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 April 02, 2013, 01:40:47 AM
Title: The dogs.....
Post by: John on April 02, 2013, 01:40:47 AM
A lot of emphasis has been put on the cadaver dogs and their alerts to various stimuli. I also read that this is was explained as being caused by meat and nappies being carried in the car concerned.
Has this been satisfactorily explained?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: HiDeHo on April 02, 2013, 02:56:37 AM
Quote
Andrea
I understand that Hair and Fibres were sent to the FSS in Birmingham, UK. What were the results of these tests? and John
Quote
John A lot of emphasis has been put on the cadaver dogs and their alerts to various stimuli. I also read that this is was explained as being caused by meat and nappies being carried in the car concerned.
Has this been satisfactorily explained?
With so many videos sharing a lot of the important information, it's difficult to pinpoint the best to use, but hopefully this one will answer both your questions. (let me know if not)
McCANN FORENSICS v 'NO EVIDENCE' Pt 3 - Was Madeleine's BODY in the RENTAL car? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8NVS-_19g0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8NVS-_19g0)
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Chinagirl on April 02, 2013, 05:42:46 AM
A lot of emphasis has been put on the cadaver dogs and their alerts to various stimuli. I also read that this is was explained as being caused by meat and nappies being carried in the car concerned.
Has this been satisfactorily explained?
See http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078050/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2030
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: HiDeHo on April 02, 2013, 06:00:36 AM
A lot of emphasis has been put on the cadaver dogs and their alerts to various stimuli. I also read that this is was explained as being caused by meat and nappies being carried in the car concerned.
Has this been satisfactorily explained?
This AMAZING video shows CADAVER dogs do NOT alert to rotting meat. (Taken from a longer video explaining the dogs)
MCMINUTES: CADAVER dogs IGNORE rotting meat and find BODY 10ft UNDERGROUND! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWdDMp2JgGU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWdDMp2JgGU)
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: debunker on April 02, 2013, 08:36:48 AM
Eddie, the so-called cadaver dog reacts to the scent of dried human blood whether from a living or dead person. A reaction from him indicates cadaver odour OR blood.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Admin on April 02, 2013, 04:20:41 PM
I believe it has been shown in several cases how ineffective the same dogs can be. They failed to notify the presence of any cadaver in the Adrian Prout case and had it not been for his confession Kate's body would never have been found.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: debunker on April 02, 2013, 04:27:46 PM
I believe it has been shown in several cases how ineffective the same dogs can be. They failed to notify the presence of any cadaver in the Adrian Prout case and had it not been for his confession Kate's body would never have been found.
The dogs can be very useful, but cannot be relied on. This is why their handler i mists thattheir reactions are worthless without further confirming evidence.
Drug search dogs false alert in real situations about 2/3 times. Cadaver dogs are really trained for body recovery rather than for micro identification. Added to the fact that Cadaver dogs alert to dried blood, it is difficult to assess their error rate.
IMHO they are better than 50/50 but not by much.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on April 02, 2013, 06:13:30 PM
I believe it has been shown in several cases how ineffective the same dogs can be. They failed to notify the presence of any cadaver in the Adrian Prout case and had it not been for his confession Kate's body would never have been found.
The dogs can be very useful, but cannot be relied on. This is why their handler i mists thattheir reactions are worthless without further confirming evidence.
Drug search dogs false alert in real situations about 2/3 times. Cadaver dogs are really trained for body recovery rather than for micro identification. Added to the fact that Cadaver dogs alert to dried blood, it is difficult to assess their error rate.
IMHO they are better than 50/50 but not by much.
So why were the dogs wrong in this case ?
The D.N.A. was inconclusive.
It does not mean , that the organic traces found weren't Madeleine's.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: debunker on April 02, 2013, 06:23:52 PM
I believe it has been shown in several cases how ineffective the same dogs can be. They failed to notify the presence of any cadaver in the Adrian Prout case and had it not been for his confession Kate's body would never have been found.
The dogs can be very useful, but cannot be relied on. This is why their handler i mists thattheir reactions are worthless without further confirming evidence.
Drug search dogs false alert in real situations about 2/3 times. Cadaver dogs are really trained for body recovery rather than for micro identification. Added to the fact that Cadaver dogs alert to dried blood, it is difficult to assess their error rate.
IMHO they are better than 50/50 but not by much.
So why were the dogs wrong in this case ?
The D.N.A. was inconclusive.
It does not mean , that the organic traces found weren't Madeleine's.
And it certainly does not mean that the 'traces' WERE Madeleine's. No proof either way. Presumption of Innocence and burden of proof then come into play.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on April 02, 2013, 06:27:41 PM
Can anyone confirm if actual tests were done on this organic material such as blood supposedly found in apartment 5a? Did it come back as a match to Madeleine?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on April 02, 2013, 06:30:57 PM
I believe it has been shown in several cases how ineffective the same dogs can be. They failed to notify the presence of any cadaver in the Adrian Prout case and had it not been for his confession Kate's body would never have been found.
The dogs can be very useful, but cannot be relied on. This is why their handler i mists thattheir reactions are worthless without further confirming evidence.
Drug search dogs false alert in real situations about 2/3 times. Cadaver dogs are really trained for body recovery rather than for micro identification. Added to the fact that Cadaver dogs alert to dried blood, it is difficult to assess their error rate.
IMHO they are better than 50/50 but not by much.
So why were the dogs wrong in this case ?
The D.N.A. was inconclusive.
It does not mean , that the organic traces found weren't Madeleine's.
And it certainly does not mean that the 'traces' WERE Madeleine's. No proof either way. Presumption of Innocence and burden of proof then come into play.
Proof of death does not always require a body.
There has not been one trace of Madeleine since she disappeared, and also tried to remember it was the UK police who suggested the PJ investigate the Mccanns as regards Madeleine's disappearance.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Eleanor on April 02, 2013, 06:33:31 PM
Can anyone confirm if actual tests were done on this organic material such as blood supposedly found in apartment 5a? Did it come back as a match to Madeleine?
The blood found in the appartment was that of a Northern European Male. No blood matching Madeleine was found.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: debunker on April 02, 2013, 06:34:12 PM
Can anyone confirm if actual tests were done on this organic material such as blood supposedly found in apartment 5a? Did it come back as a match to Madeleine?
IIRC not Madeleine's. Gerry's blood in rental car. Uncertain DNA from a mixed sample in the boot- explained by the FSS as to be expected from the admixture of 3 to 5 persons DNA recovered via LCNDNA techniques.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on April 02, 2013, 06:41:00 PM
Can anyone confirm if actual tests were done on this organic material such as blood supposedly found in apartment 5a? Did it come back as a match to Madeleine?
The blood found in the appartment was that of a Northern European Male. No blood matching Madeleine was found.
One source came from a European male. The other 'traces' were inconclusive.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Luz on April 02, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
Can anyone confirm if actual tests were done on this organic material such as blood supposedly found in apartment 5a? Did it come back as a match to Madeleine?
The blood found in the appartment was that of a Northern European Male. No blood matching Madeleine was found.
In the documents I have in the PJ CD provided by the Portimão Court there is no reference (as far as I recall; I may be wrong and accept corrections) to any northern male, but there are several references to a possible link to Madeleine, although non-conclusive, because in Portugal 15 out of 19 alleles are not enough (in some US states 10 would be sufficient to send someone to the electric chair though)...and in a very unexpected and opportune e-mail the FSS director alluded to possible contamination of the samples by the staff...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: debunker on April 02, 2013, 07:21:22 PM
Can anyone confirm if actual tests were done on this organic material such as blood supposedly found in apartment 5a? Did it come back as a match to Madeleine?
The blood found in the appartment was that of a Northern European Male. No blood matching Madeleine was found.
In the documents I have in the PJ CD provided by the Portimão Court there is no reference (as far as I recall; I may be wrong and accept corrections) to any northern male, but there are several references to a possible link to Madeleine, although non-conclusive, because in Portugal 15 out of 19 alleles are not enough (in some US states 10 would be sufficient to send someone to the electric chair though)...and in a very unexpected and opportune e-mail the FSS director alluded to possible contamination of the samples by the staff...
You obviously do not understand multi-subject LCN DNA procedures! Ask if you wish to understand the truth, ignore if you wish to remain ignorant.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: goatboy on April 02, 2013, 08:55:44 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but was it once reported that the dogs detected the scent of a cadaver on a pair of Kate's trousers? And that she explained this away by saying that as a locum GP she would have come into contact with corpses? This didn't quite add up for me. A locum GP probably spends most of their time inspecting piles and writing out prescriptions for antibiotics and antidepressants. Only in exceptional cases and if they were very unlucky would they have any contact with dead bodies. Plus Kate McCann strikes me as somewhat stylish and sophisticated, would someone like that really take their work clothes on holiday with them? Without washing them too?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: debunker on April 02, 2013, 09:05:53 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but was it once reported that the dogs detected the scent of a cadaver on a pair of Kate's trousers? And that she explained this away by saying that as a locum GP she would have come into contact with corpses? This didn't quite add up for me. A locum GP probably spends most of their time inspecting piles and writing out prescriptions for antibiotics and antidepressants. Only in exceptional cases and if they were very unlucky would they have any contact with dead bodies. Plus Kate McCann strikes me as somewhat stylish and sophisticated, would someone like that really take their work clothes on holiday with them? Without washing them too?
She did not say that. Unless you can provide a cite we shall have to see it as a myth.
That should answer your doubts.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: debunker on April 03, 2013, 08:20:03 AM
Back on topic.
Eddie (the cadaver dog) also alerts to dried blood from persons who are still alive.
Are we all agreed on that?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 17, 2014, 10:47:14 PM
I don't know why you don't merge all the Dog Fail threads into one and just be done with it.
If the dogs are crap, why is everyone constantly examining every tiny detail of their work?
Although HOW this has become a main theme of the investigation, beats me.
Every Law Enforcement in the world uses dogs.
The Dog training has escaped every budget cut there is - because they WORK.
The very first thing you would call for if your toddler wandered away, or your elderly parent, would be a dog to track where they might've gone.
The Dogs found a criminal in my backyard, hiding in a bin full of compost.
An off duty EVRD found the killing fields on Long Island.
Yeah dogs are crap.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 17, 2014, 11:03:46 PM
I don't know why you don't merge all the Dog Fail threads into one and just be done with it.
If the dogs are crap, why is everyone constantly examining every tiny detail of their work?
Although HOW this has become a main theme of the investigation, beats me.
Every Law Enforcement in the world uses dogs.
The Dog training has escaped every budget cut there is - because they WORK.
The very first thing you would call for if your toddler wandered away, or your elderly parent, would be a dog to track where they might've gone.
The Dogs found a criminal in my backyard, hiding in a bin full of compost.
An off duty EVRD found the killing fields on Long Island.
Yeah dogs are crap.
I dont think anyone is saying that the dogs were crap Swiskers. They may have made some mistakes or they may not have. Generally it appears that they were fine. k I truly think that Martin Grime was mistaken about what the dog alerted to in the villa. It certainly wasn't Ccat. And I do think that his keep calling the dogs back to certain places seemed not only odd, but also rather unbalanced when he didn't call back to so many other places. He might have had reasons that we dont know about.
What is wrong about the dogs markings is that Amaral either didn't understand them, didn't want to understand them or just barged on ignoring exactly what was indicated and what wasn't indicated.
I find it sad that so many of you have hung on his every word, when it is plain that Amaral was wrong. Sorry, but you have to accept that.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on March 18, 2014, 03:30:00 PM
Yes, if the dogs have no value, why the continued attack on their use ?
because dogs have better smell senses then humans it frightens the mcann supporters and the mcanns imo just because the dogs couldnt tell people what they smelt doesnt mean they are wrong
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on March 18, 2014, 03:43:28 PM
A couple of points which I must highlight. Eddie's alerts in the apartment and the hire car could have been to many substances other than that related to a cadaver. Martin Grime admitted this.
Do not therefore assume that if Madeleine died in the apartment she had to have lain there for at least 1½ hours. Madeleine's death in the apartment, if it happened, does not necessarily have to be in any way associated with the later dog alerts.
Please always think outside the box.
What many substances are these? The dogs alert to two things and two things only. Eddie was trained to alert to blood and cadaver scent and Keela to blood. Can you cite where Martin says they alert to anything else other than these? They were deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen and faeces unless they were mixed with blood so you can rule those out. Where Eddie alerted alone and Keela did not, he was alerting to cadaver scent only.
In Martins opinion where Eddie alerted alone he said and I quote
'My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant'
Also, I do not assume that a body would have to have lain for 1.5 hours before a dog would alert, I base what I post on hard facts.
A body would have to be insitu for at least 1.5 hours as it would not be possible for a dog to alert to cadaver scent earlier than that as the general consensous among scientists is that chemicals from decomposition only appear once a body has began to decompose. It takes our organs up to 90 minutes to die. Decomposition won't start until after the last organ dies so a body would have to have been insitu for over 90 minutes for any scent to develop and be detectable by a dog like Eddie.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 22, 2014, 08:14:32 AM
What many substances are these? The dogs alert to two things and two things only. Eddie was trained to alert to blood and cadaver scent and Keela to blood. Can you cite where Martin says they alert to anything else other than these? They were deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen and faeces unless they were mixed with blood so you can rule those out. Where Eddie alerted alone and Keela did not, he was alerting to cadaver scent only.
In Martins opinion where Eddie alerted alone he said and I quote
'My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant'
Also, I do not assume that a body would have to have lain for 1.5 hours before a dog would alert, I base what I post on hard facts.
A body would have to be insitu for at least 1.5 hours as it would not be possible for a dog to alert to cadaver scent earlier than that as the general consensous among scientists is that chemicals from decomposition only appear once a body has began to decompose. It takes our organs up to 90 minutes to die. Decomposition won't start until after the last organ dies so a body would have to have been insitu for over 90 minutes for any scent to develop and be detectable by a dog like Eddie.
That was about as unprofessional an opinion as opinions get ...
I repeat my challenge.
Can anyone find a video of Eddie giving a 'head-down' alert?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on March 22, 2014, 08:17:25 AM
What many substances are these? The dogs alert to two things and two things only. Eddie was trained to alert to blood and cadaver scent and Keela to blood. Can you cite where Martin says they alert to anything else other than these? They were deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen and faeces unless they were mixed with blood so you can rule those out. Where Eddie alerted alone and Keela did not, he was alerting to cadaver scent only.
In Martins opinion where Eddie alerted alone he said and I quote
'My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant'
Also, I do not assume that a body would have to have lain for 1.5 hours before a dog would alert, I base what I post on hard facts.
A body would have to be insitu for at least 1.5 hours as it would not be possible for a dog to alert to cadaver scent earlier than that as the general consensous among scientists is that chemicals from decomposition only appear once a body has began to decompose. It takes our organs up to 90 minutes to die. Decomposition won't start until after the last organ dies so a body would have to have been insitu for over 90 minutes for any scent to develop and be detectable by a dog like Eddie.
So once again...Grime is saying he is not sure that eddie has reacted to cadaver odour
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on March 22, 2014, 08:33:41 AM
So once again...Grime is saying he is not sure that eddie has reacted to cadaver odour
Well yeh doh, that's as much as Martin can say unless a body or corroborative forensics is found doh. But umm lemme see what was he trained to detect again? Oh yeh Cadaver scent. Your ascertation that Martin has any doubt as to what his dog alerted to is offensive. He trained his dog to detect cadaver and that is what he did all his life and not once did a live person appear after he marked them as a decedant via his bark.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:10:22 AM
What are you waffling on about, i have never said Eddie gives a head down alert. He simply just barks (info as per Martin Grime)
Face it Ferryman, it's time to hand over the coin yourself as your own theories are dead in the water :)
When Grime says that the dogs actually ARE alerting to cadaver rather than using words such as "suggestive" then I will take more notice of the alerts..if Grime himself isn't sure...then I certainly am not
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:12:13 AM
Well yeh doh, that's as much as Martin can say unless a body or corroborative forensics is found doh. But umm lemme see what was he trained to detect again? Oh yeh Cadaver scent. Your ascertation that Martin has any doubt as to what his dog alerted to is offensive. He trained his dog to detect cadaver and that is what he did all his life and not once did a live person appear after he marked them as a decedant via his bark.
Your waffle is very unconvincing..grime expresses doubt in his statement..that is an absolute fact which you choose to ignore
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:13:14 AM
When Grime says that the dogs actually ARE alerting to cadaver rather than using words such as "suggestive" then I will take more notice of the alerts..if Grime himself isn't sure...then I certainly am not
Oh you are hilarious. He IS sure as that's what he trained his dog to do but it is then up to police to corroborate those findings. Until that point an alert can only ever be suggestive in the legal sense. It's not rocket science dave
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:14:18 AM
Well yeh doh, that's as much as Martin can say unless a body or corroborative forensics is found doh. But umm lemme see what was he trained to detect again? Oh yeh Cadaver scent. Your ascertation that Martin has any doubt as to what his dog alerted to is offensive. He trained his dog to detect cadaver and that is what he did all his life and not once did a live person appear after he marked them as a decedant via his bark.
So do you think the large amount of milk teeth which Eddie alerted to in Jersey all came from the dead bodies of children? Or was he alerting to 'body bits' which had parted company with their living owners via the usual natural process?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 22, 2014, 09:26:53 AM
Stop your sobbing guys and give us an example of a missing person turning up alive after a death dog indicated they weren't.
There must be at least one example, given how incredibly unreliable these dogs are apparently.
PS, Gina De Jesus was debunked yesterday, much to the dissapointment of coco the clown.
Sureley Debunker can give us an example, seeing as though he spent several years chasing his own tail.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:30:43 AM
No he does not at all. Show me where he used the word doubt just once.
He doesn't use the word doubt..there are lots of words he doesn't use...
He doesn't say eddie IS alerting to cadaver...the word he uses is suggestive..that is not definite..fact..you don't understand the dogs alerts..Grime does
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:33:01 AM
Well yeh doh, that's as much as Martin can say unless a body or corroborative forensics is found doh. But umm lemme see what was he trained to detect again? Oh yeh Cadaver scent. Your ascertation that Martin has any doubt as to what his dog alerted to is offensive. He trained his dog to detect cadaver and that is what he did all his life and not once did a live person appear after he marked them as a decedant via his bark.
As you have issued this challenge could you name ONE missing person that eddie has alerted to
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:36:22 AM
So do you think the large amount of milk teeth which Eddie alerted to in Jersey all came from the dead bodies of children? Or was he alerting to 'body bits' which had parted company with their living owners via the usual natural process?
Do you actually understand what his remit iwas? Clearly not. Eddie was charged with locating bodies, body parts or scent of where a body may have lain/been in contact with. He was trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone, tissue, and TEETH. It is up to police to then ascertain whether any teeth he found did or did not come from a dead body.
Major fail on your part there Benice, please try harder.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:38:05 AM
He doesn't use the word doubt..there are lots of words he doesn't use...
He doesn't say eddie IS alerting to cadaver...the word he uses is suggestive..that is not definite..fact..you don't understand the dogs alerts..Grime does
So you have to concede that you failed to back up your claim that he expressed doubt then.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:40:28 AM
Do you actually understand what his remit iwas? Clearly not. Eddie was charged with locating bodies, body parts or scent of where a body may have lain/been in contact with. He was trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone, tissue, and TEETH. It is up to police to then ascertain whether any teeth he found did or did not come from a dead body.
Major fail on your part there Benice, please try harder.
Eddie found nothing of any significance at Jersey...a major fail...a collection of baby teeth that are shed naturally
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:41:49 AM
So you have to concede that you failed to back up your claim that he expressed doubt then.
The word suggestive expresses doubt..fact your assertion that it is not rocket science is true...its not science...science is backed by evidence...eddie has no evidence to support his alerts..
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:43:52 AM
Well yeh doh, that's as much as Martin can say unless a body or corroborative forensics is found doh. But umm lemme see what was he trained to detect again? Oh yeh Cadaver scent. Your ascertation that Martin has any doubt as to what his dog alerted to is offensive. He trained his dog to detect cadaver and that is what he did all his life and not once did a live person appear after he marked them as a decedant via his bark.
could you name one missing person...who is still missing that eddie has alerted to...you cannot
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:44:54 AM
Eddie found nothing of any significance at Jersey...a major fail...a collection of baby teeth that are shed naturally
Why are you changing the subject? Eddie alerted correctly in all instances in HDLG and by the sounds of it you will be disappointed to know that the enquiry into abuse in Jersey is being reopened eh?
Why are you changing the subject? Eddie alerted correctly in all instances in HDLG and by the sounds of it you will be disappointed to know that the enquiry into abuse in Jersey is being reopened eh?
The word suggestive expresses doubt..fact your assertion that it is not rocket science is true...its not science...science is backed by evidence...eddie has no evidence to support his alerts..
Does it heck as like suggest doubt. You really are clutching at straws now dave lol. It's up to police to back up his alerts by either finding the body or by finding forensic evidence. Your inability to comprehend that is seriously worrying.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:48:14 AM
Does it heck as like suggest doubt. You really are clutching at straws now dave lol. It's up to police to back up his alerts by either finding the body or by finding forensic evidence. Your inability to comprehend that is seriously worrying.
You are blinded by your own prejudice...the fact that grime uses the words "suggests" confirms he is not 100% sure
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:50:03 AM
into abuse yes...the police have already stated there is no evidence of any deaths
Show me one instance in HDLG where Eddie alerted to something he was proved incorrect to alert to. You can't use teeth as I debunked Benice on that and as for 'coconut', he alerted to the ground where bones were previously found in that location so was correct again.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:50:50 AM
Grime even states that it his only his opinion..an opinion is not a fact...it aint rocket science..it aint science
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:51:11 AM
Show me one instance in HDLG where Eddie alerted to something he was proved incorrect to alert to. You can't use teeth as I debunked Benice on that and as for 'coconut', he alerted to the ground where bones were previously found in that location so was correct again.
you seem to be ignoring my questions...eddie found nothing in jersey...some baby teeth and some several hundred years old bones...a complete failure
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 22, 2014, 09:53:36 AM
Do you actually understand what his remit iwas? Clearly not. Eddie was charged with locating bodies, body parts or scent of where a body may have lain/been in contact with. He was trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone, tissue, and TEETH. It is up to police to then ascertain whether any teeth he found did or did not come from a dead body. Major fail on your part there Benice, please try harder.
You didn't answer my question. Do you think that over 30/40 milk teeth recovered - all came from the dead bodies of murdered children (and are dismissing the likelihood that they were lost in the normal way) - on the grounds that Eddie alerted to them?
There were over 60 teeth alerted to in all. How many of them were forensically proved to have come from dead bodies? As far as I know the answer is NIL. That surely confirms Martin Grime's assertion that an alert by Eddie does not necessarily indicate the presence of a cadaver.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some of the owners of those milk teeth are still walking around today imo.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Eleanor on March 22, 2014, 10:16:35 AM
Does it matter? The purpose of the dog is to indicate the presence of human remains - It is for humans to determine their significance.
Teeth like Blood are shed by live people. This is one more thing that Eddie could have been alerting to. The smell of blood and bones lingers. Does the smell of teeth?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 10:25:12 AM
You didn't answer my question. Do you think that over 30/40 milk teeth recovered - all came from the dead bodies of murdered children (and are dismissing the likelihood that they were lost in the normal way) - on the grounds that Eddie alerted to them?
There were over 60 teeth alerted to in all. How many of them were forensically proved to have come from dead bodies? As far as I know the answer is NIL. That surely confirms Martin Grime's assertion that an alert by Eddie does not necessarily indicate the presence of a cadaver.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some of the owners of those milk teeth are still walking around today imo.
Its relatively easy to tell if a milk tooth was shed naturally...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Estuarine on March 22, 2014, 10:47:24 AM
You are blinded by your own prejudice...the fact that grime uses the words "suggests" confirms he is not 100% sure
And you aren't? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 22, 2014, 11:15:42 AM
Why was there no dried blood traces found in any of the other Apartments, by the dogs? Since there was several incidents in 5A, surely there must have been bleeding incidents in the other apartments and yet no alerts in any of the three others except for what turned out to be food in one and a tennis ball in another, I believe (from memory)......... Strange?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 11:17:35 AM
This discussion for want of a better word re the dogs is getting overheated and it’s time people chilled out.
Firstly a word on behalf of the dogs. Yes they are trained for specific jobs, whether it’s sniffing out body parts or concealed drug/humans or IEDs. That is the key word sniffing out – the dogs themselves cannot determine what scent they may have picked up on; that is for the humans to determine whether its forensics, law enforcement officers or bomb disposal experts.
If all Eddie picked up on was a scent of cadaver odour then it’s a legal minefield because what has to be established next is how it got there. One cannot claim it HAD to come from a corpse in situ because of the problems with cross-contamination. Only think of the Shannon Matthews case.
I would also like to say something of behalf of prosecutors wherever in the world be it the CPS, the DA or whoever. Theirs is a difficult job enough as it is without rank amateurs with NO legal knowledge telling them how they should do it. Same goes for the police whether it’s NSY or the PJ or NYPD, etc.
Whatever DCI Redwood said there could be other possibilities a bungled burglary or bungled attempted abduction that went horribly wrong and it wouldn’t be for the first time either. Whatever it’s time we all kept an open mind not jump to conclusions because that’s what suits OUR particular ‘theory’.
Good Lord, a modicum of common sense - well done 8@??)(
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 11:28:53 AM
This discussion for want of a better word re the dogs is getting overheated and it’s time people chilled out.
Firstly a word on behalf of the dogs. Yes they are trained for specific jobs, whether it’s sniffing out body parts or concealed drug/humans or IEDs. That is the key word sniffing out – the dogs themselves cannot determine what scent they may have picked up on; that is for the humans to determine whether its forensics, law enforcement officers or bomb disposal experts.
If all Eddie picked up on was a scent of cadaver odour then it’s a legal minefield because what has to be established next is how it got there. One cannot claim it HAD to come from a corpse in situ because of the problems with cross-contamination. Only think of the Shannon Matthews case.
I would also like to say something of behalf of prosecutors wherever in the world be it the CPS, the DA or whoever. Theirs is a difficult job enough as it is without rank amateurs with NO legal knowledge telling them how they should do it. Same goes for the police whether it’s NSY or the PJ or NYPD, etc.
Whatever DCI Redwood said there could be other possibilities a bungled burglary or bungled attempted abduction that went horribly wrong and it wouldn’t be for the first time either. Whatever it’s time we all kept an open mind not jump to conclusions because that’s what suits OUR particular ‘theory’.
your perfectly reasoned, logical post will not make a scrap of difference to those whoe mind is already made up and will not change
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: jassi on March 22, 2014, 11:30:50 AM
Why was there no dried blood traces found in any of the other Apartments, by the dogs? Since there was several incidents in 5A, surely there must have been bleeding incidents in the other apartments and yet no alerts in any of the three others except for what turned out to be food in one and a tennis ball in another, I believe (from memory)......... Strange?
So may strange things in this case - but all perfectly innocent in every single case - of course.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 22, 2014, 11:35:54 AM
This discussion for want of a better word re the dogs is getting overheated and it’s time people chilled out.
Firstly a word on behalf of the dogs. Yes they are trained for specific jobs, whether it’s sniffing out body parts or concealed drug/humans or IEDs. That is the key word sniffing out – the dogs themselves cannot determine what scent they may have picked up on; that is for the humans to determine whether its forensics, law enforcement officers or bomb disposal experts.
If all Eddie picked up on was a scent of cadaver odour then it’s a legal minefield because what has to be established next is how it got there. One cannot claim it HAD to come from a corpse in situ because of the problems with cross-contamination. Only think of the Shannon Matthews case.
I would also like to say something of behalf of prosecutors wherever in the world be it the CPS, the DA or whoever. Theirs is a difficult job enough as it is without rank amateurs with NO legal knowledge telling them how they should do it. Same goes for the police whether it’s NSY or the PJ or NYPD, etc.
Whatever DCI Redwood said there could be other possibilities a bungled burglary or bungled attempted abduction that went horribly wrong and it wouldn’t be for the first time either. Whatever it’s time we all kept an open mind not jump to conclusions because that’s what suits OUR particular ‘theory’.
8@??)(
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 22, 2014, 11:41:59 AM
Why was there no dried blood traces found in any of the other Apartments, by the dogs? Since there was several incidents in 5A, surely there must have been bleeding incidents in the other apartments and yet no alerts in any of the three others except for what turned out to be food in one and a tennis ball in another, I believe (from memory)......... Strange?
8@??)( Exactly.
I have no idea whether this came from an official report or a newspaper article, but for what it is worth, somewhere I read that the dogs were rushed thru the other apartments.
Plenty of time and what looked like cueing seemed to be going on in places where The Mccanns had spent time.
Might this rushing through, be the cause of no alerts in the other apartments?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 22, 2014, 12:27:23 PM
This might be what Sadie saw:-
Participants:
PJ: Tavares A. & Ricardo P. Inspectors UK: Mark Harrison, Martin Grime (UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert), Eddie & Keela (English Springers) Silvia B. Manager of the Ocean Club complex.
On that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A (Gerry/Kate McCann): From 20h00 to 21h20, the dogs go through.
5B (Matthew/Rachael Oldfield): 21h24 to 21h27: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D (Russell O'Brien/Jane Tanner): 21h29 to 21h34: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H (David/Fiona Payne & Dianne Webster): 21h35 to 21h38: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G (McCanns' second Ocean Club apartment): 21h42 to 21h45: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: jassi on March 22, 2014, 12:47:55 PM
PJ: Tavares A. & Ricardo P. Inspectors UK: Mark Harrison, Martin Grime (UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert), Eddie & Keela (English Springers) Silvia B. Manager of the Ocean Club complex.
On that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A (Gerry/Kate McCann): From 20h00 to 21h20, the dogs go through.
5B (Matthew/Rachael Oldfield): 21h24 to 21h27: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D (Russell O'Brien/Jane Tanner): 21h29 to 21h34: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H (David/Fiona Payne & Dianne Webster): 21h35 to 21h38: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G (McCanns' second Ocean Club apartment): 21h42 to 21h45: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
And this comes from where ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 22, 2014, 12:49:28 PM
Opinions vary according to interpretation of the deployment of the dogs.
The cadaver dog apparently showed no interest in other apartments.
According to Mr Grime`s report, however there was an immediate response to 5A.
"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."
This would probably influence the time spent on the investigation as to why the interest in 5A was shown by the dog.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 22, 2014, 12:52:59 PM
PJ: Tavares A. & Ricardo P. Inspectors UK: Mark Harrison, Martin Grime (UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert), Eddie & Keela (English Springers) Silvia B. Manager of the Ocean Club complex.
On that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A (Gerry/Kate McCann): From 20h00 to 21h20, the dogs go through.
5B (Matthew/Rachael Oldfield): 21h24 to 21h27: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D (Russell O'Brien/Jane Tanner): 21h29 to 21h34: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H (David/Fiona Payne & Dianne Webster): 21h35 to 21h38: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G (McCanns' second Ocean Club apartment): ,
And what about the Villa das Flores, the door handle, the driver's seat, the steering wheel, the dashboard, the gear lever, the brake, the ignition did Eddie pick upon anything there?
About 3 mins an apartment apart from 5A which was 1.20 hrs
The Villa search showed only clothing alerts, but if you touched anything with cadaver scent, would it not surely be on door handles, at least and the car door handle after touching the key?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 22, 2014, 12:53:29 PM
Opinions vary according to interpretation of the deployment of the dogs.
The cadaver dog apparently showed no interest in other apartments.
According to Mr Grime`s report, however there was an immediate response to 5A.
"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."
This would probably influence the time spent on the investigation as to why the interest was shown by the dog.
Precisely. But we'll just ignore that bit & focus firmly on muddying the smelly water.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 22, 2014, 12:56:48 PM
Opinions vary according to interpretation of the deployment of the dogs.
The cadaver dog apparently showed no interest in other apartments.
According to Mr Grime`s report, however there was an immediate response to 5A.
"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."
This would probably influence the time spent on the investigation as to why the interest in 5A was shown by the dog.
Could be because blood was found in 5A, but none of the other apartments?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 22, 2014, 01:22:51 PM
Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. A cadaver dog does scent dried blood too, does it not?
You replied to my post about the immediate interest shown by the "cadaver" dog in apartment 5A but not the other apartments by saying....
"Could be because blood was found in 5A, but none of the other apartments?"
This implies that perhaps only blood was behind the alerts in 5A.........but the "blood" dog did not confirm every site at 5A first marked by the "cadaver" dog........
........so perhaps not only blood caused the initial interest in 5A by the EVRD?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 22, 2014, 02:40:16 PM
Dried blood? Human or animal? if human how? Death or accident?
And there's still the problem how the CSI team apparently missed out on the blood
There were accidents that causing bleeding in 5A before the McCanns moved in and the specimens were collected, but inconclusive.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Estuarine on March 22, 2014, 04:23:41 PM
5A (Gerry/Kate McCann):
From 20h00 to 21h20, the dogs go through.
20h20: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
20h22: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 20h47 to 21h20, the blood detecting dog goes through.
21h10 The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B (Matthew/Rachael Oldfield):
21h24 to 21h27: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D (Russell O'Brien/Jane Tanner):
21h29 to 21h34: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H (David/Fiona Payne & Dianne Webster):
21h35 to 21h38: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G (McCanns' second Ocean Club apartment):
21h42 to 21h45: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
21h49 to 22h00: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.
We might as well have those bits for good luck
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on March 22, 2014, 04:27:55 PM
Knowing how sensitive Eddie's nose was and the minutia of human detritus he was able to identify it would be impossible to state exactly what he was alerting to in 5a without forensic back-up.
For example, I think Eddie knew exactly what he was alerting to and would have known if it had been deposited the day before or two years before. He probably could determine exactly what it was, whether cadaver or cells from a living person.
However the dog's bark is no use on its own and we can only work out what he is telling us by retrieving evidence which will substantiate his alert.
I believe Mr Grime has categorically stated this.
Am I right in thinking Mr Grime has never claimed Eddie's alerts meant Madeleine died in 5a?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 22, 2014, 04:35:07 PM
Knowing how sensitive Eddie's nose was and the minutia of human detritus he was able to identify it would be impossible to state exactly what he was alerting to in 5a without forensic back-up.
For example, I think Eddie knew exactly what he was alerting to and would have known if it had been deposited the day before or two years before. He probably could determine exactly what it was, whether cadaver or cells from a living person.
However the dog's bark is no use on its own and we can only work out what he is telling us by retrieving evidence which will substantiate his alert.
I believe Mr Grime has categorically stated this.
Am I right in thinking Mr Grime has never claimed Eddie's alerts meant Madeleine died in 5a?
Spot on Brietta 8((()*/
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: jassi on March 22, 2014, 04:36:15 PM
Knowing how sensitive Eddie's nose was and the minutia of human detritus he was able to identify it would be impossible to state exactly what he was alerting to in 5a without forensic back-up.
For example, I think Eddie knew exactly what he was alerting to and would have known if it had been deposited the day before or two years before. He probably could determine exactly what it was, whether cadaver or cells from a living person.
However the dog's bark is no use on its own and we can only work out what he is telling us by retrieving evidence which will substantiate his alert.
I believe Mr Grime has categorically stated this.
Am I right in thinking Mr Grime has never claimed Eddie's alerts meant Madeleine died in 5a?
Well he couldn't, could he? The best he could have managed would have been that someone probably died in 5A - he certainly couldn't be specific down to a named person.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on March 22, 2014, 04:57:26 PM
Am I right in thinking Mr Grime has never claimed Eddie's alerts meant Madeleine died in 5a?
Eddie's alerts were so vague that his handler could never claim anything like that. Remember that Eddie alerted to blood too and to blood from a living person. I'm afraid we will have to await the next generation doggie possibly the SVRD.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 22, 2014, 05:27:11 PM
How is that when Eddie alerted at the wardrobe and out in the garden and Keela didn't? How is it blood? Keela has to get in real close with her nose and freeze alert for blood. Eddie's behaviour changed as soon as he got to 5A. Behaviour changed for a spec of blood? It changed because he recognised cadaver scent which is what he was trained to find. Was there blood on the alerted clothes?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on March 22, 2014, 05:39:42 PM
How is that when Eddie alerted at the wardrobe and out in the garden and Keela didn't? How is it blood? Keela has to get in real close with her nose and freeze alert for blood. Eddie's behaviour changed as soon as he got to 5A. Behaviour changed for a spec of blood? It changed because he recognised cadaver scent which is what he was trained to find. Was there blood on the alerted clothes?
Eddie reacted to all manner of substances including cadaverine according to his handler so differentiating between them is an impossible task.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 22, 2014, 05:54:01 PM
Eddie reacted to all manner of substances including cadaverine according to his handler so differentiating between them is an impossible task.
The clothes didn't have any blood on them so it was cadaver scent. What's the use of having Keela if superdog Eddie can do everything himself? Keela has to get in very close to alert to blood. Cadaver scent changed Eddie's behaviour straight away not blood. If not blood what else could it be?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 05:56:25 PM
The clothes didn't have any blood on them so it was cadaver scent. What's the use of having Keela if superdog Eddie can do everything himself? Keela has to get in very close to alert to blood. Cadaver scent changed his behaviour straight away not blood. So what else could it be?
had the clothes been in contact with any baby teeth?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 22, 2014, 05:57:00 PM
The clothes didn't have any blood on them so it was cadaver scent. What's the use of having Keela if Eddie can do everything himself? Keela has to get in very close for blood. Eddie knew as soon as he got to 5A. Cadaver scent changed his behaviour straight away not blood. So what else could it be?
You have heard them all before I'm sure, semen, seabass, trips to the morgue etc etc.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 22, 2014, 05:57:33 PM
What's the use of having Keela if superdog Eddie can do everything himself?
Does Morse react to blood?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 22, 2014, 06:06:03 PM
You have heard them all before I'm sure, semen, seabass, trips to the morgue etc etc.
......None of which were present on any item in the other apartments, then,...... causing the EVRD`s behaviour to change immediately, as it did on entry into 5A? No seabass, toenails, semen and so forth in those apartments?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on March 22, 2014, 06:07:12 PM
As far as I can see it comes down to this. If both dogs react chances are you have blood otherwise its anyone's guess. 8-)(--)
What are the three most common substances on children's clothes? Urine, saliva and faeces.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 22, 2014, 06:07:36 PM
I was just thinking that!..............The EVRD made no alerts in the 5A bathroom.......
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 22, 2014, 06:45:05 PM
and from Mr Grime`s report..........
"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. "
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 22, 2014, 06:48:52 PM
He never alerted in the other apartments or anywhere else to blood, saliva, faeces. Strange Huh! Like Eddie was some amateur and didn't know what he was alerting to.
"The dogs’ CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI’s “Body Farm,” the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies."
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 22, 2014, 06:49:32 PM
"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. "
You'll also find from Grime's report that Eddie was involved in over 200 cases.
The true number is 37.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 07:02:34 PM
He never alerted in the other apartments or anywhere else to blood, saliva, faeces. Strange Huh! Like Eddie was some amateur and didn't know what he was alerting to.
"The dogs’ CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI’s “Body Farm,” the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies."
Quite simply..and very importantly...where are the independent tests to verify the alerts
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 22, 2014, 07:05:58 PM
If they ID Smithman they will verify those cadaver alerts as corroborating evidence.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: jassi on March 22, 2014, 07:09:20 PM
Quite simply..and very importantly...where are the independent tests to verify the alerts
Isn't that down to forensics ? The dogs just indicate
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on March 22, 2014, 07:42:09 PM
Martin Grime declares in his 'profile' provided to the Portuguese authorities that Eddie alerts to human remains and body fluids including blood. There is no way to determine what he has alerted to unless CSI find material evidence.
Since only blood was identified in any of his alerts in the Madeleine case it cannot be in any way inferred that what he alerted to was human remains, a cadaver or cadaver scent.
Martin Grime declares in his 'profile' provided to the Portuguese authorities that Eddie alerts to human remains and body fluids including blood. There is no way to determine what he has alerted to unless CSI find material evidence.
Since only blood was identified in any of his alerts in the Madeleine case it cannot be in any way inferred that what he alerted to was human remains, a cadaver or cadaver scent.
Martin Grime declares in his 'profile' provided to the Portuguese authorities that Eddie alerts to human remains and body fluids including blood. There is no way to determine what he has alerted to unless CSI find material evidence.
Since only blood was identified in any of his alerts in the Madeleine case it cannot be in any way inferred that what he alerted to was human remains, a cadaver or cadaver scent.
Martin Grime declares in his 'profile' provided to the Portuguese authorities that Eddie alerts to human remains and body fluids including blood. There is no way to determine what he has alerted to unless CSI find material evidence.
Since only blood was identified in any of his alerts in the Madeleine case it cannot be in any way inferred that what he alerted to was human remains, a cadaver or cadaver scent.
I`m not sure whether it is quite accurate to make that underlined statement............human remains, a cadaver or cadaver scent cannot be excluded, surely?.
In your link I found this:-
[b"]The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there
is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such
as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable
evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime
investigations" [/b]
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 22, 2014, 07:57:38 PM
Ah.......I didn`t see your post, Cariad.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 22, 2014, 07:58:02 PM
What intelligence do they add if SY say maddie may still be alive
Well, they also say she may be dead..... In fact they go further than that and say she may have died in the apartment. I wonder where they got that idea from?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 08:12:13 PM
The truth is that the alerts add nothing
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 08:13:31 PM
Well, they also say she may be dead..... In fact they go further than that and say she may have died in the apartment. I wonder where they got that idea from?
She may have died in the apartment ...without the alerts...the alerts add nothing
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 08:15:36 PM
Well, they also say she may be dead..... In fact they go further than that and say she may have died in the apartment. I wonder where they got that idea from?
The fact that they say she may be alive shows they are prepared to completely disregard the alerts as any intelligence as to what happened to maddie
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 22, 2014, 08:16:06 PM
On the contrary, they have contributed a great deal to polite, friendly internet forum discussions over the years.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on March 22, 2014, 08:20:05 PM
Nevertheless it still took 20 minutes before the dog first alerted in 5A. If he had been allowed to spend that same amount of time in the other apartments instead of approx 3-5 mins max - then who's to say he would not have alerted in one or more of them. Remembering Martin Grime's claim that his dogs could locate the minutest scent of blood - even from decades ago - I find it hard to believe that no-one had ever deposited a single drop of blood anywhere in any of those other apartments for years on end.
IMO it is quite apparent that it was Grime who totally controlled how long a dog would spend in any one place - not the dogs.
If searching 5A was Eddie's first job (after being confined in the car) then that may have contributed to his initial excitement/enthusiasm to 'get going' once released from it. Just a thought.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on March 22, 2014, 08:34:53 PM
Nevertheless it still took 20 minutes before the dog first alerted in 5A. If he had been allowed to spend that same amount of time in the other apartments instead of approx 3-5 mins max - then who's to say he would not have alerted in one or more of them. Remembering Martin Grime's claim that his dogs could locate the minutest scent of blood - even from decades ago - I find it hard to believe that no-one had ever deposited a single drop of blood anywhere in any of those other apartments for years on end.
IMO it is quite apparent that it was Grime who totally controlled how long a dog would spend in any one place - not the dogs.
If searching 5A was Eddie's first job (after being confined in the car) then that may have contributed to his initial excitement/enthusiasm to 'get going' once released from it. Just a thought.
Just another thought.............
Do you have any cites / reports / opinions from experts in deployment of such dogs who have made similar interpretations or observations as yours about Mr Grime`s work on this case ?
I wonder if there have been any official enquiries into what seem to be issues and shortcomings apparently so obvious to lay-people, like you.........and all performed by Mr Grime in public.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 22, 2014, 08:36:37 PM
20h20: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
20h22: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 20h47 to 21h20, the blood detecting dog goes through.
21h10 The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B (Matthew/Rachael Oldfield):
21h24 to 21h27: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D (Russell O'Brien/Jane Tanner):
21h29 to 21h34: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H (David/Fiona Payne & Dianne Webster):
21h35 to 21h38: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G (McCanns' second Ocean Club apartment):
21h42 to 21h45: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
21h49 to 22h00: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.
We might as well have those bits for good luck
Thank you, It reminded me of the flowerbed Can you tell me where the other gardens were inspected by Eddie? also the fact that the dog took 20 minutes for first alert in 5A whilst the other apartments(which obviously nobody had ever bled in) took an average of approx 3mins to search
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 22, 2014, 08:41:50 PM
it isn't the mention of the dogs...its posters telling lies about me
Why does everything have to be about you? Others have been discussing the dogs, too.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 08:52:12 PM
As far as I am concerned the dogs are extremely useful tools...eddie is an evrd dog...if there is a victim...he will find it...if there is abody or part...he will find it...if there is tangible evidence...he will find it...those are his skills and he was very good at it...but the scent of death...even grime says hes not sure
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on March 22, 2014, 08:53:10 PM
i said the alerts add nothing...YOU said a waste of time...please stick to the truth
If Eddie alerts and Keela doesn't then cadaver scent has been detected by the dogs.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: valeria on March 22, 2014, 08:54:11 PM
i always wanted to ask if you know about the latent blood detection spray. It reveals blood that has been washed out. Did police use this method in the apartment? I know blood can be found no matter how old it is. This spray gives also the posibillity of taking blood for identification. If they have used this method they know if there was enough blood in the apartment (maybe from a previous occupant who bled) so to justify dogs allerts. They know even if there was madeleine's blood that had been cleaned
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 08:55:01 PM
As far as I am concerned the dogs are extremely useful tools...eddie is an evrd dog...if there is a victim...he will find it...if there is abody or part...he will find it...if there is tangible evidence...he will find it...those are his skills and he was very good at it...but the scent of death...even grime says hes not sure
"The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there
is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such
as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable
evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime
That is the most likely explanation or why use the dogs.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: icabodcrane on March 22, 2014, 08:58:00 PM
Trying to minimize the significance of a cadaver dog alerting in an apartment where a missing child was last seen has always been a difficult task
But trying to minimize the significance of a cadaver dog alerting in an apartment where Scotland Yard have said a child's dead body may have been ? ! ... on a hiding to nothing with that one
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:00:07 PM
Trying to minimize the significance of a cadaver dog alerting in an apartment where a missing child was last seen has always been a difficult task
But trying to minimize the significance of a cadaver dog alerting in an apartment where Scotland Yard have said a child's dead body may have been ? ! ... on a hiding to nothing with that one
only to posters who cant follow a logical argument....and SY say maddie may still be alive...what does that say about the alert...it says it does not relate to maddie...can you understand that
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on March 22, 2014, 09:06:37 PM
only to posters who cant follow a logical argument....and SY say maddie may still be alive...what does that say about the alert...it says it does not relate to maddie...can you understand that
She also quite clearly and in all probability is dead.
Can you grasp that and the FACT that no trace of her has been found in nearly seven years ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 22, 2014, 09:08:16 PM
only to posters who cant follow a logical argument....and SY say maddie may still be alive...what does that say about the alert...it says it does not relate to maddie...can you understand that
They are also now saying that Madeleine being abducted "doesn't follow all their thinking on the case". What do you make of that?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:08:45 PM
I am but it is difficult when you are answering posts from four posters
Beds?
• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
They are also now saying that Madeleine being abducted "doesn't follow all their thinking on the case". What do you make of that?
When Sy say they are investigating an abduction they are not saying this is the only possibility...maddie may have left the apt by herself...may have been killed by an intruder and removed to hide evidence
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 22, 2014, 09:17:45 PM
Ah! Thanks WS. I see you beat me 8(0(* • This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
When Sy say they are investigating an abduction they are not saying this is the only possibility...maddie may have left the apt by herself...may have been killed by an intruder and removed to hide evidence
When Sy say they are investigating an abduction they are not saying this is the only possibility...maddie may have left the apt by herself...may have been killed by an intruder and removed to hide evidence
Well, according to the Mccanns, abduction is the only option and they know cause they were there!
Also there was no time for murder plus clean up plus body removal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQazjM-bCo
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: jassi on March 22, 2014, 09:25:02 PM
Hmmm... DC Redwood doesn't agree. It doesn't go with all their thinking on the case.
How do you know he doesn't agree...do you know how he rates abduction as opposed to death in the appt
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 22, 2014, 09:36:10 PM
Posters on here think redwood is closing in on the mccanns when the reality is that the cps have sent 200 letters of requests to several different countries...anyone who thinks the mcccanns are in the frame is deluded...imo
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 22, 2014, 09:47:03 PM
I am very happy to go on record as saying that dogs can be wrong.
Eddie was wrong, either to fail to alert to cuddle-cat when he could play with the toy; or to alert to it after it had been hidden in a cupboard.
Those inclined to try can't have it both ways ...
And why did Grime imply that the toy was sent for forensic analysis when it never was?
Is this it?
Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
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 JudicialPolice for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Moderator on March 22, 2014, 09:56:10 PM
She also quite clearly and in all probability is dead.
Can you grasp that and the FACT that no trace of her has been found in nearly seven years ?
You could say the same to Ben Needhams mum - except you would have to change the 7 years' to over 20 years.
Parents of missing children know there is a chance their child is dead, but until the are shown the evidence they never give up hope that their child will be found alive.
As a parent myself I don't find that at all difficult to grasp.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 22, 2014, 10:19:16 PM
You could say the same to Ben Needhams mum - except you would have to change the 7 years' to over 20 years.
Parents of missing children know there is a chance their child is dead, but until the are shown the evidence they never give up hope that their child will be found alive.
As a parent myself I don't find that at all difficult to grasp.
Kate said Madeleine disappeared 4 hours before the police arrived. She was working through the released files for 6 months day and night. Everything she says is important and every action in regards to Smithman is undeniable - you know that man who has never came forward to clear himself in 7 years. He disappeared that night just like Madeleine >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 22, 2014, 10:30:09 PM
Bit of a non argument really if you read the files.....
"Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house the only two places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom, in this corner where he was barking."
The reason that he took longer was because of the dogs behaviour and not due to any bias that you would have us believe. The behaviour was clearly not repeated in the other apartments entered after 5a.
No problem. Just reread post 337(cite provided) for Grime's reason....based on his experience of course and not your biased opinion.
Ah Like this one
Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 22, 2014, 10:53:45 PM
Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
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 JudicialPolice for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5
I believe that that is the quote that Ferryman is refering to, yes. However, I see no implication that it was sent off for analysis.
I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
He says that he requested that it be bagged and tagged and that he doesn't know what happened then. Where is he "implying that it was sent off"?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 22, 2014, 10:59:25 PM
I could watch videos of Eddie all day and still not have a clue what he was doing.
Obviously heading up to a car, sniffing, then exhibiting the alert pose, is fairly clear.
But who here can say that he DIDN'T alert to CC? Are we all suddenly dog handlers?
No, I'll leave interpreting their work to the professionals...professionals who believed that M died in 5a.
First the Leicestershire Police (PC Grime) then the PJ and now SY - all saying the same thing.
She died in 5a.
BHH even suggests "murder".
CONSISTENT WITH THE INDICATIONS OF EDDIE.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 22, 2014, 11:02:33 PM
having read the reports regarding the sniffer dogs it seems to me that the McCanns are acting in a quilty manner... contacting the 'Zapata' defence team and picking faults over the sniffer dogs reaction to the McCanns hire car.
LOL they used the wrong bloke as he confessed to killing his wife, and where the dogs indicated he had stored her body, or she had laid there until moved etc...so the dogs from USA got it right anyway.
It always comes back to the dogs lol....
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 23, 2014, 07:34:20 AM
In a nutshell....it always comes back to the dogs.
Those who believe in the dogs work will always realise that cadaver scent takes a minimum length of time before it's detected and because no cross contamination can be clearly highlighted (it's just a what if), such as in the Shannon Matthews case, it brings the case back to the impossibility of the McCann's timelines.
Those who do not believe the dogs work to be genuine will always look for ways to discredit their work or explain away reasons for the dogs behaviour that do not involve the McCann's.
Neither belief at this moment in time can produce any concrete evidence to hold up each view so it's a constant stalemate. You either believe in the dogs or you don't.
Some of us believe that the dogs are a useful tool if trained and used correctly. But never evidence unto themselves. Eddie was trained to detect Blood long before he was trained to Detect Cadaver Odour. This was something that he could not unlearn.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on March 23, 2014, 10:11:43 AM
Some of us believe that the dogs are a useful tool if trained and used correctly. But never evidence unto themselves. Eddie was trained to detect Blood long before he was trained to Detect Cadaver Odour. This was something that he could not unlearn.
But they didn't find any blood in one location he alerted?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 23, 2014, 10:14:55 AM
In a nutshell....it always comes back to the dogs.
Those who believe in the dogs work will always realise that cadaver scent takes a minimum length of time before it's detected and because no cross contamination can be clearly highlighted (it's just a what if), such as in the Shannon Matthews case, it brings the case back to the impossibility of the McCann's timelines.
Those who do not believe the dogs work to be genuine will always look for ways to discredit their work or explain away reasons for the dogs behaviour that do not involve the McCann's.
Neither belief at this moment in time can produce any concrete evidence to hold up each view so it's a constant stalemate. You either believe in the dogs or you don't.
No-one needs to 'explain away' the dogs behaviour. I think the dogs are brilliant. But Martin Grime himself gives us all the reasons why their alerts are not proof of a dead body ever being in 5A - which IMO is what some people are still claiming as a fact. How repeating what the handler himself has stated can be construed as discrediting him is preposterous imo.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 23, 2014, 11:18:18 AM
No-one needs to 'explain away' the dogs behaviour. I think the dogs are brilliant. But Martin Grime himself gives us all the reasons why their alerts are not proof of a dead body ever being in 5A - which IMO is what some people are still claiming as a fact. How repeating what the handler himself has stated can be construed as discrediting him is preposterous imo.
No one has claimed it as fact, but you continue wumming that same old mantra.
Ok, so dogs don't definitiveley prove death in the appartment.
But have you seen or heard from Maddie since Kate & Gerry couldn't decide wether one or both of them put her to bed ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 23, 2014, 11:20:49 AM
...and...What has that got to do with my statement?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 23, 2014, 12:23:42 PM
Still no examples of missing persons returning alive after cadaver dog alerts then.
Here is one that sadly didn't. Spot the similarity.
Missing Zahra Claire Baker, her parents claimed she was in bed asleep, in reality of course she wasn't.
Police are continuing to searching for missing 10-year-old Zahra Claire Baker. She was reported missing around 2 p.m Saturday, said police.
She was discovered missing Saturday afternoon.
The girl's parents told police she was last seen sleeping in her bed around 2:30 a.m. They reported her missing around 2 p.m., said police.
Her parents said they searched for the girl for an hour before reporting her missing.
A search warrant for two vehicles registered to Adam and Elisa Baker reveal that a search and rescue dog "gave a positive alert for the presence of human remains."
Zahra Baker's body was dismembered and the remains hidden across several rural locations.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/zahrabaker.html
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 23, 2014, 05:12:56 PM
Re: The DNA results used to implicate the McCanns revisited. « Reply #132 on: February 23, 2014, 10:24:52 PM »
Quote
Eddie told us she died in 5a.
UNQUOTE ----------------------------------------
I have no problem with the dogs - and I have no problem with Grime as a competent trainer.
I do have a problem believing that none of the other apartments or cars had any of the 'odours' in them which Eddie and Keela had been trained to detect. Despite the amount of human traffic constantly passing through them for years on end - not even a single tiny speck of blood has ever been shed in any of them - apparently.
Simply not credible IMO.
...........but don`t your points illustrate that we are not experts?
Do you think that your points will not have already occurred to those with greater knowledge and understanding of the deployment and interpretation of the work of the dogs?
There must be more to it than "statements of the obvious" imo.
All sites / crime scenes for investigation could presumably be well spattered with all manner of historical and recent bodily substances............
It is surely then " not credible" that EVRD`s aren`t alerting and rushing about in an excited state all the time.
How do you explain that they aren`t?..........That they produce results from sites exposed to all those issues of cross-contamination and so forth. The crime scenes/investigation sites aren`t sterile.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 23, 2014, 06:31:29 PM
The dogs matter! Why? Because the main suspect who has not come forward in 7 years was seen carrying a child in a deep sleep that matched Madeleine McCann's description i.e. probably dead as Eddie's cadaver alerts indicate.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 23, 2014, 06:51:50 PM
The dogs matter! Why? Because the main suspect who has not come forward in 7 years was seen carrying a child in a deep sleep that matched Madeleine McCann's description i.e. probably dead as Eddie's cadaver alerts indicate.
that matched maddie description?...but we know there were lots of little blonde girls around that week
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: jassi on March 23, 2014, 06:52:39 PM
...........but don`t your points illustrate that we are not experts?
Do you think that your points will not have already occurred to those with greater knowledge and understanding of the deployment and interpretation of the work of the dogs?
There must be more to it than "statements of the obvious" imo.
All sites / crime scenes for investigation could presumably be well spattered with all manner of historical and recent bodily substances............
It is surely then " not credible" that EVRD`s aren`t alerting and rushing about in an excited state all the time.
How do you explain that they aren`t?..........That they produce results from sites exposed to all those issues of cross-contamination and so forth. The crime scenes/investigation sites aren`t sterile.
IMo The only expertise required is the ability to read and to apply common sense.
Martin Grime (not me) explained that his dogs could detect the minutest residue of blood - even if it had been deposited decades ago. IIRC he gives an example of this skill i.e. Keela alerting to blood which had been deposited in the 1960s.
Common sense dictates that nine cars and 4 apartments cannot possibly ALL have been totally devoid of the presence of blood - after years and years of usage by hundreds of people.
There is an undeniable major discrepancy between searching the Renault and 5a - and the other apartments and vehicles which is .... 'time spent'.
In view of the above then IMO if the dogs had been directed to give as much attention and time to the other cars and to the other apartments as they were directed to give to 5A and the Renault - then there would have been alerts in one or more of them.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 23, 2014, 08:19:03 PM
IMo Martin Grime (not me) explained that his dogs could detect the minutest residue of blood - even if it had been deposited decades ago. IIRC he gives an example of this skill i.e. Keela alerting to blood which had been deposited in the 1960s.
Common sense dictates that nine cars and 4 apartments cannot possibly ALL have been totally devoid of the presence of blood - after years and years of usage by hundreds of people.The only expertise required is the ability to read and to apply common sense.
There is an undeniable major discrepancy between searching the Renault and 5a - and the other apartments and vehicles which is .... 'time spent'.
In view of the above then IMO if the dogs had been directed to give as much attention and time to the other cars and to the other apartments as they were directed to give to 5A and the Renault - then there would have been alerts in one or more of them.
I think you have demonstrated again the need to let the experts deploy the dogs.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on March 23, 2014, 08:58:06 PM
I think you have demonstrated again the need to let the experts deploy the dogs.
Why? One doesn't need to be an expert to read and understand Martin Grime's statements.
May I ask:-
Do you believe Martin Grime's claim that his dogs could detect residual scents - not only ancient but so miniscule they couldn't be identified by forensic examination?
Do you believe it is credible that 9 cars and 4 holiday apartments have never had even a miniscule amount of blood deposited in any of them during years and years of usage by humans?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 23, 2014, 09:00:44 PM
However Grime didn't get the same response in the other apts as he did when Eddie entered 5a to which his quote was..... "by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from"
Yep, no wonder.
Eddie alerts to blood as well as cadavar and other bodily fluids. This Eddie check was done after several famillies had stayed in 5A since The Mccanns had left.
As we all know 1) one male visitor cut his face badly whilst shaving and he walked around the flat for some time trying to stench the flow of blood 2) the daughterr of another family that stayed there hurt herself badly. She was bleeding and had to be taken for medical treatment
Blood.
As I said Eddie alerts to blood, caverine and bodily fluids. No wonder he alerted there.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 23, 2014, 09:11:34 PM
On it goes... 8-)(--)
Here's the rub.
Apparently SY are believing the dogs too.
Where else did the "not alive" statement come from?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on March 23, 2014, 09:24:27 PM
However Grime didn't get the same response in the other apts as he did when Eddie entered 5a to which his quote was..... "by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from"
As mentioned before - it still took Eddie 20 minutes to alert in 5A. How do we know he would not have alerted after 20 minutes spent in other apartments?
Eddie's level of initial excitement at the gym or the garage wasn't such that it warranted a special mention from Grime - but he still alerted at both places.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 23, 2014, 09:28:26 PM
As mentioned before - it still took Eddie 20 minutes to alert in 5A. How do we know he would not have alerted after 20 minutes spent in other apartments?
Eddie's level of initial excitement at the gym or the garage wasn't such that it warranted a special mention from Grime - but he still alerted at both places.
[/b][/size]
Exactly Benice
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 23, 2014, 09:36:55 PM
Bumped
Quote from: Benice on Today at 09:24:27 PM As mentioned before - it still took Eddie 20 minutes to alert in 5A. How do we know he would not have alerted after 20 minutes spent in other apartments?
Eddie's level of initial excitement at the gym or the garage wasn't such that it warranted a special mention from Grime - but he still alerted at both places.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on March 23, 2014, 09:49:07 PM
Eddie alerts to blood as well as cadavar and other bodily fluids. This Eddie check was done after several famillies had stayed in 5A since The Mccanns had left.
As we all know 1) one male visitor cut his face badly whilst shaving and he walked around the flat for some time trying to stench the flow of blood 2) the daughterr of another family that stayed there hurt herself badly. She was bleeding and had to be taken for medical treatment
Blood.
As I said Eddie alerts to blood, caverine and bodily fluids. No wonder he alerted there.
Also IIRC correctly Sadie - I understand one of the previous holidaymakers was a Surgical Assistant.
The incidents you describe are what I think are normal occurrences which happen from time to time in holiday apartments. We are being asked to believe that nothing like that had ever happened in the other apartments and not a spot of blood had ever been spilt there for years on end - because if it had Eddie would have found it. I just don't buy that.
It's vastly more credible that if Eddie had been given 20 mins to search the other apartments - he would have alerted. As it was he was given 3-5 mins only.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 23, 2014, 09:56:47 PM
Why? One doesn't need to be an expert to read and understand Martin Grime's statements.
May I ask:-
Do you believe Martin Grime's claim that his dogs could detect residual scents - not only ancient but so miniscule they couldn't be identified by forensic examination?
Do you believe it is credible that 9 cars and 4 holiday apartments have never had even a miniscule amount of blood deposited in any of them during years and years of usage by humans?
Benice, I feel that it is a patronising misconception to use Mr Grime`s words selectively to imply that it is a matter of "common sense" to deduce that given enough time the EVRD will alert eventually...... anywhere............ anyway.
Immediately on entering 5A the EVRD indicated to his handler that he had picked up a scent he recognised.
After that the work involves pinpointing the source and using the vestiges dog to locate actual physical samples if possible.
Maybe you should locate backup cites from professionals similarly involved in deploying EVR dogs who have agreed with your "common sense" observations regarding Mr Grime`s work with the dogs.
Their input would be more value to you than mine........I believe that Mr Grime used his knowledge and expertise in his deployment of the dogs.
Having performed the work in full public view, it could be called a "matter of common sense" that he would do precisely that.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 23, 2014, 10:10:06 PM
As mentioned before - it still took Eddie 20 minutes to alert in 5A. How do we know he would not have alerted after 20 minutes spent in other apartments?
Eddie's level of initial excitement at the gym or the garage wasn't such that it warranted a special mention from Grime - but he still alerted at both places.
Yes, it was......
"The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door......."
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 23, 2014, 10:10:32 PM
As mentioned before - it still took Eddie 20 minutes to alert in 5A. How do we know he would not have alerted after 20 minutes spent in other apartments?
Eddie's level of initial excitement at the gym or the garage wasn't such that it warranted a special mention from Grime - but he still alerted at both places.
Get your FACTS right and stop spreading myths.
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2054-55
Eddie entered 5A at 20:16 and alerted in the wardrobe corner at 20:20, 4 minutes later he found the base of the scent cone.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on March 23, 2014, 11:05:10 PM
"The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door......."
I disagree. It was Grime's behaviour which changed substantially imo. That fact is shown clearly on the video. Eddie just kept running off - right down to the far end of the car park on at least one occasion. The most time spent on any other car was 30 seconds, in fact Eddie was not even required to do a full circuit of car No. 2 before Grime allowed him to move on.
On the other hand, Grime spent a full 2 minutes repeatedly calling Eddie back to the Renault and indicating to Eddie by tapping on it with his hands. If that wasn't a substantial change of behaviour compared to the other cars - I don't know what is.
Once again - had Grime behaved the same with the other cars - would there have been an alert? Or are we to believe the interior of all those 9 cars were devoid of any odours which his dogs could detect.
With the best will in the world I cannot believe that Grime had no idea the Renault belonged to the McCanns. A child of 10 could have worked that out.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 23, 2014, 11:35:00 PM
I don't do myths - the information came from posts on this thread. Below is one of them. I have no reason to believe Estuarine does myths either.
Estuarine Sr. Member Posts: 501 An Old Reactionary
Re: The dogs.....
« Reply #150 on: March 22, 2014, 04:23:41 PM »
Quote
5A (Gerry/Kate McCann):
From 20h00 to 21h20, the dogs go through.
20h20: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
20h22: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 20h47 to 21h20, the blood detecting dog goes through.
21h10 The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road. .........
That's even worse. Not doing your own work so you keep on lying repeatedly to everyone in this thread that it took Eddie 20 minutes to alert and accusing him of being crap. That is a blatant lie so stop propagating errors! Here's the link for you:
That's even worse. Not doing your own work so you keep on lying repeatedly to everyone in this thread that it took Eddie 20 minutes to alert and accusing him of being crap. That is a blatant lie so stop propagating errors! Here's the link for you:
If the information is wrong I will happily retract it. But first of all I would like the folk who posted the original information to give some clarification. I had no reason to doubt the veracity of the info - and as far as I know it was not challenged at the time.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 24, 2014, 12:48:44 AM
I disagree. It was Grime's behaviour which changed substantially imo. That fact is shown clearly on the video. Eddie just kept running off - right down to the far end of the car park on at least one occasion. The most time spent on any other car was 30 seconds, in fact Eddie was not even required to do a full circuit of car No. 2 before Grime allowed him to move on.
On the other hand, Grime spent a full 2 minutes repeatedly calling Eddie back to the Renault and indicating to Eddie by tapping on it with his hands. If that wasn't a substantial change of behaviour compared to the other cars - I don't know what is.
Once again - had Grime behaved the same with the other cars - would there have been an alert? Or are we to believe the interior of all those 9 cars were devoid of any odours which his dogs could detect.
With the best will in the world I cannot believe that Grime had no idea the Renault belonged to the McCanns. A child of 10 could have worked that out.
Quite Correct Benice as can be seen from the extended video
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 24, 2014, 12:56:37 AM
Yet again I ask - If SY do not believe the dogs, what evidence are they basing their "death in 5a" theory on?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 24, 2014, 12:59:28 AM
If the information is wrong I will happily retract it. But first of all I would like the folk who posted the original information to give some clarification. I had no reason to doubt the veracity of the info - and as far as I know it was not challenged at the time.
Benice, I am so sorry that you have received such abuse, due to the quoting of my post, which I was sure had a link. There appears to be a contradiction of times on these reports which can be checked on the links below. Which one is correct? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5
Quite Correct Benice as can be seen from the extended video
The police drove the cars
THE HUNT FOR MADELEINE .. and then they crash Murat van Crucial DNA evidence from Kate and Gerry McCann's hire car may have been contaminated - because police drove it to the forensic lab themselves. Bungling detectives failed to properly secure vehicles seized during the six month probe into the disappearance of four-year-old Madeleine in Portugal. Instead of taking them on a low loader as they would be in Britain, junior officers drove the 35 miles from Praia da Luz to the forensic analysis lab in Portimao. And the detective driving suspect Robert Murat's van CRASHED it. Experts said the astonishing blunder could jeopardise any DNA evidence allegedly found in the boot of the Renault Scenic - which the McCanns hired 25 days after Madeleine vanished - and destroy the police theory that they they used it to move her body. Former Scotland Yard detective Hamish Brown said: "It defies all rules of investigation. It's positively wrong. Any human who got into that vehicle would risk contaminating evidence, damaging fingerprints and possible cross-transference of fibres. "It should have gone on to a low loader to preserve any evidence it might contain."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on March 24, 2014, 01:14:12 AM
“ Outside, Eddie gives two more alerts of cadaver smell, on the varanda of the couple's bedroom and also in a garden situation directly below it. Here, the bark is weaker, like a "could be", with some doubt, like a human shrugging their shoulders“.
Martin’s Q&A Excerpt Q Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
A The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
If the information is wrong I will happily retract it. But first of all I would like the folk who posted the original information to give some clarification. I had no reason to doubt the veracity of the info - and as far as I know it was not challenged at the time.
This is why, where at all possible, we should ALL supply links. Not just bolded text from links, but the actual links themselves.
I'm not just picking on you Benice, we are all guilty of this. It used to be a rule that was quite strictly enforced and I guess we've just got a bit lazy or a bit sure of ourselves...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 24, 2014, 07:45:59 AM
Benice, I am so sorry that you have received such abuse, due to the quoting of my post, which I was sure had a link. There appears to be a contradiction of times on these reports which can be checked on the links below. Which one is correct? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5 Also see page below (contradiction of times)
Thank you Anna for posting the links - much appreciated.
If the contents of links are c&p'd - I tend not to click on the links themselves as I can get problems with screen freezing.
For the benefit of posters who think I lied. -- Having read the contents of the first link - and having no reason to disbelieve the contents I used the information therein in my posts. I didn't click on the 2nd link because I believed I already had the information that I needed.
The following is the report I used and I still see no reason why I shouldn't have.
-------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 July 2007 - 20h00:
Report: Inspection of the apartments Participants:
PJ: Tavares A. & Ricardo P. Inspectors UK: Mark Harrison, Martin Grime (UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert), Eddie & Keela (English Springers) Silvia B. Manager of the Ocean Club complex.
On that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A (Gerry/Kate McCann):
From 20h00 to 21h20, the dogs go through.
20h20: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
20h22: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 20h47 to 21h20, the blood detecting dog goes through.
21h10 The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B (Matthew/Rachael Oldfield):
21h24 to 21h27: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D (Russell O'Brien/Jane Tanner):
21h29 to 21h34: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H (David/Fiona Payne & Dianne Webster):
21h35 to 21h38: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G (McCanns' second Ocean Club apartment):
21h42 to 21h45: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
21h49 to 22h00: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.
End quote.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 24, 2014, 08:08:47 AM
the same as grime...may have been cadaverine contaminant....present as a result of a number of different scenarios...tahts what grime says...he doesn't say maddie died in the appt
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 24, 2014, 08:09:54 AM
Thanks for this, so you accept this in relation to the villa search of the McCann's:
If you are prepared to accept Grime "100%" can you give me your hypothesis as to the alert in the Villa?
I wouldnt give my hypothesis...waste of time...but I would like to hear grimes
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 24, 2014, 08:12:04 AM
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
So grime is saying..in his view....so he is not stating fact.......he says it is possible...so he is not sure.....
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Albertini on March 24, 2014, 08:12:58 AM
the same as grime...may have been cadaverine contaminant....present as a result of a number of different scenarios...tahts what grime says...he doesn't say maddie died in the appt
Ok, so put yourself in the shoes of an impartial investigator. You have numerous alerts all (and only) related to McCann properties and possessions.
What is your hypothesis, given you accept Grime 100%, for such alerts ONLY in McCann properties and possessions.
How, as an investigator, do you explain that, what conclusions and indications do you draw from them and how do those alerts frame your investigation?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Albertini on March 24, 2014, 08:15:02 AM
Ok, so put yourself in the shoes of an impartial investigator. You have numerous alerts all (and only) related to McCann properties and possessions.
What is your hypothesis, given you accept Grime 100%, for such alerts ONLY in McCann properties and possessions.
How, as an investigator, do you explain that, what conclusions and indications do you draw from them and how do those alerts frame your investigation?
my hypothesis is of no importance...we have had several hundred pages of this and got no where...I accept what grime says...the dog may be alerting to cadaverine contaminant but he cant be sure
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on March 24, 2014, 08:15:46 AM
Ok, so put yourself in the shoes of an impartial investigator. You have numerous alerts all (and only) related to McCann properties and possessions.
What is your hypothesis, given you accept Grime 100%, for such alerts ONLY in McCann properties and possessions.
How, as an investigator, do you explain that, what conclusions and indications do you draw from them and how do those alerts frame your investigation?
my hypothesis is of no importance...we have had several hundred pages of this and got no where...I accept what grime says...the dog may be alerting to cadaverine contaminant but he cant be sure
Sorry Dave that's just a cop out. Why can you give your hypotheses about over things but not the dogs?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 24, 2014, 08:19:17 AM
quite simply from past experience it leads nowhere...except for another 200 pages of posts
No i think this is a true revelation moment. You have said you accept Grime 100%.
You are the first McCann supporter to my knowledge to have admitted that. It's a a real breakthrough and we could make some progress here for the sake of the whole board.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Albertini on March 24, 2014, 08:22:12 AM
no...when posters post rubbish such as "the dogs tell us Maddie died in the apartment"...and no one objects...whats the point
Forget what others have said. I haven't said that and it's me and you talking here. We#re talking about what you think not what random others have said.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 24, 2014, 08:24:42 AM
No i think this is a true revelation moment. You have said you accept Grime 100%.
You are the first McCann supporter to my knowledge to have admitted that. It's a a real breakthrough and we could make some progress here for the sake of the whole board.
I can accept what Grime says because he does not confirm a death in the apartment and he does not confirm that the dogs are reacting to cadaverine
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Albertini on March 24, 2014, 08:26:16 AM
Thank you Anna for posting the links - much appreciated.
If the contents of links are c&p'd - I tend not to click on the links themselves as I can get problems with screen freezing.
For the benefit of posters who think I lied. -- Having read the contents of the first link - and having no reason to disbelieve the contents I used the information therein in my posts. I didn't click on the 2nd link because I believed I already had the information that I needed.
The following is the report I used and I still see no reason why I shouldn't have.
-------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 July 2007 - 20h00:
Report: Inspection of the apartments Participants:
PJ: Tavares A. & Ricardo P. Inspectors UK: Mark Harrison, Martin Grime (UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert), Eddie & Keela (English Springers) Silvia B. Manager of the Ocean Club complex.
On that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A (Gerry/Kate McCann):
From 20h00 to 21h20, the dogs go through.
20h20: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
20h22: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 20h47 to 21h20, the blood detecting dog goes through.
21h10 The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B (Matthew/Rachael Oldfield):
21h24 to 21h27: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D (Russell O'Brien/Jane Tanner):
21h29 to 21h34: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H (David/Fiona Payne & Dianne Webster):
21h35 to 21h38: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G (McCanns' second Ocean Club apartment):
21h42 to 21h45: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
21h49 to 22h00: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.
End quote.
That report is a joke, right?
Twenty minutes before the dog alerts to anything in The McCann appartment, but barely minutes spent in the other appartments. Not even as much as five minutes in some. And Eddie had just been let out of his cage before entering The McCann Appartment. Of course he was excited. That is the best bit of grandstanding I have seen in a long time. And as for the car, it had posters in the windows which mysteriously disappeared half way through the garage search.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on March 24, 2014, 08:36:40 AM
Twenty minutes before the dog alerts to anything in The McCann appartment, but barely minutes spent in the other appartments. Not even as much as five minutes in some. And Eddie had just been let out of his cage before entering The McCann Appartment. Of course he was excited. That is the best bit of grandstanding I have seen in a long time. And as for the car, it had posters in the windows which mysteriously disappeared half way through the garage search.
8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
Perhaps this thread should be retitled 'dis the dogs'.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 24, 2014, 08:38:14 AM
Last night Benice, I posted in support of you too. Two posts
Thec second was a substantial post, and it took a long time to produce because I needed to repeatedly look at the doggy video and check, in order to analyse. But I see, despite its information, it has been deleted. I wonder why?
I detailed a number of relevant points about the video including the cammanding back of Eddie four times. Altogether he was by the Mccann car 5 times.
Grime may not have realised it, but he kept calling back AND rapping on the Mccann car in a much more persistent way than he did with any other cars,. Most had no calling back or rapping at all.
Eddie would have little doubt as to which car he was to react to with all this cueing. You were absolutely correct
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 24, 2014, 08:40:00 AM
Last night Benice, I posted in support of you too. Two posts
It was a substantial post, and it took a long time to produce because I needed to repeatedly look at the doggy video and check. But I see, despite its information, it has been deleted. I wonder why?
I detailed a number of relevant points about the video including the cammanding back of Eddie four times. Altogether he was by the Mccann car 5 times.
Grime may not have realised it, but he kept calling back AND rapping on the Mccann car in a much more persistent way than he did with any other cars,. Most had no calling back or rapping at all.
Eddie would have little doubt as to which car he was to react to with all this cueing
Are you a professional dog handler sadie ?
Or merely here to defend the mccanns at all costs ?
.
Your post demonstrates Albertinis analysis so aptly.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 24, 2014, 08:55:48 AM
This is not about what i think or accept, it's about your opinions Dave.
You're not copping out again are you?
Oh Albertini ! I always used to think that you were a serious poster
Why are you saying things like that to davel. He never cops out of anything. He always debates, even against a crowd of you.
And it is not davels opinions, it is FACT that Eddies alerts were either to cadervine, blood or sweat or wee or ....
And we know that a man had bled quite profusely from a shaving accident in 5A . Also the child of some other holliday makers in that apartment had had an accident with bleeding, so bad thta she had to be taken for medical treatment
Of course Eddie alerted. Two lots of blood in the previous few weeks Why didn't Amaral check, using the dogs, right after Madeleine went? Before other people had stayed there and poluted the place?.
The dogs were offered, I believe, as stated on this forum before
Just why did Amaral leave it so late? Too late..
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 24, 2014, 09:00:47 AM
Oh Albertini ! I always used to think that you were a serious poster
Why are you saying things like that to davel. He never cops out of anything. He always debates, even against a crowd of you.
And it is not davels opinions, it is FACT that Eddies alerts were either to cadervine, blood or sweat or wee or ....
And we know that a man had bled quite profusely from a shaving accident in 5A . Also the child of some other holliday makers in that apartment had had an accident with bleeding, so bad thta she had to be taken for medical treatment
Of course Eddie alerted. Two lots of blood in the previous few weeks Why didn't Amaral check, using the dogs, right after Madeleine went? Before other people had stayed there and poluted the place?.
The dogs were offered, I believe, as stated on this forum before
Just why did Amaral leave it so late? Too late..
Disinformation?
How about this you said Sadie:
Quote
And it is not davels opinions, it is FACT that Eddies alerts were either to cadervine, blood or sweat or wee or ....
From Martin Grime's Rogatory:
Quote
'Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids'' The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately: Red cells 40-50% Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water) White cells Platelets DNA can only be removed from white cells. This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Albertini on March 24, 2014, 09:11:52 AM
Albertinio. Davel never cops out. Please stop spreading disinformation
He debates against several posters at the same time and very well.
Please stop spreading disinformation.
Of course he has copped out you silly billy!
He has stated on record he accepts Grime's findings 100% but the only point he has so far acknoweldged is the legalese about the alerts requiring evidentiary corroboration.
He has not gone anywhere near a hypothesis for ALL the alerts, despite claiming he accepts them 100%.
That my dear is a cop out.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 24, 2014, 09:21:34 AM
Oh Albertini ! I always used to think that you were a serious poster
Why are you saying things like that to davel. He never cops out of anything. He always debates, even against a crowd of you.
And it is not davels opinions, it is FACT that Eddies alerts were either to cadervine, blood or sweat or wee or ....
And we know that a man had bled quite profusely from a shaving accident in 5A . Also the child of some other holliday makers in that apartment had had an accident with bleeding, so bad thta she had to be taken for medical treatment
Of course Eddie alerted. Two lots of blood in the previous few weeks Why didn't Amaral check, using the dogs, right after Madeleine went? Before other people had stayed there and poluted the place?.
The dogs were offered, I believe, as stated on this forum before
Just why did Amaral leave it so late? Too late..
Can you provide a cite for the red bit please? Not a quote from another poster, but an official cite.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 24, 2014, 09:29:31 AM
Throw into the mix the 'no missing persons returning to life after cadaver dog alerts'
and then see..
How, as an investigator, do you explain that, what conclusions and indications do you draw from them and how do those alerts frame your investigation?
You will find a massive cop out or deflection, distraction is the most likely outcome here.
Of course. Fortunately it will be to no avail, as SY will pay absolutely no attention to the ramblings of the True Believers and will draw their own conclusions from the evidence available to them.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 24, 2014, 10:35:46 AM
From Carew:-
Yes, Sadie....and I replied to both you and Benice last night asking for cites or professional opinions to back up what amounts to amateurs like yourselves smearing and discrediting Mr Grime based on your interpretations of his work........simply because you feel "entitled" to an opinion.
Both my posts have been removed with no explanation and were certainly not off topic.............nor as potentially libellous, imo, as are the conclusions / assessments of you two as regards Mr Grime`s report to the investigation and his work.
Then sadie says
Carew, the evidence of what I say is before your eyes. Look and see
I doubt that Grime had realised just how much he was commanding / calling back and rapping, but it is there for all to see.
I have no hesitation on reposting what I said cos the evidence is there. Just take the time to assess what you are seeing. It takes a while for it to sink in just how much the Mccann car is being pointed out ... but it is. PLay the video several times if you doubt me.
Carew`s reply.........
The bottom line is that Mr Grime`s deployment and reports to the investigation have not, as far as I know, been subject to any official inquiry or rebuke.
If you cannot back up what you opine without cites or professional opinions, then your views / assessments / conclusions,........... no matter how sincerely felt..................are not "evidence".
He`s the expert.........not you and Benice.
To keep implying that if I watch the video long enough I will, in effect, "see the obvious right before my eyes" is patronising and merely underlines the attitude of arrogance which underpins your posts about Mr Grime`s deployment of the dogs.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 24, 2014, 11:02:50 AM
Yes, Sadie....and I replied to both you and Benice last night asking for cites or professional opinions to back up what amounts to amateurs like yourselves smearing and discrediting Mr Grime based on your interpretations of his work........simply because you feel "entitled" to an opinion.
Both my posts have been removed with no explanation and were certainly not off topic.............nor as potentially libellous, imo, as are the conclusions / assessments of you two as regards Mr Grime`s report to the investigation and his work.
Then sadie says
Carew, the evidence of what I say is before your eyes. Look and see
I doubt that Grime had realised just how much he was commanding / calling back and rapping, but it is there for all to see.
I have no hesitation on reposting what I said cos the evidence is there. Just take the time to assess what you are seeing. It takes a while for it to sink in just how much the Mccann car is being pointed out ... but it is. PLay the video several times if you doubt me.
Carew`s reply.........
The bottom line is that Mr Grime`s deployment and reports to the investigation have not, as far as I know, been subject to any official inquiry or rebuke.
If you cannot back up what you opine without cites or professional opinions, then your views / assessments / conclusions,........... no matter how sincerely felt..................are not "evidence" and they smear and discredit a professional doing his job imo.
He`s the expert.........not you and Benice.
To keep implying that if I watch the video long enough I will, in effect, "see the obvious right before my eyes" is patronising and merely underlines the attitude of arrogance which underpins your posts about Mr Grime`s deployment of the dogs.
You are entitled to your views Carew. Nothing patronising nor derogatory about saying the evidence is before your eyes, cos it is. Mr Grime repeatedly commands Eddie back and repeatedly raps the car in a commanding way. Very little of that occurs with the other cars.
Benice was absolutely correct in her statement that started all this. That Grimes appraoch changed with the Mccann car; that he gave The Mccann car different attention ... very different imo
Are you going to keep going on about this and drawing attention to the video and the obvious differences, cos if you do, "it is an Own goal".
By watching the video, readers can see with their very own eyes just how much more attention Mr Grime gives to the Mccann car.
http://youtu.be/FTF4JTLeOWA
Cant you understand that
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 24, 2014, 11:14:11 AM
You are entitled to your views Carew. Nothing patronising nor derogatory about saying the evidence is before your eyes, cos it is. Mr Grime repeatedly commands Eddie back and repeatedly raps the car in a commanding way. Very little of that occurs with the other cars.
Benice was absolutely correct in her statement that started all this. That Grimes appraoch changed with the Mccann car; that he gave The Mccann car different attention ... very different imo
Are you going to keep going on about this and drawing attention to the video and the obvious differences, cos if you do, "it is an Own goal".
By watching the video, readers can see with their very own eyes just how much more attention Mr Grime gives to the Mccann car.
http://youtu.be/FTF4JTLeOWA
Cant you understand that
I think the point that you are missing is that Mr Grime has never been picked up on it by peers.
You and I can think what we like. If he'd done a crappy job, you'd think another dog handler might have pointed it out by now. Plus, you'd think he'd have been out of a job and the Mccanns would've tried to sue on the grounds that his 'obvious cueing' damaged their reputation.
None of that has happened. The most likely conclusion is that the people who know what they're on about don't think he did a crappy job.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 24, 2014, 11:17:51 AM
You are entitled to your views Carew. Nothing patronising nor derogatory about saying the evidence is before your eyes, cos it is. Mr Grime repeatedly commands Eddie back and repeatedly raps the car in a commanding way. Very little of that occurs with the other cars.
Benice was absolutely correct in her statement that started all this. That Grimes appraoch changed with the Mccann car; that he gave The Mccann car different attention ... very different imo
Are you going to keep going on about this and drawing attention to the video and the obvious differences, cos if you do, "it is an Own goal".
By watching the video, readers can see with their very own eyes just how much more attention Mr Grime gives to the Mccann car.
http://youtu.be/FTF4JTLeOWA
Cant you understand that
There you go again........from your position of self-appointed superiority..........You can`t seem to help it.
He gives attention to the car because the dog has indicated an interest in it............His report says so!
You and Benice deciding on an alternative explanation matters not.
No matter what you implore readers to view..............His report stands......... and has not been officially challenged by any expert.
Come back when/if it ever is.............and that point about "own goal" is a bit childish.........Why would I mind how often a video is viewed?
[/b]
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: jassi on March 24, 2014, 11:19:30 AM
I think the point that you are missing is that Mr Grime has never been picked up on it by peers.
You and I can think what we like. If he'd done a crappy job, you'd think another dog handler might have pointed it out by now. Plus, you'd think he'd have been out of a job and the Mccanns would've tried to sue on the grounds that his 'obvious cueing' damaged their reputation.
None of that has happened. The most likely conclusion is that the people who know what they're on about don't think he did a crappy job.
Indeed, he is, or has been employed by the FBI, who are reputed to be the best in the business, so they must have confidence in him. and his dogs.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 24, 2014, 01:20:35 PM
Presumably SY have had plenty of time to read it...........and still Mr Grime`s deployment hasn`t received any official comment.
We have had an acknowledgement, though, that Madeleine may have died in the apartment.
Hasn't the message got through, yet, that Scotland Yard investigating a sexual predator of children with a predilection for sexually abusing girls in their beds has nothing to do with the dogs?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 24, 2014, 01:27:44 PM
Hasn't the message got through, yet, that Scotland Yard investigating a sexual predator of children with a predilection for sexually abusing girls in their beds has nothing to do with the dogs?
8((()*/ Seems they have a massive blind spot
Nah, I should have said, "They have loads of blindspots" which prevent them seeing their way to the light
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 24, 2014, 01:32:24 PM
Hasn't the message got through, yet, that Scotland Yard investigating a sexual predator of children with a predilection for sexually abusing girls in their beds has nothing to do with the dogs?
Your assumption has not been confirmed.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on March 24, 2014, 03:05:17 PM
Presumably SY have had plenty of time to read it...........and still Mr Grime`s deployment of the EVRD in the Madeleine McCann case hasn`t received any official comment.
We have had an acknowledgement, though, that Madeleine may have died in the apartment.
( There........Is that any clearer for the nit-pickers` convention? )
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on March 24, 2014, 10:38:13 PM
There appears to be some dispute over the accuracy of certain posts made earlier today in relation to Mr Grime and the dogs so until I can establish what is truth and what is myth I have moved them to archive.
If any members would like to provide some background information in support of their position on this subject please feel free to pm me.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 25, 2014, 10:02:30 PM
PLEASE!!!!
It was PC Grime at the time.
The evidence that Madeleine died in 5a was first developed by the British Police who brought in their own dogs, Eddie and Keela.
All three were in the employ of the UK Constabulary.
PC Grime was not acting out of any other interest than doing his job properly.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on March 26, 2014, 02:11:30 AM
How about including a link to a site that is credible?
3.10.11 We now deal with the introduction of Martin GRIME and his Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) to Operation Rectangle. Operation Haven has established through enquiry with the NPIA, that Martin GRIME was an ACPO accredited dog handler whilst he was a serving police officer, but forfeited accreditation upon his retirement in July 2007. We mentioned that Mr GRIME remains on the ACPO accredited list of experts though his EVRD is no longer accredited by ACPO. Whilst Martin GRIME’s original contract to Jersey was for five days, his actual deployment lasted for 130 days.
3.10.12 The forensic review carried out by X of the NPIA questioned the presence of Martin GRIME on site for such a long time. X , was informed that Martin GRIME had been acting as a Deputy Crime Scene Manager to Forensic Service Manager X , at the request of DCO HARPER. The forensic review noted Martin GRIME’s lack of formal training or qualifications to perform the role of Deputy Forensic Service Manager and that to utilise him in this role ‘cannot be recognised as good practice’. The review also noted that ‘there was concern from some persons interviewed that too much reliance had been placed on the dogs’. It is accepted that dogs are ‘presumptive screening assets’ only and that any alerts or indications they give must be forensically corroborated. In addition, it is a fact that there were no concise terms of reference for the deployment of Martin GRIME and his EVRD or his subsequent use as a search advisor, apparently with the support of DCO HARPER.
3.10.13 CO POWER himself states ‘the search dog seemed to play a significant role in determining whether a specific location needed to be examined further. I am not an expert on dogs or what they do’.
3.10.14 Again, there is a distinct lack of documentary evidence to show any intrusive supervision of the SIO with regard to the continued search. This Inquiry concludes that the actions of DCO HARPER and Martin GRIME went unsupervised for some considerable time. To Page 116 of 383 Supervision Highly Confidential – Personal Information CO POWER’s credit, there is an e-mail exchange between him and DCO HARPER dated 10 May 2008 in which CO POWER raises the question of the continued use of Martin GRIME and his EVRD. He says ‘Lenny, it has struck me for some time that he [Mr GRIME] is an expensive resource who has more than his fair shared of down time’. DCO HARPER replied in the same e-mail string ‘to be fair to him though, he hasn’t got much down time as he is also the NPIA search coordinator and is fully employed’. CO POWER replies ‘Thanks. Better understood now’. CO POWER does not appear to pursue the matter further.
3.10.15 However, DCO HARPER’s reply was not factually accurate. Martin GRIME was neither an NPIA search advisor nor fully employed. In his statement, Martin GRIME states that ‘I am a Subject Matter Expert registered with the UK National Policing Improvement Agency and specialist homicide canine search advisor… I advise Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the operational deployment of police dogs in the role of homicide investigation. I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training’. His expertise lay purely in the use of dogs in searching, not as a 'search co-ordinator'.
3.10.16 OFFICER X notes that during conversation with X, CO POWER accepted that ‘the dog was ‘probably unreliable’ and that the dog handler, GRIME, had too much influence over the enquiry, again, Mr POWER didn’t say how he managed or dealt with that issue’. This Inquiry has been unable to establish whether CO POWER made any further attempts to supervise the SIO in this key part of the investigation.
3.10.17 OFFICER X concludes ‘decisions should be made based on professional policing judgement and evidence. When you look at the facts, the excavation and searching of Haut De La Garenne… was not justified’.
A body would have to be insitu for at least 1.5 hours as it would not be possible for a dog to alert to cadaver scent earlier than that .... as the general consensous among scientists is that chemicals from decomposition only appear once a body has began to decompose....
In natural disaster work do you know whether EVRDs have found victims with approximatly this threshold time of 1.5 hours since death?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 27, 2014, 08:36:19 PM
Would they be using EVRD at that point or sniffer dogs to detect live humans?
Serious question, I don't know the answer, I'm just assuming that recovery of a live person would be the priority after such a short period of time.
Yes good point, the priority for the first few hours would be on finding survivors, so I framed my question very badly. Here is the improved question:
Has an EVRD dog ever detected cadaver scent of a body which, while it had been at the detection location, was never more than 2 hours since death? (I am aware of the experiment which scientifically estimates that at least one and a half hours is required, I am asking about real work in the field).
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 27, 2014, 09:26:14 PM
Yes good point, the priority for the first few hours would be on finding survivors, so I framed my question very badly. Here is the improved question:
Has an EVRD dog ever detected cadaver scent of a body which, while it had been at the detection location, was never more than 2 hours since death? (I am aware of the experiment which scientifically estimates that at least one and a half hours is required, I am asking about real work in the field).
I imagine that since Evrd's tend to be called in at the point at which a death is suspected, yet no body has been recovered, that no test in the field has ever been done.
There would be cheaper and easier options available. Plus, doesn't someone have to be missing for 24 hours or something before they can even be declared missing?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on March 27, 2014, 09:29:20 PM
I imagine that since Evrd's tend to be called in at the point at which a death is suspected, yet no body has been recovered, that no test in the field has ever been done.
There would be cheaper and easier options available. Plus, doesn't someone have to be missing for 24 hours or something before they can even be declared missing?
not when theres been an earthquake
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on March 27, 2014, 09:32:59 PM
No, I addressed that point earlier, saying that the first priority would be to recover the living, so if dogs were used at all, it would be sniffer dogs to detect live people.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on March 27, 2014, 10:18:15 PM
I imagine that since Evrd's tend to be called in at the point at which a death is suspected, yet no body has been recovered, that no test in the field has ever been done....
Yes but imagine a hypothetical case where an EVRD dog is called in weeks later and signals in a room. Then later the perp confesses and says "yes they died in that room at 9am and I took them away in a car at 10.30am" and police confirm independently both those times. That would be proof that the minimum period is one and a half hours or less. I accept what Serendipity posted about the experiment to determine the hour and a half period, I am just curious if it has ever cropped up in an actual case?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 30, 2014, 02:11:02 AM
It helps to have an understanding of how the dogs work.
Dogs "see" scent the way we see colour.
Different colour scent particles simply roll off us.
A dog will no more mistake "blood" for "cadaver" than you or I would confuse orange and purple.
Cadaver is not made up of blood, so Eddie was brought in first to indicate Cadaver Only.
While he was perfectly capable of detecting all sorts of odors, what he WILL NOT do is confuse them.
Eddie was tasked for cadaver only. When he alerted to cadaver, the specialist blood dog was brought in bahind him.
If Eddie didnt indicate Keela was not used.
This explains why Eddie indicated when Keela didnt.
Cadaver is not blood, and to Eddie they were orange vs purple. He knew the difference.
Cadaver scent is only produced when life stops and bacteria in the digestive system begins to consume itself, ie decompose.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: gilet on March 30, 2014, 11:29:19 AM
It helps to have an understanding of how the dogs work.
Dogs "see" scent the way we see colour.
Different colour scent particles simply roll off us.
A dog will no more mistake "blood" for "cadaver" than you or I would confuse orange and purple.
Cadaver is not made up of blood, so Eddie was brought in first to indicate Cadaver Only.
While he was perfectly capable of detecting all sorts of odors, what he WILL NOT do is confuse them.
Eddie was tasked for cadaver only. When he alerted to cadaver, the specialist blood dog was brought in bahind him.
If Eddie didnt indicate Keela was not used.
This explains why Eddie indicated when Keela didnt.
Cadaver is not blood, and to Eddie they were orange vs purple. He knew the difference.
Cadaver scent is only produced when life stops and bacteria in the digestive system begins to consume itself, ie decompose.
All well and good but are you not aware that we don't all see colours as being identical?
Are you not aware that changes in light strength, source and other conditions dramatically affects the way in which we see colours?
Are you not aware that other extraneous conditions, such as weather, time, location and underlying material on which the scent is deposited, also changes the position and strength of cadaver scent?
And did you know that the famous blue Kingfisher is in fact brown?
Now, slightly more seriously, are you aware that there is a major problem in the content of your post?
Eddie alerts to the odour from cadavers, blood and other bodily fluids as we are specifically told by Martin Grime. He was not specifically tasked for cadaver odour as you claim.
The reason Keela was brought into a scene after Eddie is precisely because no-one (not even Grime) could be sure which scent Eddie was alerting to.
If Keela also alerted then it was likely the initial alert by Eddie was also to that blood.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Lace on March 30, 2014, 11:44:01 AM
There is a difficulty when there is no body to really know what the dog is alerting to, here they are talking about residual scent -
Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Lace on March 30, 2014, 11:47:57 AM
Eddie could have been alerting to something which had blood on it, as there were other families staying in 5a who is to say what was left on the floor in the bedroom?
Another point I would like to make is. Eddie did not react to Cuddle Cat when he found it, he barked when Mr. Grime put it in the cupboard in the kitchen, now is he saying that the scent was pooling in the cupboard??? It is confusing, Cuddle Cat was supposed to have Cadavarine odour on it, yet Eddie could only smell it when in the cupboard??
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: gilet on March 30, 2014, 12:02:31 PM
Eddie could have been alerting to something which had blood on it, as there were other families staying in 5a who is to say what was left on the floor in the bedroom?
Another point I would like to make is. Eddie did not react to Cuddle Cat when he found it, he barked when Mr. Grime put it in the cupboard in the kitchen, now is he saying that the scent was pooling in the cupboard??? It is confusing, Cuddle Cat was supposed to have Cadavarine odour on it, yet Eddie could only smell it when in the cupboard??
That indeed is a major flaw in this particular case. Eddie is not supposed to play with objects as an alert but his first reaction to the toy was to push/throw it across the room. Though he quite obviously sniffed directly at the cupboard door he did not then alert. Only after looking all round the kitchen and after looking at the work surface in particular did he alert. Then he alerted at the other end of the work surface well away from the cupboard where the toy had been hidden.
Looking at the video I can't see any direct connection between the alerts in the kitchen and the toy hidden in the cupboard.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 30, 2014, 12:08:15 PM
That indeed is a major flaw in this particular case. Eddie is not supposed to play with objects as an alert but his first reaction to the toy was to push/throw it across the room. Though he quite obviously sniffed directly at the cupboard door he did not then alert. Only after looking all round the kitchen and after looking at the work surface in particular did he alert. Then he alerted at the other end of the work surface well away from the cupboard where the toy had been hidden.
Looking at the video I can't see any direct connection between the alerts in the kitchen and the toy hidden in the cupboard.
There is no connection. Martin was mistaken, imo, but then he did not have the video showing Eddie sniffing along the base of the cupboard as we have ... and presumably he forgot.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 30, 2014, 12:25:37 PM
Now seems like these two videos are pretty conclusive that Martin made a mistake about Eddie alerting to Ccat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qG21K6XJRg
CCat is lying at the bottom of the cupboard. See @ 3.41 and at @ 3.52 Eddie sniffs along the bottom of the cupboard and does not re-act. Yet @ 4.05, he sniffs along the counter and comes to what I believe is a pile of folders with a loose sheet on top. He immediately alerts here.
Martin Grime reaches in the cupboard and pulls Ccat out. He thinks it must be Ccat that caused the alert, yet Eddie had sniffed close twice before and NOT alerted. Martin did not have the benefit of studying the video, as we have and I can understand his thinking it was Ccat , BUT we can clearly see that it was NOT
[To see the pile of folders with additional sheet of paper on top see @4.51. I suggest you enlarge the image x 4. Click on the view symbol and then in the box to the right on 400]
Now before you doubting Thomases start saying, but how could Eddie have smelled the cadavar odour, cos the cupboard door was closed.
Well: 1) It wasn't properly closed 2) How come he could smell cadavar odour thru a closed car door? Car doors make a fantastic seal to keep out draughts and rain etc.. Yet it seems Eddie could smell cadavar odour thru that amazingly tight car door seal. yet could not thru the bottom of the cupboard door, which wasn't even properly closed.
Come on guys, you have to concede that no way could he have failed to smell cadavar odour thru the gap in the cupboard doors, if his sense of smell was keen enough for him to smell scent thru a closed car door.
The scent was on the papers, the folders or possibly the counter at that particular point NOT on Ccat.
@ 3.02 Eddie sniffs the odour thru a closed car door seal
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on March 30, 2014, 06:00:09 PM
First thing I must clear up is your suggestion that the video has been altered; it wasn't. When you view the video and leave the page before it ends and then return the video will play from the point you last viewed it. Always best to refresh the page.
Now to your point about the toy. My own view having watched the videos is that cuddle cat was a red herring. We don't know what went on off-camera but I have my own views on that which I can't post here for obvious reasons. All we have is the video which clearly shows Eddie not alerting to Cuddle Cat but pulling it out of the toy box and depositing it in the middle of the floor. He showed no interest in it thereafter.
Someone then deposited Cuddle Cat in the sideboard cupboard. Eddie is brought out of the bedroom and is encouraged to sniff around the sideboard eventually alerting to something. The cupboard is opened and Cuddle Cat brought out on cue.
The whole thing is meaningless imo.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on March 30, 2014, 06:04:38 PM
First thing I must clear up is your suggestion that the video has been altered; it wasn't. When you view the video and leave the page before it ends and then return the video will play from the point you last viewed it. Always best to refresh the page.
Now to your point about the toy. My own view having watched the videos is that cuddle cat was a red herring. We don't know what went on off-camera but I have my own views on that which I can't post here for obvious reasons. All we have is the video which clearly shows Eddie not alerting to Cuddle Cat but pulling it out of the toy box and depositing it in the middle of the floor. He showed no interest in it thereafter.
Someone then deposited Cuddle Cat in the sideboard cupboard. Eddie is brought out of the bedroom and is encouraged to sniff around the sideboard eventually alerting to something. The cupboard is opened and Cuddle Cat brought out on cue.
The whole thing is meaningless imo.
Eddie played with the toy, sniffed it, bit it, picked up, tossed it in the air. But he didn't bark.
Then the toy was hidden and he barked all around the cupboard where the toy was hidden.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Estuarine on March 30, 2014, 06:17:35 PM
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Serendipity on March 30, 2014, 08:45:18 PM
Oops, wrong again Sadie. You won;t be feeling so smug when you read this:
6.1. Cadaver dog: * 2 pieces of clothing of Kate McCann * One piece of Madeleine McCann * Madeleine's soft toy * The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann * It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.
... * Madeleine's soft toy * The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann * It was confirmed in out of the house conditions http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm ...
So Almeida is stating that Eddie alerted to the toy after it was removed from the villa. It seems reasonable to assume this was at the gym. Do you know whether the toy was on the gym floor when Eddie alerted to it? Do you think it was packed in the box labeled "sala da estar"? Do you know why it was screened seperatly from the clothes in that "sala da estar" box?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: icabodcrane on March 30, 2014, 11:41:56 PM
The cadaver dog may have barked because he picked up the scent of Madeleine McCann's dead body
... that IS a possibility, isn't it ?
I mean, there is nothing to say he did not, is there ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 30, 2014, 11:53:06 PM
Yes any normal person would think so especially in so many places connected to the McCann's. Maybe if only one alert but not alerts inside outside on clothes etc.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 30, 2014, 11:59:04 PM
Madeleine McCann's death 'covered up by parents who faked kidnap', court hears
(snip)
Mr de Almeida told the court: “We have always spoken of a tragic accidental death – not homicide. The McCanns did not kill her but they concealed the body,”
Mr de Almeida, who worked under Amaral and was also taken off the case in September 2007, said the decision to designate the McCanns 'arguidos' was made by police after sniffer dogs brought to Portugal from England had carried out their searches.
Giving evidence, Mr de Almeida said that the dogs had identified blood and the scent of a human corpse inside the childrens’ bedroom and the dining room of the McCanns’ holiday flat.
The animals also reacted to traces on a piece of cloth in a villa rented by the McCanns after they left the apartment and in the boot of a rental car hired by the family several weeks after Madeleine disappeared.
Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said.
But later he said that the theory that the parents had covered up Madeleine’s death as outlined in Amaral’s book was one reached by British police on the ground in Portugal too.
“This wasn’t something invented by Amaral,” he insisted. “It was a conclusion reached by the team of Portuguese investigators as well as British police.”
Yes any normal person would think so especially in some many places connected to the McCann's. Maybe if only one alert but not alerts inside outside on clothes etc.
I think so, even though quite obviously I am anything but normal.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 31, 2014, 12:07:46 AM
@)(++(* You've got to be one minded and biased not to see it then 8(>((
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 31, 2014, 12:09:13 AM
'We all believe she is dead,' he declared defiantly. 'It was our conclusion as police professionals, both Portuguese and British police. The McCanns didn't kill her but they concealed the body.'
Oops, wrong again Sadie. You won;t be feeling so smug when you read this:
6.1. Cadaver dog: * 2 pieces of clothing of Kate McCann * One piece of Madeleine McCann * Madeleine's soft toy * The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann * It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.
Laters, am off to enjoy the rest of my Sunday evening :)
Serendipity. There is nothing wrong with what I said.
sadie
Quote
Now seems like these two videos are pretty conclusive that Martin made a mistake about Eddie alerting to Ccat
I always try and research very thoroiughly one thing at a time. I have researched this one alert and pretty convincingly proven , I think, that Martin was mistaken.
Eddie did NOT alert to cuddle cat as you will see, he alerted to something on the top of the counter, where the pile of papers and folders lie.
In this instant I think Martin was incorrect, but he did not have the advantage as we have of seeing the video and seeing that Eddie had already sniffed twice where he should have alerted.
If I have time I will look at what you are saying, but I warn you, I delve deeply if I have time to do so, and it will not be likely to be tomorrow, My life is very busy atm.
PS I wonder where the pile of folders and the loose piece of paper came from?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on March 31, 2014, 01:17:22 AM
@Serendipity. With the greatest respect for your knowledge of dogs, I humbly suggest re-watching the compete video of Eddie in the living area of the villa. The non-alert of Eddie to the toy when he first finds it has been dismissed as him playing with the "reward". I find this explanation implausible. And no explanation has been offered by you for why Eddie then does not alert when he sniffs at the open sideboard door where the toy is concealed. Also no explanation has been offered by you for the assumed (incorrectly assumed IMO) non-alert by Eddie in the living area to the checked trousers, white sleeveless top, and aeroplane child t-shirt, all of which were certainly in the living area when Eddie searched it. I suggest that Eddie alerted as Sadie says to item(s) on top of the sideboard (watch the video - that is where he sniffs just before his first alert) however my opinion is definitely that those items are not paperwork, but are exactly the same clothes, on top of the sideboard, which he later alerted to in the gym.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 31, 2014, 01:27:18 AM
@Serendipity. With the greatest respect for your knowledge of dogs, I humbly suggest re-watching the compete video of Eddie in the living area of the villa. The non-alert of Eddie to the toy when he first finds it has been dismissed as him playing with the "reward". I find this explanation implausible. And no explanation has been offered by you for why Eddie then does not alert when he sniffs at the open sideboard door where the toy is concealed. Also no explanation has been offered by you for the assumed (incorrectly assumed IMO) non-alert by Eddie in the living area to the checked trousers, white sleeveless top, and aeroplane child t-shirt, all of which were certainly in the living area when Eddie searched it. I suggest that Eddie alerted as Sadie says to item(s) on top of the sideboard (watch the video - that is where he sniffs just before his first alert) however my opinion is definitely that those items are not paperwork, but are exactly the same clothes, on top of the sideboard, which he later alerted to in the gym.
Thankyou Pegasus, but please try enlarging the image. I only know how to do x 4 times. But even at that enlargement, the clothes look more like folders to me.
Also it could be just the sheet of paper on top. Where did that come from?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 31, 2014, 01:40:12 AM
@Serendipity. With the greatest respect for your knowledge of dogs, I humbly suggest re-watching the compete video of Eddie in the living area of the villa. The non-alert of Eddie to the toy when he first finds it has been dismissed as him playing with the "reward". I find this explanation implausible. And no explanation has been offered by you for why Eddie then does not alert when he sniffs at the open sideboard door where the toy is concealed. Also no explanation has been offered by you for the assumed (incorrectly assumed IMO) non-alert by Eddie in the living area to the checked trousers, white sleeveless top, and aeroplane child t-shirt, all of which were certainly in the living area when Eddie searched it. I suggest that Eddie alerted as Sadie says to item(s) on top of the sideboard (watch the video - that is where he sniffs just before his first alert) however my opinion is definitely that those items are not paperwork, but are exactly the same clothes, on top of the sideboard, which he later alerted to in the gym.
Where are the pants in the villa living room? I couldn't see them or that red plane top. Eddie only barks if he's 100% certain. Maybe the clothes tested were packed in suitcases.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on March 31, 2014, 01:48:58 AM
I wondered that too. I also wonder if the sheet of paper on top was instructions of what Martin was to check
It is not uncommon for Police Officers to have to deal with daed bodies.
It would be great if someone could really enlarge the pile to see whether it is clothes or whether it is papers
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on April 01, 2014, 03:50:23 AM
@serendipity Please give us your talk through second by second of the full video of eddie alerting in the living area of the villa. Let me guess your talk through will go something like this? 1. Eddie finds the toy next to a chair but does not alert because he views this as as his reward? 2. Eddie when he sniffs at the base of the open sideboard door behind which is the toy does not alert because he is not sure yet? 3. Eddie when sniffing at the pile of clothes on top of the sideboard immediately before his first alert (the exact clothes he alerted to later in the gym) thinks oh there is no smell on them but I will alert anyway? Please watch the video, and please try to keep up 8)-)))
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on April 01, 2014, 07:56:20 AM
Now seems like these two videos are pretty conclusive that Martin made a mistake about Eddie alerting to Ccat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qG21K6XJRg
CCat is lying at the bottom of the cupboard. See @ 3.41 and at @ 3.52 Eddie sniffs along the bottom of the cupboard and does not re-act. Yet @ 4.05, he sniffs along the counter and comes to what I believe is a pile of folders with a loose sheet on top. He immediately alerts here.
Martin Grime reaches in the cupboard and pulls Ccat out. He thinks it must be Ccat that caused the alert, yet Eddie had sniffed close twice before and NOT alerted. Martin did not have the benefit of studying the video, as we have and I can understand his thinking it was Ccat , BUT we can clearly see that it was NOT
[To see the pile of folders with additional sheet of paper on top see @4.51. I suggest you enlarge the image x 4. Click on the view symbol and then in the box to the right on 400]
Now before you doubting Thomases start saying, but how could Eddie have smelled the cadavar odour, cos the cupboard door was closed.
Well: 1) It wasn't properly closed 2) How come he could smell cadavar odour thru a closed car door? Car doors make a fantastic seal to keep out draughts and rain etc.. Yet it seems Eddie could smell cadavar odour thru that amazingly tight car door seal. yet could not thru the bottom of the cupboard door, which wasn't even properly closed.
Come on guys, you have to concede that no way could he have failed to smell cadavar odour thru the gap in the cupboard doors, if his sense of smell was keen enough for him to smell scent thru a closed car door.
The scent was on the papers, the folders or possibly the counter at that particular point NOT on Ccat.
@ 3.02 Eddie sniffs the odour thru a closed car door seal
A closed door doesn't appear to be a bar to Eddie's ability to detect a scent.
He smelt Gerry's blood in the Renault Scenic through a closed door, then again, after it had been enclosed in a sand box.
So long as an object with a scent is not contained within something airtight, a dog ( I dare say any dog) will pick up the scent.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on April 01, 2014, 06:42:05 PM
I find the 'evidence' by the dogs quite disconcerting and very confused. Eddie couldn't have cared less about Cuddles yet we are told it was a positive alert. Jeez 8(8-))
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2014, 08:52:03 PM
It's not the first time they've been in this situation though and they just rubbished them before. Do you think they've changed their minds about the dog's reliability?
Cariad...Drs McCanns actually understand how the dogs work and their abilities. You posted the dogs have never been wrong which shows you don't...simples...to my knowledge Dr McCanns ...like me...have never rubbished the dogs
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on May 10, 2014, 08:55:26 PM
Cariad...Drs McCanns actually understand how the dogs work and their abilities. You posted the dogs have never been wrong which shows you don't...simples
I don't recall posting that? Maybe specifically about Eddie, but I doubt I'd've made a general claim. For a start, I agreed that Zapta was probably wrong.
This isn't about my understand or lack there of anyway. It was about your hero denigrating the use of EVRD's which are once again being used to try and locate his child.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2014, 09:01:44 PM
It's not the first time they've been in this situation though and they just rubbished them before. Do you think they've changed their minds about the dog's reliability?
I shouldn't think so, but you'd really need to ask them that question.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on May 10, 2014, 10:04:21 PM
Posters are reminded to attack the subject under discussion and not each other. Further argumentative behaviour will attract penalties.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2014, 10:14:19 PM
I don't recall posting that? Maybe specifically about Eddie, but I doubt I'd've made a general claim. For a start, I agreed that Zapta was probably wrong.
This isn't about my understand or lack there of anyway. It was about your hero denigrating the use of EVRD's which are once again being used to try and locate his child.
Well the Fact is that his dog had never falsely alerted. So he could've stated "I'm convinced that there was a cadaver present due to my knowledge and training".
However, without forensic evidence, he has no proof and would've been torn to shreds should he ever been called to testify.
hence the need to couch it in terms like 'indicate' and 'suggest'.
It's called legalese. A couple of decades ago the same language was used to describe DNA evidence.
its post post 232 on your list of posts
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on May 10, 2014, 10:18:36 PM
Well the Fact is that his dog had never falsely alerted. So he could've stated "I'm convinced that there was a cadaver present due to my knowledge and training".
However, without forensic evidence, he has no proof and would've been torn to shreds should he ever been called to testify.
hence the need to couch it in terms like 'indicate' and 'suggest'.
It's called legalese. A couple of decades ago the same language was used to describe DNA evidence.
its post post 232 on your list of posts
So all that was actually what I said half an hour ago? Not that I claimed EVRD's were infallable at all, but that Eddie had a 100% record?
Seriously davel? Jesus H Christ! You'd try the patience of a saint!
So yes, I was right and you are wrong. I won't hold my breath waiting for the apology you owe me though.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2014, 10:20:13 PM
What percentage Davel.....go on take a pot shot if you don't know or stop bleating on with asking for cites from everybody unless you are willing to back your own arguments up. Or have you decided to scuttle off with your tail between your legs?
No still here..but I don't think you are able to understand the principles involved... Cariad makes a claim that the dogs have never been wrong...does she have to supply any proof?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Air Con on May 10, 2014, 11:02:55 PM
What you are saying is that Cariad can make any claim she likes and supply NO evidence but if I make a claim I must supply evidence...you have just lost the argument
You're the one claiming the dogs aren't 100% reliable.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2014, 11:19:55 PM
Nope. What I'm saying is that you are disputing Cariad's claim of 100% so in those circumstances if it's not 100% then what percentage is it and please provide your EVIDENCE...that is your favourite word isn't it?
By the way, once again.........
Now that you have your cite are you going to correct your claim that the McCann's have never rubbished the dogs? 5.38 Davel....."incredibly unreliable"
lets keep this very simple...does Cariad have to supply any evidence to support her claim
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 10, 2014, 11:22:30 PM
I am so sick of percentages in this case.
Smithman is "only" 80% - somehow Team McCann makes 20% more meaningful than 80%.
The dogs are "only" 98% reliable - 2% again used as some sort of "proof of failure" when common sense AND THE BLOODY STATISTICS both say that anything more than 50% needs to be looked at as a positive.
It works for school exams, it works in investigations.
Let this be THE END of bickering about statistics.
SY ARE DIGGING UP PDL.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2014, 11:24:14 PM
Smithman is "only" 80% - somehow Team McCann makes 20% more meaningful than 80%.
The dogs are "only" 98% reliable - 2% again used as some sort of "proof of failure" when common sense AND THE BLOODY STATISTICS both say that anything more than 50% needs to be looked at as a positive.
It works for school exams, it works in investigations.
Let this be THE END of bickering about statistics.
SY ARE DIGGING UP PDL.
are they ..has the digging started or are you dreaming...I believe cocktail hour starts at 7.00am in OZ
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Air Con on May 10, 2014, 11:25:10 PM
well you owe me an apology but never mind... where in that post do I say that eddie doesn't have a 100% record
Davel -
I don't care.
I do care about the digs that have been announced, and are about to begin.
I care about what they signify.
If you can get your mind out of your statistics for just one second - I'm going to assume you're Aunty Trish's neighbour or something - you will see that the dig even being announced in the first place, is MOMENTOUS.
It is a sign that the 2 year review, then the 2 year Operation Grange, has all come back to the same place.
The sites identified by Amaral and his team.
The sites possibly identified by the dogs.
Which indicates, in turn, that the end result of 7 years of investigation by various bodies has found ZERO evidence of an abduction, and every sign that she did not leave PDL alive, indeed may have been hidden in plain sight.
Just as Amaral said.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2014, 11:40:00 PM
If Amaral correctly identified areas that needed searching then why weren't they? Or were they, but just not very well?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2014, 11:41:48 PM
I do care about the digs that have been announced, and are about to begin.
I care about what they signify.
If you can get your mind out of your statistics for just one second - I'm going to assume you're Aunty Trish's neighbour or something - you will see that the dig even being announced in the first place, is MOMENTOUS.
It is a sign that the 2 year review, then the 2 year Operation Grange, has all come back to the same place.
The sites identified by Amaral and his team.
The sites possibly identified by the dogs.
Which indicates, in turn, that the end result of 7 years of investigation by various bodies has found ZERO evidence of an abduction, and every sign that she did not leave PDL alive, indeed may have been hidden in plain sight.
Just as Amaral said.
strange as it may seem I don't care what you think either...your ideas are so far off the mark I thought you were just having a laugh at everyone elses expense...but you are serious...incredible
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2014, 11:52:24 PM
Are you totally stupid or just deliberately trying to antagonise other posters????
"no...it is not true to claim Eddie has a 100% record..you are wrong"
Oh hang on I get it....if you make enough bullshit posts then the problem posts end up way back....typical Davel.
Maybe we should all just keep reposting them then?
ETA...I owe you no apology. I have proven you to be liar and you have backed it up by failing to address it. You've had the opportunity...too late now to address it. Everybody has seen you for exactly what you are.
OK...first...it seems you accept Cariad can make a claim and supply no evidence...yet you expect me to supply evidence...answer this then we can move forward
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Moderator on May 11, 2014, 01:25:21 AM
Sniffer dogs drop in on Praia da Luz. (thanks to Carana for photo link)
(http://i.imgur.com/K7ZB6Lb.jpg?1)
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on May 11, 2014, 01:47:52 AM
As John correctly points out Eddie clearly did not have any signalling interest in the cat. As Sadie correctly points out, the "cat" alert was not to the cat, it was to a pile of items on top of the sideboard. I seem to be the only person in the world who can see that the pile he sniffs on the sideboard is a pile of about 6 neatly folded clothing items (with a single sheet of paper on top).
Total consistency from Eddie re clothes and place they had been: At apartment he alerts to a wardrobe where a pile of many clothes had been, at villa he alerts to a small % of those same clothes, and at gym he alerts again to the same small % of those clothes (from the "sala da estar" box remember).
Total consistency from Eddie re cat: he never alerts to it At apartment he does not alert in north bedroom (where cat had been found 10pm 3rd), at villa he does not alert to cat when he first finds it by a chair, and he does not alert to cat when it is hidden in a sideboard.
Whole post just IMO might be wrong
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 11, 2014, 02:46:00 AM
Completely wrong! I still don't know how you turn a pile of papers into a pile of clothes?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: icabodcrane on May 11, 2014, 03:02:55 AM
Completely wrong! I still don't know how you turn a pile of papers into a pile of clothes?
My opinion is that the late Eddie was extremely skilled and absolutely incapable of being inconsistent. The notion that he would miss the cat on first pass, the signal it on second, I find to be an insult to him. Also the notion that he would ignore those several clothing items on first pass in villa lounge, but then signal them later in a gym, is doubling the insult to him JIMO.
I provided an exact location for those particular clothing items in the villa living area. They were then put in the box labelled "sala da estar" BTW. Happy to consider your constructive alternative - where in the villa living area (openplan lounge/diner, of which you have the dog video of the entire room) do you say those clothes are?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on May 11, 2014, 03:14:08 AM
Dogs can be very effective given the right circumstances but now, seven years on, I really have my doubts.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on May 11, 2014, 03:53:50 AM
Smithman is "only" 80% - somehow Team McCann makes 20% more meaningful than 80%.
The dogs are "only" 98% reliable - 2% again used as some sort of "proof of failure" when common sense AND THE BLOODY STATISTICS both say that anything more than 50% needs to be looked at as a positive.
It works for school exams, it works in investigations.
Let this be THE END of bickering about statistics.
SY ARE DIGGING UP PDL.
You know what they say...
Quote
“Million-to-one chances...crop up nine times out of ten.”
― Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on May 11, 2014, 11:20:15 AM
OK...first...it seems you accept Cariad can make a claim and supply no evidence...yet you expect me to supply evidence...answer this then we can move forward
Firstly, I have never claimed that EVRD's are infallible. It never happened. You have invented it.
Secondly, here is my cite for Eddie having a 100% record:
"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. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search."
I'd assumed that you had read the case files, so would've been aware of this.
You've made a series of posts over the last couple of days claiming that I said something I didn't. It's not only against forum rules, it's unjust to misrepresent me in such a way on an open forum.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2014, 12:12:15 PM
Firstly, I have never claimed that EVRD's are infallible. It never happened. You have invented it.
Secondly, here is my cite for Eddie having a 100% record:
"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. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search."
I'd assumed that you had read the case files, so would've been aware of this.
You've made a series of posts over the last couple of days claiming that I said something I didn't. It's not only against forum rules, it's unjust to misrepresent me in such a way on an open forum.
What I am saying is absolutely true and John has supported me. I find it unbelievable that grime would say this...I have doubts he did...
No one knows how many times eddie has been wrong...even grime...it is impossible to say...how many alerts in jersey or PDL were correct...no one knows. Therefore it is wrong to say eddie has never been wrong.
You and a lot of other posters do not understand the dogs...that's why your conclusions are wrong.
Forensics is a science...grime cannot make claims that he cannot support...thas why I find it hard to believe Grime said this
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 11, 2014, 12:26:15 PM
Eddie the "cadaver" dog alerted to a tissue used for cleaning up after sex. If he had a 100% record as far as only alerting to corpses is concerned then this alert would have been indicative of the presence of a cadaver - was it?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2014, 01:33:25 PM
As John correctly points out Eddie clearly did not have any signalling interest in the cat. As Sadie correctly points out, the "cat" alert was not to the cat, it was to a pile of items on top of the sideboard. I seem to be the only person in the world who can see that the pile he sniffs on the sideboard is a pile of about 6 neatly folded clothing items (with a single sheet of paper on top).
Total consistency from Eddie re clothes and place they had been: At apartment he alerts to a wardrobe where a pile of many clothes had been, at villa he alerts to a small % of those same clothes, and at gym he alerts again to the same small % of those clothes (from the "sala da estar" box remember).
Total consistency from Eddie re cat: he never alerts to it At apartment he does not alert in north bedroom (where cat had been found 10pm 3rd), at villa he does not alert to cat when he first finds it by a chair, and he does not alert to cat when it is hidden in a sideboard.
Whole post just IMO might be wrong
I think it should be remembered that the videos we are seeing have been edited.
Eddie's behaviour beside the sideboard was decidedly odd. IMO he did not alert to a hidden cuddle cat inside the sideboard, but he most definitely alerted to what looks to me as a pile of folders on top. In the absence of proof to exactly what they are,whether folders or carefully folded items of clothing with a paper on top makes no difference, that was what he alerted to on top and not in the sideboard.
What did he alert to on the chair?
I have a memory of Dr Amaral specifically mentioning that alert. It was either in an extract from his book or a clip from his documentary. Can anyone help?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on May 11, 2014, 03:21:52 PM
What I am saying is absolutely true and John has supported me. I find it unbelievable that grime would say this...I have doubts he did...
No one knows how many times eddie has been wrong...even grime...it is impossible to say...how many alerts in jersey or PDL were correct...no one knows. Therefore it is wrong to say eddie has never been wrong.
You and a lot of other posters do not understand the dogs...that's why your conclusions are wrong.
Forensics is a science...grime cannot make claims that he cannot support...thas why I find it hard to believe Grime said this
You have no idea what I do and do not understand. I know that EVRD's are not "notoriously unreliable" as Dr Mccann has previously claimed, hence I know more than him.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2014, 03:28:30 PM
You have no idea what I do and do not understand. I know that EVRD's are not "notoriously unreliable" as Dr Mccann has previously claimed, hence I know more than him.
You have shown what you understand...there is no way anyone can be sure that eddie is always correct
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Cariad on May 11, 2014, 03:30:28 PM
Yes IMO there are two seperate periods of barking in the villa "sala da estar" footage, the second near a dining chair but the dining table blocks our view.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on May 14, 2014, 02:22:47 AM
The cupboard door was not opened to reveal CC when Eddie barked at whatever.
The camera followed Mr Grime and Eddie into other rooms ... on their return ... Mr Grime opened the cupboard door and produced CC.
IMO these videos could never be evidential ... they seem to have a private individual's copyright on them ... and have been heavily edited.
Yes, they have been heavily edited.
People who can pronounce exactly what the dogs are indicating, are Grime and essentially no one else.
That is why the handler/dog relationship is so important.
Regardless of your opinions of the dogs, Grime, whatever, the fact is that SY are digging up PDL.
They are looking for Madeleine's dead body.
Which confirms the work of the dogs IMO, so why is everyone still denigrating them?
The evidence has not changed. The evidence says Madeleine died in 5a, it always has.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on May 14, 2014, 02:35:06 AM
You won't see me dissing Eddie, I am claiming (and I seem to be the only one) is that he was 100% consistent.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on May 14, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
I think Mr Grime is very expert with in my amateur and probably wrong opinion a single misinterpretation . IMO what Eddie indicated in villa lounge was not the cat. It has huge implications for working out the sequence on evening May 3rd. If you insist the cat was signalled in August, then you presumably have to claim staging before or during the last check? (IMO the cat stayed on the bed, was not staged, and was not signalled in August, which is consistent at least).
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on July 19, 2014, 03:02:25 PM
What I do not understand is why there was no excavation of the flowerbed in early august 2007. Must be the only case ever where an EVR dog has signalled a patch of ground and police have said "oh let's not bother digging there" ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carew on July 25, 2014, 12:05:24 PM
What I do not understand is why there was no excavation of the flowerbed in early august 2007. Must be the only case ever where an EVR dog has signalled a patch of ground and police have said "oh let's not bother digging there" ?
Might there have been no indication that the ground had been disturbed within the timeframe of the disappearance?
Would something like that be fairly obvious, leading to the more likely possibility of surface contamination by contact of some sort?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 25, 2014, 12:13:18 PM
I think it quite probable that the gardeners who pruned the bushes back peed there. Out of general sight.
Or even the maintenance men who, IIRC, fixed the patio doors to the Mccann bedroom. Can someone please confirm that I have the correct windows that were fixed please.
Who were the maintenance men and the gardeners ..... any of the names mentioned?
En route to and from a few destinations ... dark secluded corner ... ideal place 'to go' if someone is caught short ... and the GNR dogs ignored it in the days following Madeleine's abduction.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on July 25, 2014, 04:27:04 PM
I think it quite probable that the gardeners who pruned the bushes back peed there. Out of general sight.
Or even the maintenance men who, IIRC, fixed the patio doors to the Mccann bedroom. Can someone please confirm that I have the correct windows that were fixed please.
Who were the maintenance men and the gardeners ..... any of the names mentioned?
Notice on the search video, how when Eddie entered 5a, he immediately headed for the toilet bowl & started barking?
I didn't.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Eleanor on July 25, 2014, 04:54:41 PM
As far as I know, "proof" has not been established since the forensic results were inconclusive.
Does anyone know what Grime means by that...the unanswered question is how suggestive
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 27, 2014, 07:51:03 PM
I believe on occasion such an alert can be proved forensically if minute traces can be harvested from the spot, but as that is not applicable in 5a or anywhere else associated with Eddie's alerts.
Eddie did not find a body so his alerts are technically a false positive. In the absence of a body being found Eddie did not show that anyone died in the room.
It is impossible to know if the alert was a true positive (person deceased and gone) or a false positive without prior knowledge. As we all should know by now the dog itself alerting is not evidence; the alert is not “proof” in a legal sense – or in a scientific sense, due to false positives; and the only way to know for sure if the dog is actually alerting to cadaver is if you know the cadaver or material used in training was there.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: faithlilly on July 27, 2014, 08:02:15 PM
I believe on occasion such an alert can be proved forensically if minute traces can be harvested from the spot, but as that is not applicable in 5a or anywhere else associated with Eddie's alerts.
Eddie did not find a body so his alerts are technically a false positive. In the absence of a body being found Eddie did not show that anyone died in the room.
It is impossible to know if the alert was a true positive (person deceased and gone) or a false positive without prior knowledge. As we all should know by now the dog itself alerting is not evidence; the alert is not “proof” in a legal sense – or in a scientific sense, due to false positives; and the only way to know for sure if the dog is actually alerting to cadaver is if you know the cadaver or material used in training was there.
A false positive could only be proved if the dog had alerted to a cadaver and the missing person was found alive.
That Eddie's alert was scientifically uncorroborated does not make it a false positive.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 27, 2014, 08:10:46 PM
A false positive could only be proved if the dog had alerted to a cadaver and the missing person was found alive.
That Eddie's alert was scientifically uncorroborated does not make it a false positive.
#
wrong again..if the dog alerted and the victim was found alive this does not prove a false alert...the dog might be alerting to another source...furniture or another source of contamination
what this amounts to is that it is impossible to prove a false alert
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: faithlilly on July 27, 2014, 08:14:20 PM
wrong again..if the dog alerted and the victim was found alive this does not prove a false alert...the dog might be alerting to another source...furniture or another source of contamination
what this amounts to is that it is impossible to prove a false alert
The dog would not have alerted to a cadaver therefore it would be a false positive.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 27, 2014, 08:17:10 PM
The dog is trained to indicate where evidence may be found. No evidence relating to Madeleine's disappearance was found. Therefore the dog alerts mean nothing ... as their handler has stated in the PJ files.
The dog did his training good. The forensic found nothing. The dog only does his job not forensic job. With a judge it means nothing but the dog is still good. People fear the dog so say the dog is no good. The dog is good. The forensic is not so the doctors are free to say find a body. One day this may change but today they are free. The dog is trained so mostly right. People say mostly wrong but he is still good dog. This is the fear people have of a dog who is trained to be right. The dog makes people feel fear. Why?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 27, 2014, 08:32:10 PM
I seem to remember a cadaver dog alerted in the Shannon Mathews case
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: faithlilly on July 27, 2014, 08:35:38 PM
No it doesn't. All it proves is that milk teeth were found at a spot where a cadaver may have lain.
Whether a cadaver may or may not have lain there is just guesswork on your part.
On the other hand - milk teeth were retrieved from there and are the material evidence (no guesswork required) that Eddie had alerted to body parts from living people.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on July 27, 2014, 10:02:29 PM
Whether a cadaver may or may not have lain there is just guesswork on your part.
On the other hand - milk teeth were retrieved from there and are the material evidence (no guesswork required) that Eddie had alerted to body parts from living people.
...and bones which didn't come from living people....
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: faithlilly on July 27, 2014, 10:06:44 PM
Whether a cadaver may or may not have lain there is just guesswork on your part.
On the other hand - milk teeth were retrieved from there and are the material evidence (no guesswork required) that Eddie had alerted to body parts from living people.
No Benice. You are putting two and two together and making five.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on July 27, 2014, 10:09:26 PM
...and bones which didn't come from living people....
But which were hundreds of years old IIRC.
How would anyone know without digging down and with no corroborating evidence to prove otherwise - that an alert in 5A was not to bones buried hundreds of years ago?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 27, 2014, 10:09:35 PM
Whether a cadaver may or may not have lain there is just guesswork on your part.
On the other hand - milk teeth were retrieved from there and are the material evidence *(no guesswork required) that Eddie had alerted to body parts from living people.
*guesswork required here being that the previous owners of said teeth were alive at the time when they & their gnashers parted company.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on July 27, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
-snipped - Detective Superintendent Michael Gradwell said Wednesday that the rooms described as underground punishment chambers where children were beaten and raped were "just cellars." He said bones found at the home dated from between 1470 and 1670, while the alleged shackles were "just rusty metal." http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/04/jersey-graves-could-be-bergerac-tv-props-23444/
It is also alleged that while filming Bergerac an area which was dug up for a scene depicting a graveyard uncovered a real graveyard and disturbed bones from a real graveyard in the process. http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/04/jersey-graves-could-be-bergerac-tv-props-23444/
You really should do some research before jumping on a bandwagon.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on July 27, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
-snipped - Detective Superintendent Michael Gradwell said Wednesday that the rooms described as underground punishment chambers where children were beaten and raped were "just cellars." He said bones found at the home dated from between 1470 and 1670, while the alleged shackles were "just rusty metal." http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/04/jersey-graves-could-be-bergerac-tv-props-23444/
It is also alleged that while filming Bergerac an area which was dug up for a scene depicting a graveyard uncovered a real graveyard and disturbed bones from a real graveyard in the process. http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/04/jersey-graves-could-be-bergerac-tv-props-23444/
You really should do some research before jumping on a bandwagon.
You have lost me there, you seem to be agreeing with me?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 27, 2014, 11:42:01 PM
... so whose body is it behind the wall in the underground car park? ... Eddie showed a lot of interest and barked there as he jumped at it.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 27, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
... so whose body is it behind the wall in the underground car park? ... Eddie showed a lot of interest and barked there as he jumped at it.
Yes he found scent there and was following it. That scent was everywhere after passing the hire car which was the source of it. And a witness reported that the car boot was constantly open at the private villa in July but not followed up at the time.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 27, 2014, 11:56:40 PM
Yes he found scent there and was following it. That scent was everywhere after passing the hire car which was the source of it. And a witness reported that the car boot was constantly open at the private villa in July but not followed up at the time.
Hmmm ... Eddie did not alert to the boot of the hire car. He did alert to blood from a living person on a key fob. He did not alert to 'cadaver' or 'the scent of death'. This we know. He also alerted to the wall. This we also know. So who is buried in the wall?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 27, 2014, 11:58:25 PM
Hmmm ... Eddie did not alert to the boot of the hire car. He did alert to blood from a living person on a key fob. He did not alert to 'cadaver' or 'the scent of death'. This we know. He also alerted to the wall. This we also know. So who is buried in the wall?
If you watch the footage Eddie was going under the boot of the car but Grime brought him back. He wanted to go under the boot >@@(*&) At no point in the footage did he sniff the car boot seal.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on July 28, 2014, 12:02:04 AM
The dogs alerted to something. Could have been someones sweat or urine or period ar salivar .... any bodily fluid ... or ot could have been cadavar odour.
The very fact that upon forensic examination it was found that there was no evudence of Cadavar PROVES that that Madeleine did NOT die in 5A and neither was she carried in the hire car
1. I believe that the dogs almost always get it right, but right can mean any bodily fluid, cos Eddie is trained to alert to bodily fluids tyhe same as Cadavar odour.. The pointers are that Eddie alerted to bodily fluids, anyones, cos the forensics found none of Madeleines DNA where the alerts were.
2. Martin Grime got it wrong at least once. Cuddlecat had no odour on it when taken from that cupborad, but the pile of folders / papers on top of the cupboard did have some odour of bodily fluids or cadavar or even pig. Who put those papers there? That is what i would like to know.
3, The childs top that was alerted to, was S***s and far too small for Madeleine.
4. Now the car is something else. How come that Eddie kept running past that car and had to be repeatedly ordered back? How come that Grime had to keep rapping the car and shouting at Eddie.? Why was that necessary? For a fair test, why didn't he give the other cars the same attention ?
5. And finally how was the odour of whatever , able to seep throught a water and air tight door? Car doors do not let in water or drafts even in the most appalling conditions unless there is a difference in pressures inside to out.
So just what was Eddie alerting to? Something on the outside of the car?
And, of course, yet again the DNA did not match Madeleines. So that was proof that Madeleine was NOT in that car.
Thank you Eddie, thank you Martin Grime and Thank you the forensic laboratory.
Between you, you did a great job proving that there was absolutely no evidence that Madeleine had died.
Sorry this post is late. Have been tied up.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on July 28, 2014, 12:05:21 AM
No Benice. You are putting two and two together and making five.
Eddie alerted. They dug down. They found loads of milk teeth.
So would Martin Grime........
(1) claim this as a successful positive alert by Eddie - using the evidence of the milk teeth as proof of his dog's skills? One of which was that he alerted to body bits from living people.
Or
(2) would he say it was a positive alert - but he couldn't say for definite what his dog had alerted to - as he could be alerting to where a cadaver had lain, even though there was no trace of any physical remains at that spot. ---------
Logic and common sense dictate that with the evidence he had to hand - he would plump for No. 1. And he would be right to do so imo.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on July 28, 2014, 12:08:37 AM
The plane t-shirt was for ages 2-3, for height 0.98 metres
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on July 28, 2014, 12:11:18 AM
OK ... so whose body is it behind the wall in the underground car park? ... Eddie showed a lot of interest and barked there as he jumped at it.
This helps to explain Eddie's behaviour in the underground car park - the scent could be strongest away from the actual source. You could then encourage the dog back to the closer spot i.e. Grime bringing Eddie back to the car or Eddie jumping in the river because the scent was strongest there.
There is a fan on the wall in the carpark, just along from where Eddie was jumping.
The fans are filmed stationary, however, were the fans switched off before the cars were parked up?
Because if the fans were on and drawing air from the direction of the parked Renault & blowing it out t'other side.... that might go some way to explaining why the scent has drifted.
It was drawn towards the fan, perhaps.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
that might go some way to explaining why the scent has drifted.
I doubt if the scent of Gerry's blood on the ignition key drifted ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 28, 2014, 01:12:04 PM
There is a fan on the wall in the carpark, just along from where Eddie was jumping.
The fans are filmed stationary, however, were the fans switched off before the cars were parked up?
Because if the fans were on and drawing air from the direction of the parked Renault & blowing it out t'other side.... that might go some way to explaining why the scent has drifted.
It was drawn towards the fan, perhaps.
Good point. Will have to check that out 8((()*/
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 28, 2014, 01:16:11 PM
They buried the blood key under sand at a far distance and performed a new test with Eddie for cadaver.
Dog inspection report of cars searched in subterranean garage
Canine Inspection Report
Date 6 and 7 August 2007
Place Underground parking area of 1st of May Square, Portimao. Participants: three PJ officers; two UK police experts; Eddy and Keela, the English Springer [Spaniels]
THE ENTIRE WORK WAS RECORDED IN IMAGE AND SOUND [on video]
On 6 August 2007, at 15h17, a canine inspection was performed in the following motor cars, this being done on level -4 of the above-mentioned underground car park: [list of cars: Opel Corsa; Fiat Punto; Peugeot 205; Renault Scenic; Skodia Fabia; VW Transporter; Nissan Patrol; VW Passat; Audi A4; Renault Kangoo.]
Thus, at the hour indicated the work began, with the dog Eddy, that detects cadaver odour, examining the whole level of the underground car park where the vehicles were parked, it having been verified the following result:
15h27 - the dog 'marked' car number 4 - Renault Scenic - rental vehicle currently used by Gerry Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having been verified the following result:
03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage compartment of the car;
04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door, which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the Budget rental company. In order to confirm that the dog had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
the present document has been duly signed:
Both dogs marked the same place for key fob. Then again they would wouldn't they, follow the scent of the other one.[/list]
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 28, 2014, 08:13:00 PM
For all of the hundreds of pages on the dogs...SY say Maddie may still be alive...what does that mean for the alerts
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 08:17:20 PM
This helps to explain Eddie's behaviour in the underground car park - the scent could be strongest away from the actual source. You could then encourage the dog back to the closer spot i.e. Grime bringing Eddie back to the car or Eddie jumping in the river because the scent was strongest there.
See the dog is trained good. People who say the dog not good is because of fear.just know the dog is good then ask why the dog barks? The dog barks because of death. Who is hiding death? Not from the dog even because dog is so good. Some people hide like ostrich.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 28, 2014, 08:24:50 PM
Dog inspection report of cars searched in subterranean garage
Canine Inspection Report
Date 6 and 7 August 2007
Place Underground parking area of 1st of May Square, Portimao. Participants: three PJ officers; two UK police experts; Eddy and Keela, the English Springer [Spaniels]
THE ENTIRE WORK WAS RECORDED IN IMAGE AND SOUND [on video]
On 6 August 2007, at 15h17, a canine inspection was performed in the following motor cars, this being done on level -4 of the above-mentioned underground car park: [list of cars: Opel Corsa; Fiat Punto; Peugeot 205; Renault Scenic; Skodia Fabia; VW Transporter; Nissan Patrol; VW Passat; Audi A4; Renault Kangoo.]
Thus, at the hour indicated the work began, with the dog Eddy, that detects cadaver odour, examining the whole level of the underground car park where the vehicles were parked, it having been verified the following result:
15h27 - the dog 'marked' car number 4 - Renault Scenic - rental vehicle currently used by Gerry Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having been verified the following result:
03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage compartment of the car;
04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door, which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the Budget rental company. In order to confirm that the dog had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
the present document has been duly signed:
Both dogs marked the same place for key fob. Then again they would wouldn't they, follow the scent of the other one.[/list]
Keela has to get in real close to alert to blood. You can see that in the footage of Keela inside the car. Eddie was chasing a strong scent a long distance away from the car. IMO he was chasing cadaver scent.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 28, 2014, 08:25:50 PM
Keela has to get in real close to alert to blood. You can see that in the footage of Keela inside the car. Eddie was chasing a strong scent a long distance away from the car. IMO he was chasing cadaver scent.
so what..SY say Maddie may still be alive
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 08:30:48 PM
Keela has to get in real close to alert to blood. You can see that in the footage of Keela inside the car. Eddie was chasing a strong scent a long distance away from the car. IMO he was chasing cadaver scent.
What?
Eddie was interested in anything and everything except the Renault Scenic.
He needed to be "corrected" and "focused" by his handler before he finally concentrated on the Renault.
And what he (finally) found to focus on (fortuitously for Grime) was spots of Gerry's blood ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2014, 08:32:44 PM
Dogs are used around the world.
Why ?
because they do the job their trained for.
SY used them in Portugal.
So when don't they work ?
the mccanns.....
and gerry boy says they're no good, and you got to believe him, cus he knows everthing. 8)--))
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Jean-Pierre on July 28, 2014, 08:38:49 PM
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: DCI on July 28, 2014, 09:17:20 PM
Grime say's he didn't know which car was the McCann's. The car was covered in posters on both back door windows and the boot window.
Why were these posters not there, when Grime went back to the car towards the end of the search? The car was also moved. Levy should have done a better job of cuts.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 09:26:03 PM
I'm assuming your point is that a dog can react some distance from the source that prompts the reaction?
Eddie reacted to the ignition key (or fob) twice, in two, very different, spots.
That tends to suggest he was reacting to Gerry's blood, confirmed in the laboratories.
The point of principal concern about the inspection of vehicles is that there was an innocent scent in the Renault, and there might, easily, have been innocent scents in any of the other 9 cars.
That risked confusion for the dog.
It also risked confounding rather than progressing the quest for truth about what happened to Madeleine.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on July 28, 2014, 10:08:38 PM
See the dog is trained good. People who say the dog not good is because of fear.just know the dog is good then ask why the dog barks? The dog barks because of death. Who is hiding death? Not from the dog even because dog is so good. Some people hide like ostrich.
Jackie
Eddie barks for a number of other things than death. Please get it right. You are in danger of spreading myths and disinformation.
What Eddie alerted to could be any one of a number of things, none related in the least to death or to Madeleine.
None of Madeleines DNA was found.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Jackie Sparrow on July 28, 2014, 10:35:08 PM
The dog is trained to smell death. The dog smells death good before many times. you fear so say not death must be other. You are ostrich like all else
Is Eddie trained to precisely highlight the object from which the cadaver odour emanates, ie the car key strategically placed in the door pocket of the Scenic, rather than just the general vicinity? I have always failed to understand how Grime could produce the key like a magician's rabbit from a hat, as opposed to waiting for further examination of the vehicle interior.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 10:50:20 PM
Is Eddie trained to precisely highlight the object from which the cadaver odour emanates, ie the car key strategically placed in the door pocket of the Scenic, rather than just the general vicinity? I have always failed to understand how Grime could produce the key like a magician's rabbit from a hat, as opposed to waiting for further examination of the vehicle interior.
In fairness, Misty, Keela does react with some precision, and she reacted to the key fob.
It was that, combined with Eddie's reaction, that prompted Grime to have Eddie test the key fob a second time, just about the only act of Grime's I actually give him credit for ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Jackie Sparrow on July 28, 2014, 11:00:41 PM
The video might have been edited and produced in court to show inspections carried out on separate days, or separate time-periods in the same day.
There would be no deception.
The key point would be a canine reaction corroborated by forensic analysis in a laboratory, but without the risk of confusion for the dog arising from simultaneous scents from different sources, all within the dog's trained scent-range ...
Not confused. The dog is trained good. The dog found the death smell so you fear the dog.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 11:04:25 PM
Not confused. The dog is trained good. The dog found the death smell so you fear the dog.
The dog is well-trained, to react to blood as well as to cadaver scent.
But it isn't trained to distinguish between the scents ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on July 28, 2014, 11:05:11 PM
A dog can tell which vehicle the scent comes from. The scent was coming out of the drain hole in the lower section of rubber door seal of the left front (driver's) door of the Scenic. That is precise. There was no confusion with the other vehicles. Look at the video of Eddie sniffing closely at the door seals of the rental Corsa. Does he signal there? No. Why not? Because there was no relevant scent coming out of the Corsa door seals.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 11:19:19 PM
A dog can tell which vehicle the scent comes from. The scent was coming out of the drain hole in the lower section of rubber door seal of the left front (driver's) door of the Scenic. That is precise. There was no confusion with the other vehicles. Look at the video of Eddie sniffing closely at the door seals of the rental Corsa. Does he signal there? No. Why not? Because there was no relevant scent coming out of the Corsa door seals.
Eddie was only given a chance to properly sniff one car. As soon as he "strayed" from that car, Grime called him back.
That happened repeatedly.
The Portuguese dog-handlers (in my opinion) vastly more professional than Grime, were not told which apartment was the McCanns'.
That was to avoid risk of bias in the dog-and-handler partnership.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on July 28, 2014, 11:30:58 PM
Eddie was only given a chance to properly sniff one car. As soon as he "strayed" from that car, Grime called him back.
That happened repeatedly.
The Portuguese dog-handlers (in my opinion) vastly more professional than Grime, were not told which apartment was the McCanns'.
That was to avoid risk of bias in the dog-and-handler partnership.
1. I will post footage of Eddie examining closely another car (not the Scenic). 2. The GNR dog handlers all knew which was the missing child's apartment.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 28, 2014, 11:47:39 PM
and gerry boy says they're no good, and you got to believe him, cus he knows everthing. 8)--))
The dogs which are used around the world do the job they are trained to do which in the case of cadaver and CSI dogs is to indicate areas of interest from which evidence may be gathered for forensic testing; and which may be later used in court.
This can be anything from a corpse to parts of a corpse or blood splatter even if an attempt has been made to 'clean up'.
The cadaver dog if trained using pig, will react to pig.
It will also react to every substance expelled from a living human body such as spit, fingernails, blood, excrement … as these all begin to decay immediately on separation.
When the dogs worked in Portugal … nothing evidential was found. They found no trace at all of Madeleine McCann and certainly no proof of her death.
However if you refuse to take Martin Grime’s word for it, you will hardly take mine. But your stance tends to make you look rather ill informed.
"So when don’t they work? The mccanns" … absolutely incorrect, there are very many occasions when unfortunately they don’t "work" otherwise there would be no such thing as a victim’s body lying undisturbed for many years despite intensive searching.
In the case of Suzanne Pilley from Edinburgh ... despite her body not being found yet ... a conviction was enabled helped by the use of a cadaver dog. Not only the VRD indications , but on a trail of evidence in which the dog alert played a part; without further substantial supportive evidence the dog alert on 'cadaver scent' would not have got the suspect to court because it is not evidence of anything on its own.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 11:55:49 PM
1. I will post footage of Eddie examining closely another car (not the Scenic). 2. The GNR dog handlers all knew which was the missing child's apartment.
However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: faithlilly on July 28, 2014, 11:56:35 PM
Brietta posted 'It will also react to every substance expelled from a living human body such as spit, fingernails, blood, excrement … as these all begin to decay immediately on separation. '
Blood perhaps but do you have a cite for your claim that the dogs alert to spit, fingernails and excrement ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2014, 11:59:26 PM
Brietta posted 'It will also react to every substance expelled from a living human body such as spit, fingernails, blood, excrement … as these all begin to decay immediately on separation. '
Blood perhaps but do you have a cite for your claim that the dogs alert to spit, fingernails and excrement ?
Cadaverine is contained in certainly urine and sperm, possibly faeces.
Grime says Eddie (RIP) didn't react to cadaverine.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on July 29, 2014, 12:21:43 AM
However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
If one reads a few lines further one finds that the handler, who conducted the search you refer to, was Pedro Fernandes. Reading his statement, he was already aware from a few days before (4th May) that the apartment the child had apparantly disappeared from was 5A - because it was from outside 5A frontdoor that he had conducted the trailing on that earlier date. Fernandes did not know the identity of the other apartments of this doctor group (5B 5D 5H 4G 4I) but he did already know the identity of apartment 5A.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2014, 12:36:12 AM
If one reads a few lines further one finds that the handler, who conducted the search you refer to, was Pedro Fernandes. Reading his statement, he was already aware from a few days before (4th May) that the apartment the child had apparantly disappeared from was 5A - because it was from outside 5A frontdoor that he had conducted the trailing on that earlier date. Fernandes did not know the identity of the other apartments of this doctor group (5B 5D 5H 4G 4I) but he did already know the identity of apartment 5A.
At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
No indication that the handler had prior knowledge.
But, yes, changes in behaviour from the dog at apartments 5a and 5j (the second unoccupied for some time).
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 29, 2014, 12:48:53 AM
Brietta posted 'It will also react to every substance expelled from a living human body such as spit, fingernails, blood, excrement … as these all begin to decay immediately on separation. '
Blood perhaps but do you have a cite for your claim that the dogs alert to spit, fingernails and excrement ?
There are many sources for what I have said and logic should dictate that any part excreted from a human body will be subject to decay and therefore picked up by a dog trained to pick up decay. For example, as Martin Grime emphasises the CSI will react only to blood and nothing else. The EVRD will react to everything.
I'm sure you do not really require a cite ... I think you are just being a bore ... because it has all been said oh so many times before ... but, just for you :-
Martin Grime CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 21 to 25
Q; The EVRD dog also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?
A: The EVRD dog 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.
Q:Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids?
A: The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately: http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin but the EVRD will.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on July 29, 2014, 12:49:39 AM
At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
No indication that the handler had prior knowledge.
But, yes, changes in behaviour from the dog at apartments 5a and 5j (the second unoccupied for some time).
Fernandes learned the identity of 5A at 11pm 4th May. Therefore during the later search you were referring to (7th or 8th May) he already knew the identity of 5A.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 12:53:52 AM
There are many sources for what I have said and logic should dictate that any part excreted from a human body will be subject to decay and therefore picked up by a dog trained to pick up decay. For example, as Martin Grime emphasises the CSI will react only to blood and nothing else. The EVRD will react to everything.
I'm sure you do not really require a cite ... I think you are just being a bore ... because it has all been said oh so many times before ... but, just for you :-
Martin Grime CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 21 to 25
Q; The EVRD dog also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?
A: The EVRD dog 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.
Q:Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids?
A: The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately: http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin but the EVRD will.
unless these are mixed with blood
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on July 29, 2014, 12:59:39 AM
Have you watched the full extended vehicle video? He calls the dog back to various vehicles, not just the Scenic. Have you watched the video of Eddie being called back repeatedly to the Corsa? Sniffing under the boot and at the door seals of the Corsa. He does. It's in the video. Do you find it strange that Eddie did not alert to the Corsa, despite close sniffing of it, and despite being called back to it?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2014, 01:01:18 AM
Fernandes learned the identity of 5A at 11pm 4th May. Therefore during the later search you were referring to (7th or 8th May) he already knew the identity of 5A.
Do you want to provide a verbatim quote?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 29, 2014, 01:11:06 AM
Yes we know ... absolutely no need to shout. The CSI dog only alerts to blood; the point was that the EVRD alerts to all sorts of human tissue and not necessarily from a dead person as in the instance of dried blood from a shaving cut.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 01:11:49 AM
Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains. He is able to smell through solid materials, like concrete, because of scientific training techniques.
It's this training that sets him apart from standard police sniffer dogs, which are able to detect human remains in shallow graves. The springer's nose is more sensitive and he is called in on more complicated cases.
Super sensitive
The specialist training techniques - which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, along with the UK's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and America's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
They are scientifically based and rely on how dogs smell and the chemicals involved.
"A standard sniffer dog is like a basic tool. An enhanced dog goes through much more training and is a lot more discriminating about smells, basically its nose is super sensitive. It's also about getting the dog to really focus on a task."
"Other dogs have to do other police duties but mine work full-time in this area, making them very sharp and highly skilled."
Eddie was bred by a specialist search-dog breeder and Keela came from the West Midlands Police breeding programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7263355.stm
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2014, 01:14:51 AM
Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains. He is able to smell through solid materials, like concrete, because of scientific training techniques.
Bloody hell
If Eddie (or any dog) could smell through concrete, that would be because of something like vent holes or some kind of break that allows circulation or escape of air.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 01:16:32 AM
The specialist training techniques - which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, along with the UK's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and America's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
I think a court may listen to Martin Grime and his professional opinion about the dog alerts in this case.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2014, 01:22:03 AM
The specialist training techniques - which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, along with the UK's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and America's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
I think a court may listen to Martin Grime and his professional opinion about the dog alerts in this case.
He said that no incriminating inference could be made from the alerts without forensic corroboration.
No particular argument with that ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on July 29, 2014, 01:35:42 AM
1. "the dogs were given this scent from the towel and near apartment 5A" That was about 10.30pm 4th May. Source: Fernandes' statement pages 785-788
2. During Fernandes tracking about 10.30pm 4th, it was obvious to Fernandes and anyone's auntie that 5A was where the child had apparantly disappered from, no-one could have failed to notice the GNR guard, the ribboning off with crime scene tape, it was impossible to not know that 5A was the place.
3. During the search you originally referred to, which was on 7th or 8th May, Fernandes already had all that previous knowledge, plus 5A was still ribboned off and guarded, so it was impossible for Fernandes to be unaware that 5A was the presumed crime scene.
In this context, the passage you quoted about the handler (on 7th or 8th) not knowing which apartments were relevant, IMO clearly refers to not knowing the other T9 apartments (which were 4B 5D 5H 4G and 4I) but cannot possibly refer to not knowing 5A, because it was so obvious that was the presumed crime scene.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 01:38:23 AM
He said that no incriminating inference could be made from the alerts without forensic corroboration.
No particular argument with that ...
Yes that's procedure. He could be asked to offer further insights in a court about his own personal opinion about each of the dog alerts in this case. Was Eddie chasing cadaver scent in the underground car park etc.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 29, 2014, 01:41:34 AM
The specialist training techniques - which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, along with the UK's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and America's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
I think a court may listen to Martin Grime and his professional opinion about the dog alerts in this case.
Mr Grime won't be called to testify in a Portuguese court; and that is not a pejorative statement it is a statement of fact. It is a matter of record that there is no evidence associated with the dog alerts. Mr Grime himself has made that abundantly clear. So he will never be called.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 01:45:33 AM
Mr Grime won't be called to testify in a Portuguese court; and that is not a pejorative statement it is a statement of fact. It is a matter of record that there is no evidence associated with the dog alerts. Mr Grime himself has made that abundantly clear. So he will never be called.
Cadaver contaminated clothes which includes a kid's t-shirt >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 29, 2014, 01:49:22 AM
Yes that's procedure. He could be asked to offer further insights in a court about his own personal opinion about each of the dog alerts in this case. Was Eddie chasing cadaver scent in the underground car park etc.
Don't you get it?
Mr Grime's personal opinion ... is just that ... opinion, about which neither you nor I have the slightest idea ... but that is irrelevant anyway.
It is not evidence and that is all any court is interested in.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 01:50:44 AM
... are you winding up? ... because you just cannot be serious with that one.
BTW wouldn't that tshirt be in the pile of laundry in the cupboard that night? It wouldn't be being worn by anyone that late as it is not a pyjama. How on earth could it ever come into contact with anything while it's laying in a pile of laundry in a cupboard?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2014, 06:52:00 AM
1. "the dogs were given this scent from the towel and near apartment 5A" That was about 10.30pm 4th May. Source: Fernandes' statement pages 785-788
2. During Fernandes tracking about 10.30pm 4th, it was obvious to Fernandes and anyone's auntie that 5A was where the child had apparantly disappered from, no-one could have failed to notice the GNR guard, the ribboning off with crime scene tape, it was impossible to not know that 5A was the place.
3. During the search you originally referred to, which was on 7th or 8th May, Fernandes already had all that previous knowledge, plus 5A was still ribboned off and guarded, so it was impossible for Fernandes to be unaware that 5A was the presumed crime scene.
In this context, the passage you quoted about the handler (on 7th or 8th) not knowing which apartments were relevant, IMO clearly refers to not knowing the other T9 apartments (which were 4B 5D 5H 4G and 4I) but cannot possibly refer to not knowing 5A, because it was so obvious that was the presumed crime scene.
So the only verbatim quote, then, is mine, which states quite explicitly that the handlers were not told which apartment was the McCanns so as to avoid the handlers becoming conditioned. Glad we've got that one sorted ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2014, 08:48:16 AM
Kate's book (page 85)
According to the files, the tracker dogs did not go out until 11pm on 4th May. At some point in the first 24 hours (I could not say when, exactly, but probably the morning) I recall one of the GNR patrol officers asking us for some of Madeline's clothing or belongings to enable these dogs to identify her scent. I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took, and some of her clothes, which they didn't.
So the blanket was taken well in advance of commencement of the canine searches ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: faithlilly on July 29, 2014, 11:40:39 AM
There are many sources for what I have said and logic should dictate that any part excreted from a human body will be subject to decay and therefore picked up by a dog trained to pick up decay. For example, as Martin Grime emphasises the CSI will react only to blood and nothing else. The EVRD will react to everything.
I'm sure you do not really require a cite ... I think you are just being a bore ... because it has all been said oh so many times before ... but, just for you :-
Martin Grime CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 21 to 25
Q; The EVRD dog also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?
A: The EVRD dog 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.
Q:Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids?
A: The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately: http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin but the EVRD will.
I must have missed it Brietta. Where does Grime say the EVRD dog alerts to urine, saliva etc because it certainly doesn't say that on the the rogatory statement you posted. If the dog did he would be alerting all over the place.
I'm also going to have to press you again for a cite for your first claim about the fingernails etc.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 01:18:26 PM
Yes we know ... absolutely no need to shout. The CSI dog only alerts to blood; the point was that the EVRD alerts to all sorts of human tissue and not necessarily from a dead person as in the instance of dried blood from a shaving cut.
You should stop spreading misinformation and lies. Eddie doesn't alert to those things unless mixed with blood. Read on and learn.
Eddie and Keela were both deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen, faeces, saliva etc and would only ever alert to such BODILY fluids IF they were mixed with blood.
Eddie was not a decomp dog, which would detect such BODY fluids, he was trained for blood only and then for detecting cadaver scent.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper) http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper) A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Between them the dogs alerted to two things and two things only. Eddie was trained to alert to blood and cadaver scent and Keela to blood. They would never alert to to urine, semen and faeces etc unless they were mixed with blood. FACT!
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 29, 2014, 01:50:05 PM
You should stop spreading misinformation and lies. Eddie doesn't alert to those things unless mixed with blood. Read on and learn.
Eddie and Keela were both deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen, faeces, saliva etc and would only ever alert to such BODILY fluids IF they were mixed with blood.
Eddie was not a decomp dog, which would detect such BODY fluids, he was trained for blood only and then for detecting cadaver scent.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper) http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper) A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Between them the dogs alerted to two things and two things only. Eddie was trained to alert to blood and cadaver scent and Keela to blood. They would never alert to to urine, semen and faeces etc unless they were mixed with blood. FACT!
Goodness gracious me ... what a mine of disinformation and ignorance you reveal ...
Eddie was trained using aborted pig foetuses; therefore he would have alerted to pork and he did alert to semen in Jersey.
I think you should bear in mind that in Europe it is illegal to replicate the american body farm so dogs trained in Europe are not trained using cadavers.
You may be capable of reading, but you are not capable of interpreting what you read; Mr Grime enumerated biological waste to which the CSI dog would not react to as a trained response, but since these items emit the compounds of decomposition - that is exactly within the parameters of the VRD trained response.
I thought you would comprehend that which is why I used Martin Grime as a particular source as he is an acknowledged expert in the field. Apparently not ... so try this one for size ...
- snipped -
Take, for example, a dog trained to detect human remains (oft referred to as a “cadaver dog,” an imprecise term). It can be trained to detect either putrescine or cadaverine, two aptly monikered molecules which are specific to decaying carbon based life forms. But while a deceased and thus decaying human gives off such molecules, so too does decaying vegetation. On the other hand, handlers have been known to train human remains dogs with human remains. In that case, however, one cannot tell whether the dog has reacted to a specific molecule or to a combination of molecules. That is of import, because parts of the body decay at different rates; and the cocktail of molecules released by the cadaver may differ from one day to another. So too, the body may decompose a different rates depending on the environmental conditions. A dog trained on one combination of molecules may not react to a different combination even though a body is present in the vicinity. Moreover, the dog may react to hair, nails, flesh and/or blood, or their remnants, which are shed by the living as well as by the dead. There is an inverse relationship between the number of substances which a dog has been trained to identify with particularity, and the specificity of the dog’s alert.
http://hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=67
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 01:53:10 PM
Eddie didn't alert to pork in PDL and pork was found in the bins 8-)(--) I've provided the facts and you still ignore. I think everyone on this board know that your posts can't be trusted. Incase you missed it:
Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Angelo222 on July 29, 2014, 02:05:51 PM
Eddie didn't alert to pork in PDL and pork was found in the bins 8-)(--) I've provided the facts and you still ignore. I think everyone on this board know that your posts can't be trusted. Incase you missed it:
Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Mr Grime made is very clear that Eddie didn't alert to foodstuffs, pork included. Rotting uncooked pig meat is another matter since he was trained using it.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 02:11:18 PM
I'm interested in finding out the truth not spreading misinformation. Eddie was the best of the best not an amateur alerting to the lies you've been spreading. Everyone with an open mind who reads this thread knows who is telling the truth and who is lying.
[Eddie was trained using aborted pig foetuses; therefore he would have alerted to pork and he did alert to semen in Jersey. - Brietta]
Why didn't Eddie alert to pork in the bin in PDL as you've lied yet again and said he would have?
Eddie and Keela alerted to blood not semen in Jersey.
'VT / 9 Trench and gun emplacement containing small personnel shelter. Forensic examination revealed recently deposited tissues that appeared to have been used to ‘clean up following sexual intercourse’. It would appear that the shelter had been used as a venue for courting couples. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on July 29, 2014, 02:12:53 PM
I'm interested in finding out the truth not spreading misinformation. Eddie was the best of the best not an amateur alerting to the lies you've been spreading. Everyone with an open mind who reads this thread knows who is telling the truth and who is lying.
Why didn't Eddie alert to pork in the bin in PDL?
Or the apartments toilet?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2014, 02:20:25 PM
Goodness gracious me ... what a mine of disinformation and ignorance you reveal ...
Eddie was trained using aborted pig foetuses; therefore he would have alerted to pork and he did alert to semen in Jersey.
I think you should bear in mind that in Europe it is illegal to replicate the american body farm so dogs trained in Europe are not trained using cadavers.
You may be capable of reading, but you are not capable of interpreting what you read; Mr Grime enumerated biological waste to which the CSI dog would not react to as a trained response, but since these items emit the compounds of decomposition - that is exactly within the parameters of the VRD trained response.
I thought you would comprehend that which is why I used Martin Grime as a particular source as he is an acknowledged expert in the field. Apparently not ... so try this one for size ...
- snipped -
Take, for example, a dog trained to detect human remains (oft referred to as a “cadaver dog,” an imprecise term). It can be trained to detect either putrescine or cadaverine, two aptly monikered molecules which are specific to decaying carbon based life forms. But while a deceased and thus decaying human gives off such molecules, so too does decaying vegetation. On the other hand, handlers have been known to train human remains dogs with human remains. In that case, however, one cannot tell whether the dog has reacted to a specific molecule or to a combination of molecules. That is of import, because parts of the body decay at different rates; and the cocktail of molecules released by the cadaver may differ from one day to another. So too, the body may decompose a different rates depending on the environmental conditions. A dog trained on one combination of molecules may not react to a different combination even though a body is present in the vicinity. Moreover, the dog may react to hair, nails, flesh and/or blood, or their remnants, which are shed by the living as well as by the dead. There is an inverse relationship between the number of substances which a dog has been trained to identify with particularity, and the specificity of the dog’s alert.
http://hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=67
What a fascinating link.
The dog’s usefulness is a product of the skill of its handler. Its reliability, thus, is a function of the handler’s interpretation. Some courts have likened a search dog to an informant. As with a human informant, a handler can unconsciously cue a 22 dog. Indeed, there have been recorded instances of dishonest handlers having 23 consciously done so. Too, the handler’s interpretation is necessarily subjective. 24 See, e.g., Nat’l Fire Protection Assoc., Standard 921 Guide for Fire & Explosion Investigation 20 (2004 Ed.)(Proper objective of the use of dog team is to assist with the selection of samples that have higher probability of laboratory confirmation; dog should be used in conjunction with, and not in place of fire investigation methods). 1 A. J. Wigmore, Evidence § 177, at 1852 (1983)(“In actual usage, evidence of the conduct 21 of an animal is apt to be highly misleading, to the danger of the innocent men ... the very limited nature of the inference possible is apt to be overestimated--a consequence dangerous when the jurors are moved by local prejudice”); 1968 American Bar Association statement on use of dogs, cited in Andrew Taslitz, Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of the Dog Scent Lineup, 42 HASTINGS L. J. 15 (1990). Harris v. State, 2011 WL 1496470, *9, __ So.3d __ (Fla. 2011). 22 Lisa Lit et al., Handler’s Beliefs Affect Scent Detection Dog Outcomes, ANIM. COGN. (January, 23 2011). A response to Lit’s study may be found at Membership Commentary, Scientific Working
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on July 29, 2014, 02:52:06 PM
It is quite informative and at 2011 more recent than most. It is actually a fascinating subject which I find very interesting but the consensus is that it is not an exact science; although the skills of the dogs are never in question just our interpretation of them maybe.
Anecdotal evidence about a dog's nose: I placed an unopened pack of dog chocolate treats on top of a large bookcase;when my labrador came through the doorway she immediately whirled, sat down with nose in the air pointing at the treats which she could not see but certainly could smell because I had never put anything edible in that place before.
They can be trained to sniff out specifics such as bed bug infestations which have become a big problem in America ... I don't think there is much their noses can't tell them ... but in criminal cases their indications must be backed up with evidence and that is right and proper.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2014, 02:55:03 PM
It is quite informative and at 2011 more recent than most. It is actually a fascinating subject which I find very interesting but the consensus is that it is not an exact science; although the skills of the dogs are never in question just our interpretation of them maybe.
Anecdotal evidence about a dog's nose: I placed an unopened pack of dog chocolate treats on top of a large bookcase;when my labrador came through the doorway she immediately whirled, sat down with nose in the air pointing at the treats which she could not see but certainly could smell because I had never put anything edible in that place before.
They can be trained to sniff out specifics such as bed bug infestations which have become a big problem in America ... I don't think there is much their noses can't tell them ... but in criminal cases their indications must be backed up with evidence and that is right and proper.
although the skills of the dogs are never in question just our interpretation of them maybe.
And our deployment of them, as your link makes clear ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 29, 2014, 03:05:31 PM
Mr Grime made is very clear that Eddie didn't alert to foodstuffs, pork included. Rotting uncooked pig meat is another matter since he was trained using it.
mr Grime has also made it clear that he cannot confirm that eddie alerted to cadaverine
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on July 29, 2014, 03:11:30 PM
Have you watched the full extended vehicle video? He calls the dog back to various vehicles, not just the Scenic. Have you watched the video of Eddie being called back repeatedly to the Corsa? Sniffing under the boot and at the door seals of the Corsa. He does. It's in the video. Do you find it strange that Eddie did not alert to the Corsa, despite close sniffing of it, and despite being called back to it?
What I find particularly strange is:
1) Eddie alerts to gases from within a car from outside. Despite the door seal of a car being designed to be air and water tight under equal pressures. Have you ever driven thru a flood in a reasonably recent car and had any water come in? Same goes for air and scent.
I doubt that the body of anyone was dragged thru that door. So how the hell did any Cadavar odour get on the outside of the door?.
Eddie alerts to dead pig odour, bodily fluids odour from living humans, and a host of other things apart from Cadavar odour. Now which of these odours do you think could have been present on the lower part of the passenger door?
2) The way that Eddie seemingly alerted to Cuddlecat, yet he clearly did not. Even you have admitted that. He alerted to something on the top of the counter. What looks like a pile of folders with a lose sheet of paper on top. By great coincidence these folders and the sheet of paper happen to have been placed on the counter immediately above Eddie hidden within that cupboard.
How strange is that;A pile of papers with some Eddie attracting odour ended up being being placed on the counter immediately above Cuddlecat in the cupboard?
Eddie alerts to pig cadavar odour as well as human cadavar odour. I wonder who had been preparing or eating Pork that day?
3) Amongst all the clothes laid out Eddie alerted to S***s top. He did not alert to any of Madeleines clothes, just to that top of S***s, as far as I am aware.
I find that strange. Very strange. Why was that?
Three very strange alerts there .. Were all the odours based on dead pig or what? ........ Hmmm? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 03:50:39 PM
1) Eddie alerts to gases from within a car from outside. Despite the door seal of a car being designed to be air and water tight under equal pressures. Have you ever driven thru a flood in a reasonably recent car and had any water come in? Same goes for air and scent.
I doubt that the body of anyone was dragged thru that door. So how the hell did any Cadavar odour get on the outside of the door?.
Eddie alerts to dead pig odour, bodily fluids odour from living humans, and a host of other things apart from Cadavar odour. Now which of these odours do you think could have been present on the lower part of the passenger door?
2) The way that Eddie seemingly alerted to Cuddlecat, yet he clearly did not. Even you have admitted that. He alerted to something on the top of the counter. What looks like a pile of folders with a lose sheet of paper on top. By great coincidence these folders and the sheet of paper happen to have been placed on the counter immediately above Eddie hidden within that cupboard.
How strange is that;A pile of papers with some Eddie attracting odour ended up being being placed on the counter immediately above Cuddlecat in the cupboard?
Eddie alerts to pig cadavar odour as well as human cadavar odour. I wonder who had been preparing or eating Pork that day?
3) Amongst all the clothes laid out Eddie alerted to S***s top. He did not alert to any of Madeleines clothes, just to that top of S***s, as far as I am aware.
I find that strange. Very strange. Why was that?
Three very strange alerts there .. Were all the odours based on dead pig or what? ........ Hmmm? >@@(*&)
Car door seals are air tight - do you have trouble breathing inside your car? LOL. The rest of your comments have been answered. Eddie alerted to the only thing that changed in that room and it wasn't anything on top of the sideboard/cupboard but what was put inside it. Eddie didn't alert to pork in the bin. Are we looking for a missing dead pig in this case?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on July 29, 2014, 04:14:03 PM
Eddie doesn't appear to have been a specialist; Keela was the specialist.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Jean-Pierre on July 29, 2014, 04:25:54 PM
Eddie doesn't appear to have been a specialist; Keela was the specialist.
Apparently Eddie was an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog.
This is puzzling, as I cannot find any other reference to such a thing. Plenty of common or garden Victim Recovery Dogs, but the use of Enhanced seem to be unique and not recognised anywhere else in the dog world.
Does anyone have any other reference to an EVRD?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on July 29, 2014, 04:49:12 PM
Car door seals are air tight - do you have trouble breathing inside your car? LOL. The rest of your comments have been answered. Eddie alerted to the only thing that changed in that room and it wasn't anything on top of the sideboard/cupboard but what was put inside it. Eddie didn't alert to pork in the bin. Are we looking for a missing dead pig in this case?
The air doesn't come in via the door seals. Plenty of places it comes in, but not at the door seals unless there is a difference in pressure inside to out.
And Eddie did NOT alert to cuddlecat. He alerted to some pile on the counter, which looked like folders with a piece of paper on top
Pegasus is on your side and has a good brain [most of the time] ask him if Eddie alerted to Cuddlecat or to something on the top of the counter ? Also John has stated that there was something wrong and Eddie did not alert to cuddlecat
Do try and get your facts right Pathfinder. Please.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 05:35:55 PM
The air doesn't come in via the door seals. Plenty of places it comes in, but not at the door seals unless there is a difference in pressure inside to out.
And Eddie did NOT alert to cuddlecat. He alerted to some pile on the counter, which looked like folders with a piece of paper on top
Pegasus is on your side and has a good brain [most of the time] ask him if Eddie alerted to Cuddlecat or to something on the top of the counter ? Also John has stated that there was something wrong and Eddie did not alert to cuddlecat
Do try and get your facts right Pathfinder. Please.
Pegasus is not on my side - we have totally different theories. What have you been reading for the past 6 months? CC was the only thing that changed the 2nd time to make Eddie alert. Dogs like to play with toys! That's why it was hidden inside the cupboard.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 29, 2014, 05:52:13 PM
Apparently Eddie was an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog.
This is puzzling, as I cannot find any other reference to such a thing. Plenty of common or garden Victim Recovery Dogs, but the use of Enhanced seem to be unique and not recognised anywhere else in the dog world.
Does anyone have any other reference to an EVRD?
No, the term appears to only apply to Grime's dogs - perhaps the E actually stands for Eddie and not Enhanced?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 29, 2014, 06:16:12 PM
No, the term appears to only apply to Grime's dogs - perhaps the E actually stands for Eddie and not Enhanced?
Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains. He is able to smell through solid materials, like concrete, because of scientifically-based training techniques.
The specialist training techniques - which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, along with the UK's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and America's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
"A standard sniffer dog is like a basic tool. An enhanced dog goes through much more training and is a lot more discriminating about smells, basically it's nose is super sensitive. It's also about getting the dog to really focus on a task."
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 29, 2014, 06:19:37 PM
Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains. He is able to smell through solid materials, like concrete, because of scientifically-based training techniques.
The specialist training techniques - which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, along with the UK's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and America's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
"A standard sniffer dog is like a basic tool. An enhanced dog goes through much more training and is a lot more discriminating about smells, basically it's nose is super sensitive. It's also about getting the dog to really focus on a task."
Why is he the only dog ever to be awarded this title (as far as anyone can ascertain...)?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 29, 2014, 06:44:14 PM
The air doesn't come in via the door seals. Plenty of places it comes in, but not at the door seals unless there is a difference in pressure inside to out.
And Eddie did NOT alert to cuddlecat. He alerted to some pile on the counter, which looked like folders with a piece of paper on top
Pegasus is on your side and has a good brain [most of the time] ask him if Eddie alerted to Cuddlecat or to something on the top of the counter ? Also John has stated that there was something wrong and Eddie did not alert to cuddlecat
Do try and get your facts right Pathfinder. Please.
How would that be possible unless the vehicle were airtight?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on July 30, 2014, 01:19:26 AM
How would that be possible unless the vehicle were airtight?
You are quite right AP.
I guess that immersion in a depth of water might cause a difference in pressure, but with small places that the air/ water could get in / out the difference in pressure wouldn't last long methinks.
This doesn't alter the fact that car door seals are designed to be totally air and water tight. Driving thru floods and a torrential storm illustrates that.
- So just how did the odour of whatever: Human cadavar, decomposing bodliy fluids or pig cadavar, manage to escape from the car?
As I pointed out before, Madeleine is unlikely to have been dragged in via the door .... and that is the only way I can see that any cadavar odour from her could be presentwhere Eddie alerted..
- So exactly what did Eddie alert to? - What was on the outside of that door close to the door edge? - And how did it get there?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on July 30, 2014, 07:39:15 AM
Dogs play an important role worldwide and are extremely reliable.
If they have no evidential value, why are mccann supporters so concerned about them ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 30, 2014, 08:12:24 AM
Dogs play an important role worldwide and are extremely reliable.
If they have no evidential value, why are mccann supporters so concerned about them ?
Not concerned about the dogs at all...the dogs have no evidential VALUE by by the way. What concerns me is the spread of misinformation re the dogs....people who don't understand the alerts...like amaral
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on July 30, 2014, 08:19:27 AM
Not concerned about the dogs at all...the dogs have no evidential VALUE by by the way. What concerns me is the spread of misinformation re the dogs....people who don't understand the alerts...like amaral
Please get it right.
The dogs responses are evidence.
The forensics are inconclusive.
..and you are worried, or you wouldn't comment on this thread.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 30, 2014, 08:27:16 AM
it is you who doesn't understand and that has been pointed out to you on other occasions, including John who was a policeman.
The dogs indications are evidence, and the forensics were inconclusive.
Merely because the findings weren't backed forensically,does not mean the dogs didn't alert to a body.
..and let's face it, there's nothing else on the horizon.
I accept what Grime has said....and it isn't what you are saying...SY say Maddie may still be alive...therefore they do not accept the alerts as proof of death in 5A
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on July 30, 2014, 08:47:21 AM
I accept what Grime has said....and it isn't what you are saying...SY say Maddie may still be alive...therefore they do not accept the alerts as proof of death in 5A
SY also say Madeleine may be dead, and may not have left the apartment alive.
Basically, SY haven't got a clue.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on July 30, 2014, 08:51:25 AM
Mr Grime won't be called to testify in a Portuguese court; and that is not a pejorative statement it is a statement of fact. It is a matter of record that there is no evidence associated with the dog alerts. Mr Grime himself has made that abundantly clear. So he will never be called.
That's not in fact true. If a cadaver is eventually found then that forensic evidence becomes tangible and the dog alerts take on a whole new meaning. That old evidential reliability chestnut takes on a whole new meaning in such circumstances. Regardless, in certain circumstances he might be required to speak to the material which already exists in the form of the CCTV footage evidence.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on August 01, 2014, 06:57:53 AM
That's not in fact true. If a cadaver is eventually found then that forensic evidence becomes tangible and the dog alerts take on a whole new meaning. That old evidential reliability chestnut takes on a whole new meaning in such circumstances. Regardless, in certain circumstances he might be required to speak to the material which already exists in the form of the CCTV footage evidence.
...as an expert witness.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 01, 2014, 07:48:49 AM
That's not in fact true. If a cadaver is eventually found then that forensic evidence becomes tangible and the dog alerts take on a whole new meaning. That old evidential reliability chestnut takes on a whole new meaning in such circumstances. Regardless, in certain circumstances he might be required to speak to the material which already exists in the form of the CCTV footage evidence.
The dogs alert take on no new meaning...unless forensic evidence is recovered from where the dogs alerted
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on August 01, 2014, 08:05:49 AM
The dogs alert take on no new meaning...unless forensic evidence is recovered from where the dogs alerted
So any normal person would look at the case if a missing child, an alerting cadaver dog where the child disappeared from and the discovered body of the child and not regard that as strong circumstantial evidence of where the child died?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 01, 2014, 08:10:25 AM
So any normal person would look at the case if a missing child, an alerting cadaver dog where the child disappeared from and the discovered body of the child and not regard that as strong circumstantial evidence of where the child died?
any normal person would not have a clue re the significance of the alert...there are many on here and other forums who think they do...Its what Grimes has told us that counts..according to his statements he does not confirm the alerts signify cadaver
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on August 01, 2014, 08:11:53 AM
any normal person would not have a clue re the significance of the alert...there are many on here and other forums who think they do...Its what Grimes has told us that counts..according to his statements he does not confirm the alerts signify cadaver
You really don't like the alerts do you?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on August 01, 2014, 08:17:18 AM
any normal person would not have a clue re the significance of the alert...there are many on here and other forums who think they do...Its what Grimes has told us that counts..according to his statements he does not confirm the alerts signify cadaver
Forensics.
inconcusive.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 01, 2014, 08:32:50 AM
Then obviously that would change things. Exactly how they would change depends on what is found and where.
But until that happens only a prat would attempt to extapolate any conclusions.
Exactly and if forensics put the place of death in 5a then you have closed the circle. The dog alerts by virtue of the forensics then having evidentially reliable renders them designated as circumstantial evidence. The dog handler would in such circumstances then be required to testify.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 01, 2014, 02:25:50 PM
Exactly and if forensics put the place of death in 5a then you have closed the circle. The dog alerts by virtue of the forensics then having evidentially reliable renders them designated as circumstantial evidence. The dog handler would in such circumstances then be required to testify.
if any forensics were found that put the place of death as 5A then you wouldn't need grime to testify...the dogs job was to find forensics to support death in the appt...they didn't find any
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on August 01, 2014, 02:35:32 PM
- Nothing in the parents' bedroom (there wasn't even a forensic sweep in there as far as I can tell).
- A few alleles (5 according to Amaral, whether that is correct or not) compatible with Madeleine's profile in the living-room, which means nothing. Any of us posting on here are likely to have that many in common with her, to say nothing of the fact that she'd lived there for nearly a week as had her parents and siblings.
- The only profile that Lowe found to have a substantial proportion of alleles matching a reference sample in the living-room concerned one of the forensic cops.
- The garden yielded nothing.
Did I miss anything?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on August 01, 2014, 02:36:36 PM
'the dogs job was to find forensics.............'
What a load of rollocks. ?>)()< ?>)()<
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on August 01, 2014, 02:40:56 PM
if any forensics were found that put the place of death as 5A then you wouldn't need grime to testify...the dogs job was to find forensics to support death in the appt...they didn't find any
Yes, absolutely. ETA: Hmm. It's not the dogs' job to find forensics, really. It's up to the forensics officers to find any evidence that could account for the dogs' alerts.
If the dog had alerted and there had been a loft or cellar connected to the apartment, then it would have been worth searching further. It doesn't seem that either exists.
I've always wondered if there is a sanitation void somewhere below the apartment and if so, was it checked?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 01, 2014, 02:42:09 PM
Forensics is the science involved in the analysis of 'data'.
...and there will be lots of samples which hitherto have not revealed anything but as forensic science advances this could very well change. It wasn't that long ago (before 2001) that DNA was an unknown quantity and here we are 13 years later depending on it!
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Jean-Pierre on August 01, 2014, 03:12:00 PM
Exactly and if forensics put the place of death in 5a then you have closed the circle. The dog alerts by virtue of the forensics then having evidentially reliable renders them designated as circumstantial evidence. The dog handler would in such circumstances then be required to testify.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the second line of my post. ?{)(**
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 01, 2014, 03:16:55 PM
...and there will be lots of samples which hitherto have not revealed anything but as forensic science advances this could very well change. It wasn't that long ago (before 2001) that DNA was an unknown quantity and here we are 13 years later depending on it!
there were not lots of samples
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on August 01, 2014, 03:46:24 PM
so tell me Stephen..what do you mean by forensics when you say " the forensics were inconclusive"
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alice Purjorick on August 01, 2014, 08:33:09 PM
Well my dears to me "forensics" means the utilisation of scientific methods and procedures to solve a crime. But that is not necessarily its true root. It would seem to me that it would be a very unusual doggy that was able to do that. So perhaps the doggy indicates that maybe something is there and a forensic scientist tries to find it. With doggies having a very acute sense of smell maybe the doggy science is ahead of ours. Similar to it being able to hear things humans can't perhaps the dear little doggy can smell something that humans are unable to find because it is too small? Well if you accept the hearing argument (proven fact I believe) why would the argument with respect to smell be so outrageous?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 01, 2014, 08:42:43 PM
Well my dears to me "forensics" means the utilisation of scientific methods and procedures to solve a crime. But that is not necessarily its true root. It would seem to me that it would be a very unusual doggy that was able to do that. So perhaps the doggy indicates that maybe something is there and a forensic scientist tries to find it. With doggies having a very acute sense of smell maybe the doggy science is ahead of ours. Similar to it being able to hear things humans can't perhaps the dear little doggy can smell something that humans are unable to find because it is too small? Well if you accept the hearing argument (proven fact I believe) why would the argument with respect to smell be so outrageous?
forensics is a science so as regards "maybe"...
maybe maddie died in the apt maybe she didn't...that's why the alerts themselves have no evidential reliability
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 02, 2014, 01:00:24 AM
maybe maddie died in the apt maybe she didn't...that's why the alerts themselves have no evidential reliability
Cadaver scent is transferable; so all it would take to cause an alert in, for example, a wardrobe would be for a bag which had been near a dead person to have been placed in it. So no one need have died in the room.
‘Transferable’ is the operative word … which is why a cadaver dog’s alert alone signifies nothing unless it can be proved what the dog is alerting to.
It is far more likely that a ‘contaminated’ bag was placed on a shelf in the wardrobe in 5a than a child’s body.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alice Purjorick on August 02, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
maybe maddie died in the apt maybe she didn't...that's why the alerts themselves have no evidential reliability
I did give you a clue so maybe you should have examined the root. Forensics is NOT a science though in modern parlance "forensics" is used rather as a sort of metonym for "forensic science". That apart sir you have failed as usual to address the principle of the post.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 02, 2014, 11:02:35 AM
I did give you a clue so maybe you should have examined the root. Forensics is NOT a science though in modern parlance "forensics" is used rather as a sort of metonym for "forensic science". That apart sir you have failed as usual to address the principle of the post.
the dogs purpose is to help recover forensic evidence...blood...body fluids... as they did.
The fact that I shortened forensic evidence to forensics is neither here nor there....
forensics is most certainly a science
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 02, 2014, 11:09:59 AM
As I have said...the purpose of the dogs is to help find forensic evidence. in this case they found nothing of any significance and certainly nothing to prove Maddie's death.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 02, 2014, 11:22:17 AM
This is from Grime's rogatory...
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence.
The dog locates blood..ie....finds blood
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 06, 2014, 01:37:15 AM
Footage of the search of the garden of 5a begins at appx. 53:04.
At appx. 57:18 Martin Grime picks up a small object from the shrubbery saying he will have to look at this tomorrow in daylight.
At appx. 57:36 he states that they searched the outer perimeter, there was some interest here (Eddie having given one very half hearted bark) but it will take some further examination to see what’s going on.
From that I am not too sure that Eddie did alert in the garden area, perhaps that is why it was never followed up by excavation of any kind.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 06, 2014, 02:27:22 AM
Footage of the search of the garden of 5a begins at appx. 53:04.
At appx. 57:18 Martin Grime picks up a small object from the shrubbery saying he will have to look at this tomorrow in daylight.
At appx. 57:36 he states that they searched the outer perimeter, there was some interest here (Eddie having given one very half hearted bark) but it will take some further examination to see what’s going on.
From that I am not too sure that Eddie did alert in the garden area, perhaps that is why it was never followed up by excavation of any kind.
From that I am not too sure that Eddie did alert in the garden area, perhaps that is why it was never followed up by excavation of any kind.
There was no excavation, true, but cuttings from the flowerbed were sent to the FSS and examined for blood.
No blood was found.
I think it would have been obvious if there had been major disturbances of earth ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Eleanor on August 06, 2014, 06:11:37 AM
From that I am not too sure that Eddie did alert in the garden area, perhaps that is why it was never followed up by excavation of any kind.
There was no excavation, true, but cuttings from the flowerbed were sent to the FSS and examined for blood.
No blood was found.
I think it would have been obvious if there had been major disturbances of earth ...
No blood was found. And Cadaver Scent can't be pinpointed in the absence of body fluids, and or a body.
Fertilisers often contain animal products. Even Urine is a good fertiliser. In the absence of Cadaver Odour a Cadaver Dog will react to body fluids from living people. This was stated in Court in the Casey Anthony Trial by an American Cadaver Dog Handler whose dog alerted in The Anthony House Garden. And we all know what happened to Casey Anthony.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 06, 2014, 09:52:19 AM
Even Urine is a good fertiliser. In the absence of Cadaver Odour a Cadaver Dog will react to body fluids from living people.
Ooooooooooooooooh!
That'll get you into trouble in certain quarters, Eleanor.
The constituent of urine that some dogs might react to is cadaverine, also a primary constituent of pseudo-scents, which Grime said Eddie wouldn't react to, and which dogs actually trained on human remains won't.
But I agree!
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Eleanor on August 06, 2014, 10:32:43 AM
Even Urine is a good fertiliser. In the absence of Cadaver Odour a Cadaver Dog will react to body fluids from living people.
Ooooooooooooooooh!
That'll get you into trouble in certain quarters, Eleanor.
The constituent of urine that some dogs might react to is cadaverine, also a primary constituent of pseudo-scents, which Grime said Eddie wouldn't react to, and which dogs actually trained on human remains won't.
But I agree!
Oh Really? So that American, Cadaver Dog Handler stood up in Court and admitted that Cadaver Dogs will react to pee pee in the absence of a Cadaver? What a pillock.
The whole World wanted Casey Anthony to be convicted for something or another. But rightly, she wasn't.
I don't know how much the dogs' findings had to do with that, but Judge Belvin Perry Junior wasn't half daft. He demanded chapter and verse of the dogs' training and success rates.
That man will long go down in my history of what is right and proper.
More power to Jose Biaz.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on August 06, 2014, 07:34:44 PM
No two dogs react to the same stimuli since every dog is different. Victim Recovery and CSI dogs generally detect similar substances but not always.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Eleanor on August 06, 2014, 07:43:36 PM
No two dogs react to the same stimuli since every dog is different. Victim Recovery and CSI dogs generally detect similar substances but not always.
John, I am stunned by your perception.
Time I watched Holby City. Kicked the dog out. And then off to bed. Tomorrow is another day. Call me Scarlet. I think I might be having a nervous breakdown due to the stress of it all.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: John on August 06, 2014, 07:46:52 PM
Time I watched Holby City. Kicked the dog out. And then off to bed. Tomorrow is another day. Call me Scarlet. I think I might be having a nervous breakdown due to the stress of it all.
8@??)( @)(++(* chiow
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on August 11, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
Not an EVR dog but fantastically skilled: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/three-year-old-girl-survived-11-days-4036084 In the first eleven days after the apparent disappearance of Madeleine all the following were involved: Blair, Blair, Brown, Milliband, Beckett, Buck, Henderson, Mitchell, Woolfall, IFLG, CR, CEOP, yet what did they actually do to search for a child who could potentially have woke and wandered and still have been alive? NADA. That little unnamed siberian dog beats the lot of them.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 11, 2014, 03:01:42 PM
Not an EVR dog but fantastically skilled: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/three-year-old-girl-survived-11-days-4036084 In the first eleven days after the apparent disappearance of Madeleine all the following were involved: Blair, Blair, Brown, Milliband, Beckett, Buck, Henderson, Mitchell, Woolfall, IFLG, CR, CEOP, yet what did they actually do to search for a child who could potentially have woke and wandered and still have been alive? NADA. That little unnamed siberian dog beats the lot of them.
A beautiful story with a brilliant outcome ... but whys did it take him 11 days to get round to legging it for home to raise the alarm ... bit tardy that?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on August 12, 2014, 01:17:57 AM
A beautiful story with a brilliant outcome ... but whys did it take him 11 days to get round to legging it for home to raise the alarm ... bit tardy that?
My guess is - while the child was able to walk and forage for water and berries, the optimum behaviour for the dog was to stay with the child. If the dog left at that stage, the child would wander, might come to harm, or might not be found when rescuers arrived. Then maybe after 11 days the child became too weak to walk, so now the dog decided the best action in this new situation was to go for help.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pegasus on August 12, 2014, 04:14:56 AM
My award for the crumbiest anti-Eddie post ever goes to this masterpiece I found in the comment section of the Eddie cadaver dog video on youtube
" You will note that the dogs in this video did not sit or lie down, this is the normal reaction, rather they jumped around and barked, this is highly unusual, and would rarely indicate a cadaver, or anything else but the dogs desire for a biscuit. "
So there you have it folks, Eddie was barking for bourbons, and Mr Grime and Mr Amaral were barking completely up the wrong rich tea.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 12, 2014, 09:23:57 AM
My award for the crumbiest anti-Eddie post ever goes to this masterpiece I found in the comment section of the Eddie cadaver dog video on youtube
" You will note that the dogs in this video did not sit or lie down, this is the normal reaction, rather they jumped around and barked, this is highly unusual, and would rarely indicate a cadaver, or anything else but the dogs desire for a biscuit. "
So there you have it folks, Eddie was barking for bourbons, and Mr Grime and Mr Amaral were barking completely up the wrong rich tea.
Love it. One of those witty posts you wish you had written. 8((()*/
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 12, 2014, 09:31:09 AM
My award for the crumbiest anti-Eddie post ever goes to this masterpiece I found in the comment section of the Eddie cadaver dog video on youtube
" You will note that the dogs in this video did not sit or lie down, this is the normal reaction, rather they jumped around and barked, this is highly unusual, and would rarely indicate a cadaver, or anything else but the dogs desire for a biscuit. "
So there you have it folks, Eddie was barking for bourbons, and Mr Grime and Mr Amaral were barking completely up the wrong rich tea.
I think it is a lot closer to the truth than many on this forum realise...no criticism of the dogs..if there had been evidence there they would have found it...there was no evidence to be found
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on August 12, 2014, 10:48:04 AM
My award for the crumbiest anti-Eddie post ever goes to this masterpiece I found in the comment section of the Eddie cadaver dog video on youtube
" You will note that the dogs in this video did not sit or lie down, this is the normal reaction, rather they jumped around and barked, this is highly unusual, and would rarely indicate a cadaver, or anything else but the dogs desire for a biscuit. "
So there you have it folks, Eddie was barking for bourbons, and Mr Grime and Mr Amaral were barking completely up the wrong rich tea.
I think it is a lot closer to the truth than many on this forum realise...no criticism of the dogs..if there had been evidence there they would have found it...there was no evidence to be found
The dogs alerted to what they had been trained to alert to...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on August 12, 2014, 10:56:14 AM
My award for the crumbiest anti-Eddie post ever goes to this masterpiece I found in the comment section of the Eddie cadaver dog video on youtube
" You will note that the dogs in this video did not sit or lie down, this is the normal reaction, rather they jumped around and barked, this is highly unusual, and would rarely indicate a cadaver, or anything else but the dogs desire for a biscuit. "
So there you have it folks, Eddie was barking for bourbons, and Mr Grime and Mr Amaral were barking completely up the wrong rich tea.
I think it is a lot closer to the truth than many on this forum realise...no criticism of the dogs..if there had been evidence there they would have found it...there was no evidence to be found
and let's not forget a contaminated crime scene.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 12, 2014, 11:12:04 AM
Sure; just another example of the incompetence of the conduct of the initial investigation; three months down the line apartment 5a had played host to four holidaying families in the interim; but matters not a fig since Eddie was obviously barking for his bourbon as explained in the excellent analogy posted earlier.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 14, 2014, 07:01:09 PM
I think it is a lot closer to the truth than many on this forum realise...no criticism of the dogs..if there had been evidence there they would have found it...there was no evidence to be found
The dogs alerted to what they had been trained to alert to...
you have absolutely no way of knowing if that is true...that's the mistake that you and others make
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: slartibartfast on August 14, 2014, 08:11:29 PM
The nice policeman takes two doggies, one can smell blood and the other cadaver scent and blood. When the doggie who smells cadaver scent alerts and the one who smells blood doesn't, then it indicates cadaver scent.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 14, 2014, 10:17:53 PM
The nice policeman takes two doggies, one can smell blood and the other cadaver scent and blood. When the doggie who smells cadaver scent alerts and the one who smells blood doesn't, then it indicates cadaver scent.
what about the dog who alerts to cadaver ...doesn't alert to cuddlecat ...then does ...
what about the handler who does not confirm any alert...the person who is very hard of understanding is you.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 15, 2014, 08:21:26 AM
Why did Eddie alert, ever, in places Madeleine is known definitely never to have been?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 15, 2014, 09:57:41 AM
Why did Eddie alert, ever, in places Madeleine is known definitely never to have been?
... and why the continuation of the assertion that Eddie alerted in the boot of the hire car which he never even inspected; how shoddy is a police report which cannot differentiate between the alerts of a CSI and a VRD.
Removing proven anomalies such as that and ~
- the car door (dried blood from a living person) - behind the sofa in 5a (dried blood from living people) - the garden ... if anyone can work out what happened there - the clothing on the gymnasium floor which had not been alerted to in situ in the villa or where it had been stored in the villa ... impossible given the potency of scent transference - and the very mobile cuddle cat popping out of cupboards the dog just had no interest in (including no interest in CC apart from wanting to play with him)
we are left with Eddie barking in a corner to justify years of hounding of the Drs McCann; a very flimsy foundation indeed on which to base a belief system.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on August 15, 2014, 10:25:36 AM
... and why the continuation of the assertion that Eddie alerted in the boot of the hire car which he never even inspected; how shoddy is a police report which cannot differentiate between the alerts of a CSI and a VRD.
Removing proven anomalies such as that and ~
- the car door (dried blood from a living person) - behind the sofa in 5a (dried blood from living people) - the garden ... if anyone can work out what happened there - the clothing on the gymnasium floor which had not been alerted to in situ in the villa or where it had been stored in the villa ... impossible given the potency of scent transference - and the very mobile cuddle cat popping out of cupboards the dog just had no interest in (including no interest in CC apart from wanting to play with him)
we are left with Eddie barking in a corner to justify years of hounding of the Drs McCann; a very flimsy foundation indeed on which to base a belief system.
And according to Grime even the alert in the corner may be to scent which could have drifted into the corner of the room from elsewhere and so may be unconnected to the wardrobe.
But even this information from the handler himself has not stopped the claim that Eddie specifically alerted to something -not just near to the wardrobe, but actually inside it - leading to all kinds of associated claims being made as if they were 'troo' facts.
Such is the power of wishful thinking IMO.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on August 15, 2014, 11:23:07 AM
... and why the continuation of the assertion that Eddie alerted in the boot of the hire car which he never even inspected; how shoddy is a police report which cannot differentiate between the alerts of a CSI and a VRD. Removing proven anomalies such as that and ~
- the car door (dried blood from a living person) - behind the sofa in 5a (dried blood from living people) - the garden ... if anyone can work out what happened there - the clothing on the gymnasium floor which had not been alerted to in situ in the villa or where it had been stored in the villa ... impossible given the potency of scent transference - and the very mobile cuddle cat popping out of cupboards the dog just had no interest in (including no interest in CC apart from wanting to play with him)
we are left with Eddie barking in a corner to justify years of hounding of the Drs McCann; a very flimsy foundation indeed on which to base a belief system.
How observant of you Brietta. I hadn't noticed that it was Keela in the boot of the car and NOT Eddie
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html
labelled "The full length video", but Eddie playing with CC missing. So any other things missing?
1.25.00 approx Keela entering the car 1.27.50 approx Keela in boot 1.28.38 approx. Keela alerting by silently pointing 1.30.59 approx Keela out of car
So the alert in the boot was not by Eddie and was of blood from a living person.
It was NOT a cadavar alert.
So that so called alert to cadavar odour, in the car boot, goes out of the window too .
Well done Brietta. 8@??)(
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Alice Purjorick on August 15, 2014, 12:46:58 PM
Presumably because the dogs work on scent and not peoples names? Or is that too simple?
Far too logical for certain people to understand. 8)-)))
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on August 15, 2014, 12:49:07 PM
Way back, I questioned why Eddie would be barking at the walls in the garage,( a fair distance away from the car) I believe the answer was...................Because it is within the zone of the scent cone. Considering how small 5A was and on the same level as the restaurant also probably in close proximity to the soil pipes, which would serve the complex, I think there is many possibilities to his alerts. Remember he can smell through concrete too! I think these dogs do a wonderful job at finding victims.................When a victim is found, but in this case nothing was found, so we do not know why the dog was barking and until we do, it is unfortunately, no more than a guessing game, with no evidence of any crime being committed, except for a missing child and an open window
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on August 15, 2014, 12:50:50 PM
How observant of you Brietta. I hadn't noticed that it was Keela in the boot of the car and NOT Eddie
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html
labelled "The full length video", but Eddie playing with CC missing. So any other things missing?
1.25.00 approx Keela entering the car 1.27.50 approx Keela in boot 1.28.38 approx. Keela alerting by silently pointing 1.30.59 approx Keela out of car
So the alert in the boot was not by Eddie and was of blood from a living person.
It was NOT a cadavar alert.
So that so called alert to cadavar odour, in the car boot, goes out of the window too .
Well done Brietta. 8@??)(
'....and was of blood from a living person.......'
.......and how do you know this ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on August 15, 2014, 01:19:37 PM
___________________________ Vol IX p. 2483
CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of blood on property up to thirty-six years old.
In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities. Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.
She is trained specifically using human blood obtained through the haematology department at Sheffield Northern General Hospital. The blood undergoes strict screening for disease and contamination prior to use. The samples are from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds and are from both male and female sources.
Keela's training and licensing is based around the level of 1 positive screening sample introduced into 200 control articles or 1 positive sample introduced during 6 hours searching in relation to crime scenes or vehicles.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 15, 2014, 01:29:18 PM
How observant of you Brietta. I hadn't noticed that it was Keela in the boot of the car and NOT Eddie
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html
labelled "The full length video", but Eddie playing with CC missing. So any other things missing?
1.25.00 approx Keela entering the car 1.27.50 approx Keela in boot 1.28.38 approx. Keela alerting by silently pointing 1.30.59 approx Keela out of car
So the alert in the boot was not by Eddie and was of blood from a living person.
It was NOT a cadavar alert.
So that so called alert to cadavar odour, in the car boot, goes out of the window too .
Well done Brietta. 8@??)(
Why didn't Keela search any of the other apartments but only 5A? Because there wasn't blood in any of them? No Wrong! Because Eddie detected what he is trained to find and only when that happens Keela comes in to check for blood. Eddie didn't need to go in the boot as he detected the odour he is trained to find coming out from the car i.e. the source. Martin Grime's professional opinion is the important one in this case:
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.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on August 15, 2014, 01:37:04 PM
snippit
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.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on August 15, 2014, 01:39:51 PM
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.
However, it does not mean the alerts could not have been due to a dead body.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 15, 2014, 01:48:07 PM
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.
... as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios ...
Not least of which was wholesale disregard of the principle of cross-contamination in the way clothes were transferred to the gym for re-inspection ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on August 15, 2014, 01:55:34 PM
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of blood on property up to thirty-six years old.
In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities. Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.
She is trained specifically using human blood obtained through the haematology department at Sheffield Northern General Hospital. The blood undergoes strict screening for disease and contamination prior to use. The samples are from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds and are from both male and female sources.
Keela's training and licensing is based around the level of 1 positive screening sample introduced into 200 control articles or 1 positive sample introduced during 6 hours searching in relation to crime scenes or vehicles.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html
Thanks Anna
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on August 15, 2014, 02:04:46 PM
Since originally, surprise surprise, blood would come from a living source or from a body.
So are you saying that keela would know which was which ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on August 15, 2014, 02:06:11 PM
Back on dogs and suspicions............When I had a really bad house fire about 20 years ago, the fireman said it was probably an electrical fault, where field mice had chewed some wire in my laundry, but who knows. maybe someone was trying to torch us.............................So easy to blame the innocent, if you are that way inclined, but I believe it was the mice, as there was no evidence of a crime
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on August 15, 2014, 02:09:26 PM
Back on dogs and suspicions............When I had a really bad house fire about 20 years ago, the fireman said it was probably an electrical fault, where field mice had chewed some wire in my laundry, but who knows. maybe someone was trying to torch us.............................So easy to blame the innocent, if you are that way inclined, but I believe it was the mice, as there was no evidence of a crime
Read my last comment.
So would it be one bark from a living source and two from a non-living source ?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on August 15, 2014, 02:30:52 PM
You are on my ignore list, but since you seem to be following me around, I have made an exception and tried to answer your question. I believe that Fluid from a dead body(especially if dead for weeks) would be cadaver fluids and scent not blood from a person living at the time of the blood loss.
Some info........................................
does a dead body bleed? Only if it punctured where the blood has settled. Once the heart stops beating, blood settles due to gravity. So, for instance. If someone died in a vertical position (on a cross) and was stabbed in the side, there would not be "blood and water." This person would have to have been stabbed in the legs for there to be blood to flow. This answer is only partially right. It is correct about "bleeding," but it then goes off to answer a different question: could "blood and water" have come out when a figure (like Jesus) who died on the cross is pierced "in the side." A better answer that avoids getting into the issue of Jesus' death is: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_dead_people_bleed?#slide=1 It is true that after death there would be no bleeding, but there may be other fluids that resemble blood in a dead body. One such fluid is called "purge." "Purge from the mouth and nose usually originates in either the stomach or lungs, or both. The color of the purge will usually identify its origin. For instance, stomach purge usually is yellow to brown and can be semi-solid. Lung purge will usually be red to rust brown in color with a foamy texture. " http://www.iccfa.com/reading/2000-2009/embalming-z-purge
This fluid may even come out after the body has been taken to the funeral home, so it lasts longer than the time blood stays liquid. Another possibility is pleurisy - inflamation of the sack around the heart & lungs. Pleurisy may result from the accumulation of fluid, possibly blood. Pleurisy may result from trauma to the chest such as blunt trauma or a puncture. http://health.wikinut.com/Diseases-Of-The-Pleura%3A-Dry-Or-Fibrinous-Pleurisy-And-Pleural-Shock/35gq7nj2/ Acute pericardial effusion may also occur with tachycardia. http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/acute-pericarditis Hypovolemic shock results from a loss of blood (leading to low blood pressure) or other fluids (dehydration). Blood pressure drops. Vascular fluid loss may be the result of internal bleeding. Blood may leak into any body cavity or space such as the lungs, or the pericardial area. Loss of consciousness (fainting) can result from hypovolemic shock.
You are on my ignore list, but since you seem to be following me around, I have made an exception and tried to answer your question. I believe that Fluid from a dead body(especially if dead for weeks) would be cadaver fluids and scent not blood from a person living at the time of the blood loss.
Some info........................................
does a dead body bleed? Only if it punctured where the blood has settled. Once the heart stops beating, blood settles due to gravity. So, for instance. If someone died in a vertical position (on a cross) and was stabbed in the side, there would not be "blood and water." This person would have to have been stabbed in the legs for there to be blood to flow. This answer is only partially right. It is correct about "bleeding," but it then goes off to answer a different question: could "blood and water" have come out when a figure (like Jesus) who died on the cross is pierced "in the side." A better answer that avoids getting into the issue of Jesus' death is: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_dead_people_bleed?#slide=1 It is true that after death there would be no bleeding, but there may be other fluids that resemble blood in a dead body. One such fluid is called "purge." "Purge from the mouth and nose usually originates in either the stomach or lungs, or both. The color of the purge will usually identify its origin. For instance, stomach purge usually is yellow to brown and can be semi-solid. Lung purge will usually be red to rust brown in color with a foamy texture. " http://www.iccfa.com/reading/2000-2009/embalming-z-purge
This fluid may even come out after the body has been taken to the funeral home, so it lasts longer than the time blood stays liquid. Another possibility is pleurisy - inflamation of the sack around the heart & lungs. Pleurisy may result from the accumulation of fluid, possibly blood. Pleurisy may result from trauma to the chest such as blunt trauma or a puncture. http://health.wikinut.com/Diseases-Of-The-Pleura%3A-Dry-Or-Fibrinous-Pleurisy-And-Pleural-Shock/35gq7nj2/ Acute pericardial effusion may also occur with tachycardia. http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/acute-pericarditis Hypovolemic shock results from a loss of blood (leading to low blood pressure) or other fluids (dehydration). Blood pressure drops. Vascular fluid loss may be the result of internal bleeding. Blood may leak into any body cavity or space such as the lungs, or the pericardial area. Loss of consciousness (fainting) can result from hypovolemic shock.
So would it be one bark from a living source and two from a non-living source ?
What I cannot understand is why some of the the videos are spliced with important bits cut out.
Had Keelas silent pointing alerts been shown on all the videos, then i think we would all have realised that we were looking at the blood dog Keela, NOT the Cavadar dog Eddie. I thought that I was looking at Eddie until Brietta pointed it out and I also looked at the long video.
Keela alerts by silently pointing with her nose. Eddie alerts by barking.
In the long video we see Keela pointing when she alerts
http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8
at about 1.28.40
Compare to the shorter video which we usually look at
http://youtu.be/FTF4JTLeOWA
at just before 5.00
This damned video was cut just about as Keela was ready to alert. She silently points instead of barking as Eddie does.
Why was it cut short there? I certianly hadn't realised that I was looking at Keela and NOT Eddie in the boot. My bet is that many of us, if not most, also thought they were looking at the same dog as in the rest of the garage scenario. In other words looking at the cadaver dog getting excited in the boot, even giving a little bark (alert)
The truth "Hidden in plain sight" sort of situation? Let the punters think it is Eddie, which most of us did, cos it followed on from Eddie in the video - and it is a black and white dog with a waggly tail just like Eddie
Is it accidental ? ... or is it deliberate misinformation by omision? Obfuscation? So that we think Eddie marked in the boot. Seems he didn't. No cadaver there.
NO CADAVER IN THE BOOT !
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: stephen25000 on August 15, 2014, 03:16:31 PM
What I cannot understand is why some of the the videos are spliced with important bits cut out.
Had Keelas silent pointing alerts been shown on all the videos, then i think we would all have realised that we were looking at the blood dog Keela, NOT the Cavadar dog Eddie. I thought that I was looking at Eddie until Brietta pointed it out and I also looked at the long video.
This has been dealt with before as well as the possibility of secondary transfer.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 15, 2014, 05:00:16 PM
What I cannot understand is why some of the the videos are spliced with important bits cut out.
Had Keelas silent pointing alerts been shown on all the videos, then i think we would all have realised that we were looking at the blood dog Keela, NOT the Cavadar dog Eddie. I thought that I was looking at Eddie until Brietta pointed it out and I also looked at the long video.
Keela alerts by silently pointing with her nose. Eddie alerts by barking.
Eddie was never in the Grand Scenic hire car Sadie. Martin Grime explained in the video that after Eddie had alerted at the drivers door that it was then for Keela to confirm the finds.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Mr Gray on August 17, 2014, 06:19:58 PM
Eddie was never in the Grand Scenic hire car Sadie. Martin Grime explained in the video that after Eddie had alerted at the drivers door that it was then for Keela to confirm the finds.
so as keela alerted that rules out cadaver according to the thinking on this forum
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on August 17, 2014, 07:07:23 PM
Eddie was never in the Grand Scenic hire car Sadie. Martin Grime explained in the video that after Eddie had alerted at the drivers door that it was then for Keela to confirm the finds.
That doesn't make sense Mr M.
If both dogs alert, then what Keela and Eddie are alerting to is just dried blood from a living person.
Cos they BOTH alert to dried blood.
For the alert to have any chance of being Cadavar odour, Eddie MUST alert, but Keels MUST NOT. Then forensics had to confirm.
Ferryman [or any other dog expert), please confirm or reject what I am saying.
Eddie had to have gone in that car and alerted somewhere that Keela did not, for it to be cadavar odour.... But he didn't.
No cadavar odour in that car, Mr M.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on August 17, 2014, 09:43:31 PM
If both dogs alert, then what Keela and Eddie are alerting to is just dried blood from a living person.
Cos they BOTH alert to dried blood.
For the alert to have any chance of being Cadavar odour, Eddie MUST alert, but Keels MUST NOT. Then forensics had to confirm.
Ferryman [or any other dog expert), please confirm or reject what I am saying.
Eddie had to have gone in that car and alerted somewhere that Keela did not, for it to be cadavar odour.... But he didn't.
No cadavar odour in that car, Mr M.
Not necessarily Sadie as both dogs could be alerting to blood from a dead person. However IIRC , on the occasions when both dogs alerted it was to blood from living people. IIRC One being to Gerry when both dogs alerted to the key fob, and another being identified as blood from one of the policemen - found inside 5a.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 17, 2014, 09:55:11 PM
Not necessarily Sadie as both dogs could be alerting to blood from a dead person. However IIRC , on the occasions when both dogs alerted it was to blood from living people. IIRC One being to Gerry when both dogs alerted to the key fob, and another being identified as blood from one of the policemen - found inside 5a.
Yes, Gerry's DNA was identified from the key fob (alerted to by both dogs).
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: misty on August 17, 2014, 10:10:45 PM
Yes, Gerry's DNA was identified from the key fob (alerted to by both dogs).
Keela alerted in the rear wheel well. Eddie didn't, although Amaral was adamant he did. How can both dogs alert to a key contained in the car but not blood in the wheel well inside the car?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 17, 2014, 10:46:04 PM
Keela alerted in the rear wheel well. Eddie didn't, although Amaral was adamant he did. How can both dogs alert to a key contained in the car but not blood in the wheel well inside the car?
Runs in my mind that model did not have a wheel well inside the boot, Misty, making it all the more difficult to conceal anything let alone a body, as when they were filmed loading the vehicle with leaflets.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on August 17, 2014, 10:53:12 PM
Not necessarily Sadie as both dogs could be alerting to blood from a dead person. However IIRC , on the occasions when both dogs alerted it was to blood from living people. IIRC One being to Gerry when both dogs alerted to the key fob, and another being identified as blood from one of the policemen - found inside 5a.
But Eddie didn't go into the back of the car. Only Keela alerted there. So No alert for Cadavar there.
The key fob, they both alerted to, but it turned out to be blood from Gerry. So no cadavar there.
As far as i am aware Eddie didn't alert anywhere in the car, just around the outside edge of the car (and maybe the keyfob)
The keyfob has been ruled out (above as Gerrys dried blood) .... and there were no other alerts by Eddie in the car
So everything accounted for and ruled out. Therefore:[/size]
No cadavar odour in that car
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on August 17, 2014, 11:09:39 PM
But Eddie didn't go into the back of the car. Only Keela alerted there. So No alert for Cadavar there.
The key fob, they both alerted to, but it turned out to be blood from Gerry. So no cadavar there.
As far as i am aware Eddie didn't alert anywhere in the car, just around the outside edge of the car (and maybe the keyfob)
The keyfob has been ruled out (above as Gerrys dried blood) .... and there were no other alerts by Eddie in the car
So everything accounted for and ruled out. Therefore:
No cadavar odour in that car
Sorry Sadie - are we at cross purposes? I was commenting on what you said below in blue - which is correct if you are talking only about the alert to the key fob, but not correct as a general statement as both dogs will alert to dried blood from dead or living people.
The key fob was in the inside pocket of the driver's door - inches away from Eddies nose when he alerted. IIRC the key fob was then taken away and put in a bucket of sand(?) - where both dogs alerted to it.
Eddie wasn't put into the car - and so no alerts made there.
Sorry if I misunderstood your post.
(If both dogs alert, then what Keela and Eddie are alerting to is just dried blood from a living person.)
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 17, 2014, 11:16:33 PM
What nonsense. Martin Grime's professional opinion was that Eddie was alerting to cadaver in all his alerts not blood. Keela alerted to blood in ONLY two places where Eddie alerted - behind the sofa and in the car - the key and boot.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on August 17, 2014, 11:39:10 PM
What nonsense. Martin Grime's professional opinion was that Eddie was alerting to cadaver in all his alerts not blood. Keela alerted to blood in ONLY two places where Eddie alerted - behind the sofa and in the car - the key and boot.
And on both occasions the blood of living persons was identified from the swabs taken and forensically tested. No other unidentified DNA material was found and therefore Eddie's alert could only have been to the same cellular material Keela had alerted to. And Keela only alerted to blood. Therefore so did Eddie on those two occasions.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 17, 2014, 11:45:22 PM
And on both occasions the blood of living persons was identified from the swabs taken and forensically tested. No other unidentified DNA material was found and therefore Eddie's alert could only have been to the same cellular material Keela had alerted to. And Keela only alerted to blood. Therefore so did Eddie on those two occasions.
That's funny Eddie was clearly trying to get over the sofa from a distance away i.e. scenting the cadaver. Keela has to get in very close to find and alert to blood. How this goes over everyone's head is a complete mystery to me. How convenient! It's obvious what Eddie alerted to in all his alerts - cadaver!
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Anna on August 18, 2014, 12:41:56 AM
To simplify matters................
MARK Jobling is Professor in Genetics at the University of Leicester]
Sunday Mirror
The DNA clues.. vital questions are answered
Sep 9, 2007 by MARK JOBLING DNA expert
Q: Could the blood in the hire car belong to Madeleine?
A: Dead people don't bleed. So, if the blood was fresh when found by forensic experts, it clearly could not belong to Madeleine, who had been missing/dead for 25 days before the car was hired. We have to presume if Portuguese police think the blood is Madeleine's, then it was dry when found. The only way this could have got in to the boot of the hire car would have been if dried flecks fell off Madeleine's body. Under this scenario, her parents somehow killed Madeleine, stored her for 25 days and then used the car to dump her body secretly - despite being under the intense police and media spotlight. Alternatively, the parents could be being framed by someone planting Madeleine's blood.
Q: Why are the police asking the McCanns if it is Madeleine's blood?
A: A good question. In my opinion, if they had a complete DNA match with Madeleine's blood, they would simply charge Kate and Gerry. In 18 years' experience in this field, I have not heard of a case where police did not act immediately on evidence of that magnitude.
Q: Could the police be bluffing, then?
A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.
This happens when the sample is too small to get a full profile or it is contaminated by somebody touching it or even a tiny drop of saliva falling on it. A method called Low Copy numbers is used for small samples. This will often give us a partial profile. If there are family members around, as in the McCanns' case, then things become even more complicated as all of the members of the family would share some aspects of their DNA. That could explain the police's tactics.
Q: Could scientists have made a mistake?
A: The Forensic Science Service in Birmingham which carried out the tests is a highly reputable and careful organisation. It is extremely unlikely that anything would have gone wrong once the sample reached them. Analysis of what is called short tandem repeats - which is the pattern of a person's DNA - allows us to build up a profile.
All people except identical twins have their own unique profile. If they get a full profile the chance of it being wrong is ridiculously small.
Q: How important is DNA?
A: DNA is a massively powerful tool in criminal cases, but it alone is not enough to convict a person. If it was Madeleine's blood in the back of that car then it places her at the scene. But it doesn't explain how she got there, who put her there or, if she died, how she did and who did it.
MARK Jobling is Professor in Genetics at the University of Leicester
MARK Jobling is Professor in Genetics at the University of Leicester]
Sunday Mirror
The DNA clues.. vital questions are answered
Sep 9, 2007 by MARK JOBLING DNA expert
Q: Could the blood in the hire car belong to Madeleine?
A: Dead people don't bleed. So, if the blood was fresh when found by forensic experts, it clearly could not belong to Madeleine, who had been missing/dead for 25 days before the car was hired. We have to presume if Portuguese police think the blood is Madeleine's, then it was dry when found. The only way this could have got in to the boot of the hire car would have been if dried flecks fell off Madeleine's body. Under this scenario, her parents somehow killed Madeleine, stored her for 25 days and then used the car to dump her body secretly - despite being under the intense police and media spotlight. Alternatively, the parents could be being framed by someone planting Madeleine's blood.
Q: Why are the police asking the McCanns if it is Madeleine's blood?
A: A good question. In my opinion, if they had a complete DNA match with Madeleine's blood, they would simply charge Kate and Gerry. In 18 years' experience in this field, I have not heard of a case where police did not act immediately on evidence of that magnitude.
Q: Could the police be bluffing, then?
A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.
This happens when the sample is too small to get a full profile or it is contaminated by somebody touching it or even a tiny drop of saliva falling on it. A method called Low Copy numbers is used for small samples. This will often give us a partial profile. If there are family members around, as in the McCanns' case, then things become even more complicated as all of the members of the family would share some aspects of their DNA. That could explain the police's tactics.
Q: Could scientists have made a mistake?
A: The Forensic Science Service in Birmingham which carried out the tests is a highly reputable and careful organisation. It is extremely unlikely that anything would have gone wrong once the sample reached them. Analysis of what is called short tandem repeats - which is the pattern of a person's DNA - allows us to build up a profile.
All people except identical twins have their own unique profile. If they get a full profile the chance of it being wrong is ridiculously small.
Q: How important is DNA?
A: DNA is a massively powerful tool in criminal cases, but it alone is not enough to convict a person. If it was Madeleine's blood in the back of that car then it places her at the scene. But it doesn't explain how she got there, who put her there or, if she died, how she did and who did it.
MARK Jobling is Professor in Genetics at the University of Leicester
A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.
We (now!) know that they had Madeleine's full profile.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 18, 2014, 10:37:17 AM
The other observation interesting about that article, of course, is this:
The only way this could have got in to the boot of the hire car would have been if dried flecks fell off Madeleine's body.
If the soup recovered from the Renault Scenic had been consistent with blood from a dead person, I'm quite certain the FSS would have said.
They never did.
That must be because what was recovered was not consistent with blood from a dead person ...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 18, 2014, 10:52:16 AM
The other observation interesting about that article, of course, is this:
The only way this could have got in to the boot of the hire car would have been if dried flecks fell off Madeleine's body.
If the soup recovered from the Renault Scenic had been consistent with blood from a dead person, I'm quite certain the FSS would have said.
They never did.
That must be because what was recovered was not consistent with blood from a dead person ...
Such speculations are really only of interest to those who prefer to ignore the conclusions of the FSS.
It should be remembered that there was no soup either of the broccoli and cheese type or that of the dead body type and I find it extraordinary that you choose to make such a remark.
Blood on a key fob very definitely from a living breathing person; an imperceptible spot under a carpet in the boot; a dog barks and you think the significant thing is not what the FSS said about it but what they did not say?
It just does not work like that.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Jean-Pierre on August 18, 2014, 10:54:16 AM
A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.
We (now!) know that they had Madeleine's full profile.
It was a "fishing expedition" - a very inept one.
They were presumably expecting Kate to say "Gor blimey copper, its a fair cop. OK, I dun it, you got me bang to rights."
It was fortunate that she had good legal representation.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 18, 2014, 10:58:30 AM
Such speculations are really only of interest to those who prefer to ignore the conclusions of the FSS.
It should be remembered that there was no soup either of the broccoli and cheese type or that of the dead body type and I find it extraordinary that you choose to make such a remark.
Blood on a key fob very definitely from a living breathing person; an imperceptible spot under a carpet in the boot; a dog barks and you think the significant thing is not what the FSS said about it but what they did not say?
It just does not work like that.
I am using soup as a loose term for material recovered from the Renault scenic that contained DNA material and I defend its usage.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on August 18, 2014, 11:31:27 AM
Such speculations are really only of interest to those who prefer to ignore the conclusions of the FSS.
It should be remembered that there was no soup either of the broccoli and cheese type or that of the dead body type and I find it extraordinary that you choose to make such a remark.
Blood on a key fob very definitely from a living breathing person; an imperceptible spot under a carpet in the boot; a dog barks and you think the significant thing is not what the FSS said about it but what they did not say?
It just does not work like that.
I think there's a misunderstanding. Ferryman was quoting the answer from the DNA professor. At the time, the DNA chap wouldn't have had access to the forensic report, so he couldn't be sure what they'd found or not. It sounds to me as if he was just going through the possibilities, based on what was able to gather from the information available at the time.
There wasn't a soup in the literal sense of a gooey mess, but there was what could loosely be termed a soup in the sense of DNA from several sources in the same sample.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on August 18, 2014, 11:36:51 AM
A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.
We (now!) know that they had Madeleine's full profile.
That phrasing is a bit ambiguous, FM. I know it's not what you meant, but yes, they had an inferred reference profile from her pillow at home - there was NOT a full profile obtained from the car.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 18, 2014, 11:46:31 AM
I think there's a misunderstanding. Ferryman was quoting the answer from the DNA professor. At the time, the DNA chap wouldn't have had access to the forensic report, so he couldn't be sure what they'd found or not. It sounds to me as if he was just going through the possibilities, based on what was able to gather from the information available at the time.
There wasn't a soup in the literal sense of a gooey mess, but there was what could loosely be termed a soup in the sense of DNA from several sources in the same sample.
Thank you Carana.
Brietta may not have twigged that I was quoting from an article written well before release of John Lowe's report.
I am very happy to accept his report as is.
And yes! In response to your second post, the FSS had secured Madeleine's full DNA profile from a sample of saliva provided to them by Gerry from the pillow of her bed in the McCanns' Rothley home.
Slight doubt that the profile might have been Amelie's was resolved by taking her DNA and comparing it with the profile from the saliva.
The two profiles were different, confirming they had Madeleine's DNA.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 18, 2014, 11:51:55 AM
[ moderated ]
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on August 18, 2014, 12:08:15 PM
They were presumably expecting Kate to say "Gor blimey copper, its a fair cop. OK, I dun it, you got me bang to rights."
It was fortunate that she had good legal representation.
Hmmm. According to her book, Kate was the one who was unimpressed with the so-called dog "evidence". Her lawyer, after being taken aside for a few hours (presumably to view the clip), seemed quite concerned and that may have been at the root of asking her to consider "confessing"...
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: sadie on August 18, 2014, 12:14:07 PM
Hmmm. According to her book, Kate was the one who was unimpressed with the so-called dog "evidence". Her lawyer, after being taken aside for a few hours (presumably to view the clip), seemed quite concerned and that may have been at the root of asking her to consider "confessing"...
Well Kate would KNOW that Madeleines body was NOT carried in their hire car.
And she had the presence of mind to stick to her guns despite, little doubt, a threatening atmosphere.
Gerry too, would realse that lies were being told in orfer to try and implicate them
Thank goodness they both had the intellect and strength of mind not to cave in to the intimidation which such an accusation would foster
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Matthew Wyse on August 18, 2014, 12:32:33 PM
so if that had been the case why was she so afraid that she couldnt answer 49 simple questions????
Very sensibly she was advised not to.
Her lawyers did not want her stitched up. They were aware of what had happened in previous cases no doubt, with questions only designed to indict.
The questions were not about finding Madeleine at all.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Benice on August 18, 2014, 12:39:39 PM
I wonder why Martin Grime sometimes wears head to toe protective clothing and at other times doesn't even wear gloves. Surely such clothing is either essential or it isn 't.
As he is the one training the dogs on a daily basis, then surely he is the one most likely to be at risk of becoming contaminated - and thereby becoming a source of cross contamination himself. Is this why the clothing is necessary? There must be a reason for it. Why wear it at the car inspection but not at the apartments?
Just curious.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Wonderfulspam on August 18, 2014, 12:44:39 PM
I wonder why Martin Grime sometimes wears head to toe protective clothing and at other times doesn't even wear gloves. Surely such clothing is either essential or it isn 't.
As he is the one training the dogs on a daily basis, then surely he is the one most likely to be at risk of becoming contaminated - and thereby becoming a source of cross contamination himself. Is this why the clothing is necessary? There must be a reason for it. Why wear it at the car inspection but not at the apartments?
Just curious.
Strange , given that Mr Grime was no doubt smothered in cadaver scent, Eddie didn't just start alerting at him as soon as he tried getting him out the back of the van.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Admin on August 18, 2014, 01:43:44 PM
An update on the questions to Mr Grime. He thanks everyone for their "good questions". He again advises that as the Madeleine case is currently an open investigation he cannot comment at this time. He adds that hopefully the day will come when he is in a position to do so.
Please ask him if the UK dogs are now trained with human cadaver rather than pig, I was concerned at the apparent failure of the dogs/handlers in the Tia Sharpe case.
Mr Grime advises that as he is in the USA he does not have that information. Suggest contacting SY
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 18, 2014, 02:08:24 PM
I am using soup as a loose term for material recovered from the Renault scenic that contained DNA material and I defend its usage.
I did not attack your descriptive usage of 'soup'; as far as I am concerned it is a valid word to define the decomposition of a body; interesting you chose to think I was being pejorative about your descriptive word.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: ferryman on August 18, 2014, 02:10:02 PM
I did not attack your descriptive usage of 'soup'; as far as I am concerned it is a valid word to define the decomposition of a body; interesting you chose to think I was being pejorative about your descriptive word and not the fact I was pointing out your lie.
What "lie"?
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 18, 2014, 02:19:17 PM
I think there's a misunderstanding. Ferryman was quoting the answer from the DNA professor. At the time, the DNA chap wouldn't have had access to the forensic report, so he couldn't be sure what they'd found or not. It sounds to me as if he was just going through the possibilities, based on what was able to gather from the information available at the time.
There wasn't a soup in the literal sense of a gooey mess, but there was what could loosely be termed a soup in the sense of DNA from several sources in the same sample.
I did not misunderstand; and since we do have the benefit of access to the final FSS results those are the only ones that matter.
'Soup' seems to be a word loosely used to describe a plethora of things; and recalls the ubiquitous reports in 2007 of handfulls of Madeleine's hair being found in the boot.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on August 18, 2014, 02:20:08 PM
so if that had been the case why was she so afraid that she couldnt answer 49 simple questions????
You have the right to remain silent, but anything that you do say will be recorded (although not necessarily verbatim). It will then be scrunched up and rammed down your throat in a court of law that won't have the foggiest what you actually said in the first place, let alone the context... unless you have a damned good lawyer.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Carana on August 18, 2014, 02:25:25 PM
I did not misunderstand; and since we do have the benefit of access to the final FSS results those are the only ones that matter.
'Soup' seems to be a word loosely used to describe a plethora of things; and recalls the ubiquitous reports in 2007 of handfulls of Madeleine's hair being found in the boot.
I know. I've used the term "soup" as well in the past (as have others) to refer to the DNA mix in that sample that can't be separated into different profiles - in the sense that you can't separate the blended "ingredients" of a mixed profile involving 3-5 people.
I really do think that that was the sense that FM meant.
Title: Re: The dogs.....
Post by: Brietta on August 18, 2014, 02:31:51 PM
An update on the questions to Mr Grime. He thanks everyone for their "good questions". He again advises that as the Madeleine case is currently an open investigation he cannot comment at this time. He adds that hopefully the day will come when he is in a position to do so.
Mr Grime advises that as he is in the USA he does not have that information. Suggest contacting SY
Thanks for the update, even if it was a non-starter.