Never heard of that myth. I just noted on my copy of the Tavares report that I didn't watch that, but as it has no consequence for the investigation, I didn't.. investigate.
In other words, what may have been an inadvertent comprehension error led to the die-hard myth that Eddie reacted to "cadaver" in the boot. He didn't. He was never in the boot.
Never heard of that myth. I just noted on my copy of the Tavares report that I didn't watch that, but as it has no consequence for the investigation, I didn't.. investigate.
Thank you for clearing this up.
As I've already posted on a different thread (although not strictly a translation error, but possibly a foreign language comprehension error) when Grime said in his video that he didn't intend placing Eddie in the boot, the translated transcript said the opposite, i.e. that he did intend to do so. And somehow that error (with a missing "não") made its way into Tavares de Almeida's interim report.
In other words, what may have been an inadvertent comprehension error led to the die-hard myth that Eddie reacted to "cadaver" in the boot. He didn't. He was never in the boot.
TdeA seemingly assumed the transcription to be accurate. However, I do find it somewhat difficult to believe that he didn't watch those sequences for himself... after all, that was one of the smoking gun as far as that team as concerned. If either he or anyone of the team had watched the video while reading the transcription, surely one of them would have noticed that it was Keela in the boot?
I'm surprised you haven't heard of that myth. It continues to be repeated ad nauseum all over the Internet. Try Googling "Cadaver dog" "boot" "Madeleine McCann".Nothing surprising : I vaguely know those sites exist, but this one is already sort of a full free time job!
I'm surprised you haven't heard of that myth. It continues to be repeated ad nauseum all over the Internet. Try Googling "Cadaver dog" "boot" "Madeleine McCann".
It's not so much repeated as still sitting there from many years ago. Old blogs from the early days remain long after their owners have disappeared, and there's nothing we can do about it.
It is imo a big problem - for everyone.
SW that refers to Keela the blood dog, alos called the csi dog, not Eddie
Eddie screened first.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.
Eddie finds Cadaver, which was all over the vehicle. I don't see any reference to Eddie and the boot area specifically rather the entire car, however, but then maybe he wasn't tasked to.
One cadaver alert on a vehicle is surely enough.... >@@(*&)
Either way, it seems like the pattern on the dinner plates on the Titanic again. Kinda irrelevant? 8()-000(
No, Eddie only alerted at the key behind the door. Had he picked up what Keela found in the boot, he would have alerted at the boot. He didn't, this is why he wasn't sent inside of the car (imo).
Eddie finds Cadaver, which was all over the vehicle. I don't see any reference to Eddie and the boot area specifically rather the entire car, however, but then maybe he wasn't tasked to.
No, Eddie only alerted at the key behind the door. Had he picked up what Keela found in the boot, he would have alerted at the boot. He didn't, this is why he wasn't sent inside of the car (imo).
Why did the tavares report say eddie alerted in the boot?
Why did the tavares report say eddie alerted in the boot?
I wonder if Martin stuck Eddie in the car off camera just for the hell of it?
The Eddie-in-the-boot myth continues to be repeated on the Internet, nearly 7 years later...I guess in spite of your efforts to destroy it (it's practically impossible to destroy a myth, every time you denounce it more people know about it).
It may be a problem for internet sleuths but it wasn't a problem for Amaral, or Eddie come to that.
From Grime's official report in the PJ files-
When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door.
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12
I guess in spite of your efforts to destroy it (it's practically impossible to destroy a myth, every time you denounce it more people know about it).
What effects has that myth actually ?
That people continue to assume that Eddie reacted to a cadaver in the boot, when he didn't. If you couple that with the half-myth of 15/19 alleles (a half-myth because they were found in a soup of 37 which conveniently gets forgotten), plus Amaral's mistaken conviction that the only explanation for a partial result was that fluids from a defrosting corpse had been deposited there, then one could be forgiven for taking as fact that her dead body had indeed been transported in that boot.Good luck in trying to dissipate this myth, Carana. The best is to do it indirectly, by supporting claims that turn the myth obsolete.
ETA Another point concerns a so-called group of researchers who refer to TdeA's report as the official police report glossing over the fact that it is only an interim report and the fact it states that Eddie reacted to the boot when he didn't.
Good luck in trying to dissipate this myth, Carana. The best is to do it indirectly, by supporting claims that turn the myth obsolete.
Though the report of Tavares de Almeida wasn't aimed to be definitive, the fact is that Paulo Rebelo did not much more than a review and an attempt to reconstitute what happened.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I have already posted the extract of the video which shows that the dog that went into the boot was Keela; that what Grime is on AV record as having actually said is not what is transcribed in the PJ files; that TdeA copied that mistake for some reason.I wasn't meaning more than what I said. I could add that this myth doesn't seem crucial to me, as I can't imagine the body in the boot, even deeply frozen. No.
Whatever Paulo Rebelo managed to do or not do within the timeframe left, it was João Carlos who wrote the final report and that mistake was not repeated.
Unfortunately, that document doesn't seem to be on the recommended reading list in some quarters. A certain "researcher" with Spielbergian aspirations has never corrected the clips in which these errors occur either, amongst many others. People have tried to ask her, but I have never seen an answer.
I wasn't meaning more than what I said. I could add that this myth doesn't seem crucial to me, as I can't imagine the body in the boot, even deeply frozen. No.
Who is the researcher and why the " " ?
The sandbox test of the car key was IMO a sensible and precise test to do, it is surprising that the same test was not done on the toy.You, who knows everything, Pegasus, can you tell in what kind of material are those car keys?
And its precisely that lack of imagination the defence have used to their advantage, over and over.I know what you mean. My brother in law who is a famous surgeon and lives in a small palace, can't resist the fun of cheating when leaving a car park or on highways. I think it makes him feel young and not conformist.
People just can't imagine these two plotting and lying.
I can...maybe its my past career. As a debt collector I have been lied to by experts. Surgeons, chemists, public servants, very wealthy people who don't need to dodge paying their debts but do so anyway, just because it amuses them.
You, who knows everything, Pegasus, can you tell in what kind of material are those car keys?The majority material is plastic IMO (with a smaller amount of metal)
Well in that case Anne, Gerry McCann was there when Kate raised the alarm that Madeleine was missing as Dianne Webster said in her statement that Kate said Madeleine has gone GERRY. So if Dianne Webster wasn't 'in on it' she is telling the truth and not covering up isn't she?Imo Madeleine hadn't yet disappeared when Mrs McCann raised the alarm.
The sandbox test of the car key was IMO a sensible and precise test to do, it is surprising that the same test was not done on the toy.It was very useful to determine if Eddie had alerted to the key card or to some part of the car that could hardly have been indirectly contaminated, whereas it was easy for the key card to have been.
The sheer catatonia exhibited by some at the mere suggestion the childs body could have been the source of the cadaver dog alerts and the extraordinary lengths (some of them frankly disgusting and others blatant lies)they have gone to to "suggest/prove" this is the least possible scenario says it all IMO
Its OK if Eddie is thought to have reacted to blood, anything else is like that hair removal advert in TV, a no no
It was very useful to determine if Eddie had alerted to the key card or to some part of the car that could hardly have been indirectly contaminated, whereas it was easy for the key card to have been.A good point..
Can the possibility that the dogs alerted to the 'remains' of Madeleine be dismissed ?
A definitive, NO.
Aficionados of the dogs should pay heed to the dogs' reactions.
Keela reacted to the boot but Eddie didn't = blood but no cadaver scent (also a non-alerting error by Eddie, because Eddie should have alerted to the blood).
Keela reacted to the ignition key and so did Eddie. = blood but no cadaver scent.
Confirmed in the labs.
Gerry's blood.
End of story.
Aficionados of the dogs should pay heed to the dogs' reactions.
Keela reacted to the boot but Eddie didn't = blood but no cadaver scent (also a non-alerting error by Eddie, because Eddie should have alerted to the blood).
Keela reacted to the ignition key and so did Eddie. = blood but no cadaver scent.
Confirmed in the labs.
Gerry's blood.
End of story.
Lol
Do you not see the flaw in your argument?
The dogs alerted.
Blood and DNA were found at the alert sites thereby confirming the dogs were correct.
What people don't understand is that both dogs react on blood.
What Keala reacts on a Eddie doesn't is just blood
What both react to is again just blood
What Eddie reacts to and Keala doesn't should be considered as cadaver but it has to be triple checked because it can also be only blood..
Wasn't this proven behind the sofa when DNA of PJ officers was found?
As we've discussed on other threads, he also reacted to sex clean-up tissues in Jersey, which Grime considered to be within his training parameters.
In the inspection of the vehicles, Keela alerted to the boot but Eddie didn't (despite, at one point, being directed by Grime to the boot area and squatting under it for several seconds).
Key question: was that an alerting error by Keela (because there was no blood in the mix removed from the boot)?
Or was it an error of failing to alert by Eddie (because there was blood in the mix from the boot)?
So ferryman, have you come up with any evidence to show the indications of the dogs were wrong in the mccann case ?
Was the apparent alert to cuddle-cat (second time of asking) an error of omission? Or an error of commission?
You are not answering the question.
Can you say, with your 'expert' opinion 8)-))) on the case, that the dogs got it wrong ?
Was the apparent alert to cuddle-cat (second time of asking) an error of omission? Or an error of commission?
No error.
Eddie was not wrong re cuddle cat. You obviously missed my post from another thread from the back end of last month.
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/
Grime was asked in his rog if the toy cadaver alert confirmed a positive id for cadaver.......he avoided giving a direct answer to that question...pity
Grime was asked in his rog if the toy cadaver alert confirmed a positive id for cadaver.......he avoided giving a direct answer to that question...pity
Take it you've not read this from his statement regarding the toy then?
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Note too that Keela did not alert when screened separately.
Eddie alerting but Keela does not = cadaver scent
Eddie and Keela alerting = blood
yes I did read that...Grime said that it is possible....possible is a very vague word
Splittin hairs again Dave? He also says this:
"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
Given that his dogs were never wrong, then it is highly likely that it was cadaver scent. Just because a body was not found does not mean that Eddie was wrong does it?
It is not given that the dogs have never been wrong......that's a myth
not splitting hairs...grime uses the words possible and suggestive...he gives no indication of the likelihood of the alert confirming cadaver
Nope, it's not a myth. Can you show me a case where the dogs have been proven to be wrong please?
if you are saying the dogs have never been wrong it is you who should proof...you cant
The truth is we don't know when the dogs are right or wrong in many cases.the coconut in jersey is one example
No Dave, the onus is on you to cite cases where the dogs have been wrong if you are claiming a myth is it not? Cite just one case where Eddie alerted to cadaver scent and whoever was missing turned up alive and well if you can please?
I have demonstrated further up in this thread how the dogs were not wrong in Jersey in respect of tissues and 'coconut' so you cannot claim such.
this is where your whole argument falls apart...you claim the dogs have never been wrong but cannot supply proof....if the dogs had never been wrong why was grime not sure that the dogs had alerted to cadaver...grime says that it is possible...what degree of certainty do you imagine this means...thats all it is ...your imagination
So you cannot cite any cases where the dogs have been wrong, yet again. Why can't you just admit that you cannot do so instead of deflecting? Given that Eddie was trained to alert to the scent of human remains and no-one has ever turned up alive and well after an alert from Eddie, be it from a murder or a missing persons case, then it is with more than a degree of certainty that it is possible that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent in Jersey in PDL. Dogs do not lie and Martin knows what his dogs alerted to but is also fully aware that without corroborative forensics or a body the only alerts that can be accepted by the authorities are those to blood.
You can split hairs and twist and turn all you like but Martin knows what his dogs alerted to and it wasn't seabass!
So you cannot cite any cases where the dogs have been wrong, yet again. Why can't you just admit that you cannot do so instead of deflecting? Given that Eddie was trained to alert to the scent of human remains and no-one has ever turned up alive and well after an alert from Eddie, be it from a murder or a missing persons case, then it is with more than a degree of certainty that it is possible that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent in Jersey in PDL. Dogs do not lie and Martin knows what his dogs alerted to but is also fully aware that without corroborative forensics or a body the only alerts that can be accepted by the authorities are those to blood.
You can split hairs and twist and turn all you like but Martin knows what his dogs alerted to and it wasn't seabass!
It seems that you don't understand the role of the dogs as defined by grime...
Their purpose outlined in red...the dogs did not secure evidence...did not locate human remains but did locate blodd...belonging to Gerry McCann...a complete failure to find any evidence
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell (he of the celestial t'pot)
Some people prefer to have a hernia, writhe about and stay in denial rather than contemplate the possibility of the remnant scent of Madeleines body was alerted to in 5a
Some people prefer to have a hernia, writhe about and stay in denial rather than contemplate the possibility of the remnant scent of Madeleines body was alerted to in 5a, that would be some kind of anathema...wierd
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell (he of the celestial t'pot)
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell (he of the celestial t'pot)
LOL
I guess we BOTH, as well as others, AWAIT a case to be referenced by the intransigents where Eddie alerted to a missing person case and they turned up alive
8((()*/
Nope, it's not a myth. Can you show me a case where the dogs have been proven to be wrong please?
@)(++(*
Eddie failed to alert to every single item of clothing in the villa which it was later claimed to have cadaverscent on them in the Gym.
Considering this dog could detect odour from far beneath the ground in the minutest quantities - even if the odour was decades of years old - and the clothing was probably an inch from his nose in drawers in the villa - I'd class that as a definite fail wouldn't you?
Eddie failed to alert to every single item of clothing in the villa ...in villa living area he ignores the cupboard door where the cat is, then sniffs at a pile of clothing, then immediately barks.
@)(++(*
... Can you think of any other reason why his dog missed all those articles of clothing whilst they were in the villa?The clothing items signalled later in the gym ALL came from the box labelled living area.
The clothing items signalled later in the gym ALL came from the box labelled living area.
You cannot plausibly claim to understand the clothes in the living area if you cannot locate them in the video of the living area.
So what do you think Grime's explanation would be for the fact that Eddie failed to alert to the same clothing in the villa which he later allegedly alerted to in the Gym?
IMO the only explanation he could give - (if his dogs were as skilfull as he claimed) - is that 'contamination' must have occurred after the clothing had been removed from the villa and before it was laid out in the Gym.
After all - he does make it clear in his statements that cross contamination can happen.
Can you think of any other reason why his dog missed all those articles of clothing whilst they were in the villa?
The packer/unpacker obviously had just come back from thr local morgue where he touched a load of dead bodies and passed the scent on through his rubber gloves
So what do you think Grime's explanation would be for the fact that Eddie failed to alert to the same clothing in the villa which he later allegedly alerted to in the Gym?
IMO the only explanation he could give - (if his dogs were as skilfull as he claimed) - is that 'contamination' must have occurred after the clothing had been removed from the villa and before it was laid out in the Gym.
After all - he [Grime] does make it clear in his statements that cross contamination can happen.
Can you think of any other reason why his dog missed all those articles of clothing whilst they were in the villa?
Grime also states that "EVRD" does not alert falsely.
A controversial claim (in my opinion)
I would also re-cast Benice's statement slightly more strongly. Asked about cross-contamination, Grime replied that cross-contamination is immediate.
He might have added (but didn't) that it is also inevitable.
For example, the German carpet squares study was driven by the principle of cross-contamination.
Every carpet square without exception passed close to, but not touching, the buttock of each dead man, was cross-contaminated with a death scent, transmitted through a cotton blanket wrapping the body of each dead man intended to simulate a thin layer of clothing.
I must say having read through the posts that I agree with Dave in that a failed identification is seldom recorded. One classic failure to detect the scent of death however was in the Adrian Prout case where the dogs were brought in but failed to identify the burial site even when taken to the very spot. The dogs weren't infallible by any means but merely a means to an end.The dogs did not fail to find Kate Prouts body. They would never have found her body no matter how many times they were taken there. Why is that? It's because she was wrapped in carpet and then wrapped in plastic sheeting..... which is an impermeable membrane.
Martin Grime couldn't state that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent at the McCann's hire car, to Kate's clothing, the shelf in the bedroom wardrobe or to cuddlecat because as he stated himself on many occasions, the dog alerts are 'meaningless' without forensic corroboration. Since that corroboration did not materialise in the Madeleine investigation we are left with dog alerts which are for all intents and purposes, meaningless.
The dogs did not fail to find Kate Prouts body. They would never have found her body no matter how many times they were taken there. Why is that? It's because she was wrapped in carpet and then wrapped in plastic sheeting..... which is an impermeable membrane.
"Detective inspector Steve Bean of Gloucestershire Police told the inquest that Prout confessed to wrapping the body in a carpet and plastic sheeting and putting it in his Range Rover."
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9687871.print/
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, plastic type etc) so they are now deconditioned to alert to such.
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.
Eddie alerted in the living room at the Prout house and he was proven correct when Prout eventually confessed to murdering his wife.
Given the dogs training regarding not scenting to impermeables and that Eddie alerted in the living room to where Kate's body had lain, I do not consider that to be a fail by Eddie by any stretch of the imagination.
EXACTLY. I know the case well it happened not far from me. Like you said the body was wrapped in thick plastic sheeting.Yes a very sad case, I really wish people would do some research before coming to inaccurate conclusions regarding the dogs.
Yes a very sad case, I really wish people would do some research before coming to inaccurate conclusions regarding the dogs.
some people cant bear the thought that eddie may have alerted to a dead body in 5a, its very irrational IMO to rule that outAmongst other stuff which blew the 'meaningless without corroboration' line out of the water but hey ho it seems we are not allowed to mention that
Ps all the coconuts have been deleted i see
@)(++(*
Don't you find it strange that the only clothes alerted to all just happened to come from the same box? What are the chances of that happening by sheer coincidence?Yes the question why were all signalled clothes from same box is interesting.
And what difference does it make where they were in the villa? With Eddie's abilities sniffing them out in such a confined area should have been a walk in the park for him. But he missed them all - unless the truth is there was nothing for him to miss in the first place.
some people cant bear the thought that eddie may have alerted to remnant scent of a dead body in 5a, its very irrational IMO to rule that out and no basis whatsoever to do so either
Ps all the coconuts have been deleted i see
@)(++(*
The dogs did not fail to find Kate Prouts body. They would never have found her body no matter how many times they were taken there. Why is that? It's because she was wrapped in carpet and then wrapped in plastic sheeting..... which is an impermeable membrane.Ah, many thanks for that, Serendipity. I suspected this and asked John how the body was buried, buy my post was deleted.
"Detective inspector Steve Bean of Gloucestershire Police told the inquest that Prout confessed to wrapping the body in a carpet and plastic sheeting and putting it in his Range Rover."
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9687871.print/
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, plastic type etc) so they are now deconditioned to alert to such.
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.
Eddie alerted in the living room at the Prout house and he was proven correct when Prout eventually confessed to murdering his wife.
Given the dogs training regarding not scenting to impermeables and that Eddie alerted in the living room to where Kate's body had lain, I do not consider that to be a fail by Eddie by any stretch of the imagination.
Ah, many thanks for that, Serendipity. I suspected this and asked John how the body was buried, buy my post was deleted.
Kate Prout's remains were never in the family home so what Eddie was reacting to was secondary transfer, obviously carried by her killer as he moved the body from the shooting lodge to the Land Rover and then into the woods.
After she was strangled Kate's remains were wrapped in a pair of curtains taken from the shooting lodge where the assault took place. She was then placed in the back of a Land Rover 4x4 while Prout went to the pub. He later buried her within pheasant pens in the woods.
So there you have it, Eddie detected the scent of a cadaver, he did not detect the cadaver.
So he did what it said on the tin. That was his role, to detect human remains or where those human remains had come into contact either directly or by transferance. He did that, did he not? That he did not find the body does not a fail make as the fact that the remains were wrapped in plastic (as verified at the inquest) prevented any scenting/alerts as he was deconditioned to impermeable membranes. Eddie alerted, justice was done and a man is behind bars. Job well done I say.
So he did what it said on the tin. That was his role, to detect human remains or where those human remains had come into contact either directly or by transferance. He did that, did he not? That he did not find the body does not a fail make as the fact that the remains were wrapped in plastic (as verified at the inquest) prevented any scenting/alerts as he was deconditioned to impermeable membranes. Eddie alerted, justice was done and a man is behind bars. Job well done I say.By definition a impermeable membrane doesn't let anything pass, does it ?
Yeh justice was done but the coconuts got away with it lol...Mind you where do you get coconuts from in Jersey which are nearly fossilized lol.
By definition a impermeable membrane doesn't let anything pass, does it ?
I reported a case in France of a baby's remains which weren't detected by cadaver dogs, who nevertheless detected death in a bedroom. The body had been wrapped in many plastic bags and stuck in a garden cabin full of rubbish.
Yes the question why were all signalled clothes from same box is interesting.
But back to the video of the living area, the challenge is, to look through that video and find the clothes.
Why do you insist those are clothes when it's a pile of papers and red book? Eddie didn't alert in that part of the room the first time he went in. Grime did the 2nd test with CC and Eddie went back in the 2nd time and barked. Conclusion - Eddie barked at CC.Maybe we can at least agree on some of the items on top of the sideboard.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/412x347q90/199/sd62.jpg)
Pegasus is ready to all extremities to find everybody innocent.A highly valued principle in many legal systems
A highly valued principle in many legal systemsIndeed, but Madeleine didn't disappeared by herself, or do you think she fell in a rabbit's hole like Alice ?
Indeed, but Madeleine didn't disappeared by herself, or do you think she fell in a rabbit's hole like Alice ?
So he did what it said on the tin. That was his role, to detect human remains or where those human remains had come into contact either directly or by transferance. He did that, did he not? That he did not find the body does not a fail make as the fact that the remains were wrapped in plastic (as verified at the inquest) prevented any scenting/alerts as he was deconditioned to impermeable membranes. Eddie alerted, justice was done and a man is behind bars. Job well done I say.
Eddie no doubt helped in several cases. What I object to is that what Grime actually said (although he phrased it in two different ways which may have led to some confusion) has been morphed by people on social media stating on various forums that Eddie had never been wrong and that his alerts had led to 200 homicide convictions.
Grime never said that.
Eddie no doubt helped in several cases. What I object to is that what Grime actually said (although he phrased it in two different ways which may have led to some confusion) has been morphed by people on social media stating on various forums that Eddie had never been wrong and that his alerts had led to 200 homicide convictions.
Grime never said that.
I agree with you on that front, it frustrates me too. What he said is that Eddie did not alert to meat/foodstuffs in 200 cases operationally. He was during his lifetime, a very special dog who helped police secure many convictions and was also very effective in finding many other cases such as missing people who had sadly taken their own lives.
You are just not accurate in your statements....it was 200 case searches not 200 cases
Stop being so pedantic Dave, you know what I meant and Pathfinder has kindly posted the full quote :)
That will happen when Nelson gets his eye back.lol yes, we can no longer say 'when Hell freezes over' cos it did! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25648513 ?{)(**
Stop being so pedantic Dave, you know what I meant and Pathfinder has kindly posted the full quote :)
perhaps if you could stop posting untruths I wouldnt have to keep pointing them out....you are the one who claims to have so much knowledge but make basic mistakes. I understand that eddie may make 20 to 30 case searches in each case...does anyone know how many he made in Jersey...so 200 case searches may only amount to a handful of cases...NOT 200
I agree with you on that front, it frustrates me too. What he said is that Eddie did not alert to meat/foodstuffs in 200 cases operationally. He was during his lifetime, a very special dog who helped police secure many convictions and was also very effective in many other cases such as missing people who had sadly taken their own lives.He also said, and this is essential, that Eddie never made a false positive.
Operational Dave, the giveaway is the word operational ie cases that involved searches for someone. I am not going to go round in circles and split hairs with you.
He also said, and this is essential, that Eddie never made a false positive.Yep, he did Anne and that is, I agree, a very important point indeed. 8((()*/
Operational Dave, the giveaway is the word operational ie cases that involved searches for someone. I am not going to go round in circles and split hairs with you.
He also said, and this is essential, that Eddie never made a false positive.
My advise would be to not get drawn in Serendipity
Important threads are frequently misdirected and descend into some sort of hair-splitters' convention where irrelvancies are bandied back and forth endlessly ... and pointlessly
perhaps you think the difference between 6 and 200 is splitting hairs...perhaps you are not very good at maths
My advise would be to not get drawn in SerendipityHard not to bite sometimes but yes you are right, his petty pedantics are best ignored :)
Important threads are frequently misdirected and descend into some sort of hair-splitters' convention where irrelvancies are bandied back and forth endlessly ... and pointlessly
Put the hook away dave
... I'm not biting
?{)(**
I agree with you on that front, it frustrates me too. What he said is that Eddie did not alert to meat/foodstuffs in 200 cases operationally. He was during his lifetime, a very special dog who helped police secure many convictions and was also very effective in many other cases such as missing people who had sadly taken their own lives.
Picking up on Pathfinder's quote earlier:
Vol IX p. 2481
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
However, in his "personal profile" document, "searches" was missing:
POINTS TO ASSIST
Whilst it is stated that the E.V.R D. is originally trained using pig the following notes
of guidance should be considered when assessing indications:
P In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never alerted to meat based foodstuffs.
> The dog has never alerted to 'road kill'
That doesn't seem to be a PJ mistake, as the original seems to be in native English.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME_IXprocesso_2265.jpg)
Grime may have added "searches" to "cases" in the report to clarify (there can be several searches undertaken within in an individual case), but the distinction may have been ignored. As, seemingly, was the fact that he was referring to Eddie's reaction to foodstuffs and roadkill.
so the FACT is eddie was not involved in 200 cases..its a myth
You are just not accurate in your statements....it was 200 case searches not 200 cases
Not only did Grime not state that Eddie had been involved in 200 (homicide) cases, but that somehow got progressively morphed into Eddie being responsible for 200 homicide convictions.
Not only did Grime not state that Eddie had been involved in 200 (homicide) cases, but that somehow got progressively morphed into Eddie being responsible for 200 homicide convictions.
The true figure of operational deployments for Eddie (confirmed by South Yorkshire Police in a freedom of information answer) is just 37.
Grime did state that Eddie had been involved in over 200 cases.
The true figure of operational deployments for Eddie (confirmed by South Yorkshire Police in a freedom of information answer) is just 37.
If the dogs have no value, according to some supporters of the mccann, why do these people continue to wet themselves by continuing to attack Mr. Grimes and the those same dogs ???
8)-)))
he bottom line remains in this case.
The forensic evidence was inconclusive.
The possibility that Madeleine suffered a fatal accident cannot be ignored or dismissed.
There was no forensic evidence.
The forensics were discredited.
Of course you do.
Now what is your agenda, other than representing the mccanns ? 8)-)))
That is what they continue to do Anne, and then you have to consider what or who is behind the motivation for the continued attacks.
Luckily for Ferryman and others like him, Martin really could not give a toss what is said about him. He knows he did his job properly and he knows that his dogs did too :) Might call him to give him a giggle at the latest round of strawclutching going on though lol.
Luckily for Ferryman and others like him, Martin really could not give a toss what is said about him. He knows he did his job properly and he knows that his dogs did too :) Might call him to give him a giggle at the latest round of strawclutching going on though lol.
Are you suggesting that Grime would "giggle" at whatever you tell him about in a private conversation between the two of you in a case under investigation?
I'm not sure that you are doing him any favours.*
* ETA in the sense of enhancing his reputation.
wake up stephen..not attacks ... I'm actually defending what Grime saysWithout taking sides, just wondering who on the 6thAugust in Portimao drove the car from the cafe rendevous to the garage? (If it was a PJ then that would be an extra person who handled the keycard).
Without taking sides, just wondering who on the 6th drove the car from the cafe to the garage? (If it was a PJ then that would be an extra person who handled the keycard).
For the short drive from cafe to garage even if there was a PJ driver it would be easy to put on some of those forensic gloves would greatly reduce the (theoretical) possibility of scent transfer hand to keycard.But did they?
There was no forensic evidence.
The forensics were discredited.
Those expressions are mutually exclusive 8-)(--)
In fact there was lots of forensic evidence but little proof of anything.
Without taking sides, just wondering who on the 6thAugust in Portimao drove the car from the cafe rendevous to the garage? (If it was a PJ then that would be an extra person who handled the keycard).
Was it driven or towed?
I wouldn't have thought that they would have been driven. However, I haven't found anything in the files to clarify.
Amaral's book is also vague on this issue.
Driven by the investigators, the cars are parked in the reserved areas, doors closed and windows raised, with a space of 10 metres from one to another to avoid contamination.
The original:
As viaturas foram conduzidas para aquele local por investigadores e dispostas pelos lugares de estacionamento, mantendo uma distância de cerca de dez metros entre cada uma delas, para evitar eventuais contaminações.
An accurate and truthful account how the vehicle was delivered to Portimao on 6th August and where it was impounded is found in chapter 14 of the book by KM.This is how Mr McCann tells the way he (not his wife) delivered the car to the police :
This is how Mr McCann tells the way he (not his wife) delivered the car to the police :
6 August 2007
I went to a large office store in Portimao to buy a new printer and ink, both of which were badly needed after all the posters we produced this last week.
There has been lots of media attention on the latest police searches.
We are pleased that the investigation remains so active and we are cooperating fully with the Portuguese and British police, as we have done since day 1.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Monday 6 August ....... At the PJ’s request, Gerry went off to meet them at a café in Portimão. They didn’t need me ....... Gerry returned minus the car. While he’d been in the café, the police had impounded it for forensic testing and brought him back to Praia da Luz themselves.
Wednesday 8 August ...... João Carlos returned our car at lunchtime (albeit with a piece missing from the boot).
While he’d been in the café, the police .....brought him back to Praia da Luz themselves.How sweet, those PJ inspectors ! No media interference..
How sweet, those PJ inspectors ! No media interference..
so who drove the car away from the cafeIs it possible that compounds were transferred from the driver's hand to the keycard?
Is it possible that compounds were transferred from the driver's hand to the keycard?
Is it possible that compounds were transferred from the driver's hand to the keycard?A driver who just before had been moving a cadaver or two without gloves ?
A driver who just before had been moving a cadaver or two without gloves ?
Notice that the most factual account we have on how the car got from PDL to Portimao comes from the book I quoted.Are you kidding ? Mr McCann was alone when he drove the car to Portimao. He parked the car near a café where, in order to avoid the medias, he was met by the police and driven back to PDL. He possibly was instructed to leave the key in the door. A reboque came and took the car to the garage. There was no need to touch the key with hands contaminated through touching a cadaver.
I suggest that another account from the same book, that she found the window already open, is equally factual.
Notice that the most factual account we have on how the car got from PDL to Portimao comes from the book I quoted.If A is true then B is true ? Funny logic !
I suggest that another account from the same book, that she found the window already open, is equally factual.
Are you kidding ? Mr McCann was alone when he drove the car to Portimao. He parked the car near a café where, in order to avoid the medias, he was met by the police and driven back to PDL. He possibly was instructed to leave the key in the door. A reboque came and took the car to the garage. There was no need to touch the key with hands contaminated through touching a cadaver.If that is indeed factual ?
Wasn't Prof Harrison supervising the operation ?
If A is true then B is true ? Funny logic !It is logic, based on experience that someone who tells me the truth about many things will do so next time also.
It is logic, based on experience that someone who tells me the truth about many things will do so next time also.!
But at least you agree that A is true? That it is a factual account of how the car was taken to Portimao?
WInching a car onto a trailer without touching the keycard?How do you think cars are withdrawn from prohibited park spaces ?
You won't find me standing next to the trailer when you do that 8-)(--)
How do you think cars are withdrawn from prohibited park spaces ?The method illustrated on that sign for illegally parked cars would require first breaking into the car.
(http://www.emel.pt/opencms/export/sites/emel/imagens/sms_reboque.jpg_659878206.jpg)
The question of how the car was "taken" to Portimao is answered by consulting the accurate source which states it was "driven" there. Without that source you would be guessing how it was "taken" there.No, I wouldn't, Mr McCann's blog says clearly that he went to Portimao on that day.
The method illustrated on that sign for illegally parked cars would require first breaking into the car.Not at all. It's a simple and quick way, valid for a short distance.
Apart from YO, has the operation supervisor recommended the previous pollution of the cars by a driver, gloves or not ?
Anyway IMO the car in this case is likely to have been driven by a police officer from cafe to garage and it seems reasonable to assume with the correct type of gloves (which we know were used in the garage).
Not at all. It's a simple and quick way, valid for a short distance.The method as illustrated in your photo would require breaking into the illegally parked car, unless you put up another sign "to all people who park illegally please leave car in neutral and handbrake off".
Apart from YO, has the operation supervisor recommended the previous pollution of the cars by a driver, gloves or not ?Good point. The way to move a car without touching the interior is to use a truck which lifts the car up into the air and down onto the truck. (Towing or winching both require entering the car and touching steering wheel / gearshift / handbrake). It would be interesting to see which methods are used by police forces in various countries.
The method as illustrated in your photo would require breaking into the illegally parked car, unless you put up another sign "to all people who park illegally please leave car in neutral and handbrake off".
Back to the car in Portimao, it is documented that various other people had rented the car before May 26th. The fact that other people had driven it (whether previous renters or police) does not invalidate the EVRD indication IMO.
No, I have actually stood and watched the "police" remove an illegal parked car in Tenerife. They don't really worry about the car and they would likely be very careful not to contaminate a car to be forensically examined.Well they haven't been exactly careful in some other instances to do with this case have they ? Comments have been made about the missing gloves / white suits. Martin Grime might have been more fussy tho? If he was in charge at that stage ?
Good point. The way to move a car without touching the interior is to use a truck which lifts the car up into the air and down onto the truck. (Towing or winching both require entering the car and touching steering wheel / gearshift / handbrake). It would be interesting to see which methods are used by police forces in various countries.How can locked cars be removed according to you ? Do you think that the Portuguese barbarians jemmy the door of the car in order to remove it or break the window to get inside ?
How do you think cars are withdrawn from prohibited park spaces ?So did they manoeuvre it into place using that method?
(http://www.emel.pt/opencms/export/sites/emel/imagens/sms_reboque.jpg_659878206.jpg)
It was far too late then anyway. The car had been used by others so any forensics would have been laughed out of court. If Dr Amaral and the PJ really thought the car had been used as a transport for a body they should have pounced on it immediately. Even after the McCanns fled Portugal for fear of being arrested, the PJ failed to act. What were they thinking?
And as for driving the suspect vehicles to the underground car park to be tested and even damaging Murats van...unbelievable incompetence! Keystone cops for sure.
Good point. The way to move a car without touching the interior is to use a truck which lifts the car up into the air and down onto the truck. (Towing or winching both require entering the car and touching steering wheel / gearshift / handbrake). It would be interesting to see which methods are used by police forces in various countries.
The car was taken down to a different level for the forensic exam. Would a regular car park be high enough for a truck to lift the car up and then take it down the ramp?
Why did the tavares report say eddie alerted in the boot?
I find it amazing that people that are on their asses thousands of kilometres away decide that they are more knowledgeable than those that actually were on the site.
This case is fortunately documented, something the UK has never done, and it gives place to every attempt to discredit the work that was conducted.
Mistakes were done, nobody discusses that, but not as many as the McCann defenders wish to make out.
I find it amazing that people that are on their asses thousands of kilometres away decide that they are more knowledgeable than those that actually were on the site.
This case is fortunately documented, something the UK has never done, and it gives place to every attempt to discredit the work that was conducted.
Mistakes were done, nobody discusses that, but not as many as the McCann defenders wish to make out.
We have read the reports by Grime, that's all we need to know that the dogs do not incriminate the McCanns
Guess what?
Tavares was there, at the site, when the dogs made the signaling of the cars and clothes.
That makes it even more difficult to understand why he didn't notice which dog went in the boot.
If Eddie examines a vehicle or room and does not signal, is it safe to assume there was never a body in that vehicle/room?
That makes it even more difficult to understand why he didn't notice which dog went in the boot.
well at least now it seems that posters accept the truth about the dogs with no dissenting voices tonight...about time too
Unless it did...off camera? 8)-)))
If that were the case, and if Eddie had reacted to anything in the boot, why wouldn't this have been recorded as video evidence? Or, more likely, spread all over the Internet at the speed of light? Wouldn't this have been a mega scoop?
Grime stated that he didn't intend to put Eddie in the car (the transcription somehow got mangled and stated the opposite). TdeA's report stated that Eddie was in the boot... but based on what?
Where else in the records does it state that Eddie went into that boot?
It does appear that it was simply sloppy reporting and a failure to check/proof read the report properly. In the additional analysis report dated 3rd September 2007 also by Tavares de Almeida he states...
This work resulted in 'alerts' by both dogs:
- cadaver odour [was alerted to]:
* in the lounge, next to one of the windows, of apartment 5A;
* in the current residence of the family, a soft toy of the girl Madeleine;
* on various pieces of clothing;
* on the key of the car used by the family;
- blood odour;
* in the lounge, next to one of the windows, of apartment 5A (the same place
alerted to by the other dog;
* on the key of the key used by the family;
* inside the boot area of the car used by the family.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm#p10p2603
If that were the case, and if Eddie had reacted to anything in the boot, why wouldn't this have been recorded as video evidence? Or, more likely, spread all over the Internet at the speed of light? Wouldn't this have been a mega scoop?
Grime stated that he didn't intend to put Eddie in the car (the transcription somehow got mangled and stated the opposite). TdeA's report stated that Eddie was in the boot... but based on what?
Where else in the records does it state that Eddie went into that boot?
As soon as sloppy reporting is accepted it throws everything into doubt. Having said that it doesn't matter where the dogs alerted or didn't alert...nothing was corroborated so its meaningless. I find the alert in the flower bed ridiculous from what I have read...the scent would just not last that long, outside with wind and rain
Probably a dead cat, hamster or goldfish. 8(0(*
The only time that we know of that Eddie alerted at the car was outside the drivers door. We saw on the video Mr Grime stating that he was not going to put Eddie inside the car but why not? Surely the whole point in the exercise was to find out where in the car there was cadaver residue if any?
I find this a bit of a mystery tbo.
The only time that we know of that Eddie alerted at the car was outside the drivers door. We saw on the video Mr Grime stating that he was not going to put Eddie inside the car but why not? Surely the whole point in the exercise was to find out where in the car there was cadaver residue if any?
I find this a bit of a mystery tbo.
They were looking for Madeleine's blood. The dog most likely to have found it if it had been there was Keela.
Just about the only thing I give Grime credit for is that he had Eddie test the ignition key separately and apart from the car.
But even then, what possessed Grime to suppose it might be found on the ignition key of a car hired 3 weeks after her abduction?
I think to a point, he was probably following orders/requests.
I disagree with you on that, Anna.
One day, I may explain why.
But not now ...
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dogpic6.jpg)
(Given that Keela is only used after Eddie has indicated a cadaver odour, it seems strange that the 57-page PJ Report Summary does not record cadaver odour being indicated in the area of the vehicle's boot, or, indeed, anywhere on the car, apart from the keys.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5
The only time that we know of that Eddie alerted at the car was outside the drivers door. We saw on the video Mr Grime stating that he was not going to put Eddie inside the car but why not? Surely the whole point in the exercise was to find out where in the car there was cadaver residue if any?
I find this a bit of a mystery tbo.
Ah!
Every rule has its exception, Anna.
From the inspection in the gym:
2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.
The blood dog was deployed first, almost certainly because, without a reaction from the blood dog, there would be no reason to send anything to the FSS.
The blood dog didn't react.
Then Eddie was deployed.
Why?
It's not a mystery if you accept the idea that Eddie was the GP and Keela the blood specialist (it's the haystack and needle analogy that was used to describe the duo in the press ages ago).
Try it the other way around. Keela can pinpoint tiny amounts of blood. When she does, that could be significant in terms of forensics. Great, but time-consuming - as on one has time for a dog to sniff millimetre by millimetre over a large area. The police had their general zones to check, Eddie was supposed to react if anything seemed to be of interest, and Keela was wheeled in to try to spot any trace of blood which might provide potential forensic evidence, hence saving time.
I know that both dogs can detect blood, whereas Eddie can also detect dried/old blood up to 36 years old or cadaver scent. Cadaverscent would be of no use to forensics back then, so they were looking for a contaminant, which could have been introduced in many different ways.
Mr Grime:- Car alerts
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But I thought it was said that EVRD only barked at Cadaver scent, which means it was the blood detected in the apartment and car that it was most probably barking at.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html?sid=643f56da60b8e250fb6d9c8f5d9110a7
Eddie has (had! I gather he is now dead) only one indication, a bark, which he used to signal cadaver odour or blood.IMO the late Eddie had two variations of alert. Link coming soon.
IMO:
Eddie bark with head in air = residual scent.
Eddie bark with head down = tangible source.
Source: Processos IX pages 2473-2483
"The first alert was given with the dog's head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident."
IMO:
Eddie bark with head in air = residual scent.
Eddie bark with head down = tangible source.
Source: Processos IX pages 2473-2483
"The first alert was given with the dog's head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident."
When Grime says Eddie MAY be alerting to cadaver scent he is admitting he isn't sure...therefore he admits that there is the chance that the dog is wrong.
When Grime says Eddie MAY be alerting to cadaver scent he is admitting he isn't sure...therefore he admits that there is the chance that the dog is wrong.
IMO:
Eddie bark with head in air = residual scent.
Eddie bark with head down = tangible source.
Source: Processos IX pages 2473-2483
"The first alert was given with the dog's head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident."
Eddie's reaction to the Renault was to a tangible source (spots of Gerry's blood).
Eddie turned and faced Grime and barked, head in the air.
It wasn't proven that Eddie's alert related only to the ignition card since the dog wasn't deployed after the card was removed. If I'm honest I find the whole silly mess riddled with inconsistencies and maybes.
That's not true.
Eddie was invited to react to the ignition key a second time, separately and apart from the car, hidden inside a sand box, and did so.
I am aware of that but was he invited to check out the car with the key card removed? No
One BIG mess IYAM @)(++(*
There could have been cadaverine in the car but Grime failed to prove it one way or another.
The biggest anomaly of the lot is 10 cars inspected simultaneously.
There was an innocent scent in the Renault.
There might easily have been in any of the other 9 cars.
We can't say there was an innocent scent in the car because Eddie never checked it out with the contaminated key card removed. A huge oversight IMO.
The Scenic should have been isolated for a period of time with the keycard removed and then retested properly. No doubt time and money were the determining factors.
We can't say there was an innocent scent in the car because Eddie never checked it out with the contaminated key card removed. A huge oversight IMO.
The Scenic should have been isolated for a period of time with the keycard removed and then retested properly. No doubt time and money were the determining factors.
In reality none of these threads matter because Grime has told us that the dogs are not 100% reliable...so just how reliable are they..nobody really knows
In reality none of these threads matter because Grime has told us that the dogs are not 100% reliable...so just how reliable are they..nobody really knows
In reality none of these threads matter because Grime has told us that the dogs are not 100% reliable...so just how reliable are they..nobody really knows
The actual reality is the dogs did indicate, and it is more than possible they indicated to the remains of Madeleine.
I don't see how any claim of 100% accuracy can be proved. If a dog was sent into a field to search - and didn't alert then the handler would assume there was nothing there to alert to. However without digging up the whole field - what he cannot know is whether there was something there- and the dog had simply missed it.
I'm impressed by all sniffer dogs, but IMO one of the main reasons why false alerts can happen is when the dog is affected by the beliefs of the handler. i.e. unconscious cueing. This has been proved to happen in tests, and Grime acknowledges that it is a reason for false alerts.
Unless Grime and his dogs had been subjected to such testing - then he cannot possibly know for certain whether this could apply in his own case - as the very fact that such cueing is unconscious means that he wouldn't know he was doing it in the first place.
Anyone who has a dog will know they can pick up on the slightest, tiniest changes in body language.
They buried the key in a bucket of sand on the far side of the underground car park. Eddie found it and alerted to confirm. Keela has to get in real close and sniff to alert to microscopic blood. IMO cadaver scent was coming from the car. Eddie's behaviour changed straight away due to him picking up cadaver scent which is what he was trained to find. Also their neighbour said they always kept the car boot open day and night so she reported it to the police!
What do you think would have happened if Eddie had been put into the garage on his own? Does anyone else think that Eddie was trained and could only work as long as he had inputs from his handler?
I certainly agree that a dog picks up on its masters mannerisms.
Come on Stephen, in reality it could have been many substances he was alerting to. Harsh reality is nobody will ever know.
Is anything 100% reliable in the world Dave? Surely it is a case of striving for the best possible scenario?[/u]
Interesting thought. From the videos where he's being called back to concentrate, he seems to rely on Grime's guidance as to where he's supposed to be checking.
A point, perhaps, is that when he wasn't tasked to search, he was just a normal dog, no doubt catching up on the Canine News at lamp posts. Most dogs would pick up the scent of a buried bone (of any kind), and dig to retrieve it as a treasure. But would he have alerted his master?
ETA: What would everyday life be like if he barked at every potential interesting scent on his daily walks? That doesn't seem feasible.
What do you think would have happened if Eddie had been put into the garage on his own? Does anyone else think that Eddie was trained and could only work as long as he had inputs from his handler?
I certainly agree that a dog picks up on its masters mannerisms.
The actual reality is the dogs did indicate, and it is more than possible they indicated to the remains of Madeleine.
I am quite aware of that.
However, it does not preclude the possibility of what I said being the case.
As you well know I've never believed the abduction scenario.
For a variety of reasons. 8(0(*
The question some should be asking is why I don't believe in the abduction scenario ?
8)-))) 8)--))
The question some should be asking is why I don't believe in the abduction scenario ?
8)-))) 8)--))
Perhaps the venerable denizens of Haverns and associated places ...
The question some should be asking is why I don't believe in the abduction scenario ?
8)-))) 8)--))
perhaps no ones bothered that you don't believe in the abduction scenario.....people believe the earth is 6000 years old....doesn't bother me
Is it not your role in life to point out to others the errors of their ways?
Where exactly is the precise, absolute and incontrovertible evidence for abduction, backed up with forensics and not hearsay ?
Now that is the question ?
post deleted by senior editor
First try stopping the childish language. It would help.
Second, I have given my theory, but I have no intention of committing potential 'libel' on here.
Madeleine I believe had a fatal accident.
As we have seen in the papers, the UK police get things wrong.
Also, try stop referring to 'abduction', when it hasn't been established in court it is. That would help too.
...and a brief reminder, there is n o forensic evidence of abduction.
We have the opinion of the PJ, who stated the McCann's were unable to be cleared.I don't state it as a fact...just that it seems the most plausible and is what SY and the PJ are investigating at the moment..
As far as I know Operation Grange has not yet been finalised so we don't have a clue what SY are thinking in 2014.
It is therefore illogical and fallacious to state that the "abduction" is fact.
As I have said if you want to have your theory thats up to you...SY don't agree with you..the PJ don't agree with you...but it doesn't really matter as your opinion is of no importance
As I have said if you want to have your theory thats up to you...SY don't agree with you..the PJ don't agree with you...but it doesn't really matter as your opinion is of no importance
Nobody's opinion on here is really of any importance - except yours, of course @)(++(*
That's untrue Dave. The crime in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is still undetermined.
I would say it is true...the parents are not suspects according to SY ...so SY cannot be considering a fatal accident and cover up by parents
How can they be suspects in a yet undetermined crime?
Was Madeleine killed by misadventure, by accident, kidnapped or murdered?
As SY have said the parents are not suspects then they must not think that an accident happened and the parents covered it up
Oh but I agree Dave, Redwood has gone on record to declare that Madeleine could be alive, wasn't that brave of him. By the same token she could be dead too...bottom line is they haven't got a baldy notion what the truth is.
Nineteen pages later... has anyone found any proof that Tavares de Almeida did NOT make an error in his report?
Nineteen pages later... has anyone found any proof that Tavares de Almeida did NOT make an error in his report?
In fairness, Carana, when you ask a question to which there is only one, incontrovertible answer, that leaves precious little room for debate ...
I think Eddie would be too big to put in the front of this car, but according to what he says below, he was going to try.
Processos Vol IX
Page 2466
Verbal Report of Martin Grime Referring to the Search Made of Vehicles Using the Dogs
Transcription/Translation
Vehicle n° 1 – number plate 75-AG-62
Vehicle N° 2 – number plate 45-49-ER
Vehicle N°3 – number plate RI-96-03
Vehicle N°4 – number plate 59-DA-27
Vehicle N°5 – number plate 96-26-VE
Vehicle N°6 – number plate 44-77-KD
Vehicle N°7 – number plate VH-24-22
Vehicle N°8 – number plate 57-12-HP
Vehicle N°9 – number plate 10-91-FP
Vehicle N°10 – number plate 07-50-UI
We examined the cars with the dog and the only reaction we got was in relation to the car in the extreme corner. I will indicate that it was the Renault. What we have is a reaction to this door here, where (the dog) lifts its head in the air and sniffs for the objects which it has been trained to detect. And when we limit our movements, the dog chooses this car, this door. It is important to know that the dog chooses the odour that comes from the lower part of the door. Based on this information, I will try to place the dog inside the car.
ETA: Doc linked in TOC.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post127971.html#p127971
Anna, as Carana has pointed out, there is an actual video recording of Grime himself, saying that he shan't put the dog in the car.
I think Carana highlights the error you post in one of her earlier posts ...
Carana's post, second in the thread:
As I've already posted on a different thread (although not strictly a translation error, but possibly a foreign language comprehension error) when Grime said in his video that he didn't intend placing Eddie in the boot, the translated transcript said the opposite, i.e. that he did intend to do so. And somehow that error (with a missing "não") made its way into Tavares de Almeida's interim report.
The car was taken down to a different level for the forensic exam. Would a regular car park be high enough for a truck to lift the car up and then take it down the ramp?
SW that refers to Keela the blood dog, also called the csi dog, not EddieIt says "* Marked the interior of the booth" a booth not a boot. both different things. Booth is that just the entire inside of the car?
*deleted text* until I find the ref.:
OK found it
7. Vehicle used by the McCann family
7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the booth
7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the booth
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
According to this Eddie did mark inside the boot, but perhaps it was a mistake? As it doesnt appear in the final PJ report I dont think
In any case as you have quted below, the summary comment on the vehicle searches made was that the alerts by Eddie could be cadaverscent or blood
Eta and if Mr Amaral was working from information on the case up until he left the case, then thats probbly why he said in the book this dog alerted in the boot, not that he deliberately lied.
It says "* Marked the interior of the booth" a booth not a boot. both different things. Booth is that just the entire inside of the car?
NO. It is a typing error ... *marcou no interior de bagage do veiculo ... which didn't happen in the first place.And Keela only marks for blood ... NOT cadaver
Eddie did not enter the vehicle.
The dog being referred to is Keela ... and she was in the boot.(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2596.jpg)
In the official Report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, he wrongly states that the Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) called Eddie alerted in the boot area of the McCann's Renault Scenic hire car. The truth as seen from the video being that Eddie was never deployed within the car.
The Report dated 10 September 2007 states...
Among the great number of objects and locales inspected, the dogs marked the following places:
It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
7. Vehicle used by the McCann family
7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the boot
7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the boot
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
8()-000(
In the official Report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, he wrongly states that the Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) called Eddie alerted in the boot area of the McCann's Renault Scenic hire car. The truth as seen from the video being that Eddie was never deployed within the car.
The Report dated 10 September 2007 states...
Among the great number of objects and locales inspected, the dogs marked the following places:
It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
7. Vehicle used by the McCann family
7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the boot
7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the boot
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
8()-000(
Tavares' first mistake was to make reference to the "enhanced" victim recovery dog.It's OK for some. I wasn't a member when this was active so the site tracking mechanism told me I was 20 pages behind.
No such thing.
Never has been (in the whole history of sniffer dogs).
Bloody hell.
Just realised.
This thread is over two years old ....
It's OK for some. I wasn't a member when this was active so the site tracking mechanism told me I was 20 pages behind.
Let me try a one-line summary of those 20 pages. Tavares wasn't sure whether these were miracle dogs or not.
And 9 years on, theargumentdebate continues.
And Keela only marks for blood ... NOT cadaverI took it to mean the cadaver dog doesn't have to go into a car to indicate in the boot. They just need to smell the air coming from the bottom of the door seal. The dog might not have gone into the car but it still indicated in the boot. That makes perfect sense to me.
All you doubters are barking up the wrong tree. You have listened to Amaral too long. Try thinking it thru.
NO CADAVER indications in the boot. NONE
I took it to mean the cadaver dog doesn't have to go into a car to indicate in the boot. They just need to smell the air coming from the bottom of the door seal. The dog might not have gone into the car but it still indicated on the boot. That makes perfect sense to me.
I took it to mean the cadaver dog doesn't have to go into a car to indicate in the boot. They just need to smell the air coming from the bottom of the door seal. The dog might not have gone into the car but it still indicated on the boot. That makes perfect sense to me.
Oh goody - you're a scientist, aren't you? Can you explain why odour would only permeate the one door seal before being effused some considerable distance into the car park where the Scenic was located? Strangely, the seal of the car boot, near which the "blood" Keela alerted to, produced no reaction from Eddie.I'm a scientist but this is not my field of expertise. I have an interest in dogs and we did discuss sense of smell on other science forums.
I would really appreciate your help to understand the scientific process which caused this.
I'm a scientist but this is not my field of expertise. I have an interest in dogs and we did discuss sense of smell on other science forums.
You ask "Can you explain why odour would only permeate the one door seal before being effused some considerable distance into the car park where the Scenic was located?" That is a hard question and it will be due to very fine air movements.
I would say the odour once considerably past the door seal is just wafted in the breeze. So it won't be on the ground where the car parked. I think saw Eddie's quite close to the seal. I'm not sure of the exact situation that you are referring to in particular.
You ask "the seal of the car boot, near which the "blood" Keela alerted to, produced no reaction from Eddie." there are many reason there could be blood there, and if it didn't come from "the body in the boot" it may have just been from a fresh cut. Anyone's guess or excuse will do to explain the blood, but it didn't come from a decomposing cadaver.
OK, thanks for responding anyway. I will remain in ignorance until our resident expert decides to offer a proper explanation, although I'm not going to hold my breath.Who is the "resident expert" around here?
Asking a forensics dog to sniff the outside/underside of a car was akin to taking Keila into an abattoir and looking for a dead cow. A total and unmitigated waste of time imo.
Something which has always puzzled me however is why did Mr Grime not put Eddie into the hire car?
Scent was escaping from the driver's door where he alerted. The source of the scent he was alerting to could be anywhere inside the vehicle.
"This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door." Martin Grime
The key fob (to which Eddie alerted) was taken out of the car, placed inside a sandbox and buried for Eddie to alert to a second time.
Eddie did so.
The key fob was sent to the FSS and found to contain Gerry's DNA.
(Surprise, surprise, Gerry drove the car).
I would have also put Eddie in the car because he found the DNA evidence that nailed the murderer in the Attracta Harron case and that was a burnt out shell - forensics found nothing until Eddie entered the car and went to work.
No it doesn't have to be blood because there could be blood in other vehicles. It could have been cadaver scent which he was trained to find i.e. the enhanced meaning.you are thinking in an inverted way Pfinder. you seem to be so keen [ edited out ] that you cant accept that the most likely thing is that Eddie *IF* alerted to a scent thru a distorted seal, then it is most likely to be blood (as on Gerrys keyring or unwashed clothing in the boot area.)
No it doesn't have to be blood because there could be blood in other vehicles. It could have been cadaver scent which he was trained to find i.e. the enhanced meaning.
No it doesn't have to be blood because there could be blood in other vehicles. It could have been cadaver scent which he was trained to find i.e. the enhanced meaning.
No it doesn't have to be blood because there could be blood in other vehicles. It could have been cadaver scent which he was trained to find i.e. the enhanced meaning.
- Both dogs alerted to the key fob hidden in the bucket of sand ~ I've always found that an extraordinary action to take which may have risked contaminating or destroying evidence ~ but, however ...
- Both dogs were trained to alert to blood ... which probably explains that the cellular material recorded in the FSS report was blood.
- The cellular material was confirmed as having been deposited by a living breathing person.
- If the key fob had carried ... the scent of death ... that would have been transferred to the area inside the car where the key fob had been.
- That Eddie did not then alert inside the car proves that there was no cadaver contaminate either from the key fob or anything else.
- Therefore Eddie DID NOT alert to cadaver scent from the McCann hire car ... despite the rather spectacular display of barking outside the door.
Come on, PFinder, even you must admit that Eddie whizzed around the other cars in a tizz, but was ordered back to the Mccann car over and over again ... was it five times or four times? And very strictly made to sniff the one car only; that car being the Mccann car.
Eddie is not daft; he would know where he had to be sensible cos Grime indicated it to him sternly and repeatedly. Strange that it was the drivers door that was rapped repeatedly, Gerrys key would have been just inside. Strange that the boot was rapped repeatedly; Keela found blood in there.
Just a co-incidence, I suppose ... but strange never the less.
Now, a question for you.
Why do you think that Eddie wasn't put inside the car?
Somewhere in those PJ files is a translation which says the key fob was placed UNDER the fire sand bucket, not inside it.
I think you are correct, Misty, certainly a more sensible course of action ~ if they remembered to protect it from the garage floor.
It could be both because in other Eddie alerts blood was not detected. Eddie was not put inside the car because Keela was searching for blood DNA evidence. A body was not in the car.
Somewhere in those PJ files is a translation which says the key fob was placed UNDER the fire sand bucket, not inside it.
04.11 ? the dog ?marked? the compartment on the driver?s side, which was seen to contain the vehicle?s key, of a plastic electronic card type, with a key ring from the Budget car rental agency.
With the aim of confirming whether the dog had effectively ?marked? the vehicle?s key, which was inside the compartment on the driver?s side, at 04.13 the key in question was removed from the vehicle and hidden in a place far from the vehicle on the third floor of the underground car park.
At about 04.14 it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of a box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which, effectively, the vehicle?s key had been hidden.
At approximately 04.50 a new sniffer dog inspection was carried out using the dog EDDY which detects cadaver odour, using the vehicle key which for this purpose was hidden on the fourth floor of the underground car park, far away from the vehicle.
At about 04.51, it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of the box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which the key had been hidden.
Scent was escaping from the driver's door where he alerted. The source of the scent he was alerting to could be anywhere inside the vehicle.The door has a drain hole so that any water that gets into the door interior can drain out.
"This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door." Martin Grime
No body ... neither was there cadaver scent contaminant inside the car.Eddie's purpose was to alert to the possibility that there had been a cadaver in that car. They found some evidence of DNA which came from someone, but it wasn't Madeleine, it wasn't a match.
We have seen Eddie 'alerting' outside the car and to this day many still believe he alerted as a result of Madeleine's defrosting remains having been conveyed in the non-existent wheel well in the boot of the Renault.
.....
However I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say "A body was not in the car."
Nor was there anything other than a key fob to which Eddie could react as per his early training to blood.
Eddie's purpose was to alert to the possibility that there had been a cadaver in that car. They found some evidence of DNA which came from someone, but it wasn't Madeleine, it wasn't a match.
Eddie alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
Eddie ignored the boot.
Eddie alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key.Eddie is a cadaver dog, he doesn't alert to dried blood. You should know that. So if there was bloody fluids from a cadaver that dried that could be picked up by Eddie for it isn't fresh blood anymore.
Eddie ignored the boot.
Have you got a cite from the lowe rport that it was gerrys blood?
Eddie is a cadaver dog, he doesn't alert to dried blood. You should know that. So if there was bloody fluids from a cadaver that dried that could be picked up by Eddie for it isn't fresh blood anymore.
He does, its in Grime's cv or reportIt sounded like you agreed with me. Is that right? You agreed.
Eddie alerted to nthng fresh just cadaverised so to speak
The word blood is not used (once) in John Lowe's report.
But I wouldn't want to diss Keela by accusing her of reacting to anything other than blood (seeing as she is not trained to react to anything else); and keela reacted to the ignition key.
Everything sent to the FSS was reacted to Keela; anything Keela didn't react to wasn't sent.
The word blood does not feature (once) in John Lowe's report.
Eddie is a cadaver dog, he doesn't alert to dried blood. You should know that. So if there was bloody fluids from a cadaver that dried that could be picked up by Eddie for it isn't fresh blood anymore.
The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
I know all that but none of it proves Eddie was reacting to blood, it could have been either that and/or cadaver scent, what facts have you got to dispute the possibility
So Eddie reacted to cadaver odour on the key of the Renault Scenic (but not the boot, which he studiously ignored)?He wasnt sent into the car so ignored nothing in there
Realign the compass, Mercury ....
Why did Eddie need two stabs to (apparently) detect anything at all on cuddle-cat?
He wasnt sent into the car so ignored nothing in there
I know all that but none of it proves Eddie was reacting to blood, it could have been either that and/or cadaver scent, what facts have you got to dispute the possibilityhe is trained to react to cadaver odour only and the other dog, Keela, to dried blood. It is a cunning combination.
Eddie reacted twice (in two different locations) to the same item (the ignition key); the second time after it was buried in a sandbox in a location well away from the car.But that still does not prove it was blood he was reacting to andbtw lowe did not say it WAS Gerrys dna,sorry to play devils advocate but in these cases the devil really is in the details
The ignition was found to contain forensic material (either blood, or Keela false-alerted) that matched Gerry's DNA.
he is trained to react to cadaver odour only and the other dog, Keela, to dried blood. It is a cunning combination.NO youre wrong
he is trained to react to cadaver odour only and the other dog, Keela, to dried blood. It is a cunning combination.
Why do you ignore Grime on this point?
Grime says Eddie reacts to blood lost by living humans.
Why do you ignore Grime on this point?That is blood then that has decomposed I would imagine. You are right it doesn't imply the victim has died. A vat full of blood will smell as bad as a vat of meat. So blood or meat are about the same.
Grime says Eddie reacts to blood lost by living humans.
he is trained to react to cadaver odour only and the other dog, Keela, to dried blood. It is a cunning combination.
This is totally incorrect. Try doing more research.Well that is exactly how I understood it. I won't be that far out. Not "totally incorrect" that is an exaggeration.
Well that is exactly how I understood it. I won't be that far out. Not "totally incorrect" that is an exaggeration.
You stated that Eddie was trained to react to Cadaver Odour Only. This is totally untrue. Eddie also was trained to react to Dried Blood. Exactly the opposite to what you have stated as fact.Where did you get that from or what made you think that if it is your own deduction?
Where did you get that from or what made you think that if it is your own deduction?
Martin Grime stated it to be so. Your re now boring me witless on this subject.So that is like on a YouTube video is it? I'll see if I can find it.
No body ... neither was there cadaver scent contaminant inside the car.
We have seen Eddie 'alerting' outside the car and to this day many still believe he alerted as a result of Madeleine's defrosting remains having been conveyed in the non-existent wheel well in the boot of the Renault.
We have seen Eddie Alerting inside Haute de la Garenne in Jersey. Some samples were recovered which justified his alerts ... but milk teeth do not evidence of mass murder make ... and that was the evidence that Lenny Harper was looking for.
We have seen Eddie 'alerting' in Luz ... and despite his handler's warning otherwise ... there are those who believe he was alerting to death. Which without corroboration is untenable. He may have alerted behind the couch and in the garage to a confirmed substance ... whatever else he barked at in Luz remains a mystery.
Perhaps more official effort should have been put into a Portuguese replication of the inquiry conducted into the failed Jersey inquiry which devoted a large part of its findings into the efforts of the cadaver dog and his handler.
The reluctance to sort it out may have been the ramifications of reviewing the conduct of the case in Luz and ignoring Figueira ... who knows?
However I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say "A body was not in the car."
Nor was there anything other than a key fob to which Eddie could react as per his early training to blood.
You don't know if a body had been in that car. There are hairs yet to be identified. Were these hairs from a cadaver or a living person?
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm
Why indulge guesswork that a body had been in the car?Why not? If it is logically possible you have to keep that option open.
Why not? If it is logically possible you have to keep that option open.
Why not? If it is logically possible you have to keep that option open.
Because if you do ... you are on the wrong forum. This one deals in facts which are capable of substantiation. Sometimes members have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of those facts ... but I know of no other member who would consider substituting fact for guesswork and expect to get away with it.we are talking in this thread about the dog alerts and their meaning not the lab analysis. I don't seem to understand why you are so upset.
Nor do I know of a member ~ yourself excluded ~ who does not carry out the modicum of research before hitting the keyboard.
There is no guesswork about the forensic results on the Renault returned from the FSS. Please take note of that before cluttering up the thread with proposals to speculate on accredited forensic results of a standard which would have been acceptable for presentation to a court of law.
we are talking in this thread about the dog alerts and their meaning not the lab analysis. I don't seem to understand why you are so upset.
we are talking in this thread about the dog alerts and their meaning not the lab analysis. I don't seem to understand why you are so upset.
Without forensic corroboration dog alerts are meaningless.So was there something found which corroborated the dog alerts of the booth?
Grime and Harrison both say so.
So was there something found which corroborated the dog alerts of the booth?http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/booth
So was there something found which corroborated the dog alerts of the booth?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/boothBooth is the right word for it meant the entire internal volume of the interior of the Scenic. has similar meaning to " a small space like a box that a person can go into".
booth
noun [ C ] uk /buːð/ us /buːθ/
a small space like a box that a person can go into:
a phone booth
a polling booth
a partly closed area or small tent at a fair, exhibition, or similar event
a place in a restaurant that is beside a wall and where there are two long seats, often with high backs, with a table between them
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which type of booth are you referring to, or would you care to revert to the correct word, which is boot?
Eddie didn't alert to the boot.Also other species of animal DNA especially if the cadaver had been stored in a freezer with other types of meat.
Keela did, and (presumably) there was a component of blood in a mix recovered from the blood (or Keela ought, never, to have reacted to it).
That there should have been some similarities (in a mix contributed to by 5 or 6 people) with the profile of Madeleine is scarcely a surprise.
Also in the mix is likely to have been DNA from 4 of Madeleine's direct relatives, her parents and her twin siblings, so no surprises if that mix showed up some similarities with the DNA of Madeleine.
It's also possible that Madeleine's DNA (distinct from Madeleine) may have been in the mix (of the soup from the boot) from secondary-transfer (of items of Madeleine's carried in the boot).
Also other species of animal DNA especially if the cadaver had been stored in a freezer with other types of meat.Or if the Mccanns had been to the butchers, or the supermarket, and carried leaking bloody joints of pork, sausage, or bacon home
Or if the Mccanns had been to the butchers, or the supermarket, and carried leaking bloody joints of pork, sausage, or bacon home
... or even bacon /ham sarnies.
Err, no Sadie, dont stretch the truth, ta
Or if the Mccanns had been to the butchers, or the supermarket, and carried leaking bloody joints of pork, sausage, or bacon homeThe DNA samples recovered tell a story and obvious we'll need to look at them too this week.
... or even bacon /ham sarnies.