or two before humans manage to deny or confirm that the alert is correct. The dog would not remember whether is was being denied a treat, or whether it got it right.
I don't know what happens in training. Do the dogs get rewarded for alerting? For not alerting? For working diligently? I don't know the answer.
No because it is a dog. That seems to be stating the obvious, but if a dog wasn't allowed to be a dog it wouldn't be a dog. It would be a machine.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm (verbal report)I think it is important to reward the dogs if the result is right during training but not during an operation where Grime would not know if the dog is right or wrong.
*snipped*
Apartment H5
We searched this apartment and the dog hasn't shown any interest in this particular apartment, apart from around the table, where there was a tennis ball which is how we reward the dog for finding things, as soon as we removed the tennis ball the interest was gone. And so it was a negative search.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
*snipped"
"During training, the dogs are barely rewarded for positive alert signals regarding targets of known substances."
When the dog is searching for the target scent it's really seeking the resultant award. Isn't confusing for a dog to NOT be rewarded following an alert, irrespective of whether the alert is right or wrong? How can repeated alerts without reward all be construed as genuine?
So how can you consider a dog 100% reliable when it deviates from training not to contaminate evidence? If it's failing in one area may it not also be failing when attempting to locate target scent?
Read the journals. It is scientific research and potential pitfalls and bias are considered.Does Misty think the dogs will always have to be 100% reliable?
The 100% means on a certain day dog "A" will alert correctly X out of X times when cadaver odour is present on an object hidden with other objects in a test area. There are many variables tested and researched.
Read the journals. It is scientific research and potential pitfalls and bias are considered.
The 100% means on a certain day dog "A" will alert correctly X out of X times when cadaver odour is present on an object hidden with other objects in a test area. There are many variables tested and researched.
Does Misty think the dogs will always have to be 100% reliable?
If someone's life or liberty depends on it then, yes.But any alert has to be corroborated.
Davel we don't want to go back to having rows but unless you make proper sentences will will never make progress.
"So a scent a week old...ties in with what the American says" What do you mean by that?
A scent made by someone walking can be tracked by a tracker dog a week later.
A scent left by a cadaver - there is no science to show how long that remains. But anyone who knows a cadaver smells a lot worse than most people's feet.
No it is you who is confusing that with me. I've never said anything along those lines.
But any alert has to be corroborated.
Would you therefore tend to agree that a cadaver dog which deviates from its discipline is unreliable?Given there was never going to be a body how can it be said the dog deviated from its discipline.
But any alert has to be corroborated.Not in the case of D’Andre Lane it seems, unless you consider (conflicting) witness statements to be corroboration. Grime seems to have changed his position on what does and does not corroborate dog alerts.
Not in the case of D’Andre Lane it seems, unless you consider (conflicting) witness statements to be corroboration. Grime seems to have changed his position on what does and does not corroborate dog alerts.
If a dog can't smell cadaver odour through a paper bag then you have to wonder.Oh but this was a very special sort of paper bag, one which any murderer worth their salt knows to use when discarding of body parts. They are cadaver dog proof. I expect the McCanns took a supply of these paper bags with them on holiday, just in case.
If someone's life or liberty depends on it then, yes.
Even DNA evidence isn't 100% reliable. Grime has always been very clear. Dog alerts don't prove anything. Sometimes, however, they can be used by the prosecution, along with other evidence, to make a case as in the Lane and Gilroy trials.
Grime hasn't been very clear...far from clear imo
DNA isn't 100% but the expert will normally give an estimate.
So in Luz grime says .. possibly...and suggests..
He gives no indication of how possible...or how suggestive..
Does he know...as I said...far from clear
It's possible ..according to Grime that an alert was to cadaver...it's possible Maddie is still alive...
Grime said possible...not probable
Why does it matter about the dogs,the case doesn't hinge on their responses.Unless of course its to call into question a certain dog handlers reputation.
Even DNA evidence isn't 100% reliable. Grime has always been very clear. Dog alerts don't prove anything. Sometimes, however, they can be used by the prosecution, along with other evidence, to make a case as in the Lane and Gilroy trials.
The type of testing used in this case, low copy number (lcn), is as good as useless. I spent a lot of time understanding lcn when I was on the Bamber case as it featured heavily at one of the appeal hearings. The 3 appeal court judges ruled it as "utterly meaningless". It will be a useful tool in some cases but in this case, as with Bamber, its impossible to rule out innocent contamination. With lcn the 'human cellular material' ie source material is unknown eg saliva, blood, skin cells etc. It works with samples invisible to the naked eye.
I note many commentators such as Jim Gamble from CEOP explain the possibility of MM's DNA in the car from GM/KM but its just as likely it came from items MM had contact with which then contaminated other places she had the slightest contact with either directly or indirectly. A reading, full or partial, can be picked up from some material as small as 1,000,000th the size of grain of salt &%%6.
You made a suggestion that grime could have made some arrangement with amaral ..it's probably still thereSomeone thought I had said that but I hadn't at all.
In Luz grime and Harrison talked of physical corroboration...now grime is talking about anecdotal witness statements....the goalposts have been movedDid they know there were no anecdotal witnesses?
yet LCN DNA was used by the courts until there was a robust scientific challenge.
Someone thought I had said that but I hadn't at all.
yes you did..Davel: "You made a suggestion that grime could have made some arrangement with amaral ..it's probably still there"
Well he could of course if Amaral had other intelligence indicating something happened behind the couch, and a bag was missing from the wardrobe and he had advised Grime of the theory. When did Amaral first notice the bag was missing?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg547038#msg547038
Davel: "You made a suggestion that grime could have made some arrangement with amaral ..it's probably still there"
Robittybob1: "Well he could of course if Amaral had other intelligence indicating something happened behind the couch, and a bag was missing from the wardrobe and he had advised Grime of the theory. When did Amaral first notice the bag was missing"
I honestly can't see how my statement means "that Grime could have made some arrangement with Amaral".
What do you mean by arrangement? I'm suggesting Amaral may have outlined his theory to Grime. Is that an arrangement?
you need to look at the contextI wrote the paragraph so I know the context.
I wrote the paragraph so I know the context.
I have gone back to those posts
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg547038#msg547038
Billy asked in his post "How would Grime know that there would be no transferable cadaver odour in 4G, for example... and how can he cue Keela to alert at the precise location in the hire car where human cellular material is found?"
I notice now that my reply did not refer to the actual site Billy was questioning.
My reply "Well he could of course if Amaral had other intelligence indicating something happened behind the couch, and a bag was missing from the wardrobe and he had advised Grime of the theory. When did Amaral first notice the bag was missing?"
I make no suggestions about Grime cuing Keela in the boot of the hire car.
Neither did IYou've lost me now. You didn't and I didn't. So what is the issue?
I don't know, because I can't remember.
In most dog clips I have seen, the dog in operational deployment is rewarded immediately after the alert.
If you think it through, one cannot wait for an hour or two before humans manage to deny or confirm that the alert is correct. The dog would not remember whether is was being denied a treat, or whether it got it right.
I don't know what happens in training. Do the dogs get rewarded for alerting? For not alerting? For working diligently? I don't know the answer.
You've lost me now. You didn't and I didn't. So what is the issue?
You've lost me now. You didn't and I didn't. So what is the issue?
You both say you didn't and neither of you made clear unambiguous allegations. What you both did do imo was hint. One of you about possible collaberation between Amaral and Grine, the other about possible ulterior motives driving Grime.
You both say you didn't and neither of you made clear unambiguous allegations. What you both did do imo was hint. One of you about possible collaboration between Amaral and Grime, the other about possible ulterior motives driving Grime.Have you tried to understand the study "Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes" https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2?shared_access_token=Vut12Uai65004q4v-y_Xkve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4bHsjVym_Rn1xhUadVArBPtORCcCsdqHrjfpKRHjPPjYb5mMYWDvHEbTHOAv6HV6ANjhZim-a0wggN1S-Kvmj0IeYkWH2nWnXHGCrn5yBcmWOTIMVDV7FUMgrm42lcSdY%3D
You both say you didn't and neither of you made clear unambiguous allegations. What you both did do imo was hint. One of you about possible collaberation between Amaral and Grine, the other about possible ulterior motives driving Grime.
Have you tried to understand the study "Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes" https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2?shared_access_token=Vut12Uai65004q4v-y_Xkve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4bHsjVym_Rn1xhUadVArBPtORCcCsdqHrjfpKRHjPPjYb5mMYWDvHEbTHOAv6HV6ANjhZim-a0wggN1S-Kvmj0IeYkWH2nWnXHGCrn5yBcmWOTIMVDV7FUMgrm42lcSdY%3DFirstly there's no evidence that Grime wanted his dogs ro alert to specific locations and secondly the fact that some dogs responded to handler cues doesn't mean that Grime's dogs did.
That study shows these happenings are not really conscious events. Collaboration would be a conscious decision IMO.
Conflict of interest is not an ulterior motive
Pointing out that it may have occured suggests otherwise.That's your opinion...
Firstly there's no evidence that Grime wanted his dogs ro alert to specific locations and secondly the fact that some dogs responded to handler cues doesn't mean that Grime's dogs did.That sort of argument works both ways:
That sort of argument works both ways:
"Firstly there's no evidence that Grime wanted/didn't want his dogs to alert to specific locations and secondly the fact that some dogs responded to handler cues doesn't mean that Grime's dogs did/didn't.
That's your opinion...
Imo
It doesn't... conflict of interest can be unconscious
I would say that if grime felt his dog was showing interest he might unconscious ally encourage the dog to alert to make sure he didn't miss any evidenceThat is illogical. "to make sure he didn't miss any evidence" is going to be a conscious decision. He might be unaware he has consciously "encouraged the dog to alert".
That is illogical. "to make sure he didn't miss any evidence" is going to be a conscious decision. He might be unaware he has consciously "encouraged the dog to alert".
So in your opinion he inadvertently cast doubt on his own integrity? Well in my opinion he didn't and there's no evidence to uphold your opinion.
There have been some I've seen on watching the Canadian border police at work,the dog is not rewarded until its been confirmed what it was in the package,once confirmed this was done by placing the package on the floor along with dummy packs and the dog alerts again getting a reward thus reinforcing its ongoing training.
Thanks. I haven't seen that before. I'll keep an eye out for that in future.
*&(+(+
Sky witness I think.
Eddie was never tasked to find human cadaver or body parts during his ACPO testing in the UK. How should this untested skill have been evaluated for reliability when sent on live deployments?
Someone thought I had said that but I hadn't at all.
My problem with Martin grime is that during the searches in luz he was ceasing to be a policeman and becoming a businessman. As a businessman he has a financial interest in promoting the alerts as valuable.....that to me provides a conflict of interest. Ive no doubt he believes in the ability of his dogs...but can we rule out confirmation bias.
Davel - see above!!! It was you that said it and as I stated that is an incredibly serious allegation. You haven't even worded it carefully as you claimed... but instead it is stated as fact: "in luz he was ceasing to be a policeman and becoming a businessman. As a businessman he has a financial interest in promoting the alerts as valuable".
DaveL said I was mixing up what you had said with what he has said.... but read back through the thread. It was DaveL who said Grime acted for financial self gain... He pretended he hadn't said it, then muddied the waters by saying you had!!Sounds about right.
Here it is again.... First quote below is DaveL... second one from me...
Cite required please. Or Eddie’s training documentation will do. Thanks.
https://www.btp.police.uk/PDF/FOI%20Response%201074-16%20-%20Police%20Dogs%20Manual%20of%20Guidance.pdf
ACPO training manual. Cadaver dog section starts at page 116. On page 117 you'll find listed what the dogs are trained with. The use of human cadaver/body parts was, and still is, illegal in UK, therefore a dog cannot be trained or tested to find those specific remains.
https://www.btp.police.uk/PDF/FOI%20Response%201074-16%20-%20Police%20Dogs%20Manual%20of%20Guidance.pdf
ACPO training manual. Cadaver dog section starts at page 116. On page 117 you'll find listed what the dogs are trained with. The use of human cadaver/body parts was, and still is, illegal in UK, therefore a dog cannot be trained or tested to find those specific remains.
https://www.btp.police.uk/PDF/FOI%20Response%201074-16%20-%20Police%20Dogs%20Manual%20of%20Guidance.pdf
ACPO training manual. Cadaver dog section starts at page 116. On page 117 you'll find listed what the dogs are trained with. The use of human cadaver/body parts was, and still is, illegal in UK, therefore a dog cannot be trained or tested to find those specific remains.
Which is probably why Grime took Eddie to the states.
He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odour from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject.
Sigh,umpteenth time.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
EVRD
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material.
But not before Eddie was taken to Portugal.How do you work that one out.
How do you work that one out.
Dated Eddie & Keela Martin Grime Report
August 2007
No mention of Eddie in that Quote.But that is why Eddie was called EVRD rather than just a lowly old VRD. He had been enhanced with the new training using human cadaver samples.
Under no circumstances would The South Yorkshire Police have allowed Martin Grime to take Eddie to America to engage in a practice that is illegal in Britain. Let alone have paid the costs.
Sigh,umpteenth time.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
EVRD
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationallylocating human remains and evidential forensic
material.
Under no circumstances would The South Yorkshire Police have allowed Martin Grime to take Eddie to America to engage in a practice that is illegal in Britain. Let alone have paid the costs.
Where do you get that idea from?
I still consider myself a newbie so please be patient but 'Eddie' didn't do the above in 5A or the hire car?They located invisible quantities of human blood.
Do you seriously think that The South Yorkshire Police who owned Eddie would have allowed Martin Grime to involve the dog in illegal practices?If the training was legal in the USA what's the problem?
Under no circumstances would The South Yorkshire Police have allowed Martin Grime to take Eddie to America to engage in a practice that is illegal in Britain. Let alone have paid the costs.
Do you seriously think that The South Yorkshire Police who owned Eddie would have allowed Martin Grime to involve the dog in illegal practices?
They located invisible quantities of human blood.
If the training was legal in the USA what's the problem?
They located invisible quantities of human blood.
If the training was legal in the USA what's the problem?
I don't believe FSS was able to determine the human cellular material?But it is what the dogs were trained to find, there is no test for cadaver odour, nor a way to see the minute quantity of blood that Keela alerts to. Well there is a video show Grime training his dogs using human tissue.
Where's the evidence 'Eddie' trained in US using human corpses?
Can you not see that it would make a mockery of British Law, especially unsupervised and at great cost.
But it is what the dogs were trained to find, there is no test for cadaver odour, nor a way to see the minute quantity of blood that Keela alerts to. Well there is a video show Grime training his dogs using human tissue.
Even the gung-ho US would not use human corpses for such training.It was contact samples wasn't it? Like "swabs" that had been in contact with a human cadaver, but also ancient human bones and teeth (in the video), and dried blood samples provided by the trainer (in the video).
If someone wants to donate an organ they need to specify such. Where has anyone specified they are happy for their corpse or part of to be scattered around the US for 'Eddie' to locate?
Which Dogs? Are you sure you aren't talking about Morse. Morse belonged exclusively to Martin Grime and after his retirement.
But it is what the dogs were trained to find, there is no test for cadaver odour, nor a way to see the minute quantity of blood that Keela alerts to. Well there is a video show Grime training his dogs using human tissue.
It was contact samples wasn't it? Like "swabs" that had been in contact with a human cadaver, but also ancient human bones and teeth (in the video), and dried blood samples provided by the trainer (in the video).
I'm not sure about that. We would have to view the video again. See if he names the dog.
Even the gung-ho US would not use human corpses for such training.
If someone wants to donate an organ they need to specify such. Where has anyone specified they are happy for their corpse or part of to be scattered around the US for 'Eddie' to locate?
Sure?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/down-on-the-body-farm-inside-the-dirty-world-of-forensic-science/67241/
https://allthatsinteresting.com/body-farms
I meant without prior authorisation from a donor and that's what happening here:
The cadavers on most body farms come from two sources: medical examiners -- "If nobody claims a body, you have to do something with it," Jantz said -- and pre-donors. The latter is the preferred method: the Anthropological Research Facility in Knoxville currently has over 2,000 pre-donors on file who will bestow their corporeal remains to the facility after they die. "We get over 100 donated bodies each year from donations," Jantz said. "People donate themselves like they would to a medical school."
Is there any evidence 'Eddie' trained with human corpses? And even if he did he did not locate a corpse or human remains at 5A or in the hire car.
I meant without prior authorisation from a donor and that's what happening here:
The cadavers on most body farms come from two sources: medical examiners -- "If nobody claims a body, you have to do something with it," Jantz said -- and pre-donors. The latter is the preferred method: the Anthropological Research Facility in Knoxville currently has over 2,000 pre-donors on file who will bestow their corporeal remains to the facility after they die. "We get over 100 donated bodies each year from donations," Jantz said. "People donate themselves like they would to a medical school."
Is there any evidence 'Eddie' trained with human corpses? And even if he did he did not locate a corpse or human remains at 5A or in the hire car.
Quite right, no corpse, but nobody can say what he did locate in 5A & the hire car.
I don't believe he located anything, did he? I thought he alerted?
OK, if you want to be pedantic, but he alerted at various locations
Humans failed to find anything.
Martin Grime says he trained Eddie with human remains in association with FBI,human remains generally refer to bodies,unless one is going to be a pedant.
Martin Grime says he trained Eddie with human remains in association with FBI,human remains generally refer to bodies,unless one is going to be a pedant.
Ok if I assume Grimes trained Eddie with human remains what's the relevance to this case since he didn't locate any human remains?
What was he alerting to if nothing was found by way of a corpse/remains?
I'm not sure what you mean by humans? FSS?
Human remains give off a pong,Eddie was trained on this,Eddie alerted in 5A,what was it? if not what he was trained for,no one knows.
No individual or state thankfully has the power to take human remains, however big or small, to use in such an experiment.We don't know if the DNA result was relevant. I tend to think it was. 15 out of the 19 markers were found that Madeleine had. A total of 36 alleles found in all, how many of the 21 other alleles found could have matched Kate or Gerry?
We don't need 'Keela' to see minute quantities of blood she simply alerts to and scrapings are collected for scientific examination. In this case FSS were unable to identify anything remotely relevant.
Please post up the video.It was on YouTube have you looked there yet? Martin Grime training dog should find it. Was it this one? https://youtu.be/en5zHpvG9m0 That is the one, and the dogs being trained are Keela and Eddie. So they were trained on UK soil with human remains.
It was on YouTube have you looked there yet? Martin Grime training dog should find it. Was it this one? https://youtu.be/en5zHpvG9m0 That is the one, and the dogs being trained are Keela and Eddie. So they were trained on UK soil with human remains.
Oh Dear Rob. That won't do I'm afraid.What is wrong with that? The only thing I wasn't sure about was whether Jersey is part of the UK.
What is wrong with that? The only thing I wasn't sure about was whether Jersey is part of the UK.
Hideho for a start. The cherry picking, innuendo promoting liar of all time.
A hand full of ground up 100 year old bones. I wonder whose funeral urn they came from, if they are indeed what he says they are. No provenance supplied.
And No, Jersey isn't part of The UK.
Probably contamination as in the Shannon Matthews case:
The properties the dogs searched contained a high level of second hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died. This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture.
Page 25:
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf
How many persons died in 5a prior to the McCann arrival? given its a holiday let the chances are remote in the extreme imo,second hand furniture? in a holiday let? really.
How has Hideo altered this video IYO?
All she has done is hosted the clip from a series previously shown on ITV.
What IYO did Eddie locate if it wasn't human remains?
Sea Bass bones?
A set of grandparents resided in 5A permanently at one time.
I've no idea of the apartment's history along with the contents, do you?
And I've no idea how any odour transfers to inanimate objects and continues lingering even when the inanimate object is transferred elsewhere as above in the Shannon Matthews case.
Maybe Kate's trousers were from a second hand shop & pig had died in the hire car.
If Eddie can smell human remains of 100 years old, imagine what he could do with yesterday's Urn.
Did the dog alert on Kate's trousers? Kate was spending a lot of time in the PDL church where no doubt funerals were taking place. The hire car no doubt carried hundreds of drivers/passengers unless it was new to the fleet?
If the Shannon Matthews case is anything to go by the odour is highly transferrable.
That's a new one.
Most corpses are already in a wooden box before they enter a church, as far as I'm aware.
Maybe the church at PDL was an exception, where bodies are placed upon the pews in some bizzare Portuguese ritual.
Quite. In the Shannon Matthews case did the deceased actually die in contact with the furniture or does the scent somehow linger on inanimate objects?
That's a new one.http://www.talkdeath.com/cemetery-overcrowding-leading-europe-recycle-burial-plots/
Most corpses are already in a wooden box before they enter a church, as far as I'm aware.
Maybe the church at PDL was an exception, where bodies are placed upon the pews in some bizzare Portuguese ritual.
If Eddie can smell human remains of 100 years old, imagine what he could do with yesterday's Urn.
It's a wonder Eddie didn't skip 5a all together & go running straight for the church.
Maybe he would have done without his 'handler'.
Look now, Eddie had been taught too many tricks, none of which could be forgotten. He was always a bad bet as a Cadaver Dog, although never the fault of the dog. Eddie was in fact an experiment. And In My Opinion, Martin Grime grandstanded on the back of this dog.
A set of grandparents resided in 5A permanently at one time.
I've no idea of the apartment's history along with the contents, do you?
And I've no idea how any odour transfers to inanimate objects and continues lingering even when the inanimate object is transferred elsewhere as above in the Shannon Matthews case.
Still,many years on nothing to suggest Madeleine left 5a alive,even Redwood wouldn't confirm it,dogs or no dogs.
How has Hi DE HO altered this video IYO?The longer version - does it contain the Grime bit? "Send in the Dogs - Season 1, Episode 1" https://youtu.be/zFCt9gUq9XE That one wasn't put onTouTube by Hi DE HO.
All she has done is hosted the clip from a series previously shown on ITV.
What IYO did Eddie locate if it wasn't human remains?
Sea Bass bones?
Hideho for a start. The cherry picking, innuendo promoting liar of all time.
A hand full of ground up 100 year old bones. I wonder whose funeral urn they came from, if they are indeed what he says they are. No provenance supplied.
And No, Jersey isn't part of The UK.
https://www.btp.police.uk/PDF/FOI%20Response%201074-16%20-%20Police%20Dogs%20Manual%20of%20Guidance.pdf
ACPO training manual. Cadaver dog section starts at page 116. On page 117 you'll find listed what the dogs are trained with. The use of human cadaver/body parts was, and still is, illegal in UK, therefore a dog cannot be trained or tested to find those specific remains.
No I don't but I'm not trying to make up different scenarios for the dog alerts.
In red,cite if you will please,not from the lead investigators,the press.
Thanks. Nevertheless research shows that dogs receiving that training can and successfully alert to cadaver odour with an accuracy rate of 92-100%. Eddie didn’t alert to cooked meat. And how come only the McCanns were subject to the alerts if they were all false (I.e not alerts to human cadaver odour)?
Still,many years on nothing to suggest Madeleine left 5a alive,even Redwood wouldn't confirm it,dogs or no dogs.
Look now, Eddie had been taught too many tricks, none of which could be forgotten. He was always a bad bet as a Cadaver Dog, although never the fault of the dog. Eddie was in fact an experiment. And In My Opinion, Martin Grime grandstanded on the back of this dog.
The search and rescue dogs tracked MM's scent away from the front door of 5A, along the car park in front of block 5, down the alley between block 4 and 5, along the alley between the apartments and pool and then across the road into the car park.If Madeleine was being carried, that scent trail would happen whether dead (recently died) or alive.
There's nothing to suggest MM died in 5A. The evidence points her carried away as above and placed into a car.
If Madeleine was being carried, that scent trail would happen whether dead (recently died) or alive.Would it? Do skin rafts work in the same way dead or alive?
Based on your claim "The evidence points her carried away as above and placed into a car."
The search and rescue dogs tracked MM's scent away from the front door of 5A, along the car park in front of block 5, down the alley between block 4 and 5, along the alley between the apartments and pool and then across the road into the car park.
There's nothing to suggest MM died in 5A. The evidence points her carried away as above and placed into a car.
So what role does it play in Brexit?
Wikipedia on Jersey:
"Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom,[16] and has an international identity separate from that of the UK,[17] but the UK is constitutionally responsible for the defence of Jersey.[18] The definition of United Kingdom in the British Nationality Act 1981 is interpreted as including the UK and the Islands together.[19] The European Commission have confirmed in a written reply to the European Parliament in 2003[20] that Jersey is within the Union as a European Territory for whose external relationships the UK is responsible. Jersey is not fully part of the European Union but has a special relationship with it, notably being treated as within the European Community for the purposes of free trade in goods."
The longer version - does it contain the Grime bit? "Send in the Dogs - Season 1, Episode 1" https://youtu.be/zFCt9gUq9XE That one wasn't put onTouTube by Hi DE HO.It was from Episode 2
According to the police, based on the Shannon Matthews case, the odour is transferrable on inanimate objects. If this is the case surely the scenarios are numerous as to why and how a dog would alert based on odour?
@ 2.30 in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkc3C6csaHI
The granddaughter.
No mention there of dead grandparents in 5a.
I didn't say anything about dead grandparents.
No need for any dead bodies to alert. The UK police have already established the dogs will alert when they come into contact with inanimate items that have been around the deceased even when those inanimate objects have been transferred to another completely different location.
Would it? Do skin rafts work in the same way dead or alive?Recent deaths . "Different cells die at different rates. After the heart stops beating, oxygen supply to the brain is cut off. With no glucose store to rely on, nerve cells die within three to seven minutes.
Alive I believe.
Recent deaths . "Different cells die at different rates. After the heart stops beating, oxygen supply to the brain is cut off. With no glucose store to rely on, nerve cells die within three to seven minutes.
Transplant surgeons must remove kidneys, livers and hearts from donors within thirty minutes of death and get them into recipients inside six hours. Skin cells, meanwhile, are longer lived. Grafts can still be successful if taken 12 hours after death." http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130526-do-your-nails-grow-after-death
I have limited proof otherwise.
Thanks. The scent works off skin rafts not to be confused with grafts.There will be plenty of skin rafts to break off a recently deceased person. All I'm pointing out is that a trail is left by a dead or living person. Only difference is that one is possible on their own but the other has to be carried.
http://www.vsrda.org/how-scent-and-airflow-works
Then took her to the hills and buried her,or do you think Redwood dug up the countryside just for something to do and waste a fair amount of budget in the process?
You brought a granddaughter into it, for what purpose? Who lives near the holiday complex?
I didn't say anything about dead grandparents.But you’re forgetting they also used Keela who very successfully found human cellular material. Some of this material had at least 15 DNA markers in common with MM.
No need for any dead bodies to alert. The UK police have already established the dogs will alert when they come into contact with inanimate items that have been around the deceased even when those inanimate objects have been transferred to another completely different location.
But you’re forgetting they also used Keela who very successfully found human cellular material. Some of this material had at least 15 DNA markers in common with MM.That sample came from the hire car.
That sample came from the hire car.
But you’re forgetting they also used Keela who very successfully found human cellular material. Some of this material had at least 15 DNA markers in common with MM.
Hills? No idea why Redwood dug up the countryside?
There will be plenty of skin rafts to break off a recently deceased person. All I'm pointing out is that a trail is left by a dead or living person. Only difference is that one is possible on their own but the other has to be carried.
Yes I believe so.
Sample 3A I from under the floor tiles also contained a number of DNA markers in common with MM, from what I can remember.
With respect you are not an expert. You do not know how skin rafts are affected upon death no more than I do.I'm sure Grime talks about it in the White papers, no I think it was in that file on tracker dogs.
Of course MM's DNA would be in the hire car. Some items she had direct and indirect contact had been placed in it.Are you now pretending to be the expert that just from transfer Madeleine's DNA would be in detectable amounts in the hire car?
With respect you are not an expert. You do not know how skin rafts are affected upon death no more than I do.I did see a direct statement about this recently but it is implied here, but it is not the reference I want.
I'm sure Grime talks about it in the White papers, no I think it was in that file on tracker dogs.
Are you now pretending to be the expert that just from transfer Madeleine's DNA would be in detectable amounts?
Air scenting dogs are nothing to do with Grimes.Gerry said there were over 30 different people who had been in that hire car, so really sensitive DNA testing might show up really complex mixed DNA results.
No I'm not pretending to be an expert but I did have contact with a forensic scientist over the Bamber case where LCN DNA testing was also used.
Yes MM's DNA would be everywhere she had direct and indirect contact with. LCN DNA works off samples as small as 1,000,000 the size of a grain of salt.
DNA testing isn't a one size fits all. LCN DNA works off invisible to the naked eye amounts that are amplified up to get a result. Its not even possible to say the source eg skin cells, blood, saliva etc.
And FSS found the results inconclusive so why are we even discussing it?
Redwood simply did what should have been done in the beginning. There was always a possibility no matter who may have tried to dispose of a body.
I think it was done in the beginning.
To be sure, I need to contact a Lt-Coronel in the GNR.
It's in my to-do backlog.
I don't think anyone actually dug up anything, did they? And if so, why do it again?
I can't be certain. But I'm far from convinced that OG understood the parameters of the original searches, the layout of Luz, or the difficulty involved in digging holes in the Algarve in May.
Other than that ...
Of course MM's DNA would be in the hire car. Some items she had direct and indirect contact had been placed in it.
Scotland Yard had to get her DNA profile back in England. If DNA found at an alerted spot by a blood dog belongs to Madeleine and with matching hairs in the boot then that is not normal but highly suspicious!
Portimao 1st October 2007
Inspector Ferreira,
DNA profile of Madeleine McCann that was collected in her parents house in England.
Regards
Jose de Freitas
New Scotland Yard
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
Yes I believe so.
Sample 3A I from under the floor tiles also contained a number of DNA markers in common with MM, from what I can remember.
I'm not forgetting anything. Human cellular material, which in this case was invisible to the naked eye, would be all over the apartment including MM's. LCN works off samples as small as 1,000,000 size of a grain of salt. The FSS found the findings inconclusive.
Of course MM's DNA would be in the hire car. Some items she had direct and indirect contact had been placed in it.
Let's leave "no stone unturned"... Let's at least take Dr Purlin up on his offer of making a conclusive analysis of the DNA data. Yes of course some traceable DNA belonging to MM should have been present in 5A... sweat, urine, saliva on bed clothes and pillow cases, for example. The point is though that Keela was trained to alert to human blood and not to sweat, urine and saliva. If the dogs alerted at such things = they wouldn't have been so selective in their alerts. It defies all objectivity to think otherwise.The appalling press stories were all those invented to slur the McCanns, what happened to CM’s alleged control then?
Look at GM's reported answer when asked if MM lost any blood in the apartment. Sure it doesn't prove anything, but there is circumstantial evidence and warranted inquisitive suspicion that make the parents worthy of further investigation. This is the route the PJ undoubtedly wanting to take initially (well after discounting the abduction story). They felt pressure was applied by figures in the UK establishment not to follow this line of inquiry and essential work was therefore hampered. MM has been cheated of a proper investigation. Instead we suffered the appalling media stories (often controlled by CM, IMO) of lurking predators, paedophiles and child traffickers (but of course there was "no evidence that MM had come to harm"... we had faux police press conferences led by a political spin doctor, IMO. Nothing of the like has ever been seen before.
Let's leave "no stone unturned"... Let's at least take Dr Purlin up on his offer of making a conclusive analysis of the DNA data. Yes of course some traceable DNA belonging to MM should have been present in 5A... sweat, urine, saliva on bed clothes and pillow cases, for example. The point is though that Keela was trained to alert to human blood and not to sweat, urine and saliva. If the dogs alerted at such things = they wouldn't have been so selective in their alerts. It defies all objectivity to think otherwise.
Look at GM's reported answer when asked if MM lost any blood in the apartment. Sure it doesn't prove anything, but there is circumstantial evidence and warranted inquisitive suspicion that make the parents worthy of further investigation. This is the route the PJ undoubtedly wanting to take initially (well after discounting the abduction story). They felt pressure was applied by figures in the UK establishment not to follow this line of inquiry and essential work was therefore hampered. MM has been cheated of a proper investigation. Instead we suffered the appalling media stories (often controlled by CM, IMO) of lurking predators, paedophiles and child traffickers (but of course there was "no evidence that MM had come to harm"... we had faux police press conferences led by a political spin doctor, IMO. Nothing of the like has ever been seen before.
Sorry I missed the point about Dr Mark Perlin. Well its not for me to say if the FSS/SY/PJ will handover biological samples to Dr Mark Perlin in the US.If my theory is correct then SY will not be allowed to hand over the DNA results to Mark Perlin for confidentiality reasons. For SY to insist the McCanns and their friends are "not suspects" implies to me least that behind the scenes they have admitted what happened that night, and therefore all aspects of "however Madeleine left the apartment" are totally off limits.
I doubt any findings will stand up to scientific scrutiny unless they have been peer reviewed.
Sorry I missed the point about Dr Mark Perlin. Well its not for me to say if the FSS/SY/PJ will handover biological samples to Dr Mark Perlin in the US.
I doubt any findings will stand up to scientific scrutiny unless they have been peer reviewed.
If my theory is correct then SY will not be allowed to hand over the DNA results to Mark Perlin for confidentiality reasons. For SY to insist the McCanns and their friends are "not suspects" implies to me least that behind the scenes they have admitted what happened that night, and therefore all aspects of "however Madeleine left the apartment" are totally off limits.
That is not a conspiracy but a consequence of going through Crimestoppers.
Ooh goody, another conspiracy theory 8(*(
That is not a conspiracy but a consequence of going through Crimestoppers.
Who went through Crimestoppers? How do you know? If you're guessing then you're theorising.If they used Crimestoppers you get anonymity and we wouldn't know.
If they used Crimestoppers you get anonymity and we wouldn't know.
All we know is that SY said "However Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted" now that does not make sense to me unless someone has anonymously explained How Madeleine left the apartment.
How do you explain what Mark Rowley told us on the 10th anniversary?
If they used Crimestoppers you get anonymity and we wouldn't know.
All we know is that SY said "However Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted" now that does not make sense to me unless someone has anonymously explained How Madeleine left the apartment.
How do you explain what Mark Rowley told us on the 10th anniversary?
So nothing to support your suggestion, just the usual speculation.How do you explain what Mark Rowley told us on the 10th anniversary?
I find it interesting that you think Mark Rowley's statement needs explaining, even though I find your explanation unlikely. .How do you explain what Mark Rowley told us on the 10th anniversary?
How do you explain what Mark Rowley told us on the 10th anniversary?
Which bit Rob,he said a lot without saying anything imo.""However Madeleine left the apartment....."
""However Madeleine left the apartment....."
I can't find the video,but I'm sure after the "however" there was pause meaning the manner.
Found it,he paused after "however she left the apartment" then said she's been abducted,not once did he say by a stranger.
2:12 in he says "there needs to be an abduction" ?
https://metro.co.uk/video/assistant-commissioner-mark-rowley-missing-maddie-mccann-1882464/
Was that the same interview as in the 10th Anniversary documentary. It sounds so parallel I'd say it was.
I can't find the video,but I'm sure after the "however" there was pause meaning the manner.
Found it,he paused after "however she left the apartment" then said she's been abducted,not once did he say by a stranger.
2:12 in he says "there needs to be an abduction" ?
https://metro.co.uk/video/assistant-commissioner-mark-rowley-missing-maddie-mccann-1882464/
It was on YouTube have you looked there yet? Martin Grime training dog should find it. Was it this one? https://youtu.be/en5zHpvG9m0 That is the one, and the dogs being trained are Keela and Eddie. So they were trained on UK soil with human remains.
at around 3.20..on this video...grime says the dog alerted and human remains were located...that simply is not a fact...why is grime claiming it to be a fact...when it isnt
That's not quite true though is is DaveL?
"By the end of the excavations and investigations at Haut de la Garenne in July 2008, police had sifted over 150 tonnes of earth. 65 human milk teeth were found, coming from between 10 and 65 individuals aged between 6–12 years and generally seeming to have been shed naturally. Discounting a large quantity of animal bones, only three bone fragments (the largest 25 mm = 1 inch long) were identified as possibly human; two of them have been dated to a range from 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950."
So what amounts to human remains.. Milk teth shed naturally are not human remains... Grime stated as a fact the alerts led to the location of human remains as a fact.. It's possible.. But not fact
So what amounts to human remains.. Milk teth shed naturally are not human remains... Grime stated as a fact the alerts led to the location of human remains as a fact.. It's possible.. But not factOf course milk teeth are human remains.
Of course milk teeth are human remains.Cite
CiteHuman Teeth are human remains
Human Teeth are human remains
Human Milk teeth is a subset of Human teeth
Human Milk teeth are human remains
Human remains are from a corpse.... So milk teeth are not human remainsDried blood from a living person was also in the subset of decomposed human remains. (I gave you the quote from the White paper for this).
www.duhaime.org › LegalDictionary
Web results
Human Remains Definition - Duhaime.org
Human Remains Definition: The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition
It makes it so much easier when cites are given promptly
Dried blood from a living person was also in the subset of decomposed human remains. (I gave you the quote from the White paper for this).
"DNA from 31,000-year-old milk teeth leads to discovery of new Ice Age population of big game hunters"
"The DNA was recovered from the only human remains discovered during the era – two tiny milk teeth ( Russian Academy of Sciences )"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ice-age-milk-teeth-dna-hunters-siberia-prehistoric-cambridge-university-a8945221.html
I think we can guarantee those people were dead.. 31000 years agoWere dead when? Were the teeth kept as a souvenir while the child was alive? We don't know.
We can't in Jersey
Were dead when? Were the teeth kept as a souvenir while the child was alive? We don't know.
There is no confirmation in Jersey that those teeth came from dead people... In his white paper Grime now says a cadaver dog would not react to such teethCite please. Link to the paper would be enough. Then I'll search for milk teeth or deciduous teeth
Cite please.
I'll give the cite tomorrow...it's late now.. Ive given it before on here recently.. I'm surprised you haven't seen itFound it. It clearly has teeth as human remains and in it own category "teeth" and they are located by a trained cadaver dog #139/187 http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
Found it. It clearly has teeth as human remains and in it own category "teeth" and they are located by a trained cadaver dog #139/187 http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
I don't think it says that at allWell you take quotes from there to get a different meaning then and I'll consider it.
Well you take quotes from there to get a different meaning then and I'll consider it.
Cite
I don't need you to consider it.. I have my opinion... You have yours
It doesn't need to be referenced. By definition human teeth that are found after death are remains of a human.
I don't need you to consider it.. I have my opinion... You have yoursWe weren't really discussing our own opinions, but what Grime believes.
How does a cadaver dog differentiate between teeth from a living & those from a dead human?
Milk teeth contain stem cells which can be used for regeneration/fighting cancer ergo they're not technically dead.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/health/keeping-your-childs-milk-teeth-2819309
Maybe Eddie alerted to the human bone... and not the milk teeth.
Maybe Eddie alerted to the human bone... and not the milk teeth.If a child is buried how many years later is the whole skeleton gone so the only parts remaining are the teeth?
If a child is buried how many years later is the whole skeleton gone so the only parts remaining are the teeth?
In the above case the odour being alerted to is in the soil from the decomposition of the whole body not just the odour coming from the remaining teeth, in my understanding of what Grime says in his papers.
This is from the same Guardian article... link above:No wonder the dogs went wild with alerting.
............."The inquiry was delivered a blow when, in January 2008, Harper's deputy, DI Alison Fossey, went to the mainland on a strategic command course. Fossey had a law degree and had worked in child protection for most of her career. She was a details person, while Harper had a more scattergun approach. In her absence, the investigation was transformed by lurid claims of bodies and murder. One police report from this time states, "Among the [Haut] victims were a few who said that children had been dragged from their beds at night screaming and had then disappeared." A local builder who had done renovations there in 2003 said he had found what he thought were children's bones and shoes. These items had been disposed of by the Jersey pathologist. Harper remained suspicious. On 5 February 2008, he flew to Oxford to take advice from LGC Forensics, a crime scene service used by forces across the UK.
Two weeks later, an LGC team encamped at Haut de la Garenne. A squad of technicians in white suits pored over the site. Central to it all were two sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela, which Harper took to describing as his "canine assets". They were veterans deployed in the search for missing Madeleine McCann in Portugal, although the controversy caused there should have served as a warning to Harper. In Portugal, the dogs had crawled over a car used by Gerry and Kate McCann, and sounded the alarm. The Portuguese police then claimed that the McCanns had killed their daughter, when what the dogs had actually picked up on was both parents' legitimate proximity to death, working in hospitals.
At Haut de la Garenne, the dogs made straight for the place where in 2003 the builder said he had found bones. A senior police officer recalled, "They did cartwheels on the spot. And Harper went through the roof." As in Portugal, the dogs had smelled something but could not differentiate between ancient remains and a contemporary murder. But at 2pm on 23 February, caution cast aside, Harper called a press conference, telling reporters police believed that the partial remains of a child were buried there.
Over the following months, £7.5m would be spent sifting 100 tonnes of earth. By the time DI Fossey returned, there were 65 milk teeth, 165 bone fragments and two lime-lined pits dominating the inquiry. "...........
No wonder the dogs went wild with alerting.
Yet no evidence of murder was foundSounds like they had plenty of time to tidy up.
Sounds like they had plenty of time to tidy up.
im talking facts...yours is speculation did someone dig up the 100 tons of earth first...made sure it was clear
Corrie McKeague - vast swathes dug up - no body found. Presumed dead, not by natural causes.The Earth is enormous when you start looking for a body.
Ben Needham - vast swathes dug up - no body found. Presumed dead, not by natural causes.
Corrie McKeague - vast swathes dug up - no body found. Presumed dead, not by natural causes.
Ben Needham - vast swathes dug up - no body found. Presumed dead, not by natural causes.
Are the dogs trained in homicide detection are they?
the dogs checked the area in jersey...no body found...no evidence of homicide found
I'm trying to find out whether coconut shells have collagen in them.
"On March 14, the scientists told the police that there was not enough collagen to date the fragment; a week later they said there was enough after all. Collagen is only present in human bones — not in wood or coconut shells. Then another week later, they changed their minds again: there was probably no collagen after all. It was only in early April that the experts began to suggest it was probably — not definitely — not human after all. So far as Harper is concerned, that is still the position now. The suggestion was that it could be wood or a seed. The idea that it might be a fragment of coconut shell was a secondary opinion never given directly to the inquiry. The anthropologist who had originally thought it was a piece of a child’s skull re-examined it over April 8 and 9 and noted it had changed texture, weight and colour since she first saw it. Now she thought it might not be bone, though she too could not be certain. But by now it was established that the fragment, human or not, came from a pre-1940s/Victorian layer of the dig. They agreed to put it to one side and not waste further resources on more tests. It was no longer relevant."
from https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=269527
Corrie McKeague - vast swathes dug up - no body found. Presumed dead, not by natural causes.
Ben Needham - vast swathes dug up - no body found. Presumed dead, not by natural causes.
So what child was reported missing in Jersey.. None as I understandWere there records to work from?
This is from David ickes forum... Icke believes the Queen is really a shape shifting 12 foot lizard... I'm surprised you didn't know
It's a very interesting and informative article by David James Smith, reproduced on the Icke Forum. Here is a link to the original story in the Sunday Times;In your opinion... Do you believe everything you read in the papers.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/its-official-there-was-no-child-abuse-in-jersey-5xcb0j2xd7b\
In your opinion... Do you believe everything you read in the papers.
In your opinion... Do you believe everything you read in the papers.
Corrie McKeague - vast swathes dug up - no body found. Presumed dead, not by natural causes.
Ben Needham - vast swathes dug up - no body found. Presumed dead, not by natural causes.
I'm trying to find out whether coconut shells have collagen in them.As a puppy the first 'objet trouvé' my dog carried home was a coconut shell or I presume it was; it certainly made a more convincing looking 'skull' than JAR6 did.
"On March 14, the scientists told the police that there was not enough collagen to date the fragment; a week later they said there was enough after all. Collagen is only present in human bones — not in wood or coconut shells. Then another week later, they changed their minds again: there was probably no collagen after all. It was only in early April that the experts began to suggest it was probably — not definitely — not human after all. So far as Harper is concerned, that is still the position now. The suggestion was that it could be wood or a seed. The idea that it might be a fragment of coconut shell was a secondary opinion never given directly to the inquiry. The anthropologist who had originally thought it was a piece of a child’s skull re-examined it over April 8 and 9 and noted it had changed texture, weight and colour since she first saw it. Now she thought it might not be bone, though she too could not be certain. But by now it was established that the fragment, human or not, came from a pre-1940s/Victorian layer of the dig. They agreed to put it to one side and not waste further resources on more tests. It was no longer relevant."
from https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=269527
Have you read what he wrote? Do you dispute his account? In my opinion it's a balanced article which sets out the facts very well.
Have you read what he wrote? Do you dispute his account? In my opinion it's a balanced article which sets out the facts very well.
Have you read what he wrote... You think it's well balanced... Did you see this..
I have heard that Harper’s replacements have spoken cynically about the dog, implying that its handler, Martin Grime, fixes the dog’s demonstrations by priming it in advance with his own scent.
You will have noticed that Harper's replacements didn't exactly impress him either.
are you not even a little shocked by the criticism of grime
I'm sure some one will provide a cite where a anthropologist or some one of that standing will confirm it was coconut for now lets let the anthropologist say what it might not be.
The anthropologist who had originally thought it was a piece of a child's skull re-examined it over April 8 and 9 and noted it had changed texture, weight and colour since she first saw it. Now she thought it might not be bone, though she too could not be certain.
are you not even a little shocked by the criticism of grime
Given the way Harper's replacements bad mouthed their own colleagues., no. I don't even know what they mean. I agree with David Janes Smith who found the goings-on by the authoities in Jersey pretty fishy.
Given the way Harper's replacements bad mouthed their own colleagues., no. I don't even know what they mean. I agree with David Janes Smith who found the goings-on by the authoities in Jersey pretty fishy.
I'm sure some one will provide a cite where a anthropologist or some one of that standing will confirm it was coconut for now lets let the anthropologist say what it might not be.
The anthropologist who had originally thought it was a piece of a child's skull re-examined it over April 8 and 9 and noted it had changed texture, weight and colour since she first saw it. Now she thought it might not be bone, though she too could not be certain.
The abuse cover ups take yrs to emerge.Like the Tory paedo ring one you mean?
no doubt about it..again from the BDO reportSo Eddie alerted to a bit of wood. Fact.
JAR/6 was ultimately examined on 31 March 2008 by a scientist
from the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and
by a scientist from the British Museum and was found to be a
piece of wood or coconut shell. On 9 April 2008 the LGC scientist
informed FSM Coupland that she was no longer confident of her
original finding. However, following the find and the media
release there followed five months of intense activity at HDLG
and at the nearby Victoria Tower bunkers. The activity cost almost
half a million pounds in fees to LGC alone.
Like the Tory paedo ring one you mean?
So Eddie alerted to a bit of wood. Fact.
Like the Tory paedo ring one you mean?
The excavation costing several million pounds was triggered by false alert by the cadaver dog Eddie
It's a very interesting and informative article by David James Smith, reproduced on the Icke Forum. Here is a link to the original story in the Sunday Times;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/its-official-there-was-no-child-abuse-in-jersey-5xcb0j2xd7b\
The excavation in Luz no doubt costing several millions was not triggered by alerts,go figure,same result in both.
I could read the whole article before now its hidden behind a digital pack.
Britain's finest,SY were involved in that,what other case of high publicity are they involved in, *%6^They’ve been involved in quite a few, some have been monumental screw ups, but I think you will find all police forces have had their embarrassing moments. I’m sure SY must have had the odd success now and again?
the excavation in Luz doid not cost several million pounds....same result for Grime in both Luz and Jersey...multiple alerts but nothing found
its available from the link by Rob
A short time later Mr Grime’s dog wasThe report does not specifically say Eddie but "Mr Grime’s dog"
presented with the item and gave a positive indication for human
remains.
This is interestinhg and from tjhe BDO report. What its saying is that after recovering the coconut....it was presented to Eddie who alerted to it. So Edddie DID alert specifically to the coconut...waht does thats say about eddies reliability. page 44 on the right side
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
The report does not specifically say Eddie but "Mr Grime’s dog"
"As has now been widely reported, on the morning of 23 February
2008 LGC were excavating the area when they uncovered a
fragment of material measuring 6.3cm x 4.4cm that was believed
at that time to be human bone. The LGC scientist described it as ‘a
fragment of juvenile rather than an adult cranium’ and it was
referred to as JAR/6. A short time later Mr Grime’s dog was
presented with the item and gave a positive indication for human
remains."
The report does not specifically say Eddie but "Mr Grime’s dog"
"As has now been widely reported, on the morning of 23 February
2008 LGC were excavating the area when they uncovered a
fragment of material measuring 6.3cm x 4.4cm that was believed
at that time to be human bone. The LGC scientist described it as ‘a
fragment of juvenile rather than an adult cranium’ and it was
referred to as JAR/6. A short time later Mr Grime’s dog was
presented with the item and gave a positive indication for human
remains."
The excavation costing several million pounds was triggered by false alert by the cadaver dog EddieWasn't it that the people doing the excavation found the coconut shell, then they presented it to Mr Grime's dog who then alerted.
Cross contamination? if the fragment had been handled previously and by how many hands?Exactly.
Wasn't it that the people doing the excavation found the coconut shell, then they presented it to Mr Grime's dog who then alerted.
An object can have secondary cadaver odour on it.
Exactly.
are you saying it was another dogIf the report does not name the dog, don't say it was Eddie.
Im well aware of that....ive said on previous occcasions eddie could never be proved wrong...the claim of cross contamination could always be made....so any alert could be cross contamination. ...or it could be a false alert..Who said it smells like bone? Stop making things up.
looks like bone.....smells like bone....but its a coconut
If the report does not name the dog, don't say it was Eddie.
If the report does not name the dog, don't say it was Eddie.
its in all the newspaers...it was eddie..http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7263355.stmYou don't believe the papers. You've told us that many times.
are you unaware of the facts rob
Who said it smells like bone? Stop making things up.
You don't believe the papers. You've told us that many times.
You don't believe the papers. You've told us that many times.
It was Eddie. Of that there is no doubt.I said "If the report does not name the dog ..." No where in the report does it say "Eddie". If Davel quotes the reort he shouldn't add in other bits of information. I'm not saying "Mr Grime's dog" isn't Eddie.
ive never said i dont believe the papersWell remind us what do you say?
Cross contamination? if the fragment had been handled previously and by how many hands?LOL.
I said "If the report does not name the dog ..." No where in the report does it say "Eddie". If Davel quotes the reort he shouldn't add in other bits of information. I'm not saying "Mr Grime's dog" isn't Eddie.
Well remind us what do you say?
I am beginning to get a bit cross now. So please don't drive me too far. Either of you.
eddie alerts to bone.....to the smell of bone.....im making nothing upWho said it smells like bone? "Who" is a person not Eddie, so name that person. So far it is only you saying that.
Who said it smells like bone? "Who" is a person not Eddie, so name that person. So far it is only you saying that.
eddie was in jersey with Grime...its widely reported...and it seems you agreeThat maybe so but it isn't in the Operation Rectangle report.
That maybe so but it isn't in the Operation Rectangle report.
its in the report you gave alink to from the sunday times ...Is that bolded bit from the Sunday Times?
The cadaver dog that alerts to human remains, the same dog that nearly did for Kate and Gerry McCann after it alerted at the boot of their car
I dont know why you are arguing over the point
Is that bolded bit from the Sunday Times?
again eleanor....Ive simply made posts and provide links to support them. its again Rob who wants to pick at every post I make...plesae point any post of mine thats unnacceptable
You think I don't know that. I am not completely stupid.sanction for what ....im simply answerring the accusations against me by a moderator
But I don't want to sanction Rob anymore than I do you.
sanction for what ....im simply answerring the accusations against me by a moderatorI said the report does not name Eddie - That is true.
I said the report does not name Eddie - That is true.
I asked who said "Eddie smelt bone"? - You never answered.
The bdo report does not name eddie....I never claimed it did...i copy and pasted a part so my post is accurate
iT then went on the refer to the dog in question as eddie...because as most of us know...it was eddie
the smelling bone is a bit of humor based on the "if it walks like a duck" saying....I did answer and explained it.
I dont think there is anymore to say
The problem was that Eddie wasn't a proper Cadaver Dog. He had been taught too many old tricks, so not even Martin Grime knew what the dog was alerting to.Mr Grime trained Eddie and from what I've read his success during tests were in the high 90's. Why say "too many old tricks" when Grime is reported saying he doesn't teach his dog to do tricks?
Mr Grime trained Eddie and from what I've read his success during tests were in the high 90's. Why say "too many old tricks" when Grime is reported saying he doesn't teach his dog to do tricks?
It is not up to Mr Grime to know what Eddie was alerting to. He was willing for forensic scientists and detectives to come in behind him and corroborate Eddie's alert.
Eddie was trained initially as a Victim Recovery Dog. This means Dead or Alive.SIL is trying to train his dog as a cadaver dog. I would say he is struggling to come up with ideas to progress his training.
SIL is trying to train his dog as a cadaver dog. I would say he is struggling to come up with ideas to progress his training.
So what if Eddie was a VRD at some stage. Eddie was a playful puppy too before that.
I can't tell anyone about training a VRD or a EVRD as I have never attempted it.
Eddie was trained initially as a Victim Recovery Dog. This means Dead or Alive.
from what Ive read training is not difficult.....but only a dog with certain traits can be trainedOnce again I don't know about any of that, but I do have recollection of this video about dogs doing a double blind test (they might have been drug dogs) but they were all sorts of breeds. When I looked at it I thought "how ridiculous this was!".
A cadaver dog is a VRD so what are you going on about?There are different grades of cadaver dogs. VRD and EVRD labels have been changed in the "White" papers.
SIL is trying to train his dog as a cadaver dog. I would say he is struggling to come up with ideas to progress his training.
So what if Eddie was a VRD at some stage. Eddie was a playful puppy too before that.
I can't tell anyone about training a VRD or a EVRD as I have never attempted it.
from what Ive read training is not difficult.....but only a dog with certain traits can be trained
All dogs can find a Cadaver if there is one.A police cadaver dog that eats the evidence would be funny to watch!
Once again I don't know about any of that, but I do have recollection of this video about dogs doing a double blind test (they might have been drug dogs) but they were all sorts of breeds. When I looked at it I thought "how ridiculous this was!".
There are different grades of cadaver dogs. VRD and EVRD labels have been changed in the "White" papers.
The E of EVRD meant the dogs were trained with Human remains.
A police cadaver dog that eats the evidence would be funny to watch!
Once again I don't know about any of that, but I do have recollection of this video about dogs doing a double blind test (they might have been drug dogs) but they were all sorts of breeds. When I looked at it I thought "how ridiculous this was!".
There are different grades of cadaver dogs. VRD and EVRD labels have been changed in the "White" papers.
The E of EVRD meant the dogs were trained with Human remains.
A police cadaver dog that eats the evidence would be funny to watch!Imagine the headlines "Eddie eats Maddie".
Nonsense. A cadaver dog and VRD are the same. E was for the Enhanced Training.
Nonsense. A cadaver dog and VRD are the same. E was for the Enhanced Training.VRD might only look for humans, where as a "cadaver dog" it depends on who is describing the category
VRD might only look for humans, where as a "cadaver dog" it depends on who is describing the category
Enhanced Training in what?
The enhanced training of the dog involves the use of collection of 'Dead body scent' odour from corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact. The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. (Martin Grime)
How was Eddie tested for such enhanced skills by an independent ACPO instructor?It sounds like they had some special arrangement with Grime.
It sounds like they had some special arrangement with Grime.
This article is quite interesting "How can a dog sniff through concrete?"I have a feeling that it was reported that Eddie was only trained with human Cadaver Odour after going to America. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I didn't know there were male and female coconuts!
"In the Jersey case, parts of a child's body were found on Saturday. The remains are thought to date from the early 1980s. Police have yet to say whether they are male or female." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7263355.stm
Several sites say that an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog have been trained with the odour that comes from a human cadaver.
I have a feeling that it was reported that Eddie was only trained with human Cadaver Odour after going to America. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Now to bed
Nigh Night all
Its been said before that Grime went to America after the Luz trip,no one is able to produce any evidence to that effect.Grime was in Luz in August,the report written by Grime is dated August,in that report Grime tells us about the training in America with human cadaver,how did he go to America after Luz? but yet write a report dated before that?
Is it of any importance
Is it of any importance... IMO grime and his dogs were of little importance in Luz or Jersey. If we look at his CV he seems to have achieved very little
Is it of any importance.No.. Because what is important is the evidence the dogs help find...it doesn't matter what claims are made for how brilliant they are... It's the evidence they find that counts
To back up what I just said, from the files.Do we all agree Eddie was trained as Grime says here? That he had been trained using cadaver odour as in "involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odour from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject. "
These terms of joining were elaborated and will be signed.
Portimao 23 August 2007
Eddie & Keela Martin Grime Report
August 2007
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Do we all agree Eddie was trained as Grime says here? That he had been trained using cadaver odour as in "involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odour from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject. "
That sounds like some sort of filtration system.
Wasm't he talking about gauze pads?If you draw air through a gauze pad it would act as a type of vacuum cleaner system filtering the air coming off close to a cadaver
If you draw air through a gauze pad it would act as a type of vacuum cleaner system filtering the air coming off close to a cadaver
Multiple times would then have the dog only alerting to the cadaver to enhance training?He was trained using a variety of sample types. Swabs produced like as described above would offer variability in odours as well IMO.
He was trained using a variety of sample types. Swabs produced like as described above would offer variability in odours as well IMO.
They would be trying to isolate the cadaver odour so the dog would alert to only that surely.Grime in his white papers seemed to emphasise the need for variability. I'm trying to think of an analogy. It could be like a sniffer dog at the border if they are trying to stop importation of plants, and fruit etc, the dogs would need to know the full range of smells to alert to.
No.. Because what is important is the evidence the dogs help find...it doesn't matter what claims are made for how brilliant they are... It's the evidence they find that counts""what is important is the evidence the dogs help find" I like that Davel.