UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on May 08, 2013, 12:57:41 PM
-
The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.
It is evident that the Portuguese changed tactics following the introduction of the cadaver dogs into the equation. In the following article Kate explains how they were effectively tricked into allowing their possessions and the car hire to be submitted to forensic examination.
Ricardo Paiva (Portuguese Police liaison officer) played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, giving me his spiel about the dogs. “These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,” he said.
“Two hundred cases and they’ve never failed.” I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them than I did.
Could the police have been so naive?
(http://i.imgur.com/xOOGtWl.jpg)
Anguish ... Kate, with Cuddle Cat, and Gerry in tearful appeal for help days after disappearance.
KATE McCann tells today how she wrecked a bed as she kicked out in rage after the first day of the shambolic police hunt for her abducted daughter Madeleine.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3569557/Kate-McCann-I-smashed-bed-in-rage-at-cops.html
-
Just as naive as many [ censored word] who insist on believing that to this day!
They all made the same mistake- Grime said that never in 200 trials had Eddie alerted to pork and othe foodstuufs- very different to being 100% right about cadaver odor.
-
So Kate wouldn't answer the questions?
Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that this was my right as an arguida and the safest option. Any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way.
-
Ricardo Paiva (Portuguese Police liaison officer) played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, giving me his spiel about the dogs. “These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,” he said.
“Two hundred cases and they’ve never failed.”
Did Paiva really not understand?
-
Please, John, could you insert (...) between the different elements of the above quotation ?
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
80% accuracy is not very high, and that is at the high end of estimations. One indication in five in error. Would you bet your house on it?
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
80% accuracy is not very high, and that is at the high end of estimations. One indication in five in error. Would you bet your house on it?
80%is not very high !
If you had to bet the farm on it, which odds would you go for ... 10 to 8 ... or 2 to 10 on ?
The fact remains that, statistically, the dogs were far more likely to have been right in the McCann case than to have been wrong
-
“Two hundred cases and they’ve never failed.” I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them than I did
But others knew more about them, the ones who suggested they be brought in and the ones that had workes with them, so that is a bit of an odd statement.
And if KM knew nothing about these dogs, where did her contempt for them come from? Or was it contempt for Mr Paiva, ah, must have been, after all wasnt he the Fu......To..... she referred to in her book?
This is an odd statement because the quotation is inaccurate, as I said above.
Here is the correct one :
If I’m honest, I’d been quite nervous about seeing the videos of the dogs. I had no idea what to expect, although I was quite sure something couldn’t be quite right about the results they had apparently produced. We knew from Bob Small that the responses of specialist dogs were, or ought to be, classed as intelligence, not evidence, but in my head I’d built up these film clips into the most damning ‘evidence’ imaginable; the ‘I rest my case, Your Honour’ finale. Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. ‘These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,’ he said, waving an A4 document in front of me. ‘Two hundred cases and they’ve never failed. We have gone to the best laboratory in the world using low-copy DNA techniques.’ His emphasis suggested this was the gold standard. I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. What did he know about low-copy DNA? I was so tempted to ask him to elaborate. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them, either, than I did.
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
80% accuracy is not very high, and that is at the high end of estimations. One indication in five in error. Would you bet your house on it?
80%is not very high !
If you had to bet the farm on it, which odds would you go for ... 10 to 8 ... or 2 to 10 on ?
Neither- chance is far too great.
Your statement about the matter is mathematically flawed.
You said:
"There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case"
(I am quoting it here so that it cannot be watered down in future answers.)
The likelihood that the results in PdL were 100% accurate is going to be of the order of one in fifty. My math is rusty but if the likelihood is 80%, there is a normal distribution about that point which would predict the actual likelihood that the alerts were 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100% accurate; the 100% mark would be at about 3 standard deviations giving a likelihood of 2 chances in 100. I can't remember the exact formula but that is what the math predicts.
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
80% accuracy is not very high, and that is at the high end of estimations. One indication in five in error. Would you bet your house on it?
80%is not very high !
If you had to bet the farm on it, which odds would you go for ... 10 to 8 ... or 2 to 10 on ?
The fact remains that, statistically, the dogs were far more likely to have been right in the McCann case than to have been wrong
You see, I was right to predict your back shuffling. You have already changed your claim to:
"The fact remains that, statistically, the dogs were far more likely to have been right in the McCann case than to have been wrong"
from the original:
"There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case"
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
80% accuracy is not very high, and that is at the high end of estimations. One indication in five in error. Would you bet your house on it?
80%is not very high !
If you had to bet the farm on it, which odds would you go for ... 10 to 8 ... or 2 to 10 on ?
Neither- chance is far too great.
Your statement about the matter is mathematically flawed.
You said:
"There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case"
(I am quoting it here so that it cannot be watered down in future answers.)
The likelihood that the results in PdL were 100% accurate is going to be of the order of one in fifty. My math is rusty but if the likelihood is 80%, there is a normal distribution about that point which would predict the actual likelihood that the alerts were 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100% accurate; the 100% mark would be at about 3 standard deviations giving a likelihood of 2 chances in 100. I can't remember the exact formula but that is what the math predicts.
Statisically there is a much higher chance of the dogs having been accurate than there is of them having been inaccurate
That is a fact, however to choose to dress it up
-
Statisically there is a much higher chance of the dogs having been accurate than there is of them having been inaccurate
That is a fact, however to choose to dress it up
However much you choose to back track you mean.
80% reliability is pretty poor in the real world.
Would you fly in a plane that had a 80% chance of not crashing?
-
Statisically there is a much higher chance of the dogs having been accurate than there is of them having been inaccurate
That is a fact, however to choose to dress it up
However much you choose to back track you mean.
80% reliability is pretty poor in the real world.
Would you fly in a plane that had a 80% chance of not crashing?
If the only other option was to fly in a plane with a 20% chance of not crashing ... you bet I would
-
However much you choose to back track you mean.
80% reliability is pretty poor in the real world.
Would you fly in a plane that had a 80% chance of not crashing?
If the only other option was to fly in a plane with a 20% chance of not crashing ... you bet I would
That is avoiding the question as you well know,
Your arguments have no substance. Odds of 4 to 1 are rarely good enough to stake any major risk.
-
If the only other option was to fly in a plane with a 20% chance of not crashing ... you bet I would
That is avoiding the question as you well know,
Your arguments have no substance. Odds of 4 to 1 are rarely good enough to stake any major risk.
The dogs are more often right than wrong ... far more often
You know it ... you brought us the statistics
-
The dogs are more often right than wrong ... far more often
You know it ... you brought us the statistics
Yes. But they are wrong often enough to make their alerts a point to be very skeptical about.
I see you are stepping back even more from your original outrageous and demonstrably incorrect statement.
-
If the Mccanns had left it, it might not look odd. But from the time these dogs reacted they did all they could to try discredit them. Shooting oneself in foot is what I call that and piling more suspicion on. Their silly and untrue statements regarsing the cadaver dogs nust always backfired, the 75k spokesman didnt help here either, he seems to have put them on a hole more times than he dug them out of one, what a waste of donators money
In the non-bunnie world that is called protesting ones innocence. Not that you would understand.
-
Why don't some nurses spend their time caring, a so much needed activity, instead of attacking ?
-
Why don't some nurses spend their time caring, a so much needed activity, instead of attacking ?
This nurse is retired and has been for over a decade. This nurse is a house husband and father to two young boys. This nurse thinks you are rather silly with your baiting and goading about being a nurse.
What is it like being a Bunnie? Just so sad.
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
Tell me something Icabodcrane. How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?
The statistics are bunkum basically.
Lets put this fantasy science into perspective. Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.
And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible? Crayzee stuff @)(++(*
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
Tell me something Icabodcrane. How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?
The statistics are bunkum basically.
Lets put this fantasy science into perspective. Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.
And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible? Crayzee stuff @)(++(*
So you base your conclusion on what is not known, rather than what is
That is how fantasy is defined, John
-
It is impossible to say what the true detection rate is for these dogs. Hiding a bit of old bone in some rocks along a beach hardly qualifies as a scientific test or does it? @)(++(*
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
Tell me something Icabodcrane. How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?
The statistics are bunkum basically.
Lets put this fantasy science into perspective. Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.
And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible? Crayzee stuff @)(++(*
So you base your conclusion on what is not known, rather than what is
That is how fantasy is defined, John
"What is not known" is the underpinning of presumption of innocence, a point usually missing from the moral repertoire of bunnies.
The legal world starts from the presumption of innocence and then considers all evidence, taking into account its relevance and probative value. 80% correct is not good enough to meet the requirements of burden of proof or to overcome presumption of innocence.
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
Tell me something Icabodcrane. How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?
The statistics are bunkum basically.
Lets put this fantasy science into perspective. Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.
And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible? Crayzee stuff @)(++(*
So you base your conclusion on what is not known, rather than what is
That is how fantasy is defined, John
"What is not known" is the underpinning of presumption of innocence, a point usually missing from the moral repertoire of bunnies.
The legal world starts from the presumption of innocence and then considers all evidence, taking into account its relevance and probative value. 80% correct is not good enough to meet the requirements of burden of proof or to overcome presumption of innocence.
We're not talking law here debunker, we're talking science
Conclusions are never drawn on what is unevidenced ... you agree ?
-
There is, of course, a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were 100% accurate in the McCann case
Explain please
The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate ... considerably more often
If you can present evidence, statistics, or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do
Tell me something Icabodcrane. How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?
The statistics are bunkum basically.
Lets put this fantasy science into perspective. Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.
And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible? Crayzee stuff @)(++(*
So you base your conclusion on what is not known, rather than what is
That is how fantasy is defined, John
NO. Fantasy is expecting a dog to tell you what you hope to hear. Dogs have many talents, but their main one is telling you what you want to know. And pleasing you. Dogs have relatively small brains and incredible noses. They have nasal passage the size of a tennis court, but they would kill for, and be distracted by a pig's ear. Don't rely on a dog.
I'll get my coat.
-
At least, Shona, you've made a happy one !
-
We're not talking law here debunker, we're talking science
Conclusions are never drawn on what is unevidenced ... you agree ?
Science works in exactly the same way- that is what the null hypothesis is about.
It starts off saying that we do not know what is the cause of something, it makes an educated guess at that cause and then investigates whether that cause has the effect predicted- comparing results with the favoured hypothesis against the null hypothesis. This is what gives science its power.
Same idea, same principle. Difficult to grasp, but you will get there if you make the effort to learn.
-
So you base your conclusion on what is not known, rather than what is
That is how fantasy is defined, John
NO. Fantasy is expecting a dog to tell you what you hope to hear. Dogs have many talents, but their main one is telling you what you want to know. And pleasing you. Dogs have relatively small brains and incredible noses. They have nasal passage the size of a tennis court, but they would kill for, and be distracted by a pig's ear. Don't rely on a dog.
I'll get my coat.
8@??)(
Oh dear. I get so wanky when I talk about dogs, they are my thing, but I would no more ask a dog's opinion about anything than have dinner on the moon. Springers used for sniffing are rehomed reprobrates, they only want to please their handlers. They are easily led. QED.
-
NO. Fantasy is expecting a dog to tell you what you hope to hear. Dogs have many talents, but their main one is telling you what you want to know. And pleasing you. Dogs have relatively small brains and incredible noses. They have nasal passage the size of a tennis court, but they would kill for, and be distracted by a pig's ear. Don't rely on a dog.
I'll get my coat.
8@??)(
Oh dear. I get so wanky when I talk about dogs, they are my thing, but I would no more ask a dog's opinion about anything than have dinner on the moon. Springers used for sniffing are rehomed reprobrates, they only want to please their handlers. They are easily led. QED.
The question is what would please the handler in this particular case ? And why ?
-
Oh dear. I get so wanky when I talk about dogs, they are my thing, but I would no more ask a dog's opinion about anything than have dinner on the moon. Springers used for sniffing are rehomed reprobrates, they only want to please their handlers. They are easily led. QED.
The question is what would please the handler in this particular case ? And why ?
From what I've seen, the dog is forced, forced and forced again to react to something that can be misconstrued.
-
The handler is in a win win situation. Nobody will ever know if the dogs were right or wrong unless of course Madeleine comes back some day. It will then be Eddie's fault and not Mr Grime's.
-
The handler is in a win win situation. Nobody will ever know if the dogs were right or wrong unless of course Madeleine comes back some day. It will then be Eddie's fault and not Mr Grime's.
And Eddies dead!
-
From what I've seen, the dog is forced, forced and forced again to react to something that can be misconstrued.
But, Shona, what about Mr Harrison who warranted the operation ? And besides if forced, why ?
-
The case of Alie Berrelez says it all for me-well enough and I worked with the police dog training team for a while but you are the dog expert Shona, you deal with them day in day out.
Alie went missing and her scent was tracked for 15 miles and unfortunately was found dead.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cold-case-year-murdered-1993-solved-dna/story?id=14510785
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyi7ZM6K2Qg
-
I believe the Portuguese were sold a pup. His name was Eddie.
-
I believe the Portuguese were sold a pup. His name was Eddie.
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon%20Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf
http://pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf
Scientific experiments disagree, John.
The second link is particularly interesting as it was blinded, eliminating any handler cueing.
Before anyone starts, I'm well aware that dogs alert without forensic back up are useless, legally speaking.
-
I believe the Portuguese were sold a pup. His name was Eddie.
This belief is on what basis ? And why ?
-
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon%20Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf
http://pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf
Scientific experiments disagree, John.
The second link is particularly interesting as it was blinded, eliminating any handler cueing.
Before anyone starts, I'm well aware that dogs alert without forensic back up are useless, legally speaking.
The point of principal relevance to Praia da Luz of the Oesterhelweg experiment is that it was an experiment driven by the principle of cross-contamination, singularly ignored by Grime in PdL
-
Before anyone starts, I'm well aware that dogs alert without forensic back up are useless, legally speaking.
Though the body wasn't found, the cadaver dogs' evidence was admitted by the Kane County Court in the Montano case.
http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/23628300-418/kane-county-prosecutors-challenges-overcome-in-montano-case.html (http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/23628300-418/kane-county-prosecutors-challenges-overcome-in-montano-case.html)
Scientific teams are making research on an electronical nose that would identify the human VOCs vs the animal ones (each specie has a specific combination/ratio of VOCs).
But first they're trying to establish what a training aid should be in order to make sure that the dog didn't make confusion between human remains and chicken ones, in a legal perspective.
-
The point of principal relevance to Praia da Luz of the Oesterhelweg experiment is that it was an experiment driven by the principle of cross-contamination, singularly ignored by Grime in PdL
How do you know that ? Is Mr Grime an enemy of yours ?
-
This belief is on what basis ? And why ?
From the title of the thread. The PJ believed the dogs to be infallible. Thus the sold a pup idiom.
-
How do you know that ? Is Mr Grime an enemy of yours ?
I know it because I've read the carpet square experiment and I've read the case files of the Madeleine investigation
-
From the title of the thread. The PJ believed the dogs to be infallible. Thus the sold a pup idiom.
Grime actually didn't say that Eddie had never been wrong. He said the dog had never alerted falsely to the cadaver scent of a dead wild animal or to food.
But that was turned on the McCanns in their arguido interviews and by Almeida in his report.
-
Kate always seems to 'know' more than any other professionals. She very often expresses 'contempt' for anyone who advances a theory about the disappearance of her daughter that does not agree with her own theory.
If you take the hypothesis that the McCann's have some knowledge and/or involvement with the disappearance of their daughter then clearly the McCann's would have a motive for rubbishing any other professional or expert who cast doubt on the McCann's version of events.
If the McCann's were genuinely entirely innocent of any involvement whatsoever, I would imagine that they would have reacted with alarm to the findings of the sniffer dogs, irrespective of how accurate they may or may not be. Anything that might lead to a conclusion that the air of death hung around their apartment/the resort/their car could lead to the fear that their daughter would not be found alive.
Kate reacts to the dog's finding 'with contempt' but yet she gave credence to mystics and clairvoyants and to a detective agency with links to organised crime. She rubbishes an entire police force but claims she hangs on to threads of hopes from 'sightings' all over the world.
She 'just knows' what happened to her daughter - how does she 'just know?' Is she a clairvoyant? Does she have mystical powers?
Err - no - actually she trained in the sciences where evidence is considered to be much more relevant than mysticism.
So the only way that Kate can 'just know' what happened to her daughter is if she has evidence to support her hypothesis. That evidence could only come from her (or a reliable witness) seeing what happened or being involved with what happened.
Thanks Kate, you have provided the world with a very useful piece of first hand evidence from a key witness in the disappearance of your daughter.
-
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon%20Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf
http://pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf
Scientific experiments disagree, John.
The second link is particularly interesting as it was blinded, eliminating any handler cueing.
Before anyone starts, I'm well aware that dogs alert without forensic back up are useless, legally speaking.
This is an interesting paper and backs up my own thoughts. It talks about detecting blood...and detecting victims remains (or bits)....nowhere does it talk of detecting cadaver
-
This is an interesting paper and backs up my own thoughts. It talks about detecting blood...and detecting victims remains (or bits)....nowhere does it talk of detecting cadaver
Did you read the second link? The carpet one?
-
Kate always seems to 'know' more than any other professionals. She very often expresses 'contempt' for anyone who advances a theory about the disappearance of her daughter that does not agree with her own theory.
If you take the hypothesis that the McCann's have some knowledge and/or involvement with the disappearance of their daughter then clearly the McCann's would have a motive for rubbishing any other professional or expert who cast doubt on the McCann's version of events.
If the McCann's were genuinely entirely innocent of any involvement whatsoever, I would imagine that they would have reacted with alarm to the findings of the sniffer dogs, irrespective of how accurate they may or may not be. Anything that might lead to a conclusion that the air of death hung around their apartment/the resort/their car could lead to the fear that their daughter would not be found alive.
Kate reacts to the dog's finding 'with contempt' but yet she gave credence to mystics and clairvoyants and to a detective agency with links to organised crime. She rubbishes an entire police force but claims she hangs on to threads of hopes from 'sightings' all over the world.
She 'just knows' what happened to her daughter - how does she 'just know?' Is she a clairvoyant? Does she have mystical powers?
Err - no - actually she trained in the sciences where evidence is considered to be much more relevant than mysticism.
So the only way that Kate can 'just know' what happened to her daughter is if she has evidence to support her hypothesis. That evidence could only come from her (or a reliable witness) seeing what happened or being involved with what happened.
Thanks Kate, you have provided the world with a very useful piece of first hand evidence from a key witness in the disappearance of your daughter.
"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."
Reporter: "What evidence do you have that there was an abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't have..."
Kate McCann: "Because I know. I was there, I found my daughter gone. I know more than you do. I know what I saw."
-
Did you read the second link? The carpet one?
I think Ive read it before but will check
-
Yes make fun of the dogs (one bark for yes two for no) but bring Krugel in to locate her body. What a contradiction. I would rather listen to the dogs.
-
From the title of the thread. The PJ believed the dogs to be infallible. Thus the sold a pup idiom.
I'm afraid, John, that the PJ's belief is a myth. They ignored such dogs existed (did you know? I didn't), in France for instance there are 12 and they resolve about 15 cases a year.
The PJ trusted the NPIA and I think that was the right thing to do. If the UK dogs hadn't reacted at all, you could suspect the travel, the heat, the lack of cold country, but they reacted in determined situations and, had they not reacted it, that would have been also very revealing.
If they hadn't reacted in 5A, they wouldn't have been sent to the villa and the Scenic wouldn't have joined RM's cars which were the original target defined by Prof. Harrison.
Nobody would suspect that Madeleine died in the flat, though after so many years people would suspect she had some kind of fatal accident outside. The hypotheses would be implausible abduction from bed vs plausible wandering off/accidental death.
-
Yes make fun of the dogs (one bark for yes two for no) but bring Krugel in to locate her body. What a contradiction. I would rather listen to the dogs.
Note that curiously the contract with the NPIA required that all kinds of proposals about the body localisation had to be tolerated by the PJ ! This is why Prof Harrison examined the hair device report (a google map with 3 flags..) of the body hunter.
Strange UK (for someone who was educated in Descartes country) !
-
Did you read the second link? The carpet one?
Ive read the link again..its the one Ive seen before. Theres no doubt that dogs can detect the scent when present...this doesn't answer the question in Portugal. What happens if the scent isn't present and the dog is repeatedly led back to the test area? why did eddie not alert to cuddle cat and then alert to it. Was there some cross contamination...lots and lots of questions
-
the tiles had been kept in sealed jars...what would have happened if the tiles had left in the open air for 3 months...what would the results have been then
-
"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."
Reporter: "What evidence do you have that there was an abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't have..."
Kate McCann: "Because I know. I was there, I found my daughter gone. I know more than you do. I know what I saw."
Mrs McCann is very likely saying the truth. "I found my daughter gone/dead". It must be irritating somehow to hear people doubt your story telling and consider they can imagine a hundred of tales that are all wrong.
-
I know it because I've read the carpet square experiment and I've read the case files of the Madeleine investigation
It's not an answer and you know it. I wonder what Mr Grime did to you.
-
Ive read the link again..its the one Ive seen before. Theres no doubt that dogs can detect the scent when present...this doesn't answer the question in Portugal. What happens if the scent isn't present and the dog is repeatedly led back to the test area? why did eddie not alert to cuddle cat and then alert to it. Was there some cross contamination...lots and lots of questions
I was bothered by handler cueing too. Then I watched the video in 5A. Mr Grime repeatedly called Eddie back to one of the beds in the same manner that he did with the car, yet Eddie didn't alert.
I can't explain cuddlecat. It does look odd doesn't it?
I also think that a dog not alerting is a dog doing it's job too. I don't see any benefit in forcing a dog to alert if there's nothing there. If Madeleine had been found alive, Mr Grime loses credibility and therefore his livelihood.
-
It's not an answer and you know it. I wonder what Mr Grime did to you.
One could ask you the same question about the McCanns.
BTW I know of no-one who would say 'I found my daughter 'gone' - if they meant they found them dead. In that particular context 'gone' can only mean she had disappeared IMO
Just as anyone saying ''I came home and found my dog gone'' ....would never be taken as meaning .... 'I came home and found my dog dead' ....by someone whose first language is English. They would assume the dog had disappeared.
When a person dies, who is expected to die - then to say.... 'He/she's gone'' ....when death finally occurs is possible in that particular context, but not in the context you describe IMO.
-
When a person dies, who is expected to die - then to say.... 'He/she's gone'' ....when death finally occurs is possible in that particular context, but not in the context you describe IMO.
So usually applied to someone who has been ill or injured and then passes away.
-
One could ask you the same question about the McCanns.
BTW I know of no-one who would say 'I found my daughter 'gone' - if they meant they found them dead. In that particular context 'gone' can only mean she had disappeared IMO
Just as anyone saying ''I came home and found my dog gone'' ....would never be taken as meaning .... 'I came home and found my dog dead' ....by someone whose first language is English. They would assume the dog had disappeared.
When a person dies, who is expected to die - then to say.... 'He/she's gone'' ....when death finally occurs is possible in that particular context, but not in the context you describe IMO.
The McCanns did nothing to me and I did nothing to them as well. I'm not pretending Mrs McCann killed her daughter with a smack while Mr McCann was playing tennis. Or did I ?
You'll admit nevertheless that Mrs McCann is abusively saying she knows more than anybody else because she was there. Was she ?
If she's a kind of clairvoyante, why didn't she inform the police instead of calling the body hunter who pretends to be but is obviously no clairvoyant ?
-
To go for to die in the past tense is stylistically a euphemism. The issue isn't to mark the end of a process, but to attenuate the blow that news of death always are.
-
I don't see any benefit in forcing a dog to alert if there's nothing there. If Madeleine had been found alive, Mr Grime loses credibility and therefore his livelihood.
Ignorant people like us should stick to that. But many don't for obvious reasons, in spite of implying an offence to a solid British institution. The same people then paradoxically are sure that SY is so good that they'll resolve everything..
-
I also think that a dog not alerting is a dog doing it's job too. I don't see any benefit in forcing a dog to alert if there's nothing there. If Madeleine had been found alive, Mr Grime loses credibility and therefore his livelihood.
So true....it is just plain common sense..... Im still waiting for a list of all the cases cadaver dogs alerted to, and for any alternate reasons that some people give as possibilities,and the missing person was found alive.....not holding my breath much
-
So true....it is just plain common sense..... Im still waiting for a list of all the cases cadaver dogs alerted to, and for any alternate reasons that some people give as possibilities,and the missing person was found alive.....not holding my breath much
A moment's thought should tell you how nonsensical that argument is.
If there is something else in the vicinity likely to trigger a reaction in the dog (such as blood) then no death has been signalled.
And yes, an actual example was flagged up recently of where dogs "signalled a death" and the "deceased" person turned up alive and well.
I don't have the reference immediately to hand.
-
So true....it is just plain common sense..... Im still waiting for a list of all the cases cadaver dogs alerted to, and for any alternate reasons that some people give as possibilities,and the missing person was found alive.....not holding my breath much
The dogs alerts do not always alert to a dead person..ask grime
-
Eddie alerted first at the wardrobe and later on the clothes. No blood was found.
-
Eddie alerted first at the wardrobe and later on the clothes. No blood was found.
Eddie picked items of clothes up and barked.
The first reaction is not trained.
-
Eddie alerted first at the wardrobe and later on the clothes. No blood was found.
Don't forget the garden.
But it's all just complete coincidence that the child vanished. Kate & Gerry had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in their daughters disappearance & it was paedos what did it.
-
If this comes to trial we will hear the dogs evidence but I think the UK government may try to cover it up like in Jersey 8)--))
-
A moment's thought should tell you how nonsensical that argument is.
If there is something else in the vicinity likely to trigger a reaction in the dog (such as blood) then no death has been signalled.
And yes, an actual example was flagged up recently of where dogs "signalled a death" and the "deceased" person turned up alive and well.
I don't have the reference immediately to hand.
Shannon Matthews?
So just one example....
No its not nonsensical at all.... only if you assert Eddie only reacts to blood...and you know that is not true......and only if you can show blood was found where every cadaver dog alerted
-
Shannon Matthews?
So just one example....
No its not nonsensical at all.... only if you assert Eddie only reacts to blood...and you know that is not true......and only if you can show blood was found where every cadaver dog alerted
Shannon Matthews isn't the one I had in mind. But that's another ...
-
I don't have the reference immediately to hand.
Find it, please, it will certainly be interesting, especially if the identity of the false dead had been established.
-
Shannon Matthews isn't the one I had in mind. But that's another ...
I look forward to reading your example when you find it
-
The dogs alerts do not always alert to a dead person..ask grime
About a dog alerting so many times in the same flat, Mrs McCann ("Madeleine") would have an opinion, as WS reminded the other day :
As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.
-
I look forward to reading your example when you find it
Think of how common it is, these days, for people to die at home. My own father did and services allow people to do that -- certainly in Britain, no doubt, elsewhere in the world.
If there were to be a murder enquiry at my late father's house, it's conceivable a cadaver dog would react.
The dog might be reacting to the death-scent of my father, a fat lot of good to the progress of any murder enquiry at the house.
-
I look forward to reading your example when you find it
ferryman's campaign is tireless, but disorganised 8)--))
-
ferryman's campaign is tireless, but disorganised 8)--))
Campaign?
-
Think of how common it is, these days, for people to die at home. My own father did and services allow people to do that -- certainly in Britain, no doubt, elsewhere in the world.
If there were to be a murder enquiry at my late father's house, it's conceivable a cadaver dog would react.
The dog might be reacting to the death-scent of my father, a fat lot of good to the progress of any murder enquiry at the house.
I fail to see your argument, unless you are suggesting that at all the places cadaver dogs have been used in relation to a missing person case, their alerts could be explained by someone dying at that house before.....or the existence of blood,.....but not the actual possibility of the missing person having died there, which is as likely if not MORE...let the apologies continue
-
Think of how common it is, these days, for people to die at home. My own father did and services allow people to do that -- certainly in Britain, no doubt, elsewhere in the world.
If there were to be a murder enquiry at my late father's house, it's conceivable a cadaver dog would react.
The dog might be reacting to the death-scent of my father, a fat lot of good to the progress of any murder enquiry at the house.
Eddie was sent to the flat only because there were no visible remains though someone who wasn't autonomous had been last seen there.
-
Campaign?
Against Mr Grime.
-
Think of how common it is, these days, for people to die at home. My own father did and services allow people to do that -- certainly in Britain, no doubt, elsewhere in the world.
If there were to be a murder enquiry at my late father's house, it's conceivable a cadaver dog would react.
The dog might be reacting to the death-scent of my father, a fat lot of good to the progress of any murder enquiry at the house.
...and how many people went missing from his house?
-
I fail to see your argument, unless you are suggesting that at all the places cadaver dogs have been used in relation to a missing person case, their alerts could be explained by someone dying at that house before.....or the existence of blood,.....but not the actual possibility of the missing person having died there, which is as likely if not MORE...let the apologies continue
You wanted examples of where a cadaver-dog alert in a criminal enquiry does not, in fact, indicate the commission of any crime
There are (potentially) thousands.
-
You wanted examples of where a cadaver-dog alert in a criminal enquiry does not, in fact, indicate the commission of any crime
There are (potentially) thousands.
The bottom line remains as always.
The dogs made indications.
There is no forensic backup.
It does not mean something didn't happen to Madeleine in the apartment.
-
What I don't like, Ferryman, is your attacking Mr Grime as if you were scared to attack a professor or an institution. If you said you had a personal conflict with Mr Grime, that would be more acceptable.
-
What I don't like, Ferryman, is your attacking Mr Grime as if you were scared to attack a professor or an institution. If you said you had a personal conflict with Mr Grime, that would be more acceptable.
O dear.
Why did Grime say the toy had been forwarded for forensic analysis when it never was?
Any idea?
-
O dear.
Why did Grime say the toy had been forwarded for forensic analysis when it never was?
Any idea?
You clearly hate Mr. Grime ferryman.
What fuels this ?
Are you in some way tied to the Mccanns ?
-
8)-)))
...and how many people went missing from his house?
8)-)))
Abductors should be careful and never abduct from a place where nobody has died.
-
You clearly hate Mr. Grime ferryman.
What fuels this ?
Are you in some way tied to the Mccanns ?
Why did Grime indicate that the toy had been forwarded for forensic analysis when it never was.
Any idea?
-
Why did Grime indicate that the toy had been forwarded for forensic analysis when it never was.
Any idea?
He thought so, perhaps, he wasn't the one who sent the stuff to the scientific police.
Please I'm interested in the person who (apparently) came back from the dead.
-
You wanted examples of where a cadaver-dog alert in a criminal enquiry does not, in fact, indicate the commission of any crime
There are (potentially) thousands.
Firstly, no one had ever died in flat 5a.....pertaining to this case and these dogs
Secondly, please dont exagerate so much...potentially thousands? youre having a laugh!!
Still, if you find that long list of cadaver dogs alerting to the last place a missing person was seen alive and they turned up alive, do post it....one or two out of the your potentially thousands of mistakes doesnt gel
And I doubt cadaver dogs have been sent on thousands of cases either..its a relatively new tool....
-
Firstly, no one had ever died in flat 5a.....pertaining to this case and these dogs
Secondly, please dont exagerate so much...potentially thousands? youre having a laugh!!
Still, if you find that long list of cadaver dogs alerting to the last place a missing person was seen alive and they turned up alive, do post it....one or two out of the your potentially thousands of mistakes doesnt gel
And I doubt cadaver dogs have been sent on thousands of cases either..its a relatively new tool....
Of course I'm not exaggerating. Literally thousands of people die at home. That is (potentially) thousands of instances where a dog could give a false alert in a criminal/murder enquiry.
Have you figured out, yet, why Grime indicated that the toy had been forwarded for forensic analysis when it never was?
-
Why did Grime indicate that the toy had been forwarded for forensic analysis when it never was.
Any idea?
Thats not exaxtly what he said
'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
In any case if he asked the PJ to keep it for future possible tests they obviously just gave it back as it was peeking out of kate mccanns big bag when she went in for her arguido interview.....
a month later.
(http://www.imgur.com/lSQC1dp.jpg)
-
And I doubt cadaver dogs have been sent on thousands of cases either..its a relatively new tool....
The first dog trained to exclusively detect human remains was a Labrador, Pearl, and first worked in 1974 (State of New York).
-
The first dog trained to exclusively detect human remains was a Labrador, Pearl, and first worked in 1974 (State of New York).
WOW thanks Anne, didnt know that....it certainly took a long time go become a norm in the police as it is today in many countries
In 2007 the PJ had never even heard of them according to Olegario da Sousa.....no wonder the PJ took all their cues from the British regarding.....
-
After six years, four threads on the dogs...remember what grime said about the alerts...no evidential value...from the threads here you would think the results are black or white
-
After six years, four threads on the dogs...remember what grime said about the alerts...no evidential value...from the threads here you would think the results are black or white
>@@(*&) No, you wouldn't. Nobody claims that.
But ferry just will not let it lie. It's clearly a vendetta!
-
it seems that the PJ were really impressed with the evrd dogs
six years on...have they used them since @)(++(*
-
it seems that the PJ were really impressed with the evrd dogs
six years on...have they used them since @)(++(*
The McCann's haven't holidayed there again, so no need.
-
it seems that the PJ were really impressed with the evrd dogs
The PJ were not alone, I was very much impressed myself, I read a lot of things, the more scientific I could find, because of that.
And, if I may say, the McCanns were first impressed too. If they breathed again quickly, it is imo because they knew better than anybody that Madeleine was taken away for good before the sunrise on the 4th of May.
-
The McCann's haven't holidayed there again, so no need.
I'm sure the Portuguese are more than pleased that the Mccanns won't be taking holidays there any more.
-
it seems that the PJ were really impressed with the evrd dogs
six years on...have they used them since @)(++(*
The Portuguese authorities have now trained their own EVRD dogs.
-
The Portuguese authorities have now trained their own EVRD dogs.
could you give us any details of their deployment
-
The Portuguese authorities have now trained their own EVRD dogs.
Do you have one case where the Portuguese dogs have detected cadaver odour?
-
could you give us any details of their deployment
This is a blood detector dog.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/Noticia.aspx?channelid=00000010-0000-0000-0000-000000000010&contentid=C424ECDF-4F2D-4D51-AB28-230AD9850BE6 (http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/Noticia.aspx?channelid=00000010-0000-0000-0000-000000000010&contentid=C424ECDF-4F2D-4D51-AB28-230AD9850BE6)
(http://i.imgur.com/6Cd8t8V.jpg)
-
This is a blood detector dog.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/Noticia.aspx?channelid=00000010-0000-0000-0000-000000000010&contentid=C424ECDF-4F2D-4D51-AB28-230AD9850BE6 (http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/Noticia.aspx?channelid=00000010-0000-0000-0000-000000000010&contentid=C424ECDF-4F2D-4D51-AB28-230AD9850BE6)
Not blood....cadaver
-
Do you have one case where the Portuguese dogs have detected cadaver odour?
Cadaver dog
http://www.publico.pt/local/noticia/corpo-de-homem-desaparecido-no-rio-mondego-resgatado-ao-inicio-da-noite-1579632 (http://www.publico.pt/local/noticia/corpo-de-homem-desaparecido-no-rio-mondego-resgatado-ao-inicio-da-noite-1579632)
-
Cadaver dog
http://www.publico.pt/local/noticia/corpo-de-homem-desaparecido-no-rio-mondego-resgatado-ao-inicio-da-noite-1579632 (http://www.publico.pt/local/noticia/corpo-de-homem-desaparecido-no-rio-mondego-resgatado-ao-inicio-da-noite-1579632)
We all know about dogs detecting cadavers..they have been used to find bodies in earthquakes etc for many yeras...more specifically has a Portuguese dog detected the scent of death where no body has been present
-
Cripes this is getting like the holocaust denial in some parts, pathetic....cadaver dogs detect remnant scent.....as well as physical remains...get over it......thnk Ive read enough apologists for one evening....on this and other issues....need a peptobismol for it too
>>>>>
-
Cripes this is getting like the holocaust denial in some parts, pathetic....cadaver dogs detect remnant scent.....as well as physical remains...get over it......thnk Ive read enough apologists for one evening....need a peptobismol for it too
>>>>>
Im well aware of remnant smell...which can of course be caused by cross contamination..as described by Grime
-
We all know about dogs detecting cadavers..they have been used to find bodies in earthquakes etc for many yeras...more specifically has a Portuguese dog detected the scent of death where no body has been present
This I don't know. those are EVRD dogs, aren't they ?
I suppose that cadavers are usually found where people died. There might have been cases of newborn found by chance in a bin, but it is never thanks to a cadaver dog.
You have to realise, Davel, that very rarely a child vanishes without a trace in Europe.
Luckily.
And if you add the "from bed" criterium it is more than rare, it never happened afaik.
A little girl just 5 was allegedly abducted from a park, in France, when her pregnant mother had a little snap. The police discovered in the mother's laptop that sites about abduction had been intensely visited before the "abduction". They waited until the baby was born to arrest the mother and her partner. The body has never been found. They said where they buried it, they went on the place with the police, nothing was found. Where do you think the body was put in ?
-
Im well aware of remnant smell...which can of course be caused by cross contamination..as described by Grime
Not up to the point to "invade" the global air of a flat.
-
.need a peptobismol for it too
I don't know what this is but I perhaps need it. Not even a "thank you" for searching..
-
I don't know what this is but I perhaps need it. Not even a "thank you" for searching..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepto-Bismol
It settles you when you feel nauseous and sick.....
You expecting "thanks" for anything done in Portugal by some? hell would freeze over first.......
@)(++(*
Gnite anne
-
I was bothered by handler cueing too. Then I watched the video in 5A. Mr Grime repeatedly called Eddie back to one of the beds in the same manner that he did with the car, yet Eddie didn't alert.
I can't explain cuddlecat. It does look odd doesn't it?
I also think that a dog not alerting is a dog doing it's job too. I don't see any benefit in forcing a dog to alert if there's nothing there. If Madeleine had been found alive, Mr Grime loses credibility and therefore his livelihood.
The dog took it out of the bin. It isnt trained to play with toys. For me it did that for a reason perhaps a worrying scent but not sure of it.....after all the cat had been washed with Persil so many times.......
-
Sick of reading carp about the dogs. 200 cases prior to the McCanns and afterwards positive findings, and they are rubbish.
The dogs alert blah blah, but they dont know what it is they are alerting to, its just a trained scent to them.
Grimes had no idea they would alert ANYWHERE.
The trouble is with the Internet everyone can be an expert. It takes years of training these dogs if they are constantly tested and if they fail they are out.
Look at all the people dogs help, blind, deaf, diabetic, disabled, stuck in avalanches, bomb disposal, (very brave and many are killed), they used them in the war and they saved a lot of lives.
The dog is not for making fun of no way.
Meet Sergeant Stubby a decorated dog from World War 1.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sergeant_stubby.htm
He saved many a life with his sensitive nose.
So many dogs deployed in the war over 30,000 who went on to save countless lives.
The dogs save many lives in many situations, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados.
They stop terroists from getting on planes to blow us up.
Dogs at war:
http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/content/animals/animals/breeds/dogtopics/dogs_war.htm
Dogs who save lives:
http://www.dogguide.net/25-hero-dogs.php
What makes a good Cadaver dog?
Drive, a good nose, and an ability to focus. A good cadaver dog needs to be deeply bonded to his handler and simultaneously be independent and to make decisions on his own. The dog needs to work as part of an inseparable unit with the handler, but also be independent enough that he’s not constantly looking back for signals on what to do next. When Solo is working scent, he won’t look back at me for minutes at a time. He will be out there, and I will be trying to stay out of his way so he can do his best work.
Taken from this article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2013/10/1310xx-working-dog-dead-body-cat-warren-science/
Finally from the above article:
Finally, I think it's important for people to realize that while dogs and their noses are amazing, they are not magical, and it's not easy work. It takes rigorous training, handling, and a fine dog to produce good results.
I am sadly sick to death of the dogs being made fun of and Grimes too. Its beyond sickening.
They were asked to do a job they did it.
End of.
Thank god for dogs is all I can say, I would rather trust one of them at least you know where you stand with them.
-
NO. Fantasy is expecting a dog to tell you what you hope to hear. Dogs have many talents, but their main one is telling you what you want to know. And pleasing you. Dogs have relatively small brains and incredible noses. They have nasal passage the size of a tennis court, but they would kill for, and be distracted by a pig's ear. Don't rely on a dog.
I'll get my coat.
8@??)(
Oh dear. I get so wanky when I talk about dogs, they are my thing, but I would no more ask a dog's opinion about anything than have dinner on the moon. Springers used for sniffing are rehomed reprobrates, they only want to please their handlers. They are easily led. QED.
What a load of rubbish. You are supposed to be a dog expert ROFLMO. I am more an expert then you. I have trained a few dogs over my time and fostered dogs in Kenya which needed retraining and new homes found.
The Springer is ideal for search dog because of its high energy and intelligence.
A lot of cadaver dogs are trained from puppies, if they fail they might then go on to be used in other police handling fields, or even given to Dog for blind training or Disability training.
IF a dog is trained correctly it can be allowed a free rein to check on scent and the surrounding area, and then intelligent and trained well enough to come back to the handler when needed to focus.
The dogs are amazing when well trained.
Yes they can loose focus but then they are not trained or handled correctly.
-
The question is what would please the handler in this particular case ? And why ?
From what I've seen, the dog is forced, forced and forced again to react to something that can be misconstrued.
You have no idea what your talking about.
The dog is so well trained it is able to go off on its own when it gets the scent. It picked the scent up from the Renault on the left side but wasnt sure where it was coming from, so it went off with its head up sniffing the air.....
This is what it is TRAINED TO DO.
The handler saw where the dog alerted and therefore brought it back to focus on the car.
The handler would have no idea the dog would alert to the car.
Jeez this is what good cadaver dogs do, they go off on their own, then they are brought back to find the source.
Let us assume for arguements sake there was a cadaver scent on the Renault car. The car has to be DRIVEN into the car parking area and finally parked ready for the test.
Well the scent would be around the area the car was driven wouldnt it?
So this is why the dog was looking for the original scent source.
ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
From what you have said you have no idea about dog training.
I have more experience lol and I taught myself.
-
Not up to the point to "invade" the global air of an flat.
It is according to grime..but of course posters on here think they know more than grime
-
Yes they can loose focus but then they are not trained or handled correctly.
I guess it makes all the difference. The team dog/handler is what counts. This is why certification applies to both.
People usually teach their dogs how to please them, the handler of a cadaver dog or a sniffer dog has a totally different objective which is to form with his dog an efficient and credible team.
-
http://bbb-news.com/blog/tag/joel-mainland/
That could explain why there's dog and dog and why only an experimented handler is able to select the dog he'll train.
-
I am sadly sick to death of the dogs being made fun of and Grimes too. Its beyond sickening.
Grime is beyond parody.
But I don't think there was too much wrong with his dogs.
It is, perhaps, a little unjust that the dogs should take the rap for the antics of their master.
-
Grime is beyond parody.
But I don't think there was too much wrong with his dogs.
It is, perhaps, a little unjust that the dogs should take the rap for the antics of their master.
has Grime gone from strength to strength since his great exploits in PDL and Jersey...how much was he charging then and how much does he charge now. That would be a good measure of how his clients judge him then and now
-
It is, perhaps, a little unjust that the dogs should take the rap for the antics of their master.
Instead of going on libelling Mr Grime under the heroic cover of anonymity, what about the person who came back from the dead you mentioned yesterday ?
-
Instead of going on libelling Mr Grime under the heroic cover of anonymity, what about the person who came back from the dead you mentioned yesterday ?
Still can't recall the name. But it was a reference made on this board.
-
I find the hatred placed on Mr. Grime's shoulders, as with Amaral, quite disturbing.
It has become a characteristic of the extreme mccann supporter, and is certainly more than just an obsession.
-
I find the hatred placed on Mr. Grime's shoulders, as with Amaral, quite disturbing.
It has become a characteristic of the extreme mccann supporter, and is certainly more than just an obsession.
I don't see any hatred in posts...you are imagining it....I see criticism...nothing wrong with that... I see hatred towards the MCCanns...that I find disturbing
-
Still can't recall the name. But it was a reference made on this board.
Please a little effort, Ferryman. You know that this forum doesn't tolerate myths.
-
I don't see any hatred in posts...you are imagining it....I see criticism...nothing wrong with that... I see hatred towards the MCCanns...that I find disturbing
No it is quite visible, especially when the same people state what he did had no value whatsoever.
As for the mccanns, I don't hate them , but I Have contempt and disdain for people who placed their children at unnecessary risk, whilst they wined and dined, night after night.
-
No it is quite visible, especially when the same people state what he did had no value whatsoever.
As for the mccanns, I don't hate them , but I Have contempt and disdain for people who placed their children at unnecessary risk, whilst they wined and dined, night after night.
I don't think you understand the word hate...saying something has no value is not expressing hate..you are imagining things
-
Please a little effort, Ferryman. You know that this forum doesn't tolerate myths.
At the time some people claimed there had been an alert at the home of one of the women held captive in Cleveland. Maybe that's what ferryman means. >@@(*&)
-
has Grime gone from strength to strength since his great exploits in PDL and Jersey...how much was he charging then and how much does he charge now. That would be a good measure of how his clients judge him then and now
The only judge that matters is the one who judges Mr Grime in those US courtrooms 8(0(*
-
You may not be aware davel BUT there has been a massive recession in certain economies throughout the world since 2007 !
Budgets have been SLASHED in every department in business and government spending.
A resultant factor of a recession is that competition becomes a lot sharper as everyone has to pare back expenses and overheads in order to secure contracts !
Having said that it appears that the recession has been good to Martin Grime, he still owns his business - Forensic Science Search Consultancy and has secured a directorship in GSS International (2009) !
Are you aware what grime was charging in his jersey days and what he charges now...his income seems to have crashed...nothing to do with the global recession that you are desperately trying to claim is the cause..his value seems to have crashed
-
I don't think you understand the word hate...saying something has no value is not expressing hate..you are imagining things
There's no mistaking obsession, and ferryman - and also at least one other person - have one 8(0(*
-
I don't think you understand the word hate...saying something has no value is not expressing hate..you are imagining things
I know hate when I see it.
As with km's comments in her book.
-
I know hate when I see it.
As with km's comments in her book.
if you think saying something has no value is expressing hate then you don't know hate when you see it
-
ferryman should be on Channel 4 - Obsessive Compulsive Smearers 8)--))
-
I take it that you can back up that emboldened assertion ?
Ferryman was quoting a fee of around 450 dollars for a days work now wheras he was charging thousands in jersey...have you learnt the difference between pidgin and pigeon now?
-
Grimes fees in jersey,
The evidence of lavish expenses claims and extraordinary financial waste includes paying £93,000 to Martin Grime
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz2n6if22uT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
if you think saying something has no value is expressing hate then you don't know hate when you see it
Pure gibberish.
-
Pure gibberish.
As I said...you don't understand
-
Are you aware what grime was charging in his jersey days and what he charges now...his income seems to have crashed...nothing to do with the global recession that you are desperately trying to claim is the cause..his value seems to have crashed
Maybe there are more trainers and trained dogs around now? >@@(*&)
It's a relatively new science, and growing quickly I imagine.
-
How much of that £93,000 was expenses as opposed to the daily rate ?
would you like me to educate you
-
As I said...you don't understand
Indeed you don't.
-
I certainly would welcome it !
sorry ...to busy at the moment...
-
sorry ...to busy at the moment...
8-)(--) Do you have another scapegoating to go to?
-
As always you are unable to stand over your assertions !
It's 'too' by the way !
that's called a typo...Im actually watching a webinar and helping my son with his maths homework..as well as reading this thread.....you failed to understand the correct word that you wanted to use...that shows your level of education
-
Thats not exaxtly what he said
'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
In any case if he asked the PJ to keep it for future possible tests they obviously just gave it back as it was peeking out of kate mccanns big bag when she went in for her arguido interview.....
a month later.
(http://www.imgur.com/lSQC1dp.jpg)
It never does to confuse vacuous words with an "answer".
The post of yours you refer to was vacuous words.
When I've more time, I will develop the theme
-
It never does to confuse vacuous words with an "answer".
The post of yours you refer to was vacuous words.
When I've more time, I will develop the theme
When you have more time, Ferryman, can you send a link toward the person wrongly alerted as dead by a dog ?
-
When you have more time, Ferryman, can you send a link toward the person wrongly alerted as dead by a dog ?
I have a new thread awaiting approval.
-
I have a new thread awaiting approval.
About that proven erroneous alert ?
-
About that proven erroneous alert ?
I've already explained that once.
-
I've already explained that once.
You said a reference was made on this board to someone turning up alive after a cadaver dog had hit...and NOT shannon matthews....you dont recall who made the reference, what thread it may have been on, or any details about it, man, woman, child, country, handler,name of dog,what the case was.....for something like that which would be such an armament for you and on which you would make notes I find that odd....seems no one else remembers either....
Not even a teeny word remembered sufficient for a board or google search.....maybe Davel remembers with his astonishing memory lol
-
I'd doubt it Red !
P.S. it's only a remarked upon "near photographic memory" !
yes, it was remarked on, but the amazing memory man called his own memory astonishing....i hope its put to good use here since ferrymans fails him on a very very significant issue.....I want to know where this cadaver dog alerted in thecase of a missing person and they turned up alive......
-
I'm still patiently awaiting lesson 1 !
I was hoping you were holding your breath
-
John
Tell me something Icabodcrane. How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?
The statistics are bunkum basically.
Lets put this fantasy science into perspective. Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.
And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible? Crayzee stuff @)(++(*
Icabodcrane
So you base your conclusion on what is not known, rather than what is
That is how fantasy is defined, John
Mr Grime, in a pretrial, testified how and where in September 2007 Eddie had alerted in the US Parker case (a woman was missing for a year when her husband was arrested for murder). No body however had been found.
Mr Grime was mocked, it shouldn't be surprising for some posters, by the defence attorney who suggested Eddie smelt food instead of remains. Mr Grime replied this
I can’t predict the dog’s behavior. I study the dog’s behavior. You are trying to put words in my mouth and I don’t deal in hypotheticals.
The judge finally decided to reject the cadaver dogs alerts (another dog had alerted, months before Eddie). It was a deception for the FBI which considered this case as a "test case" where cadaver dogs would help in the prosecution of a no body murder trial.
Nevertheless the jurors agreed with police and prosecutors and convicted of murder the husband, an ex-police officer, in September 2009. He was sentenced to life.
One year later his wife's body was found.
-
davel 10/12/13 8-49 p.m.
Ferryman was quoting a fee of around 450 dollars for a days work now wheras he was charging thousands in jersey...
Your citations please !
A leaked report by financial auditors into the investigation shows Grime received £750 a day for the first seven days’ work his dog did and £650 a day for 136 days thereafter.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz2nJ1ffTZj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Having singularly failed to get under the skin of Dave, you are now trying it on with me.
Failed again, I'm afraid ...
-
Really what the hell has this got to do with the thread in hand.
Its so tiresome.
Out of about 15 pages on a topic 3 are on the topic on the rest is off topic.
You were asked to pm OP end of.
Who cares anyway. I dont even read drivels posts anyway.
I just want to discuss the the Portuguese Police and dogs accuracy.....
You have avoided answering my posts because they ruin your argument. If the dogs are accurate then why does grime say that there alerts have no evidential value...why does he say that eddie "MAY" be alerting to cadaverine...and that the alerts may be as a result of several different scenarios.
As I have said before... I don't "diss" the dogs or grime...its just that posters like you don't understand the dogs alerts
-
I'm neither trying to or wanting to "get under the skin" of anybody !
You've failed to answer, as has davel, questions posed to you both !
As I said to davel, step up OR slither away !
Here we go
Page 40
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20OperationRectangleReviewUseResources%20201005%20BDO.pdf
Grime was paid £92,257.50 for services rendered in Jersey ....
-
Here we go
Page 40
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20OperationRectangleReviewUseResources%20201005%20BDO.pdf
Grime was paid £92,257.50 for services rendered in Jersey ....
On p. 36 of that doc, that was to include subsistence, phone charges, vehicle mileage, dog vet bills and food, but accommodation was paid for by the Jersey police (£15, 818).
-
Here we go
Page 40
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20OperationRectangleReviewUseResources%20201005%20BDO.pdf
Grime was paid £92,257.50 for services rendered in Jersey ....
Or £750 a day for the first first 5 days and £600 a day there after.
-
Or £750 a day for the first first 5 days and £600 a day there after.
Well, it sort of morphed from that original draft agreement. Have a look at p. 38.
It later turned into £750 a day for the first first 7 days and £650 per day thereafter (and days charged included the Sunday rest days").
ETA: I don't have a problem with the fee charged, but more with the length of stay, the reasons and the results. I don't find the decision-making clear, nor on what basis those decisions were made.
-
There was a request somewhere upstream of the thread for a cite for what Grime was paid in the Sam Parker case:
We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent. Eddie is an English Springer Spaniel belonging to Martin Grime, a world-renown forensic K-9 expert based in the United Kingdom.
Grime testified he was paid $450 a day, plus travel and living expenses, by the FBI to search some areas in Walker County in connection with Teresa Parker's disappearance.
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
What was the US dollar/pound exchange rate back then?
-
Well, it sort of morphed from that original draft agreement. Have a look at p. 38.
It later turned into £750 a day for the first first 7 days and £650 per day thereafter (and days charged included the Sunday rest days").
ETA: I don't have a problem with the fee charged, but more with the length of stay, the reasons and the results. I don't find the decision-making clear, nor on what basis those decisions were made.
So he was paid these sums seven days per week for several weeks. Eddie made 11 alerts I believe...so that equates to about one alert a week...so over £8000 per alert....from the little information we have I think he is earning a fraction of that in the US now. In my opinion he was way over valued back then and perhaps people have realised now. So £93,000 in Jersey...and what did he produce...what evidence did he discover that allowed charges to be brought...nothing. perhaps this is why he has been so quiet about the dogs findings in PDL.
again I would stress that I am not criticising grime or his dogs...its the expectations people have re the alerts which in my opinion the PJ misunderstood...as have many posters on this forum
-
This thread has been cleared of irrelevant and argumentative posts. Please keep to topic.
thanks, lets all try to keep on topic and debate in an adult way.
-
Sick of reading carp about the dogs. 200 cases prior to the McCanns and afterwards positive findings, and they are rubbish.
The dogs alert blah blah, but they dont know what it is they are alerting to, its just a trained scent to them.
Grimes had no idea they would alert ANYWHERE.
The trouble is with the Internet everyone can be an expert. It takes years of training these dogs if they are constantly tested and if they fail they are out.
Look at all the people dogs help, blind, deaf, diabetic, disabled, stuck in avalanches, bomb disposal, (very brave and many are killed), they used them in the war and they saved a lot of lives.
The dog is not for making fun of no way.
Meet Sergeant Stubby a decorated dog from World War 1.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sergeant_stubby.htm
He saved many a life with his sensitive nose.
So many dogs deployed in the war over 30,000 who went on to save countless lives.
The dogs save many lives in many situations, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados.
They stop terroists from getting on planes to blow us up.
Dogs at war:
http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/content/animals/animals/breeds/dogtopics/dogs_war.htm
Dogs who save lives:
http://www.dogguide.net/25-hero-dogs.php
What makes a good Cadaver dog?
Drive, a good nose, and an ability to focus. A good cadaver dog needs to be deeply bonded to his handler and simultaneously be independent and to make decisions on his own. The dog needs to work as part of an inseparable unit with the handler, but also be independent enough that he’s not constantly looking back for signals on what to do next. When Solo is working scent, he won’t look back at me for minutes at a time. He will be out there, and I will be trying to stay out of his way so he can do his best work.
Taken from this article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2013/10/1310xx-working-dog-dead-body-cat-warren-science/
Finally from the above article:
Finally, I think it's important for people to realize that while dogs and their noses are amazing, they are not magical, and it's not easy work. It takes rigorous training, handling, and a fine dog to produce good results.
I am sadly sick to death of the dogs being made fun of and Grimes too. Its beyond sickening.
They were asked to do a job they did it.
End of.
Thank god for dogs is all I can say, I would rather trust one of them at least you know where you stand with them.
Bloody good post!
The Portuguese police presumably believed that it was highly unlikely that the dogs would WRONGLY scent. They hadn't before so they believed them to be accurate.
Sounds reasonable to me. A darn sight more accurate than the various mystics and clairvoyants that the McCann's were apparently giving some credence to at some stage.
-
So he was paid these sums seven days per week for several weeks. Eddie made 11 alerts I believe...so that equates to about one alert a week...so over £8000 per alert....from the little information we have I think he is earning a fraction of that in the US now. In my opinion he was way over valued back then and perhaps people have realised now. So £93,000 in Jersey...and what did he produce...what evidence did he discover that allowed charges to be brought...nothing. perhaps this is why he has been so quiet about the dogs findings in PDL.
again I would stress that I am not criticising grime or his dogs...its the expectations people have re the alerts which in my opinion the PJ misunderstood...as have many posters on this forum
This is just silly! To imply that the dogs were paid per alert is ridiculous.
I don't care what Mr Grime was paid, so I'm not going to trawl through the paperwork and see if his wages have dropped substantially.
He is still employed so has not been discredited.
-
This is just silly! To imply that the dogs were paid per alert is ridiculous.
I don't care what Mr Grime was paid, so I'm not going to trawl through the paperwork and see if his wages have dropped substantially.
He is still employed so has not been discredited.
never said they were paid per alert..what I have said was grime was paid £93000 in jesey which amounts to 8 grand per alert..I then went on to say perhaps those who employ him realised that at 8 grand per alert...no useful evidence found..he was slightly overpaid...Many professionals can command fees of and in excess of £1000 per day...myself included...but our clients expect to see results
-
Sounds reasonable to me. A darn sight more accurate than the various mystics and clairvoyants that the McCann's were apparently giving some credence to at some stage.
Not as "apparently" as that ! Apart from the Southafrican body hunter, the PJ had to investigate a vision of Lagos harbour by a psychic friend of a friend of an aunt or uncle of Mrs McCann. Then Mr McCann had his own vision (tunnel and light) in PDL church. Then Mrs McCann had a dream... that Mr McCann denied outside of the Court room in January 2010. Finally inspector Paiva was submerged by e-mails of psychics that Mr McCann insisted in sending forward to him.
Rationality wasn't invited in this case.
-
Not as "apparently" as that ! Apart from the Southafrican body hunter, the PJ had to investigate a vision of Lagos harbour by a psychic friend of a friend of an aunt or uncle of Mrs McCann. Then Mr McCann had his own vision (tunnel and light) in PDL church. Then Mrs McCann had a dream... that Mr McCann denied outside of the Court room in January 2010. Finally inspector Paiva was submerged by e-mails of psychics that Mr McCann insisted in sending forward to him.
Rationality wasn't invited in this case.
Anne you are perpetuating a myth...where is your proof that Mr McCann had a vision...or sent in emails from psychics....stories from your friend down the chip shop don't count...please try and stick to facts otherwise you undermine your whole credibility
-
?{)(**
anne ..it is probably outside your comprehension that professionals could command these fees...in the Uk...these fees are not unusual
-
Anne you are perpetuating a myth...where is your proof that Mr McCann had a vision...or sent in emails from psychics....stories from your friend down the chip shop don't count...please try and stick to facts otherwise you undermine your whole credibility
No myths at all ! Inform yourself !
One night early in the week – I think it was that Tuesday evening – while we were praying privately at Nossa Senhora da Luz, Gerry had an extraordinary spiritual experience. He suddenly became aware of a long tunnel with light at the far end of it. He felt himself enter the tunnel and, as he went deeper and deeper inside, it became wider and wider and brighter and brighter. He had never known anything like this before and he immediately interpreted it as a sign urging us to do absolutely everything within our power to find Madeleine ourselves.
-
No myths at all ! Inform yourself !
One night early in the week – I think it was that Tuesday evening – while we were praying privately at Nossa Senhora da Luz, Gerry had an extraordinary spiritual experience. He suddenly became aware of a long tunnel with light at the far end of it. He felt himself enter the tunnel and, as he went deeper and deeper inside, it became wider and wider and brighter and brighter. He had never known anything like this before and he immediately interpreted it as a sign urging us to do absolutely everything within our power to find Madeleine ourselves.
No anne inform yourself...first what is the source for this?...and secondly ...did the pj have to launch an investigation because of this ...the answers no .... but carry on spreading myths...its about all you have to criticise the McCanns
-
I even doubt that a psychiastrist would have been interested by the NDE like vision of Mr McCann on the 8th of May, described by Mrs McCann in "Madeleine". The PJ would certainly not.
The psychic's vision mentioned a boat in the Lagos harbour was investigated and it's in the PJ files. Outros Apensos VIII Vol II a, pp. 322-30
Then about Mr McCann flooding the PJ with inept e-mails and posts from psychics and mediums about possible whereabouts of Madeleine, Vol X, pp. 2533-34
Service Information Date: 2007/09/03
Myths ?
-
never said they were paid per alert..what I have said was grime was paid £93000 in jesey which amounts to 8 grand per alert..I then went on to say perhaps those who employ him realised that at 8 grand per alert...no useful evidence found..he was slightly overpaid...Many professionals can command fees of and in excess of £1000 per day...myself included...but our clients expect to see results
But someone employing a cadaver dog might not see any alerts and that would be a result too. no alerts are also intelligence, suggesting that there probably hasn't been a body at the scene.
This is why I find the idea that a handler would cue a dog so bizarre. It's not the dogs job to alert, it's the dogs job to find a scent. If there isn't any scent for the dog to alert to, it's still done its job and should be paid.
I can't really comment on how long the Jersey operation took, cause I don't know enough about it.
-
I even doubt that a psychiastrist would have been interested by the NDE like vision of Mr McCann on the 8th of May, described by Mrs McCann in "Madeleine". The PJ would certainly not.
The psychic's vision mentioned a boat in the Lagos harbour was investigated and it's in the PJ files. Outros Apensos VIII Vol II a, pp. 322-30
Then about Mr McCann flooding the PJ with inept e-mails and posts from psychics and mediums about possible whereabouts of Madeleine, Vol X, pp. 2533-34
Service Information Date: 2007/09/03
Myths ?
doesn't Portugal have a whole industry based on a "vision " at Fatima...an absolutely massive industry which has no more validity than the vision you attribute to Gerry.
So how would a psychiatrist evaluate the visions at Fatima as you raise this point...I think he would say...and I speak with some experience...when we speak to god its called prayer....and when god speaks to us its called schizophrenia
-
doesn't Portugal have a whole industry based on a "vision " at Fatima...an absolutely massive industry which has no more validity than the vision you attribute to Gerry.
So how would a psychiatrist evaluate the visions at Fatima as you raise this point...I think he would say...and I speak with some experience...when we speak to god its called prayer....and when god speaks to us its called schizophrenia
That reads as though you have experience of psychiatric intervention due to delusions! I don't think that that is what you meant at all. I'd clarify or delete if I were you, just to avoid any confusion.
-
That reads as though you have experience of psychiatric intervention due to delusions! I don't think that that is what you meant at all. I'd clarify or delete if I were you, just to avoid any confusion.
How would you like me to clarify the post?
-
How would you like me to clarify the post?
I wasn't trying to be nasty, I was just trying to make you aware that it could be misconstrued...
We can all assume that It's my misunderstanding and move on before I get in to trouble for off topic posting.....
-
I wasn't trying to be nasty, I was just trying to make you aware that it could be misconstrued...
We can all assume that It's my misunderstanding and move on before I get in to trouble for off topic posting.....
Cariad.. I didn't for one minute thought you were trying to be nasty...far from it... Gerry had a vision whilst deep in prayer...anne ridiculed it ... I think that's totally unfair
-
I forgot the McCanns driven to Fatima on the 23th of May by a chauffeur offered by Mark Warner.
And the pope on the 30th making the sign of the cross on a photo of Madeleine !
Ah and a certain butterfly on Mrs McCann's shoulder at the same moment !
Madeleine didn't get out of the flat through the window but rationality certainly did.
-
You said those were myths, Davel, I proved you they were not. I didn't intend to ridicule anything, just said the irrational is reigning, which is true.
-
I forgot the McCanns driven to Fatima on the 23th of May by a chauffeur offered by Mark Warner.
And the pope on the 30th making the sign of the cross on a photo of Madeleine !
Ah and a certain butterfly on Mrs McCann's shoulder at the same moment !
Madeleine didn't get out of the flat through the window but rationality certainly did.
when you have lost your daughter...and you have no idea where she is ...desperation kicks in
-
You said those were myths, Davel, I proved you they were not. I didn't intend to ridicule anything, just said the irrational is reigning, which is true.
The irrational is any belief in god..
-
Way too funny !!
Any sign of those independent citations for the £93,000 paid to Martin Grime in Jersey and the work he conducted in the U.S.A. at $450 per day, and of course the crucial breakdown of expenses in both cases ?
That can be lesson 1 of my 'education' !
You've had the quote for Jersey.
Here is the one for the Sam Parker Case
We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent. Eddie is an English Springer Spaniel belonging to Martin Grime, a world-renown forensic K-9 expert based in the United Kingdom.
Grime testified he was paid $450 a day, plus travel and living expenses, by the FBI to search some areas in Walker County in connection with Teresa Parker's disappearance.
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
-
You've had the quote for Jersey.
Here is the one for the Sam Parker Case
We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent. Eddie is an English Springer Spaniel belonging to Martin Grime, a world-renown forensic K-9 expert based in the United Kingdom.
Grime testified he was paid $450 a day, plus travel and living expenses, by the FBI to search some areas in Walker County in connection with Teresa Parker's disappearance.
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
good evening ferryman...when will the posters on this and other forums realise that the dogs alert and it is up to the experts to interpret these alerts. it seems that posters here actually think they are experts ...what a load of plonkers
-
The irrational is any belief in god..
I agree with this. I'm an atheist though. The Mccann's reliance on psychic's and the like is well documented. It's not a myth.
-
Way too funny !!
Any sign of those independent citations for the £93,000 paid to Martin Grime in Jersey and the work he conducted in the U.S.A. at $450 per day, and of course the crucial breakdown of expenses in both cases ?
That can be lesson 1 of my 'education' !
As far as I can tell, the £93k breaks down to £750 a day for the first 5(?) days and six hundred thereafter. I don't know if that included some of his expenses or not.
The information is probably there, but I can't be bothered to trawl through it.
If the $450 didn't include vets bills etcetera but the £600 did, there's hardly any difference.
-
I agree with this. I'm an atheist though. The Mccann's reliance on psychic's and the like is well documented. It's not a myth.
Cariad.. ive changed my opinion of you... I think you are probably quote a nice person...but the Mccanns belief in psychics is a myth
-
I don't mind them relying on psychics, god or whatever.
What I do mind is their making pressure on the PJ to welcome the body hunter, to listen to dreams, to investigate a psychic's vision of a boat with Madeleine, and, the worst, to read tons of emails sent by self called mediums.
There's a German clairvoyant, in relation with God (dixit), ready to dig near Albufeira... As a help, because the ground he delimited is 1500 m2, he asked the PJ to lend him a cadaver dog! Am I hallucinating ?
-
And your citation for the racially derogative remark asserting that education levels are low in Ahascragh ? Or is this another occasion where you have been shown up for what you are !
pat its your posts ...you have shown yourself to be a fool..
-
From what I can gather of the general Jersey fiasco, I find it important to separate the abuse investigation from the potential murder aspect. Checking whether there was evidence to support a murder investigation is legitimate, IMO. However, there seems to have been a cocktail of factors that cost Jersey unnecessary millions and - at the end of the day - no probative evidence.
From the report into the Jersey investigation into the use of resources:
We have provided detailed comment regarding Mr Grime, because, as we will explain, he had (directly and indirectly) a significant influence on the conduct, and thus cost, of the investigation, far beyond simply the fees and costs incurred by himself, albeit we do have some concerns about the cost of Mr Grime's services.
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20OperationRectangleReviewUseResources%20201005%20BDO.pdf#page=45&zoom=80,0,820
The pages about the general forensics (the dogs and LCG) are on pp 36-50.
Much of the criticism in that report isn't about Grime, per se, but about the lack of supervision / management that led to expensive excavations whenever the dogs alerted.
Then, there is the Wiltshire report which went further (pp. 116-117):
"The review also noted that ‘there was concern from some persons interviewed that too much reliance had been placed on the dogs’. It is accepted that dogs are ‘presumptive screening assets’ only and that any alerts or indications they give must be forensically corroborated. In addition, it is a fact that there were no concise terms of reference for the deployment of Martin GRIME and his EVRD or his subsequent use as a search advisor, apparently with the support of DCO HARPER.
3.10.13 CO POWER himself states ‘the search dog seemed to play a significant role in determining whether a specific location needed to be examined further. I am not an expert on dogs or what they do’.
3.10.14 Again, there is a distinct lack of documentary evidence to show any intrusive supervision of the SIO with regard to the continued search. This Inquiry concludes that the actions of DCO HARPER and Martin GRIME went unsupervised for some considerable time."
"OFFICER X notes that during conversation with X, CO POWER accepted that ‘the dog was ‘probably unreliable’ and that the dog handler, GRIME, had too much influence over the enquiry, again, Mr POWER didn’t say how he managed or dealt with that issue’. This Inquiry has been unable to establish whether CO POWER made any further attempts to supervise the SIO in this key part of the investigation."
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
-
As far as I can tell, the £93k breaks down to £750 a day for the first 5(?) days and six hundred thereafter. I don't know if that included some of his expenses or not.
The information is probably there, but I can't be bothered to trawl through it.
If the $450 didn't include vets bills etcetera but the £600 did, there's hardly any difference.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1513.msg112902#msg112902
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1513.msg112902#msg112902
Thank you, I'll have a look at p38 now.
-
Thank you, I'll have a look at p38 now.
I find it's worth reading from around pp. 36 - 50 (the later pages include LCG). And pp 116-117 of the Wiltshire report.
-
What has Ireland got to do with the Portuguese police or the accuracy of dogs?
-
Not as "apparently" as that ! Apart from the Southafrican body hunter, the PJ had to investigate a vision of Lagos harbour by a psychic friend of a friend of an aunt or uncle of Mrs McCann. Then Mr McCann had his own vision (tunnel and light) in PDL church. Then Mrs McCann had a dream... that Mr McCann denied outside of the Court room in January 2010. Finally inspector Paiva was submerged by e-mails of psychics that Mr McCann insisted in sending forward to him.
Rationality wasn't invited in this case.
Not wanting to derail but there also was the dreams of lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia who had the McCanns PI's Metodo 3 mystified with his claims that Madeleine had been dumped in a reservoir near Odiáxere. He originally told police that his information came from the criminal fraternity but later admitted it all originated from a dream.
Dreams and visions certainly appear to have formed a significant part in the investigation over the years.
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/maddie-killed-and-dumped-claims-lawyer-966292
-
I forgot the McCanns driven to Fatima on the 23th of May by a chauffeur offered by Mark Warner.
And the pope on the 30th making the sign of the cross on a photo of Madeleine !
Ah and a certain butterfly on Mrs McCann's shoulder at the same moment !
Madeleine didn't get out of the flat through the window but rationality certainly did.
@)(++(* 8@??)( You're on top form tonight Anne, your knowledge of the supernatural elements in this case are second to none. Dave must learn to keep to the facts and accept when he has been shown to be wrong.
-
good evening ferryman...when will the posters on this and other forums realise that the dogs alert and it is up to the experts to interpret these alerts. it seems that posters here actually think they are experts ...what a load of plonkers
A very narrow view if I may say so Dave. Nobody has claimed to be an 'expert' but posters are free to use their own eyes and knowledge gained in life to explain what they see and offer an opinion. You don't have to be an expert to see that there was a lot of dodgy stuff going on...imo
-
@)(++(* 8@??)( You're on top form tonight Anne, your knowledge of the supernatural elements in this case are second to none. Dave must learn to keep to the facts.
I suppose it all depends on whether you are religious or not.
All religions appear to be full of 'dreams' and 'visions - all taken very seriously by their followers.
In times of trouble people do turn to religion in my experience, although I've never heard of a 'dream' causing a pivotal change in the direction of a police enquiry - but that is apparently what happened in the McCann case according to Ricardo Paivo(sp?). A notably unprofessional approach to be taken by any policeman IMO.
OOps sorry - off topic.
-
You don't have to be an expert to see that there was a lot of dodgy stuff going on...imo
I disagree totally here : you have to be an expert precisely !
-
@)(++(* 8@??)( You're on top form tonight Anne, your knowledge of the supernatural elements in this case are second to none. Dave must learn to keep to the facts and accept when he has been shown to be wrong.
+1
He accused Anne of spreading myths about gerrys vision and gerry giving countless psychic contacts to the PJ to check out when he didnt know the facts....suggested also heard down the local chippy! No myths whatsoever in either and proved not to be by the links provided and not even a thanks from him for the links or an acceptance he was wrong or an apology.....hmmmmmm
HIS original post, now defunct null and void
Quote
Anne you are perpetuating a myth...where is your proof that Mr McCann had a vision...or sent in emails from psychics....stories from your friend down the chip shop don't count...please try and stick to facts otherwise you undermine your whole credibility
Unquote
@)(++(*
apology or thanks required davel..... But hell will freeze over first i guess....oh well
-
What has Ireland got to do with the Portuguese police or the accuracy of dogs?
Could it be another attempt to disrupt debate?
-
I disagree totally here : you have to be an expert precisely !
Are you really saying that you need to be an expert to see that the dog tests were a shambles?
-
From what I can gather of the general Jersey fiasco, I find it important to separate the abuse investigation from the potential murder aspect. Checking whether there was evidence to support a murder investigation is legitimate, IMO. However, there seems to have been a cocktail of factors that cost Jersey unnecessary millions and - at the end of the day - no probative evidence.
From the report into the Jersey investigation into the use of resources:
We have provided detailed comment regarding Mr Grime, because, as we will explain, he had (directly and indirectly) a significant influence on the conduct, and thus cost, of the investigation, far beyond simply the fees and costs incurred by himself, albeit we do have some concerns about the cost of Mr Grime's services.
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20OperationRectangleReviewUseResources%20201005%20BDO.pdf#page=45&zoom=80,0,820
The pages about the general forensics (the dogs and LCG) are on pp 36-50.
Much of the criticism in that report isn't about Grime, per se, but about the lack of supervision / management that led to expensive excavations whenever the dogs alerted.
Then, there is the Wiltshire report which went further (pp. 116-117):
"The review also noted that ‘there was concern from some persons interviewed that too much reliance had been placed on the dogs’. It is accepted that dogs are ‘presumptive screening assets’ only and that any alerts or indications they give must be forensically corroborated. In addition, it is a fact that there were no concise terms of reference for the deployment of Martin GRIME and his EVRD or his subsequent use as a search advisor, apparently with the support of DCO HARPER.
3.10.13 CO POWER himself states ‘the search dog seemed to play a significant role in determining whether a specific location needed to be examined further. I am not an expert on dogs or what they do’.
3.10.14 Again, there is a distinct lack of documentary evidence to show any intrusive supervision of the SIO with regard to the continued search. This Inquiry concludes that the actions of DCO HARPER and Martin GRIME went unsupervised for some considerable time."
"OFFICER X notes that during conversation with X, CO POWER accepted that ‘the dog was ‘probably unreliable’ and that the dog handler, GRIME, had too much influence over the enquiry, again, Mr POWER didn’t say how he managed or dealt with that issue’. This Inquiry has been unable to establish whether CO POWER made any further attempts to supervise the SIO in this key part of the investigation."
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
Thanks for those links Carana. Amongst other very interesting points - 'Coconutgate' is described and explained - and it's clear that what was originally claimed to be human bone - turned out not to be.
It would seem that Martin Grime was given a totally free rein - with no questions asked. All I can say is that he must have been laughing all the way to the bank.
An expensive fiasco paid for by the taxpayers - and nothing to show for it IMO.
-
Are you really saying that you need to be an expert to see that the dog tests were a shambles?
Absolutely, you have to be an expert to discriminate between what exists and what seems to.
-
Thanks for those links Carana. Amongst other very interesting points - 'Coconutgate' is described and explained - and it's clear that what was originally claimed to be human bone - turned out not to be.
It would seem that Martin Grime was given a totally free rein - with no questions asked. All I can say is that he must have been laughing all the way to the bank.
An expensive fiasco paid for by the taxpayers - and nothing to show for it IMO.
Pathetic post all in all and you wouldnt be saying that if you had read all the facts in this case, which you obviously havent..just tagging along with the Grime libellers...Coconut case ? Youre having a laugh....educate yourself before spouting..No, seriously do....your FIRST port of call should be, does Eddie trained in decomposing bodies react to vegetables..your second port of call should be that coconuts do not contain collagen which is only found in mammals, collagen was found in the sample, your third port of call should be, why was the sample switched.?..after being examined by an expert who said it was a skull to when it was returned and had shrunk in size and weight..lots of reading for you, enjoy...googles not bad...but if you have time you can check out the video library here, find the video posted by John about eddie at Jersey and see my reply sbowing a video featuring the investigator in that case and what he said about THAT sample which has gotten everyones nickers in a twist
-
Pathetic post all in all and you wouldnt be saying that if you had read all the facts in this case, which you obviously havent..just tagging along with the Grime libellers...Coconut case ? Youre having a laugh....educate yourself before spouting..No, seriously do....your FIRST port of call should be, does Eddie trained in decomposing bodies react to vegetables..your second port of call should be that coconuts do not contain collagen which is only found in mammals, collagen was found in the sample, your third port of call should be, why was the sample switched.?...lots of reading for you, enjoy
You are shooting the messenger. Read the reports for yourself. Or do you think you know the details of what happened better than those who compiled the reports.
The only people who libel Grime IMO are those who dispute his claims and insist that there must have been a body in 5A at some time.
-
You are shooting the messenger. Read the reports for yourself. Or do you think you know the details of what happened better than those who compiled the reports.
The only people who libel Grime IMO are those who dispute his claims and insist that there must have been a body in 5A at some time.
Rubbish, do keep up, weve gone beyond that, ages ago but never mind....links for you in my edited post, cheers
-
Rubbish, do keep up, weve gone beyond that, ages ago but never mind....links for you in my edited post, cheers
I take it you haven't read the reports then.
-
If what Ricardo Paiva (Portuguese police liaison officer) said to Kate McCann is to be believed, the PJ were convinced that Eddie and Keela were 100% successful. How does anyone know they were successful as failures are seldom if ever identified.
If you want an example of a well known failure look no further than the Kate Prout case where the dogs failed miserably to discover where she was buried even when taken to the area. Only when a specific area was excavated was her remains found. Had her killer not cooperated with the police and taken them to the pheasant pens, her remains would have remained undiscovered.
-
I suppose it all depends on whether you are religious or not.
All religions appear to be full of 'dreams' and 'visions - all taken very seriously by their followers.
In times of trouble people do turn to religion in my experience, although I've never heard of a 'dream' causing a pivotal change in the direction of a police enquiry - but that is apparently what happened in the McCann case according to Ricardo Paivo(sp?). A notably unprofessional approach to be taken by any policeman IMO.
OOps sorry - off topic.
Off topic and off veracity... RP never said that, he interpreted not the dream but the fact the dream was told to him as a resignation that Madeleine could be dead.
The turn in the investigation was very well perceived by Mrs McCann ("Madeleine") and it was mainly due to Eddie's alert in 5A.
-
Off topic and off veracity... RP never said that, he interpreted not the dream but the fact the dream was told to him as a resignation that Madeleine could be dead.
The turn in the investigation was very well perceived by Mrs McCann ("Madeleine") and it was mainly due to Eddie's alert in 5A.
Quote from the Telegraph.
By Fiona Govan in Lisbon
7:30AM GMT 13 Jan 2010
Police Inspector Ricardo Paiva, who acted as a liaison between the McCanns and Portuguese detectives in the days following their daughter’s disappearance, said the dream was a "turning point" in the investigation.
He said that Mrs McCann told him in a tearful telephone conversation in late July 2007 that she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that police should search for her there.
The claims came as Kate and Gerry McCann appeared in court to hear evidence on the first day of a hearing to challenge the publication of a book written by Algarve detective Goncalo Amaral.
Insp Paiva told the hearing in Lisbon: “Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying.
“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.
Related Articles
Kate McCann: legal battle is 'right thing'
14 Jan 2010
“She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”
-
If what Ricardo Paiva (Portuguese police liaison officer) said to Kate McCann is to be believed, the PJ were convinced that Eddie and Keela were 100% successful. How does anyone know they were successful as failures are seldom if ever identified.
If you want an example of a well known failure look no further than the Kate Prout case where the dogs failed miserably to discover where she was buried even when taken to the area. Only when a specific area was excavated was her remains found. Had her killer not cooperated with the police and taken them to the pheasant pens, her remains would have remained undiscovered.
"100% successful" has its limits : without remains there's no way to identify from whom come the VOCs.
In the Dickens case (2010) cadaver dogs' evidence of VOCs (no body was found) was admitted by the judge and the mother convicted. She later confessed.
In the Lane case (2012) cadaver dog Morse's evidence of VOCs (no body was found) was admitted by the judge and the father was convicted. No confession.
In the Parker case (2009) the cadaver dogs' evidence was rejected by the judge following the request of the defence, but the husband was sentenced to life. The body was found one year later.
In the Caylee Anthony Case (2008) – the cadaver dogs' evidence (VOCs) was admitted and corroborated the analysis of the car boot. The mother was charged for murder but found not guilty though, meanwhile, the body was found.
In the Montana Case, the victim disappeared in 1990. In 2007 3 independent cadaver dogs alerted on VOCs. The husband was charged in 2008, convicted and sentenced to life. the body was never found.
-
Quote from the Telegraph.
By Fiona Govan in Lisbon
7:30AM GMT 13 Jan 2010
Police Inspector Ricardo Paiva, who acted as a liaison between the McCanns and Portuguese detectives in the days following their daughter’s disappearance, said the dream was a "turning point" in the investigation.
He said that Mrs McCann told him in a tearful telephone conversation in late July 2007 that she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that police should search for her there.
The claims came as Kate and Gerry McCann appeared in court to hear evidence on the first day of a hearing to challenge the publication of a book written by Algarve detective Goncalo Amaral.
Insp Paiva told the hearing in Lisbon: “Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying.
“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.
Related Articles
Kate McCann: legal battle is 'right thing'
14 Jan 2010
“She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”
Why is it unprofessional, Benice?
The police would I expect have been in regular contact with psychologists, and contact like this from the child's parents had to be taken seriously.
-
In the final analysis nothing was ever found by the dogs which could be proven to derive from a cadaver. No remains of any sort were ever identified. All the samples came back as inconclusive as far as any DNA link to Madeleine was concerned.
So there you have it, a bunch of false positives.
Lets not exaggerate or elevate the evidence of the dog handler in any murder trial where a body has never been found. The handler's evidence can never stand alone and no-one has ever been convicted on that basis. The convictions to which Anne refers in her posts were dependent on other mitigating factors.
-
What's the truth on the 15 out of 19 DNA match found in the boot.
"Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match." (John Lowe - not the darts player I hope)
What does a chance match mean? How does that work?
-
In the final analysis nothing was ever found by the dogs which could be proven to derive from a cadaver. No remains of any sort were ever identified. All the samples came back as inconclusive as far as any DNA link to Madeleine was concerned.
So there you have it, a bunch of false positives.
It's not that simple, John. What remains would there have been in the first place? If there was a body, it wasn't there very long.
-
Quote from the Telegraph.
By Fiona Govan in Lisbon
7:30AM GMT 13 Jan 2010
Police Inspector Ricardo Paiva, who acted as a liaison between the McCanns and Portuguese detectives in the days following their daughter’s disappearance, said the dream was a "turning point" in the investigation.
He said that Mrs McCann told him in a tearful telephone conversation in late July 2007 that she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that police should search for her there.
The claims came as Kate and Gerry McCann appeared in court to hear evidence on the first day of a hearing to challenge the publication of a book written by Algarve detective Goncalo Amaral.
Insp Paiva told the hearing in Lisbon: “Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying.
“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.
Related Articles
Kate McCann: legal battle is 'right thing'
14 Jan 2010
“She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”
I heard him when he took the stand, Benice, on the 12th of January 2010.
You'll admit that telling a dream to a police officer is rather unexpected (eventually you tell your dreams to a psychologist, but usually you're the best person to interpret them correctly).
As a police officer RP reflected on the reason why Mrs McCann called him on the phone to tell him a dream. What did she try to say without saying it directly ? Why was she crying saying Madeleine was on a hill ? He understood (he might have been wrong) that Mrs McCann was contemplating the possibility that Madeleine was dead. This would of course change and facilitate the relations with the police.
Not the orientation of the investigation. It had already changed :
On that same day 23rd of July, the PJ, the LC (Neil Holden) and Prof Harrison had a meeting in Portimao. MH, who had arrived two days before, presented his first report, contemplating the possibility that Madeleine was killed and her body concealed. On that same day Prof Harrison recommended to call for Mr Grime's dogs.
-
If what Ricardo Paiva (Portuguese police liaison officer) said to Kate McCann is to be believed, the PJ were convinced that Eddie and Keela were 100% successful.
How does anyone know they were successful as failures are seldom if ever identified.
If you want an example of a well known failure look no further than the Kate Prout case where the dogs failed miserably to discover where she was buried even when taken to the area. Only when a specific area was excavated was her remains found. Had her killer not cooperated with the police and taken them to the pheasant pens, her remains would have remained undiscovered.
How true. Unless evidence was found at some later date, no dog handler could possibly know if their dog had failed to alert because they had not located a scent - rather than assume there was no scent to be located. They had no way of checking which was the correct reason.
IMO it is because of this fact that no dog handler can ever claim a 100% success rate.
-
It's not that simple, John. What remains would there have been in the first place? If there was a body, it wasn't there very long.
Everybody knew there were no remains of any origin in the 5A. But there were Volatile Organic Compounds...impalpable but extremely complex... and catchable in the STU-100 device (Scent Transfer Unit). Unfortunately the device arrived in Portimao too late.
-
I heard him when he took the stand, Benice, on the 12th of January 2010.
You'll admit that telling a dream to a police officer is rather unexpected (eventually you tell your dreams to a psychologist, but usually you're the best person to interpret them correctly).
As a police officer RP reflected on the reason why Mrs McCann called him on the phone to tell him a dream. What did she try to say without saying it directly ? Why was she crying saying Madeleine was on a hill ? He understood (he might have been wrong) that Mrs McCann was contemplating the possibility that Madeleine was dead. This would of course change and facilitate the relations with the police.
Not the orientation of the investigation. It had already changed :
On that same day 23rd of July, the PJ, the LC (Neil Holden) and Prof Harrison had a meeting in Portimao. MH, who had arrived two days before, presented his first report, contemplating the possibility that Madeleine was killed and her body concealed. On that same day Prof Harrison recommended to call for Mr Grime's dogs.
The McCanns originally regarded Ricardo Paivo as a friend. He was their Family Liaison officer. She wasn't ringing a 'policeman' in her distress - she thought she was ringing a friend IMO.
There was no reason at all for that dream to be related to the court if the PJ thought it had no bearing on the case. The reason given to the court was because it was regarded - as RP claimed - to be a turning point in the investigation. What other reason could there be for it to be mentioned in that court case?
IMO for police officers to regard a dream as a valid reason to change direction in a case could not be more unprofessional.
-
What's the truth on the 15 out of 19 DNA match found in the boot.
"Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match." (John Lowe - not the darts player)
What does a chance match mean? How does that work?
Madeleine shared DNA with both her parents and her twin siblings. Only a full profile match (currently 20 markers in the UK) could legally determine whom the DNA belonged to. In the US and Canada I believe the threshold is much less. I'm not sure where Portuguese Law stood on this in 2007 but as it was a new science at the time they must have agreed to be guided by UK standards.
To put this into context, you are much more likely to be convicted in America on the basis of DNA evidence than you are in the UK. In the Jeremy Bamber case, the DNA obtained from a silencer returned a 17 marker match to one of the victims. Under UK Law this was not considered proof of anything yet the probability of that DNA not belonging to that victim is many millions to one. Thus one can see that the legal bar in the UK is set very high.
-
Everybody knew there were no remains of any origin in the 5A. But there were Volatile Organic Compounds...impalpable but extremely complex... and catchable in the STU-100 device (Scent Transfer Unit). Unfortunately the device arrived in Portimao too late.
John should remember the Soham case, Anne. Police had possession of the house 12 days after the murders. They purchased it and no house in criminal history was examined so throughly. They took it to pieces, but still no dna from the victims was ever found there.
-
Lets not exaggerate or elevate the evidence of the dog handler in any murder trial where a body has never been found. The handler's evidence can never stand alone and no-one has ever been convicted on that basis. The convictions to which Anne refers in her posts were dependent on other mitigating factors.
The interesting common point in all the cases I reported above is that there were no remains, John, nothing you can put under a microscope and study ! Nothing but volatile organic compounds that only a dog (or a cat possibly, but cat cant be trained) can detect.
Once said that, of course you have to trust the handler... which some posters aren't prone to... as the dog alerted in the 5A instead of alerting elsewhere or not at all.
-
Madeleine shared DNA with both her parents and her twin siblings. Only a full profile match (currently 20 markers in the UK) could determine whom the DNA belonged to. In the US and Canada I believe the threshold is much less.
To put this into context, you are much more likely to be convicted in America on the basis of DNA evidence than you are in the UK. In the Jeremy Bamber case, the DNA obtained from a silencer returned a 17 marker match to one of the victims. Under UK Law this was not considered proof of anything yet the probability of that DNA not belonging to that victim is many millions to one. Thus one can see that the legal bar in the UK is set very high.
Wasn't it 15 out of 37 markers in the McCann case? Not 15 out of 19.
The sample was identified as belonging to up to 5 people - and could have come from any one or more of the McCann family.
IMO - as we know Gerry at some time was in that car with a trace of blood on his fingers which was transferred to the key fob, then it could easily have been his blood found in the boot - deposited at the same time.
The sample was too small to be identified as blood - only as cellular material, but as we know Keela only alerts to blood then it's reasonable to assume it was blood IMO.
-
Police Liaison Officers are there to mediate, to provide support and to report back. What happened to Kate reminds me of what happened to Luke Mitchell. He and his family also befriended a female PLO who in turn testified against them. You just can't trust anyone these days!
-
John should remember the Soham case, Anne. Police had possession of the house 12 days after the murders. They purchased it and no house in criminal history was examined so throughly. They took it to pieces, but still no dna from the victims was ever found there.
It's difficult for the human being to acknowledge intangible reality. We don't see the thousands of bugs that creep on our skin, even after a shower. As we don't see anything, there's nothing. In the Anthony Case, the air of the boot was analysed with the LIBS (Laser induced Breakdown Spectroscopy) procedure. They found various VOC that are specific of human remains. Later cadaver dogs alerted on the car boot as well.
-
It's difficult for the human being to acknowledge intangible reality. We don't see the thousands of bugs that creep on our skin, even after a shower. As we don't see anything, there's nothing. In the Anthony Case, the air of the boot was analysed with the LIBS (Laser induced Breakdown Spectroscopy) procedure. They found various VOC that are specific of human remains. Later cadaver dogs alerted on the car boot as well.
Also at Anthony's house (two different dogs). I know that case fairly well. I read a book 8(>(( (Jeff Ashton's. It's quite informative).
That's another case where no dna from the victim was found in the locations police looked, but clearly they still believed the body had been there.
-
Police Liaison Officers are there to mediate, to provide support and to report back. What happened to Kate reminds me of what happened to Luke Mitchell. He and his family also befriended a female PLO who in turn testified against them. You just can't trust anyone these days!
Really ! Aren't you mixing towels with dishcloths ? Did Luke Mitchell (no idea of who he is) tell also his private dreams to that female PLO ? And if so, what for exactly ?
Do you realize that Mrs McCann didn't call on the phone her husband (in the US) but called a police officer, crying, to tell a dream ! Isn't that a bit too much ? Why didn't she talk to a priest ? The secret of confession isn't a myth, remember "I confess"...
When Mr Pike claimed that Mrs McCann spoke only to him about death, I thought he was presumptuous, but perhaps he was right to think Mr McCann wasn't told those thoughts.
-
Madeleine shared DNA with both her parents and her twin siblings. Only a full profile match (currently 20 markers in the UK) could legally determine whom the DNA belonged to. In the US and Canada I believe the threshold is much less. I'm not sure where Portuguese Law stood on this in 2007 but as it was a new science at the time they must have agreed to be guided by UK standards.
To put this into context, you are much more likely to be convicted in America on the basis of DNA evidence than you are in the UK. In the Jeremy Bamber case, the DNA obtained from a silencer returned a 17 marker match to one of the victims. Under UK Law this was not considered proof of anything yet the probability of that DNA not belonging to that victim is many millions to one. Thus one can see that the legal bar in the UK is set very high.
Thanks John for the insight, much appreciated.
-
Also at Anthony's house (two different dogs). I know that case fairly well. I read a book 8(>(( (Jeff Ashton's. It's quite informative).
That's another case where no dna from the victim was found in the locations police looked, but clearly they still believed the body had been there.
It's funny to read the objections of the defence. A copy cat of what we read on this forum... The hungry dog smelt a piece of food ! The handler cued the dog, etc...
I suppose it will be so until they achieve the electronic nose for human remains (electronic noses already exist for certain diseases).
Does Ashton's book say much about Vass conclusions, the contest of those conclusions (there was) and the cadaver dogs ?
-
Police Liaison Officers are there to mediate, to provide support and to report back. What happened to Kate reminds me of what happened to Luke Mitchell. He and his family also befriended a female PLO who in turn testified against them. You just can't trust anyone these days!
The McCanns went to dinner at the Paivo's - their children played with his children. They liked him and trusted him and so I can understand Kate ringing him at such a time.
I believe it was the Family Liaison Officer in the Shannon Matthews case who became suspicious of her mother's behaviour and set the ball rolling for her eventual arrest. But it was definitely nothing to do with a dream.
(I'm afraid I don't know who Luke Mitchell is)
-
It's funny to read the objections of the defence. A copy cat of what we read on this forum... The hungry dog smelt a piece of food ! The handler cued the dog, etc...
I suppose it will be so until they achieve the electronic nose for human remains (electronic noses already exist for certain diseases).
Does Ashton's book say much about Vass conclusions, the contest of those conclusions (there was) and the cadaver dogs ?
Ashton does talk a lot about Dr Vass. He's a big fan, of the science and the Dr himself. But he acknowledges that the science is in its infancy, but so was dna evidence at one time and Ashton was the first prosecutor to use it in trial in the US.
I'll have to read it again to check exactly what Ashton says about the evidence of Dr Vass in the trial. But it is all discussed in the book.
I read the book written by Casey Anthony's attorney also. Unsurprisingly he thinks the dogs, Dr Vass and his machine is "more science fiction than science".
-
The interesting common point in all the cases I reported above is that there were no remains, John, nothing you can put under a microscope and study ! Nothing but volatile organic compounds that only a dog (or a cat possibly, but cat cant be trained) can detect.
Once said that, of course you have to trust the handler... which some posters aren't prone to... as the dog alerted in the 5A instead of alerting elsewhere or not at all.
Am i Psychic probably not but I would predict 100per cent predict that IF the dogs alerted to the Murats car and the Murats house and drive way and clothes, all the doggy and handler doubters would be in their droves on here saying how WONDERFUL the dogs were, what clever doggies they were to finding the perb who took the child, with or without a body.....
and thats the sad truth..........say its not so all you doubters I wouldnt believe you anyway.
You can all spin it how you like it makes no difference the child is still missing, no body has been found, and no one has been charged with her death/abduction/kidnapping.
The post about the dogs and Amaral is like Ground Hog day. NOTHING NEW comes out of it, and it goes on and on blah blah blah.
POINTLESS exercise. Pointless thread. Cadaver dogs are still being used quite successfully and because of their usage even cold cases are now being closed.
-
Madeleine shared DNA with both her parents and her twin siblings. Only a full profile match (currently 20 markers in the UK) could legally determine whom the DNA belonged to. In the US and Canada I believe the threshold is much less. I'm not sure where Portuguese Law stood on this in 2007 but as it was a new science at the time they must have agreed to be guided by UK standards.
To put this into context, you are much more likely to be convicted in America on the basis of DNA evidence than you are in the UK. In the Jeremy Bamber case, the DNA obtained from a silencer returned a 17 marker match to one of the victims. Under UK Law this was not considered proof of anything yet the probability of that DNA not belonging to that victim is many millions to one. Thus one can see that the legal bar in the UK is set very high.
It's the other way around, John.
The UK uses STM+ based on 10 markers (10 pairs of alleles).
The US CODIS system is based on 13 markers.
The INML used two different systems each based on 15 markers (many were the same, but there were a few different ones).
-
I agree with this. I'm an atheist though. The Mccann's reliance on psychic's and the like is well documented. It's not a myth.
Where is the evidence for their reliance on psychics
-
Where is the evidence for their reliance on psychics
You should have seen that one coming. 8((()*/
-
You should have seen that one coming. 8((()*/
I haven't seen reliance on psychics...just a myth
-
I haven't seen reliance on psychics...just a myth
Ask Derek Acorah. @)(++(*
-
Pathetic post all in all and you wouldnt be saying that if you had read all the facts in this case, which you obviously havent..just tagging along with the Grime libellers...Coconut case ? Youre having a laugh....educate yourself before spouting..No, seriously do....your FIRST port of call should be, does Eddie trained in decomposing bodies react to vegetables..your second port of call should be that coconuts do not contain collagen which is only found in mammals, collagen was found in the sample, your third port of call should be, why was the sample switched.?..after being examined by an expert who said it was a skull to when it was returned and had shrunk in size and weight..lots of reading for you, enjoy...googles not bad...but if you have time you can check out the video library here, find the video posted by John about eddie at Jersey and see my reply sbowing a video featuring the investigator in that case and what he said about THAT sample which has gotten everyones nickers in a twist
I disagree.
- I doubt that Eddie would bark at a piece of coconut, but he may have reacted to a scent within his parameters that happened to be on it or nearby. It was the humans who seemed to have a potential sensibility issue: it looked like it might be a significant find and Eddie barked, which was taken as corroboration prior to actual testing.
The archaeologist originally thought it was a fragment of human skull, but made a mistake. It's better to get it bagged and checked than discarding something potentially signficant, after all. If Harper had waited for the tests prior to announcing it to the media, it would just be a paragraph or so in the depths of a forensic report.
- "Why was it switched" ??? Wouldn't the measurements and weight have been logged by both the archaelogist when found and sent and by the lab when it arrived? Wouldn't a discrepancy have been noticed?
Isn't it more likely that a seed casing found in damp conditions had simply dried out?
Again, have a look at the Wiltshire inquiry:
It starts on p. 250.
5.6 Operation Rectangle Exhibit JAR/6 ‘human bone’
Here's the link:
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
-
What's the truth on the 15 out of 19 DNA match found in the boot.
"Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match." (John Lowe - not the darts player I hope)
What does a chance match mean? How does that work?
There were 15 alleles out of 37 that coincided with hers. The question that he was attempting to explain was whether that fact meant that it was actually her DNA forensic profile (minus the missing components) or a mixture of alleles from family members, in particular, or even from strangers who would also share a number of the same allele values. And there were 3-5 contributors to that sample.
Unrelated strangers would most likely have at least 6-7 alleles in common with her (sometimes more, from what I've found). These values are not unique to an individual, it's the combination of them in an uncontaminated sample that reduces the probability of a complete profile belonging to someone else. In this instance, there wasn't a complete profile and there were family members who had been in contact with the car (and possibly unrelated individuals), which makes the possibility of a chance combination even higher.
-
Pathetic post all in all and you wouldnt be saying that if you had read all the facts in this case, which you obviously havent..just tagging along with the Grime libellers...Coconut case ? Youre having a laugh....educate yourself before spouting..No, seriously do....your FIRST port of call should be, does Eddie trained in decomposing bodies react to vegetables..your second port of call should be that coconuts do not contain collagen which is only found in mammals, collagen was found in the sample, your third port of call should be, why was the sample switched.?..after being examined by an expert who said it was a skull to when it was returned and had shrunk in size and weight..lots of reading for you, enjoy...googles not bad...but if you have time you can check out the video library here, find the video posted by John about eddie at Jersey and see my reply sbowing a video featuring the investigator in that case and what he said about THAT sample which has gotten everyones nickers in a twist
There was no collagen found in the sample jar6. It was a coconut shell and eddie alerted to it. This has to be a false alert. As I understand from reading the link posted by carana...there were no human bones found either.
-
There was no collagen found in the sample jar6. It was a coconut shell and eddie alerted to it. This has to be a false alert. As I understand from reading the link posted by carana...there were no human bones found either.
Eddie may have reacted correctly to something within his parameters (relevant or not) on or near the coconut fragment. I still think that the humans got it wrong.
-
Am i Psychic probably not but I would predict 100per cent predict that IF the dogs alerted to the Murats car and the Murats house and drive way and clothes, all the doggy and handler doubters would be in their droves on here saying how WONDERFUL the dogs were, what clever doggies they were to finding the perb who took the child, with or without a body.....
and thats the sad truth..........say its not so all you doubters I wouldnt believe you anyway.
You can all spin it how you like it makes no difference the child is still missing, no body has been found, and no one has been charged with her death/abduction/kidnapping.
The post about the dogs and Amaral is like Ground Hog day. NOTHING NEW comes out of it, and it goes on and on blah blah blah.
POINTLESS exercise. Pointless thread. Cadaver dogs are still being used quite successfully and because of their usage even cold cases are now being closed.
The only 'point' that can be established is that the dog MIGHT not have been alerting to scent of the dead body of the missing child who was last seen in that apartment
Unless she is is found, or evidence that she was alive when she disappeared is uncovered, then it is simply not possible for anyone to say that the dog was NOT alerting to the scent of the dead body of the missing child
-
The only 'point' that can be established is that the dog MIGHT not have been alerting to scent of the dead body of the missing child who was last seen in that apartment
Unless she is is found, or evidence that she was alive when she disappeared is uncovered, then it is simply not possible for anyone to say that the dog was NOT alerting to the scent of the dead body of the missing child
I'd agree that it can't be totally excluded. It's always a possibility that he might have been right, whatever happened.
My issue is in assuming that he was correct, when there is no forensic evidence to support it; he may have been suggestible to his handler's own suggestibility (by that I mean that he may have been zooming in to concentrate on the tiniest indication - Swindell did say that they can get confused in a search in a peat bog as both give off methane);
- There doesn't seem to have been any in-depth analysis to exclude innocent possibilities for his reaction aside from asking whether anyone was aware of someone else having died there. None of the post-disappearance occupants were interviewed (at least not in the DVD files) ... and the last lot only left a week before the inspection.
-
There was no collagen found in the sample jar6. It was a coconut shell and eddie alerted to it. This has to be a false alert. As I understand from reading the link posted by carana...there were no human bones found either.
If I remember rightly, 3 pieces of human bone were found in the same place and there was also suggestion of infill from a cemetery.
-
The only 'point' that can be established is that the dog MIGHT not have been alerting to scent of the dead body of the missing child who was last seen in that apartment
Unless she is is found, or evidence that she was alive when she disappeared is uncovered, then it is simply not possible for anyone to say that the dog was NOT alerting to the scent of the dead body of the missing child
Bertrand Russell calls this a celestial teapot argument...that about sums it up
-
Deleted - swab 3a but weak DNA result? Cleaned?
-
Sep 06 2007 Interim Report:
The 'interim' report wasn't a report at all.
It was an email from John Lowe to Stuart Prior explaining a particular result from his (one and only!) report.
What else do you want explained?
-
Bertrand Russell calls this a celestial teapot argument...that about sums it up
Don't know anything about that flim flam
I deal in facts, and the fact is, neither you, nor anyone else, can claim that when the dog alerted in apartment 5A he was NOT alerting to the scent of the dead body of the missing child
You can't claim that
-
Sep 06 2007 Interim Report:
The 'interim' report wasn't a report at all.
It was an email from John Lowe to Stuart Prior explaining a particular result from his (one and only!) report.
What else do you want explained?
If 3a stain was washed/cleaned that may have produced the weak DNA result (15) and possible contamination with the cleaner DNA.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mvGDvjcWZmM/UqDw[Name removed]tUntI/AAAAAAAAHeQ/ClsQP_dzRwA/s400/Stain+3+white.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/Sb7ZdM38n3I/AAAAAAAAEEs/KMI3-hGkk_w/s200/martin+grime.jpg)
-
Don't know anything about that flim flam
I deal in facts, and the fact is, neither you, nor anyone else, can claim that when the dog alerted in apartment 5A he was NOT alerting to the scent of the dead body of the missing child
You can't claim that
you don't s deal in facts at all ...you deal in suppositions
By the same argument you use no one can say with certainty that maddie was not abducted by the CIA on the orders of obama
-
you don't s deal in facts at all ...you deal in suppositions
By the same argument you use no one can say with certainty that maddie was not abducted by the CIA on the orders of obama
What nonsense
The dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen alive ... that is beyond question
Neither you, nor anyone else, can claim that his alert was not because he detected the scent of the missing child's dead body
You know you can't
-
What nonsense
The dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen alive ... that is beyond question
Neither you, nor anyone else, can claim that his alert was not because he detected the scent of the missing child's dead body
You know you can't
And you cant prove the CIA were not involved...justice is about what you can prove...not what you cant prove...its a celestial teapot argument
-
What nonsense
The dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen alive ... that is beyond question
Neither you, nor anyone else, can claim that his alert was not because he detected the scent of the missing child's dead body
You know you can't
The dogs alerted in an apartment where a man cut himself shaving, bled for 45 minutes, paced the whole apartment during the time that the cut bled ...
And in the same investigation, the cadaver dog is known, definitely, to have erred with at least one, apparent, reaction -- to cuddle cat.
That, combined with the way the dog was deployed, casts a questionmark over the whole role of the dogs in that investigation.
-
That weak DNA had 15 alleles that matched Madeleine - behind the sofa. That man was hiding behind the sofa with his razor.
-
That weak DNA had 15 alleles that matched Madeleine - behind the sofa. That man was hiding behind the sofa with his razor.
Why were clothes, present in the villa during the inspection of the villa that weren't alerted to there, apparently, alerted to in the gym?
-
Were the clothes bagged up? Where were Kate's trousers when they inspected the villa?
-
Were the clothes bagged up? Where were Kate's trousers when they inspected the villa?
In the villa.
Unalerted to ...
-
Those pants may have been in the suitcase. I can't see them on the villa video. Saw this book next to Interpretation of Murder:
Spirit Messenger, remarkable autobiography from Glasgow's world-respected medium, Gordon Smith. This, Gordon's first book provides a unique insight into the life of an ordinary person coming to terms with extraordinary gifts. Gordon discovered at a young age that he could communicate with dead people but it wasn't until he was in his mid-twenties that he actually accepted this exceptional power and realised the comfort it could bring to people who had lost their loved ones. Gordon has since brought comfort and healing to thousands of people in the messages he has delivered from the Other Side. Written in Gordon's humorous and down-to-earth manner, Spirit Messenger gives an enthralling account of his life communicating with spirits and shares Gordon's practical advice on avoiding tricksters to find true connection with the spirit world. With a foreward written by Prof. Archie E Roy, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy, Glasgow Universtiy who has studied Gordon's mediumship under scientific conditions, this book is a great read whether you are a sceptic, a believer or just want to know more
-
That weak DNA had 15 alleles that matched Madeleine - behind the sofa. That man was hiding behind the sofa with his razor.
???
Where did you find anything about 15 matching alleles behind the sofa?
-
Don't know anything about that flim flam
?{)(**
-
???
Where did you find anything about 15 matching alleles behind the sofa?
Sorry my mistake it was the car boot.
-
Cute isn't it, Anne, the flim flam. Never heard Bernard Russell called that before.
Point is that the matter is impossible to prove disprove either way, on current evidence at least.
-
Cute isn't it, Anne, the flim flam. Never heard Bernard Russell called that before.
Point is that the matter is impossible to prove disprove either way, on current evidence at least.
Point is that Icabodcrane didn't call Bernard Russell "flim flam", however cute it is, but referred to Davel confounding his person with BR instead of disproving that Madeleine is orbiting the sun.
-
Point is that Icabodcrane didn't call Bernard Russell "flim flam", however cute it is, but referred to Davel confounding his person with BR instead of disproving that Madeleine is orbiting the sun.
Thanks for defending my post Anne ( much appreciated )
The 'cute' flim flam' expression was related to davel's use of that well worn propaganda technique, Antirationalism
... promoting the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts, or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions
It is a dodge to avoid the truth that, yes ... we can know some things for sure
-
the truth...your posts are full of may and may nots....I have to laugh when you talk about about the truth
I love Icadbods posts. S/he so often makes the points I'm trying to make, but in a much more articulate manner.
.
-
I love Icabodcrane's posts. He's the most subtle poster of all.
-
I love Icabodcrane's posts. He's the most subtle poster of all.
it comes as no surprise that posters love the posts that support their own views...this type of support really counts for nothing
-
Thanks for defending my post Anne ( much appreciated )
The 'cute' flim flam' expression was related to davel's use of that well worn propaganda technique, Antirationalism
... promoting the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts, or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions
It is a dodge to avoid the truth that, yes ... we can know some things for sure
My apologies icabod for riding roughshod over the subtleties. I do very much appreciate this important point.
-
I love Icabodcrane's posts. He's the most subtle poster of all.
In a class of his own.
-
it comes as no surprise that posters love the posts that support their own views...this type of support really counts for nothing
I disagree with this. I often appreciate Sherlock's posts, although I disagree with her point of view. I find she's usually polite and articulate in a way that isn't rude or doesn't attack another poster's opinion. We don't have to all agree to be able to communicate with each other in a manner befitting of intelligent adults.
In fact this forum would be a boring place without different opinions! I don't want or need someone patting me on the back telling me how right I am, I appreciate people pointing out where my thinking isn't making sense. Sometimes I'll adjust my opinions, sometimes I won't.
I've seen sites where everyone has the same thoughts and they're a waste of time imo. There's no debate, just a bunch of like minded people complaining about the other side and congratulating themselves on being clever enough to see through the rubbish that the other guys have fallen for.
That's both pro and anti sites alike.
-
What, other than cadaver scent, does a cadaver dog alert to ?
-
What, other than cadaver scent, does a cadaver dog alert to ?
Two dogs...
Dog A alerts to cadaver scent and blood.
Dog B alerts to blood.
If both dogs alert then blood.
If dog A alerts and dog B doesn't then cadaver scent.
-
Two dogs...
Dog A alerts to cadaver scent and blood.
Dog B alerts to blood.
If both dogs alert then blood.
If dog A alerts and dog B doesn't then cadaver scent.
That sounds very complicated and fraught with potential errors. Not as simple as a single observation. Doesn't that depend tremendously on individual interpretation of positive and negative reactions. What is a negative reaction?
-
That sounds very complicated and fraught with potential errors. Not as simple as a single observation. Doesn't that depend tremendously on individual interpretation of positive and negative reactions. What is a negative reaction?
Not really. With regard to interpretation, think of it in a similar way to sonar operators on warships, they are able to interpret the subtle difference in sounds to identify size and type of target. For the dogs, the handler recognises the alerts the dogs give and gives his opinion accordingly.
To save davel time, this cannot be used as evidence without forensic corroboration.
-
Not really. With regard to interpretation, think of it in a similar way to sonar operators on warships, they are able to interpret the subtle difference in sounds to identify size and type of target. For the dogs, the handler recognises the alerts the dogs give and gives his opinion accordingly.
To save davel time, this cannot be used as evidence without forensic corroboration.
So it relies on guesswork that cannot be confirmed scientifically. There must be a problem with how biased and how accurate the handler is. I am not surprised that it is not primary evidence.
-
Not at all. It's dealing with the fabrication in Amaral's book that Eddie only alerted to cadaverscent. He appears to be the one suffering from 'wishful thinking' in that respect.
It's unbelievable that he states that in his book isn't it? Martin Grime makes it perfectly clear that Eddie also alerts to blood.
-
Not really. With regard to interpretation, think of it in a similar way to sonar operators on warships, they are able to interpret the subtle difference in sounds to identify size and type of target. For the dogs, the handler recognises the alerts the dogs give and gives his opinion accordingly.
To save davel time, this cannot be used as evidence without forensic corroboration.
Nothing like sonar which is evidenced based...there is a very good reason its not allowed as evidence...there is no science behind it..it has no validity. The EVRD is talented...but the clue is in what EVRD means...there was absolutely no forensic corroboration of the EVRD dog...as Grime says the alerts an be the results of several different scenaios...amaral got it wrong and a lot on this forum have it wrong
-
It's unbelievable that he states that in his book isn't it? Martin Grime makes it perfectly clear that Eddie also alerts to blood.
In which case it is fair to wonder why blood in other apartments/venues/vehicles were not alerted to by Eddie.
-
What, other than cadaver scent, does a cadaver dog alert to then?
Dried blood from living people - according to Grime.
-
In which case it is fair to wonder why blood in other apartments/venues/vehicles were not alerted to by Eddie.
That is a very good question. Given that there were no forensics found at all from what I can see, how can the dogs have reacted so clearly in the apartment used by the McCanns with no evidence. Did the handler know which apartment was the McCanns and which were not- do we know. I would suspect handler contamination in this scenario.
-
Dried blood from living people - according to Grime.
What happened to Eddie`s dried blood alerts in other sites, then?
-
Dried blood from living people - according to Grime.
Or nothing, according to the apparent 'alert' to cuddle-cat (second time of asking!)
It would be rough to blame Eddie for that, though.
All the fault of his master ...
-
What happened to Eddie`s dried blood alerts in other sites, then?
This has all been done to death before. IMO especially in the carpark - it was related to how much time Eddie was given to alert. If he had been made to spend the same amount of time on the other cars instead of only a quarter of the time or less - than he was made to spend at the Renault - alerts may have resulted in other cars.
(Must go out now).
-
What happened to Eddie`s dried blood alerts in other sites, then?
Just what I was posting when my tablet closed down for lack of charge.
Given human propensity for stubbed toes, shaving nicks, scalp wounds and other sources of blood and given that there seems to be no forensic evidence of GPS knowledge of the location and hence would have contaminated the experiment. Why was this one not blinded? Sloppy experimentation.
-
@Pegasus Yes I've considered that the clothes could have been contaminated but the time of the first daily routine change of the week fits in with wearing those clothes IMO. Any routine changes will be investigated and this is the most probably time when certain tragic events happened and therefore forced the change. Everything is simple about this case and it doesn't require to be overcomplicated by finding solutions to impossible moving doors and an open window that nobody went through. You only have to look at the contradictions between the first two statements to see what's really going on. The bigger the lie the more it's believed i.e. in this case "Abduction"!
-
I watched the programme on animal senses the other week. I was impressed by the cadaver dog locating the canister under water and silt in a lake..... until I realised that there were people on the boat who knew from the GPS when the boat regained its previous position. It would not take much for the dog to bed reacting to human behaviour on the boat.
-
This has all been done to death before. IMO especially in the carpark - it was related to how much time Eddie was given to alert. If he had been made to spend the same amount of time on the other cars instead of only a quarter of the time or less - than he was made to spend at the Renault - alerts may have resulted in other cars.
(Must go out now).
Yes, it certainly has............but it never needs much encouragement to unleash a re-run of the imo , accusatory innuendo about conscious/unconscious cuing.............or the comments that given enough time Eddie would eventually alert to anything, anywhere, anyway just to please his handler, does it?
-
We asked Mr Grime to comment on the various accusations but he stated that as the case was still a live ongoing investigation that it would be inappropriate for him to do so. It could well be that he will have to give evidence at some stage if the case comes to trial.
-
Or nothing, according to the apparent 'alert' to cuddle-cat (second time of asking!)
It would be rough to blame Eddie for that, though.
All the fault of his master ...
Twaddle. The reason Martin put cuddle cat in the cupboard is explained below.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7317/11400715705_9cab893500_b.jpg)
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/01/20/30870/indiana-bones-cadaver-dog-severed-limbs-hollywood/
-
"Dogs aren't motivated by what we are motivated by" Now there's a revelation and a half.
The dogs work for reward?
I am now going into Wonderfulspam mode:- drug sniffer dogs in a group enjoying a spliff at the end of a successful day.
-
We asked Mr Grime to comment on the various accusations but he stated that as the case was still a live ongoing investigation that it would be inappropriate for him to do so. It could well be that he will have to give evidence at some stage if the case comes to trial.
That is a massive assumption by you . he has already commented...the dogs alert have no evidential value...what would a QC make of that
-
That is a massive assumption by you . he has already commented...the dogs alert have no evidential value...what would a QC make of that
Not misquoting are you perchance?
Where has he ever said exactly and only that? Nowhere
any Qc will not take kindly to cherry picking and twisting of facts though
-
Not misquoting are you perchance?
Where has he ever said exactly and only that? Nowhere
any Qc will not take kindly to cherry picking and twisting of facts though
What did he say about the reliability of dog evidence?
-
What did he say about the reliability of dog evidence?
I am sure you have read the files so you will know, I dont do trick questions, but he never said what davel has posted as fact
-
I am sure you have read the files so you will know, I dont do trick questions, but he never said what davel has posted as fact
I find your style of posting a little annoying, consisting as it seems to sideswipes at people who disagree with you and a failure to produce real evidence, relying largely on emotion and personal belief. It lessens the debate.
-
Not misquoting are you perchance?
Where has he ever said exactly and only that? Nowhere
any Qc will not take kindly to cherry picking and twisting of facts though
the evrd dogs alerts were not corroborated and therefore according to grime have no evidential value..its in the files...will post later
-
I find your style of posting a little annoying, consisting as it seems to sideswipes at people who disagree with you and a failure to produce real evidence, relying largely on emotion and personal belief. It lessens the debate.
Sorry about that then. fact remains that davels post is false in asserting Mr Grime said the dogs alerts have no evidential value "full stop"
before and after the fss results
before:
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
After:
'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
So do point it out where it's said there or anywhere that Mr Grme said the dog alerts in this case have no value/evidential value, interchangeable it seems too statements
oh and ps ES. I dont take sideswipes for anyone disagreeing with me but if what they post is just not right, wouldnt want erroneous "facts" bandied around now would we?
8((()*/
-
Sorry about that then. fact remains that davels post is false in asserting Mr Grime said the dogs alerts have no evidential value "full stop"
before and after the fss results
before:
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
After:
'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. [/color]It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
So do point it out where it's said there or anywhere that Mr Grme said the dog alerts in this case have no value/evidential value, interchangeable it seems too statements
Grime says "in this case"...are you taking this to say that every alert made by the dogs was corroborated by forensics...absolutely not
-
Grime says "in this case"...are you taking this to say that every alert made by the dogs was corroborated by forensics...absolutely not
Obviously NOT! a) no one claimed it b) there is no such thng as confirmation of cadaver scent as science is well behind dogs abilitiesThe best these forces have with teams of cadaver and blood dogs is the best they have at the moment
But it does refute your assertion that Grime said the dog alerts had no value, you still haven't come up with Mr Grime remotely saying anything like that! perpetuating falsehoods/disinforming I say!
-
Sorry about that then. fact remains that davels post is false in asserting Mr Grime said the dogs alerts have no evidential value "full stop"
before and after the fss results
before:
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
After:
'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
So do point it out where it's said there or anywhere that Mr Grme said the dog alerts in this case have no value/evidential value, interchangeable it seems too statements
oh and ps ES. I dont take sideswipes for anyone disagreeing with me but if what they post is just not right, wouldnt want erroneous "facts" bandied around now would we?
8((()*/
So as I understand it having read around those quotes:
Where the blood dog or cadaver dog alerted, and forensics of blood were found, that is evidence of blood being present.
Where the Cadaver dog alerted and the blood dog did not, because there was no confirming forensics, that is not evidential.
-
From another thread
Have you watched the clothing video and what Eddie actually alerted to? I've posted my observations on here somewhere and it's not at all clear to me. His reactions don't seem to correspond to what was noted by the PJ, neither is it clear what the noted reaction actually was: tossing items in the air, nuzzling them, running and nuzzling... I don't see the logic.
For some reason, Grime stated that he didn't have the details... why not?
Yes I have watched the clothing video and agree it is uncertain exactly which clothing items were signalled.
IMO the handler should have written the list himself stating exactly which objects were signalled.
For example what about the light blue tshirt with logo "O'Neill"?
-
Obviously NOT! a) no one claimed it b) there is no such thng as confirmation of cadaver scent as science is well behind dogs abilitiesThe best these forces have with teams of cadaver and blood dogs is the best they have at the moment
But it does refute your assertion that Grime said the dog alerts had no value, you still haven't come up with Mr Grime remotely saying anything like that! perpetuating falsehoods/disinforming I say!
Cadaver scent could have been confirmed by detritus from a body; none was found.
-
So as I understand it having read around those quotes:
Where the blood dog or cadaver dog alerted, and forensics of blood were found, that is evidence of blood being present.
Where the Cadaver dog alerted and the blood dog did not, because there was no confirming forensics, that is not evidential.
It may be but you can't make that assumption for the simple reason both could have existed in the the one place
-
Cadaver scent could have been confirmed by detritus from a body; none was found.
I'm sure no detritus was left lyng around for three months. Eddie was sent in to find remnant scent not body parts.
You will excuse me now as I've been on more than one déjà vu groundhog day debate today, enjoy the rest though
-
Pop into someones apartment and hide a block of hashish under a pile of clothes belonging to 5 different people.
Then remove the hashish.
Weeks later show those clothes to a drug dog.
Lets say the dog signals 3 of those clothing items.
The point is it is RANDOM which of the 5 individuals happen to own the 3 clothing items which came in direct contact while in the pile.
-
It may be but you can't make that assumption for the simple reason both could have existed in the the one place
But even if there was cadaver scent there in fact, the dog alerts could not improve on the information available initially- that we do not know whether cadaver scent was there.
Suppose you have a dog that is able to differentiate between static electricity and none (blood dog) and another that is claimed to differentiate between 'ghostly emanations' and their absence, but unfortunately it also reacts to static electricity.
Now set them to test for ghosts.
In case 1 Dog 1 reacts and a voltmeter agrees- static is present. Dog 2 also alerts.
In case 2 Dog 2 reacts but Dog 1 does not. This 'suggests' that ghostly emanations were there but it is not evidential as no further forensics for such emanations have been found. Now if an identifiable remnant of a ghost was found that could be forensically recognised, then one would have forensic confirmation.
Without such forensic evidence in either case, no evidence has been found and therefore our knowledge has not increased.
This is how science works. Evidence must follow the rules of logic.
-
But even if there was cadaver scent there in fact, the dog alerts could not improve on the information available initially- that we do not know whether cadaver scent was there.
Suppose you have a dog that is able to differentiate between static electricity and none (blood dog) and another that is claimed to differentiate between 'ghostly emanations' and their absence, but unfortunately it also reacts to static electricity.
Now set them to test for ghosts.
In case 1 Dog 1 reacts and a voltmeter agrees- static is present. Dog 2 also alerts.
In case 2 Dog 2 reacts but Dog 1 does not. This 'suggests' that ghostly emanations were there but it is not evidential as no further forensics for such emanations have been found. Now if an identifiable remnant of a ghost was found that could be forensically recognised, then one would have forensic confirmation.
Without such forensic evidence in either case, no evidence has been found and therefore our knowledge has not increased.
This is how science works. Evidence must follow the rules of logic.
Very nice, EnolaStraight
-
Running away and hiding when faced with real logic then!
Cadaver dog findings are meaningless without forensic confirmation so far as I can see.
As "meaningless" as the cadaver dog findings in sites in which no alerts whatsoever were made?
Dismissed as if they had not existed in the first place and the dog had moved through the sites with no response?
...........or viewed as an existing intelligence; but which does not stand alone as conclusive or verifiable ?
The alerts exist ...........They cannot be viewed as "meaningless" in the same way as non-existent surely?
-
Running away and hiding when faced with real logic then!
Cadaver dog findings are meaningless without forensic confirmation so far as I can see.
I was just bored, not running anywhere, you have a nerve don't you? Bit rude of you, btw welcome to the forum, you can find the introduce yourself thread near the top of the main board
Seeing as there is no such thing as forensic confirmation of cadaver scent, and seeing as the closest back up dog handlers can use at the present time is a blood dog, or in the USA, a second cadaver dog to back up any alert as well, your point is pointless, in fact, by your logic no cadaver dog would ever be used in a remnant scent situation, but they are, all the time
As I said, "bored" over repetitive old ground, may come back to the thread if and when I become " unbored" at any point that is remotely and freshly nteresting
-
I was just bored, not running anywhere, you have a nerve don't you? Bit rude of you, btw welcome to the forum, you can find the introduce yourself thread near the top of the main board
Seeing as there is no such thing as forensic confirmation of cadaver scent, and seeing as the closest back up dog handlers can use at the present time is a blood dog, or in the USA, a second cadaver dog to back up any alert as well, your point is pointless, in fact, by your logic no cadaver dog would ever be used in a remnant scent situation, but they are, all the time
No cadaver dog alert can be confirming evidence without further forensics (cadaver fluids or solid detritus).
A cadaver dog alert adds no information to the question "Was a cadaver ever present here?"
-
If they ID Smithman the dogs evidence will be corroborated. Eddie clearly marked the pants and the red plane kid t-shirt.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/349x190q90/46/lar4.jpg)
-
No cadaver dog alert can be confirming evidence without further forensics (cadaver fluids or solid detritus).
A cadaver dog alert adds no information to the question "Was a cadaver ever present here?"
adds no proof! but they need to be used, they are, with the help of other dogs, they add intelligence, info needing to be followed up,and that's always useful to any investigation.....if they weren't, police forces wouldn't waste their time and resources doing so!!!
I think they know better than you probably... Now if I may go and do the shopping for tonight's meal I hope I can do so in peace without being told I'm running away, cheers
-
As "meaningless" as the cadaver dog findings in sites in which no alerts whatsoever were made?
Dismissed as if they had not existed in the first place and the dog had moved through the sites with no response?
...........or viewed as an existing intelligence; but which does not stand alone as conclusive or verifiable ?
The alerts exist ...........They cannot be viewed as "meaningless" in the same way as non-existent surely?
Yes, they can, because the dogs were incompetently deployed.
Grime, apparently, felt Eddie needed two cracks at 'reacting' to cuddle-cat.
Or (more likely) hid the toy in a cupboard to avoid repeat of the fiasco of Eddie playing with it.
Asked in his rogatory interview about cross-contamination, Grime replied that cross-contamination is "immediate"
Why then, did Grime ignore the principle in the way clothes were transported to the gym, all together, in cardboard boxes?
Grime himself says that alerting errors by dogs are most commonly caused by handler-cueing.
So what about those findMadeleine stickers in the back of the Renault?
-
No cadaver dog alert can be confirming evidence without further forensics (cadaver fluids or solid detritus).
A cadaver dog alert adds no information to the question "Was a cadaver ever present here?"
A cadaver dog alert adds no information to the question "was a cadaver ever present here?"
A cadaver dog non-alert adds no information to the question "was a cadaver ever present here?"
Words....."logic"......to imply that both pieces of intelligence from the cadaver dog responses mean exactly the same.
The positive alerts don`t stand alone, but they do not have the same meaning as non-alerts.
-
adds no proof! but they need to be used, they are, with the help of other dogs, they add intelligence, info needing to be followed up,and that's always useful to any investigation.....if they weren't, police forces wouldn't waste their time and resources doing so!!!
I think they know better than you probably... Now if I may go and do the shopping for tonight's meal I hope I can do so in peace without being told I'm running away, cheers
It is matter of logic and scientific procedure, not of opinion.
Given the facts of the situation, a dog alert without forensic confirmation adds no definite knowledge to the sum available before the alert.
Any use of such alerts as 'evidence' in any court is only possible by ignoring logic and scientific procedure. It may be a piece of information that should be considered by a jury, but no Judge (in the UK at least) would allow a prosecution to use it as confirmatory evidence of any fact- only as further information. If it were to be admitted in a UK court, it would be hedged by warnings by the judge that no substantive weight could be put on the alert itself, and any defence would be well able to demonstrate the problems of logic and science that make such alerts unreliable.
-
A cadaver dog alert adds no information to the question "was a cadaver ever present here?"
A cadaver dog non-alert adds no information to the question "was a cadaver ever present here?"
Words....."logic"......to imply that both pieces of intelligence from the cadaver dog responses mean exactly the same.
The positive alerts don`t stand alone, but they do not have the same meaning as non-alerts.
From an evidence point of view..they do
-
Yes, they can, because the dogs were incompetently deployed.
Grime, apparently, felt Eddie needed two cracks at 'reacting' to cuddle-cat.
Or (more likely) hid the toy in a cupboard to avoid repeat of the fiasco of Eddie playing with it.
Asked in his rogatory interview about cross-contamination, Grime replied that cross-contamination is "immediate"
Why then, did Grime ignore the principle in the way clothes were transported to the gym, all together, in cardboard boxes?
Grime himself says that alerting errors by dogs are most commonly caused by handler-cueing.
So what about those findMadeleine stickers in the back of the Renault?
None of those points take away the existence of the alerts themselves, though.
Why not look at non-alerts and question why immediate cross-contamination did not affect all clothing, for instance?
It seems that a separate "excuse"........ (or piece of logic)............has to be thought up to negate first one alert and then another.
I feel that if Mr Grime utilised the many and varied agendas, cuing and so forth ,imo he`d have made a better job of it!
-
From an evidence point of view..they do
From a collective of intelligence gathered in an investigation, they don`t.
-
None of those points take away the existence of the alerts themselves, though.
Why not look at non-alerts and question why immediate cross-contamination did not affect all clothing, for instance?
It seems that a separate "excuse"........ (or piece of logic)............has to be thought up to negate first one alert and then another.
I feel that if Mr Grime utilised the many and varied agendas, cuing and so forth ,imo he`d have made a better job of it!
Absence of evidence does not require explanation as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Logically, dog alerts alone cannot add to human knowledge for logical and empirical reasons.
-
A very nice theoretical demonstration.
It is important to realise that some people just do not understand logic and see it as special pleading. It is an unfortunate side effect of forensics and debate as well as logic and philosophy not being taught below university level, leaving a good deal of the public unable to reason correctly.
Luckily laws of evidence ensure that trials are fair and aeroplanes fly.
-
From another thread Yes I have watched the clothing video and agree it is uncertain exactly which clothing items were signalled.
IMO the handler should have written the list himself stating exactly which objects were signalled.
For example what about the light blue tshirt with logo "O'Neill"?
Which side of the room was that on (to spare me watching it yet again)? I remember that he seemed interested in a large greeny T-shirt down the right-hand side of the area.
From memory, the first thing he tossed into the air was a tiny pair of blue shorts, then the red T-shirt next to it. Those items got him barking his little cotton socks off. Were they Sean's? The red T-shirt seems to have been.
People's clothes seem to have been arranged from children on the left side of the wall, Kate in the corner, then Gerry and whatever else alongside the wall on the right.
He did seem interested in Kate's checked trousers, but not her white top... so how that made it into the list isn't clear.
Were they all clean clothes or not? If not, could a child's widdle on a pile of pending laundry have set him off?
The whole exercise seems totally bizarre to me.
-
This argument is not a new argument. The absence of forensic evidence has been done to death to what avail? It's obvious there is insufficient forensic evidence. If there was forensic evidence then we would have seen charges brought a long time ago. To dismiss the dogs finding on the basis of no forensics is stating the obvious.
Unlike ghosts cadavers have been proven to exist and also have a unique scent. The lack of other forensic evidence does not mean that cadaver scent is not present. It just means there is a lack of other forensic evidence.
It means that we know no more about the presence of cadaver odour in PdL than we knew before the dogs were deployed.
-
Which side of the room was that on (to spare me watching it yet again)? I remember that he seemed interested in a large greeny T-shirt down the right-hand side of the area.
From memory, the first thing he tossed into the air was a tiny pair of blue shorts, then the red T-shirt next to it. Those items got him barking his little cotton socks off. Were they Sean's? The red T-shirt seems to have been.
People's clothes seem to have been arranged from children on the left side of the wall, Kate in the corner, then Gerry and whatever else alongside the wall on the right.
He did seem interested in Kate's checked trousers, but not her white top... so how that made it into the list isn't clear.
Were they all clean clothes or not? If not, could a child's widdle on a pile of pending laundry have set him off?
The whole exercise seems totally bizarre to me.
Eddie was trained to exclude (deconditioned) to urine, faeces and semen and would only alert to them if they were mixed with dried blood so there is not a hope that he was alerting to 'widdle' as you put it. Keela did not alert to any of the clothing and therefore a blood alert can be ruled out leaving only alerts to cadaver scent. Both dogs were used in tandem to reliably differentiate between an alert to blood and an alert to the scent of a dead body or body parts. In simple terms, if both Eddie and Keela alerted then the alerts were to blood. If Eddie alerted but Keela did not then the alert was to cadaver scent.
-
It means that we know no more about the presence of cadaver odour in PdL than we knew before the dogs were deployed.
No........We know that cadaver alerts occurred in some sites in PDL and not others.
Trying to bury them in smart, tortuous terminology won`t alter their existence or the fact that they are intelligence gathered concerning this case.
What becomes of the intelligence eventually remains to be seen.
-
No........We know that cadaver alerts occurred in some sites in PDL and not others.
Trying to bury them in smart, tortuous terminology won`t alter their existence or the fact that they are intelligence gathered concerning this case.
What becomes of the intelligence eventually remains to be seen.
Nicely put Carew. 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Eddie was trained to exclude (deconditioned) to urine, faeces and semen and would only alert to them if they were mixed with dried blood so there is not a hope that he was alerting to 'widdle' as you put it. Keela did not alert to any of the clothing and therefore a blood alert can be ruled out leaving only alerts to cadaver scent. Both dogs were used in tandem to reliably differentiate between an alert to blood and an alert to the scent of a dead body or body parts. In simple terms, if both Eddie and Keela alerted then the alerts were to blood. If Eddie alerted but Keela did not then the alert was to cadaver scent.
that's not what grime says
-
No........We know that cadaver alerts occurred in some sites in PDL and not others.
Trying to bury them in smart, tortuous terminology won`t alter their existence or the fact that they are intelligence gathered concerning this case.
What becomes of the intelligence eventually remains to be seen.
We know the cadaver dog alerted...we don't know what this alert indicates...Grime seems pretty vague about it
-
that's not what grime says
Umm oh yes it is. Care to tell me what exactly is incorrect in what I posted?
-
Eddie was trained to exclude (deconditioned) to urine, faeces and semen and would only alert to them if they were mixed with dried blood so there is not a hope that he was alerting to 'widdle' as you put it. Keela did not alert to any of the clothing and therefore a blood alert can be ruled out leaving only alerts to cadaver scent. Both dogs were used in tandem to reliably differentiate between an alert to blood and an alert to the scent of a dead body or body parts. In simple terms, if both Eddie and Keela alerted then the alerts were to blood. If Eddie alerted but Keela did not then the alert was to cadaver scent.
I believe that it is on record that Eddie reacted to semen in Jersey.
-
Eddie was trained to exclude (deconditioned) to urine, faeces and semen and would only alert to them if they were mixed with dried blood so there is not a hope that he was alerting to 'widdle' as you put it. Keela did not alert to any of the clothing and therefore a blood alert can be ruled out leaving only alerts to cadaver scent. Both dogs were used in tandem to reliably differentiate between an alert to blood and an alert to the scent of a dead body or body parts. In simple terms, if both Eddie and Keela alerted then the alerts were to blood. If Eddie alerted but Keela did not then the alert was to cadaver scent.
Grime says an alert is suggestive of cadaver scent...not that it IS cadaver scent...Grime doesn't quantify the degree of certainty that it IS cadaver scent
-
No........We know that cadaver alerts occurred in some sites in PDL and not others.
Trying to bury them in smart, tortuous terminology won`t alter their existence or the fact that they are intelligence gathered concerning this case.
What becomes of the intelligence eventually remains to be seen.
You do not understand either empiricism or logic.
Dog alerts as in this case make them poor conveyors of the truth by both logical and empirical problems.
-
I believe that it is on record that Eddie reacted to semen in Jersey.
Are you sure it wasn't a dead sailor and something was lost in the translation?
-
You do not understand either empiricism or logic.
Dog alerts as in this case make them poor conveyors of the truth by both logical and empirical problems.
In your view.
-
I believe that it is on record that Eddie reacted to semen in Jersey.
Correct, he did so because it was mixed with blood on the tissue which was verified by Keela also alerting.
Source: http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
VT/9
The report regarding the tissue states
Blood dog - positive indication
EVRD – positive indication.
Both dogs alerting - blood
Eddie alerting but not Keela - cadaver scent
-
In your view.
No, it is not opinion.
If you understood logic and empiricism (which you obviously do not) then you would understand why alerts do not add to knowledge without further confirmation.
If you wanted to understand you probably could, but I suspect that you would not be able to for emotional reasons.
There are generally accepted rules of finding out both scientific and juridical truths, and dog alerts (unconfirmed) meet neither set of rules.
Not opinion, but fact.
This is almost as much fun as debating with creationists or birthers. They have the sae blindness to the laws of science and logic.
-
Correct, he did so because it was mixed with blood on the tissue which was verified by Keela also alerting.
Source: http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
VT/9
The report regarding the tissue states
Blood dog - positive indication
EVRD – positive indication.
Both dogs alerting - blood
Eddie alerting but not Keela - cadaver scent
I did not know that there was also blood.
-
No, it is not opinion.
If you understood logic and empiricism (which you obviously do not) then you would understand why alerts do not add to knowledge without further confirmation.
If you wanted to understand you probably could, but I suspect that you would not be able to for emotional reasons.
There are generally accepted rules of finding out both scientific and juridical truths, and dog alerts (unconfirmed) meet neither set of rules.
Not opinion, but fact.
This is almost as much fun as debating with creationists or birthers. They have the sae blindness to the laws of science and logic.
You are getting very confused between knowledge and evidence and then muddying the waters with truth.
Take the case of the sound of a shot being used as evidence about the timing of a shooting and the subsequent placing of a suspect at the scene at that time. The only evidence would be someone's perception of the sound of the shot as there would be no forensic evidence of the sound. This would still be used in a court of law.
-
Anyone read villa search warrant?
looks to me like it would have legally allowed k9 search outside too?
But no trace of that in video.
-
You are getting very confused between knowledge and evidence and then muddying the waters with truth.
Take the case of the sound of a shot being used as evidence about the timing of a shooting and the subsequent placing of a suspect at the scene at that time. The only evidence would be someone's perception of the sound of the shot as there would be no forensic evidence of the sound. This would still be used in a court of law.
Dog alerts could also be evidence in law- I have never denied that. Scientifically they do not have confirmative value- no addition to knowledge. Any judge in the UK would allow the defence to point out the unreliability of unconfirmed dog alerts and would have to warn the jury about the problem with such weak evidence.
-
You are getting very confused between knowledge and evidence and then muddying the waters with truth.
Take the case of the sound of a shot being used as evidence about the timing of a shooting and the subsequent placing of a suspect at the scene at that time. The only evidence would be someone's perception of the sound of the shot as there would be no forensic evidence of the sound. This would still be used in a court of law.
what if the only witness hearing the shot was a dog
-
Dog alerts could also be evidence in law- I have never denied that. Scientifically they do not have confirmative value- no addition to knowledge. Any judge in the UK would allow the defence to point out the unreliability of unconfirmed dog alerts and would have to warn the jury about the problem with such weak evidence.
Strange then, isn't it, that the McCanns' lawyers went as far as scouring American case law in order to cherry-pick anecdotal 'dog evidence' ( and a pig's ear they made of it too, when they highlighted the Zapata case )
Seems the McCanns, and their top-notch briefs, were not quite as convinced as you of the 'insignificance' of the dog alerts
-
Strange then, isn't it, that the McCanns' lawyers went as far as scouring American case law in order to cherry-pick anecdotal 'dog evidence' ( and a pig's ear they made of it too, when they highlighted the Zapata case )
Seems the McCanns, and their top-notch briefs, were not quite as convinced as you of the 'insignificance' of the dog alerts
that was very early on....they now understand the dogs alerts...unlike amaral
-
Strange then, isn't it, that the McCanns' lawyers went as far as scouring American case law in order to cherry-pick anecdotal 'dog evidence' ( and a pig's ear they made of it too, when they highlighted the Zapata case )
Seems the McCanns, and their top-notch briefs, were not quite as convinced as you of the 'insignificance' of the dog alerts
What evidence do you have of such legal 'scouring'- source and references please.
Dog alerts used to be widely accepted in various US States. More recently their evidence has been gradually downgraded and excluded.
-
You do not understand either empiricism or logic.
Dog alerts as in this case make them poor conveyors of the truth by both logical and empirical problems.
Frustrating for you, but hang on in there.......Others will shape up to your satisfaction, no doubt.
In the meantime, the dogs` alerts exist as intelligence gathered as part of the investigation. What is eventually deduced from them remains to be seen.
You cannot wish them away by terminology
-
Frustrating for you, but hang on in there.......Others will shape up to your satisfaction, no doubt.
In the meantime, the dogs` alerts exist as intelligence gathered as part of the investigation. What is eventually deduced from them remains to be seen.
You cannot wish them away by terminology
It is not wishing them away. It is simply applying the rules of human knowledge correctly.
-
It is not wishing them away. It is simply applying the rules of human knowledge correctly.
............in order to try and make the positive alerts appear as of no more significance than than the non-alerts?
Maybe you should check what is motivating your zeal and persistence, if as you say, the alerts are so obviously of no value to the investigation to anyone with any logic and so forth.
Maybe you protest too much?
-
Strange then, isn't it, that the McCanns' lawyers went as far as scouring American case law in order to cherry-pick anecdotal 'dog evidence' ( and a pig's ear they made of it too, when they highlighted the Zapata case )
Seems the McCanns, and their top-notch briefs, were not quite as convinced as you of the 'insignificance' of the dog alerts
8@??)(
Strange too that 18 month old Sean apparently developed a taste for sea bass which can produce cadaverine under some circumstances. Interesting research from March 2013 strongly suggests that cadaverine is not even a diamine that is detected by an EVRD and it also blows the myth that Eddie possibly alerted to urine, bad breath, semen or other substances out of the water.
The following is sourced from https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/bitstream/10155/315/1/Stadler_Sonja.pdf and is further supported here http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039005
Cadaverine and putrescine are products of amino acid breakdown and were previously thought to be the main contributors of decomposition odour. It was also beleived that these volatile compounds are a target for cadaver dogs. However research into the VOCs produced by pig and human decomposition was UNABLE to identify these two diamines. This casts doubt on the importance of putrescine and cadaverine as key components in decomposition odour.
-
............in order to try and make the positive alerts appear as of no more significance than than the non-alerts?
Maybe you should check what is motivating your zeal and persistence, if as you say, the alerts are so obviously of no value to the investigation to anyone with any logic and so forth.
Maybe you protest too much?
Its called "seeking the truth". It is annoying to see untruths posted and accepted on these types of forums...you just have to step in and correct people..its human nature
-
8@??)(
Strange too that 18 month old Sean apparently developed a taste for sea bass which can produce cadaverine under some circumstances. Interesting research from March 2013 strongly suggests that cadaverine is not even a diamine that is detected by an EVRD and it also blows the myth that Eddie possibly alerted to urine, bad breath, semen or other substances out of the water.
The following is sourced from https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/bitstream/10155/315/1/Stadler_Sonja.pdf and is further supported here http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039005
Cadaverine and putrescine are products of amino acid breakdown and were previously thought to be the main contributors of decomposition odour. It was also beleived that these volatile compounds are a target for cadaver dogs. However research into the VOCs produced by pig and human decomposition was UNABLE to identify these two diamines. This casts doubt on the importance of putrescine and cadaverine as key components in decomposition odour.
All of no significance after what Grime said about the evrd alerts
-
All of no significance after what Grime said about the evrd alerts
You know something, not once in all the cases that Martin and his dogs attended prior to May 2007 was he asked to place so much emphasis on corroborative forensics in a report despite the fact that the dogs had never been wrong ever. But he was asked to emphasise in this case. Strange huh.
-
Its called "seeking the truth". It is annoying to see untruths posted and accepted on these types of forums...you just have to step in and correct people..its human nature
Not really.
He clearly has an agenda, but that we already know.
-
You know something, not once in all the cases that Martin and his dogs attended prior to May 2007 was he asked to place so much emphasis on corroborative forensics in a report despite the fact that the dogs had never been wrong ever. But he was asked to emphasise in this case. Strange huh.
The dogs had never been wrong ever.....where have you got that from
-
You know something, not once in all the cases that Martin and his dogs attended prior to May 2007 was he asked to place so much emphasis on corroborative forensics in a report despite the fact that the dogs had never been wrong ever. But he was asked to emphasise in this case. Strange huh.
Please provide cites for your assertion about the previous cases- not self assessment by the handler, but cites that can be verified.
-
The dogs had never been wrong ever.....where have you got that from
Horses mouth Dave. Martin and Eddie didn't just attend homicide cases you know. Many missing persons cases where Eddie would find the poor soul hanging from a tree etc.
-
However research into the VOCs produced by pig and human decomposition was UNABLE to identify these two diamines. This casts doubt on the importance of putrescine and cadaverine as key components in decomposition odour.
They develop in a later stage of decay.
-
Horses mouth Dave. Martin and Eddie didn't just attend homicide cases you know. Many missing persons cases where Eddie would find the poor soul hanging from a tree etc.
you are wrong to state that the dogs have never been wrong...simple...
-
Please provide cites for your assertion about the previous cases- not self assessment by the handler, but cites that can be verified.
Many cases cited here http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/
-
you are wrong to state that the dogs have never been wrong...simple...
Care to cite cases where they have supposedly been wrong?
-
what if the only witness hearing the shot was a dog
What if the only expert saying there's something in the attic is a dog.
After human experts six times already provided their "evidence" there's nothing up there.
Addington case was solved by a dog.
-
Care to cite cases where they have supposedly been wrong?
McCann case- no cadaver
Jersey- no cadaver
Unless of course you count failures such as that as 'successes'.
But that would be so dishonest.
-
McCann case- no cadaver
Jersey- no cadaver
Unless of course you count failures such as that as 'successes'.
But that would be so dishonest.
lol, the dogs would not have been needed in 5a had there been a body for all and sundry to find would they? The dogs have not yet been proven incorrect in the McCann case. The forensics did not rule Madeleine catagorically in or out. As an ongoing case, you cannot state that the dogs were wrong.
As for Jersey, I take it you are not aware that bones had been previously found in the location of the item that contained 1.6% collagen but which had been binned by workman prior to laying concrete?
-
McCann case- no cadaver
Jersey- no cadaver
Unless of course you count failures such as that as 'successes'.
But that would be so dishonest.
Though there were human remains in Jersey.
By the end of the excavations and investigations at Haut de la Garenne in July 2008,[4] police had sifted over 150 tonnes of earth. 65 human milk teeth were found, coming from between 10 to 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.[9]
-
Many cases cited here http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/
Ive never doubted the dogs ability to recover victims...thats why they are called EVRD dogs
Wheers your evidnce to support your statement that the dogs have never been wrong...you seem to be making things up
-
McCann case- no cadaver
Jersey- no cadaver
Unless of course you count failures such as that as 'successes'.
But that would be so dishonest.
And that you are not aware that there is a new enquiry due to start in relation to HDLG?
-
Care to cite cases where they have supposedly been wrong?
you made a statement which you cannot support ....now you are trying to worm your way out of it
-
Though there were human remains in Jersey.
So far as I know there were human remains including teeth in some of the places he alerted, but not in others. The latter should be seen as false alerts in any rational counting.
-
And that you are not aware that there is a new enquiry due to start in relation to HDLG?
Much like the two new investigations replacing the original one in PdL.
Makes no difference to the dogs putative findings.
-
Ive never doubted the dogs ability to recover victims...thats why they are called EVRD dogs
Wheers your evidnce to support your statement that the dogs have never been wrong...you seem to be making things up
They are not just there to recover victims, they are there to detect if there has ever been a body or body part in a location.
Not in the habit of making things up thanks. Now please cite cases where the dogs have supposedly been incorrect like I asked you to do
-
Much like the two new investigations replacing the original one in PdL.
Makes no difference to the dogs putative findings.
As the situations in both cases stand you cannot prove that Eddie was wrong in Jersey or in PDL.
-
As the situations in both cases stand you cannot prove that Eddie was wrong in Jersey or in PDL.
For your information...when it comes to providing evidence..its not up to the court to prove the dogs are wrong...its the other way round...no wonder you have everything wrong
-
Much like the two new investigations replacing the original one in PdL.
Makes no difference to the dogs putative findings.
both new investigations in pdl are ignoring the dogs alerts
-
You said they have never been wrong and have been unable to suply evidence to support the statement...
As for the dogs being wrong..cuddle cat ..first pass no response...second ...alert...one of them is wrong...take your pick...doesn't matter
Where's your evidence...
Twaddle Dave, Martin knows his dogs have never been wrong and you have been unable to cite one case where they have allegedly been wrong.
Eddie was not wrong re cuddle cat. You obviously missed my post from earlier.
The reason Martin put cuddle cat in the cupboard is explained below.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7317/11400715705_9cab893500_b.jpg)
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/01/20/30870/indiana-bones-cadaver-dog-severed-limbs-hollywood/
I shall leave you to digest the above as I am having an early one so will bid you a good night.
-
As the situations in both cases stand you cannot prove that Eddie was wrong in Jersey or in PDL.
There is no requirement on me or anyone to 'prove' that a dog alert was 'wrong'. The only requirement is forensic support for any contention that the alert was for more than blood or an error.
-
Twaddle Dave, Martin knows his dpgs have never been wrong and you have been unable to cite one case where they have allegedly been wrong.
Eddie was not wrong re cuddle cat. You obviously missed my post from earlier.
The reason Martin put cuddle cat in the cupboard is explained below.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7317/11400715705_9cab893500_b.jpg)
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/01/20/30870/indiana-bones-cadaver-dog-severed-limbs-hollywood/
I shall leave you digest the above as I am having an early one so will bid you a good night.
As I said...its not for anyone to have to prove the dogs wrong...the dogs are the ones who are SUPPOSED to be supplying the convincing evidence...the fact that you expect me to have to prove the dogs wrong shows how weak their intelligence is...
and how weak your is
-
lol, the dogs would not have been needed in 5a had there been a body for all and sundry to find would they?
Yes, had Smithman desisted of carrying away an inert little girl in the streets of PDL.
-
There is no requirement on me or anyone to 'prove' that a dog alert was 'wrong'. The only requirement is forensic support for any contention that the alert was for more than blood or an error.
This is not a court of law, it is an internet forum and we are discussing the issue of the cadaver dog's alerts in relation to Madeleine McCann
If you take up a position on the subject then you must support it ... you cannot take the stance that you do not 'need' to do so
( Well you can, I suppose ... but it makes for p*ss poor debate )
-
On 02 Aug why was Eddie not deployed in the garden?
-
On 02 Aug why was Eddie not deployed in the garden?
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
-
On 02 Aug why was Eddie not deployed in the garden?
You mean in the garden of the villa ? Perhaps there was no sign of soil having been moved.
Sorry Redbloddom, you know more than I do. 8((()*/
-
You mean in the garden of the villa ? Perhaps there was no sign of soil having been moved.
Sorry Redbloddom, you know more than I do. 8((()*/
No, Anne, I didn't know, I just searched for "garden" in the mccannpjfiles.co.uk against mr grimes report
@)(++(*
-
No, Anne, I didn't know, I just searched for "garden" in the mccannpjfiles.co.uk against mr grimes report
@)(++(*
Actually I meant that, I wish everyone on this forum would be as rigorous as your are. ?{)(**
-
Actually I meant that, I wish everyone on this forum would be as rigorous as your are. ?{)(**
Oh ok, thank you
8)-)))
-
You mean in the garden of the villa ? Perhaps there was no sign of soil having been moved.
Sorry Redbloddom, you know more than I do. 8((()*/
True, at the date of the 02 Aug search there had been no report of soil moved or anything like that.
But look at what police did to the garden of another villa on 4th and 5th Aug (where also there was no supporting report of soil moved) they spent two days clearing excavating and probing the entire grounds with rods and evrd
-
True, at the date of the 02 Aug search there had been no report of soil moved or anything like that.
But look at what police did to the garden of another villa on 4th and 5th Aug (where also there was no supporting report of soil moved) they spent two days clearing excavating and probing the entire grounds with rods and evrd
Though they were told two months before that Smithman wasn't the owner of that villa.
-
The dogs had never been wrong ever.....where have you got that from
I don't see how anyone can make that claim. What if a dog was sent - say for instance - into a field to search and missed something buried there and didn't alert. How could his handler possibly know he had missed whatever it was. Surely he would just assume that with no alert - nothing was there? But he would be wrong and whatever it was could possibly remain hidden there forever.
IMO it's not possible to say with 100 per cent certainty that the dogs never made mistakes.
-
I don't see how anyone can make that claim. What if a dog was sent - say for instance - into a field to search and missed something buried there and didn't alert. How could his handler possibly know he had missed whatever it was. Surely he would just assume that with no alert - nothing was there? But he would be wrong and whatever it was could possibly remain hidden there forever.
IMO it's not possible to say with 100 per cent certainty that the dogs never made mistakes.
This is why "professional" dogs have to be check very regularly and the team handler/dog as well. At the first false alert, they're recycled in another function.
-
This is why "professional" dogs have to be check very regularly and the team handler/dog as well. At the first false alert, they're recycled in another function.
EXACTLY.
People have no idea about the training of these dogs, its constantly ongoing it has to be.
For me they are 100 percent accurate regardless of what people want to believe. The two dogs used at the time, highly trained and very expensive to use.
But of course pointless in saying this lol, as we get told they were useless and smelt pork, nappies etc.
SOMETHING happened in that apartment without a doubt the dog was very anxious to get in there, so could scent something from the door onwards.....until he found the source.
-
EXACTLY.
People have no idea about the training of these dogs, its constantly ongoing it has to be.
For me they are 100 percent accurate regardless of what people want to believe. The two dogs used at the time, highly trained and very expensive to use.
But of course pointless in saying this lol, as we get told they were useless and smelt pork, nappies etc.
SOMETHING happened in that apartment without a doubt the dog was very anxious to get in there, so could scent something from the door onwards.....until he found the source.
You can think what you like...that's just your opinion....
I prefer to believe what Grime says...and he doesn't say they are 100% accurate
-
You can think what you like...that's just your opinion....
I prefer to believe what Grime says...and he doesn't say they are 100% accurate
However, what the dogs indicated could of course be correct.
-
cadaver scent contamination could have been transferred from another source;;;;;;; many people entered the appartment including criminal investigators.
-
cadaver scent contamination could have been transferred from another source;;;;;;; many people entered the appartment including criminal investigators.
Same goes for the Renault which was driven by at least one PJ officer before it was tested.
-
Same goes for the Renault which was driven by at least one PJ officer before it was tested.
Now do you have any evidence/proof that any member of the PJ investigating Madeleine's disappearance, and who went to the apartment, had recent contact with a cadaver ?
Or is that purely wishful thinking ?
-
investigators and forensic scientists are probably sure that come in contact with cadavers...but i dont know if in this case had taken all the necessary measures for protection ( gloves, protective outfit etc) during the search in the appartment......does anyone know;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
-
investigators and forensic scientists are probably sure that come in contact with cadavers...but i dont know if in this case had taken all the necessary measures for protection ( gloves, protective outfit etc) during the search in the appartment......does anyone know;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
We also have to consider the 'claim' that kate mccann came into contact with 6 bodies prior to PDL, and subsequently denied.
Now did gerry mccann say to the effect that nobody knows now what is the truth or lies with the information out there in the media.
-
The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.
It is evident that the Portuguese changed tactics following the introduction of the cadaver dogs into the equation. In the following article Kate explains how they were effectively tricked into allowing their possessions and the car hire to be submitted to forensic examination.
Ricardo Paiva (Portuguese Police liaison officer) played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, giving me his spiel about the dogs. “These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,” he said.
“Two hundred cases and they’ve never failed.” I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them than I did.
Could the police have been so naive?
(http://i.imgur.com/xOOGtWl.jpg)
Anguish ... Kate, with Cuddle Cat, and Gerry in tearful appeal for help days after disappearance.
KATE McCann tells today how she wrecked a bed as she kicked out in rage after the first day of the shambolic police hunt for her abducted daughter Madeleine.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3569557/Kate-McCann-I-smashed-bed-in-rage-at-cops.html
The accuracy of the dogs was sold to the portuguese police by the british, why should they doubt the reports that were presented to them?
The Media had a regal feast bashing the portuguese for not taking the offer of UK dogs for the searches (at the time it was searching dogs that we have plenty and with lots of prizes national and international), later on they diminish the EVRD dogs that were initially announced as top of the world.
Alleging that the recovery of the material was badly conducted is bogus. PT Scientific Police has a very intensive theoretical and practical training in College and on the field - never less than 6 years. In any case if you read the report, if the contamination of the material was true, it points out to have occurred during the lab analysis.
The PT President of the Forensic National Lab was in UK and left quite unimpressed with his colleagues.
Saying the police believed the dogs may be true, because that's what they were told by their british counterparts, but is that a reason to undermine their work?
More telling than the PT PJ using the dogs's indications in their investigation was the complete lack of response from the parents.
How can the father of a missing child respond "Ask the dogs" to a journalist?! How can he be so unconcerned for the possibility that his child could have died? In my opinion, only if he knew what had happened.
-
Its called "seeking the truth". It is annoying to see untruths posted and accepted on these types of forums...you just have to step in and correct people..its human nature
Acknowledging the existence of positive alerts and refusing to accept that they are of no more significance in the investigation than had they not existed at all is not an "untruth which needs correcting."
What seems transparent from the rigorous "Truth- Seekers and Steppers- in to Correct People" is, imo, the need to deflect any notion of possible Cadaver , Child Neglect and Culpability away from the McCanns...........It is insidious, manipulative and in my view, not really honest in claiming to be an exercise in reasoning.
-
Anyone who has watched the unedited videos of the dog searches knows that the dogs were manipulated by their handler.
This was Martin Grime's first job as a self employed dog handler so it was in his own interests to make a hit.
Using these videos he then went on to land The Jersey Job at a smacking great £93,000 Fee. And we all know what happened there.
-
Anyone who has watched the unedited videos of the dog searches knows that the dogs were manipulated by their handler.
This was Martin Grime's first job as a self employed dog handler so it was in his own interests to make a hit.
Using these videos he then went on to land The Jersey Job at a smacking great £93,000 Fee. And we all know what happened there.
Dear oh dear.
More misleading propaganda.
-
This thread is pointless it just goes on and on.
They are accurate
They are not accurate
They smelt pork
People walked about with the stench of death on their clothes
The handler made the dog bark at the McCanns car
It goes on and on.
What about the clothing? Only Mrs McCanns and the clothing of the child were alerted by the dog.
Did that mean that the child had been close to a dead body then before wearing the Tshirt?
Did that mean that the child had been close to a dead body then when playing with cuddle cat.
IF it was transference from Mrs McCann touching lots of dead patients before her holiday, how come the dog didnt indicate to the twins clothing or Mr McCann as Mrs McCann touched them too didnt she.
The exercise is pointless.
-
Now do you have any evidence/proof that any member of the PJ investigating Madeleine's disappearance, and who went to the apartment, had recent contact with a cadaver ?
Or is that purely wishful thinking ?
no evidence either way so it is certainly a possibility...in my opinion a very strong possibility...
-
no evidence either way so it is certainly a possibility...in my opinion a very strong possibility...
There are some professions where people are far more likely to come into contact with cadaverscent than the general public - and police officers come into that category IMO.
-
Acknowledging the existence of positive alerts and refusing to accept that they are of no more significance in the investigation than had they not existed at all is not an "untruth which needs correcting."
What seems transparent from the rigorous "Truth- Seekers and Steppers- in to Correct People" is, imo, the need to deflect any notion of possible Cadaver , Child Neglect and Culpability away from the McCanns...........It is insidious, manipulative and in my view, not really honest in claiming to be an exercise in reasoning.
First...if there were no dog alerts...it would be a possibility that maddie died in the appt...bringing in the dogs adds nothing as Grime has not told us how reliable these alerts are...Im not interested what posters on this forum imagine...its what Grime says that counts..
secondly if posters are going to post their opinions as fact...ie the dogs have never made a false alert.. now that is dishonest ......then it is right to challenge such a statement..
You must understand that posters can have genuine opinions based on the evidence. in my opinion the mccanns were not neglectful and were certainly not culpable
-
EXACTLY.
People have no idea about the training of these dogs, its constantly ongoing it has to be.
For me they are 100 percent accurate regardless of what people want to believe. The two dogs used at the time, highly trained and very expensive to use.
But of course pointless in saying this lol, as we get told they were useless and smelt pork, nappies etc.
SOMETHING happened in that apartment without a doubt the dog was very anxious to get in there, so could scent something from the door onwards.....until he found the source.
Well in one of the apartments (the villa?) the dogs got very excited - one kept going round a bed with his nose to the floor and the other was very interested in what was behind a piece of furniture and kept going back to it. Both dogs had to be constantly called away. At the end of the video Grime explained that a scrap of food had been found under the bed and a ball behind the piece of furniture. So it's not just the odours they were trained to find which got these highly trained dogs excited. They are still dogs at the end of the day - not perfectly programmed robots.
-
Cadaver scent on a piece of clothing does NOT incriminate the individual who owns that piece of clothing.
-
Well in one of the apartments (the villa?) the dogs got very excited - one kept going round a bed with his nose to the floor and the other was very interested in what was behind a piece of furniture and kept going back to it. Both dogs had to be constantly called away. At the end of the video Grime explained that a scrap of food had been found under the bed and a ball behind the piece of furniture. So it's not just the odours they were trained to find which got these highly trained dogs excited. They are still dogs at the end of the day - not perfectly programmed robots.
Did the dogs alert, Benice ? And have you a link for that, please ?
-
Did the dogs alert, Benice ? And have you a link for that, please ?
It's on one of Grime's videos Anne. No the dogs didn't alert. I was just pointing out that because the dogs got excited, that didn't necessarily mean they had got a whiff of cadaverscent or blood and couldn't wait to get to it. Other smells got them excited too.
-
It's on one of Grime's videos Anne. No the dogs didn't alert. I was just pointing out that because the dogs got excited, that didn't necessarily mean they had got a whiff of cadaverscent or blood and couldn't wait to get to it. Other smells got them excited too.
In Mr Grime's report, he only mentions that in one of the flats the dog (Eddie) was interested in a garbage bin, that seemed to have some pork meat inside, but the dog didn't alert. This is the important point.
As you know dogs lose time in places where VOCs from various origins are close to each other, because it takes him time to discriminate between the compounds.
There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response.
Vol 9 pp. 2473 to 2483
-
EXACTLY.
People have no idea about the training of these dogs, its constantly ongoing it has to be.
For me they are 100 percent accurate regardless of what people want to believe. The two dogs used at the time, highly trained and very expensive to use.
But of course pointless in saying this lol, as we get told they were useless and smelt pork, nappies etc.
SOMETHING happened in that apartment without a doubt the dog was very anxious to get in there, so could scent something from the door onwards.....until he found the source.
If they are 100% accurate then why - (during his search of the villa) - didn't Eddie alert to the cadaverscent on those same items of clothing - that he later alerted to after they were removed from the villa and transferred to the gym?
Surely missing all of them completely in the villa - as he did - would constitute a definite 'fail'.
-
If they are 100% accurate then why - (during his search of the villa) - didn't Eddie alert to the cadaverscent on those same items of clothing - that he later alerted to after they were removed from the villa and transferred to the gym?
Surely missing all of them completely in the villa - as he did - would constitute a definite 'fail'.
No-one believes me but the answer IMO is that Eddie's alert in the villa was to one of the neat folded piles of clothing on the dresser in the living area.
The same clothes that were signalled later at Portimao (from the living area box).
IMO the cat was never signalled.
-
If they are 100% accurate then why - (during his search of the villa) - didn't Eddie alert to the cadaverscent on those same items of clothing - that he later alerted to after they were removed from the villa and transferred to the gym?
Surely missing all of them completely in the villa - as he did - would constitute a definite 'fail'.
Contaminated clothes in the middle of uncontaminated ones don't originate a scent cone. This is why the clothes were deployed in the garage.
Passing near something without alerting doesn't necessarily eliminate a dog in tests. What does is alerting falsely.
-
No-one believes me but the answer IMO is that Eddie's alert in the villa was to one of the neat folded piles of clothing on the dresser in the living area.
The same clothes that were signalled later at Portimao (from the living area box).
IMO the cat was never signalled.
See posts 373/274 here
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1619.270
There were no clothes there, it was a load of files/papers IMO
-
Anyone who has watched the unedited videos of the dog searches knows that the dogs were manipulated by their handler.
This was Martin Grime's first job as a self employed dog handler so it was in his own interests to make a hit.
Using these videos he then went on to land The Jersey Job at a smacking great £93,000 Fee. And we all know what happened there.
Its a wonder that Mr Grme would deliberately manipulate the dogs whllst beng videoed for all the world to see
@)(++(*
BTW please note PDL wasnt his first job as a self employed handler, rather his last job whllst working for South Yorkshire police, it is in his statement, which can be found in the files. So please dont repeat that falsehood and infer he fraudulently made the dogs alert, that would be absolutely stupid and of no value to him or his reputation or portfolio
As for costs in Jersey, he was there for nearly five months, so the fees did add up, nothing wrong with that, the whole investigation cost over 20 million, drop in the ocean for such an important element of it!
-
Its a wonder that Mr Grme would deliberately manipulate the dogs whllst beng videoed for all the world to see
@)(++(*
BTW please note PDL wasnt his first job as a self employed handler, rather his last job whllst working for South Yorkshire police, it is in his statement, which can be found in the files. So please dont repeat that falsehood and infer he fraudulently made the dogs alert, that would be absolutely stupid and of no value to him or his reputation or portfolio
As for costs in Jersey, he was there for nearly five months, so the fees did add up, nothing wrong with that, the whole investigation cost over 20 million, drop in the ocean for such an important element of it!
Wrong. Martin Grime was on retirement leave when he went to PdL.
Five months and £93,000 to find a coconut shell. Good work if you can get it.
-
Wrong. Martin Grime was on retirement leave when he went to PdL.
I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
He went to PDL as an employee of SYP, not self employed
Do you think he was moonlighting on his holiday?
@)(++(*
Perhaps you have his bank account statements though that prove the PJ paid him rather than SYP
-
Wrong. Martin Grime was on retirement leave when he went to PdL.
Five months and £93,000 to find a coconut shell. Good work if you can get it.
I'm unsure if that's conclusively proved.
But I think the inference is perfectly reasonable.
ETA: No quarrel with the second part of your post: true!
-
Wrong. Martin Grime was on retirement leave when he went to PdL.
Five months and £93,000 to find a coconut shell. Good work if you can get it.
More propaganda? Oh well, enjoy
-
Contaminated clothes in the middle of uncontaminated ones don't originate a scent cone. This is why the clothes were deployed in the garage.
Passing near something without alerting doesn't necessarily eliminate a dog in tests. What does is alerting falsely.
I disagree. If Eddie could detect odour standing outside the closed door of a car which was coming from inside the car - he should have had no difficulty detecting odour from clothing which may have been in drawers in the villa - drawers which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be as securely closed as car doors are. Car doors have rubber seals on them to ensure no water can get in.
He failed to alert to any clothing in the villa. The same clothing which it was later claimed had got cadavescent on them. Fact.
-
I disagree. If Eddie could detect odour standing outside the closed door of a car which was coming from inside the car - he should have had no difficulty detecting odour from clothing which may have been in drawers in the villa - drawers which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be as securely closed as car doors are. Car doors have rubber seals on them to ensure no water can get in.
He failed to alert to any clothing in the villa. The same clothing which it was later claimed had got cadavescent on them. Fact.
Maybe they were in the washing machine
Those doors have such strong seals dont they
Jon Corner did tell us in Panorama didnt he that the PJ took clothes out of the washng machine
A possiblity to explain it? You with such an open mind on them all should agree
>@@(*&)
-
I disagree. If Eddie could detect odour standing outside the closed door of a car which was coming from inside the car - he should have had no difficulty detecting odour from clothing which may have been in drawers in the villa - drawers which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be as securely closed as car doors are. Car doors have rubber seals on them to ensure no water can get in.
He failed to alert to any clothing in the villa. The same clothing which it was later claimed had got cadavescent on them. Fact.
Grime was quizzed about cross-contamination in his rogatory interview.
He replied that where any object with a death scent comes into contact with another object or surface, cross-contamination is immediate!
Why, then, oh why, did he brazenly ignore the principle?
-
I'm unsure if that's conclusively proved.
But I think the inference is perfectly reasonable.
ETA: No quarrel with the second part of your post: true!
No, not true, false
Many remains were found including bones and teeth, and undoubtedly remnant scent with no physical evidence as well, these are the facts, repeating the coconut canard is just embarrassing and pointless
But do enjoy your false groundhog day too
-
More propaganda? Oh well, enjoy
?{)(**
-
No, not true, false
Many remains were found including bones and teeth, and undoubtedly remnant scent with no physical evidence as well, these are the facts, repeating the coconut canard is just embarrassing and pointless
But do enjoy your false groundhog day too
Do trolls enjoy to troll around ? If so, then it's ok.
-
I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
He went to PDL as an employee of SYP, not self employed
Do you think he was moonlighting on his holiday?
@)(++(*
Perhaps you have his bank account statements though that prove the PJ paid him rather than SYP
So South Yorkshire Police got the fees, did they. Funny that they didn't charge anything like that which was quoted for the use of Eddie and Keela in Portugal.
-
I'm unsure if that's conclusively proved.
But I think the inference is perfectly reasonable.
ETA: No quarrel with the second part of your post: true!
See Red's post above. "I am a Retired Police Officer."
-
Do trolls enjoy to troll around ? If so, then it's ok.
Cant stand falsities peddled as fact, mistakenly is ok, deliberately its not
-
See Red's post above. "I am a Retired Police Officer."
Yes he was when he said it in 2008!
@)(++(*
Youre best actually reading whole of posts and links
-
So South Yorkshire Police got the fees, did they. Funny that they didn't charge anything like that which was quoted for the use of Eddie and Keela in Portugal.
Martin Grime as an independent in Jersey charged less in daily fees than SYP charged the PJ for PDL, so wrong again
Eta
Oh and yes they must have as they were the force deployng the dogs at the time! Its all there in black and white, not your accusatory grey!
-
Martin Grime as an independent in Jersey charged less in daily fees than SYP charged the PJ for PDL, so wrong again
You didn't answer my question. Did SYP get the fees from Portugal?
-
You didn't answer my question. Did SYP get the fees from Portugal?
This is called backtracking and slithering. You made the claim to begin with, you prove they didnt.
In fact, provide any credible link to show MG was working freelance in PDL.
Bet you cant, but its ok you may have been misled.
Eta
Or mistaken
8**8:/:
-
Its a wonder that Mr Grme would deliberately manipulate the dogs whllst beng videoed for all the world to see
@)(++(*
BTW please note PDL wasnt his first job as a self employed handler, rather his last job whllst working for South Yorkshire police, it is in his statement, which can be found in the files. So please dont repeat that falsehood and infer he fraudulently made the dogs alert, that would be absolutely stupid and of no value to him or his reputation or portfolio
As for costs in Jersey, he was there for nearly five months, so the fees did add up, nothing wrong with that, the whole investigation cost over 20 million, drop in the ocean for such an important element of it!
8@??)(
They really can't get anything right, can they? ?8)@)-) Martin had not even decided if he was going to retire from SYP at the point he was in PDL. He was still considering his options. And you are spot on re Jersey too, in fact once it was clear he was going to be there for longer than originally thought, he offered to discount the daily rates but his offer was turned down.
-
Maybe they were in the washing machine
Those doors have such strong seals dont they
Jon Corner did tell us in Panorama didnt he that the PJ took clothes out of the washng machine
A possiblity to explain it? You with such an open mind on them all should agree
>@@(*&)
But the seal on the washing machine door should not have prevented an alert Red. It didn't prevent an alert at the car. There was only one key fob in the car, but there were several items of clothing which were alledgedly contaminated in the villa - even if they were in the washing m/c.
Was there a PJ list of the clothing taken from the washing machine do you know? Just curious?
-
But the seal on the washing machine door should not have prevented an alert Red. It didn't prevent an alert at the car. There was only one key fob in the car, but there were several items of clothing which were alledgedly contaminated in the villa - even if they were in the washing m/c.
Was there a PJ list of the clothing taken from the washing machine do you know? Just curious?
A seal on a washing machine needs to be water tight, so it's a given that it would be airtight. Any seal on a washing machine would also be made from impermeable materials so the dogs would not have detected anything through it. How do you think test materials are transported for testing cadaver dogs? In non permeable containers or they would be alerting all over the place whilst in transit.
Dogs are trained not to scent impermeable membranes. When providing training samples for dogs such odours have to be contained, in gas impermeable containers. This has presented problems in that trainee dogs might begin to identify the scent of container (neoprene type etc)
By the same token an EVRD which responds to human trace odours only will not identify odour of impermeable membrane around a body So, with right 'wrapping' or containment, dogs can miss cadaver as not trained to scent impermeable membrane.
-
But the seal on the washing machine door should not have prevented an alert Red. It didn't prevent an alert at the car. There was only one key fob in the car, but there were several items of clothing which were alledgedly contaminated in the villa - even if they were in the washing m/c.
Was there a PJ list of the clothing taken from the washing machine do you know? Just curious?
I'm afraid that, in order to understand (as you don't trust Prof Harrison), you can't bypass studying the physics of VOCs and airflow in a closed space.
-
Wrong. Martin Grime was on retirement leave when he went to PdL.
Five months and £93,000 to find a coconut shell. Good work if you can get it.
The EVRD alert indications were confirmed by intrusive archaeological excavation and sieving. A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human.
Predominantly the human remains have been recovered from cellars 3, 4 and 5 which historically were one large classroom.
Enquiries at this time are suggestive that the human remains were deposited in this area and covered with top soil in a deliberate act of concealment. The deposition could only have taken place during a period of time when the floor had been removed. Research into the historical renovation of the property suggests that the floor above cellars 3, 4 &5 was taken up in the late 60’s early 70’s.
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/02/no-body-remains.html (http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/02/no-body-remains.html)
4. What "evidence" are you able to provide to "prove" how a piece of child's skull containing 1.6% collagen (only found in Mammals) can turn into a piece of Coconut?
Kind Regards.
VFC. (End)
-
By the same token an EVRD which responds to human trace odours only will not identify odour of impermeable membrane around a body So, with right 'wrapping' or containment, dogs can miss cadaver as not trained to scent impermeable membrane.
Yes, and it happened. In a case in France the dogs ignored a corpse wrapped this way. But the same dogs would pick up the scent of free invisible VOCs lodged into some porous material.
-
Yes, and it happened. In a case in France the dogs ignored a corpse wrapped this way. But the same dogs would pick up the scent of free invisible VOCs lodged into some porous material.
8((()*/
The straws are slipping from the grasps of those who do not believe the dogs at a fast rate of knots. would not hurt them to do a bit of research and then they would not post such foolish surmises about washing machine seals...
-
A seal on a washing machine needs to be water tight, so it's a given that it would be airtight. Any seal on a washing machine would also be made from impermeable materials so the dogs would not have detected anything through it. How do you think test materials are transported for testing cadaver dogs? In non permeable containers or they would be alerting all over the place whilst in transit.
Dogs are trained not to scent impermeable membranes. When providing training samples for dogs such odours have to be contained, in gas impermeable containers. This has presented problems in that trainee dogs might begin to identify the scent of container (neoprene type etc)
By the same token an EVRD which responds to human trace odours only will not identify odour of impermeable membrane around a body So, with right 'wrapping' or containment, dogs can miss cadaver as not trained to scent impermeable membrane.
I don't think a washing machine is airtight once the door is closed. There are the openings at the top where the powder and conditioner are placed which prevent that - and from where odours would escape - and be detected by a dog.
-
I don't think a washing machine is airtight once the door is closed. There are the openings at the top where the powder and conditioner are placed which prevent that - and from where odours would escape - and be detected by a dog.
Eau de Desperation anyone?
-
Eau de Desperation anyone?
But Benice is correct.
Odour from inside a washing machine will come out the detergent drawer.
-
Eau de Desperation anyone?
Make mine with a stiff gin ............cheers Serendipity 8(0(*
-
8((()*/
The straws are slipping from the grasps of those who do not believe the dogs at a fast rate of knots. would not hurt them to do a bit of research and then they would not post such foolish surmises about washing machine seals...
Disinformation and mocking have prevailed concerning the dogs, though, in the McCann case, they provided the only plausible solution to the disappearance of Madeleine. A solution impossible to prove but possible to work out without dramatisation. Unfortunately as it supposed the McCann were likely liars, this solution was banned as books in Inquisition times : Fahrenheit 451.
Nevertheless this situation draws a comic picture of this case.
-
I don't think a washing machine is airtight once the door is closed. There are the openings at the top where the powder and conditioner are placed which prevent that - and from where odours would escape - and be detected by a dog.
Interesting, Benice. Have you a link to such an experience ?
-
Eau de Desperation anyone?
the only edd I see is coming from you...making up the fact that the dogs have never been wrong..thats desperation...and dishonest
grime has said alerts have no evidential value,,,SY have shown the dogs alerts have no value as they admit maddie may still be alive...amarals lawyer agreeing with them......mcccanns no longer suspects...SY looking for an abductor...no ..no desperation from me...just a smug feeling knowing that what I have been saying for the last six years is true
-
the only edd I see is coming from you...making up the fact that the dogs have never been wrong..thats desperation...and dishonest
grime has said alerts have no evidential value,,,SY have shown the dogs alerts have no value as they admit maddie may still be alive...amarals lawyer agreeing with them......mcccanns no longer suspects...SY looking for an abductor...no ..no desperation from me...just a smug feeling knowing that what I have been saying for the last six years is true
You forget one thing mate: the British police did not ask to become involved in this case. They were instructed, by a PM who made his view on the case perfectly clear.
That's two facts to support my view, which is two more than you have to support your view.
-
You forget one thing mate: the British police did not ask to become involved in this case. They were instructed, by a PM who made his view on the case perfectly clear.
That's two facts to support my view, which is two more than you have to support your view.
What a ridiculous statement...SY never "ask" to get involved in a case...and thats the best you have..I've justed posted several facts to support my case...you basically have none
-
What a ridiculous statement...SY never "ask" to get involved in a case...and thats the best you have..I've justed posted several facts to support my case...you basically have none
You posted no facts. Facts come from the Met's official statements, not from what they say in TV interviews.
-
Eddie DOES signal the clothing in the villa lounge.
You can see what Eddie sniffs in the lounge just before he alerts it is CLOTHING not the cat.
IMO
-
Has The Portuguese Judiciary accepted the dog alerts as evidence? If not, why not?
-
8@??)(
They really can't get anything right, can they? ?8)@)-) Martin had not even decided if he was going to retire from SYP at the point he was in PDL. He was still considering his options. And you are spot on re Jersey too, in fact once it was clear he was going to be there for longer than originally thought, he offered to discount the daily rates but his offer was turned down.
Thanks Serendipity for that.
8((()*/
Think I will give some washing machne posts a miss, LOL, not sure if it was a goodidea to bring it up now, hilarious!
-
You posted no facts. Facts come from the Met's official statements, not from what they say in TV interviews.
Real desperation...this is what I posted...
grime has said alerts have no evidential value,,,SY have shown the dogs alerts have no value as they admit maddie may still be alive...amarals lawyer agreeing with them......mcccanns no longer suspects...SY looking for an abductor...no ..no desperation from me...just a smug feeling knowing that what I have been saying for the last six years is true
So grimes official statement is not a fact
redwood saying maddie may still be alive is not a fact
Amarals lawyer saying maddie may still be alive is not a fact
Redwood saying that the mccanns are not suspects is not a fact
sY saying they are looking for an abductor is not a fact..
You really , really are showing your desperation
-
Eddie DOES signal the clothing in the villa lounge.
You can see what Eddie sniffs in the lounge just before he alerts it is CLOTHING not the cat.
IMO
It was not clothing Pegasus as I posted earier tonight with link to video, it was a bunch of files, did you not see my post? here number 436?
-
Thanks Serendipity for that.
8((()*/
Think I will give some washing machne posts a miss, LOL, not sure if it was a goodidea to bring it up now, hilarious!
Yes stick to discussing the washing machine so you don't have to face the fact that grime said the evrd dogs alerts have no evidential value
-
Has The Portuguese Judiciary accepted the dog alerts as evidence? If not, why not?
because grime told them they weren't evidence
-
Yes stick to discussing the washing machine so you don't have to face the fact that grime said the evrd dogs alerts have no evidential value
Oh dear LOL
Still havent had the link to where he said that
Oh, I know its because it doesnt exist, maybe you can magic it into existence,...somehow.....
-
Real desperation...this is what I posted...
grime has said alerts have no evidential value,,,SY have shown the dogs alerts have no value as they admit maddie may still be alive...amarals lawyer agreeing with them......mcccanns no longer suspects...SY looking for an abductor...no ..no desperation from me...just a smug feeling knowing that what I have been saying for the last six years is true
So grimes official statement is not a fact
redwood saying maddie may still be alive is not a fact
Amarals lawyer saying maddie may still be alive is not a fact
Redwood saying that the mccanns are not suspects is not a fact
sY saying they are looking for an abductor is not a fact..
You really , really are showing your desperation
typical taking two and two and making five, oh dear, such poor deductive skills
-
Oh dear LOL
Still havent had the link to where he said that
Oh, I know its because it doesnt exist, maybe you can magic it into existence,...somehow.....
Don't you remember what YOU posted..link and all..
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
there you are..the evrd alerts were not corroborated and therefore have no evidential value...according to grime
-
typical taking two and two and making five, oh dear, such poor deductive skills
Now you show your desperation..attacking the poster
-
Don't you remember what YOU posted..link and all..
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
there you are..the evrd alerts were not corroborated and therefore have no evidential value...according to grime
I didnt forget anythng, try again and this time dont cherry pick but include my whole post, thanks so much in advance
-
Real desperation...this is what I posted...
grime has said alerts have no evidential value,,,SY have shown the dogs alerts have no value as they admit maddie may still be alive...amarals lawyer agreeing with them......mcccanns no longer suspects...SY looking for an abductor...no ..no desperation from me...just a smug feeling knowing that what I have been saying for the last six years is true
So grimes official statement is not a fact
redwood saying maddie may still be alive is not a fact
Amarals lawyer saying maddie may still be alive is not a fact
Redwood saying that the mccanns are not suspects is not a fact
sY saying they are looking for an abductor is not a fact..
You really , really are showing your desperation
Exasperation, davel. Different thing entirely. You guys can believe the hype of our tabloid reporters if you want to, that's up to you. Even after the police themselves spoke last week to tell everyone to calm down you still fall for tabloid articles this week. That's desperate.
-
Exasperation, davel. Different thing entirely. You guys can believe the hype of our tabloid reporters if you want to, that's up to you. Even after the police spoke last week to tell everyone to calm down you still fall for tabloid articles this week. That's desperate.
more desperation...all these quotes were made LIVE on tv...don't read the tabloids
-
I didnt forget anythng, try again and this time dont cherry pick but include my whole post, thanks so much in advance
more desperation..first you say grime didn't say it..then I show you that you posted it
-
Now you show your desperation..attacking the poster
Well, apart from the obvious pot kettle black et al,and the customary dummy spitting, dont worry dear, not desperate about anything at all, Im not the one writhng away frustrated here am I ? Why dont you go away and search all your posts and count up the percentage of whch includes a derogatory remark or insult, its quite high you know....you would be better off being more civil
@)(++(*
-
more desperation...all these quotes were made LIVE on tv...don't read the tabloids
Of course you don't @)(++(*
-
Well, apart from the obvious pot kettle black et al,and the customary dummy spitting, dont worry dear, not desperate about anything at all, Im not the one writhng away frustrated here am I ? Why dont you go away and search all your posts and count up the percentage of whch includes a derogatory remark or insult, its quite high you know....you would be better off being more civil
@)(++(*
Once more trying to avoid debate by attacking the poster..
-
First...if there were no dog alerts...it would be a possibility that maddie died in the appt...bringing in the dogs adds nothing as Grime has not told us how reliable these alerts are...Im not interested what posters on this forum imagine...its what Grime says that counts..
secondly if posters are going to post their opinions as fact...ie the dogs have never made a false alert.. now that is dishonest ......then it is right to challenge such a statement..
You must understand that posters can have genuine opinions based on the evidence. in my opinion the mccanns were not neglectful and were certainly not culpable
Thank you for the considered response ........
.......but my point was that trying to pass off insidious propaganda as an exercise in logic and reasoning is imo dishonest, cynical and manipulative.........as is the emotional blackmail of the bleatings about "empathy with Kate & Gerry"
(with the conclusion invariably inferred that were it not for intellectual or moral shortcomings we would all see the light! )
Anyway, the thread has moved on apace and this is off topic, but I appreciate your points.
-
more desperation..first you say grime didn't say it..then I show you that you posted it
You must be so very confused, I didnt post anything of the sort, you did, still awaiting your link to back up your claim
-
Of course you don't @)(++(*
you probably think everyone reads the tabloids
-
Once more trying to avoid debate by attacking the poster..
not avoiding, challenging and you are not exactly coming up trumps anywhere here
-
not avoiding, challenging and you are not exactly coming up trumps anywhere here
I've just supplied the link and the quote you reckoned I would have to magic into existence
-
Once more trying to avoid debate by attacking the poster..
Why do you say that davel, when everyone on here knows only too well, how often you attack other posters and get away with it.
-
I've just supplied the link and the quote you reckoned I would have to magic into existence
You must not understand then
Thats OK
YOUR claim is that Grime said the dogs are valueless evidentially...it is patently untrue...and yes something you seem to have magicked into reality because you "reckon so"
My post 321 here proves it and it was in this very same thread but you still continue to twist and put words into Grimes mouth, do read, explains it all nicely
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1513.msg129429#msg129429
-
You must not understand then
Thats OK
YOUR claim is that Grime said the dogs are valueless evidentially...is is patently untrue...and yes something you seem to have magicked into reality because you "reckon so"
My post 321 here proves it and it was in this very same thread but you still continue to twist and put words into Grimes mouth, do read, explains it all nicely
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1513.msg129429#msg129429
Grime said without corroboration the evrd alerts had no evidential value...are you saying grime did not say that?
-
you probably think everyone reads the tabloids
You comment on the articles and then develop arguments based on the content of the articles, so I assume you have read the articles.
But the crucial point is the arguments are based on the articles, not on the official words of the police (Portuguese and British).
-
You comment on the articles and then develop arguments based on the content of the articles, so I assume you have read the articles.
But the crucial point is the arguments are based on the articles, not on the official words of the police (Portuguese and British).
I don't read the tabloids full stop...my arguments are based on written statements..grime......and live television statements redwood, amarals lawyer
-
Now the backtracking and altering of previous claims starts....
Zzzz You wont mind if I give this waste of time a miss will you? Thanks. But you carry on.
not at all..so now you accept that grime said the evrd alerts have no evidential value
-
I don't read the tabloids full stop...my arguments are based on written statements..grime......and live television statements redwood, amarals lawyer
TV statements! 8)-)))
Apart from those Mr Redwood (and GA's lawyer) naturally agreed with the AG in 2008, who also said evidence was insufficient to determine the nature of the crime.
-
TV statements! 8)-)))
Apart from those Mr Redwood (and GA's lawyer) naturally agreed with the AG in 2008, who also said evidence was insufficient to determine the nature of the crime.
They both went further than the AG report and stated that maddie may still be alive
-
They both went further than the AG report and stated that maddie may still be alive
Nope, it's not an inch further.
-
Nope, it's not an inch further.
so none of them believe the dogs
-
so none of them believe the dogs
As you know it wasn't the reliability of the dogs that was the issue, it was the forensic results obtained afterwards. Nobody claims they were conclusive.
-
What evidence is there that we know about which shows Madeleine is still alive? NONE
What evidence is there that we know about which shows Madeleine is dead? NONE
What clues are there that we know about which show Madeleine may still be alive? NONE
What clues are there that we know about which show Madeleine may be dead? THE DOGS
Conclusion.....probably dead.
Redwood's conclusion........wishful thinking!
I would agree with every one apart from the dogs... the alerts signify nothing
-
Eddie made 10 alerts, and here 5 of those alerts are shown to all give the same intelligence.
(A) The alert in the south bedroom. This was just after Eddie sniffed at the surface of the first shelf above the floor, and therefore indicates that something was on that shelf. From PJ photos we know there was a pile of clothes on that shelf that night. Therefore, something was hidden under that pile.
(B) The 3 alerts to clothing items at Portimao. These indicate simply that those three items were in that pile and happened by chance to be the items in most direct contact. These 3 alerts do not incriminate the adult and child who happened to own those clothes. Who owns those clothes is irrelevant, because they were not wearing them.
(C) The alert attributed by handler to the toy in the villa dresser. This was actually an alert not to the toy but to the same 3 items of clothing, in a neatly folded pile which Eddie sniffs just before alerting.
So those 5 alerts all say just one simple thing = that something was concealed that night under that pile on that shelf.
Just intelligence, and opinion, not evidence.
-
Just out of interest.....why do you agree with the conclusion Madeleine is probably dead, if in your opinion, there is no evidence or clues to point in this direction?
depends what you mean by evidence...the fact that maddie disappeared and has not been seen again is evidence that points to the fact that she may well have died..im sure tthe mccanns believe this too....however there is no proof that she is dead so there is a slim chance she is still alive
-
Is that your attempt at a clear answer?
perfectly clear to me
-
I think the problem you have is not with the dogs but the location the dogs alerted. If the dogs only alerted 100 yards away then maybe you would be less inclined to dismiss their findings. The problem with the dogs alerting in the apartment and on clothing is that in order for you to blindly back the McCanns you have no choice but to dismiss the dogs previous good work because otherwise there are too many unanswered questions.
Precisely. Understand the enemy. They have no choice, given 10 EVRD alerts all directly associated, but to rubbish all EVRDs period. Point out a stunning success, like the dog who solved the recent attic case single handed, and they have no option but to ignore or rubbish it.
-
The dogs have no evidential value without corroborating evidence. There is a missing child with no evidence that she was abducted by a stranger. Is that then not evidence in itself?
-
The dogs have no evidential value without corroborating evidence. There is a missing child with no evidence that she was abducted by a stranger. Is that then not evidence in itself?
You make an excellent point amanda
A three year old child is reported missing by her parents
A dog who is trained to bark when he detects the scent of death, barks in the apartment where the missing child was last seen alive ( by the parents who reported her missing )
The child is never seen again
There is simply no reason to presume the dog was mistaken ... nothing in this story suggests that he was
-
Quote from: Benice on February 18, 2014, 06:52:52 PM
I don't think a washing machine is airtight once the door is closed. There are the openings at the top where the powder and conditioner are placed which prevent that - and from where odours would escape - and be detected by a dog.
Eau de Desperation anyone?
Are you being serious? IIRC your claim was that as the washing machine door was airtight no cadaver odour could escape from the washing machine. That is clearly not true as cadaverscent could escape from the drawer at the top of the washing machine into the surrounding air. Isn't it one of the 'sceptics' arguments that in the car park Eddie could detect odour in the air from several metres away from the Renault? Doesn't Grime say that cadaverscent drifts?
You can sneer as much as you like - it doesn't alter the fact that you were wrong.
Neither does it alter the fact that Eddie failed to alert to several articles of clothing in the villa which were later claimed to have cadaverscent on them.
-
You make an excellent point amanda
A three year old child is reported missing by her parents
A dog who is trained to bark when he detects the scent of death, barks in the apartment where the missing child was last seen alive ( by the parents who reported her missing )
The child is never seen again
There is simply no reason to presume the dog was mistaken ... nothing in this story suggests that he was
I for one have never presumed that Eddie was mistaken. What I object to is the claim made that because he alerted then someone MUST have died there - when Grime makes it very clear that there are various innocent reasons why the dog would alert - and without corroborating evidence which proves a body was there - i.e. a confession maybe - or the discovery of a dead body elsewhere, then an alert on its own is not proof that a dead body was ever in that spot.
-
I for one have never presumed that Eddie was mistaken. What I object to is the claim made that because he alerted then someone MUST have died there - when Grime makes it very clear that there are various innocent reasons why the dog would alert - and without corroborating evidence which proves a body was there - i.e. a confession maybe - or the discovery of a dead body elsewhere, then an alert on its own is not proof that a dead body was ever in that spot.
A three year old child was reported missing, never to be seen again, and a dog trained to bark at the smell of death barked in the flat where she was last seen alive
Unless evidence is found that the little girl did not die in that apartment, then it is simply not possible to dismiss the indications given by the dog
*edited to add*
As far as we know, the dog may have been accurate in his alerts and the missing child did die in the apartment
There is nothing, by way of evidence ( apart from her parents' assertions ) to say she did not
-
A three year old child was reported missing, never to be seen again, and a dog trained to bark at the smell of death barked in the flat where she was last seen alive
Unless evidence is found that the little girl did not die in that apartment, then it is simply not possible to dismiss the indications given by the dog
*edited to add*
As far as we know, the dog may have been accurate in his alerts and the missing child did die in the apartment
There is nothing, by way of evidence ( apart from her parents' assertions ) to say she did not
BUT thats the sticking point isnt it, how can they assert that really? She could have died.
We get told perhaps the abductor was in the apartment all the time GM was there, and afterwards. Perhaps the Abductor had held of the child and covered her mouth, and she suffocated. The perb is panicking what to do, so stays there to gather thoughts hiding in the McCanns bedroom/wardrobe perhaps, then waits and takes the child with him to give more time to get away....WHO KNOWS.
What I do find very strange is the dog alerts later...
Cadaver: 'Piece of Madeleine’s clothing'
Cadaver: 'Stuffed toy'
Cadaver: 'Two pieces of clothing or Kate Healy McCann'
Cadaver/Biological vestiges: 'Luggage area and car keys of the McCanns'
Why Kates clothing, and why a piece of the childs clothing. Were they in a bag with the childs body? or was the body laid close to these pieces of clothing.
Mrs McCann might not have worn these 2 articles of clothing and she would not have needed to wash the article of Maddys if it was clean.
ALL very odd.......
I can kind of get around the apartment, but not the clothing or the car.
-
I think the problem you have is not with the dogs but the location the dogs alerted. If the dogs only alerted 100 yards away then maybe you would be less inclined to dismiss their findings. The problem with the dogs alerting in the apartment and on clothing is that in order for you to blindly back the McCanns you have no choice but to dismiss the dogs previous good work because otherwise there are too many unanswered questions.
First you and others accuse me of blindly backing the mccanns ...thats quite insulting....
I am well educated with a very strong scientific background. In science evidence is very important and part of scientific education is the assessment of evidence.
I back the mccanns because of the evidence
I dont accept it is proved that Maddie died in the apartment because of the evidence
i accept the dogs are incredible tools..but...your interpretaion of the findings are plain wrong......and grime agrees with me
try following the evidence
It doesnt matter that a few ill informed posters on here dont understand the evidence and have everything back to front...the people who matter...the professionals, including grime...agree with me
-
I am well educated with a very strong scientific background.
It's strange that only one side of the debate constantly bigs up their intelligence, education and training.
-
You make an excellent point amanda
A three year old child is reported missing by her parents
A dog who is trained to bark when he detects the scent of death, barks in the apartment where the missing child was last seen alive ( by the parents who reported her missing )
The child is never seen again
There is simply no reason to presume the dog was mistaken ... nothing in this story suggests that he was
no one is presuming anything..we are listening to the expert..grime..he knows a lot more than you
-
It's strange that only one side of the debate constantly bigs up their intelligence, education and training.
I am answering a post where I am being accused of blindly following the mcccanns...simply giving a guide to my background to show that I am used to working with evidence
-
I am answering a post where I am being accused of blindly following the mcccanns...simply giving a guide to my background to show that I am used to working with evidence
Just a general observation.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
-
It's strange that only one side of the debate constantly bigs up their intelligence, education and training.
Even this statement isn't true...do you remember Stephen telling us he teaches chemistry, and statistics ...then trying to catch me out by asking me a chemistry question and making a bit of a fool of himself
-
Just a general observation.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
This is why I bow to Grimes superior knowledge re the dogs...problem is that some posters on here think they know more than Grime
-
Just a general observation.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
this is a line from the article you quoted..
2.The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.
So all the claims on this forum by icad..Colombo..red..re the dogs should be treated as not reliable...couldn't agree more
-
this is a line from the article you quoted..
2.The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.
So all the claims on this forum by icad..Colombo..red..re the dogs should be treated as not reliable...couldn't agree more
No as long as contributors use information from the files or other reliable sources to back up their claims that is fine.
-
No as long as contributors use information from the files or other reliable sources to back up their claims that is fine.
But not when they are giving their opinions....such as claims re the dogs alerts when Grime has said no evidential value without corroborating evidence
-
But not when they are giving their opinions....such as claims re the dogs alerts when Grime has said no evidential value without corroborating evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)
The quote is not out of context your claim is false..even red accepted it last night..
alerts without corroboration have no evidential value,,...the evrd alerts were not corroborated..you just cant accept the truth
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)
Actually, just realised, it is not so much the out of context it is the fact that you state that Grime says the alerts have no evidential value and imply that he means the alerts are false.
-
Actually, just realised, it is not so much the out of context it is the fact that you state that Grime says the alerts have no evidential value and imply that he means the alerts are false.
I think if you have only just realised something after all this time you are wasting your time and mine...I am implying nothing...I am repeating almost verbatim what grime says..grime does not use the words false...useless..etc and neither do I..Im off now this is a complete waste of time...I believe grime...the expert..you can believe Colombo and the like...it really doesn't matter..your views and mine are unimportant
-
I think if you have only just realised something after all this time you are wasting your time and mine...I am implying nothing...I am repeating almost verbatim what grime says..grime does not use the words false...useless..etc and neither do I..Im off now this is a complete waste of time...I believe grime...the expert..you can believe Colombo and the like...it really doesn't matter..your views and mine are unimportant
So do you think the alerts were false?
-
So do you think the alerts were false?
I have no idea..
-
I think if you have only just realised something after all this time you are wasting your time and mine...I am implying nothing...I am repeating almost verbatim what grime says..grime does not use the words false...useless..etc and neither do I..Im off now this is a complete waste of time...I believe grime...the expert..you can believe Colombo and the like...it really doesn't matter..your views and mine are unimportant
I believe Grime, I understand that evidential value means the value placed on the evidence in a court of law.
-
I believe Grime, I understand that evidential value means the value placed on the evidence in a court of law.
and without corroboration the value is ....NONE
-
and without corroboration the value is ....NONE
WRONG.
It has investigative value in the sense that it can and must be used to direct the investigation in the search for factual evidence that a death occurred inside the apartment.
-
Mr Grime won`t be called to "give evidence" should the case come to Court then?
Or might he be called instead to give his expert opinion.
If so, it suggests that expert opinion without corroboration is of some value to the investigation........not dismissed as "none"........otherwise what would be the point of calling him?
-
WRONG.
It has investigative value in the sense that it can and must be used to direct the investigation in the search for factual evidence that a death occurred inside the apartment.
I couldn't agree more...that's what happened...the dog alerts and then any evidence from the site of the alert is collected...no evidence was found
-
Mr Grime won`t be called to "give evidence" should the case come to Court then?
Or might he be called instead to give his expert opinion.
If so, it suggests that expert opinion without corroboration is of some value to the investigation........not dismissed as "none"........otherwise what would be the point of calling him?
You use the words "if" and "might" re calling Grime as a witness..as I have already said...what could he add to his statement....the alerts have no evidential value without corroboration...who is going to call him
-
Anyone who has watched the unedited videos of the dog searches knows that the dogs were manipulated by their handler.
This was Martin Grime's first job as a self employed dog handler so it was in his own interests to make a hit.
Using these videos he then went on to land The Jersey Job at a smacking great £93,000 Fee. And we all know what happened there.
The oft used cliché, " under the full glare of the world`s media" only applies to the Drs McCanns`every move being under scrutiny and therefore, of necessity, totally innocent, then?
A professional was up for all sorts of blatant shenanigans in public, though!
There is far more to the deployment and handling of the dogs than we understand.
-
You use the words "if" and "might" re calling Grime as a witness..as I have already said...what could he add to his statement....the alerts have no evidential value without corroboration...who is going to call him
Read John`s post 312 regarding Mr Grime`s possible witness status.
-
The oft used cliché, " under the full glare of the world`s media" only applies to the Drs McCanns`every move being under scrutiny and therefore, of necessity, totally innocent, then?
A professional was up for all sorts of blatant shenanigans in public, though!
There is far more to the deployment and handling of the dogs than we understand.
This deployment was certainly not put in the bin as lacking of corroboration.
On one side there's the observation of a professional dog/handler team, under the scrutiny of the top expert in missing persons, whose interest was accuracy in order to discover what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Opposed to it, there's the word of two doctors whose interest was to keep away any suspicion of involvement in what happened to their daughter.
-
You use the words "if" and "might" re calling Grime as a witness..as I have already said...what could he add to his statement....the alerts have no evidential value without corroboration...who is going to call him
1) Whatever any barrister might ask, clarification, confirmation, additional information, et al
2) A barrister obviously
!
-
Read John`s post 312 regarding Mr Grime`s possible witness status.
This is Johns post....
We asked Mr Grime to comment on the various accusations but he stated that as the case was still a live ongoing investigation that it would be inappropriate for him to do so. It could well be that he will have to give evidence at some stage if the case comes to trial.
For me its just Johns imagination
-
Davel, at what point did I claim the dog alerts to be evidence?
It seems that I touched a raw nerve when discussing the location of the dog alerts which sent you flying off into.....evidence, evidence, evidence mode whilst hiding behind your scientific background.
1. Does cadaver scent exist?
2. Does a cadaver have to physically be present for cadaver scent to exist?
3. If cross contamination occurs does this mean a cadaver is physically present?
4. Is it possible for a dog to smell cadaver scent without a cadaver being present?
5. If a cadaver dog smells cadaver scent without a cadaver being present and there is no corroborating evidence such as a cadaver does this mean the scent does not exist or just that it cannot be proven to exist in a court of law?
6. If there was no cadaver scent at all in the apartment and it was only discovered 100 yards away next to a cuddle cat would we be having this same debate?
You didn't touch any raw nerves...I agree with all your points apart from 6 which is hypothetical so I don't know the answer....
I am only concerned with evidence...not idle gossip
-
1) Whatever any barrister might ask, clarification, confirmation, additional information, et al
2) A barrister obviously
!
As Grime has already made it clear in his statements what the dogs alerts mean...I cant see what he can add...which side would call him...I am NOT surprised that amaral has called no canine expert in his defence in the libel trial as I think the evidence is against him
-
As Grime has already made it clear in his statements what the dogs alerts mean...I cant see what he can add...which side would call him...I am NOT surprised that amaral has called no canine expert in his defence in the libel trial as I think the evidence is against him
irrelevancy struck out
It doesnt matter what you can or cant see, (pls reread point 1 of my post you replied to) or which side might call him, or both, he was involved in the investigation, he is an expert witness too, he will in all probability be called in any trial, as others have been over years, thats all there is to it
To suggest people are not called as witnesses because they already have given a statement, is just plain daft
@)(++(*
anyone might thnk you dont want him called
>@@(*&)
eta
As for anythng being Johns imagination, you didnt make it clear whether that referred to any trial happening or Grime being called to the stand!
-
WRONG.
It has investigative value in the sense that it can and must be used to direct the investigation in the search for factual evidence that a death occurred inside the apartment.
No it's not.
Blood from Paul Gordon's shaving cut is as irrelevant as Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car to the question of what happened to Madeleine.
Relevant (because it casts a question mark over all other canine reactions in the investigation) is Eddie's error with cuddle-cat.
-
No it's not.
Blood from Paul Gordon's shaving cut is as irrelevant as Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car to the question of what happened to Madeleine.
Relevant (because it casts a question mark over all other canine reactions in the investigation) is Eddie's error with cuddle-cat.
I thought the FSS found no blood
Did they find Gordons dna? Is there any reference in the FSS report to Gordon? No! Are you assuming presuming and asserting at will that the dna components found in one of the samples behnd the sofa (confirmed components of Madeleine Mccanns dna profile btw) must have been from his blood rather than anyone elses?
Why mislead like this? You dont even know he went anywhere near the back of the sofa!! So your assertions/arguments are based on?
>@@(*&)
-
irrelevancy struck out
It doesnt matter what you can or cant see, (pls reread point 1 of my post you replied to) or which side might call him, or both, he was involved in the investigation, he is an expert witness too, he will in all probability be called in any trial, as others have been over years, thats all there is to it
To suggest people are not called as witnesses because they already have given a statement, is just plain daft
@)(++(*
anyone might thnk you dont want him called
>@@(*&)
eta
As for anythng being Johns imagination, you didnt make it clear whether that referred to any trial happening or Grime being called to the stand!
You do seem very angry....
Of course witnesses are called to give evidence so they can be cross examined. I feel.having read grimes statements he would be no use for the prosecution as he has already stated the evrd alerts have no evidential value in this case,
As for johns imagination...both really...I don't see any possibility of a trial....unless of course someone was to beat a confession out of kate
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
You do seem very angry....
Of course witnesses are called to give evidence so they can be cross examined. I feel.having read grimes statements he would be no use for the prosecution as he has already stated the evrd alerts have no evidential value in this case,
As for johns imagination...both really...I don't see any possibility of a trial....unless of course someone was to beat a confession out of kate
@)(++(* @)(++(*
1) so just your feeling, not very empirical scientific or logical let alone remotely realistic is it? Lol
All evidence in any case has to be thrashed out by lawyers, that includes in this case, the dog alerts, a major element of the investigation
2) resorting to silly now, so obviously lost any argument you had, which was none anyway and btw any possible future trial neednt be against the Mccanns! Obvious which way you were thinking
8((()*/
-
1) so just your feeling, not very empirical scientific or logical let alone remotely realistic is it? Lol
All evidence in any case has to be thrashed out by lawyers, that includes in this case, the dog alerts, a major element of the investigation
2) resorting to silly now, so obviously lost any argument you had, which was none anyway and btw any possible future trial neednt be against the Mccanns! Obvious which way you were thinking
8((()*/
Dog alerts were irrelevant ...
-
Dog alerts were irrelevant ...
If you say so
8)--))
Poor poor wishful thinking
There is no such thng as an irrelevant dog alert
Show me one case where Eddie alerted and a missing person turned up alive, you cant, can you, they all turned up dead or still missing! This is the crux of the matter here not piles of posts saying he alerted to bad breath etc and all that totally ridiculous nonsense!
Not to mention Kate Mccanns ridiculous take in her book! Libellous and when the time comes I hope Grime sues her but I guess hes above all that!
@)(++(*
-
Dog alerts were irrelevant ...
A dog who was trained to bark when he detected the scent of death barked in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
It was an indication that the missing child may have died there
Had the missing child subsequently been found, or evidence had emerged that explained her disappearance ( other than her having died in the apartment where she was last seen ) THEN it would possible to say the dog alerts were 'irrelevant'
Since that is not the case, the dog alerts remain very relevant ... and that's why we continue to debate the subject, isn't it ?
-
A dog who was trained to bark when he detected the scent of death barked in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
It was an indication that the missing child may have died there
Had the missing child subsequently been found, or evidence had emerged that explained her disappearance ( other than her having died in the apartment where she was last seen ) THEN it would possible to say the dog alerts were 'irrelevant'
Since that is not the case, the dog alerts remain very relevant ... and that's why we continue to debate the subject, isn't it ?
Even if there were no dog alerts it is possible that a child may have died there...so in that sense it is irrelavent
-
A dog who was trained to bark when he detected the scent of death barked in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
It was an indication that the missing child may have died there
Had the missing child subsequently been found, or evidence had emerged that explained her disappearance ( other than her having died in the apartment where she was last seen ) THEN it would possible to say the dog alerts were 'irrelevant'
Since that is not the case, the dog alerts remain very relevant ... and that's why we continue to debate the subject, isn't it ?
+1
precisely,the very fact that some people deny this possibility is nothing short of apologist IMO
-
If you say so
8)--))
Poor poor wishful thinking
There is no such thng as an irrelevant dog alert
Show me one case where Eddie alerted and a missing person turned up alive, you cant, can you, they all turned up dead or still missing! This is the crux of the matter here not piles of posts saying he alerted to bad breath etc and all that totally ridiculous nonsense!
Not to mention Kate Mccanns ridiculous take in her book! Libellous and when the time comes I hope Grime sues her but I guess hes above all that!
@)(++(*
So you now think you are judge and jury and have judged kate's comment libellous...perhaps you would like to post the comment so we can all have an OPINION
-
Even if there were no dog alerts it is possible that a child may have died there...so in that sense it is irrelavent
OMG! That has to be the stupidest post of the year, well done!!
-
+1
precisely,the very fact that some people deny this possibility is nothing short of apologist IMO
I disagree of course because I am sticking with the evidence...does anyone REALLY know what the alerts mean....
-
So you now think you are judge and jury and have judged kate's comment libellous...perhaps you would like to post the comment so we can all have an OPINION
read the book!
8)--))
yes they ARE libellous, sorry about that
-
I disagree of course because I am sticking with the evidence...does anyone REALLY know what the alerts mean....
Grime knows so get over it
-
OMG! That has to be the stupidest post of the year, well done!!
Well first there is no such word as stupidest...the superlative of stupid is ..most stupid..which perhaps would be a better description of your posts than mine
If you understood the post it makes absolutely perfect sense...perhaps the logic is more than a little beyond you
-
Grime knows so get over it
no he doesn't..he isn't sure...thats why he has to say the alerts are "suggestive" rather than be definite...you probably don't understand this post either
-
Well first there is no such word as stupidest...the superlative of stupid is ..most stupid..which perhaps would be a better description of your posts than mine
If you understood the post it makes absolutely perfect sense...perhaps the logic is more than a little beyond you
Its not my problem that you have a problem with cadaver dog alerting to the last place a missing child was seen, all yours
8((()*/
-
read the book!
8)--))
yes they ARE libellous, sorry about that
Only in your opinion which you are posting as fact...against forum rules...what evidence do you have to support that statement
-
Its not my problem that you have a problem with cadaver dog alerting to the last place a missing child was seen, all yours
8((()*/
The problem is that this dog alerted to a coconut
-
no he doesn't..he isn't sure...thats why he has to say the alerts are "suggestive" rather than be definite...you probably don't understand this post either
Of course I dont understand as I am a member of the neanderthal primitive uneducated class of beings you are so highly over, silly
Ps suggestive is quite strong btw!Its a bit different to "maybe maybe not" !
-
Only in your opinion which you are posting as fact...against forum rules...what evidence do you have to support that statement
So you havent read Madeleine? By Kate Mccann? Why not? She does state the dogs only react to please their master amongst other lies
8((()*/
its only couple of quid off kindle, do download it, its an eye opener
-
Even if there were no dog alerts it is possible that a child may have died there...so in that sense it is irrelavent
Well, no
Had there been no alert by a cadaver dog in the apartment where the missing child was last seen, then there would be no indication that she may have died there, and no basis on which to present it as a rational possibly
As it is, of course, a cadaver dog did alert in the apartment where the missing child was last seen, and that does indicate that the missing child may have died there
It is the cadaver dog's alerts that make it reasonable to address the possibility that the missing child never left Apartment 5A alive
-
The problem is that this dog alerted to a coconut
Ah, lets have the evidence then since you as a scientist would know all about that
Will look back in an hour or so for your "evidence", needs must, toodles for now
-
So you havent read Madeleine? By Kate Mccann? Why not? She does state the dogs only react to please their master amongst other lies
8((()*/
its only couple of quid off kindle, do download it, its an eye opener
Judging by your previous "quotes" from the book I can pretty much guarantee that your post is innaccurate
-
Well, no
Had there been no alert by a cadaver dog in the apartment where the missing child was last seen, then there would be no indication that she may have died there, and no basis on which to present it as a rational possibly
As it is, of course, a cadaver dog did alert in the apartment where the missing child was last seen, and that does indicate that the missing child may have died there
It is the cadaver dog's alerts that make it reasonable to address the possibility that the missing child never left Apartment 5A alive
Sorry you are totally wrong...without an alert a possible death in the apartment would still be a rational possibility...
-
Judging by your previous "quotes" from the book I can pretty much guarantee that your post is innaccurate
You cant guarantee anything at all your flakey track record proves it, I have never quoted anything which is untrue, deal with it, your ignorance of facts is no excuse, see you soon
8**8:/:
-
Sorry you are totally wrong...without an alert a possible death in the apartment would still be a rational possibility...
Let me put it another way
We have an indication ( in the form of a cadaver dog alert ) that the missing child may have died in the apartment
It is the cadaver dog alert that 'directly' lends to the possibility of the missing child's death having occured in apartment 5 A
-
You cant guarantee anything at all your flakey track record proves it, I have never quoted anything which is untrue, deal with it, your ignorance of facts is no excuse, see you soon
8**8:/:
Yes you have...you quoted that kate said she did not search because it was too dark and cold..you eventually retracted it when I proved you wrong
-
Let me put it another way
We have an indication ( in the form of a cadaver dog alert ) that the missing child may have died in the apartment
It is the cadaver dog alert that 'directly' lends to the possibility of the missing child's death having occured in apartment 5 A
You can put it any way you want..the fact is...and it is a FACT...that death in the apt is a rational possibility without an alert...I'm right and you are wrong to say the opposite
-
You can put it any way you want..the fact is...and it is a FACT...that death in the apt is a rational possibility without an alert...I'm right and you are wrong to say the opposite
I'll try once more ( on the assumption that you genuinely do not see the point I am making )
Let's say the cadaver dog was deployed and did not alert in apartment 5A
That would have been an indication ... not absolute proof ... but an indication that the missing child did not die there
Agreed ?
In this case, however, the cadaver dog did alert in apartment 5A indicating that the missing child may have died there
You seem to be suggesting that cadavor dog alerts are not indicative or suggestive in any way, which is an insupportable position for you take
-
I'll try once more ( on the assumption that you genuinely do not see the point I am making )
Let's say the cadaver dog was deployed and did not alert in apartment 5A
That would have been an indication ... not absolute proof ... but an indication that the missing child did not die there
Agreed ?
In this case, however, the cadaver dog did alert in apartment 5A indicating that the missing child may have died there
You seem to be suggesting that cadavor dog alerts are not indicative or suggestive in any way, which is an insupportable position for you take
Didn't say they weren't suggestive...thats all they are ...according to grime..suggestive
Even with no alert it is a possibility that there had been a death in the apt...your suggestion that without an alert a death is not a rational possibility is just ridiculous...
So ...With or without the alert...there may have been a death in the apt
-
When somebody dies, in Portugal, a coroner is called, not a cadaver dog.
No coroner was ever called in the G5A, according to the register books.
-
Didn't say they weren't suggestive...thats all they are ...according to grime..suggestive
Even with no alert it is a possibility that there had been a death in the apt...your suggestion that without an alert a death is not a rational possibility is just ridiculous...
So ...With or without the alert...there may have been a death in the apt
I do my best to avoid your hair-splitters' conventions, so I'll bow out now
To conclude, though, I believe there is a possibility that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment
My belief in that possibility is not random or obscure. It is based on the fact that a cadaver dog alerted there
Had the dog not barked in apartment 5A then there would be no indication of the child having died there and there would be no supportable reason for suggesting she might have
That's the difference you seem to be confused about
There is a 'reason' to believe the missing child may have died in apartment 5A
... that reason, is the dog
-
I do my best to avoid your hair-splitters' conventions, so I'll bow out now
To conclude, though, I believe there is a possibility that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment
My belief in that possibility is not random or obscure. It is based on the fact that a cadaver dog alerted there
Had the dog not barked in apartment 5A then there would be no indication of the child having died there and there would be no supportable reason for suggesting she might have
That's the difference you seem to be confused about
There is a 'reason' to believe the missing child may have died in apartment 5A
... that reason, is the dog
So if death in the apartment was not a reasonable possibility without an alert...why bring in...a great expense...a cadaver dog
-
What the Portuguese paid for those dogs was certainly the best expense of all. Thanks to the dogs, death in the flat became a possibility and challenged the omnipresent life through abduction. The MP generously offered the protagonists to convince the authorities that their dogma was the truth. They rejected that opportunity. At least now the MP has death in the flat as a possible reason why the abduction obsession led nowhere.
-
So if death in the apartment was not a reasonable possibility without an alert...why bring in...a great expense...a cadaver dog
Apart from continually twisting what posters have said,(particularly icabs in this instance and i dont blame hm at all for bowing out of false time wasting worthless rubbish) you lose arguments and move the goalposts, ,which is pretty cringeworthy at best, that is a ridiculous question! Ask mark harrison and the uk police why a cadaver dog was suggested to the portuguese, it was recommended in order to find possible remnant scent of a death in flat 5a
Think they know more and are more experienced than you dont you think? Lol
In fact your question is a totally screwed up and irrational one as you twisted yourself too much this time, 0/10
jesus, but is what ive come to expect from apologists of the mitchell school, "anything found or not found' will have an innocent explanation" he said lol
@)(++(*
paid pr man who will lie as its allowed in his professin
-
What the Portuguese paid for those dogs was certainly the best expense of all. Thanks to the dogs, death in the flat became a possibility and challenged the omnipresent life through abduction. The MP generously offered the protagonists to convince the authorities that their dogma was the truth. They rejected that opportunity. At least now the MP has death in the flat as a possible reason why the abduction obsession led nowhere.
Indeed
-
I'm confused Davel.
You acknowledge that cadaver scent exists but then dismiss the dogs findings because along with the cadaver scent there is no corroboration. That is an argument at this moment in time for a court of law. Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody as yet has been charged with any offence in relation to a dead body. Neither has anyone on this forum suggested that anybody should be charged with any offence in relation to a dead body. They merely argue it's an indication that a dead body was present although who's dead body it is yet to be determined but given that a young child disappeared in the same apartment it's A BLOODY BIG CLUE!
On this basis.......what the hell are you still banging on about evidence for?
Any future trial which he doesnt think will happen anyway
@)(++(*
where mr grime will not be called as a witness
Cos he already gave a statement and in davels feelings he doesnt think he can add anything to it
Eta but of course a cadaver dog alerting to the last place a missing child was seen means nothing for so many so many excuses made why it cant have been to a body of that child, quite sad really if you think about it
and of course no one can come up with any example of eddie the cadaver dog having alerted anywhere for a missing person and them turning up alive! Pretty slam dunk to me
mind you, though, perhaps people did turn up and testify they had bled, stunk of BO, bitten and spat out their their nails, lost their teeth, left condoms on the floor of 5a, had a miscarriage, or hid pork chops in the wardrobe
Might be in the hidden parts of the PJ files
>@@(*&)
Lets not forget the Mccanns tried to trash the dogs for some reason from day one and forever with lies and libel, hmmm, why would anyone want to do that
-
Not only that Red. ITV tried it too >@@(*&)
-
Not only that Red. ITV tried it too >@@(*&)
ITV? Tried what?
I remember a radio programme which featured the mccann case and they had someone on say cadaver dogs alert to fruit cakes
-
ITV? Tried what?
I remember a radio programme which featured the mccann case and they had someone on say cadaver dogs alert to fruit cakes
Not a dog expert, a lawyer lol
@)(++(*
Fruit cakes? @)(++(*
ITV (Fiona Foster/Trevor McDonald) did a programme in which they tried to rubbish the "so-called evidence" (McDonald's words).
Two nominees for the Hall of Shame.
-
I'm confused Davel.
You acknowledge that cadaver scent exists but then dismiss the dogs findings because along with the cadaver scent there is no corroboration. That is an argument at this moment in time for a court of law. Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody as yet has been charged with any offence in relation to a dead body. Neither has anyone on this forum suggested that anybody should be charged with any offence in relation to a dead body. They merely argue it's an indication that a dead body was present although who's dead body it is yet to be determined but given that a young child disappeared in the same apartment it's A BLOODY BIG CLUE!
On this basis.......what the hell are you still banging on about evidence for?
100% wrong..you just don't understand what Grime said..the dog's alert is an indication that a cadaver MAY have been present..these are the facts and you just dont seem to understand them
-
Fruit cakes? @)(++(*
ITV (Fiona Foster/Trevor McDonald) did a programme in which they tried to rubbish the "so-called evidence" (McDonald's words).
Two nominees for the Hall of Shame.
is that the one vanessa feltz was on? Omg will have to dig hard tomorrow to find this though its probably totally buried, laters lyall
Ps yes it was the era of dissing dogs as part of thr mccanns defence!!!! sayng dogs alert to fruit cake, coconuts etc,( thats before the bad breath clipped toenails brigade lolol) idiotic paid off shameless people at best, laters
8((()*/
-
Apart from continually twisting what posters have said,(particularly icabs in this instance and i dont blame hm at all for bowing out of false time wasting worthless rubbish) you lose arguments and move the goalposts, ,which is pretty cringeworthy at best, that is a ridiculous question! Ask mark harrison and the uk police why a cadaver dog was suggested to the portuguese, it was recommended in order to find possible remnant scent of a death in flat 5a
Think they know more and are more experienced than you dont you think? Lol
In fact your question is a totally screwed up and irrational one as you twisted yourself too much this time, 0/10
jesus, but is what ive come to expect from apologists of the mitchell school, "anything found or not found' will have an innocent explanation" he said lol
@)(++(*
paid pr man who will lie as its allowed in his professin
Seems like you are not able to keep up with the debate...icad posted....
I do my best to avoid your hair-splitters' conventions, so I'll bow out now
To conclude, though, I believe there is a possibility that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment
My belief in that possibility is not random or obscure. It is based on the fact that a cadaver dog alerted there
Had the dog not barked in apartment 5A then there would be no indication of the child having died there and there would be no supportable reason for suggesting she might have
As I pointed out to icad there MUST have been reasonable suspicion of a death otherwise the dogs would not have been brought in
-
What the Portuguese paid for those dogs was certainly the best expense of all. Thanks to the dogs, death in the flat became a possibility and challenged the omnipresent life through abduction. The MP generously offered the protagonists to convince the authorities that their dogma was the truth. They rejected that opportunity. At least now the MP has death in the flat as a possible reason why the abduction obsession led nowhere.
well it seems both sy and the pj now think it was an abduction...and rightly so
-
well it seems both sy and the pj now think it was an abduction...and rightly so
Admit it davel, you and everyone else haven't a clue what they're up to >@@(*&)
Assuming they are up to something and not just stuck between a rock and a hard place (the PM's words in Parliament).
-
Admit it davel, you and everyone else haven't a clue what they're up to >@@(*&)
Assuming they are up to something and not just stuck between a rock and a hard place (the PM's words in Parliament).
None of us know in detail but we know they do not consider the parents suspects
-
None of us know in detail but we know they do not consider the parents suspects
Well we know they know the PM doesn't consider them suspects.
Everything else is news management.
-
well it seems both sy and the pj now think it was an abduction...and rightly so
Wishful thinking, politically correct, just a bit expensive but it had to look genuine.
The AG report is still the authority, though, even for the PJ... whether concealment of corpse...
-
Yes you are as you just didnt just give your "opinion" and lets not forget how many other people here youve accused of " fraud"massive pot kettle black moment hypocrite
Tara now
don't think Ive accused anyone of fraud..apart from amaral and I think hes been found guilty
-
The carefully thought out well reasoned scientifically based argument would appear to predicated on "There was an abduction".
Therefore if the woofer signaled cadaver scent it flew in the face of the predication. As the predication states by extension there was never a corpse in the apartment the woofer was in error. QED.
-
The carefully thought out well reasoned scientifically based argument would appear to predicated on "There was an abduction".
Therefore if the woofer signaled cadaver scent it flew in the face of the predication. As the predication states by extension there was never a corpse in the apartment the woofer was in error. QED.
Nope...the presence of cadaver scent in the apartment..or more accurately on items in the apartment does not mean there was ever a corpse in the apartment...
-
Nope...the presence of cadaver scent in the apartment..or more accurately on items in the apartment does not mean there was ever a corpse in the apartment...
OK then Einstein I'll explain in words of one syllable. You start off the from the point that there was an abduction, which remains an unsubstantiated theory, it seems to be uncomfortable for you to have any other other postulation put forward. You will double shuffle, bend the facts, nit pick and pretend to be something you aren't in your attempts to prove you have a brain the size of a small planet while the rest of the posters are ESN. You choose to ridicule other posters in more feeble attempts to prove your own intelligence. Maybe you should behave like the adult you purport to be.
-
OK then Einstein I'll explain in words of one syllable. You start off the from the point that there was an abduction, which remains an unsubstantiated theory, it seems to be uncomfortable for you to have any other other postulation put forward. You will double shuffle, bend the facts, nit pick and pretend to be something you aren't in your attempts to prove you have a brain the size of a small planet while the rest of the posters are ESN. You choose to ridicule other posters in more feeble attempts to prove your own intelligence. Maybe you should behave like the adult you purport to be.
I actually thought you were going to add something to the debate..but no..just a personal attack. I don't have to prove anything re my intellectual ability...I think everyones level of intelligence is obvious from their posts...they are to me anyway. Maybe I do have a brain the size of a small planet and thats why you are so irritated by your own inadequacies
I am far more ridiculed than ridicule...as your post proves...but keep on attacking the poster because you sure cant attack my posts
-
I actually thought you were going to add something to the debate..but no..just a personal attack. I don't have to prove anything re my intellectual ability...I think everyones level of intelligence is obvious from their posts...they are to me anyway. Maybe I do have a brain the size of a small planet and thats why you are so irritated by your own inadequacies
I am far more ridiculed than ridicule...as your post proves...but keep on attacking the poster because you sure cant attack my posts
Keep telling yourself that! Be a cold day in hell though.................
-
Keep telling yourself that! Be a cold day in hell though.................
you made a choice to criticise me when I had said nothing to you...probabaly because the poster who was trying to ridicule me was making such a fool of herself...
I don't have to tell myself anything...people tell ME in the real world...not in this virtual world
-
This is why I bow to Grimes superior knowledge re the dogs...problem is that some posters on here think they know more than Grime
I can't let this post pass without commenting Dave. Mr Grime knows no more than any of us whether a cadaver was present in apartment 5a. The dog alerts which you have pointed out ad nauseam, are meaningless without corroboration of some sort.
It is also incorrect to state that the EVRD alerts have no evidential value. They are evidence of something, the problem is we don't know what at this stage and may never know.
Mr Grime is keeping his powder dry as he is very aware that the case is a live investigation and that he might very well be called as an expert witness at some stage. And for Dave's benefit...especially if Madeleine is found dead in or near PdL.
-
I can't let this post pass without commenting Dave. Mr Grime knows no more than any of us whether a cadaver was present in apartment 5a. The dog alerts which you have pointed out ad nauseam, are meaningless without corroboration of some sort.
They're not meaningless when combined with the documentation of the dogs training. When a trainer is in court it's the training that is examined to check it is as claimed. That's all the trainer can demonstrate, they're not scientists.
-
I can't let this post pass without commenting Dave. Mr Grime knows no more than any of us whether a cadaver was present in apartment 5a. The dog alerts which you have pointed out ad nauseam, are meaningless without corroboration of some sort.
It is also incorrect to state that the EVRD alerts have no evidential value. They are evidence of something, the problem is we don't know what at this stage and may never know.
Mr Grime is keeping his powder dry as he is very aware that the case is a live investigation and that he might very well be called as an expert witness at some stage.
Well not surprisingly I disagree...
So you think posters on here know as much as grime regarding the dogs...what a bizarre statement...whats the point in calling him as an expert witness...may as well call Colombo
As for stating the dogs alerts have no evidential value..it was grime who sated that not me...but of course grime doesn't know anymore than the posters on here anyway..
keeping his powder dry?...grime has already stated quite clearly his opinions on the alerts..
and finally..the presence of a live investigation didn't stop the lead detective writing a book on the subject...
what a pigs ear the whole thing has been made
-
I understand most things perfectly well.
I understand that you think Redwoods view is wishful thinking. I understand that you think the dog alerts are clues. I understand that you acknowledge cadaver scent exists. I understand that an alert without forensic evidence by default only leaves the cadaver scent, that you acknowledge can exist without a cadaver being present. I understand that grime saying MAY have been present is because the same dog alerts to blood (I'll skip the toenails and other such nonsense), which in areas wasn't present therefore only leaving the cadaver scent that you acknowledge exists.
I also understand that you consider Madeleine most probably dead. What I don't understand is why you are so desperate to discredit the dogs who you admit can smell cadaver scent without a cadaver being present. Your bias towards a false cadaver scent alert is flawed and makes no logical sense.
First I acknowledge the existence of cadaver scent but I didn't acknowledge its presence in the apt..it may have been there..maybe not
I have never discredited the dogs...and I have never talked of a false cadaver scent
I accept what grime says...as far as Im concerned hes the expert
-
I understand most things perfectly well.
I understand that you think Redwoods view is wishful thinking. I understand that you think the dog alerts are clues. I understand that you acknowledge cadaver scent exists. I understand that an alert without forensic evidence by default only leaves the cadaver scent, that you acknowledge can exist without a cadaver being present. I understand that grime saying MAY have been present is because the same dog alerts to blood (I'll skip the toenails and other such nonsense), which in areas wasn't present therefore only leaving the cadaver scent that you acknowledge exists.
I also understand that you consider Madeleine most probably dead. What I don't understand is why you are so desperate to discredit the dogs who you admit can smell cadaver scent without a cadaver being present. Your bias towards a false cadaver scent alert is flawed and makes no logical sense.
reading your post I don't think you have understood anything I have said
-
Well not surprisingly I disagree...
So you think posters on here know as much as grime regarding the dogs...what a bizarre statement...whats the point in calling him as an expert witness...may as well call Colombo
As for stating the dogs alerts have no evidential value..it was grime who sated that not me...but of course grime doesn't know anymore than the posters on here anyway..
keeping his powder dry?...grime has already stated quite clearly his opinions on the alerts..
and finally..the presence of a live investigation didn't stop the lead detective writing a book on the subject...
what a pigs ear the whole thing has been made
Read my post! I stated Mr Grime knows no more than any of us as to whether a cadaver lay in that apartment. As an expert witness he will testify as to the dog alerts, nothing more.
When Grime stated that the alerts had no evidential value he was referring to such in the context of Madeleine McCann. The alerts are evidence of something of course but even he doesn't know what.
Mr Grime will not respond to questions on the case as he knows very well that it might well come to court. At least isn't that why SY are ending £'millions on it?
-
Read my post! I stated Mr Grime knows no more than any of us as to whether a cadaver lay in that apartment. As an expert witness he will testify as to the dog alerts, nothing more.
When Grime stated that the alerts had no evidential value he was referring to such in the context of Madeleine McCann. The alerts are evidence of something of course but even he doesn't know what.
Mr Grime will not respond to questions on the case as he knows very well that it might well come to court. At least isn't that why SY are ending £'millions on it?
I think grime knows a lot more than some of the posters on here
I disagree about the evidential value of the alerts..in any search without corroboration the alerts have no evidential value...thats my interpretation of grime ..you have yours
why should grime respond anyway..as far as Im concerned hes already made himself clear
-
Is this the comment you are referring to Redblossom?
When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. From what I saw of the dogs’ responses, this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here.
-
Is this the comment you are referring to Redblossom?
I don't think grime could risk taking libel action for this statement...certainly in no way cut and dried
-
Is this the comment you are referring to Redblossom?
I have read Kate McCann's book but I didn't notice the accusation she made there ... thanks for highlighting it John
So Kate says that the explanation for the cadaver dog alerting in their apartment was that Mr Grime 'signalled' the dog to do so
I suppose Martin Grime might have a case for libel, right there
-
I have read Kate McCann's book but I didn't notice the accusation she made there ... thanks for highlighting it John
So Kate says that the explanation for the cadaver dog alerting in their apartment was that Mr Grime 'signalled' the dog to do so
I suppose Martin Grime might have a case for libel, right there
Nah that book is watertight. Hand built by lawyers.
But some posters here and elsewhere have clearly frequently gone much further.
-
I have read Kate McCann's book but I didn't notice the accusation she made there ... thanks for highlighting it John
So Kate says that the explanation for the cadaver dog alerting in their apartment was that Mr Grime 'signalled' the dog to do so
I suppose Martin Grime might have a case for libel, right there
Kate said...from what she saw...grime seemed to be cuing the dog...
that's not the same as saying he DID cue the dog
You may call that nitpicking...that's what lawyers do all day long
-
Nah that book is watertight. Hand built by lawyers.
But some posters here and elsewhere have clearly frequently gone much further.
you may well be right...and very sensible...other authors may wish they had been as careful
-
Nah that book is watertight. Hand built by lawyers.
But some posters here and elsewhere have clearly frequently gone much further.
You're probably right Lyall, the McCanns have had the most expensive and high-flying lawyers on the payroll for a very long time and it is unlikely a foot has been put wrong legally as a consequence ( I'm speaking of the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it )
Still an' all, it's a bit low for the McCanns to be making unfounded sneaky and snide remarks in order to besmirch a professional like Martin Grime
-
I have read Kate McCann's book but I didn't notice the accusation she made there ... thanks for highlighting it John
So Kate says that the explanation for the cadaver dog alerting in their apartment was that Mr Grime 'signalled' the dog to do so
I suppose Martin Grime might have a case for libel, right there
Funny!
Why then Grime doesn't sue the McCanns?
-
Funny!
Why then Grime doesn't sue the McCanns?
Well, Ecclesiastes 3 ( King James Version ) comes to mind
... To every thing there is a season ...
-
Well, Ecclesiastes 3 ( King James Version ) comes to mind
... To every thing there is a season ...
ah.. dream on..
-
Well, Ecclesiastes 3 ( King James Version ) comes to mind
... To every thing there is a season ...
I don't think grime would want to discuss the dogs skills...and limitations ..in a court room
-
You're probably right Lyall, the McCanns have had the most expensive and high-flying lawyers on the payroll for a very long time and it is unlikely a foot has been put wrong legally as a consequence ( I'm speaking of the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it )
Still an' all, it's a bit low for the McCanns to be making unfounded sneaky and snide remarks in order to besmirch a professional like Martin Grime
I agree but I just look at the book as the most visible sign of the reputation management campaign, and much of the book is a script for their supporters to use in the continuing struggle. The comments about Mr Grime are the perfect example (and there are numerous other examples of course).
They didn't need to go too far in their comments about Mr Grime: they knew the supporters would eagerly do that for them.
-
I agree but I just look at the book as the most visible sign of the reputation management campaign, and much of the book is a script for their supporters to use in the continuing struggle. The comments about Mr Grime are the perfect example (and there are numerous other examples of course).
I think you and others are living in an alternative world...a world in which eventually George Bush will be put on trial for the destruction of the twin towers...theres plenty of evidence
-
I agree but I just look at the book as the most visible sign of the reputation management campaign, and much of the book is a script for their supporters to use in the continuing struggle. The comments about Mr Grime are the perfect example (and there are numerous other examples of course).
You might be right, but if you are then these 'reputation managers' are getting money for old rope ... more than a few clangers were dropped in that book
-
I don't think grime would want to discuss the dogs skills...and limitations ..in a court room
It would be stupid even to think even if he can influence his dogs that he would find Kates words offensive.
Dogs are not the evidence. They are used to find the evidence. It is not Grimes job to describe or explain what his dogs find. In case they don't find the person or a dead body.. then all they find he sends to the labs.
It is then up to the labs to 'de-code' the dogs evidence..
In Madeleine's case, the de-coding proved only one thing: there is no a definite proof she died. Which means she can as well be alive. And this is exactly what SY said..
IMO the whole purpose of the dogs has been misunderstood.
-
I think you and others are living in an alternative world...a world in which eventually George Bush will be put on trial for the destruction of the twin towers...theres plenty of evidence
We are living in a different world to yours. No doubt about that at all 8((()*/
-
You might be right, but if you are then these 'reputation managers' are getting money for old rope ... more than a few clangers were dropped in that book
Yep but they appealed to the target audience, the likes of the peeps you can read reviews from on amazon (scary stuff!)
-
I stated Mr Grime knows no more than any of us as to whether a cadaver lay in that apartment. As an expert witness he will testify as to the dog alerts, nothing more.
No, Mr Grime (and Prof Harrison who was present) knows more than anyone about the origin of the VOCs that his dog immediately picked up (did that conclusion need confirmation that no pig nor sex tissues (constant suggestion of Carana) were decaying in the rear bedroom ?)
My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment. He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search.
On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent' and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.
-
Still an' all, it's a bit low for the McCanns to be making unfounded sneaky and snide remarks in order to besmirch a professional like Martin Grime
Low ? I think it's vital, Icabodcrane.
-
Kate also makes the following comment...
...despite what we had been led to believe by the PJ and the newspaper headlines – there wasn’t any such evidence. They had no proof that Madeleine was dead. All they actually had was the signal of a dog trying to please its instructor in an apartment from which Madeleine had been taken three months earlier. As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.
-
Kate also makes the following comment...
Thankyou John
I think I must go back and read Kate's book again ... she seems determined to malign Mr Grime's professional reputation, does'nt she ?
I always thought that the natural response of a parent faced with that kind of evidence ( that their child might have died while they were absent ) would be one of desperation and heartbroken bafflement, rather than accusatory denial
-
As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days.
They haven't much studied that issue.. Or were they, here also, badly advised ?
-
As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days.
They haven't much studied that issue.. Or were they, here also, badly advised ?
I think there must come a point, Anne, when heaping responsibility on 'advisors' becomes non sequitur
-
I think there must come a point, Anne, when heaping responsibility on 'advisors' becomes non sequitur
The bar has to be set very high when multifaceted victims (of an abductor, of the media, of an incompetent police force, of a book full of lies) are concerned.
-
Still trying to work out the significance of KM mentioning the 'stain' on Madeleine's pyjama top. She noticed the stain on the morning of the day Madeleine disappeared and washed the top. Why the need to wash the 'stain' out immediately. Didn't Madeleine have other pairs of pyjamas? And then she was dressed again in those same pyjamas that night (allegedly). Could the 'stain' have been excess or regurgitated medicine of some kind? If Madeleine's body were to be found the 'alleged' abductor could then be blamed if any residue was discovered on her top. This would tie in with the McCanns suggesting that the 'abductor' could have possibly drugged the twins too. Its strangely curious that Amaral believed in a 'the children were possibly drugged' scenario (by the parents) and the McCanns too were suggesting the same (but by alleged abductor) I believe there is some truth in this somewhere.
-
Still trying to work out the significance of KM mentioning the 'stain' on Madeleine's pyjama top. She noticed the stain on the morning of the day Madeleine disappeared and washed the top. Why the need to wash the 'stain' out immediately. Didn't Madeleine have other pairs of pyjamas? And then she was dressed again in those same pyjamas that night (allegedly). Could the 'stain' have been excess or regurgitated medicine of some kind? If Madeleine's body were to be found the 'alleged' abductor could then be blamed if any residue was discovered on her top. This would tie in with the McCanns suggesting that the 'abductor' could have possibly drugged the twins too. Its strangely curious that Amaral believed in a 'the children were possibly drugged' scenario (by the parents) and the McCanns too were suggesting the same (but by alleged abductor) I believe there is some truth in this somewhere.
The curiosity concerning the stain is that it was washed instead of watching Madeleine who was sailing for the first time of her life.
Unfortunately the doctors McCann never explained the abductor's modus operandi (nor checked the two kids the abductor left them).
-
Still trying to work out the significance of KM mentioning the 'stain' on Madeleine's pyjama top. She noticed the stain on the morning of the day Madeleine disappeared and washed the top. Why the need to wash the 'stain' out immediately. Didn't Madeleine have other pairs of pyjamas? And then she was dressed again in those same pyjamas that night (allegedly). Could the 'stain' have been excess or regurgitated medicine of some kind? If Madeleine's body were to be found the 'alleged' abductor could then be blamed if any residue was discovered on her top. This would tie in with the McCanns suggesting that the 'abductor' could have possibly drugged the twins too. Its strangely curious that Amaral believed in a 'the children were possibly drugged' scenario (by the parents) and the McCanns too were suggesting the same (but by alleged abductor) I believe there is some truth in this somewhere.
o
When you post, amanda, you bring us right back to basics ( we count on members like you to do that )
Yes, that 'brown stain' on Madeleine's pj's that Kate McCann thought it necessary to tell the world about IS significant .... everything mentioned, pointedly, by the McCanns that appears, at face value, to be incidental is significant
Well done you for reminding us of that
-
Significant to who exactly? Who is us?
It seems too many police teams at present have checked out the parents FIRST and have passed that FIRST step and are now working on different LEVELS..
It is not the McCanns PI working on this case anymore, it is the real police, professional of two countries..
-
Significant to who exactly? Who is us?
It seems too many police teams at present have checked out the parents FIRST and have passed that FIRST step and are now working on different LEVELS..
Well, we're not the police, are we ?
We are forum members who discuss the case as regular john and Jane Doe's ... aren't we ?
... and we, average folk, are the people that matter, when all is said and done
-
Thank you Icabodcrane...and vixte,the course of an investigation can change in an instant if new evidence is found,so I cannot see really how SY can confidently make the claim that the parents are not suspects. Everyone should be a suspect,until Madeleine's fate is finally resolved imo. That stance would be an entirely professional and correct one from ANY police force.
-
When somebody dies, in Portugal, a coroner is called, not a cadaver dog.
No coroner was ever called in the G5A, according to the register books.
How old are these flats Anne? Hardly that old that so many deaths occurred in them. Actually it is rare to die in a home, most people unless murdered die in hospitals, accidents etc outside the home.
Its POINTLESS in arguing with people with scientific backgrounds, (probably just got a scientific image on his screensaver lol).
The believe the dogs ANY DOG who is highly trained rarely makes mistakes.
Look at all the dogs used in bomb squads, drug squads, who are TRUSTED to do their job.
The dog alerted to cadaver it doesnt mean it was a child, just that someone had lain dead in the apartment at some point in time.
BEING A PARENT, whos child had just gone missing fromt he apartment, and facing this evidence from the dogs, I would be asking the police, no begging the police to find out what happened, NOT MAKING STUPID silly comments about them as the McCanns did.
AND AGAIN, the exact case they used AGAINST the dogs turned out the guy had killed his wife and the dogs were right all along lol....
-
How old are these flats Anne? Hardly that old that so many deaths occurred in them. Actually it is rare to die in a home, most people unless murdered die in hospitals, accidents etc outside the home.
Its POINTLESS in arguing with people with scientific backgrounds, (probably just got a scientific image on his screensaver lol).
The believe the dogs ANY DOG who is highly trained rarely makes mistakes.
Look at all the dogs used in bomb squads, drug squads, who are TRUSTED to do their job.
The dog alerted to cadaver it doesnt mean it was a child, just that someone had lain dead in the apartment at some point in time.
BEING A PARENT, whos child had just gone missing fromt he apartment, and facing this evidence from the dogs, I would be asking the police, no begging the police to find out what happened, NOT MAKING STUPID silly comments about them as the McCanns did.
AND AGAIN, the exact case they used AGAINST the dogs turned out the guy had killed his wife and the dogs were right all along lol....
it seems you cant grasp the basics making your opinions worthless...
the alert by the evrd dog does NOT mean that there had been a cadaver in the apt..what you are saying is untrue.....this isn't my opinion it is grimes
-
it seems you cant grasp the basics making your opinions worthless...
the alert by the evrd dog does NOT mean that there had been a cadaver in the apt..what you are saying is untrue.....this isn't my opinion it is grimes
However, you can't dismiss the possibility that Madeleine suffered a fatal accident in the apartment, can you ?
-
However, you can't dismiss the possibility that Madeleine suffered a fatal accident in the apartment, can you ?
You are trying to derail the thread...the point is that the alerts do not confirm the presence of a cadaver as Colombo imagines
-
You are trying to derail the thread...the point is that the alerts do not confirm the presence of a cadaver as Colombo imagines
I leave the derailing to you and your fellow minions.
I know the forensics were INCONCLUSIVE.
-
I leave the derailing to you and your fellow minions.
I know the forensics were INCONCLUSIVE.
inconclusive is fine...no one got convicted on inconclusivre forensics
-
I actually thought you were going to add something to the debate..but no..just a personal attack. I don't have to prove anything re my intellectual ability...I think everyones level of intelligence is obvious from their posts...they are to me anyway. Maybe I do have a brain the size of a small planet and thats why you are so irritated by your own inadequacies
I am far more ridiculed than ridicule...as your post proves...but keep on attacking the poster because you sure cant attack my posts
And you have I suppose ; something like 20% of the posts on this thread are from you a large number of which bring nothing to the party except to tell other posters they are wrong with no substantiation of your assertion. Your posts are liberally seasoned with insults to other posters suggesting they need to be educated and similar such remarks. You are "big" on evidence all the evidence for my statement is on this very thread. If you stop insulting posters they may not hold you in such contempt.
-
And you have I suppose ; something like 20% of the posts on this thread are from you a large number of which bring nothing to the party except to tell other posters they are wrong with no substantiation of your assertion. Your posts are liberally seasoned with insults to other posters suggesting they need to be educated and similar such remarks. You are "big" on evidence all the evidence for my statement is on this very thread. If you stop insulting posters they may not hold you in such contempt.
You seem to want to derail the thread into a personal argument.
First...I post predominately on this thread because it is the most important.....a lot of threads concern incidental detail of little importance. if the alert by the evrd dog confirms the previous presence of a cadaver in 5a then the mccanns have a lot of explaining to do...the fact is the alerts don't prove this..as confirmed by grime.
you obviously miss all the insults made towards me..to which I respond...Stephen this morning is a good example
As regards the evidence to support my posts..everything I have posted on this thread is supported by Grime who is the expert...whilst others post their own opinion as fact..
As regards being held in contempt by some posters..has it escaped you that those who hold me in contempt share an opposite viewpoint to me whilst I get pm support from those who share my views...I couldn't really care what posters on here think of me..why should I ...
-
How old are these flats Anne? Hardly that old that so many deaths occurred in them. Actually it is rare to die in a home, most people unless murdered die in hospitals, accidents etc outside the home.
Its POINTLESS in arguing with people with scientific backgrounds, (probably just got a scientific image on his screensaver lol).
The believe the dogs ANY DOG who is highly trained rarely makes mistakes.
Look at all the dogs used in bomb squads, drug squads, who are TRUSTED to do their job.
The dog alerted to cadaver it doesnt mean it was a child, just that someone had lain dead in the apartment at some point in time.
BEING A PARENT, whos child had just gone missing fromt he apartment, and facing this evidence from the dogs, I would be asking the police, no begging the police to find out what happened, NOT MAKING STUPID silly comments about them as the McCanns did.
AND AGAIN, the exact case they used AGAINST the dogs turned out the guy had killed his wife and the dogs were right all along lol....
I don't know when those buildings were built, Colombosstogey, the type of door, lock, window, shutters... tells it was in the eighties.
Eddie's alerts indicated death scent, Mr Grime doesn't seem to have doubted that (double blind tests serve precisely to check that the dog doesn't alert falsely, which would obviously and imperatively eliminate him).
Forensic organic elements, when no body is visible, serve only to identify whose body originated the VOCs, not their presence.
Consider the double alert behind the sofa (Eddie and then Keela). If analysis identifies the blood as belonging to (alive) A, can you determine that Eddie alerted to A's decaying blood and not to (missing) B's death scent ?
No, it is possible but not certain.
Now, in the same flat, Eddie alerts on another spot and, this time, there's no blood and there's no item at all that can be removed and analysed apart. Can it be deduced that, behind the sofa, the dog then alerted to death and not to decaying blood ?
No, it's possible but not certain.
This is why Mr Grime refused to speculate, saying the minimum he could say without exposing himself and his dog, carefully staying behind the shield of the required forensic corroboration.
But his concise observations are nonetheless very interesting.
BTW there are techniques now to capture the air in a test tube at the point of the scent cone indicated by the dog and analyse the components (the relative proportions of VOCs).
-
if it was death scent that eddie alerted to ...then the most obvious source as far as I am concerned is cross contamination from a policeman...as Grime says...cross contamination could be a reason for the alerts
-
if it was death scent that eddie alerted to ...then the most obvious source as far as I am concerned is cross contamination from a policeman...as Grime says...cross contamination could be a reason for the alerts
I thought it was because Kate took her work clothes on Holiday with her.... 8-)(--)
-
I thought it was because Kate took her work clothes on Holiday with her.... 8-)(--)
grime said their were several possibilities that would result in cross contamination...perhaps this is one of them
-
Or perhaps not.
What's curious to me is that a young child disappeared 3rd May 2007 from that apartment, never to have been seen since that day and yet you place the possibility of the scent relating to her death, clearly at the back of the queue.
This is why I previously referred to you blindly following a particular viewpoint.
Blindly...as I said before is quite an insult and also inaccurate. Having assessed the available evidence I put maddies death in the apt at the back of the queue..
-
Blindly...as I said before is quite an insult and also inaccurate. Having assessed the available evidence I put maddies death in the apt at the back of the queue..
Meanwhile in the real world, no trace of Madeleine.
No trace of abduction or any abductor(s).
I wonder which next mystery person will be in the papers accused of being an abductor ?
-
Meanwhile in the real world, no trace of Madeleine.
No trace of abduction or any abductor(s).
I wonder which next mystery person will be in the papers accused of being an abductor ?
yes disappeared of the face of the earth...just like Ben Needham
-
yes disappeared of the face of the earth...just like Ben Needham
Were Ben's guardians at the time he disappeared, boozing the night's away in the 'back garden' ?
-
Were Ben's guardians at the time he disappeared, boozing the night's away in the 'back garden' ?
where were they...are there any independent witnesses...anyway...off topic now
-
where were they...are there any independent witnesses...anyway...off topic now
Off topic ?
It was you, yet again bringing up the Needhams.
-
Off topic ?
It was you, yet again bringing up the Needhams.
I did mention Ben once but I think I got away with it
-
yes disappeared of the face of the earth...just like Ben Needham
No cadaver dog alerted in the family home, slight difference there, plus I don't recall any of them changing statements and giving different versions every so often, or being made suspects, so not quite "just like"
-
No cadaver dog alerted in the family home, slight difference there, plus I don't recall any of them changing statements and giving different versions every so often, or being made suspects, so not quite "just like"
Cadaver dogs weren't taken to the home..they were suspects..as it was I was referring to Ben disappearing into thin air...didn't mention the family
-
Cadaver dogs weren't taken to the home..they were suspects..as it was I was referring to Ben disappearing into thin air...didn't mention the family
And as it was I was just referring to the fact you cant compare the two disppearances as identical even if both did vanish (but not into thin air, thats impossible)
-
And as it was I was just referring to the fact you cant compare the two disppearances as identical even if both did vanish (but not into thin air, thats impossible)
who said they were identical
-
who said they were identical
davel, it's actually not respectful to keep invoking Ben to justify your views on Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Did a cadaver dog alert in Ben Needham's holiday home ?
-
davel, it's actually not respectful to keep invoking Ben to justify your views on Madeleine's disappearance.
In whose opinion...
there is no evidence of abduction for Ben...and none for Maddie
perhaps if Stephen didn't have to try to derail every thread by saying there is no evidence of abduction...
this thread is about the police and the dogs
-
who said they were identical
You inferred it when you said Madeleine disappeared off the face of the earth just like Ben Needham
As I said it wasnt "just like" for a few reasons and one very important one! which is part of the subject of this thread
Now I am not going to argue the toss with you on this one, so best not to respond and if you do dont expect a reply
-
You inferred it when you said Madeleine disappeared off the face of the earth just like Ben Needham
As I said it wasnt "just like" for a few reasons and one very important one! which is part of the subject of this thread
Now I am not going to argue the toss with you on this one, so best not to respond and if you do dont expect a reply
No you inferred and you are implying that I implied...common grammatical error
-
You inferred it when you said Madeleine disappeared off the face of the earth just like Ben Needham
As I said it wasnt "just like" for a few reasons and one very important one! which is part of the subject of this thread
Now I am not going to argue the toss with you on this one, so best not to respond and if you do dont expect a reply
just to add...saying that two situations are alike does not mean identical
-
Was spams offer to tell some Maddie McCann jokes disrespectful...I don't recall any poster having a problem with that post...selective disrespect depends on whether the poster doubts the McCanns
Jokes would be disrespectful of course. I don't think comedians like Frankie Boyle are (that's different) but it would be out of place on a forum like this.
-
davel, it's actually not respectful to keep invoking Ben to justify your views on Madeleine's disappearance.
Why shouldn't other abduction cases with similarities be mentioned? Other cases involving sniffer dogs are.
-
Why shouldn't other abduction cases with similarities be mentioned? Other cases involving sniffer dogs are.
Because there are no similarities, other than a lack of evidence. Every other factor is different: environment, location, date, developments in the case etc.
-
Because there are no similarities, other than a lack of evidence. Every other factor is different: environment, location, date, developments in the case etc.
Its the lack of evidence that makes it relevant due to stephens continual derailing
-
Because there are no similarities, other than a lack of evidence. Every other factor is different: environment, location, date, developments in the case etc.
+1
Lets not also forget the brain freezing conundrum of the Mccanns linking so many disparate cases to Madeleines from babies to bleedin adults!
and others linking burlgars, paedos, gypsies, ex employees, childless couples, anyne looking slightly "dodgy" in and around the area (up to a year before in cases") the sheik of Oman, the PJ themselves! I am sure I have forgotten loads, well, anyone they can imagine basically without an iota of credible evidence
-
Its the lack of evidence that makes it relevant due to stephens continual derailing
It's as relevant as Shergar's disapperance, but that's not mentioned because Shergar wasn't a small child.
You know the point I'm making: mentioning Ben invokes emotion (which has been used as a weapon. Look at twitter and facebook - the two cases have been linked consistently and quite deliberately).
-
It's as relevant as Shergar's disapperance, but that's not mentioned because Shergar wasn't a small child.
You know the point I'm making: mentioning Ben invokes emotion (which has been used as a weapon. Look at twitter and facebook - the two cases have been linked consistently and quite deliberately).
Its the lack of evidence that makes it relevant due to stephens continual derailing
-
Its the lack of evidence that makes it relevant due to stephens continual derailing
Only to you 8)--))
-
It's as relevant as Shergar's disapperance, but that's not mentioned because Shergar wasn't a small child.
You know the point I'm making: mentioning Ben invokes emotion (which has been used as a weapon. Look at twitter and facebook - the two cases have been linked consistently and quite deliberately).
The two cases have similarities
-
And youtube too. All those ghastly videos 8()-000(
-
Only to you 8)--))
Look at twitter and facebook - the two cases have been linked consistently and quite deliberately).
so not only me after all
-
And youtube too. All those ghastly videos 8()-000(
haven't seen them..are you talking about hi de ho
-
haven't seen them..are you talking about hi de ho
Some pretty 8()-000( ones there too.
Too much emotion. Way too much.
-
Too much crappy soundtrack you mean...
Some of those videos contain some very important observations. Listen to them with the sound down.
-
Too much crappy soundtrack you mean...
Some of those videos contain some very important observations. Listen to them with the sound down.
OK I'll give them another go
-
OK I'll give them another go
Watch any with "microexpression" in the title.
They are truly shocking....and revelatory.
-
Watch any with "microexpression" in the title.
They are truly shocking....and revelatory.
But what's the point of a thousand videos if the important ones are lost? >@@(*&)
-
But what's the point of a thousand videos if the important ones are lost? >@@(*&)
which ones are you missing lyall?
-
Because there are no similarities, other than a lack of evidence. Every other factor is different: environment, location, date, developments in the case etc.
Nonsense.
Both children disappeared in a foreign country.
Both children were unsupervised when they disappeared.
Both families have claimed their children were abducted.
In both cases we only have the families' word for what happened.
Both families are still looking for their missing children.
And IMO both children may well have been targeted.
The real reason why some people don't want Ben's case mentioned IMO is because they want to demonise one family while sympathising with the other. And because of the similarities that can't be done without appearing more than a tad hypocritical IMO.
IMO The one really big difference is that fortunately for the Needhams the internet was not used much 22 years ago. If it had then Ben's family would have received exactly the same vile treatment as the McCanns have IMO. The conspiracy theorists would have had a field day.
-
which ones are you missing lyall?
No I was just making a general point, Red. The most important are lost in a sea of edited ones and an obsession with body language.
That's how it looks to me (but I don't check youtube out too often).
(I don't think I'm missing any ?{)(**)
-
Nonsense.
Both children disappeared in a foreign country.
Both children were unsupervised when they disappeared.
Both families have claimed their children were abducted.
In both cases we only have the families' word for what happened.
Both families are still looking for their missing children.
And IMO both children may well have been targeted.
The real reason why some people don't want Ben's case mentioned IMO is because they want to demonise one family while sympathising with the other. And because of the similarities that can't be done without appearing more than a tad hypocritical IMO.
IMO The one really big difference is that fortunately for the Needhams the internet was not used much 22 years ago. If it had then Ben's family would have received exactly the same vile treatment as the McCanns have IMO. The conspiracy theorists would have had a field day.
Absolutely correct...
-
No I was just making a general point, Red. The most important are lost in a sea of edited ones and an obsession with body language.
That's how it looks to me (but I don't check youtube out too often).
(I don't think I'm missing any ?{)(**)
Oh I see, ok, no worries
Psst
Body language is important though imo, especially blatant examples of bizarre behaviour
Eta in fact police in in the uk and elsewhere look out for it, though thy may not call it body language per se
OK, I think I shall sign off and go watch whatever greasy b........ might be on question time tonight, always good for a laugh
>>>>>
-
Nothing can derail the intelligence provided by Eddie. Does anyone think the lounge signal and the bedroom signal are intelligence that possibly a person moved something from behind the sofa to under a pile in a cupboard?
-
Oh I see, ok, no worries
Psst
Body language is important though imo, especially blatant examples of bizarre behaviour
Eta in fact police in in the uk and elsewhere look out for it, though thy may not call it body language per se
OK, I think I shall sign off and go watch whatever greasy b........ might be on question time tonight, always good for a laugh
>>>>>
There's definitely a mass of bizarre behaviour, Red. No disagreement there 8)-)))
I see your points.
-
I don't know when those buildings were built, Colombosstogey, the type of door, lock, window, shutters... tells it was in the eighties.
Eddie's alerts indicated death scent, Mr Grime doesn't seem to have doubted that (double blind tests serve precisely to check that the dog doesn't alert falsely, which would obviously and imperatively eliminate him).
Forensic organic elements, when no body is visible, serve only to identify whose body originated the VOCs, not their presence.
Consider the double alert behind the sofa (Eddie and then Keela). If analysis identifies the blood as belonging to (alive) A, can you determine that Eddie alerted to A's decaying blood and not to (missing) B's death scent ?
No, it is possible but not certain.
Now, in the same flat, Eddie alerts on another spot and, this time, there's no blood and there's no item at all that can be removed and analysed apart. Can it be deduced that, behind the sofa, the dog then alerted to death and not to decaying blood ?
No, it's possible but not certain.
This is why Mr Grime refused to speculate, saying the minimum he could say without exposing himself and his dog, carefully staying behind the shield of the required forensic corroboration.
But his concise observations are nonetheless very interesting.
BTW there are techniques now to capture the air in a test tube at the point of the scent cone indicated by the dog and analyse the components (the relative proportions of VOCs).
Thanks Anne, and yes i saw that on the T.V. recently about the scent cone.
I think what is also interesting for me is not only did they scent in the apartment, but the car belonging to the McCanns, and items of clothing which were taken to a clean area and the dog picked up on them.
So THREE LOCATIONS all belonging to the family. What are the odds that there WASN'T A BODY....
-
Don't forget the Cadaver on Cuddle Cat.
That is incredibly significant because it shows Madeleine was in contact with it after death, after death, in the apartment.
What burglars steal a corpse? Gypsies, pedophiles etc all want them alive as far as I know.
-
Don't forget the Cadaver on Cuddle Cat.
That is incredibly significant because it shows Madeleine was in contact with it after death, after death, in the apartment.
What burglars steal a corpse? Gypsies, pedophiles etc all want them alive as far as I know.
no it doesn't
-
Nothing can derail the intelligence provided by Eddie. Does anyone think the lounge signal and the bedroom signal are intelligence that possibly a person moved something from behind the sofa to under a pile in a cupboard?
Those clothes were in a bag and emptied out. Bag was used to conceal person and stored on that shelf until moved out of 5A.
-
enough to rule out the parents and investigate an abduction
Evidence please, not bluster.
-
Don't forget the Cadaver on Cuddle Cat.
.....
I suggest take nothing for granted, and instead watch the villa lounge alert video in slow-motion, over and over. What does Eddie sniff at immediately before he alerts?