grime says no....
in his statement he says...in his opinion...it is suggestive...which to me is far from certain
so a very useful tool...but not 100% reliable
grime says no....
in his statement he says...in his opinion...it is suggestive...which to me is far from certain
so a very useful tool...but not 100% reliable
An off duty EVRD dog and his handler found the Long Island dumping grounds.
The dog was being walked along the road and went NUTS.
But of course, a fluke....?
grime says no....
in his statement he says...in his opinion...it is suggestive...which to me is far from certain
so a very useful tool...but not 100% reliable
Well Scotland Yard seem to think it is reliable enough for them to announce that they think Madeleine may have died in the apartment
There is nothing else that specifcally suggests that possibilitly afterall ... just the dog alerts
Someone pointed out the other day that DCI Redwood has made a point of never mentioning the EVRD or the CSI dog alerts. Assuming this is true for a moment, does his silence on the issue say rather more than any words could?
To answer the opening question I feel there is an important place for these dogs but do ghosts leave scent?
Someone pointed out the other day that DCI Redwood has made a point of never mentioning the EVRD or the CSI dog alerts. Assuming this is true for a moment, does his silence on the issue say rather more than any words could?
To answer the opening question I feel there is an important place for these dogs but do ghosts leave scent?
They are an asset to help uncover evidence, but in this case the alerts did not lead to any, so I don't see why he would mention them. If the dogs had been a mechanical or other type of asset deployed without results, there would be no reason to mention those either.
Their review led to the conclusion that there was still a chance that she could be alive. The forensic timeline showed opportunity for her to have been taken alive and there is no proof that she died.
"From that vast quantity of material analysed we have identified 38 persons of interest and 12 who are UK nationals, and it is from that position that we are able to move from review to investigation."
DCI Redwood added: "There is no clear, definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead.
"On that basis I genuinely believe there is a possibility she is still alive. And so I would like to ask the public to continue to look for her."
http://news.sky.com/story/1111554/madeleine-mccann-new-uk-police-investigation
At the end of the day they have to explain the dogs reaction. As soon as Eddie entered 5a his demeanour changed significantly according to his handler. Ignoring this evidence will only come back to haunt them when this investigation falters.
At the end of the day they have to explain the dogs reaction. As soon as Eddie entered 5a his demeanour changed significantly according to his handler. Ignoring this evidence will only come back to haunt them when this investigation falters.
The dog was pulling on the leash when walking down the outside passage before he got near the front door. I doubt he could smell cadaver odour in the bedroom on the other side of the appartment, in a closed building and behind a recessed front door.
But he had just been let out of his cage, and he was a bit manic anyway.
True but didn't that happen most times? Mr Grime would know after all?
The dog was pulling on the leash when walking down the outside passage before he got near the front door. I doubt he could smell cadaver odour in the bedroom on the other side of the appartment, in a closed building and behind a recessed front door.
But he had just been let out of his cage, and he was a bit manic anyway.
I agree Eleanor.
Eddie didn't know that what he did was 'work' - to him it was something he did which led to lots of praise and a treat from his owner. IMO he would naturally be excited at that prospect - especially in the first few moments after being released from being confined in his cage for a while.
The dog was pulling on the leash when walking down the outside passage before he got near the front door. I doubt he could smell cadaver odour in the bedroom on the other side of the appartment, in a closed building and behind a recessed front door.
But he had just been let out of his cage, and he was a bit manic anyway.
More "dis Grime" posting based on no experience of EVRD handling whatsoever but hey, let's not let that get in the way of a bit of Grime bashing!
You obviously need to read that Blog Article posted above at 11.00.56 Today.
I agree Eleanor.
Eddie didn't know that what he did was 'work' - to him it was something he did which led to lots of praise and a treat from his owner. IMO he would naturally be excited at that prospect - especially in the first few moments after being released from being confined in his cage for a while.
"The Government’s National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence."
How about starting with false alerts? How many false alerts had Eddie according to Martin Grimes?
"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.
Amongst the most media-covered cases, which they contributed to resolving, is that of the disappearance in Northern Ireland of Attracta Harron, who was last seen when she was returning home on foot, after having been to church. All searches carried out by the police were unsuccessful. The main suspect's car having been totally burnt out in a mysterious fire, couldn't be examined. They called in Eddie, who examined the charred remains of the vehicle and immediately picked out the characteristic odour. Human tissue was found amongst the debris, the DNA of which corresponded to the missing woman. Later, the dog indicated the place - close to a river - where the victim's body had been abandoned. At the home of the suspect, where the police were searching for incriminating evidence, Eddie identified cadaver odour in one of the bedrooms. The man confessed to having killed the woman then moving her body to the banks of the river.
The case of Amanda Edwards, reported missing, is also very impressive. The police, who conducted a search of her ex-partner's home, found small bloodstains there, but no trace of a body. The dog, who was brought in for the examination of the man''s vehicle, alerted to cadaver odour on the tools stored in the boot (a shovel, a level and a compactor). The police went to the building site where the suspect had worked a few days before and discovered the body, buried in a garage. The murderer had made efficient use of his tools to carry out his task.
It's also thanks to the help of the dogs that the case of Charlotte Pinkley, a missing British woman, who had been imprisoned by her ex-partner, was resolved. The police requested the help of the specialist dog team to try to find the young woman's body. Eddie picked out a place where the abductor had provisionally left his victim. In the surrounding area, the investigators found the button from a dress that had belonged to Charlotte. That clue exposed the murderer, who ended up showing the police the place where he had hidden the body."
I think that most people would agree that Martin Grime is far more expert on the subject of the work of dogs in police investigations than anyone on this forum (probably, unless there happens to be an expert lurking) and even more expert than the average police officer (no matter how senior that officer happens to be).
Therefore we should read with care what Martin Grime himself said in his report after the trip he made to PDL with Eddie and Keela. I am certain that the review team (later investigation team) from Scotland Yard have read with care what he had to say and I would expect that the PJ review team (later investigation team) from Oporto have also read with care what he had to say.
A few short quotes from his report will indicate that he does not state that there was any proof of death or even that there was any certainty of "cadaver scent" having been detected by his dogs.
Apt 5A
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent. The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood.
McCann Villa
The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately. It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Clothing
The only alert indication was by the EVRD on clothing from one of the boxes. I am not in possession of the details as these were recorded by the PJ officers present.
McCann Car
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K. It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
General
The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.
That some people (and I would include the initial PJ reaction in this) take this report as definitive proof that a child died in that apartment indicates to me that those people have either not read the report carefully enough or have not done so with a genuinely open mind as to what conclusions can be drawn from the report.
There is a possibility that the dogs alerted to "cadaver scent" and there is an equal possibility according to Martin Grime that they did not. In no location was there any actual evidence found.
This is not a question of "dissing the dogs" whose role in assisting the police is an excellent one. It is a matter of respecting the view of the dog handler himself and his conclusions. As Martin Grime makes clear the dogs a re simply a tool for leading the police to areas where further investigation must be done.
There are questions about the further investigations which were undertaken (and in some cases it seems not undertaken: for example is there any record of the toy having been forensically analysed) but these do not reflect on the work of Martin Grime or his dogs whose contribution should be respected and whose report should be read carefully.
Someone just pm'd me to claim the dog with Mr Grime in the intro is Keela. Not the case, see below.
Eddie is slightly bigger than Keela and had much more white hair on his face. Eddie is now deceased having succumbed to throat cancer. Keela is still active along with new dog
I think that most people would agree that Martin Grime is far more expert on the subject of the work of dogs in police investigations than anyone on this forum (probably, unless there happens to be an expert lurking) and even more expert than the average police officer (no matter how senior that officer happens to be).
Therefore we should read with care what Martin Grime himself said in his report after the trip he made to PDL with Eddie and Keela. I am certain that the review team (later investigation team) from Scotland Yard have read with care what he had to say and I would expect that the PJ review team (later investigation team) from Oporto have also read with care what he had to say.
A few short quotes from his report will indicate that he does not state that there was any proof of death or even that there was any certainty of "cadaver scent" having been detected by his dogs.
Apt 5A
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent. The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood.
McCann Villa
The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately. It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Clothing
The only alert indication was by the EVRD on clothing from one of the boxes. I am not in possession of the details as these were recorded by the PJ officers present.
McCann Car
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K. It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
General
The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.
There is a possibility that the dogs alerted to "cadaver scent" and there is an equal possibility according to Martin Grime that they did not. In no location was there any actual evidence found.
That some people (and I would include the initial PJ reaction in this) take this report as definitive proof that a child died in that apartment indicates to me that those people have either not read the report carefully enough or have not done so with a genuinely open mind as to what conclusions can be drawn from the report.
This is not a question of "dissing the dogs" whose role in assisting the police is an excellent one. It is a matter of respecting the view of the dog handler himself and his conclusions. As Martin Grime makes clear the dogs a re simply a tool for leading the police to areas where further investigation must be done.
There are questions about the further investigations which were undertaken (and in some cases it seems not undertaken: for example is there any record of the toy having been forensically analysed) but these do not reflect on the work of Martin Grime or his dogs whose contribution should be respected and whose report should be read carefully.
When one responds using the quote option the original quote box isn't shown so when two or more quote boxes are used with responses to each as in buzz's post the original quotes disappear rendering the response unreadable.
Moral is not to use multi quotes. As these comments are off topic I will remove them shortly.
Addressing the OP, I think that the only people who can objectively answer the question are the police forces / S&R services who deploy them.
One or two controlled studies have shown that dogs can continue to detect scents for a while after the secondary source material has been removed. On the other hand, at least one other study has shown the effect of handler bias on dogs' reactions.
If dogs were useless, then they wouldn't be used at all. Best practice analysis, adaptations in training methods, assessing the possibility of irrelevant alerts and the avoidance of potential handler bias are no doubt being improved all the time. Their cost effectiveness depends on it.
If their cost effectiveness (presumably not just financial) outweighs the cost of other means over time, then they will continue to be an asset. Expensive excavations wherever a dog happens to alert, or at least not proceeding to eliminate potential irrelevant / innocent alerts would decrease their ROI.
That's not the dogs' fault.
Someone just pm'd me to claim the dog with Mr Grime in the intro is Keela. Not the case, see below.
Eddie is slightly bigger than Keela and had much more white hair on his face. Eddie is now deceased having succumbed to throat cancer. Keela is still active along with 7-year-old dog Morse.
(http://i.imgur.com/3T57FWi.jpg)
///snip///
There is a possibility that the dogs alerted to "cadaver scent" and there is an equal possibility according to Martin Grime that they did not. In no location was there any actual evidence found.
Someone just pm'd me to claim the dog with Mr Grime in the intro is Keela. Not the case, see below.
Eddie is slightly bigger than Keela and had much more white hair on his face. Eddie is now deceased having succumbed to throat cancer. Keela is still active along with 7-year-old dog Morse.
(http://i.imgur.com/3T57FWi.jpg)
The dog was pulling on the leash when walking down the outside passage before he got near the front door. I doubt he could smell cadaver odour in the bedroom on the other side of the appartment, in a closed building and behind a recessed front door.
But he had just been let out of his cage, and he was a bit manic anyway.
I have not read any posts on here which state that Martin Grime`s reports are "definite proof that a child died in the apartment"
Where are these posts? Who are these people?
Again we get a lecture assuming that reports haven`t been read carefully enough and wrong conclusions are being drawn.........What conclusions?
What does seem to be the case is that SY have recently suggested Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment.............This as separate from the "is alive or sadly dead" of previous comments.
It is not unreasonable to bring into the discussion the deployment of the dogs in relation to that.
Both dogs alerting means blood was detected not a cadaver. Dogs are used in tandem. Eddie alerts then Keela checks. If Eddie alerts without Keela = cadaver scent'
A careful analysis of my post will make it clear that I have not stated that there are any people on this forum foolish enough to claim that Martin Grime's reports are conclusive proof of anyone's death in that apartment. I have not read every post here and do not claim to have evidence of any such thing. My post was more general in it's implications. There is a misunderstanding more generally about the nature of the work of the dogs, that was clear in the many news articles back in 2007 which jumped to unfortunate conclusions and from a persistence in the commentary by certain groups in other places about the subject. It does no harm to remind everyone that Martin Grime himself was adamant that there was no evidence to support the claim, and that his dogs merely provide indications "must" be supported by other evidence.
More widely still, have you not noticed that there are people who accept Amaral's conclusion based on his failure to grasp either the Grime report or the DNA report (or both) that Madeleine is dead? I am rather surprised if that is the case.
It is a simple statement of fact that there is no proof of anyone having died in Apartment 5A or that any cadaver was transported in the McCann hire car. And to claim otherwise does suggest a less than proper understanding of the reports.
So we now see that SY have confirmed the reality that Madeleine may be alive or dead, albeit using slightly different wording. All those people who have read the Grime report properly understand that fact.
But there are others, such as Amaral and those who claim that his investigation team did a good job and that his definitive conclusion that Madeleine is dead is sensible, who apparently do not accept the logical conclusion based on the Grime report and all the other inconclusive evidence that she may just in fact still be alive.
Scotland Yard have not suggested that she may not be alive have they? Their investigation is still looking at all possibilities as far as I can see.
You can't blame the dogs because of the actions of a few idiotic senior investigating officers.
Just two small points
1
How come the CSI team so singularly failed to pick up on any trace of blood?
2.
The PJ was offered the services of Keela as early as late May 2007. How come that offer was turned down at the time?
What humans understand is not always what animals are trying to communicate.
1. I understood that there was blood detected in Apartment 5A at a location alerted to by both Eddie and Keela (behind the sofa?) and this was found not to be from a McCann. I also understand that blood was found on the key fob in the car right by the driver's door where Eddie did his alerting. This was found to be specifically from Gerry McCann I believe.
2. I did not know that the services of these specific dogs (which in May were still actual police dogs) was offered back in May 2007. Do you have a link to that information? But I have no idea why the PJ under the co-ordination of Amaral at the time would have failed to make use of the dogs so early when they may have been of far more use than in August when a number of other families had lived in the apartment and it had presumably been cleaned literally dozens of times. I find it just as bizarre the reasons given by Amaral for his team's refusal to do a reconstruction at the earliest opportunity.
Scotland Yard have not suggested that she may not be alive have they?
So how many age progressed photos of her did you see on Crimewatch?
Don't seem to be making a great deal of effort on that front really do they.
The girl has been frozen in time, or fridge, as a 3 year old.
Only stuff reacted to by Keela was sent to the FSS, suggesting that everything sent to the FSS had a component of blood.
For example, no clothing was sent and Keela didn't react to any clothing.
So, because during one extremely brief update the public was exposed only to one of the most famous images of the child, you conclude that the direction of the SY investigation has changed. You don't think it might simply have been that in such a short report it was better to use the known image to get the focus of the public on the issue more immediately? Your second guessing the motive for the use of this particular picture is simply that, guesswork.
As you are presumably fully aware, though apparently reluctant to admit it, the answer to my question is clear. There has been no suggestion from anyone at SY or for that matter the Oporto PJ Investigation team that they are doing anything other than continuing in the work they have been doing for some time, that is searching for a missing child who may be dead but also may be alive.
Are they doing that, or are they looking for a perpetrator ?
The two things are not necessarily the same. and finding one may not lead to the other.
A careful analysis of my post will make it clear that I have not stated that there are any people on this forum foolish enough to claim that Martin Grime's reports are conclusive proof of anyone's death in that apartment. I have not read every post here and do not claim to have evidence of any such thing. My post was more general in it's implications. There is a misunderstanding more generally about the nature of the work of the dogs, that was clear in the many news articles back in 2007 which jumped to unfortunate conclusions and from a persistence in the commentary by certain groups in other places about the subject. It does no harm to remind everyone that Martin Grime himself was adamant that there was no evidence to support the claim, and that his dogs merely provide indications "must" be supported by other evidence.
More widely still, have you not noticed that there are people who accept Amaral's conclusion based on his failure to grasp either the Grime report or the DNA report (or both) that Madeleine is dead? I am rather surprised if that is the case.
It is a simple statement of fact that there is no proof of anyone having died in Apartment 5A or that any cadaver was transported in the McCann hire car. And to claim otherwise does suggest a less than proper understanding of the reports.
So we now see that SY have confirmed the reality that Madeleine may be alive or dead, albeit using slightly different wording. All those people who have read the Grime report properly understand that fact.
But there are others, such as Amaral and those who claim that his investigation team did a good job and that his definitive conclusion that Madeleine is dead is sensible, who apparently do not accept the logical conclusion based on the Grime report and all the other inconclusive evidence that she may just in fact still be alive.
Scotland Yard have not suggested that she may not be alive have they? Their investigation is still looking at all possibilities as far as I can see.
If ever we needed proof that the Brits are nation of dog lovers look no further than here.
No less than seven woofer threads now, all going round like giant Oozlum Birds finally to disappear.....well you know the legend.
And as if it were some kind of portent when I was driving back from wherever I had been today I saw silver Peugeot coupe thing registration plate K9 O00F. Cool
So, because during one extremely brief update the public was exposed only to one of the most famous images of the child, you conclude that the direction of the SY investigation has changed. You don't think it might simply have been that in such a short report it was better to use the known image to get the focus of the public on the issue more immediately? Your second-guessing the motive for the use of this particular picture is simply that, guesswork.
As you are presumably fully aware, though apparently reluctant to admit it, the answer to my question is clear. There has been no suggestion from anyone at SY or for that matter the Oporto PJ Investigation team that they are doing anything other than continuing in the work they have been doing for some time, that is searching for a missing child who may be dead but also may be alive.
get the focus of the public on the issue more immediately?
The issue is a missing child who is apparently real, live & findable & whom we are encouraged to look for, is it not.
What use to us the vigilant public or, more importantly, to Madeleine, is a picture of her aged 3.
Why would I be reluctant to admit they have said they think she may be alive?
They definiteley said it, I just aint stupid enough to believe it.
You are absolutely correct to differentiate between the two possibilities. But from the statements made by both organisations over the last year or so I believe they are doing searching for the child and also attempting to find the perpetrator. However the search for a missing child was specifically relevant to the post I was making and it's connection to the question as to whether the dog alerts prove the death of Madeleine or not, and therefore I mentioned that.
Yes, Grime is clear about that in his report where he states that no human remains (or potential human remains) were found so there was nothing to analyse. He still went on to make it clear that the alerts were only "suggestive" of cadaver scent and could not be definitive evidence of such.
I take issue based on the clear statements of Martin Grime with this sentence in your post.
I do not believe there is any documentation from Grime which suggests this is the truth and it is this belief which is incorrect which confuses the issue and suggests that there is some kind of proof that a death occurred in Apartment 5A for example..
What Martin Grime is very clear to point out is that if Eddie alerts without Keela that results in the possibility of Cadaver Scent and is not definitive proof that Cadaver Scent is present.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
He goes on to say that the alert from the dog may also be the result of cross-contamination at the scene and that no evidential reliability can be placed on the alerts as they stand.
Amaral, for example, seems to ignore these rather important qualifications within the Grime report.
I think maybe many of the dog- lovers discussing the Madeleine case might love them and their handler a bit more had they alerted somewhere.........anywhere...........other than around the McCanns! (imo of course)
Considering they think the dogs were rubbish why do they keep banging on about it on seven different threads? Who are trying to convince?
You could paper a few walls if you printed off all the bleedin' the posts @)(++(*
Considering they think the dogs were rubbish why do they keep banging on about it on seven different threads? Who are trying to convince?
You could paper a few walls if you printed off all the bleedin' the posts @)(++(*
A few more to add to the list I posted earlier about the reliability of these dogs:
Eddie was part of the enquiry that found the body parts of 17 year old Shafilea Ahmed
His first find was Barnsley man Shane Collier whose body was split over two graves.
Part of the inquiry team that found the body of pensioner Attracta Harron, who is believed to have been murdered in Northern Ireland. They discovered her remains in a river bank in County Tyrone.
Police in Northern Ireland, including a team of divers, had conducted extensive searches for Mrs Harron, but had been unable to trace her.
PC Ellis said: "If it hadn't have been for the dogs we would have missed her."
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/local-stories/wuff-justice-doggy-sleuths-on-the-trail-of-murder-victims-1-2543216
yes we are all well aware that if theres a stiff eddie will find it...the problem is...what if theres no stiff and eddie alerts...you keep answering the WRONG question
Well.....if there`s a stiff you wouldn`t need Eddie to find it.
well serendipity has just posted that eddie found three...it seems that's eddies strong point
and another find by Eddie. Charlotte Pinkney's killer jailed for life http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4264963.stm
Charlotte Pinkney was abducted by an ex-boyfriend and has never been seen since.
An initial search by the EVRD revealed a 'classic' secondary deposition site near to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. The investigative team distrusted the dogs opinion until a full forensic search revealed a small button off of the girls clothing in long grass. This evidence was put to the suspect who fully admitted the offence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
I know, Davel........sorry for any offence.....just being facetious.
yes we are all well aware that if theres a stiff eddie will find it...the problem is...what if theres no stiff and eddie alerts...you keep answering the WRONG question
Well.....if there`s a stiff you wouldn`t need Eddie to find it.
Do keep up Dave This thread is about the reliability of such specialist dogs. I have more than demonstrated just how reliable dogs like Eddie and Keela are.
Grime was asked....
"'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''
He could have answered yes if yes was true...he didn't...he evaded the question
This is the usual banal resonse...as long as their are threads then posters of either side will answer claims made by the upper...as long as posters bang on about the dogs telling us that Maddie died in the apartment...then I for one will continually correct them
Of course; what else but.
I don't recall anyone having said that the dogs told them Madeleine McCann died in the apartment.
That would be a somewhat bizarre statement to make don't you think?
The MPS now say that death in the apartment is a possibility (something you now profess to have been saying for a long time).
Is it not possible that a dog alert in the apartment was a sign post for them with further work to follow?
Any one with an inquiring mind would wonder why there is so much verbiage attempting to discredit the principle of dogs in this application. Although putting it in context it is not in fact attempting to discredit the principle, it is a concerted effort to discredit "one man and his dogs".
If ever we needed proof that the Brits are nation of dog lovers look no further than here.
No less than seven woofer threads now, all going round like giant Oozlum Birds finally to disappear.....well you know the legend.
And as if it were some kind of portent when I was driving back from wherever I had been today I saw silver Peugeot coupe thing registration plate K9 O00F. Cool
Grime answered the second part of the question but evaded the first part...a bit like what you are doing now...so he did not tell us if the indication was reliable even when directly asked...fact
Sniffer Dogs ‘Can Hinder Police Work’
By surreywebmaster | 24/03/2011 - 09:41 | In The News
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies “urgently” need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.
Sniffer dog Eddie was relieved of his police duties after complicating investigations
The Government’s National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.
“There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done,” the report states.
“Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve.”
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have “the potential to cause complications in an inquiry”.
“There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment,” it concluded.
There is an urgent need to have national policy on police sniffer dogs’ training, accreditation and deployment.
National Policing Improvement Agency report
The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.
The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.
The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.
A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the “scent of death” at the Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.
But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.
Sniffer dogs hindered the police probe into Shannon Matthew’s disappearance
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
“The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died,” according to the NPIA report.
“This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture.”
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Police-Sniffer-Dogs-Report-Says-No-Approved-Standards-Are-Complicating-Some-Probes/Article/201103415959107?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15959107_Police_Sniffer_Dogs%3A_Report_Says_No
_________________
Accusing Eddie at being crap at his job again. The other day it was Eddie taking 20 minutes to alert and now this.
Questions asked about Martin Grtime are perfectly valid. I have made no claims about him.
I await the evidence for your claims though. It will be very interesting to see if you can provide any or if you were simply making a statement about the payment for which you have no proof whatsoever.
John
I think it is time you clarified that our member, Serendipity, has established a credible connection with Martin Grime
This member has, kindly, shared that information with me, and if that same information has been shared with you too, then please speak up and offer your support
I'm sorry, Serendipity, for breaking a confidence, but I feel it is necessary that your contribution is recognised as valid
Did the handler support your and Eleanor`s conclusions about the dog`s behaviour when deployed in this case ...........(or are they again, simply the opinions of amateurs who think they know better?)[/b]
Did the handler give the dog "treats" after alerts in 5A and elsewhere?
Are you implying that an alert in the apartment meant that a treat or praise would ensue?
Benice:-
I agree Eleanor.
Eddie didn't know that what he did was 'work' - to him it was something he did which led to lots of praise and a treat from his owner. IMO he would naturally be excited at that prospect - especially in the first few moments after being released from being confined in his cage for a while
[/b]
Perhaps one of you could clarify your points.
Was the dog given treats for alerting in the apartment and was excited at the prospect?
If true, wouldn`t this affect the dog`s accuracy?
( I did ask earlier, but Eleanor has been rather busy tonight.)
For the record Martin Grime has rightly never claimed that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent in Praia da Luz, he always correctly stated that the alerts were indicative or suggestive of cadaver scent. As it stands the only conclusion one can deduce from the deployment of the dogs in PdL is one of neutrality since forensic science failed to corroborate the findings one way or another.
For his part, Dr Amaral had his own interpretation of the results and wrongly claimed that the dogs had found the scent of death. How or why he came to this conclusion is still the subject of much speculation.(http://i.imgur.com/wYOPnwN.jpg?1)
On the job - EVRD Eddie alerts at the driver's door of the McCann's hire car.
its good to see John agrees with me..Grime does not confirm that the alerts are to cadaver ...what more is there to say
I'm not quite sure what you mean Carew - but
The dogs are trained with the use of rewards (treats). Have you never watched the numerous TV progs about sniffer dogs at airports who are given their 'reward' after successfully identifying drugs etc etc.? the reward is always given afterwards and not periodically during their task.
Those dogs have no idea it is drugs they are alerting to - just an odour they have been trained to recognise.
From memory so I could be completely wrong, but didn't Martin Grime explain that the reason a dog was so interested in what was behind a piece of furniture was because it was a ball - which had been used as a reward during training?
Animals are routinely trained on the basis of treats and/or praise. An animal has to have an incentive to want to work or as they probably consider it, play. What is being suggested is that the dog will in some way take advantage of its handler by giving false alerts in order to get treats. A dog does not have the mental capability to plan such a manoeuvre. Humans do it but not dogs.
ps if dogs did have the mental faculty to mislead I fear they wouldn't even get out the door in a morning.
Another myth dispelled.
If one accepts that the woofers will only do anything because they are expecting a treat , that would call into question the use of K9s in any kind of search function as they would alert to anything that would give them a bonio quickest. Assuming of course that the anthropomorphism suggested by some posters is true. We could start a thread on that; jeez no I was only being sarcastic
I think in the attempts to discredit one man and two dogs some posters are losing sight of where their logic is leading with respect to the use of dogs generally.
If one accepts that the woofers will only do anything because they are expecting a treat , that would call into question the use of K9s in any kind of search function as they would alert to anything that would give them a bonio quickest. Assuming of course that the anthropomorphism suggested by some posters is true. We could start a thread on that; jeez no I was only being sarcastic
I think in the attempts to discredit one man and two dogs some posters are losing sight of where their logic is leading with respect to the use of dogs generally.
I think what posters have lost sight of is the meaning of the alerts...which have been explained by john
I think what posters have lost sight of is the meaning of the alerts...which have been explained by john
I think what you`ve lost sight of is that you can`t generalise about what other people understand about the meaning of the alerts from the inflated assumption that you do.
Posters are aware.
It is simply the forensics were inconclusive, as you know well.
I judge them from what they post
Benice:-
I agree Eleanor.
Eddie didn't know that what he did was 'work' - to him it was something he did which led to lots of praise and a treat from his owner. IMO he would naturally be excited at that prospect - especially in the first few moments after being released from being confined in his cage for a while
[/b]
Perhaps one of you could clarify your points.
Was the dog given treats for alerting in the apartment and was excited at the prospect?
If true, wouldn`t this affect the dog`s accuracy?
( I did ask earlier, but Eleanor has been rather busy tonight.)
Carew:-
Thankyou, Benice....Here`s what I mean......
(and yes, I have watched videos, read reports,etc. .....Please leave out the patronising assumptions that given access to your intepretations / assessments of reports and videos, we will all "see the light." These superior asides seem part and parcel of the entrenched mind-set brought over from your like-minded groups, in which abusing and educating the numpties for a long row of applauding smilies is the norm.)
Isn`t it a matter of accuracy to be specific, rather than post an observation which implies that an excited dog who has been trained with treats will be anticipating receiving them if he alerts?
( By the way, being "interested in a ball" is not the same as an alert.)
Is that clearer?
Do you feel that it is treats and praise which motivated the EVRD to alert?
This needs clarifying because it implies that if he doesn`t alert ........there`ll be no treaties = disappointed doggie.
You see, I feel that there is far more to this than your " don`t you see the light, statements of the obvious"......which taken to their conclusion means there is no point at all in deploying the dogs.
Is that meant for me? If so could you elaborate - as I have no idea what you are talking about?
Eddie was trained to alert for reward - but he was also trained to understand that only a correct alert earned him that reward. So no point in making false alerts.
I have never questioned the validity of the dog's alerts.
Grime said Eddie became excited at 5A (words to that effect) - IMO after watching the video he was already excited long before he got there and I find it impossible to believe that he got excited because he could detect cadaverscent coming from inside 5A from such a long distance away (from as far back as the vehicle) and outside in the fresh air. If you disagree then that is your prerogative, and we shall have to agree to disagree.
With respect, do you have any working dog experience Benice? I ask you this since anyone who has would not have made such a comment.
Anyone who has ever worked with these dogs knows the difference between being excited at being out and about and actually finding something. Clue...its all in the tale. 8(0(*
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_communication
Only inasmuch as I was married to a farmer's son. The sheepdog did get very excited when he first set off to work. It was a different story at the end of the day when he returned home.
IMO Eddie knew he was setting off to 'work' once released from the vehicle - and that is why he got excited - not because he had detected cadaverscent. And I didn't see any change in that excited behaviour when he got to 5A - which I presume was his first job of the day.
Is that meant for me? If so could you elaborate - as I have no idea what you are talking about?
Eddie was trained to alert for reward - but he was also trained to understand that only a correct alert earned him that reward. So no point in making false alerts.
I have never questioned the validity of the dog's alerts.
Grime said Eddie became excited at 5A (words to that effect) - IMO after watching the video he was already excited long before he got there and I find it impossible to believe that he got excited because he could detect cadaverscent coming from inside 5A from such a long distance away (from as far back as the vehicle) and outside in the fresh air. If you disagree then that is your prerogative, and we shall have to agree to disagree.
Eddie barked at the wardrobe because he was excited @)(++(* Or maybe he barked because he wanted to go back in his cage @)(++(* 8-)(--)
...or maybe he detected cadaver scent.
Is that meant for me? If so could you elaborate - as I have no idea what you are talking about?
Eddie was trained to alert for reward - but he was also trained to understand that only a correct alert earned him that reward. So no point in making false alerts.
I have never questioned the validity of the dog's alerts.
Grime said Eddie became excited at 5A (words to that effect) - IMO after watching the video he was already excited long before he got there and I find it impossible to believe that he got excited because he could detect cadaverscent coming from inside 5A from such a long distance away (from as far back as the vehicle) and outside in the fresh air. If you disagree then that is your prerogative, and we shall have to agree to disagree.
Only inasmuch as I was married to a farmer's son. The sheepdog did get very excited when he first set off to work. It was a different story at the end of the day when he returned home.
IMO Eddie knew he was setting off to 'work' once released from the vehicle - and that is why he got excited - not because he had detected cadaverscent. And I didn't see any change in that excited behaviour when he got to 5A - which I presume was his first job of the day.
Benice.............
Your self-assessed superior "common sense" would ensure that you understood quite well that my response was to you, surely?..........It is obvious and the post is quite clear.
There is nothing to add.
You are inclined to put out propaganda by selectively adopting your "common sense " assessment of the deployment of the dogs......(imo. of course.)
Only inasmuch as I was married to a farmer's son. The sheepdog did get very excited when he first set off to work. It was a different story at the end of the day when he returned home.
IMO Eddie knew he was setting off to 'work' once released from the vehicle - and that is why he got excited - not because he had detected cadaverscent. And I didn't see any change in that excited behaviour when he got to 5A - which I presume was his first job of the day.
For the record I do not hold with Birch's theory.
However, just theorising for a moment, it is possible for a dog to miss a body if it has been covered in lime before being buried as the lime would mask the scent of death.
http://www.murderpedia.org/male.D/d/dobkin-harry.htm
Lime mummifies the body. So if chlorinated or quicklime was lime used to cover a body there would be no odour. Lime is plentiful in Portugal as it is used in the wash to cover the outside of houses.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571109/DNA-profile-created-Jane-Doe-body-Oklahoma-river-1980-killers-unintentionally-covered-chemical-mummified-corpse.html
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59T08k5buBwC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=quicklime+mummification&source=bl&ots=8iglIwyB8R&sig=iCNt_PXuTOPCRd2aziuO-LT69_A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ASo0U73tN4Sm0AWvhIHoBA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=quicklime%20mummification&f=false
So, in theory, if a body was on Murat's property when Eddie checked, he would not have failed in his remit to detect it's scent as the scent that he is trained to detect would have been masked and undetectable to him.
But Mr Grime did and since it was his dog, don't you think that he'd know best? You're giving an opinion (which you are of course entitled too) that is contrary to that of the dogs owner/handler.
Imo it seems a little.... arrogant to assume that you know someone else's dog better than they do, especially when that owner is a very highly respected dog trainer.
IMO - the same can be said about people who assume they know better than SY and yet have no experience of policework themselves. And yet this forum is full of posts from people questioning their expertise - even their integrity in some instances.
But there you go - one rule for one and another for Martin Grime apparently - whose part in this case must not be queried or discussed - because of his expertise as a dog trainer. BTW - that's dog trainer - not astro-physicist. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can read and understand enough about Sniffer dogs to have an informed opinion on the subject imo. It's not rocket science.
IMO - the same can be said about people who assume they know better than SY and yet have no experience of policework themselves. And yet this forum is full of posts from people questioning their expertise - even their integrity in some instances.
But there you go - one rule for one and another for Martin Grime apparently - whose part in this case must not be queried or discussed - because of his expertise as a dog trainer. BTW - that's dog trainer - not astro-physicist. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can read and understand enough about Sniffer dogs to have an informed opinion on the subject imo. It's not rocket science.
IMO that is not the case. Imo you are claiming to know more about a particular dog then a particular trainer, based on having watched one video.
Should I express the opinion that SY have made mistakes in the past, that's one thing. Should I claim that Andy Redwood doesn't know his arse from his elbow, that an entirely different thing all together.
IMO, you saying that you see no difference in Eddie's reaction between getting out of the car and entering the apartment is akin to the latter.
Also, IMO, the amount of crap thrown at the PJ on these pages, it wouldn't surprise me if SY is criticized in retaliation.
As it goes, I think SY and AR are doing a sterling job and I look forward to their results in the fullness of time.
All imo of course.
Yep, and you only have to look at the case of Eugene Zapatta ,where his wife turned up alive & well after all them years, to know how incredibly unreliable those cadaver dogs are.>@@(*&) yes and as compensation for those horrible unreliable dog signals wasn't he given vouchers for five years worth of free luxury hotel accomodation?
It is a fact that the EVRD dog has not been proven to be right in the McCann case. And no matter how many statistics and comments may be offered or however many times the failure of one dog to alert is made out to "= cadaver scent", the reality is that there is no proof that a dead body was in Apartment 5A
A great deal when it comes to what one would term ' the repetitive ad nauseam.
A great deal when it comes to what one would term ' the repetitive ad nauseam.
Would it were only davel.
Again, why are you insisting that the cadaver dog alert does not 'prove' there was a dead body in apartment 5A as if the point is being argued ? ... no-one has suggested that the dog alert provides 'proof' of a dead being in apartment 5A
It is 'suggestive' of it though
Suggestive enough for Scotland Yard to think Madeleine may have died there
you are now making things up which shows the weakness of your argument....you make a connection between the alerts and SYs statement....SY haven't made this connection
you are now making things up which shows the weakness of your argument....you make a connection between the alerts and SYs statement....SY haven't made this connection
Are you sure about that?
As it is I should hope not after 2 years looking into the matter of cadvaver odour.
Again, why are you insisting that the cadaver dog alert does not 'prove' there was a dead body in apartment 5A as if the point is being argued ? ... no-one has suggested that the dog alert provides 'proof' of a dead being in apartment 5A
It is 'suggestive' of it though
Suggestive enough for Scotland Yard to think Madeleine may have died there
Total non-sequitur.
There is no evidence that I have seen (or, I believe, that you have seen) which indicates that the SY statement is based either entirely or even partially on the dog alerts. It is simply a normal statement when a person has been missing for such a long period. They may be alive or dead.
They will be taking them into account of course.
But you seem to be forgetting that a rather important (in relation to this case) libel trial is being conducted in Portugal where one of the crucial points at issue is the level of proof which the dog alerts provide. Amaral for some unknown reason appears to believe as Serendipity claimed yesterday that an alert by Eddie which is not confirmed by the blood dog, Keela, "= cadaver scent". That statement ignores the fact that Martin Grime and Scotland Yard have never claimed any such thing and demonstrates that people do believe that the one proves the other to be true.
If there are sites in which people are claiming that a cadaver dog signal is indicative of Madeleine Mccanns death in 5A, wouldn't you be better off making your points there?
We don't require it here.
No, its slightly more than that.
Redwood specifically mentioned the possibility of death before leaving the apartment. He need not have done this merely to suggest that she may be dead or alive.
Tis not for me to say whether you are required here or not. I was simply pointing out that no one is making wild claims about cadaver scent here, it's therefore unnecessary to constantly go on about how people act on other sites.
you are now making things up which shows the weakness of your argument....you make a connection between the alerts and SYs statement....SY haven't made this connection
Again, there was nothing and still is nothing which logically shows that Redwood's claim is based on anything other than the fact that the child is missing. Of course she could have died in or out of the apartment!
Even had no dogs ever been near the place that would be the totally logical position to hold.
Its most interesting given that we are led to believe that you have inside information that your claim I queried yesterday about Grime has been removed from the forum. But putting that to one side...
Your reply above in no way at all answers the point I made.
You stated in a previous post that if Eddie alerted and Keela did not alert, and I quote, that "= cadaver scent".
The point I made is that Martin Grime (who we are told you are supposedly able to defend because of some kind of inside knowledge that you claim to have) categorically did not equate such a situation where one dog alerted and the other did not to " = cadaver scent" as you have stated. You are totally misrepresenting what Martin Grime stated in his report.
He said that it was simply suggestive of "cadaver scent".
Why are you misrepresenting the report which Martin Grime wrote and exaggerating the significance by leaving out the doubt which he deliberately and repeatedly emphasised?
The point I made was totally different to the one you have answered. The point is not that the dogs have never been proven to be wrong but that they have not always been proven to be right. There is a very clear distinction between the two matters.
It is a fact that the EVRD dog has not been proven to be right in the McCann case. And no matter how many statistics and comments may be offered or however many times the failure of one dog to alert is made out to "= cadaver scent", the reality is that there is no proof that a dead body was in Apartment 5A or the McCann hire car. We only have to read the words of Martin Grime in his own personal report to understand that.
I repeat, why are you misrepresenting what he wrote?
I was told of an interesting experiment yesterday in order to test at what stage after death a properly trained dog can detect the scent of death or cadaverine.
In order to accomplish this, gauzes were left in contact with a newly deceased body at varying intervals starting at 70 mins, 85 mins etc...
Scent dogs were then introduced in an attempt to alert to the contaminated gauzes. Conclusion was that they didn't alert to the 70 min gauze but did to the following ones commencing 1hr 25 mins.
Thus why a period of approximately 1½ hrs must elapse before a victim recovery dog will alert to a newly deceased cadaver. Inevitably, this period of time will shorten with increased temperature.
Scotland Yard think Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A
I'll tell you what a 'weak argument' is ... suggesting that Scotland Yard came to that conclusion without any consideration at all of the cadaver dog alerts ... that the dog alerts have nothing whatsoever to do with Scotland Yard thinking Madeleine died in the apartment ... that whilst they have some 'other' imagined reason for thinking Madeleine died in the apartment, it was certainly not because cadaver dog intelligence was suggestive that a dead body had been there ... no siree
Now that's a weak argument
No-one has ever said that the dog alerts have been ruled out and only last week Andy Redwood suggested very strongly that they are still very much in play when he said there was a possibility that Madeleine was not alive BEFORE she left the apartment. He did not say she might not be alive. He made a point of indicating a timeline for such a possibility. Not finding a body does not make them wrong and we must not forget that forensics did not rule Madeleine in and nor did they rule her out. Given the excellent track record of the dogs, it is highly unlikely that Eddie was wrong, he alerted to cadaver scent but he has no way of knowing whose scent that belonged to, it is up to the authorities to determine if he was alerting to Madeleine or to another person. Therefore it cannot be categorically stated that the dogs were wrong in the McCann case. Whether they were or not will not be known until the case is resolved.
Despite claiming you have studied cadaver odour for two years, you have a lot to learn in terms of the way that Eddie and Keela worked and the following demonstrates that clearly:
'however many times the failure of one dog to alert is made out to "= cadaver scent"''
Keela was never trained to alert to cadaver scent, so how could she be deemed to have failed to alert to it? She was trained to alert to blood only. Eddie on the other hand was trained to alert to both blood and cadaver scent only. Neither dogs were trained to alert to anything else so when they alerted it will only ever be to what they were trained to alert to and nothing else. Both dogs were deconditioned to alert to any other bodily fluids such as semen, urine etc unless they were mixed with blood. They were used in tandem as a fail safe method of determining what was being alerted to. Using two dogs, both who were trained to alert to blood and one who was trained to alert to cadaver scent made that possible. If Eddie was to alert, Martin would know that he had alerted to either blood or cadaver scent or both as they were the only two things he was trained for but would need to deploy Keela to validate Eddies alert. As Keela only alerted to blood, if she did not also alert then it would mean that as per his training Eddie was only alerting to the other scent he was trained to detect i.e. cadaver scent. If Keela also alerted to the same item/location as Eddie then the alerts would only be attributed to blood as Keela was not trained to detect cadaver scent. Legally a blood alert is the only alert that authorities can accept as it can be proven what it is the dogs alerted to. Where Keela does not alert but Eddie does alert Martin knows that = cadaver scent as that's what the dog was trained to detect but of course he cannot legally state that. It is up to police to identify any corroborative evidence to prove that Eddie was indeed alerting to where a body or body part had been, which is why Martin can only state that it is 'suggestive' of cadaver scent until either a body or other forensic corroborative evidence explaining the alert is found.
Death in the apartment was already suspected before the dogs were brought in
No-one has ever said that the dog alerts have been ruled out and only last week Andy Redwood suggested very strongly that they are still very much in play when he said there was a possibility that Madeleine was not alive BEFORE she left the apartment. He did not say she might not be alive. He made a point of indicating a timeline for such a possibility. Not finding a body does not make them wrong and we must not forget that forensics did not rule Madeleine in and nor did they rule her out. Given the excellent track record of the dogs, it is highly unlikely that Eddie was wrong, he alerted to cadaver scent but he has no way of knowing whose scent that belonged to, it is up to the authorities to determine if he was alerting to Madeleine or to another person. Therefore it cannot be categorically stated that the dogs were wrong in the McCann case. Whether they were or not will not be known until the case is resolved.
See further posts about the fact that the linking of the dog alerts and Redwood's statement is a non-sequitur.
I have not claimed categorically anywhere that Eddie was wrong and never would do so though that possibility does, of course, exist. It is not the only case where Grime's dogs have suggested cadaver scent and no body has been found though.
Despite claiming you have studied cadaver odour for two years, you have a lot to learn in terms of the way that Eddie and Keela worked and the following demonstrates that clearly:
'however many times the failure of one dog to alert is made out to "= cadaver scent"''
What are you talking about. Nowhere have I ever claimed to have studied cadaver odour for any period of time, let alone two years. You really need to stop inventing such nonsense about other posters. I could even take up your rather over-played idea of reporting such lies.
Keela was never trained to alert to cadaver scent, so how could she be deemed to have failed to alert to it? She was trained to alert to blood only. Eddie on the other hand was trained to alert to both blood and cadaver scent only. Neither dogs were trained to alert to anything else so when they alerted it will only ever be to what they were trained to alert to and nothing else. Both dogs were deconditioned to alert to any other bodily fluids such as semen, urine etc unless they were mixed with blood. They were used in tandem as a fail safe method of determining what was being alerted to. Using two dogs, both who were trained to alert to blood and one who was trained to alert to cadaver scent made that possible. If Eddie was to alert, Martin would know that he had alerted to either blood or cadaver scent or both as they were the only two things he was trained for but would need to deploy Keela to validate Eddies alert. As Keela only alerted to blood, if she did not also alert then it would mean that as per his training Eddie was only alerting to the other scent he was trained to detect i.e. cadaver scent. If Keela also alerted to the same item/location as Eddie then the alerts would only be attributed to blood as Keela was not trained to detect cadaver scent. Legally a blood alert is the only alert that authorities can accept as it can be proven what it is the dogs alerted to. Where Keela does not alert but Eddie does alert Martin knows that = cadaver scent as that's what the dog was trained to detect but of course he cannot legally state that. It is up to police to identify any corroborative evidence to prove that Eddie was indeed alerting to where a body or body part had been, which is why Martin can only state that it is 'suggestive' of cadaver scent until either a body or other forensic corroborative evidence explaining the alert is found.
Please read my posts. I have stated more clearly than most that Grime can only state that it is suggestive of cadaver odour. I have posted full quotes from Grime which show that your "= cadaver scent" claim was totally untrue.
It was you, yesterday, who posted that an absence (better word than failure I will admit) of an alert by Keela means that Eddie's alert "= cadaver scent". You made that categorical claim without any reference to Grime's very clear statement that it was untrue and was only suggestive of such.
Thanks that's very interesting and connects with my theory that something happened 6.30 to 7pm and moved out around 2 hours later. If they think Madeleine died in the apartment then they won't believe she was fine under or on top of the covers in Gerry's case on his check at just after 9pm. If they think he was not telling the truth then Smithman is a first connecting thought.
Death in the apartment was already suspected before the dogs were brought in
Ah but the thing you have to remember is this. Madeleine could have died following some sort of misadventure at any time of the evening after she was last seen. She could have been taken out at any time by someone who later had access to her. Cadaverine contaminated items or clothing could have been brought back to the apartment at any time thereafter and it is that contaminant that Eddie alerted to. Eddie's detection skills were so sharp that even a very small amount of contaminant would have resulted in an alert.
Scotland Yard have now chosen to reveal that they are of the opinion that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. They did not have to reveal this information but did so regardless. This is not a general observation but has to be based on some knowledge. As it stands, the only knowledge which we are aware of on which such a scenario could be based is the dog alerts.
Gilet, for the last time, Serendipity has first hand knowledge of what Eddie and Keela's abilities were. He/she should not be criticised simply because they left out the word 'suggestive' yesterday.
Imagine if Eddie's search of 5A had produced no signals, to SY that would be intelligence: left apartment alive.
No. It would simply be inconclusive work by the dogs. The situation would still remain that missing Madeleine McCann could have died in the apartment or outside the apartment or could still be alive. That is the current situation. That is also the very same situation that has existed since the disappearance on May 3rd 2007.
Funnily enough, davel is just saying the same sort of thing.
Have we turned to a new page on the hymn sheet ? 8(0(*
If you are going to respond to points within a post, it is better to quote the individual points and respond accordingly.
My apologies, I got you mixed up with PV, it was he/she who claimed to have studied cadaver odour.
Don't point me to posts without a referencing link please. Even more preferable would be for you to address the point I make within this thread and not point me to another thread.
If you would like to list the cases where Eddie has alerted and the cases have not been resolved to date, I will take a look and respond.
Thanks :)
Really?
By whom and when was it first mentioned?
the fact that the cadaver dogs were brought in shows death in the apt was suspected
So you are saying that the alert definitely indicates cadaver scent
I was told of an interesting experiment yesterday in order to test at what stage after death a properly trained dog can detect the scent of death or cadaverine.
In order to accomplish this, gauzes were left in contact with a newly deceased body at varying intervals starting at 70 mins, 85 mins etc...
Scent dogs were then introduced in an attempt to alert to the contaminated gauzes. Conclusion was that they didn't alert to the 70 min gauze but did to the following ones commencing 1hr 25 mins.
Thus why a period of approximately 1½ hrs must elapse before a victim recovery dog will alert to a newly deceased cadaver. Inevitably, this period of time will shorten with increased temperature.
See previous post.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg141174#msg141174
"What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times." (Martin Grime)
Thanks. That dates back to 1997. It has already been posted here several times as well. They openly acknowledge that it was an experiment that didn't control variables.
The PJ reached a conclusion that Madeleine had been murdered and invited Mark Harrison to explore that hypothesis.
I think we already know that.
Did they actually specify murder, or is that something that death has morphed into with time ?
"I want my toy back" (cuddle-cat) was another time ...
A second test was done on the toy hidden in the sideboard to confirm if it had cadaver scent. Eddie barked so there's your answer.
Kate also kept it close to her alerted pants.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/KM_GM%20(3).jpg)
Given that until such time as one of the investigative bodies generates a revised thesis the ruling document is the PJ Archiving Report. It may be an opportune moment to look again at what this document said:
D – Dog searches and constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as arguidos
In an attempt to advance towards the discovery of Madeleine's whereabouts, a Report was written by Mark Harrison, National Counsellor for searches at the level of all police agencies in the United Kingdom, concerning Missing Persons, Abduction and Homicides, with his role comprising the counselling in relation to those people.
Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).
From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
1 – The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
2 – That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
3 – Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
4 – In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);
5 – In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);
6 – This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault – 59-DA-27 – that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
7 – Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
8 – The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
9 – After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
10 – It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
11 – It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
12 – Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
13 – This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.
The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.
These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dogs, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory.
Martin Grime, the dogs' instructor himself [20], mentions in his report: "Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations"; or scientist Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that the FSS has no scientific support about the use of the dogs as a fundament for the collection of biological residues and that normally take the handler's word for certification, that asserts that the dogs are more sensitive than any chemical technique or other techniques that are normally used by crime scene sector experts.
In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII – FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).
It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between Madeleine's DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following)
I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted quite extensive research with E.V.R.D in late 1990s. It might be worth looking at by those who are interested.
After all what are we trying to cast doubt on here? The principle of the technology (for want of a better expression) or two operators and two dogs. A much wider net needs to be cast to include all works ever carried out in this field if it is to be convincingly demonstrated that the "technology" is suspect. If it is two men and two dogs the motive is laid bare and all the chat is meaningless.
We all know the dogs alerted...the question is what do the alerts mean. In his statement Grime says that in his OPINION...the dogs alerts are SUGGESTIVE......that all seems very vague.
We all know the dogs alerted...the question is what do the alerts mean. In his statement Grime says that in his OPINION...the dogs alerts are SUGGESTIVE......that all seems very vague.
Complete conjecture, stephen, no? These facial expressions could mean all sorts of things. Complex events and emotions at the time.
Kate knows what is the truth in respect of Kate and Gerry.
That is vastly different from knowing what happened.
As usual you miss the entire point of the post, which is :the archiving report is the governing document. Whether you like it or not or think it vague or whatever is completely irrelevant. You should note that the governing document is not "Davel's extensive opinions as stated on the UK Justice Forum."
As usual you miss the entire point of the post, which is :the archiving report is the governing document. Whether you like it or not or think it vague or whatever is completely irrelevant. You should note that the governing document is not "Davel's extensive opinions as stated on the UK Justice Forum."
No you miss the point...the document says the dogs alerted..we all agree with that...what good is an alert if no one knows what the alert signifies....its totally useless
Furthermore..it may be the governing document at that time...but times have changed...a bit like...themccanns are not suspects...but that could change...you might understand that
No you miss the point...the document says the dogs alerted..we all agree with that...what good is an alert if no one knows what the alert signifies....its totally useless
Furthermore..it may be the governing document at that time...but times have changed...a bit like...themccanns are not suspects...but that could change...you might understand that
An EVRD dog alerted inside 5A, in the garden and on clothes and at none of their friends apartments or Murat's and you don't know what that suggests?
"Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains."
An EVRD dog alerted inside 5A, in the garden and on the clothes and at none of their friends apartments or Murat's and you don't know what that suggests?
"Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains."
You can spin all you like but Martin Grime is not as confident as you about what the alerts mean...but what does he know..hes only the expert
Martin Grime may tell us all one day in court what he really thinks those alerts by Eddie indicated i.e. cadaver scent.
martin grime has already told us what they mean..are you suggesting he has lied
Indeed that is a very important point.
That Archival report was just that, the report of the case as in mid 2008 when it was archived.
Since then there have been years of review and further investigation by both the PJ and the SY units.
It would be quite remarkable if they have not in that time reviewed very, very carefully every single aspect of the dog alerts. It is perfectly possible as well that they have re-interviewed those involved with the dog searches to clarify any issues which may have arisen from the reviews and further investigations which have been done.
For example, it would be important to review the procedures used when collecting the clothing from the McCanns villa. From the videos it is clear that those clothes were not (as we would expect under UK evidence collection guidance) individually collected in separate bags. It would be important to know precisely which items were carried from the villa in which boxes to eliminate the possibility of cross-contamination.
The fact is that the dogs can only be reliable in their indications if the procedures used to deploy them are correctly followed and if the procedures used to preserve the locations and evidence they are asked to investigate are properly followed. I would be amazed if these issues were not a focus in the SY and PJ reviews as they are so important.
He may need to be more explicit in a court, where he can be questioned.
No you miss the point...the document says the dogs alerted..we all agree with that...what good is an alert if no one knows what the alert signifies....its totally useless
Furthermore..it may be the governing document at that time...but times have changed...a bit like...themccanns are not suspects...but that could change...you might understand that
And that same archival report goes on to explain very clearly that none of the traces alerted to by the dogs were later ratified in the laboratory. Indeed this very report tells us that none of the indications that led to the McCanns being made arguidos were later confirmed or consolidated.
Rather significant conclusions, in my opinion, which should not be ignored any more than the dog alerts themselves should be ignored.
Well I know what it suggests. It suggests that there may have been "cadaver odour" present at those places and on those close. As Martin Grime points out, it does not prove that there was such odour present in any of those places.
It is also vital to remember that there had been no preservation of the scene (either the apartment or the garden) prior to the dogs being deployed and therefore no way of knowing whether the alerts there (if they did accurately point to "cadaver odour" being present) related to the McCanns.
Nor is there any evidence to show that the alerts on the clothes could not have been due to cross-contamination as there was no attempt made to keep the clothing separate.
I would hope that all these issues have been covered by both the SY and PJ reviews of the case since 2008. I would be very surprised if they have not been.
Martin Grime may tell us all one day in court what he really thinks those alerts by Eddie indicated i.e. cadaver scent.
I'd agree with that.
He may need to be more explicit in a court, where he can be questioned.
I don't see how he can contradict what he has already said...it would make him look a very poor witness
Thank you. He can explain everything in court.
Sadly, no sign of one and all the while, the guilty go unpunished.
I see little point in placing the blame anywhere. What is important is that the investigation progresses and delivers the proper result.
From Gilet:-
"Well I know what it suggests. It suggests that there may have been "cadaver odour" present at those places and on those close. As Martin Grime points out, it does not prove that there was such odour present in any of those places.
It is also vital to remember that there had been no preservation of the scene (either the apartment or the garden) prior to the dogs being deployed and therefore no way of knowing whether the alerts there (if they did accurately point to "cadaver odour" being present) related to the McCanns.
Nor is there any evidence to show that the alerts on the clothes could not have been due to cross-contamination as there was no attempt made to keep the clothing separate.
I would hope that all these issues have been covered by both the SY and PJ reviews of the case since 2008. I would be very surprised if they have not been."
After agreeing with Gilet`s hopes that all issues associated with the alerts have been covered in the SY and PJ reviews since 2008, what do you make of SY`s recent comments about Madeleine having not been alive when she left the apartment?
Do you link the recent comments with any review of the issues surrounding the dog alerts ?
Why would the comments be introduced into the mix at this time?
Thank you. He can explain everything in court.
By George she's got it! (with apologies to Bernard Shaw)
Till then, his own report is the most authoritative document outlining his views.
And there he is adamant that the alerts are not evidence of Madeleine being dead, nor are they even definitive evidence that "cadaver scent" was found, simply that they suggest that possibility. Any other interpretation of the alerts without other evidence is simply incorrect.
Of course it doesn't really matter as SY will interpret the report in whatever way they choose.
Sadly, no sign of one and all the while, the guilty go unpunished.
Your misrepresentation of the comment from SY is sad.
The comment was not about the missing child "having not been alive". It was about the possibility of that being the case.
It has not recently been introduced as a possibility either. The possibility has always existed that Madeleine was alive when she left the apartment or that she was not. The dog alerts are one indication which may point to the latter.
Please also remember that the review was concluded some considerable time ago so I hardly think that has affected the most recent statement.
We have no way at all of knowing what may have prompted the most recent comments. It may be related to the dogs or it may be related to other intelligence regarding the known behaviour of suspects who SY are looking at, for example.
I will comment on the relationship between the two when there is some evidence that such a relationship exists. Till then it is simply speculation.
Should they do so, I have no doubt they will, as I made very clear in the part of my post you underlined, be doing so based on "other evidence".
Can't say I bothered about what evidence they may have used.
As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is that they have publicly declared that Madeleine may no longer be alive and that she may have died in the apartment.
That is a big step forward in the investigation.
Not in the slightest,,,that was accepted as a possibility in 2007...that's why the dogs were brought in...what other reason could there have been to have a cadaver dog search the appt
I don't dispute that but it is the first time SY have publicly admitted such a possibility.
The thread title is:
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
Well are they? We seem to be doing "Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable in the McCann case" in isolation. A bit like the bloke who didn't know how many beans made 5; he could do it fountain pens but not in beans.
Couple of links for woofer fans and unfans. There is an amazing 15 page bibliography on one going back to 1964.
http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/files/applied-forensic-sciences/hochrein-bibliography/2011canines-and-scent.pdf
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2000/12/death-s-dogs-cadaver-search-canines.aspx
So when someone has worked their way through the 15 page bibliography and come to ................well you know which way this is going.
And I thought "it had been proven that cadaver dogs were notoriously unreliable" paraphrased again.
But its always been a possibility, just not discussed. Have they admitted that an accident in the apt is a possibility and a cover up by the parents...no...not even a possibility
Why should I bother with 15 pages when Grime has explained everything already
You may then be better informed. Notice I didn't say wiser.
You might then be able to do better for a cite, when challenged by another poster, than "I read it somewhere; in a book I fink" paraphrased as usual.
Of course you don't have to bother. There are others on this forum; or is your arrogance so supreme you believe every post is aimed at you?
Not in the slightest,,,that was accepted as a possibility in 2007...that's why the dogs were brought in...what other reason could there have been to have a cadaver dog search the appt
but weren`t the "inconclusive" forensics publicly put forward as "no evidence " .........with no mention of the possibility of a death officially made until recently.
but weren`t the "inconclusive" forensics publicly put forward as "no evidence " .........with no mention of the possibility of a death officially made until recently.
The possibility of a death has been made by SY for some time
In fact, they didn't merely decide that Madeleine was definitely dead.
They decided that she had been murdered
I notice that the word used in the terms of reference is homicide. There are various classifications of homicide, only one of which is murder. Criminal homicides also include voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
Not really, Gilet............Had you taken the trouble to read my post to you ( 215), before I typed this one............you would have seen that I said "may have.....etc"
What is sad is that you would leap on an accidentally missed word to deflect and waffle even more.
(Now that is sad!)
Let me put it this way...........What do you think stopped SY saying that Madeleine MAY not have been alive when she left the apartment before the recent revelation by Redwood?
Can't say I bothered about what evidence they may have used.
As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is that they have publicly declared that Madeleine may no longer be alive and that she may have died in the apartment.
That is a big step forward in the investigation.
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
Mark Harrison
From the very first comments of Redwood about the case it has been stated that Madeleine may be alive and may not be alive. You are clutching at very faint ghosts of straws with this line. There has always been the possibility that she died in the apartment right back to May 2007. That has nothing to do with the dogs. It is entirely to do with logic.
That you think this is a step forward is quite amusing.
In fact, they didn't merely decide that Madeleine was definitely dead.
They decided that she had been murdered
That is not what you quoted in post 260
I quoted Harrison's terms of reference in post 260.
And ...
Harrison's terms of reference:
Terms of reference to provide assistance to the Portuguese Judicial Police.
1. Assist the Judicial Police and GNR in assessing new or previous areas searched and give opinion on the best methods and assets to provide assurance as to the absence or presence of M McCann's concealed remains.
2. Act as a "critical friend" to the officer in charge of search planning and management and offer immediate and enduring peer review until case resolution or search suspension.
3. Assist in the development of framework models such as scenario based searching to aid homicide disposal searching.
4. Consider further opportunities or areas for search in order to locate M McCann (locate, rather than find) as applicable to the latest intelligence and informtion provided.
5. Where appropriate, provide independent and impartial advice on the enabling and disabling factors of specialist resources available either within Portugal or elsewhere in body detection.
6. To assist in decision support where requested by testing and challenging claims made by persons offering unorthodox search methods or devices to aid locating M McCann.
7. Where appropriate and requested, assist in advising on procedures to procure any non Portuguese specialist assets that are deemed to be relevant and useful.
So did Harrison write his own terms of reference?
That is not what you quoted in post 260
In one case Harrison uses the term 'homicide', in the other Harrison specifically uses the term 'murdered'.
Those are both direct quotations from him.
I am at a complete loss as to understand what problem you have with that fact.
I have no problem beyond what was quoted in post 260 was not the word murder. Homicide has a wider meaning, particularly in other countries. I am quite happy to accept that Harrison used the word in another document.
From the very first comments of Redwood about the case it has been stated that Madeleine may be alive and may not be alive. You are clutching at very faint ghosts of straws with this line. There has always been the possibility that she died in the apartment right back to May 2007. That has nothing to do with the dogs. It is entirely to do with logic.
That you think this is a step forward is quite amusing.
I am afraid that you have completely invented this problem of the word in post not being murder.
You seem to be under the impression that someone has claimed that it was. I think that is a mistake on your part.
I apologise if I am wrong about that but cannot find anyone having done so. Can you provide me with a link or am I correct about the matter?
How ridiculous! You expect me to know when commenting on a post that you have forgotten to put in a word which makes the sense very different.
Nothing stopped them. Nothing at all. It has always been a possibility. It was considered by the PJ if you had not noticed back in 2007.
You can spin all you like but Martin Grime is not as confident as you about what the alerts mean...but what does he know..hes only the expert
Quote from: davel on January 28, 2014, 08:00:18 PM
I think we have already established the chances of Maddie dying in the apartment are non existent...what could she have died from?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3150.735
You still don't get it Dave. As a professional expert dog handler Martin Grime has to be very careful how he words his reports for obvious reasons. He and Eddie had a long history of success together well before the McCann case, some of these cases Serendipity has already referred to. He knows very well what Eddie alerted to in apartment 5a but as he stated in his report, this cannot be confirmed or corroborated without scientific forensic evidence to back it up. He didn't come out and declare that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
But... but... I don't understand? Isn't davel now saying that there was always a chance of Maddie (sic) Dying in the apartment and that sy saying that means nothing?
Mind.Blown.
Looks like goalposts are being shifted all over the place.
You still don't get it Dave. As a professional expert dog handler Martin Grime has to be very careful how he words his reports for obvious reasons. He and Eddie had a long history of success together well before the McCann case, some of these cases Serendipity has already referred to. He knows very well what Eddie alerted to in apartment 5a but as he stated in his report, this cannot be confirmed or corroborated without scientific forensic evidence to back it up. He didn't come out and declare that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
.........and you stop being so rude!......
(or are you another one on a mission to abuse and educate an imagined lynch mob for a high-five with Davel and a row of flag- waving smilies from your other cronies?)
You bypassed my earlier reply to your own post, which explained perfectly well what I meant............ preferring to pounce onto a mistake in a later one to Carana.........not to you at all!
It is also obvious that SY in their review have not, until recently, mentioned the possibility of a death in the apartment...........
Stop muddying it with mentioning the PJ in 2007.
No but as Martin Grime very clearly says, it means there is no evidence at all that it did happen, merely the possibility of it having happened.
That means that the dogs have not taken the case forward very much at all as that possibility existed prior to the searches by the dogs.
Well it was a possibility the McCanns never acknowledged
They have always insisted that there is no evidence that 'suggests' Madeleine has come to any harm
... and that puts them at odds with Scotland Yard, who, apparently do think there is reason to think Madeleine came to harm ( in the apartment, no less ) .... and not just came to harm either, but that she may have died there
There was absolutely nothing rude in my post to you.
I simply said that your comment that posters such as myself should be able to guess that you had missed out words was ridiculous. It was and it remains so.
As for me muddying the waters. I disagree. The fact remains that the PJ clearly thought that there was a possibility of a death within the apartment back in 2007 as did anyone with an ounce of sense who was reading the reports of the case at the time.
There is absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the fact that SY have now mentioned that possibility has anything whatsoever to do with the dogs. Why it is constantly being introduced in this thread I have no idea. It could be to do with any part of their investigation or review. It may relate to a pattern of activity which they know one of their suspects has been involved in previously. It may come from some other forensic work which we have no knowledge of. This attempt to connect the dogs and that brief comment as if they were directly connected appears quite desperate to me.
But... but... I don't understand? Isn't davel now saying that there was always a chance of Maddie (sic) Dying in the apartment and that sy saying that means nothing?
Mind.Blown.
Well Scotland Yard seem to think it is reliable enough for them to announce that they think Madeleine may have died in the apartmentAs far as YOU and I know. we dont know everything, do we?
There is nothing else that specifcally suggests that possibilitly afterall ... just the dog alerts
Maybe if you spent more time reading what`s actually posted to you and less time writing wordy waffle here, there and everywhere to deflect from the point , you would have known it was a simple error........The correct wording was only a post or two above. There aren`t that many of mine on here.....Just a nit-picking deflecting fuss from you.
Your wordiness, in my view, emphasises how difficult SY`s recent comments are for you to brush aside......The vigour with which you attempt to disconnect it with the dogs is where the desperation lies.
As far as YOU and I know. we dont know everything, do we?
You still don't get it Dave. As a professional expert dog handler Martin Grime has to be very careful how he words his reports for obvious reasons. He and Eddie had a long history of success together well before the McCann case, some of these cases Serendipity has already referred to. He knows very well what Eddie alerted to in apartment 5a but as he stated in his report, this cannot be confirmed or corroborated without scientific forensic evidence to back it up. He didn't come out and declare that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but that doesn't mean it isn't true.Is that an accusation, John?
SY are not best chuffed that they still have Tannerman as a prime suspect on their website despite having ruled him out but there is nothing they can do about it, they have no control over what the McCanns can and cannot say on it.Do YOU KNOW that, or is it guess work?
Exactly Sadie, the poster you are replying to has in fact no idea at all what prompted Redwood's comment and is simply basing his post on guesswork.
I do apologise if my correct and accurate use of English upsets you. I am afraid that I prefer carefully written prose to less accurate wording.
There is nothing difficult about it at all.
It is a fact that the possible death of Madeleine in and out of the apartment has been considered by the police since May 2007. It is a fact that since I joined this forum I have never denied either possibility.
It is also a fact that neither you nor I can offer any evidence that the recent statement regarding the potential death of Madeleine in the apartment is in any way connected with the dog alerts. It could be related to any aspect of the investigation.
Those who are trying to suggest it has a direct causal link to the dog alerts and suggests that SY have changed their minds since they very, very publicly stated that neither the McCanns nor their friends are persons of interest or suspects in the investigation are the ones sounding desperate in the extreme.
Absolutely no-one here has denied that a cadaver dog alerted in Apartment 5A.
And no-one to the best of my knowledge has rejected it as the possible basis for the comment by SY.
The guesswork and lack of logic is on your part and that of others who have tried to make out that it is "the logical basis fo that comment". It is not. It is one of many logical possible bases.
No-one except those privy to the workings of Operation Grange knows which of those logical possibilities it actually is.
That you claim that the only logical possibility is that the dog alerts have led to this comment when SY have been fully aware of the dog alerts since the beginning of the review many years ago is rather bizarre.
That you offer no explanation why such old information should have suddenly prompted such a comment is bizarre.
That you deny other such possibilities exist is bizarre.
That you pretend that it is desperate to be open-minded and to realise that we are not in posession of the facts is also bizarre.
The desperation is in the attempt to deny the existence of other possible reasons for the comment and to pretend to understand something which without inside knowledge you cannot understand.
You think it is logical to dismiss what you do know, in order to allow for that which you do not ?
Logic doesn't work like that
Scotland Yard know that a cadaver dog alerted in apartment 5A, and, whilst the child remains missing, they know the alert is suggestive that she died there
That's what they have
... and it's substancial
No, I'm not 'guessing' at allWhy dont you face it, Icabod. THe cadavar dog Eddie also alerts to blood and other things. We KNOW that the dogs were not bought in for weeks and that two lots of tenants in 5A lost blood during that period. The man with the shaving accident especailly walked around bleeding for quite a while, IIRC
I ... and you ... and everyone else here, knows that Scotland Yard are aware a cadaver dog alerted in apartment 5A
The 'guessing' is on the part of those who reject that is the logical basis for Scotland Yard having said they think Madeleine may have died in the apartment, and 'imagine' there must be some other ( unknown ) reason
I'm not guessing ... you are ( and there is a whiff of desperation about it )
Why dont you face it, Icabod. THe cadavar dog Eddie also alerts to blood and other things. We KNOW that the dogs were not bought in for weeks and that two lots of tenants in 5A lost blood during that period. The man with the shaving accident especailly walked around bleeding for quite a while, IIRC
How do You know what Eddie was alerting to? Blood or Cadaver odour? .... or ..... ?
I am afraid your understanding of logic is not that hot.
Logically there are many possibilities. Until they are shown not to be logical possibilities they remain valid.
What is entirely illogical about your position is that you believe it credible that having known about the dogs for four years only now have they made the connection and understood that Madeleine could have died in Apartment 5A based on that knowledge. An utterly incredible position entirely lacking in logic or even common sense.
Is that an accusation, John?
It's a statement. Martin Grime will have his own opinion as to what exactly Eddie alerted to.
Isn't it just a tad coincidental that Martin Grimes EVRD alerted to the possibility of a death in apartment 5a and now we have Redwood for the very first time admitting that Madeleine might have died in that very apartment.
Well what are the possibilities then ?
We know that Scotland Yard are aware that a cadaver dog alerted in apartment 5A, and we know Scotland Yard are aware that, whilst the child remains missing, the alert might be suggestive of the child having died there
We know that
So, with regard to these 'many other possibilities' that you speak of ... the ones that you suggest might be behind Scotland Yard having come to the conclusion they have ( that Madeleine might have died in the apartment ) ... what are they ?
Throw them out there
It's guesswork of course ( anything other than the cadaver dog intelligence being the basis for Scotland Yard believing what they do, is guesswork )
Go ahead though ... give us some examples of what you 'guess' is the basis for Scotland Yard thinking Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A
It's a statement. Martin Grime will have his own opinion as to what exactly Eddie alerted to.
Isn't it just a tad coincidental that Martin Grimes EVRD alerted to the possibility of a death in apartment 5a and now we have Redwood for the very first time admitting that Madeleine might have died in that very apartment.
Why dont you face it, Icabod. THe cadavar dog Eddie also alerts to blood and other things. We KNOW that the dogs were not bought in for weeks and that two lots of tenants in 5A lost blood during that period. The man with the shaving accident especailly walked around bleeding for quite a while, IIRC
How do You know what Eddie was alerting to? Blood or Cadaver odour? .... or ..... ?
Have you failed to grasp the significance too Sadie? Eddie alerts, Keela doesn't is suggestive of a cadaver and NOT blood. Dear oh dear!! Back to basics again
Ah, now you are asking me to guess what these possibilities are. As I have no idea what SY are currently working on I have no idea about specifics and am not prepared to make any such guesses. But I will outline what I do know for certain. I have no intention of guessing anything.
Purely based on logic and my reading about the case, other possibilities do (and these are not speculative) include witness interviews being undertaken, discussion with the PJ which is being undertaken currently, reviewing of modus operandi of suspects which we know is being currently undertaken etc.).
All these are equally logical bases upon which SY could have made a breakthrough which may have led to that comment. Indeed as we know that these are current lines of inquiry as opposed to the dogs which have been researched for years by SY as part of the review, I would argue that they are more likely bases for such a comment now being made.
To assume as you have done that it could only have been related to the dog alerts is both illogical and flies in the face of common sense. It is you who is guilty of guesswork by guessing without a shred of evidence that the dog alerts are the reason for the new statement.
It is clear that there are other logical lines of inquiry which could have led to that statement. It is pure desperation on your part and that of others who have denied such possibilities to have done so.
Well, I know why I think Scotland Yard believe Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A ... because a cadaver dog alerted thereBit late aren't they?
You, on the other hand, are floundering for some imagined and unsubstanciated 'other' reason
... aren't you ?
Well, I know why I think Scotland Yard believe Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A ... because a cadaver dog alerted there
You, on the other hand, are floundering for some imagined and unsubstanciated 'other' reason
... aren't you ?
No. Unlike you I am not seeking to determine a reason at all because I realise that attempting to do so is utterly futile as we do not have sufficient information on which to make that determination.
And unlike you I am also not deluding myself that other potential reasons exist. Some of those reasons being much more likely due to the fact that it would be bizarre if the Operation Grange team had only just managed to make the connection with the dogs who they have known about for a full four years.
I am not trying to substantiate anything. I am open to all possibilities and I am simply indicating that to exclude other possibilities that clearly do exist is pointless. I am not prepared to make a guess as to which is the actual reason.
I believe I have demonstrated that it is you who is illogically excluding other possible reasons and who having illogically excluded all other possibilities has resorted to guessing what Scotland Yard has based their comment on.
I'm excluding what exists, only, in your imagination
There ARE no known reasons ( other than the cadaver dog alerts ) on which Scotland Yard might be basing their opinion that Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A, are there ?
You are 'imagining' there are ... that's all
There are no known reasons - correct.
However there are other possible reasons which you are desperately seeking to deny. I wonder why?
Well ... wonder no more
There are no known reasons, other than the cadaver dog's alerts, on which Scotland Yard have based their conclusion that Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A
That is it
You are scrambling around trying to come up with something else ... something 'other' than the dog alerts
There IS nothing
... except that which you are imagining
I have asked you to explain why only now, after knowing about the dogs for four years, the experienced detectives at Operation Grange should suddenly realise that a possible cadaver alert in the apartment might indicate that Madeleine died there and you have demonstrably failed to offer any possible reason.
No one has suggested that.
I have done no scrambling.
I have demonstrated beyond any doubt that your belief that you KNOW the reasoning for Scotland Yards decision is simple guesswork.
I have demonstrated and (as you requested) listed other likely reasons why such a statement may have been made recently.
I have demonstrated that you are deliberately ignoring the other reasons that I have listed for you.
I have shown that there is no logical reason why, having known about the dogs for four years, only now would Scotland Yard make the connection between them and the death of Madeleine within the apartment. Indeed I have described that idea as rather silly which it is.
I have asked you to explain why only now, after knowing about the dogs for four years, the experienced detectives at Operation Grange should suddenly realise that a possible cadaver alert in the apartment might indicate that Madeleine died there and you have demonstrably failed to offer any possible reason.
I have demonstrated that the idea of the death of Madeleine in the apartment is simply not new and was discussed within days of the disappearance of the child.
I have explained that it is, in my opinion, far more likely that something which they have been working on in the recent past (not something imaginative but one of the many things that have been reported by Redwood himself) may have led to this new statement.
I will now add that there may in fact be no specific prompt for the statement other than as balance to the earlier appeals which have concentrated more on a living child. As we are not aware of anything which suggests either is a certainty perhaps it was simply a need to indicate that fact that prompted the announcement.
But for you to claim that you know with certainty the reason is simply ridiculous. Unless you have discussed it with the officers concerned it is a fact that you are simply guessing.
You tried to make me guess earlier but that simply is not my way of looking at things. I prefer to look for evidence and when none exists I remain open to all logical possibilities as I do over this statement.
There may be no specific reason or there may be a reason. That reason is not known by you or me no matter how much you may insist otherwise.
Your guess may be right. And it may be wrong.
Perhaps one day we will find out. Till then this conversation appears to be going nowhere because you are not prepared to accept that there are other potential reasons and have blinkered yourself to just one.
Let's be honest here, shall we ?
I have given a verifiable fact to support my opinion that Scotland Yard based their belief that Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A on the cadaver dog's alert .... the 'fact' being that the dog DID alert there ( and Scotland Yard have knowledge of it )
You, on the other hand, have offered an opinion based on nothing more than what you imagine Scotland Yard have knowledge of
You are desperately trying to deny that it was the dog's alerts that influenced Scotland Yard's thinking ... even though you have no verifiable or substantiated alternative
I have done no scrambling.
I have demonstrated beyond any doubt that your belief that you KNOW the reasoning for Scotland Yards decision is simple guesswork.
I have demonstrated and (as you requested) listed other likely reasons why such a statement may have been made recently.
I have demonstrated that you are deliberately ignoring the other reasons that I have listed for you.
I have shown that there is no logical reason why, having known about the dogs for four years, only now would Scotland Yard make the connection between them and the death of Madeleine within the apartment. Indeed I have described that idea as rather silly which it is.
I have asked you to explain why only now, after knowing about the dogs for four years, the experienced detectives at Operation Grange should suddenly realise that a possible cadaver alert in the apartment might indicate that Madeleine died there and you have demonstrably failed to offer any possible reason.
I have demonstrated that the idea of the death of Madeleine in the apartment is simply not new and was discussed within days of the disappearance of the child.
I have explained that it is, in my opinion, far more likely that something which they have been working on in the recent past (not something imaginative but one of the many things that have been reported by Redwood himself) may have led to this new statement.
I will now add that there may in fact be no specific prompt for the statement other than as balance to the earlier appeals which have concentrated more on a living child. As we are not aware of anything which suggests either is a certainty perhaps it was simply a need to indicate that fact that prompted the announcement.
But for you to claim that you know with certainty the reason is simply ridiculous. Unless you have discussed it with the officers concerned it is a fact that you are simply guessing.
You tried to make me guess earlier but that simply is not my way of looking at things. I prefer to look for evidence and when none exists I remain open to all logical possibilities as I do over this statement.
There may be no specific reason or there may be a reason. That reason is not known by you or me no matter how much you may insist otherwise.
Your guess may be right. And it may be wrong.
Perhaps one day we will find out. Till then this conversation appears to be going nowhere because you are not prepared to accept that there are other potential reasons and have blinkered yourself to just one.
Sorry, I do know that the SY review started nearly four years ago and I can surmise that the review looked very carefully at the PJ files of which the dog reports are a major component. Are you suggesting that it might have taken the SY team 2 or more years to realise that there had been a cadaver dog alert in Apartment 5A. Sorry for the pun, but such a suggestion is 'barking'. I cannot imagine that any officer assigned to the case wasn't aware of the use of the dogs before the review began let alone during its first two years. They probably listened to the news back in 2007 too you know.
They may know that nobody died in Apartment 5A prior to May 2007 but it is perfectly possible that they do not have any indication of potential cross contamination from previous tenants because there is no record of any investigation into such tenants by the PJ. Perhaps it has been done since.
But your post has not in any way addressed the points I made in the post you were attempting to reply to.
We cannot know what prompted this new statement by SY as Icabodcrane pretends because we simply do not know. There are other possible sources which Redwood has talked about and which I have listed.
Such guesses by Icabodcrane and apparently yourself are futile because they are backed up by no evidence whatsoever. Only evidence based theories actually matter. Pure guesswork may be a starting point but it is no substitute for evidence and knowledge in the long run.
Hang on
You say that Scotland Yard migh have 'other' reasons for thinking Madeleine might have died in the apartment ( reasons other than the cadaver dog alerts ) .... only we can't know what those reasons might be because Scotland Yard don't 'tell' us everything
Then you question why Scotland Yard have never appeared to consider the dog alerts before now
... but if you believe Scotland Yard don't 'tell' us everything then your question is redundant, isn't it ?
Or are you suggesting Scotland Yard are only obscure when it comes to the question of why they think Madeleine might have died in the apartment ... whilst being as straight as a die when it suits you to claim so ?
I am suggesting no such thing.
A more careful reading of my post might mean you would realise that.
I have listed some of those potential reasons so your contention that we can't know what they are is rather silly.
But... but... I don't understand? Isn't davel now saying that there was always a chance of Maddie (sic) Dying in the apartment and that sy saying that means nothing?
Mind.Blown.
It's a statement. Martin Grime will have his own opinion as to what exactly Eddie alerted to.
Isn't it just a tad coincidental that Martin Grimes EVRD alerted to the possibility of a death in apartment 5a and now we have Redwood for the very first time admitting that Madeleine might have died in that very apartment.
You need to read the statement again and you will see that Grime is sating his OPINION
Secondly....you feel that two incidents that happened seven years apart must be connected and cannot be coincidental is plainly bizarre
Watch out for a long convoluted story about how you have misunderstood it and you are a fool for doing so and he was right all along because ......................................well you make up the rest. 8(>(( @)(++(*
You need to read the statement again and you will see that Grime is sating his OPINION
Secondly....you feel that two incidents that happened seven years apart must be connected and cannot be coincidental is plainly bizarre
Why does it matter either way? What is significant is that he has recently said it and hopefully will elaborate further as events develop.I agree...but posters are trying to imply that the fact that SY have raised this point is because they accept the dog's alerts as proof of cadaver...something even grime does not claim
I agree...but posters are trying to imply that the fact that SY have raised this point is because they accept the dog's alerts as proof of cadaver...something even grime does not claim
And there was I thinking that the argument was about some posters claiming that the dogs alert had been taken into account by Redwood, while others were desperate to dispel any such suggestion, for reasons unknown.
300 odd posts over such trivia - amazing
And scarcely a one that addresses the thread title "Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?"
>@@(*&). Have you noticed there are some questions that McCann supporters will never address?
And scarcely a one that addresses the thread title "Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?"
>@@(*&). Have you noticed there are some questions that McCann supporters will never address?
the question has been answerred......several times....if their is a body....cadaver dogs will find it,,,very reliable...I have already posted this...the problem arises when there is no body...what do the alerts indicate...even grime doesnt give a straight answer...so once again...you are wrongWell I guess you have a problem with both reading and comprehension then. Your post addresses neither of the issues I raised.
the question has been answerred......several times....if their is a body....cadaver dogs will find it,,,very reliable...I have already posted this...the problem arises when there is no body...what do the alerts indicate...even grime doesnt give a straight answer...so once again...you are wrong
I have now managed to locate a video containing the comments from Martin Grime that I referred to above.
Both Eddie and Keela were deployed in Apartment 5A.
Grime indicates that the alert by the Cadaver dog cannot be attached to a precise location. He states that though the dog alerted in the corner the source of the scent could in fact be anywhere in the room.
I am certain that were that statement to be introduced in court it would make a very interesting discussion point because it is known that Keela alerted within a few metres of that same room and lawyers would want scientific evidence from Grime that there was no possibility that Keela's alert could not have been of the same scent source.
Where Keela alerted blood was in fact found, though it was never linked to the McCanns.
I cannot see that any court could allow the alert by Eddie a few metres away from where blood was found to stand as cadaver odour when Eddie also alerts to blood and Grime states that the precise source of Eddie's alerts cannot be determined.
See here for the comment at 23:15.
Have a listen to this conversation with Dean Beers which is specifically discussing the case of missing baby Lisa Irwin in 2011 in which he explains the average time for a cadaver dog hit is about 3 hours but that timescale can be reduced based factors such as environment temp and body size, so a hit on a child would be much sooner.
http://rmriinc.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/dean_beers_conversation.mp3
Particularly interesting around 14 mins in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Lisa_Irwin
Well I guess you have a problem with both reading and comprehension then. Your post addresses neither of the issues I raised.
We get the bog standard davel response "you are wrong" without any attempt to substantiate your claim mainly because you are unable to substantiate very much of what you do say.
Another empty claim..desperately trying to score points...everything I am saying here is simply quoted from Grime and is therefore substantiated....
I will try and make my response a little simpler for you to understand..
Victim detection and evidence search dogs are reliable at finding evidence if it is present....the question that arises then is what do their alerts mean if no evidence is found..is that simple enough for you
Let's be honest here, shall we ?
I have given a verifiable fact to support my opinion that Scotland Yard based their belief that Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A on the cadaver dog's alert .... the 'fact' being that the dog DID alert there ( and Scotland Yard have knowledge of it )
You, on the other hand, have offered an opinion based on nothing more than what you imagine Scotland Yard have knowledge of
You are desperately trying to deny that it was the dog's alerts that influenced Scotland Yard's thinking ... even though you have no verifiable or substantiated alternative
SY are not going to let us in on everything. You don't know what they really think/know whether it's today or 2 years ago. They only share with us what they want. But we know they've got rid of Tannerman (Jane nearly caught the abductor according to Gerry so that can't be good news) and Smithman is at the top of their most wanted (maybe that's better news). And they are investigating all possibilities so they are left with no doubts on what really happened. They've always known about the cadaver scent alerts e.g. on the clothes. And they know nobody died in that apartment before 3 May 2007.
Why bizarre ?
Unless Redwood has had his head stuck in sand for 7 years, he would be blatantly aware people would make the obvious links.
It isn't any clearer. So best leave it perhaps.
Far from trying to score cheap points I am asking you why you seek to limit the topic to Grime when the thread topic is far wider reaching. Why not read some of the bibliography I posted yesterday? you may then find answers to your questions.
The "I cant be arsed" attitude you expressed yesterday would seem to indicate you do not wish to increase your knowledge on the subject.
Don't bother to reply this is going nowhere as usual.
Sorry that is not correct. I have given verifiable facts from the statements of Redwood which show that the reasons I proffered exist.
Those reasons are clearly also known to SY.
Your guess as to which particular knowledge sparked the recent comment is no more than that, a guess.
When you lift your blinkers and realise that not everything revolves round the dogs then maybe you will understand.
That is precisely what I have been saying in all my posts on this subject. There are many possible reasons but neither I nor you, nor Icabodcrane know which is the one which triggered the recent comment from SY.
It is Icabodcrane and others who are attempting to persuade us that they do KNOW what SY think and do KNOW why SY made the recent statement. I agree with you, that is something which we cannot know.
But you go on to continue the rather nonsensical claim that you believe that this information which they have been aware of for many years has been the trigger for what many believe is a sudden change of direction in their thinking.
That is both illogical in that you are telling us on the one hand that we cannot know what they think and on the other that you do know, and also rather difficult to understand as neither you nor anyone else can apparently explain why such old knowledge would be the trigger for a change of direction now.
Name another reason other than the dogs evidence that they think Madeleine may have died in the apartment? What other evidence is there to come to that conclusion?
Why does it matter either way? What is significant is that he has recently said it and hopefully will elaborate further as events develop.
Name another reason other than the dogs evidence that they think Madeleine may have died in the apartment? What other evidence is there to come to that conclusion?
Quite. There must be some relatively recent information which has led them to move in this direction. Hopefully we might learn more in the coming weeks.
None that we know of, but that doesn't exclude there being some.
Well it clearly matters as it was brought up by those trying to use it to suggest that the dog alerts were significant. It is being used in that way in this thread about the dogs. Actually without any proof that the dog alerts were the reason it is almost certainly off topic as well.
But the real reason it matters is that it is so illogical to try to persuade people that such old information can be a trigger for a recent change of emphasis without offering a single explanation why that might be.
That information has always been known so is not likely to have caused any change of direction.
Logically then there has either been no change of direction in SY thinking or if this statement is evidence (and that in itself is not proven) of a change in direction of thinking then something else more recent has been the trigger.
You need to read the statement again and you will see that Grime is sating his OPINION
Secondly....you feel that two incidents that happened seven years apart must be connected and cannot be coincidental is plainly bizarre
The dogs evidence is very significant. They did their work now it's up to the police to corroborate that evidence or not.
Please have the courtesy to read further up the thread. I have listed (as requested by Icabodcrane) a number of other possible reasons (all of which we know exist because they have been discussed by Redwood).
Two incidents? Don't you mean an incident and a comment nearly seven years apart.
Not two days ago you agreed with Martin Grime that Eddie's numerous alerts combined with Keela's non alert was 'suggestive' of cadaver odours and now SY has admitted that Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive. Is it stretching the realms of possibility too far to assume just a little that they might just be connected?
It is stretching the realms of possibility to suggest that the alerts were the reason the comment was made when the two "incidents" the dogs alert and the issuing of the statement...two separate "incidents" were seven years apart
I do believe that the only Alert given inside of 5A was a wardrobe in the parents bedroom, where all the clothes(which also had alerts) and laundry was kept. The other alerts were confirmed by Keela, so had to be blood.
I don't know what Eddie was alerting too, at a time past the one month that cadaver scent lasts, but hopefully the truth will be known soon.
In the absence of any other possibility, I will take the one which is at least supported by some evidence. And contrary to what gilet previously posted the dog results are evidence.
Two incidents? Don't you mean an incident and a comment nearly seven years apart.
Not two days ago you agreed with Martin Grime that Eddie's numerous alerts combined with Keela's non alert was 'suggestive' of cadaver odours and now SY has admitted that Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive. Is it stretching the realms of possibility too far to assume just a little that they might just be connected?
What is certain however is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that she left the apartment alive.
It should also be pointed out that it takes at least 85-90 minutes before a body releases cadaver odour so this in itself rules out stranger involvement if the dogs were correct.
In the absence of any other possibility, I will take the one which is at least supported by some evidence. And contrary to what gilet previously posted the dog results are evidence.
You are correct. And of course the trousers, white top and red T shirt all came from the same box of clothes which had all been bundled together in a slapdash way which allowed for cross-contamination. Also the alert to Cuddle cat may have been the result of it having been in those same trousers for long periods. There is no way that any court could recognise those alerts as being separate when such flawed forensic handling of the clothing was so apparent.
A further issue within the apartment is that Martin Grime himself clearly indicates on video (which I have posted earlier) that there he cannot be definite that the source of the scent which Eddie alerts to is in the location where he alerted. It may be anywhere in the room or even "not in here". When such expert opinion is placed before the court, it would appear that the actual accuracy of the alerts is not what some have attempted to lead us to believe.
In the absence of any other possibility, I will take the one which is at least supported by some evidence. And contrary to what gilet previously posted the dog results are evidence.
You are perfectly at liberty to take whatever you wish...but not to state it as fact
I'm not looking to waste time. What evidence? There's no evidence other than the dogs alerts for somebody having possibly died at 5A. An open window, a neat and tidy bed or moving doors is not evidence that someone died.
You can believe anything which takes your fancy. Personally I will believe the report in the PJ files which an actual expert, Martin Grime, produced.
By definition 'evidence' must have evidential reliability.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Martin Grime is absolutely explicit. It is only his opinion/view. It is not evidence.
You obviously confuse the meaning and are construing two different terms. Evudence and Eevidencial are nit the same thing. The work done by the dogs, the reports and the videos are ALL evidence whether you like it or not and will be 'used in evidence' at a later time if necessary .
Start getting your evidence then on how the clothes got contaminated? Locate the cadaver? Tell me who touched it? Eddie alerted a cadaver being inside 5A where the clothes were - the police may connect the two for some strange reason and that the cadaver was a person who hasn't been seen since 3 May 2007.
Indicators, not evidence.
I am confusing nothing.
To be evidence things must by definition be evidential.
That much is perfectly clear from Grime's own report. It needs no interpretation by any go-between.
Grime has already commented in public about the matter in his report, where it is his careful differentiation between the terms which I am quoting.
You obviously confuse the meaning and are construing two different terms. Evidence and evidencial reliability are not the same thing. The work done by the dogs, the reports and the videos are ALL evidence whether you like it or not and will be 'used in evidence' at a later time if necessary. Mr Grime knows this very well thus why he is unable to comment publicy on the case. QEDso what does evidential reliability mean...educate us john
Ps evidence is not proof!
so what does evidential reliability mean...educate us john
You are correct. And of course the trousers, white top and red T shirt all came from the same box of clothes which had all been bundled together in a slapdash way which allowed for cross-contamination. Also the alert to Cuddle cat may have been the result of it having been in those same trousers for long periods. There is no way that any court could recognise those alerts as being separate when such flawed forensic handling of the clothing was so apparent.
A further issue within the apartment is that Martin Grime himself clearly indicates on video (which I have posted earlier) that there he cannot be definite that the source of the scent which Eddie alerts to is in the location where he alerted. It may be anywhere in the room or even "not in here". When such expert opinion is placed before the court, it would appear that the actual accuracy of the alerts is not what some have attempted to lead us to believe.
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2007, at 6:11 PM ET
The parents of Madeleine McCann, the 4-year-old British girl who went missing in Portugal in May, were officially named suspects on Sept. 7 by Portuguese police. The change came after developments in the case, including sniffer dogs detecting the "smell of death" on Madeleine's Cuddle Cat toy and her mother's clothes. They did not, however, find a body. Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?
Not really—especially if a lot of time has elapsed since the body was removed from the scene. Cadaver dogs can find the remains of people who have been dead for years or even decades. But it's much harder for the dogs if the bulk of the remains are gone. In that case, they can pick up the scent from small amounts of body tissue, like a blood stain or nail clippings, or even from materials that came into contact with the tissue. But in the absence of an actual body, the smell of death will dissipate. There's speculation that Madeleine died on the night her parents reported her disappearance—which would mean that she passed away four months ago. It's not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother's clothes for all that time.
Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month.
The dogs couldn't necessarily prove anything even if Madeleine's body had been in recent contact with her mother's clothes. Since they didn't turn up any actual remains, investigators had to rely on the "smell of death" itself, an odor that stems from the decomposition process. Without a body, they can't be certain that the animals didn't make a mistake. Cadaver dogs do mess up from time to time: The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time. (The prosecution claimed a success rate of 60 percent to 69 percent.)
Cadaver dogs learn to spot the "smell of death" and find its source during the training process, which involves exposing them to either actual human remains—blood, teeth, bones—or pseudoscent, an artificial substance that re-creates the death odor. (One chemical company markets several pseudoscent formulas for training cadaver dogs—recently dead, post-decomposition, and drowning victim.) The dogs also learn to differentiate human remains from animal remains.
A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing. When a dog gives a signal, such as barking or sitting down, to indicate that it has smelled a corpse, a handler can only say something along the lines of, "My dog is giving an indication consistent with human blood." He can't say definitively that, yes, a body was present, without further confirmation—in the form of a blood stain, for example.
Explainer thanks Maria Claxton of the South Carolina Search and Rescue Dog Association, Larry Myers of the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine, and Andrew Rebmann of K9 Specialty Search Associates.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/zahrabaker.html
Cadaver odour isn't tangible. You can smell it but you can't touch it.
Well it clearly matters as it was brought up by those trying to use it to suggest that the dog alerts were significant. It is being used in that way in this thread about the dogs. Actually without any proof that the dog alerts were the reason it is almost certainly off topic as well.
But the real reason it matters is that it is so illogical to try to persuade people that such old information can be a trigger for a recent change of emphasis without offering a single explanation why that might be.
That information has always been known so is not likely to have caused any change of direction.
Logically then there has either been no change of direction in SY thinking or if this statement is evidence (and that in itself is not proven) of a change in direction of thinking then something else more recent has been the trigger.
Did I say it was? You are getting as bad as gilet as construing comments. The reports, the photographs and the videos relating to the dogs are all tangible evidence. All evidence which can be used in court just as has happened in the McCann v Amaral libel trial. In fact some people might not realise that cadaver odour is now collected by a machine for forensic analysis.
An interesting fact worth noting. It has not yet been possible to create cadaver odour by artificial means.
You are correct. And of course the trousers, white top and red T shirt all came from the same box of clothes which had all been bundled together in a slapdash way which allowed for cross-contamination. Also the alert to Cuddle cat may have been the result of it having been in those same trousers for long periods. There is no way that any court could recognise those alerts as being separate when such flawed forensic handling of the clothing was so apparent.
A further issue within the apartment is that Martin Grime himself clearly indicates on video (which I have posted earlier) that there he cannot be definite that the source of the scent which Eddie alerts to is in the location where he alerted. It may be anywhere in the room or even "not in here". When such expert opinion is placed before the court, it would appear that the actual accuracy of the alerts is not what some have attempted to lead us to believe.
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm)
I have no idea why you are introducing such examples of evidence. The whole point of my argument it that such old information is hardly likely to have been the trigger for any recent change of emphasis by SY (presuming that such a change has occured anyway).
As to you considering that bothering to read back to follow the thread properly and read the information I provided earlier as wasting your time. Sorry. I spent my time providing the information once. I don't intend to waste my time providing that same evidence for someone who simply cannot be bothered to follow the thread properly or is too lazy to read the information offered.
Lets have Mr Grime's full summary in respect of the dog deployments in Praia da Luz.
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.
Vol IX p. 2478
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Yes Dave, his professional opinion was that the alerts were suggestive of cadaver scent contaminant. What would you have preferred him to say?
He should say what his professional opinion is...and I accept it...serendipity has suggested this is not what he thinks
Lets have Mr Grime's full summary in respect of the dog deployments in Praia da Luz.
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.
Vol IX p. 2478
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Comment: Isn't it strange that the dogs never alerted in any other apartment or villa and that includes the Murat property? Additionally, they did not alert to property belonging to any others within the group. The cross contamination theory therefore would appear to be virtually worthless because of this. No wonder Dr Amaral was convinced that the McCanns were complicit in some way in their daughters disappearance.
I disagree.
I think expression of such opinion is unprofessional
IMO, All the alerts are entireley consistant with Kate having come into contact with at least six dead bodies, prior to the family holiday.
A source close to the McCanns' solicitors said the smell on Mrs McCann could be explained by being in contact with corpses while working as a GP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563381/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-look-to-US-sniffer-dog-case.html
All he can state is opinion because he has no evidence to support it
IMO, All the alerts are entireley consistant with Kate having come into contact with at least six dead bodies, prior to the family holiday.
A source close to the McCanns' solicitors said the smell on Mrs McCann could be explained by being in contact with corpses while working as a GP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563381/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-look-to-US-sniffer-dog-case.html
according to what grime has said that may be a possibility
.......with the corpse-scented work clothes potentially cross-contaminating everything in the holiday suitcase, wardrobe......every child`s garment from cuddling their mother or playing together......every surface.......Well the list goes on.
Apparently, such is cross-contamination, the wonder was that anything remained un-alerted -to..........or ever does, really.
Haven't you got it?
No dog attending a crime scene should pick stuff up in its mouth
Why does he have to state opinion?
He can strict strictly to fact.
The dog alerted but nothing evidential can be inferred from those alerts unless they corroborated by forensic results.
Harrison never said anything about cadaver odour
Neither should have Grime
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.
You need to read Cristovao's Book, "Star of Madeleine." He was the one who came up with the Six Dead Bodies. The McCanns never said it.
Another one making money from a missing child.
Cristovao is now in serious trouble with Portuguese Law, for Blackmail, among other things.
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 daysIs it possible to obtain online a fuller report of this study, which gives more detail, for example which lists the all 52 post-mortem intervals?
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
Quote from Serendipity.
Keela was never trained to alert to cadaver scent, so how could she be deemed to have failed to alert to it? She was trained to alert to blood only. Eddie on the other hand was trained to alert to both blood and cadaver scent only. Neither dogs were trained to alert to anything else so when they alerted it will only ever be to what they were trained to alert to and nothing else. Both dogs were deconditioned to alert to any other bodily fluids such as semen, urine etc unless they were mixed with blood.
Unquote
------------------------------------
How were the dogs 'deconditioned' and why would they need to be?
If Keela was trained only to alert to blood - why would she need to be 'deconditioned' to alerting to any other odours?
If she wasn't trained to alert to any other odour except blood in the first place - then surely she wouldn't alert to semen, urine etc. anyway - only to any blood it may contain?
The claim of the dogs being 'deconditioned' makes no sense to me.
It is clear that there are other logical lines of inquiry which could have led to that statement. It is pure desperation on your part and that of others who have denied such possibilities to have done so.
I was somewhat intrigued at the possibilities you suggested earlier today gilet in the context of SY's latest revelation that Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive and list them as follows:-I disagree with you John. Gilet has presented some very sensible conclusions as to why SY may have diifferent ideas now.
* witness interviews being undertaken
* discussion with the PJ which is being undertaken currently
* reviewing of modus operandi of suspects which we know is being currently undertaken
Personally I cannot see how you can reconcile what SY have revealed with any of the above suggestions. The dog alerts would appear to be the logical choice since they directly relate to the claim by an expert that they are suggestive of cadaver odour being detected.
I was somewhat intrigued at the possibilities you suggested earlier today gilet in the context of SY's latest revelation that Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive and list them as follows:-
* witness interviews being undertaken
* discussion with the PJ which is being undertaken currently
* reviewing of modus operandi of suspects which we know is being currently undertaken
I was somewhat intrigued at the possibilities you suggested earlier today gilet in the context of SY's latest revelation that Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive and list them as follows:-
* witness interviews being undertaken
* discussion with the PJ which is being undertaken currently
* reviewing of modus operandi of suspects which we know is being currently undertaken
Personally I cannot see how you can reconcile what SY have revealed with any of the above suggestions. The dog alerts would appear to be the logical choice since they directly relate to the claim by an expert that they are suggestive of cadaver odour being detected.
IMO SYs comment that Madeleine may have died in the apartment is linked directly to the person they made the appeal about in CW who had entered 12 apartments and assaulted several little British girls. After the last appeal more families came forward - who no doubt have since been interviewed. It could well be that something in that person's modus operandi which is common to all those incidents where a child was assaulted has led them to believe that it is possible that Madeleine may have been killed - even accidentally perhaps.
Pure speculation on my part but - for instance - knowing that the parents were in the apartment, he would not want his victims to cry out. Could it be that he put his hand over their mouths? That action itself could result in death by suffocation. In Madeleine's case the parents were not there - but the twins were.
I was somewhat intrigued at the possibilities you suggested earlier today gilet in the context of SY's latest revelation that Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive and list them as follows:-
* witness interviews being undertaken
* discussion with the PJ which is being undertaken currently
* reviewing of modus operandi of suspects which we know is being currently undertaken
Personally I cannot see how you can reconcile what SY have revealed with any of the above suggestions. The dog alerts would appear to be the logical choice since they directly relate to the claim by an expert that they are suggestive of cadaver odour being detected.
I agree
Let's address those 'explanations' given by Gilet :
1 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because witness interviews are being undertaken
2 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because of discussion with the PJ which is currently being undertaken
3 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because they are reviewing the modus operandi of suspects
What a load of gobbledigook !
In the meanwhile, the explanation being fiercely rejected, is the in-your-face obvious one :
Scotland think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because a cadaver dog alerted there
Suggestive or otherwise, SY now stating that Madeleine might be dead is significant. For them to state she might have died in apartment 5a is revealing to say the least. This is quite a change in position for SY.
The only evidence which points to this being the case is that provided by the dogs. There is no evidence that any of the known suspects had killed previously so effectively rules out modus operandi. Had a stranger committed the crime he would hardly have stayed around for 85 minutes while cadaver odour formed. If the dogs were correct that only leaves one possibility.
I agree
Let's address those 'explanations' given by Gilet :
1 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because witness interviews are being undertaken
2 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because of discussion with the PJ which is currently being undertaken
3 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because they are reviewing the modus operandi of suspects
What a load of gobbledigook !
In the meanwhile, the explanation being fiercely rejected, is the in-your-face obvious one :
Scotland think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because a cadaver dog alerted there
But they have known that a dog alerted in 5a all along - since the very beginning - and yet they still concluded that the McCanns were not suspects or even persons of interest in spite of that.
Their present investigations are centred on the monster who targetted British families and who has not been tracked down. It seems obvious to me that the comment was in relation to that person - who seems to have been completely forgotten in the eagerness of some people to make 'the comment' prove that SY are now pointing the finger at the McCanns.
We are told that SY keep the McCanns up to date. Do you think they said to the McCanns ''Oh BTW we are going to say that Madeleine may have died in the apartment - because of the dog alerts' ? Or is it more likely that they have told the McCanns that in view of what they have found out during interviews with the 12 families they feel that may be a possibility? I know which one I think is believable.
Suggestive or otherwise, SY now stating that Madeleine might be dead is significant. For them to state she might have died in apartment 5a is revealing to say the least. This is quite a change in position for SY.
The only evidence which points to this being the case is that provided by the dogs. There is no evidence that any of the known suspects had killed previously so effectively rules out modus operandi. Had a stranger committed the crime he would hardly have stayed around for 85 minutes while cadaver odour formed. If the dogs were correct that only leaves one possibility.
But you are assuming that the scent alerted to was deposited on the 3rd May. No-one knows - or can know when it was left there. It could have been at any time during the months after 3rd May - right up to the day before the dogs searched.
A dead body does not have to have been in situ for cadaverscent to be present. Why is that so hard to understand when Martin Grime himself has said there are other innocent reasons for why it may be present.
... that in view of what they have found out during interviews with the 12 families they feel that may be a possibility? ...12 families whose cases did not involve death.
Suggestive or otherwise, SY now stating that Madeleine might be dead is significant. For them to state she might have died in apartment 5a is revealing to say the least. This is quite a change in position for SY.
The only evidence which points to this being the case is that provided by the dogs. There is no evidence that any of the known suspects had killed previously so effectively rules out modus operandi. Had a stranger committed the crime he would hardly have stayed around for 85 minutes while cadaver odour formed. If the dogs were correct that only leaves one possibility.
Do you simply not understand the dogs alerts....as Grime has stated there are several reasons the dogs may have alerted...mainly cross contamination...but you want to contradict grime and say there is only one possibility
I agree
Let's address those 'explanations' given by Gilet :
1 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because witness interviews are being undertaken
2 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because of discussion with the PJ which is currently being undertaken
3 ) Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because they are reviewing the modus operandi of suspects
What a load of gobbledigook !
In the meanwhile, the explanation being fiercely rejected, is the in-your-face obvious one :
Scotland think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because a cadaver dog alerted there
Your utterly illogical refusal to accept that other possibilities could exist and your clinging to your guess that SY are entirely reliant on information which has been known for 7 years for what you suppose is a recent change of direction in their thinking is actually quite sad.The good thing is that the refusal of forum posters to accept that other alternatives do in fact exist does not make those alternatives disappear in the real world where SY are conducting their investigation.
The content of the above post demonstrates that you are not approaching the case with an open mind but are determined to make the new statement fit a predetermined idea that you have.
It is simply a guess on your part as to what the motive for this change is and indeed you are also guessing that this statement does reflect such a change. It may. It may not. Just as the reason may be the dogs or it may not.
The good thing is that the refusal of forum posters to accept that other alternatives do in fact exist does not make those alternatives disappear in the real world where SY are conducting their investigation.
The good thing is that the refusal of forum posters to accept that other alternatives do in fact exist does not make those alternatives disappear in the real world where SY are conducting their investigation.
Well put, gilet.
SY are the important ones NOT a load of forum posters second guessing. People who never have an open mind... but are stuck in a vindictive and suspicious groove.
Suggestive or otherwise, SY now stating that Madeleine might be dead is significant. For them to state she might have died in apartment 5a is revealing to say the least. This is quite a change in position for SY.
The only evidence which points to this being the case is that provided by the dogs. There is no evidence that any of the known suspects had killed previously so effectively rules out modus operandi. Had a stranger committed the crime he would hardly have stayed around for 85 minutes while cadaver odour formed. If the dogs were correct that only leaves one possibility.
if by winning you mean that the police have stopped treating the mccanns as suspects and are now trying to find the criminal that is responsible for Maddie's disappearance...then yes...I find that deeply satisfying
high five Sadie 8@??)(
if by winning you mean that the police have stopped treating the mccanns as suspects and are now trying to find the criminal that is responsible for Maddie's disappearance...then yes...I find that deeply satisfyingMe too
Correct. The first quote in your post as a contribution to debate is equally bad. I made it very clear that I don't condone such behaviour. No difference between that post or the one from Estuarine. Both seem to suggest that the poster lacks any proper response.
However you then introduce a completely different issue. Kate McCann was not participating in a debate when she used that term. It was a couple of words presented to show the extreme frustration she was feeling. A couple of words in a book of tens of thousands of words but the only two you seem able to focus on. And your silliness about any such dictionary proves my point.
Now back to the topic at hand - the reliability of the dogs.
Me too
In fact I am feeling very smug atm ?{)(**
I find the idea of feeling smug and having a sense of' winning' when a child is missing, very probably dead, highly distasteful.You've got the wrong end of the stck, my friend.
if by winning you mean that the police have stopped treating the mccanns as suspects and are now trying to find the criminal that is responsible for Maddie's disappearance...then yes...I find that deeply satisfying
Utter soft soap and flannel...........You know exactly the context in which the "winning" stood.
If not, maybe you should read more carefully the vile posts you find "satisfying."
I find the idea of feeling smug and having a sense of' winning' when a child is missing, very probably dead, highly distasteful.
So cariad...do you have a link to support your claim that the dogs were never wrong
He (Grime) states that Keela only reacts to the physical presence of blood, but he does not say that of Eddie.
'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
(Martin Grime).
I have a link to support my claim that Eddie was wrong, at least once ...
There was an interesting post yesterday...is it true that eddie alerts to volatile chemicals...I think he does...and these move around in the air....so he could alert to the presence of blood where there is actually no physical evidence
He (Grime) states that Keela only reacts to the physical presence of blood, but he does not say that of Eddie.
'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
(Martin Grime).
It has been suggested that the reason EVRD Eddie reacted to Kate's clothing was because she had contact with one or more cadavers prior to going to Praia da Luz. This raises some important issues about cadavers, cadaver scent and contamination.
Firstly, it is my understanding that KM was a GP. As such I would have thought that her contact with any dead people would be minimal. When a GP is called out to a potential sudden death they don't normally get involved other than to check for any signs if life. Contact will be minimal and even then they will disinfect their hands if gloves weren't worn.
We know that cadaver scent is only released after a period of around 90 minutes has passed following death. It is highly unlikely that any GP would be attending a deceased person so long after death and even if they did they would not have any reason to have contact with the body at that late stage.
Clothing worn by a GP on duty would unlikely to have been taken on holiday abroad.
For all the reasons above therefore I find it extremely difficult to believe that KM carried any cadaver contaminants with her on holiday.
As I am aware Kate never claimed this...Grime himself says that the alerts could have been due to contamination from several scenarios...or words to that effect...so once again I am going to go with what the expert says
I thought best to post this observation separately so that members can respond.
Cadaver contaminants and cadaver scent must not be confused. The former is matter and can last for years while the latter is a scent and dispenses within hours.
If KM for example brought contaminated clothing with her from the UK (unlikely imo) then it was contaminant and not scent as some posters have wrongly stated.
It has been suggested that the reason EVRD Eddie reacted to Kate's clothing was because she had contact with one or more cadavers prior to going to Praia da Luz. This raises some important issues about cadavers, cadaver scent and contamination.When my son died, neither GP disinfected their hands nor wore gloves... and there was a fair delay before they arrived. As he had been dying for a long time they had little need to do much other than confirm death.
Firstly, it is my understanding that KM was a GP. As such I would have thought that her contact with any dead people would be minimal. When a GP is called out to a potential sudden death they don't normally get involved other than to check for any signs if life. Contact will be minimal and even then they will disinfect their hands if gloves weren't worn.
We know that cadaver scent is only released after a period of around 90 minutes has passed following death. It is highly unlikely that any GP would be attending a deceased person so long after death and even if they did they would not have any reason to have contact with the body at that late stage.
Clothing worn by a GP on duty would unlikely to have been taken on holiday abroad.
For all the reasons above therefore I find it extremely difficult to believe that KM carried any cadaver contaminants with her on holiday.
Correct. The first quote in your post as a contribution to debate is equally bad. I made it very clear that I don't condone such behaviour. No difference between that post or the one from Estuarine. Both seem to suggest that the poster lacks any proper response.
However you then introduce a completely different issue. Kate McCann was not participating in a debate when she used that term. It was a couple of words presented to show the extreme frustration she was feeling. A couple of words in a book of tens of thousands of words but the only two you seem able to focus on. And your silliness about any such dictionary proves my point.
Now back to the topic at hand - the reliability of the dogs.
As I said on your short lived thread yesterday. There are six or seven authoritative reports on scientific trials which have been carried out with respect to EVRDs dating back to the 1990s. Why not look at those to obtain a valid view of the dogs reliability. Unless of course we have some one in house who can trump the authors of those reports. One inclines to the view, however, that professors of forensic anthropology will not be dicking about on this forum.
b
I guess as with all specifications , contract and other legal documents we need to know the definition of "contamination" as used by Mr Grime.
As I have said before we don't need to read these...we will learn nothing....Dogs have a very sensitive sense of smell and can be trained to detect many things...from explosives to patients with cancer...they are extremely reliable at finding evidence if the evidence is there...that's it...in your hours of reading these reporst would you like to educate us in what else you have learnt...you don't have to read the whole bible to make the decision that there is no god
which have been carried out with respect to EVRDs dating back to the 1990s.
According to Grime, Eddie was aged 7 in 2007.
So he'd have been born around 2000.
Eddie is the only EVRD in the history of cadaver dogs ...
That's because Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog. Just a Victim Recovery Dog who was supposedly Enhanced somewhat. Although no one is quite sure how, except it involved pigs and pig meat in some way.
wait for the trial ....Grime is holding everything back and the real truth...not what he told the Portuguese police...that was rubbish...the real truth will be revealed...At least thats what some posters expect us to believe
Well I hope it's locked away somewhere with his solicitor in case anything happens to him. He's no spring chicken, and the way things are going we could all be dead before The McCanns ever get tried.
That's because Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog. Just a Victim Recovery Dog who was supposedly Enhanced somewhat. Although no one is quite sure how, except it involved pigs and pig meat in some way.
I fear we might all be dead by then @)(++(*
It has been suggested that the reason EVRD Eddie reacted to Kate's clothing was because she had contact with one or more cadavers prior to going to Praia da Luz.....Yes but that suggestion illustrates one of the basic misinterpretations by humans of what Eddie actually indicated.
Yes but that suggestion illustrates one of the basic misinterpretations by humans of what Eddie actually indicated.
Eddie did indicated the clothes.
Eddie did not indicate the person.
IMO it is obvious that, if the clothes came into contact with a source of that scent, it was in the wardrobe..
Which doesn't incriminate her at all. Not one iota.
Yes but that suggestion illustrates one of the basic misinterpretations by humans of what Eddie actually indicated.
Eddie did indicated the clothes.
Eddie did not indicate the person.
IMO it is obvious that, if the clothes came into contact with a source of that scent, it was in the wardrobe..
Which doesn't incriminate her at all. Not one iota.
That doesn't explain Eddie's bark alert behind the sofa that was pushed up against the window. If you were looking for someone you would look behind the sofa not push it up against the wall - it's like you were in a panic and hiding the place where something happened to me? Look at the crumpled curtains and a map opened on the table >@@(*&) Also a camera - was that brought to the table and/or taken as possible evidence?Pathfinder, Eddie also alerts to dried blood. There were spots of dried blood on the wall there, weren't there?
I think most open-minded people can look at this scene and know something is not quite right and with bark alerts in the suspicious looking place where the sofa is then it doesn't take a genius to work out that any cadaver was most probably in that spot.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/10VOLUMEXaPage2564.jpg)
Sadie, Why don't you use some intelligence for once?I beg your pardon? Can you elucidate please?
Cumulatively we have over 900 posts on woofers.
Does the person who makes the 1000th post receive a prize?
Have we reached a conclusion?
Will Snowy and Jock rescue Dick?.
Tune in tomorrow same time same place on the dial.
Can I claim it now?
Very enhanced @)(++(* FBI Body Farm doesn't use pigs but human cadavers e.g. buried and hidden underwater.
@ John
In view of M. Grime's opinion and your own - both bolded below, can you say why he is no longer concerned about discussing the case on a public forum - albeit through a 3rd party - particularly as his chosen mouthpiece i.e. Serendipity is an obvious 'sceptic' and whose posts (now whooshed - but possibly screencapped ?) left readers in little doubt of which side of the fence he apparently sits.
Is he not concerned that should he have to attend a court case in the future his participation on this public forum -albeit by proxy - has compromised his position as an unbiased reliable witness?
Quote from John
: February 17, 2014, 01:13:25 PM »
We asked Mr Grime to comment on the various accusations but he stated that as the case was still a live ongoing investigation that it would be inappropriate for him to do so. It could well be that he will have to give evidence at some stage if the case comes to trial. End
Johns post of 4thApril
Thank you for replying Serendipity. For far too long Martin has been denied an opportunity to put the record straight. The claims that he never took dogs to the USA are malicious fabrications. Can you please confirm which dog or dogs made the trip with Martin?
End.
@ John
In view of M. Grime's opinion and your own - both bolded below, can you say why he is no longer concerned about discussing the case on a public forum - albeit through a 3rd party - particularly as his chosen mouthpiece i.e. Serendipity is an obvious 'sceptic' and whose posts (now whooshed - but possibly screencapped ?) left readers in little doubt of which side of the fence he apparently sits.
Is he not concerned that should he have to attend a court case in the future his participation on this public forum -albeit by proxy - has compromised his position as an unbiased reliable witness?
Quote from John
: February 17, 2014, 01:13:25 PM »
We asked Mr Grime to comment on the various accusations but he stated that as the case was still a live ongoing investigation that it would be inappropriate for him to do so. It could well be that he will have to give evidence at some stage if the case comes to trial. End
Johns post of 4thApril
Thank you for replying Serendipity. For far too long Martin has been denied an opportunity to put the record straight. The claims that he never took dogs to the USA are malicious fabrications. Can you please confirm which dog or dogs made the trip with Martin?
End.
The dogs have been discussed extensively on many threads.as you well know.
If you weren't worried about the ''dogs' you would not be discussing them ?
As to statistics davel, you know that well worn cliche. 8)-)))
I've never seen Serendipity claim that she represents the opinion of Martin Grime. Surely she is entitled to her own opinion?
As for the info on the dogs, I've only seem her supply facts.
Saying that Mr Grime retired on a certain date does not imply any bias whatsoever.
I'm also not aware of any claims that Serendipity speaks for Mr Grime, only that she has knowledge of some of the facts that have been misrepresented, like the retirement one above.
As I'm not accused or even a suspect I am not at all worried about the dogs. I just get sick of people who haven't got a clue posting rubbish...that's why I post
The dogs have been discussed extensively on many threads.as you well know.
If you weren't worried about the ''dogs' you would not be discussing them ?
As to statistics davel, you know that well worn cliche. 8)-)))
I've never seen Serendipity claim that she represents the opinion of Martin Grime. Surely she is entitled to her own opinion?
As for the info on the dogs, I've only seem her supply facts.
Saying that Mr Grime retired on a certain date does not imply any bias whatsoever.
I'm also not aware of any claims that Serendipity speaks for Mr Grime, only that she has knowledge of some of the facts that have been misrepresented, like the retirement one above.
Would you suggest I didn't post re the dog's and just let posters who you agree with make their points unchallenged...does that seem a reasonable option to you?
Quote from: icabodcrane on March 27, 2014, 01:06:19 AM
John
I think it is time you clarified that our member, Serendipity, has established a credible connection with Martin Grime
This member has, kindly, shared that information with me, and if that same information has been shared with you too, then please speak up and offer your support
I'm sorry, Serendipity, for breaking a confidence, but I feel it is necessary that your contribution is recognised as valid
Response from john
Yes, Serendipity is 100% genuine and is well placed to answer questions about the deployment of the dogs Eddie and Keela.
Just so there can be no doubts about the claims made re serendipity
Far be it for me to start another canine thread but there are some issues which must be clarified. In doing so I hope to have the question answered, are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
The 'dogs' received some almighty bad Press back in 2007 as a consequence of two extremely high profile cases, namely, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann followed soon after by the Jersey Child Abuse Probe. The dogs also attracted further criticism in 2008 following the kidnapping of Shannon Matthews.(http://i.imgur.com/qLfB4Ui.jpg?1)
Police handler Martin Grime with Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog Eddie.
I don't intend to delve into these cases in my introduction except to explain to anyone who doesn't already know that in the McCann case no evidence of remains were ever found despite several alerts and in the Jersey probe all that was found were milk teeth and a piece of coconut shell together with some ancient bones. In the Matthews case, the child was later found safe and well despite alerts by several dogs. The reason for this being given that second-hand furniture brought into the family home had previously been contaminated by death scent from an unconnected source.(http://i.imgur.com/PtNYDcc.jpg)
A piece of cocunut shell wrongly identified as a fragment of child's skull during the Jersey probe.
Further information on the cases referred to above can be found within the forum, alternatively refer to the following links...
> Jersey child abuse probe. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html)
> Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560443/Madeleine-sniffer-dogs-detect-scent-of-body.html)
> More than half UK's sniffer dogs involved in search for Shannon Matthews. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7289105.stm)
Are cadaver dogs useful?
They can be immensely useful in either of two ways: they can find cadavers and (as an introduced training extra to enhance their usefulness) they can detect blood, which can be captured and analysed in a laboratory for DNA information, which can identify suspects or victims.
It is for that reason that cadaver dogs are trained to detect blood.
An obvious drawback of training a dog to react to blood is that, the wider the range of substance (or, more accurately, scents emitting from those substances) a dog will react to, the greater the chance of an alert, not necessarily false (as it may be within the dog's training parameters) but just not helpful to an enquiry.
That is why some States of America (not all) permit use of human remains and human body parts to train dogs.
Those US States that do not, and all the rest of the world where cadaver dogs are trained and employed, use swine cadavers and (very often) pseudo-scents as the basis of their training.
A primary constituent of pseudo-scents is cadaverine, which can also be present in people or by-products of people who are alive.
That is a limitation on the usefulness of cadaver dogs. Decayed products lost by living people may trigger a reaction, which is within a dogs' trained parameters, but just may not be relevant to the criminal enquiry at hand.
The other (possible) limitation on the use of dogs is bias. The Portuguese handlers certainly understood about bias. The handlers were not told which apartment Madeleine had been living in so that they would not become (sic) conditioned.
I believe the whole basis of the US forensic canine program is to limit the cadaver dog to strictly human cadaver scent (not blood) in a bid to increase assurance of the accuracy of a cadaver-dog alert. If you can limit or (better still) eliminate the range of extraneous (to a human cadaver) scents a dog might be likely to react to, you can have greater confidence that the dog has scented a death scent, even where physical evidence of the alert is not recovered.
And if you have a specialist blood dog to be deployed separately, neither do you lose the advantage of finding blood, if it there is blood to be found.
So in summary, a cadaver dog can be of immense benefit to a criminal enquiry.
Or it can confound a criminal enquiry by alerting to scents, within its trained range, but just not relevant to the enquiry at hand.
And finally, handler-bias can impair the accuracy and reliability of a dogs' reactions or alerts.
Now ferryman, can you provide evidence the dogs alerted incorrectly in this case ?
I don't think you could have read all the posts...I seem to remember some where she claimed to be in direct touch with grime
Yes.
Cuddle-cat.
A failure to alert when he should have?
Or an "alert" where he should not?
And all the clothes inspected in the gym were present, also, in the villa, yet not alerted to.
So where was the error?
In the villa?
Or the gym?
Yes.
Cuddle-cat.
A failure to alert when he should have?
Or an "alert" where he should not?
And all the clothes inspected in the gym were present, also, in the villa, yet not alerted to.
So where was the error?
In the villa?
Or the gym?
So do you know precisely which clothes were contaminated and which weren't ?
Are you privy to all the forensic reports ?
What exactly are your scientific qualifications ( I'm not talking about any particular university ) ?
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, [the gym] attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
Now how exactly does this prove the dogs were wrong ?
If you will remember, the forensics are inconclusive.
As regards abduction, there is no forensic evidence at all. Just hearsay.
............Or the Apt the MCanns moved into with their clothing after leaving 5A and before the villa. Someone said that the dog handler did not know which Apt was used by the McCanns........................It was all over the news @)(++(* @)(++(*
Nice attempt at derailment, Stephen.
But failed, I'm afraid.
I'd clean forgotten about that.
Was there an inspection in that apartment?
These 'dog' threads go on and on, but, in truth, there is nothing to say the cadaver dog in the McCann case did not detect the scent of Madeleine McCann's dead body
Whilst the child remains disappeared it is entirely possible that the dog barked because she died in apartment 5A , and he picked up the scent
Yes of course it is possible that she died in the apartment, but likewise as for abduction, there is no proof............as yet
Inconclusive forensics for the apartment.
Nothing at all as regard abduction.
Yes of course it is possible that she died in the apartment, but likewise as for abduction, there is no proof............as yet
= Nothing
No derailment.
Just provide the proof the dogs were wrong.
You also have to evaluate the statistical success of dogs in cases where they have been used to locate bodies.
A principa lof course which the Police would also use as well. >@@(*&)
Wrong on this one...and you were doing so well. Its the police job to collect evidence not to evaluate it...the court evaluates it and as you have proved ...the alerts have no evidential value
What I said was, is that it is entirely possible the cadaver dog picked up the scent of the missing child's dead body
... it is, isn't it ?
You said:-
These 'dog' threads go on and on, but, in truth, there is nothing to say the cadaver dog in the McCann case did not detect the scent of Madeleine McCann's dead body
Whilst the child remains disappeared it is entirely possible that the dog barked because she died in apartment 5A , and he picked up the scent
My answer stands +
It is as possible as the open window evidence, indicating an abduction,
as any of the other the inconclusive evidence = Either way Nothing! Except your beliefs of course.
Do you accept that it is entirely possible that the cadaver dog picked up the scent of Madeleine McCann's dead body ?
No clue about Anna.
But I certainly don't ...
You said:-
These 'dog' threads go on and on, but, in truth, there is nothing to say the cadaver dog in the McCann case did not detect the scent of Madeleine McCann's dead body
Whilst the child remains disappeared it is entirely possible that the dog barked because she died in apartment 5A , and he picked up the scent
My answer stands +
It is as possible as the open window evidence, indicating an abduction,
as any of the other the inconclusive evidence = Either way Nothing! Except your beliefs of course.
Do you accept that it is entirely possible that the cadaver dog picked up the scent of Madeleine McCann's dead body ?
My disbelief comes from here:-
Puzzle:-
1. No alert by the dog in the Apartment that the McCanns moved into after leaving 5A? Or in the villa.
Surely the clothing would have been contaminated by the wardrobe in 5A which was supposed to have been marked as having cadaver scent, by Eddie.
This clothing would surely cross contaminate other articles. Seating, bedding and soft furnishings in these other places occupied by the McCanns afterwards?
2. Alerts in 5A and the Gym 3 months later ?
3. Toy alerted and then not alerted? What is all that about?
4. No blood found in 5A by the Pt, C.S.I team ?
5. We have no idea who or what occupations of persons who stayed in 5A or what may have occurred in 5A , not to mention the traffic in and out of the Apartment,……. after the departure of the McCanns?
5. Why was the car driven to the inspection area, by police who could have contaminated evidence ?
No substantiation to alerts in the car however except for Gerry’s blood on the key, which he must have touched along with the car’ door handle, gear etc ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of it makes any sense at all.
If the dogs did not alert to the Apt that the McCanns moved into with their clothing on the night and then into another Apt, where there must have been cross contamination in the Apt somewhere. (if they had the odour on their clothing).
And yet the dog alerted to the same clothing in the Gym (All from one box.
Where is the answer to this puzzle.???
====================================================
any chance of a post actually on topic...you and Stephen seem to just throw insults and attempt to disrupt almost every thread now with personal attacksSee my posts 103, 177 & 225. Compare those with your erudite response 226 and a plethora of your daily one liners that frequently end in the words "wrong" or "fool".
Yes, yes ... and round it goes
But I did not ask you whether you believed the cadaver dog picked up the scent of Madeleine McCann's dead body .... I aked if you accepted it is 'possible' that he did
It is possible, isn't it ?
Try not to get your hopes up too high.
No, it isn't possible
Possible but Highly unlikely. Do you believe it is possible, she was abducted? It is possible is it not? After all that is what SC believes
Just in case anyone should be in doubt about Eddie, literally, playing with the toy, this is from the report of PJ Inspector Dias:
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
No dog attending a crime-scene should have physical contact with anything it is tasked to inspect.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
you keep saying...as far as you can recall...you seem to have missed most of the important posts...if grime had direct contact with serendipity who made claims regarding his official statements to the police...who repeated statements that were not in the public domain...then grimes credibility as a witness is shot to pieces...or
serendipity is a fantasist and icad and john have been misled
Wrong on that one davel.
The police do look at stats, in the case of whether to pursue a case or not.
Surely you realize that.
See my posts 103, 177 & 225. Compare those with your erudite response 226 and a plethora of your daily one liners that frequently end in the words "wrong" or "fool".
The thread title is Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable? not "were Eddie and Keela reliable".
So as we are all wrong and fools according to you perhaps you would like to give us your considered opinion on the thread topic taking into account the six or seven authoritative scientific papers on the topic.
@ John
In view of M. Grime's opinion and your own - both bolded below, can you say why he is no longer concerned about discussing the case on a public forum - albeit through a 3rd party - particularly as his chosen mouthpiece i.e. Serendipity is an obvious 'sceptic' and whose posts (now whooshed - but possibly screencapped ?) left readers in little doubt of which side of the fence he apparently sits.
Is he not concerned that should he have to attend a court case in the future his participation on this public forum -albeit by proxy - has compromised his position as an unbiased reliable witness?
Quote from John
: February 17, 2014, 01:13:25 PM »
We asked Mr Grime to comment on the various accusations but he stated that as the case was still a live ongoing investigation that it would be inappropriate for him to do so. It could well be that he will have to give evidence at some stage if the case comes to trial. End
Johns post of 4thApril
Thank you for replying Serendipity. For far too long Martin has been denied an opportunity to put the record straight. The claims that he never took dogs to the USA are malicious fabrications. Can you please confirm which dog or dogs made the trip with Martin?
End.
Nobody has been misled, Serendipity has first hand knowledge of the dogs and Mr Grimes involvement in the case.
What on earth are you talking about Benice? Martin Grime has not commented on any aspect of this case which would in any way compromise his impartiality. Serendipity on the other hand is free to offer his/her opinion based on first hand knowledge of the dogs and their deployments. They have already exposed the 'poacher' as an imposter.
I hope to have some photos of the dogs in action very soon, photos which have never ever been seen in public before. Then we will see who is the fantasist.
What on earth are you talking about Benice? Martin Grime has not commented on any aspect of this case which would in any way compromise his impartiality. Serendipity on the other hand is free to offer his/her opinion based on first hand knowledge of the dogs and their deployments. They have already exposed the 'poacher' as an imposter.
I hope to have some photos of the dogs in action very soon, photos which have never ever been seen in public before. Then we will see who is the fantasist.
A lack of evidence does not mean there is no involvement in a crime.
Next.
No! you gave a reason why you couldn't be bothered to answer it. That is not quite the same.
no I did answer it...and this is approx. what I said...
these dogs are extremely reliable at finding evidence....cadaver..blood explosives..drugs...what we don't know and I suspect all those articles you posted don't address is what the alerts signify if no evidence is found...having said that Grime has already told us...no findy evidence...alert of no evidential value
I did suggest you might like to read and give an opinion based on those documents. Twice now you have failed to take that into consideration and prejudge the documents without having read them. You have not answered the question asked. Don't bother now as it is apparent either you cannot or will not. Why keep quoting Grime?. The thread extends a bit beyond one man and two dogs.
I don't think you could have read all the posts...I seem to remember some where she claimed to be in direct touch with grime
Both Eddie and Keela were taken to the USA by Martin for training.
So do you know precisely which clothes were contaminated and which weren't ?
Are you privy to all the forensic reports ?
What exactly are your scientific qualifications ( I'm not talking about any particular university ) ?
............Or the Apt the MCanns moved into with their clothing after leaving 5A and before the villa. Someone said that the dog handler did not know which Apt was used by the McCanns........................It was all over the news @)(++(* @)(++(*
Meanwhile in the real world, the forensics neither disproved or proved what the dogs indicated. So it is clearly possible they indicated correctly.
We now know that 'Redwood of the Yard' does consider Madeleine died in the apartment.
Mutually exclusive events ?
Most certainly not.
As to Redwood's previous stances on the case, well let's consider the police get it wrong.
The evidence inconclusive, no more, no less.
Redwood could believe in fairies, but it doesn't make it true.
Evidence of abduction none, including forensics.
Redwood is merely chasing his tail and no doubt more red herrings to come.
Meanwhile his power to act in this case, NONE.
He is merely plodding a trail and little more.
We have no evidence at all that the dogs alerted to a cadaver and in particular a cadaver of the missing child.
And we also know that DCI Redwood believes that Madeleine may have been abducted.
And we know that he has stated that the parents are not involved.
Mutually exclusive events?
You don't have any proof by the way that his stance has changed because there has always been the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment or did not die in the apartment. As DCI Redwood has previously explained, she may be dead or alive.
Your assumption that there has been a change in his stance is just that, an assumption (or more curtly, a guess) because you have no proof of that claim.
And the dog handler, Grime himself, claimed not to know which car belonged to the McCanns even though while he was deploying his dog all round it he could not have failed to have noticed that it was covered in posters of Madeleine. And how do I know he could not have failed? Well look at the video and see how those posters were dealt with and why.
Redwood has kept his options open by publicly declaring that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. A dead child cannot be abducted.
As far as evidence of a cadaver in apartment 5a is concerned, a very experienced and most successful victim recovery dog indicated that there was. You can choose to discount the dog alerts but it changes nothing, they existed and are documented into evidence.
Redwood has kept his options open by publicly declaring that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. A dead child cannot be abducted.
As far as evidence of a cadaver in apartment 5a is concerned, a very experienced and most successful victim recovery dog indicated that there was. You can choose to discount the dog alerts but it changes nothing, they existed and are documented into evidence.
Redwood has kept his options open by publicly declaring that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. A dead child cannot be abducted.
As far as evidence of a cadaver in apartment 5a is concerned, a very experienced and most successful victim recovery dog indicated that there was. You can choose to discount the dog alerts but it changes nothing, they existed and are documented into evidence.
your posts are getting more bizarre....the dogs alerts are NOT evidence..according to grime
But the problem is that there is no evidence that the alerts were in any way related to Madeleine McCann.
And the appalling handling of the case by the PJ, not interviewing (it would seem) prior occupants of the apartment or checking on the origin of the furniture means that other options may never be investigated.
Just because no body has ever lain in apartment 5A does not mean that cadaver scent had never been introduced into the same apartment by some other means. Do you not recall the Shannon Matthews case? Thankfully a proper check indicated the origin of the scent in that case.
Cadaver dog alerts do not automatically relate to a body as you appear to be assuming.
Put it this way. If Madeleine is found dead in or near Praia da Luz are you really telling us that the dog alerts won't take on a whole new meaning? The deployment of the dogs is now evidence in itself in this case whether you like it or not. Why do you think Martin Grime cannot comment on this case while it is a live investigation? Do you not understand the meaning of the term 'evidence'?
Put it this way. If Madeleine is found dead in or near Praia da Luz are you really telling us that the dog alerts won't take on a whole new meaning? The deployment of the dogs is now evidence in itself in this case whether you like it or not. Why do you think Martin Grime cannot comment on this case while it is a live investigation? Do you not understand the meaning of the term 'evidence'?Deployment of dogs is never evidence. That is plainly untrue.
its no wonder there are so many posts on the dogs when after seven years posters still dont understand the basics
Deployment of dogs is never evidence. That is plainly untrue.
Alerts may indicate something which becomes evidence.
No matter what happens the dog alerts are not much use without real evidence.
Deployment of dogs is never evidence. That is plainly untrue.
Alerts may indicate something which becomes evidence.
No matter what happens the dog alerts are not much use without real evidence.
Explain it to us then. Preferably in more than one sentence that does not end in wrong or fool.
Come on surprise us and give us the benefit of your vast wealth of knowledge. Sight of your credentials in matters EVRD might be handy too. Just to give weight to your opinion.
You can claim what you like but it is NOT what grime said...I'll will stick with grime. Remember SY have also said that maddie may still be alive...which contradicts YOUR statement re tha dogs
Why spend £000's on them then? How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict? Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.
Why spend £000's on them then? How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict? Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.
You still haven't grasped the difference between evidence and evidential value.
Explain it then.....there is none
That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode.
Why spend £000's on them then? How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict? Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.Alerts can indicate potential evidence or back up evidence but are not evidential in themselves as Martin Grime tells us.
You still haven't grasped the difference between evidence and evidential value.
In the Adrian Prout murder trial, a cadaver dog (Eddie, as it happens) alerted.
But the alert was never used as evidence in court.
Explain it then.....there is none
Evidential Value...
Value of records given as or in support of evidence, but not the evidence itself.
It is entirely possible that the cadaver dog alerted in apartment 5A because Madeleine McCann died there, and he picked up the scent
Of course it is.
It is equally possible that the cadaver dog's alert is not entirely reliable.
It is equally possible that if the alert is reliable then it had no connection whatsoever to the missing child.
All are equally possible and those who claim otherwise are simply mistaken.
Thankyou for acknowledging that it is entirely possible that the cadaver dog barked in apartment 5A because Madeleine had died there and he picked up the scent
I think it is important that the most obvious reason for a cadaver dog alerting in an apartment where a missing child was last seen alive is not lost amongst the less logical propositions
You will find that from my earliest posting on this forum I have always acknowledged that fact.
However I disagree with the weight you place on this option with respect to other options. With nothing to support the alert and with serious questions about the reliability in general of the dog alerts then other options as I listed above, have, in my view, equal weight.
" scent samples consist of sterile gauze pads .... placed on abdominal area ..............
NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours."
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
EVRD in bedroom was not testing a gauze pad which had conveniently been in direct contact with anything. He had the presumably more difficult task of working here, according to the handler, with nothing but residual scent. In view of this, is not the minimum of "2.5 - 3 hours" (which in experiment IMO 5 out of 5 dogs detected), more relevant than the "one hour and 25 minutes" period (which in the experiment IMO 4 out of 5 dogs failed to detect even on a gauze pad) ?
But gilet, what supports the 'option' that the cadaver dog was alerting to the dead body of the missing child is right there in the phrase, 'missing child'
She is missing ... disappeared without trace ... not seen alive in the seven years since a cadaver dog barked in that apartment
THAT is what supports the 'option' that it was the scent of death that the cadaver dog alerted to
Cadaver was in 5A for at least 2 hours IMO. The routine change holds the answer.
It is one option. That is all.
The other options are equally valid.
You claim the dog alerts support your option.
Equally the lack of any evidence denies your option.
You prefer to place reliance on the dog alerts. I have very serious questions about their reliability in this case in particular.
No
I say that it is the fact that the child has never been seen alive again that supports the 'option' ( that the cadaver dog barked in apartment 5a because he picked up the scent of her dead body )
Had the child been found alive, or proof of her having left the apartment alive been found, then 'other options' might be seen as valid
She has not
The most obvious explanation for the cadaver dog's alert remains, therefore, that he picked up the scent of the dead body of the missing child
You are perfectly entitled to hold your opinion. I don't see things as starkly as you appear to.
When we are offered some evidence that the dog indeed alerted to a cadaver then I may look again at your claims.
But in the meantime can you please tell me why the alert in the apartment (if it indeed related to cadaver scent) could not simply have been due to cadaver scent brought into the property on some contaminated object/clothing etc which could have lain there for much longer than a few hours?
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. It is, however, based on dog alerts which may or may not have the slightest bearing on the disappearance.
Till you provide me with one tiny fragment of evidence that the alerts relate to Madeleine or even that the alerts are actually reliable then I believe that I am also perfectly entitled to my own opinion which clearly differs from yours.
Your entire reasoning is based on alerts which have never been shown to relate to the missing child or even to cadaver scent at all. Even Grime goes no further than saying that the alerts are "suggestive".
It appears that those "suggestive" alerts are enough to sway you.
I prefer to remain more open-minded and await actual evidence.
IMO the cadaver was hidden inside the wardrobe on the shelf where Eddie sniffed and then barked very loud and continually. He will bark where he finds the strongest scent source. As soon as he got to 5A Grime recognised his change in behaviour due to cadaver scent.
A child disappears without trace
In the apartment where she was last seen alive a cadaver dog alerts
If you insist that there is nothing that 'relates' those two facts then you cannot lay claim to 'open-mindedness'
You are entirely free to hold whatever opinion you like. Unfortunately you have completely ignored the valid point that I made to you earlier that you have not yet managed to show that the alert from the dog related to an actual cadaver rather than cadaver scent introduced to the apartment by some kind of contaminated material or object.
Till you manage to show it was definitely related to an actual cadaver it seems pointless continuing the conversation.
Can you manage that? Nobody else has managed it yet so I am not that hopeful.
You are entirely free to hold whatever opinion you like. Unfortunately you have completely ignored the valid point that I made to you earlier that you have not yet managed to show that the alert from the dog related to an actual cadaver rather than cadaver scent introduced to the apartment by some kind of contaminated material or object.
Till you manage to show it was definitely related to an actual cadaver it seems pointless continuing the conversation.
Can you manage that? Nobody else has managed it yet so I am not that hopeful.It is possible but highly unlikely in a case of contradictions, moving doors and witnesses seeing a child matching her description being carried away in a deep sleep by a man who has never came forward. "Is she asleep?" I wish that was so!
The dogs worked for long hours 8-)(--) Here's an example:
[1. There is absolutely nothing but the dog alerts. Not a single piece of evidence supports those alerts. Not a speck of Madeleine’s blood, not a single indication in any form.]
Many alerts (but not anywhere else) and check contradictions in statements, eye witnesses, finger prints, routine change - there's back up to the theory that Madeleine died. They need to identify one man whose efits were suppressed for years.
Evidential Value...
Value of records given as or in support of evidence, but not the evidence itself.
I find it quite fascinating when gilet repeatedly posts on this issue, with to put it mildly an ultra-thin veneer of neutrality.
However, that neutrality is irrelevant and clearly doesn't exist, no matter the pretense.
It has already been established that the forensics were inconclusive.
The dogs made alerts, which posters from either side of the fence will disagree on.
The bottom line is, posters supporting the mccanns will attack the use of dogs and say they have no meaning, whilst those on the reverse will say they have significance, as dogs are very reliable in what they do. The same dogs having being used by the same handler in other cases.
Likewise, Martin Grime had no axe to grind, he was merely doing his job, and any other handler would also have been attacked by the mccanns supporters in the same way.
It has always been a SHAME they never attacked the parents for what they did in leaving their children in the first place, which is where the case starts with Madeleine's disappearance and the inexcusable leaving of leaving 3 children unprotected for extended periods of time, with infrequent and no independently corroborated checks. As s well known, children of that age are extremely vulnerable, and nothing said by the mccanns or those that back them, can change that.
Meanwhile there is nothing to prove an abduction took place, and certainly no forensics to back one up.
Explain it to us then. Preferably in more than one sentence that does not end in wrong or fool.
Come on surprise us and give us the benefit of your vast wealth of knowledge. Sight of your credentials in matters EVRD might be handy too. Just to give weight to your opinion.
A child disappears without trace
In the apartment where she was last seen alive a cadaver dog alerts
If you insist that there is nothing that 'relates' those two facts then you cannot lay claim to 'open-mindedness'
It would be true to say that the two best forensic dogs in the world found no evidence that maddie died in the appt
I missed that one FM Thank you 8((()*/
I don't think it's a shame I do not attack the parents...I think it is shameful you do...they are the victims of a crime
Actually, Anna, the wider quote which that extract comes from is also worth citing:
It should be noted the report made by the trainer /owner of these dogs. On this report it's mentioned the methodology of training:
'Eddie, the dog with an advanced training to detect mortal victims (E.V.R.D.), searches and locates human remains and body fluids, including blood, in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was done with human blood and decaying piglets that were born dead. The importance of this training is that the dog learnt to identify the odour of a decaying body that is not food. This guaranties that the dog ignores the 'bacon sandwich' and the 'kebab', etc. that are always present in the environment. Besides that the dog will not alert to a meal prepared at home or on any other place. For instance, the dog will be efficient on searching a cadaver in café where the clients can be seated eating a bacon sandwich. As a complement of this training, the dog receives an additional training in the USA, in association with the FBI, in which will be used exclusively human remains' (sic) (page 2493 and 2494).
This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'
These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.
It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.
In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
Note, in particular, the part I underline, right near the top.
Trainer/owner
Grime?
Or South Yorkshire Police?
Getting back to the direct terms of reference of this thread.
This is the uniform that Eddie and Keela would have been used to when working with Grime. This is the uniform which would have put them in "working mode". (please see my post above, #537).
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/09/article-1385336-0BFA7E3300000578-363_306x423.jpg)
Grime was not wearing any uniform in PDL. Is it not possible that the lack of uniform would have affected the working reliability of the dogs, another handler having indicated this possibility?
On a second issue related to the reliability of the alerts, is the claim by Martin Grime that the alert to cadaver odour by Eddie may not even have originated in the bedroom because of the way scent pools in a closed apartment over time not another serious cause for concern? Is it even possible that if, as Martin Grime tells us, the alert was possibly from another room then it was a secondary alert to the blood detected in an adjacent room which was shown to have no connection whatsoever to the McCanns.
It would be interesting to know why Grime felt it necessary to wear head to toe protective clothing in the garage but only a pair of gloves everywhere else. Surely it is either imperative or it's not?
Indeed so the minutes of a meeting where a financial document was agreed could be used as evidence in a criminal court discussing the financial document. They would be considered to have the requisite evidential value to be used as supporting evidence. The original financial document being discussed would automatically have sufficient evidential value to be used in that court case.
So in exactly the same way, the dog alerts cannot be used as evidence until they are shown to have sufficient evidential value or reliability to be acceptable as evidence.
Anything which has no evidential value cannot be used as evidence.
As I am currently working in the field of the evidential reliability of certain types of computer generated material I am perfectly able to recognise the difference between the terms "evidential value/reliablity" and "evidence". The level of credence which can be given to the latter is dependent on the former.
If an alert or a document or a computer record has no evidential value/weight/reliability then it cannot be used as evidence. If it has evidential value then that material or alert or record can be used as evidence. In some cases certain material is introduced into a court case but its lack of evidential value must be explained where it is clear that there is none. It is not then possible to call that material by the term evidence or to call it an exhibit in a case. Where the evidential value of material is shown to exist (even if it is flimsy) then that material can be used as evidence or as an exhibit within a case. In certain instances it is introduced but with the proviso that the jury is made aware of the level of evidential reliability which it has.
Grime was explicit that the alerts without forensic corroboration had no evidential value at all and therefore could not be used as evidence. They are merely indications which relate to the matter.
This US case explains the reasoning.
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=df74cd39-728b-4d35-9720-b9502c3ca95c
That's the point and importantly the distinction which some are failing to make. Martin Grime stated that the alerts 'had no evidential value' in the absence of 'forensic corroboration', he did not state they weren't evidence. To take this one step further, if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value. The bottom line is, the alerts exist, they were documented and can be referred to in a criminal court if need be.
I will add this though. The exercise was fraught with difficulties and obstacles, the least being the passage of time and contamination. It achieved very little of anything and in my opinion was a complete fiasco of monumental proportion.
if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value.
Correct!
Without that they have no evidential value.
Dog alerts played no part of the (successful) prosecution of Adrian Prout.
Depends what you mean. The dogs alerts in the farm bungalow alerted police to the fact that she might be dead. That in turn was but one factor which encouraged the CPS to take it to court.
Ref your point on evidence. The dog evidence is a fact, it just doesn't disappear when it suits. The value or as has been referred to, the evidential value, will vary depending on the forensics. There is forensics in the case but inconclusive therefore leaving the entire case in limbo land.
It would be true to say that the two best forensic dogs in the world found no evidence that maddie died in the appt
Why spend £000's on them then? How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict? Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.
if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value.
Correct!
Without that they have no evidential value.
Dog alerts played no part of the (successful) prosecution of Adrian Prout.
KILLER Adrian Prout's former fiancee has spoken of the chilling moment he finally admitted he murdered his wife.
Debbie Garlick, 41, had been engaged to the 49-year-old and even had a child with him, so convinced was she that he had not murdered his wife Kate.
But Ms Garlick told the Mail on Sunday of the shocking moment he confessed.
After failing a lie detector test, she told him: "If you have done something to her we need to know, so that her family can give her a proper burial."
He replied: "She's had one."
Ms Garlick told the newspaper: "There was no way I would ever cover up something like that. Sometimes I feel like such a fool for taking him on blind faith, but I'm not the only one.
"My entire family, his family, friends and everyone in the village where he lived, believed him. He was such a nice guy.
"Even after he failed a lie detector test I arranged for him to have in prison three months before he admitted his guilt, I still held on to the slim chance that it might have been faulty – because he kept insisting he was innocent.
"But I see now he's a cold and calculating man. What he did was pure evil and I can never forgive him, even as I find it hard to turn off my feelings for him. But I keep reminding myself that he is not the man he made me believe he was. He's put a lot of people – especially Kate's family – through hell."
She said: "At first, I could not believe this person I had fallen in love with had killed and buried someone. In the blink of an eye, he became a different person. I looked at him and thought, 'You disgust me'."
She fell pregnant with Evie while Prout was on bail in 2009. She said: "We were both delighted. Now I wonder if he was just using me to create this picture of a happy family man. I never questioned his innocence – he even fooled one of Kate's brothers for a time. I just saw this lovely man who was being treated badly by his wife and the police."
She added: "I've told Adrian that it's over between us. How could it be anything else? But he won't accept it. He's left a trail of devastation that had impacted on so many lives – Kate's family, mine, all the people who believed in him and, of course, he's ruined his own life."
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Debbie-Garlick-Adrian-Prout-confessed-killing/story-14369635-detail/story.html (http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Debbie-Garlick-Adrian-Prout-confessed-killing/story-14369635-detail/story.html)
No clue what point, if any, you are trying to make.
People lie their asses off , dumb tw..s believe them. That's the message I got.
I am with you Mr Moderator.
The first "cadaver" dog was deployed in 1974. So it is hardly some new kind of voodoo is it man?
Many US States have specialist EVRD Units; The FBI; The Royal Canadian Mounted Police; The US Military have used them for finding MIA's from the South East Asia conflict and so it goes on. Obviously a lot of this predates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. These teams clearly know what they are at a little bit better than the pundits on here. If not, one helluva lot of cash has been wasted. You can imagine some US Marine "Gunny" with his dogs in Vietnam paddy looking for MIAs saying to his dogs. "Well fellas we are being pulled out. Anonymous Limey civilians on a Limey website say we are wasting our time because some retired Portuguese detective.................."
So given that EVRDs are in wide use and have been in use since 1974, that these teams know what they are at and that it isn't exactly new technology, there are papers written by those who know what they are at on "alerts" and their meanings, why the argument on here about general reliability of the dog teams?. One rapidly comes to the conclusion it is about one particular man and two specific dogs, despite the thread title. If the pundits on here could once start arguing successfully about significant pre 2007 failure (in the plural ) of EVRDs and show that some authoritative body had closed it's EVRD facility because it was a failure then one might have a rethink. Until then the pundits on here are, forgive the expression, p***ing in the wind. I will not post a link because on a previous post I included a bibliography. It is fairly apparent what is being driven at on this thread but there appears to be a lack of bottle in actually expressing it in unequivocal terms.
so having done your extensive research you come back with exactly what I said you would....cadaver dogs are extremely good at finding cadavers...check my posts that's exactly what I said...no one disputes that fact....grimes searches are totally irrelevant to searching for cadavers..eddie is an EVRD dog...thats what hes good at...in PDL there was no cadaver and he was asked to do a different job...find evidence...he didn't find any...thats not his fault there was none there
Mark Harrison, from his recommendation of dog-deployment in the holiday apartments:
The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
so having done your extensive research you come back with exactly what I said you would....cadaver dogs are extremely good at finding cadavers...check my posts that's exactly what I said...no one disputes that fact....grimes searches are totally irrelevant to searching for cadavers..eddie is an EVRD dog...thats what hes good at...in PDL there was no cadaver and he was asked to do a different job...find evidence...he didn't find any...thats not his fault there was none there
Intelligence indeed,
Add dog alerts to the last known sighting of Maddie (head slumped on 60-80% man's shoulder, arms hanging by her side) and then take into account that she aint been seen again and that Kate saw fit to look for her inside a big dumpster type bin and it really don't take a great deal of intelligence to work out that something other than abduction happened.
The last known sighting of her? How do you know it was her?
A family saw a child who may have been her, or not.
In fact he was tasked to find any evidence that a child had died in that apartment. That evidence could be a cadaver, cadaver parts or cadaver scent. Eddie's alerted to potential cadaver scent on several occasions meaning that he could very well have detected a deceased Madeleine. Then again it could have been merely minute quantities of dried blood.
To get back to my last point, the alerts are just like the forensics, inconclusive. But there still is potential for a massive cover up.
Hardly surprising really as the dog alert was at a place where nobody was suggesting the body had lain. And the dog failed to alert at the place where the body was found.
I find it quite fascinating when gilet repeatedly posts on this issue, with to put it mildly an ultra-thin veneer of neutrality.
However, that neutrality is irrelevant and clearly doesn't exist, no matter the pretense.
It has already been established that the forensics were inconclusive.
The dogs made alerts, which posters from either side of the fence will disagree on.
The bottom line is, posters supporting the mccanns will attack the use of dogs and say they have no meaning, whilst those on the reverse will say they have significance, as dogs are very reliable in what they do. The same dogs having being used by the same handler in other cases.
Likewise, Martin Grime had no axe to grind, he was merely doing his job, and any other handler would also have been attacked by the mccanns supporters in the same way.
It has always been a SHAME they never attacked the parents for what they did in leaving their children in the first place, which is where the case starts with Madeleine's disappearance and the inexcusable leaving of leaving 3 children unprotected for extended periods of time, with infrequent and no independently corroborated checks. As s well known, children of that age are extremely vulnerable, and nothing said by the mccanns or those that back them, can change that.
Meanwhile there is nothing to prove an abduction took place, and certainly no forensics to back one up.
Gilet, my husband almost always wears a particular pair of shoes to walk the dogs. The second he lays his hands on the shoe, the dogs' behaviour changes. They know that they're going for a walk. My husband works shifts, so the dogs aren't walked at a particular time.
On the very rare occasion that he has worn different shoes, or has had to replace his 'dog walking' shoes, the dogs have not jumped up ready for walkies as he's lacing them up.
The second he touches their leads they react though. They don't refuse to leave the house cause he's wearing the wrong shoes! They're still cued to prance about with waggy tails, just at a slightly later point, i.e picking up the leads.
The idea that someone has to be wearing the right clothes is laughable to anyone who owns a dog. Or knows a dog. Or knows someone who knows a dog.
Work is a human concept. Dogs like to be busy and engaged. An intelligent dog needs something to do. It isn't a job or work to them. It's fun!
Edited to add that Mr Grime failing to wear the correct clothing caused his dogs to be less reliable has to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard so far.
I find your post desperately sad. Your whole approach seems to be "attack", expecting it of others and regretting that others don't attack the parents of a missing little girl and imagining that the posts of others are some form of attack when they are no such thing.
A little bit of my personal history regarding the case may enlighten you. Initially, when I first began to read about the case, I was extremely dubious about the role of the parents and even their friends who were in PDL with them. But even then I did not "attack" the parents. Why should I? I am not at war against them. I simply want to find the truth as to what happened. The best method of doing this is not to "attack" those who may be involved but to question as carefully and as widely as possible about the events. The idea of "attacking" suspects was prevalent in certain police forces in the past but in civilised nations such methods have been seen to be ineffective and downright dangerous. Clearly it is not to your liking that modern police and others who see that simple "attack" is ineffective prefer to use more effective methodologies.
I managed, eventually, to get to read the full PJ files which I noted bore absolutely no resemblance to the blazing headlines of the UK and PT media which had previously been my main source of information about the events. I noted also that the conclusions of the PJ files did not, in any way support the book written by Amaral which I read in its French and English translations. I considered all this in relation to my initial doubts about the integrity of the McCanns and decided that there was not sufficient evidence for me to consider them guilty of any crime. I did not rule out that in the future some such evidence might come to light but in 2008/2009 it certainly did not exist in the public domain.
Since then I have not seen any new evidence which has persuaded me of the guilt of the parents of any crime. And unlike certain people on this forum, I retain some trust in both the PJ and SY teams who have both indicated that they are not looking at the parents as suspects and this further reinforces my own reading of the evidence.
The reason you do not see me questioning the McCanns so much now is that personally I have already done that. I assure you that I have looked at the statements (yes there are inconsistencies but having taken the time to discuss this with serving police I realise that similar inconsistencies exist in every set of statements as people simply do not recall things in identical ways), I have looked at the dog alerts and realise that they do not indicate that Madeleine McCann is dead (yes they may alert to unexplained cadaver scent but that is not proof of anything) and I have taken note that every one of the most lurid stories which originally influenced me has been removed by the newspaper involved without any attempt to defend it in a court of law (which strongly suggests that they know there is nothing to support the headlines).
I don't take anything at all at face value. And that includes the alerts of the dogs.
You seem to take issue with me posing questions about the dogs and suggest that we should take them at face value as indicating a death in the apartment. Only last night I discussed that here at length with Pathfinder and was not altogether surprised to find that he or she could not provide any evidence to support that an alert to cadaver scent in the apartment must have related to the presence of an actual cadaver in that apartment. There is nothing to show that the presence of such cadaver scent (if such a scent ever was present and even Grime cannot do more than tell us the alerts are suggestive not definitive indicators of that) could not have been due to such scent having been introduced into the apartment by some other means (on clothing, object etc.).
Thankfully, I am aware that police do not have your attitude to things these days. They question everything relating to a case, they know that should they ever bring a case to court the lawyers will also question every detail of the work done. They do not simply say that people had no motive to do something wrong therefore their actions need not be questioned. They know that everybody has the capacity to make mistakes.
And most importantly they do not, as your post shows you shamefully want people to, "attack" people. They investigate and look for the truth. I try to emulate those methods.
As for your final comment please take that to the relevant thread. This topic is about the reliability of the dogs.
That's the point and importantly the distinction which some are failing to make. Martin Grime stated that the alerts 'had no evidential value' in the absence of 'forensic corroboration', he did not state they weren't evidence. To take this one step further, if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value. The bottom line is, the alerts exist, they were documented and can be referred to in a criminal court if need be.
I will add this though. The exercise was fraught with difficulties and obstacles, the least being the passage of time and contamination. It achieved very little of anything and in my opinion was a complete fiasco of monumental proportion.
Depends what you mean. The dogs alerts in the farm bungalow alerted police to the fact that she might be dead. That in turn was but one factor which encouraged the CPS to take it to court.
Ref your point on evidence. The dog evidence is a fact, it just doesn't disappear when it suits. The value or as has been referred to, the evidential value, will vary depending on the forensics. There is forensics in the case but inconclusive therefore leaving the entire case in limbo land.
Actually, the dogs are not supposed to find evidence, they alert where evidence may be found. It is up to humans after that.
I am with you Mr Moderator.
The first "cadaver" dog was deployed in 1974. So it is hardly some new kind of voodoo is it man?
Many US States have specialist EVRD Units; The FBI; The Royal Canadian Mounted Police; The US Military have used them for finding MIA's from the South East Asia conflict and so it goes on. Obviously a lot of this predates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. These teams clearly know what they are at a little bit better than the pundits on here. If not, one helluva lot of cash has been wasted. You can imagine some US Marine "Gunny" with his dogs in Vietnam paddy looking for MIAs saying to his dogs. "Well fellas we are being pulled out. Anonymous Limey civilians on a Limey website say we are wasting our time because some retired Portuguese detective.................."
So given that EVRDs are in wide use and have been in use since 1974, that these teams know what they are at and that it isn't exactly new technology, there are papers written by those who know what they are at on "alerts" and their meanings, why the argument on here about general reliability of the dog teams?. One rapidly comes to the conclusion it is about one particular man and two specific dogs, despite the thread title. If the pundits on here could once start arguing successfully about significant pre 2007 failure (in the plural ) of EVRDs and show that some authoritative body had closed it's EVRD facility because it was a failure then one might have a rethink. Until then the pundits on here are, forgive the expression, p***ing in the wind. I will not post a link because on a previous post I included a bibliography. It is fairly apparent what is being driven at on this thread but there appears to be a lack of bottle in actually expressing it in unequivocal terms.
No clue what point, if any, you are trying to make.
People lie their asses off , dumb tw..s believe them. That's the message I got.
Just reading back.
Gilet posted this in response to my point that a cadaver dog alert was not used as evidence in the Adrian Prout trial.
Not quite right.
The prosecution case was that Prout had strangled Kate in the lounge of the holiday home (which is where Eddie alerted).
It was only Prout's confession and the fact that he divulged where Kate's body was that revealed that detail as erroneous in a nonetheless safe conviction.
Prout's conviction was based on other factors, such as the fact that none of her bank accounts had been touched from the point that she disappeared.
In the end, the only thing that matters is forensic evidence.
The function of the dogs is to narrow down the search area. It is then down to the forensic teams to gather material and the lab(s) to analyse it.
And that is it - in this case there is no forensic evidence from which a conclusion can be drawn.
Your rather nasty comment towards the end of your post is regrettable in a serious discussion, but comes as no great surprise.You have made your position with respect to my attitude and turn of phrase clear before.
To answer your main point though. Nobody is suggesting that dogs do not provide a valuable role in indicating where evidence may exist. It doesn't take any bibliography to assure any sane person that police dogs have a vital role to play in highlighting potential sites for humans to investigate further.
But, I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that no false alerts ever occur, or that handler bias can be an issue, or that alerts have to be corroborated by actual evidence to be of any significant value in most cases.
Would you suggest that those people who have been alerted to by drug sniffer dogs at airports and who after further intense scrutiny by officers or others have bee found to have no drugs at all, or perhaps more accurately reflecting the situation of the McCanns, whose baggage has the tiniest trace of a drug on the exterior, should still be considered guilty and should be hounded by those officers for years afterwards because the dogs never lie?
Because that is precisely what is happening to the McCanns. They were alerted to. Intense scrutiny then followed. Nothing was found which showed that the McCanns were involved in any crime. Yet the hounding continues...
You are not neutral in your stance and never have been.
Nothing you have typed here would suggest otherwise.
As to 'attacking people', pull the other one.
Place Madeleine's disappearance where it belongs, at her parents feet.
Again with 'abduction', NAE EVIDENCE AT ALL.
P.S. I am not 't war' with the parents, but I do place the blame where it belongs and nothing you can say will change that.
You are not neutral in your stance and never have been.
Nothing you have typed here would suggest otherwise.
As to 'attacking people', pull the other one.
Place Madeleine's disappearance where it belongs, at her parents feet.
Again with 'abduction', NAE EVIDENCE AT ALL.
P.S. I am not 't war' with the parents, but I do place the blame where it belongs and nothing you can say will change that.
You have made your position with respect to my attitude and turn of phrase clear before.
Don't be fooled that a rough accent and turn of phrase akin to a pirates parrot somehow equates to a lack of education.
The rest of your post is not relevant to the question of whether or not EVRDs are reliable which is the thread topic.
The McCanns are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not EVRDs are reliable.
You have made your position with respect to my attitude and turn of phrase clear before.
Don't be fooled that a rough accent and turn of phrase akin to a pirates parrot somehow equates to a lack of education.
The rest of your post is not relevant to the question of whether or not EVRDs are reliable which is the thread topic.
The McCanns are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not EVRDs are reliable.
Your rather nasty comment towards the end of your post is regrettable in a serious discussion, but comes as no great surprise.
To answer your main point though. Nobody is suggesting that dogs do not provide a valuable role in indicating where evidence may exist. It doesn't take any bibliography to assure any sane person that police dogs have a vital role to play in highlighting potential sites for humans to investigate further.
But, I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that no false alerts ever occur, or that handler bias can be an issue, or that alerts have to be corroborated by actual evidence to be of any significant value in most cases.
Would you suggest that those people who have been alerted to by drug sniffer dogs at airports and who after further intense scrutiny by officers or others have bee found to have no drugs at all, or perhaps more accurately reflecting the situation of the McCanns, whose baggage has the tiniest trace of a drug on the exterior, should still be considered guilty and should be hounded by those officers for years afterwards because the dogs never lie?
Because that is precisely what is happening to the McCanns. They were alerted to. Intense scrutiny then followed. Nothing was found which showed that the McCanns were involved in any crime. Yet the hounding continues...
You suppose too much I fear. At no point have I questioned your level of education. If you were to look again I simply suggested that your use of the terminology you abusively used was regrettable. I maintain that.
As for whether the reliability of sniffer dogs is relevant or not you are being rather disingenuous.
Firstly the thread title does not restrict discussion to EVRD dogs as drug sniffer dogs are most definitely Forensic Evidence Search Dogs.
Secondly, this whole thread has to be read in the context of its position on the forum. This is a thread being written on a board entirely devoted to the McCann case and it is therefore not (as you rather disingenuously claim) off topic to use McCann case examples when discussing the reliability of the dogs.
Well pardon me ; perhaps if you didn't make a career out of talking down to people and being condescending. I'll will do a deal with you. You cut the condescending manner and I'll disable pirates parrot mode.
As a non-expert I accept your comments. However, in my original post I showed that an expert dog-handler does state that the change in clothing affects whether the dog is in "working mode". If experts have reservations then there is a legitimate question to answer.
And do remember that Mr Grime did not even wear consistent clothing in PDL. Why did he not follow the kind of procedures a police officer would normally follow?
People can read your post for themselves.
It is a strong theme in the post I refer to that you believe it is a shame that people are not, as you put it ATTACKING the McCanns.
Just because others are not prepared to join with you in such attacks does not mean that others are not searching for the truth.
To find the truth you must be open to all possibilities.
Clearly from your final comments above you have closed your mind to other possibilities and have decided on the guilt of the parents even though absolutely no proof exists of any such guilt.
I am afraid that you will never persuade me to close my mind in the way you have done and to behave effectively like a mini lynch-mob as you are doing; haranguing the parents of a missing child as if they are guilty of a crime when no evidence of any such guilt exists.
Shame on you.
At what point did the expert express reservations?
He didn't. He stated "That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode"
And as I pointed out earlier, that is the dogs first cue that he's about to 'work'. Should that initial cue be missing, do you really think that he wouldn't obey a command?
You actually think it's possible that a police dog would fail to apprehend a criminal on command because his trainer was wearing a different jumper?
Unfortunately everything you have written about the dogs and their alerts is now coloured for me by the fact that you seem to be working under the misapprehension that dogs are people.
You have no understanding of how dogs think at all do you? You can't have to believe for even a nano second that a uniform will affect the relationship between a dog and its owner.
On the contrary, it is you who has a closed mind.
Your mindset is blatantly obvious and designed to deceive.
It is not lynch mob mentality to state the obvious................
The three children should never have been left in an unlocked apartment, whilst their parents placed their socializing first and foremost.
It is you who need to GET REAL and place the blame for Madeleine's disappearance where it lasts, at the hands of her parents and not some made up abductor(s), for which there is no proof, let alone forensic evidence.
SHAME ON YOU
Now back to the topic at hand.
I will let the readers look back at your posts and see who is open-minded or not. Your previous post made it very clear that you have already declared the McCanns guilty in relation to the cadaver dog alerts. No more need be said other than that there is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns. Your obsession flies in the face of the Official Portuguese Archival Report.
Now back to the topic at hand.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. It is, however, based on dog alerts which may or may not have the slightest bearing on the disappearance.
Till you provide me with one tiny fragment of evidence that the alerts relate to Madeleine or even that the alerts are actually reliable then I believe that I am also perfectly entitled to my own opinion which clearly differs from yours.
Your entire reasoning is based on alerts which have never been shown to relate to the missing child or even to cadaver scent at all. Even Grime goes no further than saying that the alerts are "suggestive".
It appears that those "suggestive" alerts are enough to sway you.
I prefer to remain more open-minded and await actual evidence.
Just to add. Your third paragraph seems to suggest that no other option but the one you support is even valid. That is simply untrue.
Posters will have read your posts as well.
The case was shelved due to lack of evidence. No more than that.
I notice that you don't refer to the incompetence of leaving three small children the way they did REPEATEDLY.
YES, posters will read your posts and make their own conclusions. DON'T KID YOUR SELF OTHERWISE.
As for the dogs, the forensic evidence was inconclusive.
I suggest you pay attention to what is written and not your bias in favour of the mccanns.
You disrupt every thread with the same posts...we need to start reporting you for off topic posting
Try not to be a hypocrite davel.
If someone is going to criticize me, they must expect it in return.
Can't gilet stick up for herself ?
Clearly we disagree. I think the way a dog reacts is very pertinent. This expert handler indicates that a dog is more likely to be in "work mode" when the uniform is recognised is irrelevant to you. No problem. But I repeat I prefer the expert opinion to that of non-experts such as yourself.
This is not about apprehending criminals in a chase but about a situation which Grime himself as referred to as being like a game for his dogs. It is a game in which they seek reward for their actions.
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
Well, not always as the case of Thomas Quick proves. He was someone who confessed to a string of murders leading detectives to the places where he said the murders were committed. A police dog called Zampo was used to build a case against him.
"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
The reason why no trace of blood or body parts was found in those locations despite the positive alerts was because Thomas Quick didn't actually commit any of the murders.
Why, I wonder, did the dog alert 45 times at those 24 locations if no murders had taken place there? Perhaps one of the dog experts on this forum could explain...
He did not at any point say that a dog is more likely to be in "work mode" when the uniform is recognised!
That is not what he said!!!
The line is: "That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode"
As I have patiently explained to you, that is simply the first cue the dog has that 'work' is on. Should that cue be missing for whatever reason, the dog will react to the next cue.
You have clearly misunderstood.
Ok, Since you seem to believe that dogs think like people, try this one:
Fred comes home from work and his wife is in sexy underwear, laying provocatively on the bed. Fred knows he's getting lucky.
Fred comes home from work, his wife is doing the dishes. They go to bed. She whispers in his ear "fancy a bit of slap and tickle?"
In your analogy Fred doesn't react cause his wife hasn't got her gear on.
Also, the dog who apprehends the criminal doesn't know that he's apprehending a criminal any more that the EVRD knows he's picked up cadaver scent. They are both playing games.
Go to the park and watch a dog playing fetch. That is watch a police dog is doing. Then hide a treat somewhere and tell the dog to go find, that's what the EVRD is doing.
Same as if I ran a hundred metres and Jessica Ennis runs a hundred metres. We're both running. It's just that through a combination of natural ability and training, she is much, much better than I am at it.
Try not to be a hypocrite davel.
If someone is going to criticize me, they must expect it in return.
Can't gilet stick up for herself ?
Sorry, the clear intention of that phrasing is that when the handler is not in uniform, then the dog is not in work mode.
I literally just face palmed!
I'm going to ask you a yes or no question ok?
Do you think a highly trained dog would fail to follow a command because his/ her trainer is wearing a tutu and fairy wings?
Are we talking about Fred or a dog
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
Well, not always as the case of Thomas Quick proves. He was someone who confessed to a string of murders leading detectives to the places where he said the murders were committed. A police dog called Zampo was used to build a case against him.
"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
The reason why no trace of blood or body parts was found in those locations despite the positive alerts was because Thomas Quick didn't actually commit any of the murders.
Why, I wonder, did the dog alert 45 times at those 24 locations if no murders had taken place there? Perhaps one of the dog experts on this forum could explain...
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
Well, not always as the case of Thomas Quick proves. He was someone who confessed to a string of murders leading detectives to the places where he said the murders were committed. A police dog called Zampo was used to build a case against him.
"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
The reason why no trace of blood or body parts was found in those locations despite the positive alerts was because Thomas Quick didn't actually commit any of the murders.
Why, I wonder, did the dog alert 45 times at those 24 locations if no murders had taken place there? Perhaps one of the dog experts on this forum could explain...
There are few credible explanations for this behaviour of Zampo.
One might be that there was a scent relating to an unknown cadaver in the locations alerted at but which has never been found despite human intervention. This seems highly unlikely as an explanation given the high number of locations where such a coincidental scent would have to have existed.
Another might be that the dog's training was flawed and that some other scent in the environment was, unbeknown to the handler, also capable of triggering an alert by this dog.
The third possibility also relates to possible flaws in the dog's training or handling. The training is in the form of a game with rewards. Perhaps the dog was too keen to receive rewards, perhaps the handler was not sufficiently aware of the potential for cueing of the dog.
We can only speculate, of course, as to possible reasons. There is no right answer to the question you posed.
But what the whole episode does re-inforce very strongly is that simply telling people that "dogs don't lie" or that "the dog alerts are evidence" without further careful and serious investigation and without being open-minded enough to accept that there are many examples of such flawed alerts is pointless. Such behaviour does not help anyone find the truth.
Yes, that is a possibility if it is not within the working parameters of that dog. Are you seriously suggesting that such a garb could not distract a dog or even that dogs cannot be distracted? Because that would be really silly.
Yes, I'm saying that a bloody dog is not a bloody human and you have to stop assuming that they are!!!
The bloody dog does not know what a bloody tutu is cause its a bloody dog!!! It smells its master. It hears it's master and it senses its master! It doesn't care if its master is in a bloody, bloody tutu!
Its a BLOODY DOG!!!!
I've gone passed face palming know and I'm repeatedly head banging the desk. Have you never even known anyone who owns a dog?
Have you been to an area that dogs frequent?
Or have you perchance red the Spot the dog books?
Look, imagine for a moment that you're an evolutionary biologist and I'm a creationist claiming that it's more likely God planted dinosaur bones for a laugh than that evolution is true. Imagine the level of frustration you'd be feeling?
That's me right now.
Why would Martin Grime necessarily assume that the Grand Scenic was used by the McCanns just because it had Madeleine posters on the back windows, for all he knew it was a decoy vehicle entered into the process. You are allowing your prejudices to cloud your judgement gilet.
Yes, I'm saying that a bloody dog is not a bloody human and you have to stop assuming that they are!!!
The bloody dog does not know what a bloody tutu is cause its a bloody dog!!! It smells its master. It hears it's master and it senses its master! It doesn't care if its master is in a bloody, bloody tutu!
Its a BLOODY DOG!!!!
I've gone passed face palming know and I'm repeatedly head banging the desk. Have you never even known anyone who owns a dog?
Have you been to an area that dogs frequent?
Or have you perchance red the Spot the dog books?
Look, imagine for a moment that you're an evolutionary biologist and I'm a creationist claiming that it's more likely God planted dinosaur bones for a laugh than that evolution is true. Imagine the level of frustration you'd be feeling?
That's me right now.
What is becoming very clear is that certain posters are desperately avoiding posts 599 and 618 on this thread where they might have to discuss the reliability of the actual dogs and are doing their very best to disrupt with inane and childish comments.
It's obvious why as well.
The commoner garden domestic / house dog will react to outside distractions !
A professional / working dog will carry out the work they are trained to do irregardless of outside influences or how their handler is dressed !
I have worked extensively with guide dogs for the blind, the breeds I have worked with varied from Retrievers, Labradors and Bull Mastiffs, the working dog WILL NOT react differently irregardless of what clothing their handler is wearing.
They have a job to do for which they have been trained to do AND they carry out that job in accordance with their training !
I'm not going to respond in kind to your inane post other than to say repeat that no matter how hard you bang your head on your desk like someone with a personality disorder, I prefer to take the word of the professional dog-handler which I posted earlier.
You seem to think that dogs cannot be distracted by simple things.
That is just foolishness.
The commoner garden domestic / house dog will react to outside distractions !
A professional / working dog will carry out the work they are trained to do irregardless of outside influences or how their handler is dressed !
I have worked extensively with guide dogs for the blind, the breeds I have worked with varied from Retrievers, Labradors and Bull Mastiffs, the working dog WILL NOT react differently irregardless of what clothing their handler is wearing.
They have a job to do for which they have been trained to do AND they carry out that job in accordance with their training !
No what is self evident is your expression of neutrality, ridiculous in extreme.
No matter what you claim or is counter claimed , the dogs have significance.
That is why you keep returning to the subject.
Yup, it seems so, can you convey that to gilet who seems to be under the misinformed illusion that a handlers clothing can influence a trained dogs findings, thanks in advance !
Show me the post where the dog handler claims that his dog will not respond unless he's wearing his uniform?
You can't cause it doesn't exist.
What was said is that the dog shifts in to work mode when the uniform is seen.
How you have managed to twist this to meaning that the dog will not react unless the uniform is being worn is beyond me comprehension!
It is THE most stupid reason I have ever heard for the dog's markings being unreliable. Bar none. It is in line with Sadie's Bushra/Madeleine Moroccan fake bobbies with blue drawn on nipples fiasco.
It is that ridiculous!
Don't take my word for it. Go and ask someone walking their dog if the dog would've still left the house if he'd used a different lead.
As for my post being inane, give me that over humourless, arrogant, misinformed and condescending any day!
Gilet didn't say that
She has repeatedly said that and it's driving me nuts!
I have posted a quotation from a professional dog handler which is perfectly clear in meaning. You have chosen to ignore that clear meaning and have posted at length without explaining why I should take your word over the word of a professional dog handler.
What reason would the dog handler have had for mentioning the dog's reaction to the handler's appearance if it had no bearing whatsoever on the dog's performance?
Also, thanks Gilet for addressing my post concerning the 45 false alerts given by Zampo in the Thomas Quirk case.
What reason would the dog handler have had for mentioning the dog's reaction to the handler's appearance if it had no bearing whatsoever on the dog's performance?
Also, thanks Gilet for addressing my post concerning the 45 false alerts given by Zampo in the Thomas Quirk case.
Right. I officially give up. Can someone with more patients/sanity to spare please explain that
"That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode."
Does not mean that the dog will not react to commands unless the uniform is being worn please?
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/04/02/3976966.htm
When you read back you will notice that I've never said the dog will not react to commands. That is pure invention on your part. What I have said and which follows on perfectly logically from the professiional dog handler's comment is that the dog will not sense that it is in "work mode". Dogs are conditioned to work mode by various means. In the case of a guide dog that might well be the putting on of a harness. In the case of other dogs that might be related to uniform. The dog may be in more playful mode and more easily distracted when not given familiar cues such as the uniform which the professional handler tells us is important.
But your second paragraph is flawed. You refer to such alerts as evidence. They are not evidence unless corroborated. They are merely indicators with absolutely no evidential value or reliability with out such corroboration as Grime persistently tells us.
What is becoming very clear is that certain posters are desperately avoiding posts 599 and 618 on this thread where they might have to discuss the reliability of the actual dogs and are doing their very best to disrupt with inane and childish comments.
It's obvious why as well.
Says you having given my post 608 a body swerve. What are your credentials with respect to generic forensic dogs? ( paraphrased as it were so do not slide out from under with a lecture on dog definitions).
I don't know when the training video was filmed, but it is obviously normal practice....
No rubber gloves were used when training and using skeletal samples?……Could this not cause X contamination of trainer’s clothing etc?
Is it a possibility that further X contamination may occur during an investigation whilst innocently, touching and brushing past articles, while wearing garments, used in training, without the use of protective gloves ?
Video around at around 1 min.15 secs onwards
it is the command that the dog reacts to, not the clothing, not the environment, not the weather. The command.
I think for some that is the concern. The dog is supposed to react when it smells cadaver not when it is commanded to react. Possibly this isn't what you meant to imply but it is certainly a possibility in this case as in the Thomas Quirk case, don't you agree? I'm not suggesting it was a deliberate command by the way but that the handler may, owing to a strong belief in the guilt of the parties being examined, have miscued the dog unconsciously. This is a phenomenon that has been officially observed in test situations on sniffer dogs by the way.
Why are you assuming the dog was 'wrong' ? ( for whatever reason )
I mean, Madeleine McCann disappeared without trace and was last seen alive ( seven years ago ) in the very apartment where the cadaver dog barked his alert
On what basis do you assume there must be some reason, OTHER than because he detected the scent of the missing child's dead body, for the dog alerting ?
Do you accept that the dog may have alerted for no other reason than he DID detect the scent of the missing child's dead body ?
If Madeleine's abductor took her alive from the apartment, there would be no death scent.
If (almost certainly he) took her dead from the apartment, there would be no death scent, because the PMI would be too short.
If Madeleine wandered out of the apartment of her own accord, there would be no death scent.
All equals no death scent ...
What evidence is there to support your assertion that the missing child's dead body was not in the apartment long enough for a cadaver scent to have been detectable to the dog ? ( an hour and a half )
Kate found an apartment absent of Madeleine.
ah, so the 'evidence' you are citing is the McCanns' 'say-so'
OK then, we'll leave it there
So you dismiss automatically, the statement of a UK GP as being unreliable? On what basis do you do that?
Are all statements automatically unreliable in your view or just those of the McCanns?
What a silly questionThanks for the response. Not as silly as you claim as it has made clear for the first time your motive for dismissing the statement as you did.
I am questioning the value of Kate McCann's statement because IF Madeleine's dead body was in the apartment long enough for a cadaver scent to be detectable, then the McCanns ( both of them ) would, necessarily, have to have lied
.... and what on earth has the fact that she is a GP got to do with it ?
If one takes the absolute (1 out of 5 dogs, ideal conditions) minimum from csst study, how do things add up?
Kate found an apartment absent of Madeleine.
What reason would the dog handler have had for mentioning the dog's reaction to the handler's appearance if it had no bearing whatsoever on the dog's performance?
Also, thanks Gilet for addressing my post concerning the 45 false alerts given by Zampo in the Thomas Quirk case.
If Madeleine's abductor took her alive from the apartment, there would be no death scent.
If (almost certainly he) took her dead from the apartment, there would be no death scent, because the PMI would be too short.
If Madeleine wandered out of the apartment of her own accord, there would be no death scent.
All equals no death scent ...
Kate found an apartment absent of Madeleine.
I presume you have proof of abduction ?
During training there is far less likelihood of contamination because the handler or training organiser knows the location of the scent.
When dealing with sites and locations where intensive forensic examination is likely to be needed then full protection should be standard practice.
Why did Grime dress up for the car search but not bother for the other searches. That makes absolutely no sense to the lay observer.
So you did see the video then. Did you notice the chinos/jumper combination which later became a chinos/t-shirt number?Training video. Not working situation.
Did you further notice that neither outfit was of a police officer and that it had zero effect on the dog's ability it alert?
I think for some that is the concern. The dog is supposed to react when it smells cadaver not when it is commanded to react. Possibly this isn't what you meant to imply but it is certainly a possibility in this case as in the Thomas Quirk case, don't you agree? I'm not suggesting it was a deliberate command by the way but that the handler may, owing to a strong belief in the guilt of the parties being examined, have miscued the dog unconsciously. This is a phenomenon that has been officially observed in test situations on sniffer dogs by the way.
Interestingly the only option Ferryman doesn't put on the table is:
if the McCann's lied as a result of the child dying in the apartment and was left for some time there would be death scent in the apartment.
And the dog alerted to death scent.
Why he would not put this option on the table when it has not been ruled out by firm evidence, and in fact was "indicated" by the dog, tells you all you need to know about Ferryman's position on trying to find out the truth of what happened.
He appears to be adamant that the dog WAS wrong not because of any firm evidence he has but simply because he has decided the McCann's were not involved. He is now trying to fit his "facts" around his theory.
Training video. Not working situation.
And I notice you have still not commented on either posts 599 or 618.
Then what were you referring to?
Because the post you quoted of mine was entirely, 100% about the video.
Perhaps you should read before posting?
Perhaps he places some trust in the UK and PT authorities. Something you obviously cannot bring yourself to do.
When SY specifically state that neither Gerry, nor Kate, nor any of their friends, after being investigated and after that case has been reviewed, are considered witnesses or persons of interest....
When the Portuguese authorities after one of the biggest investigations in Portuguese legal history declare in the archival report (which incidentally includes the complete reports of the dog deployment) that there is NO EVIDENCE of any crime by the McCanns...
then perhaps it is time for people to think there might just be some truth in it.
But no, you cannot manage to do that can you?
But surely for your (quite bizarre) idea that the dogs need to see a uniform in order to 'work' correctly means that the uniform should be worn during training?
Actually, to use your logic, all dog handlers should only ever wear what they wore during training, since that's what the dogs were first exposed to.
I have read all the posts. which ones in particular you're referring to now, I'll have to go back and check.
At the moment I'm stuck on the whole uniform thing. Funnily enough, it was roughly this time yesterday I gave you the perfectly logical explanation, based on personal experience ie my husband's dog walking shoes, yet here we still are.
Your inability to understand why you are wrong on this rather minor point, which really has nothing to do with the mccann case at all, doesn't inspire me to debate with you on any other facts.
So I am expected to take your word that I am wrong when in fact what I have done is quote a professional dog handler.
Mmm... Let me see...
I have never, ever anywhere claimed any such credentials. I simply read and comment on the statements of professional dog handlers. I don't need credentials to do that, or forums such as this would be pointless.
Your very question is simply ridiculous.
What I have posted is directly in line with what the professionals say. No matter how often you wish to ignore that and prefer to post about banging your head like an insane person, I prefer to believe the professionals rather than amateurs such as yourself.
My experience of technical and scientific disciplines is that they have a “property” which imposes a requirement to have at least an elementary knowledge in order that one may frame an intelligent question or make an informed comment on the subject. This property caused me many years ago to coin the phrase “He doesn’t know enough to be able to ask the right questions”. I would suggest more than a few posters on this thread yourself included drop neatly into that slot. Bluff, bluster, pseudo-scientific terms and eloquent prose notwithstanding it is for the most part as pie crust; that is lacking in substance.
you contradict youself....many of us here have an elementary knowledge of the dogs and are therefore perfectly qualified to have an opinion.
Supplementary 2. What was the actual status of the dogs when in PDL? The PJ report ( http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm ) highlighted by Ferryman refers to Grime as the "trainer/owner" of the dogs. Are we to presume that the PJ was confused about the ownership or are the files accurate? Was Grime operating for personal profit or as part of work undertaken by him for South Yorkshire Police?
Supplementary 3. Again suggested by Ferryman. If Grime was working for South Yorkshire Police why did he not adhere to the norms of such work including wearing police uniform, wearing the same levels of appropriate protective clothing at all time, ensuring non-essential personnel did not have the opportunity to further contaminate the scene, and making the report of the work supposedly undertaken as part of his role as an SYP officer on official headed paper and from an official address?
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
Well, not always as the case of Thomas Quick proves. He was someone who confessed to a string of murders leading detectives to the places where he said the murders were committed. A police dog called Zampo was used to build a case against him.
"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
The reason why no trace of blood or body parts was found in those locations despite the positive alerts was because Thomas Quick didn't actually commit any of the murders.
Why, I wonder, did the dog alert 45 times at those 24 locations if no murders had taken place there? Perhaps one of the dog experts on this forum could explain...
That's too much of a coincidence for me.
How about scent line ups? How reliable are they?
Why are you assuming the dog was 'wrong' ? ( for whatever reason )
I mean, Madeleine McCann disappeared without trace and was last seen alive ( seven years ago ) in the very apartment where the cadaver dog barked his alert
On what basis do you assume there must be some reason, OTHER than because he detected the scent of the missing child's dead body, for the dog alerting ?
Do you accept that the dog may have alerted for no other reason than he DID detect the scent of the missing child's dead body ?
These issues have already been addressed on at least three occasions so asking the same question again will be deemed to be spam.
Mr Grime was employed by SYP when he was tasked to Portugal. He retired in August 2007 and was not employed by the police when he wrote his Report thus the non official headed notepaper. At that point he was correctly referred to as the trainer/owner of the dogs having been allowed to retain them on his retirement.
What uniform Mr Grime wore in Portugal was a matter for him. He was not obliged to wear any uniform and protective clothing was a matter entirely for him at his discretion.
Hopefully at some point in the near future he will be able to reply to specific questions on his deployment in Praia da Luz.
No, I hadn't intended to imply that the dogs were cued to alert when there was nothing to alert to.
I must admit that I didn't read the article you posted yesterday about the case of 45 false alerts, I was too annoyed by the uniform thing.
I shall do so today though.
I disagree, John. I find them to be valid points which don't seem to be clear.
Personally, I find the phrasing of "trainer/ owner" (the PT original stated "tratador/dono") to simply express who was in charge of the dogs, although I also see the point that it wasn't specified that the handler was oficially from the UK police. The phrasing doesn't make it clear.
And I also wonder about the second point: why wouldn't an official deployment report be on official letterhead?
OK, thanks - I'd be very interested to know what your thoughts are on Zampo (the dog that falsely alerted in the Thomas Quirk case) when you're ready to give them.
Use your loaf Carana. MG wasn't in a position as a civilian to use SYP stationary, are you for real?
Tratador doesn't translate as trainer strangely but as handler and donor translates as the same word.
I'm aware that tratador can translate as handler/ keeper, whatever and that dono can translate as owner / master.
That's not the issue.
My question is why wouldn't a report from someone officially deployed not be on headed paper?
How does that work for SYP? No report for their files because he'd left? Aren't there normally things to clear up even if you've officially left?
I know your question is directed at Cariad............but just to clarify what you mean by "falsely alerted."
Do you mean that no forensic evidence was found at the alert sites, which confirmed the alerts?
I just wondered how it could be ascertained that no historical cadaver scent could have been present at the sites?
I`d be glad of any info about this possibility..........We`ve been told that a deceased relative of a former resident`s death-bed hospital garments may have been the source of cadaver contaminant in 5A by transference.........These "reasons" for alerts do crop up.
As with the so called coconut/skull tale........We don`t know whether the dog alerted coincidentally to some residual scent around the same site.
(Just wondering about it .)
The alerts all took place in woodland if I recall correctly, at different spots - so, unless there had been (coincidentally) 45 separate deaths of humans in all the same places that Thomas Quirk led the police to I think it's safe to say they were false alerts - of course it's impossible to prove a negative - one has to use common sense in such a situation.
I feel there is usually more to these dog-alert topics than what is deduced from the use of one`s "common sense."
You're off topic. Who MG was working for and how much he earned has no relevance here.
OK, thanks - I'd be very interested to know what your thoughts are on Zampo (the dog that falsely alerted in the Thomas Quirk case) when you're ready to give them.
I feel there is usually more to these dog-alert topics than what is deduced from the use of one`s "common sense."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. For Zampo to have alerted correctly 45 times in 24 locations it would mean that by some amazing coincidence Thomas Quick led the police to numerous places where numerous dead bodies and body parts had lain in previous months or years. Common sense tells us that this is highly unlikely, surely?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
That's the link to the article on Thomas quick and zampo,
"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found. The dog is just as bad as the rest of them."
if you weren't aware of the case either.
Those are the couple of lines about Zampo, but if you have the time, I found the entire article fascinating.
The entire article is fascinating, but none of it alters or modifies the meaning of the extract about Zampo.
Which is why I never claimed it did. I would like more information, but on the basis of that rather scanty bit from the paper, the most logical reason in my non expert view is handler bias.
I did say that in my first post, the one above the one you quoted.
OK.
My opinion as a non expert is that the most likely reason for that large series of uncorroborated alerts is handler cueing.
(Cariad)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
That's the link to the article on Thomas quick and zampo,
"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found. The dog is just as bad as the rest of them."
if you weren't aware of the case either.
Those are the couple of lines about Zampo, but if you have the time, I found the entire article fascinating.
OK.
My opinion as a non expert is that the most likely reason for that large series of uncorroborated alerts is handler cueing.
(Cariad)
What is your "common sense" telling you triggered the alerts, then?Handler bias. The handler had been led to believe (by the accused no less) that each of the places checked by the dog had contained human remains at some point. Consciously or unconsciously the handler cued the dog to alert. That would seem the obvious, common-sense explanation, don't you think?
I`m not trying to attach "reasons" to the alerts.
You must feel that something other than cadaver contaminant caused them?
Handler bias. The handler had been led to believe (by the accused no less) that each of the places checked by the dog had contained human remains at some point. Consciously or unconsciously the handler cued the dog to alert. That would seem the obvious, common-sense explanation, don't you think?
Handler bias. The handler had been led to believe (by the accused no less) that each of the places checked by the dog had contained human remains at some point. Consciously or unconsciously the handler cued the dog to alert. That would seem the obvious, common-sense explanation, don't you think?
Handler bias. The handler had been led to believe (by the accused no less) that each of the places checked by the dog had contained human remains at some point. Consciously or unconsciously the handler cued the dog to alert. That would seem the obvious, common-sense explanation, don't you think?
Well in this case the handler with his dog was simply attemting to corroborate what the accused was already admitting (consciously or unconsciously of course). Had it never come to light that Quick was a fantasist then the dog alerts would never have been challenged presumably.
A handler would probably......... both consciously and unconsciously........... know that his reputation depends on accuracy and include the need for corroborative forensics.
Wouldn`t his "obvious common sense" make him wonder what would be the point of cuing?
A very odd story.
Without having gone into this bizarre case further, based on that article, it would seem to be either handler bias (possibly inadvertent) and/or the dog picking up on partial scent (a few of the compounds, but which may have been insignificant in terms of the investigation) with an aim to please.
I feel that the dog may have alerted to what it had been trained to detect...........The dog alerted 45 times in 24 locations. Do you feel that each alert signified that a body or body part must have been present in each location?
To assume a "false alert" because the particular cadaver being searched for turned out to be absent is not quite right.
The dog alerted 45 times in 24 locations. Do you feel that each alert signified that a body or body part must have been present in each location?
Well in this case the handler with his dog was simply attemting to corroborate what the accused was already admitting - consciously or unconsciously of course. Had it never come to light that Quick was a fantasist then the dog alerts would never have been challenged presumably.
See, without further information, I'm with you one this one. It would be a coincidence the magnitude of an intruder entering 5A, killing Madeleine, removing her body and a cadaver dog falsely alerting 11 times in her last known location.If you can accept unconscious handler bias in one case then why not another?
In other words, it stretches my imagination to breaking point.
The "cued" dog alerts would not have been corroborated with forensic samples, though....The accused went to prison for years despite the lack of any corroborating evidence.
It`s a bit of a leap to presume that the dog alerts would remain unchallenged with no forensics to back them......... A confession could fall apart at any time.....................
How would the alerts corroborate what the accused was admitting without forensics?
Cuing wouldn`t put the forensics there.
The dog alerted 45 times in 24 locations. Do you feel that each alert signified that a body or body part must have been present in each location?
If you can accept unconscious handler bias in one case then why not another?
The accused went to prison for years despite the lack of any corroborating evidence.
We have no way of knowing what contaminants possibly triggered the alerts........or from where or whence they came.The question posed by this thread is are victim detection and forensic evidence search dogs reliable? On the basis of the Thomas Quick example alone one would surely have to conclude not always, unless you believe it's probable or even possible that Zampo's alerts were all triggered by human remains.
What you seem to be angling for is an acceptance of handler cuing.........thereby leading to the very unsubtle link with the McCann case.
I never said I couldn't. If you're referring to the Mccann case though, there were materials located in some of the places the dogs alerted. We don't have the science yet to say that it was blood, but we do know it was human fluid and a blood dog has alerted there, so logically, it would be safe to assume that the dog alerted to what it was trained to alert to and it wasn't just a happy coincidence that the doggy went woof woof where someone had taken a crap behind the sofa, or whatever.I don't understand why you would say it is safe to assume the dog alerted to a cadaver in one instance but not in another. Why can we rule out handler bias in the McCann case, in your view (if that is indeed your view)?
I don't understand why you would say it is safe to assume the dog alerted to a cadaver in one instance but not in another. Why can we rule out handler bias in the McCann case, in your view (if that is indeed your view)?
I wasn't aware anyone had confessed to killing Maddie in 5a?Me neither.
I don't understand why you would say it is safe to assume the dog alerted to a cadaver in one instance but not in another. Why can we rule out handler bias in the McCann case, in your view (if that is indeed your view)?
It is clear that poster bias is ruling out handler bias
So you are an expert now on 'handling dogs' ?
There is no end to your talents. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
We have no way of knowing what contaminants possibly triggered the alerts........or from where or whence they came.
What you seem to be angling for is an acceptance of handler cuing.........thereby leading to the very unsubtle link with the McCann case.
Why have you chosen to ignore this post from John?
« Reply #737 on: April 08, 2014, 05:45:04 PM »Quote
Posters are reminded to discuss the topic and not each other. TY
So you are an expert now on 'handling dogs' ?
There is no end to your talents. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's
I don't understand why you would say it is safe to assume the dog alerted to a cadaver in one instance but not in another. Why can we rule out handler bias in the McCann case, in your view (if that is indeed your view)?
In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's
In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's
My stance on working dogs in general is that they impress me. A dog's nose is more sensitive than our best scientific equipment. That will change. One day, probably in the not too distant future, we will have a way of confirming a dog alert and then all these arguments will become obsolete.
I tend towards the belief that a dog will alert to what it was trained to alert to. You've given us an example of a dog that alerted 45 times in 24 locations in which it was believed a body had been, only later to discover that the 'murderer' was lying.
As far as I can see the only real explanations for that is that:
A, the dog was somehow being unconsciously cued by the handler
B, the murderer was actually telling the truth the first time around and lying on his recantation.
C, By coincidence those locations were the scene of a crime and cadaver was left there.
C is too much of a coincidence for me. I am (to my detriment) unable to believe six impossible things before breakfast, so C is off my list.
B is possible, but from the article it would appear to be highly unlikely. More likely than C, but still a very outside chance, so I'm left with A.
Does believing that handler bias is the most likely cause in this case mean that all working dogs should immediately be retired? That we should dismiss the experiments that have proved their accuracy? that the bodies, bombs, drugs etc that have been discovered by these dogs should be put back and dismissed as coincidence?
Again, that isn't a logical step to take. Accepting that mistakes can happen doesn't mean that mistakes always happen.
All the alerts in the Zampo case were uncorroborated apparently. That is not the case for Eddie and Keela. There were human materials found in locations that were alerted to. That could be a coincidence, but so could Zampo happening across cadaver from other crimes, so without further information, it's probably best to assume coincidence is unlikely.
I would love more information about Zampo. From the bit of research I did yesterday, I found that his trainer is still working and that Zampo successfully alerted to 2000 year old remains (links supplied in last nights post) I would really like to hear what his trainer has to say about it all.
In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's
have you attended a t least a one day course on EVRD dogs.
So you are an expert now on 'handling dogs' ?..
There is no end to your talents. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Gah!!! I forgot to add 'in my non expert opinion'!!! Hereafter to be abbreviated as imneo....
How about two equally unsubtle but very direct links with the McCann case: cuddle-cat, played with but not alerted to -- then hidden and alerted to.Plus the fact that cCat was hidden in a very slightly open cupboard. Eddie sniffed twice close, right past it and then alerted to a pile of ?folders or a sheet of paper on top of the pile.
Clothes in the villa -- no interest from the dog -- same clothes in the gym, apparently "alerted to" ...
Plus the fact that cCat was hidden in a very slightly open cupboard. Eddie sniffed twice close, right past it and then alerted to a pile of ?folders or a sheet of paper on top of the pile.
Seems they must have been cross contaminated. I prefer to think that, rather than they may have been deliberately contaminated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qG21K6XJRg
@3.41 and 3.52 particularly.
Martin is mistaken in thinking that Eddie alerted to Ccat. He clearly alerted to something on the top of the counter, the pile of ?folders or the loose sheet of paper? NOT cCat. How were these papers/ folders cross contaminated?
My stance on working dogs in general is that they impress me. A dog's nose is more sensitive than our best scientific equipment. That will change. One day, probably in the not too distant future, we will have a way of confirming a dog alert and then all these arguments will become obsolete.Thanks for your response.
I tend towards the belief that a dog will alert to what it was trained to alert to. You've given us an example of a dog that alerted 45 times in 24 locations in which it was believed a body had been, only later to discover that the 'murderer' was lying.
As far as I can see the only real explanations for that is that:
A, the dog was somehow being unconsciously cued by the handler
B, the murderer was actually telling the truth the first time around and lying on his recantation.
C, By coincidence those locations were the scene of a crime and cadaver was left there.
C is too much of a coincidence for me. I am (to my detriment) unable to believe six impossible things before breakfast, so C is off my list.
B is possible, but from the article it would appear to be highly unlikely. More likely than C, but still a very outside chance, so I'm left with A.
Does believing that handler bias is the most likely cause in this case mean that all working dogs should immediately be retired? That we should dismiss the experiments that have proved their accuracy? that the bodies, bombs, drugs etc that have been discovered by these dogs should be put back and dismissed as coincidence?
Again, that isn't a logical step to take. Accepting that mistakes can happen doesn't mean that mistakes always happen.
All the alerts in the Zampo case were uncorroborated apparently. That is not the case for Eddie and Keela. There were human materials found in locations that were alerted to. That could be a coincidence, but so could Zampo happening across cadaver from other crimes, so without further information, it's probably best to assume coincidence is unlikely.
I would love more information about Zampo. From the bit of research I did yesterday, I found that his trainer is still working and that Zampo successfully alerted to 2000 year old remains (links supplied in last nights post) I would really like to hear what his trainer has to say about it all.
Edited to add, all IMNEO
my opinion is that there never was a cadaver in 5a....simple laws of logic apply
the mistake posters are making is to relate eddie's role as an EVRD dog to his role as an "I'll point to where you might find some evidence" dog.
Eddie was taken to PDL to try and shed some light on what happened to Maddie by helping to find some forensic evidence. Martin Grime took him to the apartment to point to where some evidence might be. It didn't matter how many times Grime cued eddie...bought him back to the same spot...tried again where Grime thought there might be something......how many times he made the dog have another look...they were looking for evidence and it was important not to miss any possible evidence...as it was none was found.
this ties in with Grime's statement that the alerts were suggestive...and they were...suggestive as to where evidence might be found...places of interest to look closely...but none was found.
eddie did his job properly...Grime did his job properly....but there was no evidence to be found...it's a simple as that
How about two equally unsubtle but very direct links with the McCann case: cuddle-cat, played with but not alerted to -- then hidden and alerted to.
Clothes in the villa -- no interest from the dog -- same clothes in the gym, apparently "alerted to" ...
Only one thing changed in that part of the room and it wasn't bringing in a pile of papers.Can you be explicit?
My stance on working dogs in general is that they impress me. A dog's nose is more sensitive than our best scientific equipment. That will change. One day, probably in the not too distant future, we will have a way of confirming a dog alert and then all these arguments will become obsolete.
I tend towards the belief that a dog will alert to what it was trained to alert to. You've given us an example of a dog that alerted 45 times in 24 locations in which it was believed a body had been, only later to discover that the 'murderer' was lying.
As far as I can see the only real explanations for that is that:
A, the dog was somehow being unconsciously cued by the handler
B, the murderer was actually telling the truth the first time around and lying on his recantation.
C, By coincidence those locations were the scene of a crime and cadaver was left there.
C is too much of a coincidence for me. I am (to my detriment) unable to believe six impossible things before breakfast, so C is off my list.
B is possible, but from the article it would appear to be highly unlikely. More likely than C, but still a very outside chance, so I'm left with A.
Does believing that handler bias is the most likely cause in this case mean that all working dogs should immediately be retired? That we should dismiss the experiments that have proved their accuracy? that the bodies, bombs, drugs etc that have been discovered by these dogs should be put back and dismissed as coincidence?
Again, that isn't a logical step to take. Accepting that mistakes can happen doesn't mean that mistakes always happen.
All the alerts in the Zampo case were uncorroborated apparently. That is not the case for Eddie and Keela. There were human materials found in locations that were alerted to. That could be a coincidence, but so could Zampo happening across cadaver from other crimes, so without further information, it's probably best to assume coincidence is unlikely.
I would love more information about Zampo. From the bit of research I did yesterday, I found that his trainer is still working and that Zampo successfully alerted to 2000 year old remains (links supplied in last nights post) I would really like to hear what his trainer has to say about it all.
Edited to add, all IMNEO
Posters are reminded that personal and abusive posts will be removed
No points on that one.
As you are fond of saying davel, posters opinions have no weight.
Also, a brief reminder, the forensics were INCONCLUSIVE. 8((()*/
The bottom line remains the same.
The forensics were inconclusive, so nothing has been proved or disproved.
Meanwhile on the 'abduction', no forensics at all. In fact nothing, but hyperbole.
No sign or indication at all.
The subject of this thread is Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable? My personal view is that they can usually be relied upon to find human remains when there are any to be discovered in the area being searched, but when the dogs alert and no body or forensics are found we cannot interpret the alert as confirmation of the one-time presence of human remains.
The subject of this thread is Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable? My personal view is that they can usually be relied upon to find human remains when there are any to be discovered in the area being searched, but when the dogs alert and no body or forensics are found we cannot interpret the alert as confirmation of the one-time presence of human remains.
The subject of this thread is Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable? My personal view is that they can usually be relied upon to find human remains when there are any to be discovered in the area being searched, but when the dogs alert and no body or forensics are found we cannot interpret the alert as confirmation of the one-time presence of human remains.
The subject of this thread is Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable? My personal view is that they can usually be relied upon to find human remains when there are any to be discovered in the area being searched, but when the dogs alert and no body or forensics are found we cannot interpret the alert as confirmation of the one-time presence of human remains.
I will go with that 52 pages later. 8)><(@)(++(* Don't cry! There will be another dog thread along in a little while, there always is eventually... 8(0(*
No interest/alert from the dog? = Well there can`t have been any cuing, then ; no expectation of a treat later; no handler expectation or looking at posters ; no handler tapping the items or leading him back ; the dog can`t have been given as long as he was for other items ; no cross contamination.....etc., etc.
An alert or interest shown by the dog? = Reverse all the above "reasons"
.........and round and round it goes......An incompetent handler/unreliable dog assumption or allegation tailored to fit any alert or non alert.
The bottom line still remains that a cadaver dog alerted in the place a missing child was last seen. SY have recently commented that Madeleine may not have been alive when she left it.
There is a subtle difference between 'no forensics' and 'inconclusive forensics'.
However, there is no evidence of anything else that would stand up in court.
Yes, I'd be much happier if the people remembered that there was forensic evidence, we just don't know of whom or what.
So the recovered forensics were basically useless
I agree with most of that, Cariad. However, I think that there is another possibility. A subset of A, possibly.
In operation, as opposed to research blind tests, the handler would presumably be aware of the search area in question and may - or may not - be already aware of why the canine team is being asked to search in a particular area.
A dog may pick up inadvertent cues from the handler and concentrate to the point where some of the substances it's trained to react to are present, even if not in totality. I or someone else pointed out that such dogs can react in areas with peat bogs (I think, from memory), as some of the compounds would naturally be present. The dogs aren't necessarily wrong, but it's the human interpretation of alerts that can be mistaken (as well as possible mistakes from the dogs themselves).
As with any aspect of a case, innocent explanations should be ruled out.
ETA Both by forensic evidence as, after all, that is what is being sought, and by ruling out irrelevant/innocent other reasons for alerts or any forensic evidence that may be found.
I happen to believe that Grime's modus operandi was better suited to another occasion ...
For General Interest Only
2003 Matthew Zarella’s Mission to Vietnam.
<<<Snip>>>
They will be searching 16 sites in nine provinces, mostly ground-losses.
This operation should allow JTF-FA and CILHI to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of using K-9 searchers to assist with the location and recovery of the remains of missing servicemen not only from the Vietnam Conflict, but also
MIA’s from WW2 and the Korean War.
Properly trained and utilized, these specialty canine teams provide an additional resource in the never-ending efforts to locate human remains.
<<<Snip>>>
If the dog alerted, Zarrella reported it to the team and anthropologists dug test pits. Soon he discovered the test pits needed to be expanded.
"The way they were going about it was wrong,'' he said. "The dog alerts to the strongest odor. A lot of times the scent accumulates down-slope from the body or downstream from the body. The dog doesn't always alert at the grave source. They dug in the areas where the dogs alerted, but they weren't finding anything. They finally learned that they had to dig a larger area. It's possible the bones are gone, but the scent remained in the soil for years. They decided to leave the bigger digs for the R&E [Recovery and Excavation] teams. So we flagged and mapped those areas.
<<<Snip>>>
For General Interest Only
2003 Matthew Zarella’s Mission to Vietnam.
<<<Snip>>>
They will be searching 16 sites in nine provinces, mostly ground-losses.
This operation should allow JTF-FA and CILHI to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of using K-9 searchers to assist with the location and recovery of the remains of missing servicemen not only from the Vietnam Conflict, but also
MIA’s from WW2 and the Korean War.
Properly trained and utilized, these specialty canine teams provide an additional resource in the never-ending efforts to locate human remains.
<<<Snip>>>
If the dog alerted, Zarrella reported it to the team and anthropologists dug test pits. Soon he discovered the test pits needed to be expanded.
"The way they were going about it was wrong,'' he said. "The dog alerts to the strongest odor. A lot of times the scent accumulates down-slope from the body or downstream from the body. The dog doesn't always alert at the grave source. They dug in the areas where the dogs alerted, but they weren't finding anything. They finally learned that they had to dig a larger area. It's possible the bones are gone, but the scent remained in the soil for years. They decided to leave the bigger digs for the R&E [Recovery and Excavation] teams. So we flagged and mapped those areas.
<<<Snip>>>
Grime has explained exactly what the alerts signify in PDL...I'ts all in the files
As stated at the top this post was for general interest only with respect to EVRDs.
What has Grime to do with it?
Was he part of the 2003 JTA Mission to South East Asia?
Eddie only bark alerts when he finds the strongest scent e.g. Kate's cadaver pants. He is trained to find the source/strongest scent before alerting. It's the reason the clothes are separated. He can get his nose in close on each item to alert which clothes has the strongest scent. IMO pants were in contact with a cadaver.
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'.
(Martin Grime)
This is from the "questions" section of Mr Grime`s statement:-
'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.[b] The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. [/b]
(Edit to add the link.) .http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
I see so the dogs give a weak alert when they are thirsty @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Apparently........or when they are out of breath!
Still an alert though.......just a bit dry and wheezy after a long day, maybe!
This certainly is the most extreme contradictions in the posts by Grime...strange that posters who have found contradictions in the mccanns posts havent noticed this one
the alert to the flower bed was a weak one...an alert that grime says does not exist
Mr Grime explains the reason why a "weak" vocal alert may occur.
It isn`t really an "extreme contradiction" though, because he explains why a variation in the vocal alert can occur.
mr Grime explains a lot of things but posters don't want to listen
You didn`t listen to his reasons for differences in the vocal alert........You seem to give your own opinion.
and grime has told us what the alerts signify.....
...........and Mr Grime also told us what might lead to a variation in a vocal alert..........(maybe you should take your own advice and listen? )
No he barks at cadaver scent and blood. Other fluids only come into it if mixed with blood.
No he barks at cadaver scent and blood. Other fluids only come into it if mixed with blood.
Grime stated that about Keela. He did not state that about Eddie.
No he barks at cadaver scent and blood. Other fluids only come into it if mixed with blood.
So are you saying that Eddie only barked at Cadaver scent?
No. The only dog that Grime said would not react to any other substance unless it was mixed with blood was Keela. He never said that Eddie wouldn't. He also said that Keela wouldn't react unless there was a physical trace of blood, but he didn't say that about Eddie, either.
Thanks Carana,
I do believe that Eddie was originally trained as a blood dog(Like Keela) but then he was trained as a cadaver, so could alert to either blood or cadaver or in fact anything containing blood or skin cells, which is many things possibly found in 5A, including nappies.
Without getting into graphic detail is it possibly minute traces of blood mixed?
Far from convinced that's true.
It is true that dogs trained on human remains (exclusively) won't react to psuedo-scents, because the primary constituent of these (manufactured) scents is cadaverine, which is too narrow a scent-range for dogs trained on human cadavers.
And Grime says Eddie wont (or wouldn't! RIP) react to pseudo-scents.
So what were these sample pair of pants "laced" with that Eddie was tasked to find in the Sam Parker case?
And what was this "clean-up after sex" scent Eddie alerted to in Jersey?
A constituent of semen is cadaverine.
Which is precisely what Grime tells us.
Also as the McCanns moved into the Payne's apartment during the night of the 4th May - and stayed there until they were given another apartment - then as they were wearing the same clothes they'd worn on the evening of the 3rd, one would think that if there was any 'contaminant' on them - it would have been transferred - and Eddie would have alerted in the Payne's apartment too.
So Eddie could have been alerting to many things really ? Pseudo scent?
The film below shows how he uses skeletal remains to train the dog
page 10
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg143732#msg143732
I don't think so. Grime said that Eddie wasn't interested in pseudo scent, but he doesn't specify which type.
The first compounds to be released wouldn't necessarily be those in the pseudo ones anyway, from what I've been able to glean.
So Eddie could have been alerting to many things really ? Pseudo scent?
The film below shows how he uses skeletal remains to train the dog
page 10
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg143732#msg143732
Sorry Carana. I worded that badly. Ferryman wondered if he M Grimes had used Pseudo scent on some pants that the dog had to sniff and track a victim. I was asking (Pseudo scent?) in reply and added the film of training with skeletal remains.
Sadly, my speakers have packed up.
But here is the quote of Eddie alerting to the "sample pair of pants":
We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent. Eddie is an English Springer Spaniel belonging to Martin Grime, a world-renown forensic K-9 expert based in the United Kingdom.
That was the Sam Parker case ...
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
I was only referring to the clean up tissues.
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.
Why? You don't know what Kate (6-7pm) or Gerry was wearing earlier and I didn't see his blue jeans, button trousers or what looks like a black jacket on the sofa in the dogs footage.
Keela also reacted to those tissues. So it could have been a speck of blood that Eddie reacted to. However, what is not clear is whether Grime wrote up those notes AFTER (or in light of) Keela's reaction, or whether the obvious nature of what had been found was within his training parameters anyway (irrespective of Keela's reaction).
I'm sure you're right.
But I don't recall reading that detail?
What on earth are you talking about Benice? Martin Grime has not commented on any aspect of this case which would in any way compromise his impartiality. Serendipity on the other hand is free to offer his/her opinion based on first hand knowledge of the dogs and their deployments. They have already exposed the 'poacher' as an imposter.
I hope to have some photos of the dogs in action very soon, photos which have never ever been seen in public before. Then we will see who is the fantasist.
I wonder what the definition is of "soon"?
Any sign of the photos?
I am intrigued to know who the fantasist really is because I don't believe everything I am told (without a shred of evidence) by any person whose "knowledge of Grime and the dogs is extensive" but who oddly cannot be called an expert.
Bumpity bump!
Perhaps John has been too busy deleting the vile abuse and disgusting remarks from certain posters today and has missed this question?
Indeed. I am still waiting to know what has happened for Martin Grime to change his mind about it not being appropriate for him to comment on this ongoing case because he may be called as a witness at a trial - to suddenly being quite happy to comment as long as it is is through a third party who just happens to be an out and out 'sceptic'. In fact a 'sceptic' who has already announced on this forum that Martin Grime believes Eddie alerted to a dead body - inspite of his many assertions that without corroborating evidence such an assumption is a definite 'NO NO'.
Yesterday a poster on here, no names no packdrill, said very scathingly that dogs had been done to death or words to that effect.
I see that this forum has getting on for a thousand posts on dogs without much of a conclusion so I would concur.
Yesterday a poster on here, no names no packdrill, said very scathingly that dogs had been done to death or words to that effect.
I see that this forum has getting on for a thousand posts on dogs without much of a conclusion so I would concur.
No reference to a cadaver at all, merely the suggestion that there might have been cadaver odour and those who understand the situation realise that such odour can easily be present where no cadaver has ever been.
So why have the authorities identified where the odour came from?Where did they say the odour come from? How were they able to identify the odour and its source?
So why have the authorities identified where the odour came from?what authorities
So why have the authorities identified where the odour came from?
Lets have Mr Grime's full summary in respect of the dog deployments in Praia da Luz.
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.
Vol IX p. 2478
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Comment: Isn't it strange that the dogs never alerted in any other apartment or villa and that includes the Murat property? Additionally, they did not alert to property belonging to any others within the group. The cross contamination theory therefore would appear to be virtually worthless because of this. No wonder Dr Amaral was convinced that the McCanns were complicit in some way in their daughters disappearance.
Your overly emotive language , your insults and personal attacks indicate where the desperation lies!
A cadaver dog alerted in and around an apartment from which a child went missing.
You cannot prove that the two are not related simply by ranting at posters.
What evidence would you accept as proof that the dog did not alert to cadavour odour?And remembering that the PJ and others have attempted to find evidence that proves the dogs did alert to cadaver odour and failed, what might Stephen25000 put forward to persuade us that any such evidence ever existed?
No-one knows exactly what the VRD alerted to in apartment 5a.
There is no proof of cadaver.
If there had been proof of cadaver, evidence would have been required to prove whose cadaver it was.
This alters nothing I said.
An EVR dog alerted in the apartment from which a child went missing.
Linking the two cannot be dismissed.
This alters nothing I said.
An EVR dog alerted in the apartment from which a child went missing.
Linking the two cannot be dismissed.
It is possible to prove a negative. Check out Professor Hales for one. It depends on constraints and domain size. The particular postulation you quote has severe constraints placed upon it and an almost infinite domain size.
I look forward to your abusive reply.
But neither can any link be determined and rest assured the very best the PJ had spent time trying to detemine such a link. Yet they failed.
After all this time don't you feel a fool promoting a teapot argument and challenging posters to prove a negative. it shows the absolute desperate weakness of your position
There is no weakness at all.
The dogs made indications, FACT.
The forensics were inconclusive,FACT.
The fact that the forensics were inconclusive does not preclude they indicated correctly, no matter what you or your partner gilet may think. 8)--))
Meanwhile you are most welcome to continue orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. 8((()*/
Have a good day.
What evidence would you accept as proof that the dog did not alert to cadaver odour?
It is very revealing when people post a "full report" but show bias by highlighting only certain aspects of it without giving any explanation for that action.
As for the comment you add, I think you are completely wrong. The cross-contamination theory is actually a very sensible explanation as to why there were no alerts in other locations.
Had one item of clothing which had been in close contact with a cadaver been brought from England either by the McCanns or by previous occupants of the apartment and had rested in the cupboard in the bedroom it could have been the source of all the alerts via contamination.
For example, had the trousers of Kate McCann been in contact with a cadaver, had she sat on the grass outside the apartment while playing with the children, had the cuddle cat been carried in a pocket of the trousers and had the trousers been in a box with the other clothes rubbing against them, then I can see that the alerts might have had a single source. It surprises me that others rule this possibility out without explanation.
Completely wrong Gilet? You have completely ignored my point. The dogs might represent many things to different people but it is the absence of alerts which say more than the actual alerts themself.
If the dogs were alerting to many other substances as some contend then why did they not alert in any other apartment, to anyone else's clothing or personal effects?
Why indeed? These dogs could detect miniscule residual odours from blood etc deposited years and years previously.
Either Grimes is lying about the abilities of his dogs or we are being asked to believe that not a single speck of blood had been shed in any of the other apartments or in any of the other cars.
I believe Grime was telling the truth about his dogs skills.
I do not believe that not a single spot of blood had ever been shed in all those other apartments and in those other cars over a period of years.
The one glaring difference between checks associated with the McCanns and all the other checks is the amount of time spent - and if the dogs had been made to spend more time in those other apartments and cars - then I firmly believe more alerts would have been forthcoming. Especially in the Paynes apartment - where Gerry and Kate spent many hours - after moving out of 5A in the early hours of 4th May.
Why indeed? These dogs could detect miniscule residual odours from blood etc deposited years and years previously.
Either Grimes is lying about the abilities of his dogs or we are being asked to believe that not a single speck of blood had been shed in any of the other apartments or in any of the other cars.
I believe Grime was telling the truth about his dogs skills.
I do not believe that not a single spot of blood had ever been shed in all those other apartments and in those other cars over a period of years.
The one glaring difference between checks associated with the McCanns and all the other checks is the amount of time spent - and if the dogs had been made to spend more time in those other apartments and cars - then I firmly believe more alerts would have been forthcoming. Especially in the Paynes apartment - where Gerry and Kate spent many hours - after moving out of 5A in the early hours of 4th May.
I was not talking about dogs. I was refuting the oft quoted phrase you cannot prove a negative.
The favourite on this forum seems to be Russell's Teapot which was quoted by Russell in relation to whether or not God exists.
Completely wrong Gilet? You have ignored the main thrust of my point. The dogs might represent many things to different people but it is the absence of alerts which say more than the actual alerts themself.
If the dogs were alerting to many other substances as some contend then why did they not alert in any other apartment, to anyone else's clothing or personal effects?
The yet as unexplained fact were are left with is that the dogs only alerted in apartment 5a where Madeleine was last seen and to possessions belonging to the McCanns.
What are the chances of that happening by accident? (excuse the pun)
I think you are under a misapprehension...first we would have to define the word "prove"..are we talking civil...criminal or absolute.....none of this is defined....
so can the good professor prove that god does not exist...I think not...theres more to his essay than the opening paragraph
My statement was that as a blanket expression "You cannot prove a negative" is in fact untrue.
You have have done nothing to prove otherwise. Nor will you be able to.
The cadaver dog only alerted in Apartment 5A ( and none of the others ) because the scent he picked up was unique to that apatment alone
The simplest explanation is that he picked up the scent of the dead body of the child who was reported to have gone missing from there
Other explanations may be sought, but that is the most logical one
The police who do have contact with bodies were all over 5a and the car and not other apartments..they also had contact with the mccanns clothes...a simple explanation
Completely wrong Gilet? You have ignored the main thrust of my point. The dogs might represent many things to different people but it is the absence of alerts which say more than the actual alerts themself.
If the dogs were alerting to many other substances as some contend then why did they not alert in any other apartment, to anyone else's clothing or personal effects?
The yet as unexplained fact were are left with is that the dogs only alerted in apartment 5a where Madeleine was last seen and to possessions belonging to the McCanns.
What are the chances of that happening by accident? (excuse the pun)
To where's the proof of police body contact?
You are introducing lots of issues which do not relate to any posts I have made. I wonder why?
I have never contended that the dogs were alerting to many other substances. Eddie would only alert to blood and cadaver odour and Keela to blood. I have no idea what other substances you are referring to.
I have previously explained a perfectly logical and equally possible explanation as to the cadaver odour alerts on all the McCann possessions and in all the locations. Perhaps you missed that?
As for it being an accident that the dogs only alerted to the McCanns, that is precisely the opposite of what I have maintained throughout this thread. I contend it is precisely because there may have been cadaver scent from an unknown source (either a cadaver or some other article) on one item which caused cross-contamination between the items which we know were all in extremely close proximity at certain times.
There was probably not as much cross-contamination between other people's possessions/locations for alerts to occur there.
The fact is that nobody knows the source of the scent and nobody knows the amount of cross-contamination which occurred. No matter how many times people claim that one idea is more likely than another, there simply is no way of knowing what the truth is without that vital forensic corroboration.
What this thread has shown most clearly over the last however many pages is that the dog alerts even if used in a court in some future trial could never have any evidential value because no matter how many alerts there were and where those alerts took place, one can only guess as to the origin of the scent.
And the question of the skill of the handler in determining after a few seconds as to whether any alert was likely or not would also be an issue. Grime may claim that he can work out which rooms/locations/objects need further investigation but would any judge/jury believe him? The evidence of the car video, for example, shows that Grime brought Eddie back to the clearly obvious McCann car time and time again when he showed far more interest elsewhere. And the question of his playing with cuddle cat and his only alerting in its vague vicinity after it was put in a cupboard under a sink where food near where food would have been prepared and any human cuts may have been dealt with/washed would also be raised.
All in all, the alerts are in my view (which co-incidentally is identical to Grime's) only suggestive that cadaver scent may possibly have been present in the locations alerted to. Hardly a convincing peg on which to declare anyone guilty of anything!
To where's the proof of police body contact?
were the police questioned or checked...I doubt it...wheres the proof of anything
Unless what, exactly, happened to Madeleine is uncovered, we must all accept that there is a distinct possibility that the cadaver dog barked in Apartment 5A because he picked up the scent of her dead body there
We do all accept that, don't we ?
Try watching the video for example of the clothes being examined by the dogs. The police are very obviously handling the clothes. All the clothes which were alerted to just happened to have been bundled into a single cardboard box. That would immediately get the evidence disbarred in a UK court because there was no possibility of knowing if one or more items were contaminated by such disgracefully shoddy handling of the items.
So you are making a claim with no evidence, heading teapot direction there?
I have previously explained a perfectly logical and equally possible explanation as to the cadaver odour alerts on all the McCann possessions and in all the locations. Perhaps you missed that?
Why weren't more clothes contaminated? Why not all from same person? Why a kids t-shirt from a missing child case?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/red2.jpg)
Unless what, exactly, happened to Madeleine is uncovered, we must all accept that there is a distinct possibility that the cadaver dog barked in Apartment 5A because he picked up the scent of her dead body there
We do all accept that, don't we ?
Possibly because they just happened to be the closest piled together incompetently by the PJ in that one box where they all were immediately before the dog was let loose on them?
A lot of clutching at straws. A little girl is missing from a flat, a cadaver dog alerted at points in the flat which a blood dog didn't. There is one logical conclusion that you seem to be avoiding at all costs. >@@(*&)
So why didn't Eddie alert to the police, the onlookers or the cardboard boxes as well if they were all cross contaminated? 8)-)))
Whichever way you look at it Eddie alerted for a reason but that reason might never be known.
That doesn't work because you can't pick and choose which objects are the subject of your contamination theory. The dog picked out several specific items and ignored everything else, now there has to be a reason for that.
A lot of clutching at straws. A little girl is missing from a flat, a cadaver dog alerted at points in the flat which a blood dog didn't. There is one logical conclusion that you seem to be avoiding at all costs. >@@(*&)
A lot of clutching at straws. A little girl is missing from a flat, a cadaver dog alerted at points in the flat which a blood dog didn't. There is one logical conclusion that you seem to be avoiding at all costs. >@@(*&)
Absolutely and if you look at what I posted I didn't simply pick things at random. I identified the items and locations alerted to and explained the direct connection between them.
Incidentally, what is the actual delay in producing these photos that you promised? Has somebody been on holiday all this time? Is the migraine the most epic in all of human history? Or why are they taking so long to appear?
I accept what you post Bence but add that this particular criticism has been addressed. Martin knew by the dogs reaction or more importantly, lack of reaction, that the other apartments did not provide any interest to the dogs so there was no point in dwelling in them.
You make an excellent point though about the chances of miniscule spots of blood being in the other apartments or on clothing or objects. This just goes to show that whatever the dogs did alert to in apt 5a was in sufficient enough quantity for the dog to alert.
You do post absolute rubbish at times.
I am avoiding nothing.
I accept ALL possibilities but am not prepared as you are to base justice on a pure guess as to what is most likely to have happened. I prefer evidence and the dog alerts are categorically not evidence, they are merely suggestive indications.
If no one was missing I may tend to agree with you.
Just what exactly are we arguing here? Are we happy to suggest the dogs are of little value because they are only "suggestive indications"?
Only in this case. All other dogs in all other cases are brilliant. I think it was something to do with the flight to Portugal or possibly the heat...?Apart from Zampo too, the dog that falsely alerted dozens of times in Sweden.
Apart from Zampo too, the dog that falsely alerted dozens of times in Sweden.
That was probably the cold.I doubt it. Much more likely unconscious handler bias.
Apart from Zampo too, the dog that falsely alerted dozens of times in Sweden.
Zampo wasn't on this case so who gives a shit. Eddie and Keela have a good reputation. Why?There's no need to be so rude is there? Zampo may not have been on this particular case, but he does demonstrate that even cadaver dogs with good reputations can sometimes make mistakes.
There's no need to be so rude is there? Zampo may not have been on this particular case, but he does demonstrate that even cadaver dogs with good reputations can sometimes make mistakes.
But that doesn't solve the problem John. You are saying that because of the dog's initial reaction - Grime knew that there was not even the tiniest speck of blood in any of the other apartments or the other cars for the dogs to find and alert to in the first place.
So we are back to being asked to believe that no-one had ever bled in any of the other apartments or cars - for years on end. I do not believe that is even remotely possible. Do you? Does anyone?
No takers then - why not ?
How does Keela alert to blood? What does she do? Does she bark and alert to it like Eddie? Why does Eddie go in first? Is it to do Keela's job?
That is an abstract argument though isn't it ?I have not assumed anything, just posited the theory that like Zampo, and many other working dogs that have been proven to be susceptible to handler bias, that Eddie and / or Keela were similarly affected. Anything's possible, but when weighing up the possibilities based on what we know of the case I would say my theory is more likely than the one that the dog alerted to Madeleine's corpse. Just my opinion of course.
Let's consider the cadaver dog alerts in this case
There is no reason at all to 'assume' he was mistaken, is there ? ... I mean, what if his alert was correct and he did pick up the scent of the missing child's dead body in Apartment 5A because she had died there ?
That is entirely possible, isn't it ?
What has that got to do with my post asking if it is feasible that no-one had ever bled in any of the other apartments or any of the other cars for years and years. I don't think it is feasible/. Do you? And if you do - then please explain why.
That is an abstract argument though isn't it ?
Let's consider the cadaver dog alerts in this case
There is no reason at all to 'assume' he was mistaken, is there ? ... I mean, what if his alert was correct and he did pick up the scent of the missing child's dead body in Apartment 5A because she had died there ?
That is entirely possible, isn't it ?
You are forgetting that this case is in a curious bubble where probability theory, the laws of physics and indeed any property do not apply. It is a Panatobe Plain where anything may happen and be explained away in an innocent manner. 8(>((It seems however that certain things have been ruled out as utterly impossible by certain people eg: Eddie could not have been susceptible to unconscious handler bias (why not?) and to reference another thread, that it is impossible to walk up a street in flip-flops without making a large amount of noise that draws attention to yourself (why not?)
I have not assumed anything, just posited the theory that like Zampo, and many other working dogs that have been proven to be susceptible to handler bias, that Eddie and / or Keela were similarly affected. Anything's possible, but when weighing up the possibilities based on what we know of the case I would say my theory is more likely than the one that the dog alerted to Madeleine's corpse. Just my opinion of course.
You are positing that because a different dog, in a different case, alerted wrongly, then it is 'likely' that the dog in this case was wrong too
The logic is broken
I might just as well propose that because the Metropolitan police falsified evidence in the Hillsborough enquiry then it is likely that they are falsifying evidence in the McCann case too !
That proposition, like yours, is non sequitur ... it does not follow a chain of logic
You're not reading my posts carefully. I have said that given cadaver dogs are sometimes prone to handler bias (this is proven and, unless you can show that it was completely impossible for Eddie and Keela to also be susceptible to handler bias, means that it is a possibility to be considered) and that when this is weighed up against the possibility that the dogs correctly alerted to a dead child in the apartment, the hire car etc, it is more likely IN MY OPINION that handler bias is the explanation. Perhaps you would like to explain why you believe that the more plausible explanation is that the dogs alerted to the body of Madeleine McCann, or would you rather not voice an opinion one way or the other?
Agreed it is not feasible. It was cadaver odour that changed Eddie's behaviour as soon as he got to 5A. He even alerted outside to it. The pants were contaminated and Eddie was chasing the scent in the underground car park. The scent coming from the car and the boot findings would've been the reason for Amaral's freezer to later moved out of PDL theory. That scent Eddie is trained to find is everywhere and connected to nobody else. Any detective would have them at the top of the possible suspects list.
It's not the most logical conclusion because there is no supporting evidence of a dead body and because we know for a fact that dogs can make mistakes.
Well, I disagree
A child is reported missing
A dog, trained to bark when he picks up the scent of a dead body, barks in the apartment where the missing child was last seen alive
The child is not seen again and no explanation is found for her disappearance
... the most obvious and logical conclusion to draw is that the missing child died in the apartment
Only in your opinion.....there are other factors that you are not taking into account...SY certainly do not agree with you
With respect - you are still missing the point. I maintain that there must have been some blood deposited somewhere at sometime by living people in one or more of the other apartments and cars.
According to Grime both dogs alert to minute deposits of blood from a living person - even years after it has been deposited.
So why didn't Eddie alert at any of those places where it is obvious that many people must have bled at some time or another over the years. It doesn't make sense unless Grime was lying about his dog's skills - and I don't believe he was.
You agreed that it wasn't feasible that not a speck of blood had ever been shed in the other apartments or cars. So why didn't Eddie alert?
Well, I disagree
A child is reported missing
A dog, trained to bark when he picks up the scent of a dead body, barks in the apartment where the missing child was last seen alive
The child is not seen again and no explanation is found for her disappearance
... the most obvious and logical conclusion to draw is that the missing child died in the apartment
It's not the most logical conclusion because there is no supporting evidence of a dead body and because we know for a fact that dogs can make mistakes.
Only in your opinion.....there are other factors that you are not taking into account...SY certainly do not agree with you
Which bit of most do you not understand.I understand every bit of most, I don't understand why you would need to ask me that though.
Are you having a laugh? Keela has to get in really close with her nose to alert to blood. Do you want Eddie's nose to be on the floor and walls of every inch of all apartments - man he would be in there for days and weeks doing one apartment 8-)(--) Cadaver scent is different that's why he was chasing it in the underground car park and his behaviour changed as soon as got to 5A.
Are you claiming that Eddie was not trained to alert to the odour of blood from a living person? Surely not.
Eddie wouldn't know what he was alerting to. All he knew was that if he recognised certain odours - he had to bark. Martin Grime didn't know which scent Eddie was alerting to either - which is why he sent Keela in afterwards and if she alerted at the same place as Eddie he assumed a blood detection. If she didn't - he assumed cadaverscent.
That was proved with the key fob to which both dogs had alerted - and on which forensic testing then found Gerry's DNA.
So I ask again - why didn't Eddie alert to the blood which must have been deposited in one or more of the other apartments or cars over the years?
Why have you edited my post? That's why Keela is brought in next at the bark alert locations to see if there's blood. Eddie is trained to find cadaver - his behaviour didn't change for blood specs - for that dogs need to get their nose in very close to alert. That's why he didn't alert in other apartments because he didn't have his nose pinned to the floor of every inch of every apartment. Otherwise Eddie would've been sniffing the wall straight away where lots of blood specs were.
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy69/HiDeHo1/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2192_a_small-1.jpg)
I didn't edit your post. I just pressed the 'quote' button as normal. (I truly don't know what happened there)
With respect - I think you need to read up on what Martin Grime tells us about his dogs - especially about them BOTH alerting to blood from living people. The only blood they would not alert to was 'wet' blood,
In the meantime if you believe Eddie only detects cadaverscent - then can you explain why is it that when Eddie does not alert at all in a place - Grime knows that he doesn't need to send Keela in after him? Could it be that Grime knew that if any blood was present Eddie who was also trained to detect blood would have alerted?
That's not trueSY have not said...
Scotland Yard have stated that they believe Madeleine may have died in the apartment
Grime knows why his behaviour changed as soon as he got to 5A. Maybe one day you'll hear it.
You are moving the goalposts aren't you ?
We have determined that it is entirely possible that the cadaver dog barked in apartment 5A because he picked up the scent of the dead body of the child who was reported missing from there
That fact is relevant to the thread subject
Having established fact "A" ( that, in this case, the cadaver dog's alert may, indeed, be reliable ) you move on to fact "B" ( in what manner might the child have died in the apartment ) ... which is not relevant to the thread title at all
Changing the parameters of the question is an indication that your original proposition is a weak one
Grime knows why his behaviour changed as soon as he got to 5A. Maybe one day you'll hear it.
The question we have been discussing is whether or not the cadaver dog's alert in apartment 5A was a reliable indication that the child who was reported missing had died there
You are 'moving the goalposts' by asking that I answer a question that the thread subject does not pose
You could always start another thread asking how Madeleine might have died in the apartment, but it is not relevant to the question of whether the cadaver dog's alerts were reliable
The question posed by this thread was answered a long time ago. When I brought up the subject of Zampo as an example of a EVRD whose alerts were NOT reliable I was told off for talking about a dog that was not part of the McCann investigation, however it's obvious that my mentioning him was VERY pertinent to the non-case specific question being posed. If one is just going to assume that Eddie and Keela are somehow superior to all other EVRD dogs and completely incapable of falsely alerting at any time or for any reason then we have to look at the set of circumstances most likely to fit in with those alerts. Why you should be reluctant to do so beat me.
Your argument is based on a false analogy ... 'a dog in another case was wrong, therefore it is necessary to assume the dog in this may have been wrong'
We do not have to look at the set of circumstances most likely to 'fit' in with the cadaver dog's alerts
The dog's alerts are a factual piece of evidence and what those alerts indicated will not be proven ( or disproven ) by the imaginery scenarios you are presenting and asking others to comment on
Your argument is based on a false analogy ... 'a dog in another case was wrong, therefore it is necessary to assume the dog in this may have been wrong'
We do not have to look at the set of circumstances most likely to 'fit' in with the cadaver dog's alerts
The dog's alerts are a factual piece of evidence and what those alerts indicated will not be proven ( or disproven ) by the imaginery scenarios you are presenting and asking others to comment on
It seems however that certain things have been ruled out as utterly impossible by certain people eg: Eddie could not have been susceptible to unconscious handler bias (why not?) and to reference another thread, that it is impossible to walk up a street in flip-flops without making a large amount of noise that draws attention to yourself (why not?)
In fact probability theory and the laws of physics need to be suspended completely in order to come up with a detailed theory of Madeleine's disappearance which has the parents as the culprits and which takes into account all the known facts of this case. If I'm wrong about that then I would be most interested to hear why.
So why didn't Eddie alert at any of those places where it is obvious that many people must have bled at some time or another over the years. It doesn't make sense unless Grime was lying about his dog's skills - and I don't believe he was.
You agreed that it wasn't feasible that not a speck of blood had ever been shed in the other apartments or cars. So why didn't Eddie alert?
Gerry stated that the cadaver dogs are extremely unreliable..posters have claimed that eddie is 100% reliable but have provided no proof..in fact it can't be proved...so how reliable are the dogs....does anyone really know...is there any evidence... I would say NO
Here's a hypothetical question. On 31 July what if not just 1 EVRD but 5 had checked that apartment (each EVRD seperately of course). Would all 5 have signalled? Or just 1 out of 5?
Here's a hypothetical question. On 31 July what if not just 1 EVRD but 5 had checked that apartment (each EVRD seperately of course). Would all 5 have signalled? Or just 1 out of 5?
Nobody will ever know how reliable dogs are since failures are not always recognised as such. Testing dogs in a controlled environment is one thing but working out in the field is a completely different matter.
John of course is absolutely right and makes a statement that no one can argue with. We simply do not know how reliable the dogs are and therefore to claim a 100% record is absolutely ludicrous. What we do know is that the dogs are very good at finding cadavers and that's why they are being brought in...but is every alert significant...Grime says no
Did he at ant time say the alert wasn't significant in this case ?
Grime did not confirm any of the alerts..he says they are suggestive...that's all they are
i.e. No he didn't.
he said the alerts were suggestive...he never claimed they positively indicated cadaverine...its there in the files
So your earlier claim that the McCann's have never rubbished the dogs has now been shown as totally incorrect. Then again as you make a frequent habit of excusing the McCann's actions you have at least stayed true to form.
It's just a shame that it does nothing to help the credibility of your posts.
Here's a hypothetical question. On 31 July what if not just 1 EVRD but 5 had checked that apartment (each EVRD seperately of course). Would all 5 have signalled? Or just 1 out of 5?
All 5 would have alerted. Grime noted Eddie's change in behaviour as soon as he got to 5A.
All 51 out of 5: PMI>=1h25m
Migaloo is a black labrador retriever ... She works with archaeologists ... holds the world record for the oldest bone discovered by a dog after digging up a 600 year old human bone buried more than 6 feet under ground ... The previous record was a 425 year old human bone set 25 years ago by a cadaver dog named Candy. ... Migaloo was able to find the first of four burial sites in under a minute. “She was spot on” ...http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2012/09/black-labrador-becomes-the-first-canine-archaelogolist.html
http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2012/09/black-labrador-becomes-the-first-canine-archaelogolist.html
Nothing much wrong with the dogs.
Grime is basically sound altho he definitely did make one mistake (with Cuddle cat) and many of us noticed that he kept calling the dogs back to the Mccann car when the dog had not been interested. That was something he didn't do with the others cars.
But Grime took the trouble to explain exactly what the alerts DID mean and what they DID NOT mean
Amaral is the problem.
He either did NOT understand what the alerts actually DID mean and DID NOT mean ....... or He chose to ignore their true but limited meaning
Nothing much wrong with the Brirish part, The dogs and Grime were OK, but
Everything wrong with Amaral and people who still pretend that the dogs marked death ...., when surely by now with all the explanations they have the necessary brain cells to understand.
It aint rocket science
And just like that, the entire PJ investigation has been written off as pretense.
Regardless of the fact that the original investigation has been checked and rechecked by Operation Grange who, after four long years, have ended up digging 100m front 5a's front door....EXACTLY where the PJ left off.
do you find it amazing that the investigation is centred on PDL...the last place maddie was seen...where did you expect SY to begin their investgation..outer mongolia?
1 out of 5: PMI>=1h25m
5 out of 5: PMI>=2h30m
Source: CSST experiment.
My theory: routine change 6-30 to 7pm. Moved at 9 - minimum 2 hours in 5A.
My theory: routine change 6-30 to 7pm. Moved at 9 - minimum 2 hours in 5A."2.5 - 3 hours" is the minimum which the CSST experiment found to be required for consistent detection (by 5 out of 5 dogs).
Has the coincidental routine change and the other Dr calling at the apartment on the very day that Madeleine disappeared ever been satisfactorily explained? And especially so as there is a discrepancy between witness statements wide enough to pass a jumbo jet through.
But that's my point.
This is NOT the "beginning" of their investigation, is it?
It is the END of it. Or, the beginning of the end, to be more accurate.
Two years of review led to Op Grange. Op Grange is now 2 years old.
It's not the "beginning", not even close.
Yorkshire police presumably picked one of the very best dogs for their recent work in the UK, a black labrador, I wonder if she will be having a little trip to the Algarve soon?
They remain the best cadaver-finding equipment ever invented.
That's why they are used, world wide.
The first thing all these dog detractors would call for if they lost a child, would be sniffer dogs. Everyone who bashes them would eat their words if they were ever in a position to actually need them themselves.
Dogs "see" scent, which is why Eddie would not mistake Madeleine's cadaver. He would no sooner mistake human cadaver for spoiled meat or nappies, than your or I would confuse blue and red.
OH. FOR. GODS. SAKE.
Yes, cadaver dogs are the best technology available to search and rescue teams and the police, EXCEPT IN PDL.
Link your claims or don't bother.
Thanks.
Quote from: Brietta on Today at 12:31:49 AM
You are very welcome.
Indeed I was remiss in failing to post a cite ... that was because I made the assumption that informed posters would already be familiar with the established and indisputable fact that Eddie was trained using pork.
Wrongly as it turned out ... perhaps you should take the lesson and attribute and substantiate all the remarks you make ... unless it is your own opinion.
Report to PJ by Martin Grime re: Eddie & Keela search McCann case
09_VOLUME_IXa 09-Processo 9 pages 2473 to 2483
Eddie & Keela Martin Grimes Report
August 2007
CADAVER AND HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOGS
SEARCH ASSET PROFILES
Vol IX p. 2479
TRAINING
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.
Vol. IX p. 2480
EVRD
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF.
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/martin-grime-report-to-pj-mccann-case.html
The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two.
Are you suggesting someone left some decomposing piglets in 5a?
Well maybe you should advise North Yorkshire Police that the dog they are deploying now (photo above) at great expense is actually a nappy and piglet dog and they have been conned ?
That's pretty easy to answer Benice, it's all to do with quality and quantity. The dogs will only react where they detect a scent, if the blood has been cleaned away or bleached there will be nothing to find. If the blood droplet is too miniscule then even Keela or Eddie might not find it, they might have been good but they weren't infallible.
What was evident however is that the dogs demeanour changed immediately he entered 5a which to an experienced handler like Martin Grime meant only one thing.
So in answer to Benice's question as to why not a single spot of blood was detected by either Eddie or Keela in any other apartment and whether it is feasible to presume that no blood had ever been spilt in any other apartment checked is to presume that every single other apartment was cleaned or bleached better than Apartment 5A.
Leaving aside the facile arguments that I have read for years from those who suspect the McCanns of involvement that they somehow got hold of a quantity of bleach and deep cleaned apartment 5A which rather goes against the gist of your presumptions, what is the basis for your presumption? Do you have anything which supports your presumption that Apt 5A was less thoroughly cleaned over a period of many months than other apartments. Or are you simply working from the lack of alerts because that would be extremely flawed logic when attempting to answer the question which was actually posed?
I see the dogs are being brought in for a second time
I guess the police must have faith in their abilities
I see the dogs are being brought in for a second time
I guess the police must have faith in their abilities
A while back, Anne (I think her name is) produced something fascinating I'd never seen before: a list of all the people (besides Paul Gordon and his shaving cut) who did, or might have, bled in apartment 5a ...
It is indeed remarkable that, apparently, not a drop of blood was shed anywhere else ...
This is all yesterdays fish and chip wrappers.According to Insider "sauces" on this very forum (hastily retracted without explanation) Martin Grime is filling his pockets with Scooby snacks and heading out to PdL even as we speak...
New searches new cops new K9s and new handlers or had you not noticed?
According to Insider "sauces" on this very forum (hastily retracted without explanation) Martin Grime is filling his pockets with Scooby snacks and heading out to PdL even as we speak...
One thing is for certain. Martin Grime will not be handling the dogs that SY use or that the PJ use with SY observers. They are not as easily swayed as the PJ under Amaral was by Harrison's bigging up of his friend's dogs.
And still the aspersions against Grime and his dogs continue.
From the same people who call others nasty, vile, libellous, etc.
PC Grime and canine units Eddie and Keela were NOT INCOMPETENT!!!!!
Dream on ...
"2.5 - 3 hours" is the minimum which the CSST experiment found to be required for consistent detection (by 5 out of 5 dogs).
I see the dogs are being brought in for a second time
I guess the police must have faith in their abilities
Im sure the police have absolute faith in the dogs abilities..as do I. Unfortunately many posters here dont understand what those abilities are
I would have thought the key thing was whether forensics can confirm an alert.
Im sure the police have absolute faith in the dogs abilities..as do I. Unfortunately many posters here dont understand what those abilities areExactly.
I know that some members have researched the subject thoroughly and I have a question they might be able to answer
Assuming, for argument sake, that a dead body had been in apartment 5A long enough for cadaver odour to have been present, and assuming that is what the cadaver dog alerted to ... would that residual scent still be detectable after all this time ?
We know cadaver dogs are being brought back to PDL, and my question is, if they were taken to apartment 5A is it possibile that they could still pick up that scent ?
I'm guessing they probably couldn't, given that the body itself would be long gone ... but does anyone know for sure ?
This is all yesterdays fish and chip wrappers.
New searches new cops new K9s and new handlers or had you not noticed?
I know that some members have researched the subject thoroughly and I have a question they might be able to answer
Assuming, for argument sake, that a dead body had been in apartment 5A long enough for cadaver odour to have been present, and assuming that is what the cadaver dog alerted to ... would that residual scent still be detectable after all this time ?
We know cadaver dogs are being brought back to PDL, and my question is, if they were taken to apartment 5A is it possibile that they could still pick up that scent ?
I'm guessing they probably couldn't, given that the body itself would be long gone ... but does anyone know for sure ?
Thanks for that considered reply gilet
Do you think, perhaps, a different cadaver dog, and a different handler, will be taken to apartment 5A during this latest activity ?
I mean the dogs will be there in PDL anyway and the police might think it's worth a try, even if it's a long shot
The four alerts by EVRD Eddie may yet turn out to be indicative of what the crime was in this case. There is no getting away from it that Eddie certainly detected something suspicious in 5a which he failed to find in any other apartment or in the rented villa. Given what I am being told by the experts I am not at all surprised Gonçalo Amaral and English police officers on the ground came to the conclusions they did.
I have not had an opportunity to pursue the new photos recently but they will be posted when I receive them. I have passed the questions about Eddie and Keela on to Martin and I will post them together with his response when I receive it.
Condescending posts will be removed on sight.
Yep, he was whipped through the other appartments wasn't he?
The four alerts by EVRD Eddie may yet turn out to be indicative of what the crime was in this case. There is no getting away from it that Eddie certainly detected something suspicious in 5a which he failed to find in any other apartment or in the rented villa. Given what I am being told by the experts I am not at all surprised Gonçalo Amaral and English police officers on the ground came to the conclusions they did.
I have not had an opportunity to pursue the new photos recently but they will be posted when I receive them. I have passed the questions about Eddie and Keela on to Martin and I will post them together with his response when I receive it.
Condescending posts will be removed on sight.
Some members have asked about the forensic corroboration in the case. You might like to know that the latest is that samples are being retested in line with modern techniques.
Some members have asked about the forensic corroboration in the case. You might like to know that the latest is that samples are being retested in line with modern techniques.
Samples of what? From where? And where are they being tested? On whose authority?
Have they found the missing hairs from the bed yet?
Samples of what? From where? And where are they being tested? On whose authority?
Have they found the missing hairs from the bed yet?
On the authority of the investigating police forces I would presume
Anyway, it's good news isn't it ?
The more thorough the investigation the better
The belief that a cadaver has to lie in situ for hours before it can be detected by victim recovery dogs is false since any material contaminated by a cadaver will return the same result.
If for example clothing, a blanket or a soft toy came into contact with a cadaver some hours after death and then those objects were moved to another location then the dogs would react at that new location. What the dogs cannot tell us is whether they are detecting the cadaver or contaminant from the cadaver.
There is a major problem in answering this question. That is that, no matter how much faith some people like to put in the abilities of the dogs, there has been very, very little actual scientific research done on the subject.
Of course the dogs have detection abilities which are way beyond those of humans and which are used by police and other agencies all the time. This has been recognised for millenia in the way that dogs have been used in hunting and other activities. More intensive training has led to much more specific uses for those canine abilities.
But the problem comes with scientific research into the reliability of the dogs alerts when there is no clear object on which the dogs are focusing. Could an alert by a drugs dog be sufficient to convict a person when no drugs are found on that person? Looking for research into that level of reliability is proving rather difficult.
As far as I can see there is no scientific study which shows with any certainty that the dogs can detect scent after a period longer than 28 days. If there is I would appreciate a link.
With regard to the easier test of whether a dog can detect actual cadaver parts after longer periods there is again very little peer-reviewed research. The one study which is often quoted is that of Jacobi at Alabamha University who concluded that some dogs could detect parts as old as 25 years or more in the ground. But he is careful to point out it very much depends on the dog concerned.
While that one study regarding dogs and actual cadavers exists there is no equivalent study which shows that cadaver scent can be detected for anything longer than 28 days. There may be anecdotal and chance evidence to confirm that this can happen but no actual research into the matter. If someone can show me otherwise please do so as I am very willing to learn about any such research conducted under scientific rules.
What have you been told by which experts?Excellent questions Carana.
Excellent questions Carana.
I could tell you that experts with clear inside knowledge of the case inform me that preparations are currently underway to bring a particular individual in the case to court within a short period of time. But I won't as there is no way I would be able to provide evidence for that claim at the moment. Indeed I might simply be regarded as WUM trying to curry favour with other posters.
Don't you think it would he a good thing for any samples to be re-tested, using improved techniques ?
If the police are taking this very sensible step, then surely we must all welcome it
I don't understand why you are being so combative about what is potentially excellent news
I suppose time will tell if new forensic findings are forthcoming.
Not necessarily for two separate reasons.
Firstly there may be no such tests.
And secondly, if any such tests have been ordered by SY and prove not to be of any value in any subsequent court case then there will never be any reason to release any details about them to the public. Only if the PJ have ordered them would they possibly come to light as they have in this particular case and only this one, disgracefully in my opinion, released the bulk of the case files, in such a way that even they even included personal details of witnesses, before the case has ever been resolved. No doubt they might do the same again though one would hope they have learnt the lesson of that gross error of judgement and will revert to the normal policy of more restricted access to the full details.
Clearly you didn't read what I wrote. "I suppose time will tell if new forensic findings are forthcoming."
I wasn't commenting on what any forensics might reveal.
Actually, it is you who has clearly not bothered to read the post I made.
My post was entirely about the possibility or more likely not of the findings ever being made public (ie forthcoming).
I made no reference, as you mistakenly believe, as to what the forensics might actually reveal. I qualified my belief that the likelihood of details of any such tests might be forthcoming is extremely low with the rider that only if they prove to be of value then they might well be touched upon in a court case, though I do admit that the syntax of the sentence while accurate and effective in portraying my belief was a little complex.
Unfortunately though, you appear to have got the wrong end of the stick entirely.
It must be the way you tell it 8(0(*
Whipped? There was no reaction from the dog when he entered the other apartments Sadie, what would you have wanted him to do exactly?A bit like the car wasn't it? Lots of cueing to the dog and loads of time given.
A bit like the car wasn't it? Lots of cueing to the dog and loads of time given.
Gawd knows how Eddie smelled the cadavar odour through the seal of a car door when he couldn't smell the odour of CCat in that part opened cupboard, nor any scent until his nose was almost on the folders/ paper/ clothes/ counter. which ever.
I am afraid that I have to say this.
Either the man who bled badly from his shaving hadn't cleaned up properly
OR cadavar odour was planted in the apartment, in the villa and along the bottom of the car door
Unless it was the blood of the shaving accident that Eddie smelt .... The whole scenario stinks to me tbh
Could poor Martin Grimes, a Brit, an ex Police Officer, have been set up as the " fall guy" ?
Let us not forget that Amaral is not past dirty tricks.
In an effort to get Gerry to confess to something he hadn't done, he (his men) told him that the PJ had absolute proof that a dead Madeleine was carried in the hire car. We all know that was a lie.
Also he is a convicted criminal for perjury. Lying again.
Did he tell loads of lies in the Joana case ? Seems the main Judge didn't believe quite a lot of it and one of the Judges was truly upset that there was a gross Miscarriage of Justice
Think about it:
DOG CAN
1) Smell odour thru the seal of a car door designed to be totally watertight and draught proof. etc? .... Can he?
DOG CAN'T
1) Smell odour through a part open door in a room (Mccanns villa)? .... or even smell odour on the counter top until his nose is right on top of the small? .... Why cant he, if he can smell it thru a sealed car door ?
Think about it.
It doesn't add up.
Don't you think it would he a good thing for any samples to be re-tested, using improved techniques ?
If the police are taking this very sensible step, then surely we must all welcome it
I don't understand why you are being so combative about what is potentially excellent news
I sincerely doubt that any 'samples' are being tested as part of the enquiry at present and would be extremely wary of anyone who claimed to have insider information without seeing thorough and conclusive proof of their integrity.
Of course they have done further work on the "samples".How come Eddie could scent thru a closed and sealed car door designed to keep rain and splashed up water out, yet couldn't scent thru an open cabinet door? .... Or the stuff on the top of the counter until his nose was actually virtually on it?
SOMETHING has led them to believe Madeleine is dead.
Common sense and diligence REQUIRES the samples to be retested.
It amuses me at the contortions Team McCann are now stooping to - someone PLANTED cadaverine on the Renault?
ANYTHING, anything but acknowledge the likely truth....which is staring us all in the face right now...
Of course they have done further work on the "samples".
SOMETHING has led them to believe Madeleine is dead.
Common sense and diligence REQUIRES the samples to be retested.
It amuses me at the contortions Team McCann are now stooping to - someone PLANTED cadaverine on the Renault?
ANYTHING, anything but acknowledge the likely truth....which is staring us all in the face right now...
That's me naive and stupid.
Nonetheless I still don't understand why you are rabbiting on about Mr Grime and who on this forum said what in that connection. What gives now is that if the current investigators use dogs it will be because they believe the dogs are useful tool regardless of your research; unless of course you are acknowledged world authority on the topic. In that unlikely event I will take it all back.
Removed as abusive
Is that boasting or complaining?
Colour me gone!
The dogs are very capable, but I still wonder about how come Eddie could smell something through the seals of a car door designed to be absolutely water and draft proof ... yet Eddie could not smell anything when his nose was just inches away from Ccat, which was hidden behind a partailly open door. And why with such immense ability to smell scents he had to have his nose virtually on the exact spot on the counter before he could smell any scent.
It all seems very fishy to me, but then I am not an expert
Was that moment which you are referring to the same as the one which I recollect where he had to virtually place his nose on the work surface used for the preparation of food, then had to go to the other end of the room before alerting to the toy in the cupboard under the very work surface he had previously been so close to; the toy which Grime knew was there in the first place because it had only been placed there after the dog had played with it in another location and failed to alert to it in that other location? If so, that also puzzles me. But like you, I make no claims to be an expert.
There is nothing false about a post mortem interval; some dispute about the time of the PMI ..
As far as the new forensic tests are concerned this is something which is being done as a matter of necessity. The results are crucial to the ongoing investigation just as they were back in 2007. Further advances in DNA analysis techniques might just create the breakthrough SY are looking for.
Eddie and Keela never failed to detect the substances which they were trained for. Eddies behaviour and alerts in entering apartment 5a are extremely suspicious and are certainly indicative of cadaver contaminants having been there at some time previously. The question of course is what those alerts related to?
I think you've succeeded in saying the opposite of what you mean.
There is certainly plenty of reason to be suspicious about the (apparent!) 'alerts' of Eddie (in particular) ...
I think you fail to grasp the point. If Madeleine died and was immediately removed from the scene a VRD can still detect that death if an item of clothing etc which had been in contact with her was brought back to the scene. Her remains did not require to have lain in situ for 90 mins or 2 hours.
I think you fail to grasp the point. If Madeleine died and was immediately removed from the scene a VRD can still detect that death if an item of clothing etc which had been in contact with her was brought back to the scene. Her remains did not require to have lain in situ for 90 mins or 2 hours.
No, you just claim everyone attached to this mess are useless, unprofessional, planted, slanted, biased, and mean to poor Kate and Gerry.
Actually no remains of any body need ever have been in that apartment.
There is absolutely no reason why any cadaver should ever have been present there. Any clothing which had been in contact with any dead person anywhere which had been brought into the apartment at any time could have been the source of the cadaver odour.
The presumption that it must relate to Madeleine McCann or that any cadaver must have ever been present in that apartment at any time which many people seem to make is quite ridiculous.
It most certainly isn't ridiculous but you just keep on thinking that if it makes you happy. A child disappeared from that apartment and Scotland Yard have now been forced to admit that Madeleine McCann may have died there so we must consider that the dog alerts very much related to her.
What I do find ridiculous however is your presumption that the dog alerts are unrelated to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
Who says SY have been forced to admit Maddie may have died in the appt....It was considered maddie may have died in the apartment BEFORE the dogs were brought in. The dogs alerts may be totally unrelated to Maddies disappearance...no one knows
They have been forced to admit it after promoting the idea from the outset that she is still alive. Maybe you haven't notice it yet Dave but they aren't digging up Praia da Luz for buried treasure!
I agree with your last comment, the dogs alerts could very well not relate to Madeleine but this is not what the exerts are saying.
Sy haven't promoted the idea she is still alive...they have said from the start she may be alive but she may be dead.
What experts are saying the alerts relate to maddie...Grime certainly hasn't said that
They are digging PDL because maddie may be there...on the other hand she may not be
I never said they were promoting the idea she is still alive to the exclusion of all else. You have to admit however that their latest admission that she may have died in apt 5a is a departure from that previously held.
I'm not sure that's particularly significant. What will be significant is if they find something.
I'm not sure that's particularly significant. What will be significant is if they find something.
So is it a big deal?You may not care that their are people making spurious claims on this forum, but some people do, ok?
Why are people so concerned with trivia?
The significant thing is that the dogs are there and doing their stuff.
You may not care that their are people making spurious claims on this forum, but some people do, ok?
What spurious claims are we talking about? Does it actually change anything?Claims that Grime is involved in searching PdL with his dogs. Of course it changes nothing, but mischievous posts designed to plant misinformation on a forum wishing to take itself seriously is not particularly desirable, I'm sure you'd agree.
Claims that Grime is involved in searching PdL with his dogs. Of course it changes nothing, but mischievous posts designed to plant misinformation on a forum wishing to take itself seriously is not particularly desirable, I'm sure you'd agree.
Here you go Alfred, as requested.
Quick question Alfred. Do you believe that Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive and cadaver dog Edfie alerting in the same apartment are mutually exclusive events ?
Here you go Alfred, as requested.
Quick question Alfred. Do you believe that Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive and cadaver dog Edfie alerting in the same apartment are mutually exclusive events ?
Who knows? I don't.
So you are open to the suggestion that the two are linked ?It's a possibility I guess. We shall just have to see shan't we?
It's a possibility I guess. We shall just have to see shan't we?
Thank you for your answer Alfred. So if you are open to the possibility that the cadaver dogs alert and SY announcement that Madeleine may well be dead you must also be open, because of the time that needs to elapse before cadaver odour is at a detectable level, to the McCann's involvement in their daughter's disappearance.No, I don't think that's very likely but of course it's possible - anything's possible. Like it's possible that Madeleine was murdered by a man who had killed before or who had an unhealthy interest in dead bodies and who contaminated the apartment with the smell of death.
No, I don't think that's very likely but of course it's possible - anything's possible. Like it's possible that Madeleine was murdered by a man who had killed before or who had an unhealthy interest in dead bodies and who contaminated the apartment with the smell of death.
That's a novel excuse.
That's a novel excuse.It's not an excuse, it's a possibility - unless you'd like to tell me why it isn't?
Nah - that's not an excuse.You seem to find the thought that Madeleine's killer might have killed before hence contaminating the apartment with cadaver odour somewhat comical, yet have no problem whatsoever imagining that the parents of a child, having accidentally killed her, took her for rides in a car back and forth between locations weeks after her death. Oh well, whatever floats your boat.
The dog was pulling on the leash when walking down the outside passage before he got near the front door. I doubt he could smell cadaver odour in the bedroom on the other side of the appartment, in a closed building and behind a recessed front door.
But he had just been let out of his cage, and he was a bit manic anyway.
Are you an expert on dog handling as well ?Are you?
Are you?
I answered that one earlier. 8(0(*You are not are you?
A question for those who have the ridiculously low opinion of Eddie that he never signals playable items even if they have scent on, unless they are hidden in a sideboard so he can't see them -
So what are you saying about the tennis ball, exactly, the one mentioned in the EVRD searches in the files, do you deduce that it might have had scent on, and Eddie didn't alert because it looked like fun to play with?
I just hope the dogs in PDL do not alert but no corroborating forensics are found...can you imagine the next million dog posts..the alerts prove maddie must have been there
Or a shedful of posts accusing Sally Richards and David Brake of "cueing" their dogs if it goes the other way.
Or a shedful of posts accusing Sally Richards and David Brake of "cueing" their dogs if it goes the other way.
the minute he walked into 5a"85 minutes, or 150 to 180 minutes?: That is the question", as Hamlet might have said.
The decomposition process has to have started to leave cadaverine.
Specifically the acids in the gut have to eat through the intestines which produces the gas which is cadaverine.
This takes at least an hour usually two to begin but is affected by ambient temperature.
Contaminated items brought back to the apartment would have given the same result. As Mr Grime stated, the alerts could very well have arisen from cross contamination.
A little bit of information in regard to the vehicle searches in the underground garage. The garage was 'swept' by the dogs prior to the cars being brought in resulting in zero alerts. We all know what happened next. Eddie reacted to the odour emanating from the Scenic and not the wall.
The dogs have become so reliable that they are now being used to detect diseases in humans.
How Man's Best Friend Can Detect Disease.
The use of dogs in medicine could lead to improved detection rates of disease and a better quality of life for sufferers, according to a charity.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZwWrzIb.jpg)
Medical Detection Dogs trains canines to smell the odours that diseases like cancer and diabetes give off in sick patients.
The charity says some of its dogs can now detect disease with 93% accuracy and the organisation regularly receives samples from consultants wanting another way of testing.
Dogs are also being trained to look after sufferers of narcolepsy and for one patient this has changed her life.
Kelly Sears is one of 31,000 narcoleptics in the UK.
She falls asleep without warning in sometimes dangerous places but says that with her specially trained dog Theo, life is much better.
The dog can smell the chemical changes in her body and warn her if she is going to fall.
If she falls, he rushes to her side to wake her up with nudges and licks.
Ms Sears told Sky News: "Before Theo I didn't go out on my own ever.
"With Theo, if I go out shopping with him and I fall, then he'll just nudge and bark until I wake up.
"Other people around me will quite often stop and watch and say to me: 'I didn't want to disturb you as he looked like he knew what he was doing.'"
Dr Claire Guest, chief executive of Medical Detection Dogs, said the use of dogs in medicine is becoming more common.
She said: "It's taken some time to get over the scepticism.
"This is an evidence-based work we've published in a number of journals and it's now proven that disease does have an odour.
"Dogs can be used in a whole variety of ways to warn us when these odours occur."
Dr Guest says some consultants are sending her samples of their patients on a regular basis. She hopes this will become a normal part of disease detection and patient assistance in the future.
"How we've missed this for so long without knowing that there are dogs around us that can do this is quite incredible," she added.
"It's a new, non-invasive way of keeping people safe."
Other organisations like Support Dogs have established the use of canines in helping epileptics, those with autism and physical disabilities.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mans-best-friend-detect-disease-092720399.html
Appreciating the difference between cadaverine and cadaver odour might be a useful start ...
Bless. Animals have a lot to say if humans can understand them.Yes, and thankfully none of the patients are going to claim the results are false because the handler was cueing the dog.
Possibly the oddest accusation against Mr Grime so far.
Given that you are such a self appointed expert on cadaver dog handling, how EXACTLY did Grime prompt and cue Eddie? Given your claim this one should be very easy for you to answer.
Maybe each handler only has one dog. Will dogs work with other than their own handler?
The dogs can work with any handler but it is not ideal. The normal situation is where a handler takes a dog from a young age and is responsible for its training and deployment. The dog then gets used to its handler and vice versa. Its not as if we are talking about training a guide dog for instance or even a drugs search dog as they will work for anyone.
The Victim Recovery Dog team is a specialist skill set. There is far more to it than the dog simply barking or sitting in a particular way. Over time an experienced handler will be able to read the dog by its reactions which can relate just about as much information as an actual alert. For example, Eddie became very exited when he approached apartment 5a for the first time which alerted his handler to the fact that this was a prime site. I bet Martin Grime knew even before he entered that apartment that Eddie was going to find something positive within.
So you are suggesting that Grime's unconcious self just got lucky time after time after time? Thus rendering the dog's skills inadequate?
The alternative is that you are suggesting Grime's action was deliberate.
But doesn't that heighten the chances of unconscious cueing? From reading about this subject it would seem that handlers who 'expect' to to have alerts can convey that 'expectation' to their dogs by the minutest of body language changes, which of course if the dog and handler know oneanother extremely well, increases the chance of that happening.
Just to make it clear - unconscious cueing is not a crime or a deliberate act. It is hazard which dog handlers (being human) are susceptible to - and can happen without them being aware of it - as tests have shown.
Read my post Brietta. I gave you 2 options. You state that it isn't the latter option so is it the first option?
The dogs can work with any handler but it is not ideal. The normal situation is where a handler takes a dog from a young age and is responsible for its training and deployment. The dog then gets used to its handler and vice versa. Its not as if we are talking about training a guide dog for instance or even a drugs search dog as they will work for anyone.
The Victim Recovery Dog team is a specialist skill set. There is far more to it than the dog simply barking or sitting in a particular way. Over time an experienced handler will be able to read the dog by its reactions which can relate just about as much information as an actual alert. For example, Eddie became very exited when he approached apartment 5a for the first time which alerted his handler to the fact that this was a prime site. I bet Martin Grime knew even before he entered that apartment that Eddie was going to find something positive within.
What sort of 'samples' might they be, then?
There is no doubt Eddie showed behaviours which were of significance to his handler.
So imo Eddie became aware of something in that confined space before even entering the apartment. In the absence of evidence as to what the samples were, we can only speculate, but there is plenty of scope for speculation.
Madeleine's case is rife with it.
My take on it is that it does not matter how many times grime brings the dog back to a certain spot...doesnt matter if he cues or encourages the dog...hes there to find evidence and if none is found the alerts are meaningless...so the best dog in the world found nothing....that points to the mccanns innocence
I doubt he would agree John. For months now he's been parroting the banal. @)(++(*
Dave's response will be that I'm wrong, Grime was wrong and Eddie was wrong. But do three wrongs make a RIGHT?
Dave's response will be that I'm wrong, Grime was wrong and Eddie was wrong. But do three wrongs make a RIGHT?
Was it last year or 2012 that the Higgs boson was proven to exist? Evidence of inflation theory was this month.
You're beginning to sound like a creationist with your "which to me is far from certain"....
I would put money on that the science will back up the theory one day. We just don't have tools sensitive enough to do it yet.
How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion Dave? Regardless of whichever way you want to construe these findings, Eddie detected the scent of death in that apartment and outside in the garden. Granted there are multiple explanations for these findings but to state he found nothing is a huge falsehood on your behalf.
As for this somehow proving innocence, I'm afraid you will have to do better than that old son.
Who said eddie detected the scent of death...grime certainly didn't..its a huge falsehood on your behalf...plus john I said it points to the mccanns innocence...not proves it...another massive falsehood on your behalf
Well it just so happens that Eddie was a particularly talented dog who wasn't in the habit of throwing up false alerts. There isn't much doubt that Eddie found what he was trained to find and given that a child disappeared from the same premises in suspicious circumstances it is little wonder that the connection was made. And for the record, what Martin Grime believes and what he can state publicly may or may not be reconcilable so no falsehood there.
As for pointing to innocence I'm afraid the dog alerts point to involvement. Fortunately for the suspects though the forensics came back inconclusive. So there we have it, the EVRD alerted four times to cadaver contamination in and around apartment 5a but the origin of this contamination remains a mystery.
Well it just so happens that Eddie was a particularly talented dog who wasn't in the habit of throwing up false alerts. There isn't much doubt that Eddie found what he was trained to find and given that a child disappeared from the same premises in suspicious circumstances it is little wonder that the connection was made. And for the record, what Martin Grime believes and what he can state publicly may or may not be reconcilable so no falsehood there.
As for pointing to innocence I'm afraid the dog alerts point to involvement. Fortunately for the suspects though the forensics came back inconclusive. So there we have it, the EVRD alerted four times to cadaver contamination in and around apartment 5a but the origin of this contamination remains a mystery.
So you agree eddie found nothing....
So grime lied in his police statement ...I don't think so...someone is telling lies and Im sure its not grime
I think you are way off base on this one. In Mr Grime's own words, "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 your insistence that Eddie found nothing is clearly WRONG.
Reposted.....
"So you are suggesting that Grime's unconcious self just got lucky time after time after time? Thus rendering the dog's skills inadequate?"
You had the opportunity to address the question but chose to ignore it. If you do not accept the above statement then please explain how clever Hans is applied to this scenario.
So for the third time...what did eddie find....
and you confirm grime said it is possible that they are alerted he doesn't say they HAVE alerted..
I have bought a lottery ticket so it is POSSIBLE I might win.,.
And for the third time Eddie found what he was trained to find which just so happens to include cadaver contamination...smart doggie. Many things are possible including Eddie being spot on!What, specifically, did he find then?
So again, you're contention that he found nothing is by definition, WRONG.
And for the third time Eddie found what he was trained to find which just so happens to include cadaver contamination...smart doggie. Many things are possible including Eddie being spot on!
So again, you're contention that he found nothing is by definition, WRONG. Had he found NOTHING then Martin Grime wouldn't have had to have included all that information about 'NOTHING' in his very full Report.
And for the third time Eddie found what he was trained to find which just so happens to include cadaver contamination...smart doggie. Many things are possible including Eddie being spot on!
So again, you're contention that he found nothing is by definition, WRONG. Had he found NOTHING then Martin Grime wouldn't have had to have included all that information about 'NOTHING' in his very full Report.
What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that. The only times I've ever known him bark since I've got him as a small puppy a) for his dinner and that's just excitement and that's one of the training methods we use to teach to bark when we want him to and when he actually finds something, he won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or something like that, so again I would say that's a positive indication.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm)
For the avoidance of doubt, only the area behind the sofa in apartment 5a was alerted to by the CSI or blood detection dog Keela. Eddie alone alerted in the rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door, on the veranda outside the parent's bedroom and in the garden area directly under said veranda. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that all alerts related solely to blood.
Eddie found evidence of possible cadaver contamination at three sites, end off!
You're the last person on this forum to be handing out spelling lessons !
Maybe we should highlight each of your spelling / punctuation mistakes moving forward !
You're the last person on this forum to be handing out spelling lessons !
Maybe we should highlight each of your spelling / punctuation mistakes moving forward !
Firstly, I have not swung off on a tangent. I asked Ferryman a question in relation to a post which he made regarding the car. You felt the need to answer for him with the suggestion clever Hans.
Secondly, you have done nothing to explain how clever Hans is displayed in this scenario. You deny implying Grime acted deliberately and then claim it needs no sub conscious act from Grime. How then can you attribute clever Hans to this scenario? It's a pretty simple question which only arose after you suggested the reason was clever Hans.
Thirdly, please explain how you think Eddie is doing his job if clever Hans is occurring? His job is to sniff a scent.
Actually those ARE Grime's words.
So the whole thing was mistranslated and Grime never spoke about Eddie barking?
Of course he did...but we don't know how accurate that double translation is...but we do know that grime does not confirm any of the alerts
Where does Grime exactly say the dogs reactions could not have indicated Madeleine's remains ?
Where does Grime exactly say the dogs reactions could not have indicated Madeleine's remains ?
you ask the question then you answer it...
So where does Grime say the dogs could not have alerted to Madeleine's remains ?
It's a perfectly simple question davel. 8)-)))
why are you directing that question at me...lets make it simple for you
It's an open ended question and didn't have to reply, did you ?
I think its a stupid question...why are you interested in what grime didn't say...whats important is what he did say
Of course you think it's stupid , because you can't answer it.
8)--))
..and it doesn't suit your agenda.
no I think its stupid...as I said I am not interested in what grime didn't say...just what he did say
So where does Grime say the dog's reaction could not have indicated Madeleine's remains ?Has anyone here claimed that Grime stated this? I think not.
Has anyone here claimed that Grime stated this? I think not.
Where has Grime stated the dogs alerts couldn't be indicative of Madeleine's remains ?I repeat, when has anyone ever made this assertion?
Bumped for Ferryman - It's possible that you missed it, now being a number of pages back.
Given that you are such a self appointed expert on cadaver dog handling, how EXACTLY did Grime prompt and cue Eddie? Given your claim this one should be very easy for you to answer.
Have yourself and inspector Dias been trained in cadaver dog handling? Are you able to spot the subtle changes in behavior and direct the dog accordingly? If so, are you stating that it is not Grime's job to direct the dog and read the dog's behavior?
In relation to the car search which you claimed was prompting. How do you explain the fact that the dog alerted and after a subsequent search the reason for the alert was discovered?
Have yourself and inspector Dias been trained in cadaver dog handling? Are you able to spot the subtle changes in behavior and direct the dog accordingly? If so, are you stating that it is not Grime's job to direct the dog and read the dog's behavior?
In relation to the car search which you claimed was prompting. How do you explain the fact that the dog alerted and after a subsequent search the reason for the alert was discovered?
But it wasn't 'cadaver'.
But there was a corroboration for the alert wasn't there? All the dog is asked to do is search for a scent that it has been trained to find. The dog found the scent.
The claim from Ferryman was that Grime prompted the dog. The possible reason put forward by yourself Brietta was clever Hans.
With this in mind I'll ask the questions again that neither yourself or Ferryman have yet answered. If you really believe it then it shouldn't be too difficult for either if you to explain your reasoning.
Brietta:- If clever Hans is the reason then how does it apply in this scenario?
Ferryman:- How EXACTLY did Grime prompt his dog?
So by repeatedly referring me back to links you obviously are unable or unwilling to discuss how it is applied in this particular scenario.......and you've got the brass neck to accuse me of shutting down debate!
Fair enough. You may have wasted a great chance to convince me of your argument though.
It will be interesting to see how the supporters react IF the dogs brought in by SY do react to any of the present arguido's cars.
I predict Martin Grime's professionalism will receive a very hefty metaphorical kicking.
If the dogs react as per training and it is a very big if ... imo it will not signify a definite connection to Madeleine.And of course if the dogs do alert to the suspects' cars then it will be interesting to read what the dog champions amongst us have to say about that! Dogs Don't Lie!
It is an indication that closer investigation must take place to identify exactly what it is the dogs have reacted to.
Without evidence to tell us exactly what ... their reaction means nothing.
Martin Grime said exactly that but in more professional language. Pity so many people chose to ignore him.
In the absence of an actual cadaver the time lapse seems to be about 30 days for the scent to disappear. Unless of course, the cadaver is kept in one place for some considerable length of time, in which case it could well be longer. I don't have any real thoughts on how long, but it won't be forever.
If the dogs react as per training and it is a very big if ... imo it will not signify a definite connection to Madeleine.
It is an indication that closer investigation must take place to identify exactly what it is the dogs have reacted to.
Without evidence to tell us exactly what ... their reaction means nothing.
Martin Grime said exactly that but in more professional language. Pity so many people chose to ignore him.
Can you provide a cite for that?
There are several mentions of this on this Forum. Try the Search Facility.
I asked for a cite not a mention. Some external source maybe?
Kate's Book.
I will bite....
A reliable source?
If scent is so transitory, why have the dogs been brought in again to sniff cars?
I will bite....
A reliable source?
If scent is so transitory, why have the dogs been brought in again to sniff cars?
have the dogs been brought in to sniff the cars
I will bite....
A reliable source?
If scent is so transitory, why have the dogs been brought in again to sniff cars?
There has been nothing officially said about what the dogs' work is going to involve. Whether it is for continued investigation of outdoor sites, vehicles or residences or in the event of information from the interviews; we are just going to have to wait and see how they are deployed. Even then we won't have a clue why they will be doing whatever it is the Met wants them to unless someone takes time out to tell us officially, and I don't think that is going to happen.
The Met are working - not putting on a show for us.
Maybe the 'source close to the investigation' doesn't know half what is supposed particularly as a lot of its 'information' has been unhelpful to say the least.
Kate's Book.
Yes, according to the Daily Mirror.
There has been nothing officially said about what the dogs' work is going to involve. Whether it is for continued investigation of outdoor sites, vehicles or residences or in the event of information from the interviews; we are just going to have to wait and see how they are deployed. Even then we won't have a clue why they will be doing whatever it is the Met wants them to unless someone takes time out to tell us officially, and I don't think that is going to happen.
The Met are working - not putting on a show for us.
Maybe the 'source close to the investigation' doesn't know half what is supposed particularly as a lot of its 'information' has been unhelpful to say the least.
Any reaction by the dogs will be worth a bean only if the reaction is backed by tangible evidence (blood!) that reveals significant DNA evidence.
Otherwise, any reaction will be as worthless as reactions in the shelved enquiry.
In an experiment carried out by the Canine Specialised Search Team (CSST), a resource of Santa Clara County Medical Examiner-Coroner's office, it was found that residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.
www.csst.org/residual_scent.html
Since the original set up date on November 9 1996 we have returned to the building 4 times: January 8 1997, April 2 1997, July 23 1997 and December 7That link states dogs could detect the scent about 13 months later.
Absolutely, the longevity of cadaver scent is dependent on so many variables as to make any guesstimates just that, guesstimates.
Smithman is the only corroborating evidence needed. Connect Smithman to the cadaver then game over so expect more digging.What an unusual perspective you have on this case.
Under test conditions, the person who has set the test knows what scent the dog is reacting to.
In the field, there is no way of knowing what the dog is alerting to; or if the scent is recent or historic.
Anything the dog alerts to must be corroborated by evidence of exactly what that is.
Even should there be an alert in a vehicle - or anywhere else - after 7 years, only a positive DNA sample could link the alert to Madeleine.
How many of the suspects are still driving the same car
We had a bit of an in depth discussion some time ago regarding the stack of objects on top of the sideboard in the vicinity of one of Eddie's alerts. It was unclear if it consisted of folded clothes and or dishcloths or if it was folders and paper material.Thankyou Brietta.
I have come across a clearer image, which imo shows that it is the latter. It only lasts for a couple of seconds so you've got to be quick with the pause button.
Madeleine McCann - The Truth of the Lie - Goncalo Amaral's documentary (3 of 6)
at 9:06 … a clear view of the top of the sideboard which imo shows papers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF_EZCp-zJQ&index=3&list=PLipX7KO3PXeOtB7-WD9sJqhS5yMJ0RGzA
How many of the suspects are still driving the same car
How many of the suspects are still driving the same carGood point. But providing a car has not been scrapped, even if it has been sold several times since May 2007, it is very easy for PJ to find the current owner and location, and obtain it for dog inspection.
Thankyou Brietta.
1. An interesting item in that pile is what appears to be a green item (with possibly yellow writing or design on it)?
2. The video may need colour correction? For this it would be useful to have an accurate photo to compare with the video image of the pack of tissues/pads on top of the sideboard - I have found images of similar packs but not the exact one.
3. In the video you posted, you can see a white pillow, and yellow pillowcases, at 9:03, on the table. These correspond exactly to the PJ file list and photos of items taken from living area. It should therefore be possible to see the checked trousers, the white sleeveless top, and the red plane t-shirt, somewhere in the video of Eddie searching the living area. The mystery is, in the living area video, where are they?
What an unusual perspective you have on this case.
Good point. But providing a car has not been scrapped, even if it has been sold several times since May 2007, it is very easy for PJ to find the current owner and location, and obtain it for dog inspection.That's good. Hope they do that and there isn't a sudden flurry of scrapping and crushing cars
http://youtu.be/FF_EZCp-zJQ?t=9m3s
At 9m3s see a white pillow and yellow pillowcases on the table.
What are pillow and pillowcases doing on the dining table, seems like an odd place for them?
with reference to the green and yellow item on the sideboard ... what are your thoughts on papers inside a carrier bag?Actually that is a good suggestion.
Actually that is a good suggestion.
If so then it is a green carrier bag with yellow writing on.
It is possible to propose the same for the red item.
(The one I have previously suggested might be the red tshirt, folded, with white plane visible).
Might be a red carrier bag with a white design detail, with paperwork inside?
In Madeleine’s case Eddie alerted and no-one knows to what.In the Sharp case a cadaver dog did alert, the dog's name was Buster.
In Tia’s case the dog did not alert despite the presence of a body in the loft space.
So the cases are not comparable.
I was particularly interested when Moore said, “A crime scene is perishable – investigation is a consumer – it consumes time it consumes evidence the further you get from the actual crime the less chance you have, …”
IMO that perfectly describes what happened by allowing the apartment to be used while the case was open. It is also what happened when Martin Grime and his team were deployed so long after the event.
He states the case has been ‘so badly botched’ that NSY will have started from scratch on it. I think in any case that would have happened because in a cold case it would make sense to do so.
But If this guy has a training role I bet he won’t be holding up the management of the crime scene in PDL as an exemplar of how it should be done to his students.
I find it astounding that one dog can apparently signal that it has smelt the one-time presence of a body in an apartment, a body that was in situ for (in the worst case scenario) a couple of hours three months previously but another dog is unable to detect the mouldering presence of a corpse a few feet away, albeit one wrapped in a bag or carpet. Wasn't the smell so bad in the case of Tia Sharpe that even the humans could smell something? Hardly surprising the dog got there in the end!It is possible to be more precise than "a few feet away". Probably 16 feet away would be a reasonably conservative estimate of the air flow distance? And that flow was half way along greatly impeded by a closed loft hatch. And further, the air flow in a house is generally by the "chimney effect" upwards from landing to loft, not the other way round. So Buster did a great job successfully solving the case from that distance and with that impeded airflow and its direction.
It is possible to be more precise than "a few feet away". Probably 16 feet away would be a reasonably conservative estimate of the air flow distance? And that flow was half way along greatly impeded by a closed loft hatch. And further, the air flow in a house is generally by the "chimney effect" upwards from landing to loft, not the other way round. So Buster did a great job successfully solving the case from that distance and with that impeded airflow and its direction.Tia's body was 3 feet from the hatch and so when dogs were directly under the hatch (assuming they searched upstairs) they would only have been a few feet from the body as I said. The dogs were brought in three or 4 times before Buster eventually alerted, by which time the corpse had well and truly begun to reek. Your excuses for why the dogs did not alert sooner do not satisfactorily explain why one dog can pick up the scent of a fresh body three months after it was removed, and another can't pick up the scent of a rotting corpse a few feet from its nose. This may all seem very understandable to you, but not to me.
Anyway, the point I was proposing is simply that the PJ did do one thing at least right, to preserve the scene, and that was having the occupants move out to a different apartment, as otherwise the mere presence of peeps living there would modify the scene further.
Tia's body was 3 feet from the hatch and so when dogs were directly under the hatch (assuming they searched upstairs) they would only have been a few feet from the body as I said. The dogs were brought in three or 4 times before Buster eventually alerted, by which time the corpse had well and truly begun to reek. Your excuses for why the dogs did not alert sooner do not satisfactorily explain why one dog can pick up the scent of a fresh body three months after it was removed, and another can't pick up the scent of a rotting corpse a few feet from its nose. This may all seem very understandable to you, but not to me.OK I checked and you are correct with saying 3 feet from the hatch. This means that on Aug 8th when he signalled positively the loft, the airflow distance from target to Buster's nose was about 10 feet right? And the airflow through the gaps around the loft hatchdoor was by "chimney effect" mostly upwards.
OK so assuming 3 feet from the hatch, that means the airflow distance from target to Buster's nose was about 10 feet right? And the airflow through the gaps around the loft hatchdoor was by "chimney effect" mostly upwards.If that's the case then why did the whole house stink by the time the time the body was found?
If that's the case then why did the whole house stink by the time the time the body was found?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324061/Tia-Sharp-Met-forced-apologise-family-FOUR-searches-failed-spot-body.html
"By the time it was recovered, when the stench of decomposition was overwhelming...,"
"It took another two days, until officers noticed a stench in rooms at the top of the house, for Tia to be found".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324061/Tia-Sharp-Met-forced-apologise-family-FOUR-searches-failed-spot-body.html
From another thread:Yes, thanks for that excellent article. I just want to highlight that when Buster signalled the loft on Aug 8th, police totally ignored that alert, because thay had already "searched" the loft several times and found nothing, therefore they did not even look in the loft in response to the dog's signal. Does this not oh so clearly the danger of allowing human assumption to override a clear signal from a dog?Only if we allow that humans illogically assumed that because the dogs didn't alert earlier that therefore there was no body in the house.
" ... on August 8 a specially trained dog also signalled towards the ceiling under the loft.
But officers decided it was not necessary to check again as it had been searched before"
And so, deliberately ignoring what the dog said oh so clearly, police didn't bother even looking up there on the 8th, and it was the 10th when finally dthey id properly search the loft.
Does this not illustrate the huge danger of allowing assumptions by illogical human brains to override the skilled signal of an expert in scent?
From another thread:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324061/Tia-Sharp-Met-forced-apologise-family-FOUR-searches-failed-spot-body.html
Yes, thanks for that excellent article. I just want to highlight that when Buster signalled the loft on Aug 8th, police totally ignored that alert, because thay had already "searched" the loft several times and found nothing, therefore they did not even look in the loft in response to the dog's signal. Does this not oh so clearly illustrate the danger of allowing illogical human assumption to override a clear signal from an expert?
" ... on August 8 a specially trained dog also signalled towards the ceiling under the loft.
But officers decided it was not necessary to check again as it had been searched before"
Only if we allow that humans illogically assumed that because the dogs didn't alert earlier that therefore there was no body in the house.
Fruitless search: Despite four searches by police officers using sniffer dogs, it was not until a specialist dog was taken in, that Tia's remains were founds
Search 1: "The first ‘brief examination’ of the house was undertaken by local officers on August 3"
Search 2: "was carried out the next day by two sergeants and two PCs".
Search 3: "In the early hours of the following morning a specialist team, comprised of a sergeant and five PCs, carried out a third search."
Search 4: "On a fourth search of the house on August 8 a specially trained dog also signalled towards the ceiling under the loft. But officers decided it was not necessary to check again as it had been searched before".
Search 5: Police finally searched loft properly on Aug 10th.
The first three searches were by humans with no mention of an EVR dog.
The fourth search was by EVR dog Buster and he alerted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324061/Tia-Sharp-Met-forced-apologise-family-FOUR-searches-failed-spot-body.html
Retired Scotland Yard Commander John O'Connor is the most senior figure so far to go public with criticism of the way the case has been handled.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186935/Tia-Sharp-murder-Why-did-police-officers-dogs-8-days-body-missing-12-year-old.html#ixzz37eTr0BxI
'The police should have gone into that house quicker. Clearly Hazell should have been treated as a suspect from the off. he was the last person to see Tia alive,' he told The Sun.
'if police have enough evidence to bring in sniffer dogs, then they have enough evidence to pull the place apart. It's unforgiveable they didn't do that.'
'You can't rely on a dog - you need human beings. They haven't done very well. That child should have been found much quicker.'
Fruitless search: Despite four searches by police officers using sniffer dogs, it was not until a specialist dog was taken in, that Tia's remains were foundsThe first time an EVR dog was taken into the house was Aug 8th. The dog alerted towards the loft, but police did not bother looking up there again. This dog is a german shepherd with a female handler.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324061/Tia-Sharp-Met-forced-apologise-family-FOUR-searches-failed-spot-body.html#ixzz37eRVO7R8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The first time an EVR dog was taken into the house was Aug 8th. The dog alerted towards the loft, but police did not bother looking up there again. This dog is a german shepherd with a female handler.Why were you excusing their failure to alert on the other thread then?
The idea, that an EVR dog at any time failed to alert in the Sharp house, is I think likely to be incorrect.
Why were you excusing their failure to alert on the other thread then?Since making that post that I researched and discovered that the EVR dog did alert first time.
Since making that post that I researched and discovered that the EVR dog did alert first time.Fair enough.
Fair enough.Here are the two dogs (different coats, different handlers) which I am assuming are the EVR dogs
...BTW I am now uncertain whether I have the name Buster correct.
Sorry Pegasus, I missed your posts. Looks like we got a similar shot seconds apart.
Cadaver dogs are extremely reliable at finding cadavers...thats their job
Very sadly, the girl's body was actually in that house.Yes very sad. The police made the point that their inadequate searching by human officers didn't alter anything for the victim. But it certainly did make things worse for the family. If only the police had listened to the german shepherd on the 8th instead of ignoring it, that would have eliminated the worst two days, which were the 8th to the 10th.
Yes very sad. The police made the point that their inadequate searching by human officers didn't alter anything for the victim. But it certainly did make things worse for the family. If only the police had listened to the german shepherd on the 8th instead of ignoring it, that would have eliminated the worst two days, which were the 8th to the 10th.
Yes very sad. The police made the point that their inadequate searching by human officers didn't alter anything for the victim. But it certainly did make things worse for the family. If only the police had listened to the german shepherd on the 8th instead of ignoring it, that would have eliminated the worst two days, which were the 8th to the 10th.
If the dogs alerts were 100% reliable the police would have reacted to it...you need to ask yourself why they ignored it
Again, perhaps they researched it on the internet and found claims that it was unreliable.
If the dogs alerts were 100% reliable the police would have reacted to it...you need to ask yourself why they ignored it
Again, perhaps they researched it on the internet and found claims that it was unreliable.
if they thought the dogs were 100% they would have acted on the alert...simple
The fact is they're using them now in PDL so they're acting on the previous alerts.I dont think you have that quite right Pfinder.
I dont think you have that quite right Pfinder.
Like all of us on here , we think the dogs alert very well to what they are trained to alert to. The problem with Eddie was that he was also trained to alert to living body fluids that had stood for a while, so without forensic evidence he could have alerted to any body fluid from a living person. And we know in 5A that there was a bad shaving accident with blood.
Forensics collaberated nothing to do with Madeleine.
At best Amaral was mistaken. At worst, he chose to ignore the forensics or delibearetely ignore them
Grime made it clear that the alerts must be colaborated by forensic evidence or they mean nothing.
It is rather late in the day, but I can see no reason why dogs should not be used again. They did their part according to their training.
Hopeful;ly who-ever is in charge now will take proper notice of the forensics.
I think SY will.
Unfortunately after such a long period and with so many wicked red herrings, I wonder if someone will plant a cadavar in 5A at this stage, so as to give a cadavar odour?
Some really dirty work appears to have been going on to try and implicate the Mccanns .... and hide the abductors. I fear that it will not stop.
Just a reminder of the huge value of cadaver dogs in clearing an innocent person.How on earth does the dog not signalling in this man's house prove he had nothing to do with Claudia's disappearance? This is nonsense.
A prime example is the Lawrence case - a man was arrested - two houses (one in York and one in North Shields) were searched by a cadaver dog - the dog did NOT signal - the man was released.
This canine intelligence enabled police, who are obviously very determined to solve this case, to focus on other possible solutions. Without the cadaver dog, that man man might still be under suspicion, and police would never have progressed to the current drilling and canine investigation of a totally different location. And, as seems likely, if the dog finds nothing there, this will enable police to rule it out and move on to another lead, until eventually the dog solves the case.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/claudia-lawrence-recap-updates-police-3900751
( And re dogs who can detect scent coming from underwater - here is an expert called Eddie -
http://i.imgur.com/vldy8zT.jpg?1-EVRD-Eddie-UK_Justice_Forum )
Nope, pegasus, Attracta was on the river bank and the smell of decomposition was such that the human nose of the policeman could detect it ... Eddie just got excited (as he was somewhat prone to do) and either fell or jumped into the water.According to what I read, Eddie deliberately jumped into the stream specifically to swim to the opposite bank, where he found the body, and alerted.
...
From another thread) According to what I read, Eddie deliberately jumped into the stream specifically to swim to the opposite bank, where he found the body, and alerted.
Nope, pegasus, Attracta was on the river bank and the smell of decomposition was such that the human nose of the policeman could detect it ... Eddie just got excited (as he was somewhat prone to do) and either fell or jumped into the water.
The Smith family sighting has not been ruled in or out, so until it is discovered who the carrier was, I think the Smith sighting has to stand as a possibility.
The Met were still going with JT's sighting until recently when they apparently identified the carrier ... I think it is interesting that in both sightings it was said specifically that the man did not look like a tourist, which is not to say he was one of the arguidos.
But questioning of them and the other witnesses might turn up some information, we'll just have to wait and see what happens next.
He followed the cadaver scent and if that meant getting wet in order to follow the scent so be it 8-)(--) His work was first class unlike your posts. Dogs like to play with toys and pick them up in their mouth. A second test was performed on the toy for that reason. Grime will not play down his findings if this case comes to trial 8)--))
It appears you take exception to it being pointed out that Eddie did not appear to be following his ‘trained response’ when he alerted to Ms Harron’s body, with his excitable reaction putting himself and possibly his handler at risk; and also by contaminating items when lifting them in his mouth as in PDL.
Let’s imagine for a moment Eddie had been trained to alert to explosives rather than cadaver: how happy would you or his handler have been to have had him jumping eagerly on his find or running about with high explosives in his mouth?
Don't you worry your pretty little head about Mr Grime underplaying anything at any future trial ... the circumstance of him being called to give evidence just will not arise.
Dogs neither lie nor take the moral standpoint of honesty is always the best policy. They are dogs and therefore they have no concept of truth and deceit. Dogs cannot be trained to lie (apart from on the ground) but they can sometimes get things wrong owing to unwitting (or otherwise) handler bias. The case of Zampo a sniffer dog in Scandanavia is one such you may care to investigate, there are also studies on the subject of dog handler bias which you will find if you google intelligently. I hope you find them instructive.
Thank you Alfred R Jones. I agree dogs do not lie. A trained dog is sometime wrong and mostly right. An untrained dog is sometime right and mostly wrong. This dog was trained so should be mostly right. Why do people say he is always wrong with Madeleine McCann? I think the dog knows his training. I think the dog is doing his job good.
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?
Dogs neither lie nor take the moral standpoint of honesty is always the best policy. They are dogs and therefore they have no concept of truth and deceit. Dogs cannot be trained to lie (apart from on the ground) but they can sometimes get things wrong owing to unwitting (or otherwise) handler bias. The case of Zampo a sniffer dog in Scandanavia is one such you may care to investigate, there are also studies on the subject of dog handler bias which you will find if you google intelligently. I hope you find them instructive.
The reason Eddie jumped into the water during the Attracta Harron search was to swim to the opposite bank where he found the body concealed under slabs and alerted.
Allegations that Eddie fell in by accident are incorrect.
I believe he jumped into the water in his excitement and got into difficulty; it cannot be denied that he was an excitable animal as we have proof of that from his behaviour outside 5a; that his handler had to follow him across the water, risking contaminating the scene suggests it was to retrieve the dog rather than to confirm the finding of Mrs Harron’s body the presence of which was obvious even to the humans in attendance.Eddie signalled the location of the body. After following Eddie to where he barked, then the handlers could smell it. The idea that the humans found the body is false. Eddie led the humans to the body by signalling it. The idea that Eddie fell into the water accidentally through "over-excitement" is false. He jumped in to get to the body on the opposite bank.
Eddie signalled the location of the body. After following Eddie to where he barked, then the handlers could smell it. The idea that the humans found the body is false. Eddie led the humans to the body by signalling it. The idea that Eddie fell into the water accidentally through "over-excitement" is false. He jumped in to get to the body on the opposite bank. Next will peeps be claiming that Eddie signalled in the red Lantra because he was cued to do so, or he was a tad over-excited, or pining for the fjords, or it was his birthday or something? Eddie alerted in the red Lantra because the body had previously been in it.
Eddie signalled the location of the body. After following Eddie to where he barked, then the handlers could smell it. The idea that the humans found the body is false. Eddie led the humans to the body by signalling it. The idea that Eddie fell into the water accidentally through "over-excitement" is false. He jumped in to get to the body on the opposite bank.
Next will peeps be claiming that Eddie signalled in the red Lantra car used by Hamilton because he was cued to do so, or he was a tad over-excited, or pining for the fjords, or it was his birthday or something?
I believe he jumped into the water in his excitement and got into difficulty; it cannot be denied that he was an excitable animal as we have proof of that from his behaviour outside 5a; that his handler had to follow him across the water, risking contaminating the scene suggests it was to retrieve the dog rather than to confirm the finding of Mrs Harron’s body the presence of which was obvious even to the humans in attendance.
Eddie signalled the location of the body. After following Eddie to where he barked, then the handlers could smell it. The idea that the humans found the body is false. Eddie led the humans to the body by signalling it. The idea that Eddie fell into the water accidentally through "over-excitement" is false. He jumped in to get to the body on the opposite bank.
Next will peeps be claiming that Eddie signalled in the red Lantra car used by Hamilton because he was cued to do so, or he was a tad over-excited, or pining for the fjords, or it was his birthday or something?
I did not say that the humans found Mrs Harron's body; I said they could smell the decomposition; there was no need for Eddie to jump in to get to the opposite bank, his job had already been done with his alert.Eddie's barking, after going to the opposite bank, at the exact location of the body, was a trained response.
Are you saying he was not an over excitable animal despite proof that he was?
We did not see him at the water, but we did see him in action at PDL - outside 5a - playing with CC in the villa - picking up clothing in his mouth - bouncing off a wall in the garage: surely none of these were trained responses.
I did not say that the humans found Mrs Harron's body; I said they could smell the decomposition; there was no need for Eddie to jump in to get to the opposite bank, his job had already been done with his alert.
Are you saying he was not an over excitable animal despite proof that he was?
We did not see him at the water, but we did see him in action at PDL - outside 5a - playing with CC in the villa - picking up clothing in his mouth - bouncing off a wall in the garage: surely none of these were trained responses.
Eddie's barking, after going to the opposite bank, at the exact location of the body, was a trained response.
Eddie's barking, in the Lantra which had been borrowed by Hamilton, was a trained response.
Eddie achieved closure for the family.
And BTW Eddie did not signal before entering the water. He signalled after emerging from the water on the further bank, again this is a trained behaviour, to find the exact location.
In the investigation into the murder of Attracta Harron, where was there a line-up of cars?
Yes there was.When I said the Lantra stood out like a burnt thumb, I mean it was burnt out.
"The video clearly showed the spaniel examining the other vehicles without reacting, and as soon as it entered the Lantra it began barking and refused to get out."
http://attracta.martinharran.com/openstate.htm
When I said the Lantra stood out like a burnt thumb, I mean it was burnt out.
So here is a freeby for those desperate to accuse Mr Grime of cueing - those peeps can argue that he observantly noticed the tiny weeny clue that one car in the selection of four was burnt, and thought "ah I have noticed that car is different because it has had a huge fire in it so that is the car I need to trick Eddie into signalling"
Yes there was.
"The video clearly showed the spaniel examining the other vehicles without reacting, and as soon as it entered the Lantra it began barking and refused to get out."
http://attracta.martinharran.com/openstate.htm
The account does not make plain that the vehicles were examined simultaneously and the deciding factor was dna evidence, corroborated in a forensic laboratory, as belonging to the victim.
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
In McCann lala land specialist dogs alert to any substance one may care to name but none the less specialist dogs are used by many law enforcement agencies.
Perhaps posters might like to address that little paradox.
Paradox?
Dogs are useful tools but not infallible.
In the Shannon Matthews case a cadaver dog alerted but there were no bodies.
Now that's not true, is it ferryman ?
The dog alerted to a mattress on which an individual had died.
Why do you spread such easily refuted rubbish ? Are things really that desperate ?
Paradox?
Dogs are useful tools but not infallible.
In the Shannon Matthews case a cadaver dog alerted but there were no bodies.
Paradox?
Dogs are useful tools but not infallible.
In the Shannon Matthews case a cadaver dog alerted but there were no bodies.
That was the one with the bed in which someone had died, wasn't it.Citation please Slarti
Citation please Slarti
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
In McCann lala land specialist dogs alert to any substance one may care to name but none the less specialist dogs are used by many law enforcement agencies.
Perhaps posters might like to address that little paradox.
That was the one with the bed in which someone had died, wasn't it.
I think the point is that despite the dogs alerting to what some refer to as the 'scent of death' - the police did not stop their search for a living child and Shannon was found. I won't say 'safe and well' as the conditions in which she was found leave a lot to be desired and had the search been delayed by a change in focus, who can tell what might have happened.
In the Shannon Mathews case the dogs did what they were trained to do ... but the humans then had to discover an explanation of why they had alerted as they did ... and in the interim continue working on the main objective which was locating the child who was fortunately alive.
Yes. In the absence of any forensic evidence, the officers had to work through every plausible reason that could account for the alert. One was no doubt that she had died there and her body removed, but it certainly wasn't the only one.
In 5A:
- Were the mattresses ever checked for soiling? Were they moved to check if there wasn't a blood-stained sock or bandaid underneath? (Keela was only tasked to check the cupboard.)
- Where did the beds come from? At one point it was a private residence belonging to Tasmin's granny, according to her statement. Did she have two beds in her bedroom when she was there? If not, where did that bedroom furniture come from? Was it all new or was some of it second-hand?
- None of the post-disappearance occupants appear to have been interviewed... did any of them have any kind of accident?
None of that seems to have been checked at the time, aside from casual enquiries as to whether anyone knew whether anyone had heard of someone dying in that flat.
Michael McCann, the husband of Ruth McCann, owner of 5a, reportedly died in July 2006 in Liverpool (I am trying to trace the relevant records). There is no record of the PJ asking if any of the furniture from the home was ever shipped to Portugal (highly unlikely, I know, but still something to be ruled out)
Just for you...Oh Yeah. Had NEVER heard of NIPA until I saw your webpage above.
NIPA, which you are keen on,
http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work (http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work)
We understand that Tasmins Grandpa died in hospital over there, but were his pyjamas brought back to that flat until they were finally disposed of.
Michael McCann, the husband of Ruth McCann, owner of 5a, reportedly died in July 2006 in Liverpool (I am trying to trace the relevant records). There is no record of the PJ asking if any of the furniture from the home was ever shipped to Portugal (highly unlikely, I know, but still something to be ruled out)
Oh Yeah. Had NEVER heard of NIPA until I saw your webpage above.
I challenge you:
Show any place that I have talked about .... or mentioned NIPA
PS How about the citation asked for in my post earlier re someone dying on the bed at Sharon Matthews uncles flat ?
I think the point is that despite the dogs alerting to what some refer to as the 'scent of death' - the police did not stop their search for a living child and Shannon was found. I won't say 'safe and well' as the conditions in which she was found leave a lot to be desired and had the search been delayed by a change in focus, who can tell what might have happened.
In the Shannon Mathews case the dogs did what they were trained to do ... but the humans then had to discover an explanation of why they had alerted as they did ... and in the interim continue working on the main objective which was locating the child who was fortunately alive.
Madeleine, Anatomy of a Mystery
4.18. Blood or a corpse.
Eddie didn't go inside the car. He alerted outside and was chasing a scent a good distance away from the car that he was trained to find. He also alerted on the clothes with no blood and at the wardrobe with no blood. Keela gets in close in the boot like Shep to alert to microscopic hidden blood.
I was referring to Shep. He reacts to Blood and Corpse Scent. As did Eddie and other Cadaver Dogs.
CADAVERINE
http://www.everything2.com/title/Cadaverine
Cadaverine is a very intersting and useful chemical. It is C5H13N2 and looks like this: H2N/\/\/NH2. It is closely related to putrescine, spermine, and spermidine. It is called cadaverine because is comes from human corpses and is one of the chemicals that causes that awful odor.
1) Cadaverine also contributes to the odors of urine and semen.
2) Cadaverine is found in some plants in trace amounts as a result of stress on the plant.
3) It is sold in some hunting supply stores as a poisonous liquid that attracts scavengers.
4) It is also used as a tool for training search and rescue dogs.
Cadaverine is a completely unwholesome substance. Do NOT get it on anything you are going to keep, especially yourself. It DOES NOT wash off. It will be with you until your skin washes away. If you get it in someone's car (say in their heating system or injected into the rubber of their door windows) they will be forced to scrap the car. This is just one of the many uses of cadaverine! Most of cadaverine's uses, however, are to make things smell really really bad, so I won't explain any more here.
I'm sure you'll be able to figure out some uses for it yourself.
I like it!
(thing) by x1cygnus Fri Nov 08 2002 at 21:54:50
C5H14N2 or cadaverine is also known as animal coniine, cadaverin, cadaverine or 1,5-pentamethylenediamine. It's a foul smelling amine derived from the amino acid lysine by decarboxylation catalysed by lysine decarboxylase. It is naturally present in decaying corpses, the roots of some plants and, strangely enough, in the flowers of the asclepiadaceae Hoodia gordonii which of course smell like garbage. More boring information follows:
Density: 0.87
Melting point: 9 °C
Boiling point: 178-180 °C
Molecular weight: 102.18 g/mol
Appearance: colorless, syrupy liquid
Soluble in water, alcohol; slightly soluble in ether
/----\
NH2 --/ \-- NH2
Of course, the most interesting part is the synthesis of cadaverine. Well, unless you order it or its precursors directly from a chemistry lab, you won't be going very far.
You can produce cadaverine (as well as putrescine, spermidine and histamine) by letting fish such as tuna or swordfish decay.
Something more elegant would consist in soaking the flowers of Hoodia gordonii in alcohol.
I like it! 1 C!
(definition) by Webster 1913 Sun Nov 27 2005 at 9:11:33
Ca*dav"er*ine (?), n. Also - in . [From Cadaver.] (Chem.)
A sirupy, nontoxic ptomaine, C5H14N2 (chemically pentamethylene diamine), formed in putrefaction of flesh, etc.
Could it be that someone synthesized cadavarine or bought it from a hunting supply stores ... and added it to the outside of the door of the Mccann hire car.
Dunno
But I repeat, I do not understand how the scent penetrated a metal door with its rubber/plastic seal.
Any ideas?
Sadie read 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.
Vol. IX p. 2480
EVRD
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain.
"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."
Portuguese police turned down offer of dog help, 23 May 2007
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
On scent of success: sniffer dog Keela earns more than her Chief Constable, 30 December 2005
On scent of success: sniffer dog Keela earns more than her Chief Constable Timesonline
By Karen McVeigh
December 30, 2005
HER detective work is unsurpassed, her dedication to duty during some of Britain’s most challenging murder cases unfailing.
Keela, a 16-month-old springer spaniel, has become such an asset to South Yorkshire Police that she now earns more than the chief constable.
Her sense of smell, so keen that she can sniff traces of blood on weapons that have been scrubbed after attacks, has her so much in demand by forces up and down the country that she is hired out at £530 a day, plus expenses.
Thought to be the only one of her kind, the crime scenes dog earns nearly £200,000 a year. Her daily rate, ten times that of ordinary police dogs, puts her on more than the chief constable, Meredydd Hughes, who picks up £129,963.
Keela's considerable talent in uncovering minute pieces of evidence that can later be confirmed by forensic tests has put her in the forefront of detective work across Britain. She was drafted in to help after the stabbing of the young mother, Abigail Witchalls, in Surrey, and has been involved in high- profile cases across 17 forces, from Devon and Cornwall to Strathclyde.
She has already helped to apprehend a murderer after sniffing out blood on a knife.
PC John Ellis, her handler, said that police sent for Keela when the scenes of crime squad failed to find what they were looking for. "She can detect minute quantities of blood that cannot be seen with the human eye," he said. "She is used at scenes where someone has tried to clean it up. If blood has seeped into the tiles behind a bath where a body has been, she can find it."
The spaniel can sniff out blood in clothes after they have been washed repeatedly in biological washing powder, and can detect microscopic amounts on weapons that have been scrubbed and washed.
When faced with a "clean" crime scene, Mr Ellis and PC Martin Grimes, Keela's other handler, will first send in Frankie, a border collie, and Eddie, another springer spaniel, to pick up any general scent. Then they wheel in the big gun.
"We take Keela in and she will find the minutest traces of blood," Mr Ellis said. "It's not like looking for a needle in a haystack any more. The other two dogs will find the haystack and Keela will find the needle."
While the other dogs bark, Keela has been trained to freeze and pinpoint the area with her nose.
Mr Ellis said Keela's "perfect temperament" and enthusiasm made her a great asset. "We thought we would get one or two deployments a year, but things have just snowballed. Obviously when we are called in by other forces they are charged a fee and it's quite funny to think she can earn more than the chief constable."
Mr Hughes showed there were no hard feelings. The chief constable said: "Keela's training gives the force an edge when it comes to forensic investigation which we should recognise and use more often."
Mr Ellis and Mr Grimes came up with a special training regime to focus on Keela's remarkable skills. It has proved so successful that the FBI has inquired about it. "The FBI is very interested in how we work because they don't have this sort of facility in-house and they are looking at setting up their own unit," Mr Ellis said.
Paul Ruffell, of K9 Solutions, a security firm specialising in dog units, said he was amazed at Keela's abilities. "I've been working in this business for 25 years and I've never heard anything like it," he said.
ANIMAL MAGIC
£200,000 DOG
Keela crime scene investigation dog, South Yorkshire Police
Pay none. Charges £530 a day plus expenses for services. Earned almost £200,000 last year
Career joined South Yorkshire Police in 2003 at 12 weeks. Came originally from West Midlands Police, from a large litter. Period of training lasted a few months
Hobbies chasing her tail and eating
£129,000 MAN
Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
Pay £129,963 a year
Career joined North Wales Constabulary, 1979. Promoted to Superintendent in West Yorkshire Police in 1995 and Assistant Chief Constable in Greater Manchester, 1999
Hobbies rock climbing, mountainbiking and mountaineering
Madeleine: McCanns consult American lawyers over 'cadaver dog' evidence, 16 September 2007
Madeleine: McCanns consult American lawyers over 'cadaver dog' evidence Daily Mail
Last updated at 18:07 16 September 2007
Kate and Gerry McCann's legal team have consulted the lawyers of an American man accused of murdering his estranged wife in a case where cadaver dog evidence was key, a source said today.
Two British sniffer dogs, one capable of detecting blood and human remains, were brought to Portugal in early August.
The cadaver dog picked up a "scent of death" on everything from Mrs McCann's clothes to missing Madeleine's favourite soft toy Cuddle Cat, according to reports.
During police interviews the McCanns were shown a video of the animal "going crazy" when it approached their Renault Scenic hire car, newspapers have claimed.
Leaked reports from the investigation have suggested Madeleine's parents could have accidentally killed her and then disposed of her body using the car.
Although they do not know the full details of Portuguese prosecutors' case against them, the McCanns are concerned it may rest on the dog's reaction.
They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin.
The couple's lawyers have already contacted Zapata's defence team, who are now sending their large file on the matter to Britain.
Zapata's estranged wife, flight instructor Jeanette Zapata, was 37 when she vanished on October 11 1976 after seeing her three children off to school. Her body has never been found.
Detectives suspected Zapata of involvement in her disappearance but did not charge him because of a lack of evidence.
Police decided to conduct new searches using cadaver dogs, a new investigative technique, when an old friend of Mrs Zapata contacted them about the case in 2004.
Zapata, 68, was charged with first-degree murder last year after the dogs indicated they sniffed human remains in a small basement "crawl space" at the former family home in Madison and other properties linked to him.
But Dane County Judge Patrick Fiedler ruled last month that the evidence that led to the charge could not be put before the jury.
He said the dogs were too unreliable in detecting the odour of remains and noted that no remains were actually found.
The judge agreed with an analysis of the three dogs' track record by Zapata's defence team that found they were incorrect 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time.
According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Mr Fiedler told the court: "The state has failed to convince me that it's any more reliable than the flip of a coin." Zapata denies murder, and the jury in the case went out on Friday to start considering its verdict.
A source close to the McCanns' solicitors said: "The legal team are in touch with the lawyers who represented the defendant in the case.
"The court papers, giving the legal submissions, are on their way to the McCann team for consideration.
"At the moment there are no formal charges and therefore there is no formal allegation against which the McCann team can work. We are having to work a little bit in the dark.
"But given that we understand the central plank of what the police are alleging involves sniffer dogs - albeit British ones which are said to be particularly good - this is important and relevant, and will be raised with the police and brought to the judge's attention."
*
Note: Eugene Zapata later confessed to the crime.
SY know what the dogs found. That's why they're using them and doing new forensic tests. Jez, Jane and Matt saw no cars. So Carpenter saying they left at 9:30 seems to be incorrect.I think they were talking about moving cars Pfinder. Stationary cars would just be part of the wallpaper unless they were crossing the road.
If the Carpenter's left before Kate checked 3 people could be calling Madeleine - Matt, Russ or Jane. She should know if it was a male or female voice? If it was female it leads to the only one absent from the table when the alarm was raised. Then you would have to check what time crecheman said he passed there at because she was seen loitering outside at 8:30 when an sms was sent from her phone.
No cars were seen parked on the road never mind moving past Sadie. Carpenter needs to be questioned about the time he left the tapas. Russ returned at 9:45 and he didn't say he saw any car parked near to the apartment. And Jane can't really remember because she wasn't on a mission @)(++(*
So me and Matt walked back to the, to the, erm, to the flats, erm, this would have been about, about kind of twenty-five past nine, I suppose. Erm, and as we, you know, it will probably come back to, but as you asked me the other day, I didn’t certainly notice anything particularly strange or different, I didn’t see any cars parked or anyone standing around or loitering. (Russell O'Brien)
4078 "And would it have been usually to have heard traffic noise at that time of the evening?"
Reply "No, not really, you might get the occasional car come into that car park, but mostly the car park you wouldn't have seen cars in, erm, and it's not really through road, when you look at the map it's sort of like on a 'U', so you've got the, a more main road at the top and one main T-junction to go down at the far end of the two apartment complexes, you didn't really get much through traffic, even going down the hill to the Supermarket there wasn't, there was always cars parked down there, so they must move at some point and there were lots of apartments, people must pass through, but there was never, it was pretty deserted".
4078 "Hear any cars?"
Reply "No. No, I mean, as I say, it was nearly always completely deserted, there was very few people in the resort, erm, you know, you only rarely saw, you know, occasionally people move about on the street and that was mostly during the day, erm, everybody else seemed to sort of eat earlier or, erm, used the baby sitting or whatever service, there were a few people about between and there wasn't really much of a thoroughfare for, erm, for traffic, so nothing that stuck out". (Matt Oldfield)
4078 “Were there any cars around there?”
Reply “Erm, umm, no, I don’t know. I don’t remember. I don’t remember walking past any going up here and I think I would have probably, if there had been I would have realised, because that would have obscured my view of the person walking, so I can’t think of, I can’t think of any, no”.
4078 “So as you are trying to remember it and you can think of yourself walking up that road and you have gone past Gerry and Jez”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “Are you conscious of any other movement?”
Reply “It’s, it’s too long now. Erm, no, not really. I mean, I was just walking up, you know, I was like just sort of on a, not on a mission, but I was just like, you know, on the way to, to check, so I didn’t notice anything either side. The only thing I noticed a movement was when somebody walked across at the top”.
4078 “So you didn’t notice any car headlights or noises from cars?”
Reply “No, no, because I think, you know, if I’d heard sort of a car screech off quickly at that point, I probably would have, would have taken notice I think”. (Jane Tanner)
None there according to Jane, Matt and Russ. Street was deserted according to Jez. No cars seen.Deserted means no people around nor cars moving pFinder. Empty parked cars dont count on the 'deserted ' front ... soz
These issues have already been addressed on at least three occasions so asking the same question again will be deemed to be spam.
Mr Grime was employed by SYP when he was tasked to Portugal. He retired in August 2007 and was not employed by the police when he wrote his Report thus the non official headed notepaper. At that point he was correctly referred to as the trainer/owner of the dogs having been allowed to retain them on his retirement.
What uniform Mr Grime wore in Portugal was a matter for him. He was not obliged to wear any uniform and protective clothing was a matter entirely for him at his discretion.
Hopefully at some point in the near future (legal restraints permitting) he will be able to reply to specific questions on his deployment in Praia da Luz.
Reposted for at least the fifth time!What legal restraints currently prevent Grime from discussing the case now - is he actively involved in the investigation still? And, why did he not take the opportunity to shed more light on his dogs' alerts when the case was closed all those years ago?
Reposted for at least the fifth time!
Aside from that Grime retired in August 2007 (true!) the rest is as untrue when you wrote it as it is today.
One simple, salient, fact.
SYP would not have deployed two dogs and one handler.
What legal restraints currently prevent Grime from discussing the case now - is he actively involved in the investigation still? And, why did he not take the opportunity to shed more light on his dogs' alerts when the case was closed all those years ago?
Off course they would, my own force did it often. Martin was handler to both dogs, you cannot expect another officer to work with a dog he is unfamiliar with. Please can we have no more of these spurious claims.
Keela's handler was John Ellis.
He has told us that he cannot answer questions specific to his deployment in Praia da Luz in case there is a trial at some future date.In effect he is silenced forever then.
In effect he is silenced forever then.
So it's no comment to any questions re the alerts in PDL
Reposted for at least the fifth time!
He has told us that he cannot answer questions specific to his deployment in Praia da Luz in case there is a trial at some future date.
I wouldn't hold your breath for him answering any of your questions 8(0(*
What was the point of the questions thread, then?
The questions were passed to him and he acknowledged that they were excellent but he is constrained by the possibility of a future trial.
What legal restraints currently prevent Grime from discussing the case now - is he actively involved in the investigation still? And, why did he not take the opportunity to shed more light on his dogs' alerts when the case was closed all those years ago?
Former police officers aren't supposed to give details about any specific unsolved investigation that they were closely involved in outside of a court, are they?
I think you would be hard pressed to find any former officer who would make any comment about an ongoing case
IMO there's a difference between a pundit giving an explanation in general terms and one who describes details of a specific case in which they were involved.
I have no problem with a doctor explaining a medical condition in general terms on a TV show, but I wouldn't expect that doctor to give details of a specific patient's medical history, at least not without the patient's consent.
If you are an officer involved in a case and another country's media plus the two arguidos have trashed and threatened you, well, I know what I would do...publish and be damned....good call overall
When did the two arguidos trash and threaten him prior to his public spoutings?if you are looking for the Mccanns spoutings then search a bit more
If you are an officer involved in a case and another country's media plus the two arguidos have trashed and threatened you, well, I know what I would do...publish and be damned....good call overall
if you are looking for the Mccanns spoutings then search a bit more
You'll have to help, Mercury.The clue is in the one but last paragraph you posted....all you have to do is substitute K&G McCann with UK media/PR gobs/relatives/diaries documentaries and books and G Amaral with PJ/Portugal and then Bob is your uncle
The first time I ever heard Kate say anything about Amaral was after he'd published his book... unless you've found something. I don't recall Gerry saying anything about him at all prior to the book either.
So how could the reason he wrote it be a retaliation against their "trashing and threatening" him?
05 Sep 2008
(snip)
Speaking in an interview for the first time since they were formally cleared of any link to their daughter's disappearance, Mrs McCann criticised Mr Amaral's behaviour.
Asked about what she thought of 48-year-old Mr Amaral - who was sacked from the case last October - and his decision to publish a book about his experience, she replied: "It's a disgrace."
There has been little secret about the animosity between the McCanns and the Portuguese police over the investigation into Madeleine, but the couple has refrained from criticising them openly.
Since they were cleared of all involvement in July this year and given access to the police files in August, the couple's private investigators have continued to follow up potential leads.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2689367/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-brands-Portuguese-detective-a-disgrace.html
Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
http://barksar.org/Cadaver_Dogs_A_Search_Tool_for_Locating_Human_Remains.pdf
snip>>>>>The first dog trained specifically for cadaver searches was "Pearl", a Labrador Retriever trained and used by Trooper Jim Suffolk of the New York State Police Department. The Connecticut State PoliceDepartment followed Trooper Suffolk’s lead in 1977 and the use of these dogs rapidly proved worthwhile. Their initial efforts showed that these canines were able to detect the presence of human remains above ground, as well as bodies buried up to several feet deep<<<<< snip
Given the first VRD appears to have been used nearly 40 years ago why would law enforcement agencies persevere in their use for such an extended period if they [VRDs] were unreliable?
Fist one to say Eddie or Keela is a daisy.
Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?How many times have we heard this question asked, and how many times does it have to be answered before it sinks in I wonder?
http://barksar.org/Cadaver_Dogs_A_Search_Tool_for_Locating_Human_Remains.pdf
snip>>>>>The first dog trained specifically for cadaver searches was "Pearl", a Labrador Retriever trained and used by Trooper Jim Suffolk of the New York State Police Department. The Connecticut State PoliceDepartment followed Trooper Suffolk’s lead in 1977 and the use of these dogs rapidly proved worthwhile. Their initial efforts showed that these canines were able to detect the presence of human remains above ground, as well as bodies buried up to several feet deep<<<<< snip
Given the first VRD appears to have been used nearly 40 years ago why would law enforcement agencies persevere in their use for such an extended period if they [VRDs] were unreliable?
Fist one to say Eddie or Keela is a daisy.
Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
http://barksar.org/Cadaver_Dogs_A_Search_Tool_for_Locating_Human_Remains.pdf
snip>>>>>The first dog trained specifically for cadaver searches was "Pearl", a Labrador Retriever trained and used by Trooper Jim Suffolk of the New York State Police Department. The Connecticut State PoliceDepartment followed Trooper Suffolk’s lead in 1977 and the use of these dogs rapidly proved worthwhile. Their initial efforts showed that these canines were able to detect the presence of human remains above ground, as well as bodies buried up to several feet deep<<<<< snip
Given the first VRD appears to have been used nearly 40 years ago why would law enforcement agencies persevere in their use for such an extended period if they [VRDs] were unreliable?
Fist one to say Eddie or Keela is a daisy.
How many times have we heard this question asked, and how many times does it have to be answered before it sinks in I wonder?
Where there is a body to be found, then these dogs are remarkably adept at finding them, that is why they continue to be used to this day. When out searching for a body, if a dog alerts but no body is actually present then it's not the end of the world, the search continues in the hope and expectation that at the next alert the body will be discovered. Often it is, sometimes not. It's why (for example) people continue to use metal detectors to hunt for valuable objects buried beneath the ground - they won't always turn up the goods, but they are a valuable tool in helping to find them.
So you agree the answer to the question posed by the thread is "yes".
Good o we can move on now.
Move on where....
VRD dogs are reliable at finding bodies but that does not address the question of residual scent reliability
So you agree the answer to the question posed by the thread is "yes".That's fine by me - they're great at finding bodies which is why they continue to be used. When they alert but there is no body in situ, then there is no way of knowing what triggered the alert unless corroborating evidence is found. How many more times...!!
Good o we can move on now.
The question of reliability is an interesting one and one for which I am not totally convinced. That said however, the doggies are a useful tool and when they do get it right and find something they are worth their weight in gold.
That's fine by me - they're great at finding bodies which is why they continue to be used. When they alert but there is no body in situ, then there is no way of knowing what triggered the alert unless corroborating evidence is found. How many more times...!!
They [the vrds] may be alerting to what they have been trained to alert to. That would be the first presumption. Otherwise they are not reliable and you agree they are.Twisted logic
Round and round the mulberry bush.
They [the vrds] may be alerting to what they have been trained to alert to. That would be the first presumption. Otherwise they are not reliable and you agree they are.what can trigger a VRD alert?
Round and round the mulberry bush.
Twisted logic
Alice is quite right.
The 'logic' of the mccann supporters
The dogs are fine and do what they are supposed to, EXCEPT in this case. 8)-)))
So tell me..... What is a VRD or victim recovery dog supposed to do
Alice is quite right.
The 'logic' of the mccann supporters
The dogs are fine and do what they are supposed to, EXCEPT in this case. 8)-)))
So can you say that Eddie DEFINATELY alerted to cadaver scent? Even though experts have said that they could alert to something that had blood on it and was taken away, decomposed vegetation, mushrooms, saliva and pigs blood which could have been in fertiliser? DEFINATELY now Stephen.
So can you say that Eddie DEFINATELY alerted to cadaver scent? Even though experts have said that they could alert to something that had blood on it and was taken away, decomposed vegetation, mushrooms, saliva and pigs blood which could have been in fertiliser? DEFINATELY now Stephen.
Twisted logic
what can trigger a VRD alert?Don't you know?
Were any of those found in the samples collected and analysed ?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Keep up Stephen, the scent of residual mushrooms!! Residual saliva
Talk is cheap; perhaps you will explain what you mean.s
One can't say whether they did or they didn't, merely that their response raised suspicions.It could be said they found no evidence of death therefore support the idea Maddie is still alive
It must be those shitakes. @)(++(*
One can't say whether they did or they didn't, merely that their response raised suspicions.
When a well-trained dog is competently handled, perhaps ....
I had to google that LOL
Drooling on bacon and mushroom slice and clipping me toenails and pulling me teeth out whilst crouched in the wardrobe.....sounds almost like a Harry Potter scene....
we MUST stop this
Perhaps you would like to give us a demonstration. @)(++(*
With a suitably trained canine of course. *&*%£
don't forget the rotting vegetation and fertilizer you have on your shoes!
Don't wear out those emoticons.
You may want to use them again ...
Don't wear out those emoticons.
You may want to use them again ...
Time for a song from the Wurzels. %£&)**#
don't forget the rotting vegetation and fertilizer you have on your shoes!
There's an inverse relationship between the use of emoticons and intelligence
Or 'who let those incredibly unreliable dogs out'.
Don't you know?yes, various things, not all of them yer actual dead body.
yes, various things, not all of them yer actual dead body.
s
You have just drawn conclusions to fit your bias
I thnk if a cadaver dog alerts in a case of a missing person who has never been seen since, in the last place she was seen and no where else, in a search. 7 residences, (where no one has gone missing) and various outside areas, chances are hgher that the dog alerted to cadaver scent rather than someone's saliva or residual plaster (or mushrooms) don't you think? or are the chances equal.Well, let's say Shannon Matthews had been locked up in a dungeon and was still there to this day, undiscovered but being kept alive by her captor, you would presumably be insisting she was dead, right? Similarly, you'd be convinced that Thomas Quick actually murdered all those people in Sweden on the basis of Zampo's alerts in the woods to this day, if it hadn't been revealed that he made a false confession to the murders, wouldn't you?
Well, let's say Shannon Matthews had been locked up in a dungeon and was still there to this day, undiscovered but being kept alive by her captor, you would presumably be insisting she was dead, right? Similarly, you'd be convinced that Thomas Quick actually murdered all those people in Sweden on the basis of Zampo's alerts in the woods to this day, if it hadn't been revealed that he made a false confession to the murders, wouldn't you?
You should attempt to at least stop putting words into others mouths as I was not insisting on anything was I? I asked you a question about probabilities surrounding the known facts and what various posters here keep saying are possibilities.What it boils down to. is this: no one knows precisely what caused. the dog alerts and there could be a number of different explanations for them, including the one time presence of a cadaver. Working out the probability that it was Madeleine's corpse they were alerting to is up to someone far more brilliant than me (over to Alice, perhaps?)
Were any of those found in the samples collected and analysed ?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
What it boils down to. is this: no one knows precisely what caused. the dog alerts and there could be a number of different explanations for them, including the one time presence of a cadaver. Working out the probability that it was Madeleine's corpse they were alerting to is up to someone far more brilliant than me (over to Alice, perhaps?)
Did they take samples from the tiles in the bedroom?
Now can you answer the question, was it definitely cadaver scent Stephen?
Apparently the dogs alert to a) cadaver b) blood. Take your pick. 8)-)))
Can you say it wasn't ?
Or do you prefer pigs, compost, fertilizer............. ?
Apparently the dogs alert to a) cadaver b) blood. Take your pick. 8)-)))
What it boils down to. is this: no one knows precisely what caused. the dog alerts and there could be a number of different explanations for them, including the one time presence of a cadaver. Working out the probability that it was Madeleine's corpse they were alerting to is up to someone far more brilliant than me (over to Alice, perhaps?)
Ah blood G-Unit the blood that could be human or pig blood, fertiliser maybe?
You may laugh about it, but a child was deemed dead because of the dogs findings.
It wasn't, there good enough for you? Madeleine did not lie in that apartment dead for 2 and a half to three hours then hidden somewhere so spectacular that no one could find her, then weeks later taken again in a car for disposal.
Was it DEFINATELY cadaver scent Stephen?
Are you saying that human haemoglobin and pig haemoglobin are the same ?
Well, let's say Shannon Matthews had been locked up in a dungeon and was still there to this day, undiscovered but being kept alive by her captor, you would presumably be insisting she was dead, right? Similarly, you'd be convinced that Thomas Quick actually murdered all those people in Sweden on the basis of Zampo's alerts in the woods to this day, if it hadn't been revealed that he made a false confession to the murders, wouldn't you?
I am saying that Grime stated they could not train the dogs to tell them apart Stephen, so yes they were the same to the dogs.
So what samples of blood showed pig heamoglobin then in the forensic analysis ?
How many more times, they didn't take any samples from the floor of the bedroom or the garden.
Some information about the Quick case.I'm sorry but a blog by a conspiracy theorist (and every case has them) is not worthy of comment IMO.
https://kristinahultman.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/what-the-dogs-actually-found/ (https://kristinahultman.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/what-the-dogs-actually-found/)
If the dog is trained to alert to certain stimuli why would you think, when it alerts it is alerting to stimuli other than those it has been trained to?When the monitor goes off, of course you have cause for concern. It spurs you into action, you make the necessary checks and act accordingly. I don't know what the fault rate in such equipment is, maybe low to non-existent so is it a valid comparison? I don't know. I prefer the metal detector analogy however, a beep will signify the presence of something worth investigating, however it will not always be treasure. Same as the dogs IMO.
That smacks of using an oxygen concentration monitor then not believing there is potential danger when it alarms because you believe it is being set off by something else.
It cannot be proven the dog alerted to the cadaver scent of Madeleine but the fact the dog alerted will give the SIO a lead to follow which is one objective of the process. As there is no result thus far ..............?
I can see that causing concern.
Apparently the dogs alert to a) cadaver b) blood. Take your pick. 8)-)))They can also alert falsely and are subject to unconscious handler bias, do you concede this is a possibility also?
Are you saying that human haemoglobin and pig haemoglobin are the same ?
So, no pig remains were detected, as I said.
NEXT.
No blood of Madeleine's was found either Stephen, as a matter of fact there was no evidence at all to suggest that Madeleine died in that apartment.
Now, was the alert definitely to cadaver scent?
So, no pig remains were detected, as I said.
NEXT.
You seem to have forgotten that the forensic results were inconclusive, and that remains the case.
As to accidental death, I have made my views clear, and can you tell me please where accidental death has been ruled out in this case ?
I don't see SY investigating accidental death do you?
The only investigation SY seem to doing is abduction. Though they did wonder if a burglar could have killed Madeleine and removed her body, but if that had happened, there wouldn't be cadaver scent would there?
When the monitor goes off, of course you have cause for concern. It spurs you into action, you make the necessary checks and act accordingly. I don't know what the fault rate in such equipment is, maybe low to non-existent so is it a valid comparison? I don't know. I prefer the metal detector analogy however, a beep will signify the presence of something worth investigating, however it will not always be treasure. Same as the dogs IMO.You don't know the true fault rate of dogs either.
As someone who has claimed (albeit in a round-about-read-through-the-lines kind of way) that you don't believe the parents covered up the death of their child, how do you rationalise the dog alerts to yourself?
You seem to forget Redwood said Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
Then again, he said many things, which in effect mean nothing at all.
He did say Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive as part of the investigation into a burglar killing Madeleine and removing the body, not that Madeleine had had an accident. He had ruled out the McCann's as having anything to do with her disappearance.
In my opinion SY are dismissing the cadaver alerts when they said a burglar could have killed Madeleine and removed her body as if that had happened then there wouldn't be any cadaver to alert to.
If he conceded the possibility that she dies in the apartment, then the possibility of accidental death can not be ignored.
As to burglary, what evidence, forensic or otherwise, is there of a burglar ?
In my opinion SY are dismissing the cadaver alerts when they said a burglar could have killed Madeleine and removed her body as if that had happened then there wouldn't be any cadaver to alert to.
No Stephen, SY had already said the McCann's and their friends had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance so that would rule out an accidental death.
They investigated the burglaries are there were burglaries going on around about the time Madeleine disappeared. The evidence that these burglaries occurred is obviously the fact that holiday makers reported them.
Also there were attacks on young children going on in the area.
You don't know the true fault rate of dogs either.Not at all. A metal detector is set to alert to metal. A VRD is set to alert to matter of human origin, including blood. Not all metal is valuable, not all bits of human (including blood) originate from a person that is necessarily dead.
I don't know whether or not the parents covered up the death of their child, I would not lay my purse on the nose either way.
How I rationalise the dog alert is that the dog alerted to what it was trained to alert to until it is shown incontrovertibly that it didn't. Similar to the oxygen monitor: the sensible first reaction is, it's doing what it is supposed to do until you can show it's not.
Metal detectors presumably always detect metal. The monetary value of what they detect is irrelevant. To support your argument I fear they would need to alert to wood sometimes.
Not at all. A metal detector is set to alert to metal. A VRD is set to alert to matter of human origin, including blood. Not all metal is valuable, not all bits of human (including blood) originate from a person that is necessarily dead.
I see you have backtracked somewhat on "the parents not being involved" opinion you stated a few days back. You always were a hard one to pin down but I thought you'd at least conceded it was unlikely. Obviously I was wrong or you have changed your mind.
I'm sorry but a blog by a conspiracy theorist (and every case has them) is not worthy of comment IMO.
Dismissing it on a "could" ?
It has yet to be shown that SY interviewed the mccanns or their associates.
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown.
'Belief' in abduction, carries no weight in court. FACTS DO.
Now tell me what evidence shows a burglary in the mccanns apartment.
I'm all ears.
Kates statement that the window was pen is evidence admissible in court
The alerts are not
Therefore Kate's statement should carry more weight
It has yet to be shown that SY interviewed the mccanns or their associates.
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown.
'Belief' in abduction, carries no weight in court. FACTS DO.
Now tell me what evidence shows a burglary in the mccanns apartment.
I'm all ears.
Unfortunately, there is no independent verification of the windows or shutters being moved or open before 10 pm.
The only identified fingerprints on the window are hers.
NEXT.................
Well would they investigate the theory that a burglar killed Madeleine if they thought the cadaver alerts meant anything?
Kates statement that the window was pen is evidence admissible in court
The alerts are not
Therefore Kate's statement should carry more weight
Kates statement that the window was pen is evidence admissible in courtHer statement that she discovered the window open is completely true.
The alerts are not
Therefore Kate's statement should carry more weight
The statement is admissable none the less
In my opinion SY are dismissing the cadaver alerts when they said a burglar could have killed Madeleine and removed her body as if that had happened then there wouldn't be any cadaver to alert to.
As a matter of interest there are metal detectors on the market which react only to gold and some which react to gold and silver ... http://www.metaldetector.com/learn/buying-guide-articles/gold-prospecting/whats-the-best-gold-prospecting-metal-detector
Therefore as well as specialist scent dogs we have specialist metal detectors. The thing about a mechanical tool is that it can be calibrated to produce a proven response ... can one hand on heart say the same for VRD without forensic back up on their indications?
Only in the sense they work on conductivity and can be tuned to discriminate between different conductivities.
How does one calibrate a dog in the way one can "tune" a tool used to detect a particular metal?
Why not conduct some research as regards that yourself ?
Kates statement that the window was pen is evidence admissible in court
The alerts are not
Therefore Kate's statement should carry more weight
In that case her statement that the curtains were open is also evidence. A statement she later changed.
Didn't seem to be a conspiracy theorist, assuming you actually looked at it. In fact it is more probable that the journalist who wrote the book attacking the police handling of he case was the conspiracy theorist. Very little facts seem to be available about the Quick case.There are enough available on the net to enable one to draw the conclusion that he is a fantasist and a liar but not a serial killer.
How does one calibrate a dog in the way one can "tune" a tool used to detect a particular metal?
It can only be "tuned" to detect a particular metal if that metal in all its forms has a conductivity that does not overlap with that of another metal. If it does the detector will detect either or; then reach for the shovel to find out which.
Allegedly, like as long ago as in the 1970s, it was found dogs can be trained to alert to specific odours.
Not a lot of difference except one is electromechanical and the "how" is easier to figure, the other isn't.
One is quantifiable ... the other can only be assessed if there is evidence in place for verification.
Would it be presumptive of me to assume that you already know this?
So your detector is set for silver and it alarms at something underground. How confident are you it is silver before you dig? it could be copper which within normal operating constraints has a not dissimilar conductivity.
We have done the dog bit before about its olfactory senses being so acute it could smell something not detectable by human eye or device. Because you can't see it or detect it does not mean it is not there.
Back to the plot. Should the dog or detector alarm my first reaction will be it has alarmed to what it should have on the basis it is calibrated [trained] properly. If it isn't why the hell are you using it? That is a rhetorical question btw.
To determine what precisely triggered the alarm will require operator intervention. In the case of the detector a shovel and metallurgist will come in handy. In the case of the dog there is the added disadvantage detailed in the first para above.
I think what I mean should now be quite clear. Although you do need to understand the concept of no single right answer.
So your detector is set for silver and it alarms at something underground. How confident are you it is silver before you dig? it could be copper which within normal operating constraints has a not dissimilar conductivity.
We have done the dog bit before about its olfactory senses being so acute it could smell something not detectable by human eye or device. Because you can't see it or detect it does not mean it is not there.
Back to the plot. Should the dog or detector alarm my first reaction will be it has alarmed to what it should have on the basis it is calibrated [trained] properly. If it isn't why the hell are you using it? That is a rhetorical question btw.
To determine what precisely triggered the alarm will require operator intervention. In the case of the detector a shovel and metallurgist will come in handy. In the case of the dog there is the added disadvantage detailed in the first para above.
I think what I mean should now be quite clear. Although you do need to understand the concept of no single right answer.
When Eddie alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key he alerted to something within his trained parameters.
It was just of zero use to the investigation.
And when Eddie, first, couldn't find a scent on cuddle-cat, then (after it was hidden), apparently, could the question arose of whether there was a scent or whether there wasn't.
There is the question of handler-bias (documented in the study Alfred found and referred to by Grime in his profile) that can further diminish the accuracy/reliability of your detector.
None of which means Eddie was wrong. He could be, but he could also be right.
Eddie was bang-on right with the ignition key (twice!), but has to have erred with cuddle-cat, either in failing to detect a scent (first time) or in "detecting" (a non-existent "scent") second time.
Same with the clothes.
Eddie alerted only to places and things connected to the family of Madeleine McCann. All the other locations and things he screened produced no alerts whatsoever. What a coincidence!
When Eddie alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key he alerted to something within his trained parameters.
It was just of zero use to the investigation.
And when Eddie, first, couldn't find a scent on cuddle-cat, then (after it was hidden), apparently, could the question arose of whether there was a scent or whether there wasn't.
There is the question of handler-bias (documented in the study Alfred found and referred to by Grime in his profile) that can further diminish the accuracy/reliability of your detector.
Really?
Do you agree or disagree with the broad concept of what I have said ?.
See if you can answer without using the words Grime, Eddie, Keela, Amaral, Cuddle, cat key fob or exparte.
It shouldn't be too difficult.
In a thread inviting discussion of whether victim detection dogs are reliable, why would I want to be discussing metal detectors?
And why are you trying to take this thread off-topic?
Alf and Brietta raised both I followed their lead.
After an inordinate amount of time, direction, re-direction and encouragement, distinct from whistle-stop tours of all other places.
A refresher-reading of the example Alfred found is needed, I think ....
Unlike some, i don't cherry-pick which alerts I see as interesting. Eddie alerted correctly at the car and behind the sofa. How peculiar that his other alerts are so vehemently attacked.
Neither do I. More time spent in apartment 5a than all the other apartments combined.
Why is that?
I haven't examined the time spent in each place, but I would assume that as soon as an alert occurs that site receives a lot of attention as a result. That could be why.
I haven't examined the time spent in each place, but I would assume that as soon as an alert occurs that site receives a lot of attention as a result. That could be why.
Nope.But the vehicle inspection in Portimão was not a test of one suspected vehicle and numerous known-clean vehicles. All the vehicles were of interest. Have a look at Eddie's inspection of a Hyundai Lantra at Strabane police station - that car stood out like a very sore burnt thumb didn't it? Does that invalidate Eddie's alert to it?
Not when you look at the other inspection (of the vehicles), the only one where Grime wore the anti-cross contamination gear of his trade and was handed that video for personal, promotional, purposes, AND where there was a marked preoccupation with just one vehicle (the one with findMadeleine stickers plastered all over the back).
But the vehicle inspection in Portimão was not a test of one suspected vehicle and numerous known-clean vehicles. All the vehicles were of interest. Have a look at Eddie's inspection of a Hyundai Lantra at Strabane police station - that car stood out like a very sore burnt thumb didn't it? Does that invalidate Eddie's alert to it?
Don't know anything about that other inspection you refer to?In Strabane NI, Eddie alerted to a red Hyundai Lantra which stood out like a sore thumb - it was torched - burnt out.
In Strabane NI, Eddie alerted to a red Hyundai Lantra which stood out like a sore thumb - it was torched - burnt out.
Ah.Yes and a car that stuck out far more than by having a few posters in the window.
Is this the Attracta Harron case?
Nope.
Not when you look at the other inspection (of the vehicles), the only one where Grime wore the anti-cross contamination gear of his trade and was handed that video for personal, promotional, purposes, AND where there was a marked preoccupation with just one vehicle (the one with findMadeleine stickers plastered all over the back).
The handler knows his dog and the dog's body language. He behaved differently when he approached that car, just as he behaved differently at the door to G5A. That tells the handler the dog could be in scent, so the handler then directs the dog to search more closely.
The handler knows how to read ....
However hard the sceptics try to convince themselves that the alerts have any value the fact remains that they have no evidential value or reliability
The handler knows his dog and the dog's body language. He behaved differently when he approached that car, just as he behaved differently at the door to G5A. That tells the handler the dog could be in scent, so the handler then directs the dog to search more closely.
I am well aware of that interview and the smug mr. mccann saying he knew better than other people.
Totally wrong, then again, I would not trust his judgments per se.
We are on a thread which discusses the reliability of Victim Recovery Dogs.
As the title implies ... that means dogs successfully finding human remains either in part or in full.
... from Freedom of Information Request ... Reference number: 20090062 ... South Yorkshire Police ...
However, we can provide the following details regarding Victim Search Dog deployments between 2003 and 2007:
As two teams working together: handler Ellis and dog Frankie, with handler Grime and dog Eddie have been deployed on twenty occasions, with the recovery of four bodies.
Working alone, Grime/Eddie have been deployed on seventeen occasions with the recovery of one body and Ellis/Frankie have been deployed on five occasions with the recovery of three bodies, this includes the recovery of two women in one grave.
I think the point to that may be ... if there is a body or parts of a body to be found, there is a fair chance the VRD will find it. We know that Frankie also alerted in the case of Mrs Harron ... but the 'hit' is claimed by Eddie (whoever heard of Frankie or when he discovered people?).
But ... twenty deployments ~ four finds (Grime/Eddie + Ellis/Frankie)
seventeen deployments ~ one find(Grime/Eddie)
five deployments ~ three finds (Ellis/Frankie) doesn't really give a true picture of ability.
Were the eight bodies recovered the targets of the twenty ~ seventeen ~ five deployments over the four year period? Or are there still thirty odd bodies out there still to be found?
Whatever ~ the figures rather debunk the 200 successful deployments claimed for Eddie. It also prompts the question ... if a striker sets foot on the pitch twenty times in a row and scores twice, what is the important figure the twenty or the two?
I think the dogs are reliable if there is something there to be found ... going on the figures I think Frankie may well have the edge on Eddie.
As I said to ferryman the other day, several times.
If you have a problem with Grime, take it up with him yourself.
There is no need...those that matter understand the alerts
We are on a thread which discusses the reliability of Victim Recovery Dogs.
As the title implies ... that means dogs successfully finding human remains either in part or in full.
... from Freedom of Information Request ... Reference number: 20090062 ... South Yorkshire Police ...
However, we can provide the following details regarding Victim Search Dog deployments between 2003 and 2007:
As two teams working together: handler Ellis and dog Frankie, with handler Grime and dog Eddie have been deployed on twenty occasions, with the recovery of four bodies.
Working alone, Grime/Eddie have been deployed on seventeen occasions with the recovery of one body and Ellis/Frankie have been deployed on five occasions with the recovery of three bodies, this includes the recovery of two women in one grave.
I think the point to that may be ... if there is a body or parts of a body to be found, there is a fair chance the VRD will find it. We know that Frankie also alerted in the case of Mrs Harron ... but the 'hit' is claimed by Eddie (whoever heard of Frankie or when he discovered people?).
But ... twenty deployments ~ four finds (Grime/Eddie + Ellis/Frankie)
seventeen deployments ~ one find(Grime/Eddie)
five deployments ~ three finds (Ellis/Frankie) doesn't really give a true picture of ability.
Were the eight bodies recovered the targets of the twenty ~ seventeen ~ five deployments over the four year period? Or are there still thirty odd bodies out there still to be found?
Whatever ~ the figures rather debunk the 200 successful deployments claimed for Eddie. It also prompts the question ... if a striker sets foot on the pitch twenty times in a row and scores twice, what is the important figure the twenty or the two?
I think the dogs are reliable if there is something there to be found ... going on the figures I think Frankie may well have the edge on Eddie.
There is no need...those that matter understand the alerts
I don't see how since even Grime can't be sure what they meant??
Grime has no doubts what they meant but he has to cover his ass incase the nearly impossible happens and she turns up alive.
So do you think Grime was certain that when Eddie picked up cuddle-cat and played with it, Eddie could NOT detect a scent.Or was it on the dining chair when he barked at that? (see GA book).
Or was Grime certain that when the toy was hidden in a cupboard, Eddie COULD detect a scent?
Or was it on the dining chair when he barked at that? (see GA book).
He was all over the place.
He barked in the direction of the files on top of the cupboard.
He barked in the direction of his handler.
He barked in the direction of the chair.
Nothing was sent to forensics for examination ... therefore his barking was a total irrelevance.
Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Were Eddie and Keela a Pile of S**te"?
Despite the true thread title the conversation never drifts far from how rubbish Eddie and Keela were in the eyes of people who can't know much about VR and CSI dogs. If they did know about such dogs they would be making shedsful of dosh freelancing rather than spending inordinate amounts of time posting on here how rubbish two specific dogs and their handler were 8(>((
After Eddie alerted to a burned-out and hose-drenched Lantra in Strabane, was any physical evidence obtained from that car and identified in a lab?
Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Were Eddie and Keela a Pile of S**te"?
Despite the true thread title the conversation never drifts far from how rubbish Eddie and Keela were in the eyes of people who can't know much about VR and CSI dogs. If they did know about such dogs they would be making shedsful of dosh freelancing rather than spending inordinate amounts of time posting on here how rubbish two specific dogs and their handler were 8(>((
Yes. According to Grime a deposit was found (presumably blood) from which Attracta Haron's DNA was extracted.Thanks.
Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Were Eddie and Keela a Pile of S**te"?
Despite the true thread title the conversation never drifts far from how rubbish Eddie and Keela were in the eyes of people who can't know much about VR and CSI dogs. If they did know about such dogs they would be making shedsful of dosh freelancing rather than spending inordinate amounts of time posting on here how rubbish two specific dogs and their handler were 8(>((
Yes. According to Grime a deposit was found (presumably blood) from which Attracta Haron's DNA was extracted.
Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Were Eddie and Keela a Pile of S**te"?
Despite the true thread title the conversation never drifts far from how rubbish Eddie and Keela were in the eyes of people who can't know much about VR and CSI dogs. If they did know about such dogs they would be making shedsful of dosh freelancing rather than spending inordinate amounts of time posting on here how rubbish two specific dogs and their handler were 8(>((
Well said. Dogs are a very useful tool, which is why they are used. If they weren't useful they wouldn't be used. Sometimes there is no evidence to back up the alerts. Anyone who thinks policemen then shrug their shoulders and forget about the alerts is naive. They suggest a possibility, and any investigation worth the name will keep that possibility on the list of possibilities.
If the people who promote Eddie's ability to bark ex cathedra were correct Dr Kate McCann would have been watching the Portuguese sky from behind bars.IMO no because it would be easily proven those are not the clothes this truthful witness was wearing.
The fact she is not would appear to indicate they are somewhat in error if not entirely misguided.
IMO no because it would be easily proven those are not the clothes this truthful witness was wearing.
That is precisely why the indications given by Eddie, with the exception of his 'blood' alerts are unreliable.The point is that those clothes were not being worn at the time of the disappearance.
There is absolutely not a single shred of evidence either forensic or circumstantial which supports them.
The point is that those clothes were not being worn at the time of the disappearance.
I think you are naïve and misguided to think the alerts have any value.... there is the possibility without the alerts...in this case I think the value of the alerts has been totally discredited. Dogs will continue to be used as they can find evidence...and they are very good at it
So your an expert now in the use of forensic dogs as well. @)(++(*
Of course there was the possibility without the alerts.That's why the dogs were recommended - to check out the possibility. The dogs came and said 'yes, something happened here'. Now the possibility is stronger than before the dogs came.
What was Eddie barking at?
The toy?
Or something else?
Why as I have asked you before don't you ask Grime himself ?Don't be silly
Of course there was the possibility without the alerts.That's why the dogs were recommended - to check out the possibility. The dogs came and said 'yes, something happened here'. Now the possibility is stronger than before the dogs came.What did they say happened?
If the people who promote Eddie's ability to bark ex cathedra were correct Dr Kate McCann would have been watching the Portuguese sky from behind bars.
The fact she is not would appear to indicate they are somewhat in error if not entirely misguided.
I don't understand why Eddie would bark at a chair that once belonged to a bishop.
The dogs did not say yes...grime did not say yes... You are misguided
If the dogs don't alert that's a no. the opposite of no is?
If the dogs don't alert that's a no. the opposite of no is?
Don't be silly
Grime has refused to answer questions
This is why the dogs come to investigate even after a body is found.
BLOOD found in the boot of Meg Walsh's car matched her DNA, her murder trial heard yesterday.
The 35-year-old mother-of one's body was recovered from the River Suir on October 15, 2006 after she had been missing for two weeks.
Michael Burlington, a forensic scientist, yesterday told Dublin's Circuit Criminal Court that DNA matching both Ms Walsh and Mr O'Brien was discovered in the boot of her car.
Her blood was also found on the hardboard spare wheel cover, which had also been thrown away and sections cut from both the hardboard and the mat which were found in a nearby housing estate.
There were also patches of Ms Walsh's blood on the back of the driver's seat and the inside of the driver's door.
No blood was found in a detailed search of the house or the garden shed or dog house.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/murder-trial-is-told-megs-dna-matched-blood-in-car-26442044.html
Not routinely.k
Eddie might be able to detect the scent of blood but he can't (or couldn't! RIP) tell you where it was.
The confined and limited space of a vehicle is maybe a little different, but in general, no. He wouldn't be able to do that.
Otherwise, what would be the point of training a dog like Keela?
I was being sarcastic.
Well you can hardly blame him, with all the abuse from the mccanns supporters, and more pertinently, if he did comment, it could jeopardize any trial.
I don't understand why Eddie would bark at a chair that once belonged to a bishop.
Here, again, is the link to the acpo dog-training manual I gave earlier.
http://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/media/1817/police_dog_manual_of_guidance_2011_foi_version.pdf
Its section on human remains dogs begins on page 110 (section 24).
According to an FOI answer given by South Yorkshire Police, Eddie was trained according to the precepts laid out in that manual for training dogs to detect human remains.
Who would like to find where, in it that section, it says we send dogs to America to be trained on human remains?
Replying to my own post.
Any takers?
the person who is totally mistaken ...who has got everything wrong is you Stephen...
US and UK trained...it's quite impressive isn't it
Not in the slightest.
A claim has validity, only if you prove it.
Are you suggesting that you are not always truthful?
What would you like to take? An accusation that despite three newspaper articles and Grimes own CV you are still calling him a liar?
Good luck with your libelling. It might bite you in the bum some day, now why would you risk that?
Ps SYP never denied he had been to the USA, so your claim is a bit flakey
For a question that specifically asked what training or preparation Eddie received to equip him for his duties as a police dog not to mention that he was trained on human remains in America is rather a startling omission, I'm sure you'd agree ....
What was the question exactly and what was the reply? Or did SYP just blank you?
Not my question, put by someone else.
Alas I don't have it, but I believe Carana does.
Well perhaps carana can cut and paste the questions and answers then when she is next on and between you try and prove your assertion that Eddie a) never worked with keela pre 2007 and also that Eddie never went to the USA either for training or to be deployed in cases, you might struggle
Eddie went to the States right enough. Just not to be trained on human remains.
Well,
so what did he go for?
And also you will have to back up your claims with concrete evidence otherwise it remains your opinion
Something else of interest from the Sam Parker trial:
Scroll down to the part I underline.
Sounds, suspiciously like pseudo-scents to me ....
Dog Debate At Center Of Murder Case
Can a dog's nose be trusted enough to send a man to prison for the rest of his life?
That's a key question a jury may have to consider if Walker County Superior Court Judge Jon Wood allows certain testimony to be heard during the murder trial of Sam Parker next month. Judge Wood is holding a pre-trial motions hearing this week to decide what the jury will and won't hear.
Parker, a former sergeant with the LaFayette Police Department, is being held without bond accused of murdering his wife Teresa. She seemingly vanished more than two years ago leaving behind a family and career with Walker County 911. There is no evidence she has died, a body was never found and investigators have not found a murder weapon.
During a second day of testimony about so-called cadaver dogs, two specialists in that field explained how their dogs "hit" on a scent in Walker County that they say could be from a decomposing human body.
Lisa Higgins with the Louisiana Search & Rescue Dog Team said she was asked and paid to bring her Australian Shepherd "Maggie" to LaFayette to investigate a car being kept at the Walker County Sheriff's Department impound lot.
"Almost immediately I gave the command and she hit really hard, worked very, very hard inside the wheel well on the front driver's side and gave a full indication right there," Higgins said.
Higgins added Maggie also got excited about something when she sniffed around the back door on the passenger side of the car. But there is no evidence about what it was that excited Maggie and investigators so far have said they have not found any evidence to corroborate the dog's "hit."
Higgins said Maggie has been trained to sniff out the scent of a decomposing human body. But Maggie and other similar dogs can also "hit" on a decomposing pig, which testimony shows has the same odor and chemical make-up as a human cadaver.
Defense attorney Doug Woodruff asked Higgins about the accuracy of Maggie's nose and if there is any scientific proof that shows these type of dogs only get aroused by cadavers.
"Scientifically, no," Higgins replied.
Upon further cross examination Higgins said Maggie has only shown accuracy on occasions when other physical evidence points to where a body has been dumped.
We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent. Eddie is an English Springer Spaniel belonging to Martin Grime, a world-renown forensic K-9 expert based in the United Kingdom.
Grime testified he was paid $450 a day, plus travel and living expenses, by the FBI to search some areas in Walker County in connection with Teresa Parker's disappearance.
During a visit to Parker's home back in September 2007 Grime said he and Eddie sniffed around their garage.
"He immediately gave a positive bark response within the garage between a truck parked to the left of the entrance and a boat parked to the right," Grime said.
Grime added Eddie did not seem interested in the vehicles but in a scent that was wafting in the air, based on the way the dog held his nose upward. Grime said Eddie then "hit" on an abandoned house next door. Testimony shows that house was never repaired after a fire gutted the inside and killed a child several years ago.
During lengthy cross-examination Grime said there is no evidence to show Eddie smelled anything incriminating against or linked to Mr. Parker. Like Higgins, Grime said cadaver dogs can only prove useful when there is other evidence that corroborates the dog's "hits."
The FBI has a keen interest in the outcome of this case. If Parker is convicted the case could pave the legal way for future prosecutions where there is no evidence other than dog "hits" in connection with a person accused of murder.
Toward the end of the day Judge Wood learned that while Grime has international acclaim he has never testified as an expert witness in the United States.
Testimony ended Tuesday with a couple Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents saying Mr. Parker has always been cooperative with the investigation and allowed them to do whatever they wanted on his property.
A third day of testimony begins at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday.
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
A) boldening your entire quotes is annoying, pointless, and in no way strengthens any argument if that's what you think it does,it probably has the opposite effect
B) Deflection 100 per cent
try and stay with the discussion, perhaps avoiding doing so says something......
When I quote something I either put it in bold or italics, to indicate that it is a quote.
I'm not remotely concerned about how others receive that ....
It would help if you used the quote function.
When I quote something I either put it in bold or italics, to indicate that it is a quote.
I'm not remotely concerned about how others receive that ....
No, newspaper articles or whole liturgies are not "quotes"
Quotes are sentences uttered by people, bold is supposed to emphasise somethng, there's a difference
You might not be concerned but many are...no one else here does it either!! To be fair you might not have realised this, but it is not net etiquette, it's similar to posting in capitals, IE shouting, it's not required
So did the (late) Eddie react to pseudo-scents?
Or didn't he?
Why?
So the reader can distinguish between your words and those from other sources.
You can't get away with that dear FM...you have to play fair and discuss and answer old questions or say yu cannot answer them and explain why before you move on as it pleases you, it really does NOT work like this
What questions?
Click on to the link and the link tells you.
When I quote something I either put it in bold or italics, to indicate that it is a quote.
I'm not remotely concerned about how others receive that ....
I'm not quite sure that it has quite been grasped that although very good at helping locate places where evidence or missing people may be found ... they are not infallible.
A woman in America was missing for four weeks, her house was searched several times, sniffer dogs were employed without success.
Then her husband noticed a foot sticking out from a pile of rubbish ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7971115/Serial-hoarder-found-buried-under-piles-of-rubbish-at-home-after-four-months.html
The dogs may have faced "tremendous environmental challenges" because of the state of the house, but they were trained to find dead people and they singularly failed to do so in this instance.
See...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg277436#msg277436 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg277436#msg277436)
I'm not quite sure that it has quite been grasped that although very good at helping locate places where evidence or missing people may be found ... they are not infallible.
A woman in America was missing for four weeks, her house was searched several times, sniffer dogs were employed without success.
Then her husband noticed a foot sticking out from a pile of rubbish ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7971115/Serial-hoarder-found-buried-under-piles-of-rubbish-at-home-after-four-months.html
The dogs may have faced "tremendous environmental challenges" because of the state of the house, but they were trained to find dead people and they singularly failed to do so in this instance.
What were the dogs trained in?
Interesting. One of the few things of note I picked up from Heidei Ho's dreadful videos was that dogs are good at differentiating/distinguishing between and separating out discrete scents in an environment and focusing, alone, on the scent they are trained to find (much better than humans).
I'm sure that's true and in fact I recall seeing a video of a man who murdered and buried his wife in a whole quite deep dug by a mechanical digger. Then, on top of her body, he piled a load of meat, intended to distract the dog. But the dogs weren't distracted by the meat and detected the cadaver scent of the dead woman.
Did you bother to follow the link?I did follow the link thank you, most police dogs are sniffer dogs, they are trained to find different things, perhaps you know what these were trained to find?
My posting style like Ferryman's has also been subject to some criticism from many of the same critics ... so I have amended it to suit and have not included huge chunks of the article I am using to illustrate my point ... just my own précis and the link.
It hasn't worked because you failed to pick up "sniffer dogs" which when looking for a missing person probably translates as Victim Recovery Dog.
You are a Mod now ... don't you think it may be a bit inappropriate to 'pick' at particular posters on a partisan basis particularly when it concerns transparent trivia? I have already complained to you about feeling 'stalked', I'm less than happy for you to take up from where you left off.
Sniffer dogs who were used to locate bodies at the site of Ground Zero in New York after the 9/11 terror attack were also sent into the single storey property.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307228/Husband-hoarder-discovers-body-piles-rubbish-messy-house-shared--months-went-missing.html#ixzz3nRyAcMSZ
I did follow the link thank you, most police dogs are sniffer dogs, they are trained to find different things, perhaps you know what these were trained to find?
Search and rescue and cadaver dogs were both used at the 9/11 site. They did a wonderful job working long hours and picking up cut paws and other small injuries and illnesses.
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/09/the-heroic-dogs-of-9112/
no one questions the great work theses dogs do......its the unconfirmed alerts we question and we question them because of what Grime tells us
I did follow the link thank you, most police dogs are sniffer dogs, they are trained to find different things, perhaps you know what these were trained to find?
Grime gave two sorts of opinion. One was his own opinion of what the alerts were and what they meant. The other was his opinion as a police officer concerning the evidential value of the alerts. His own opinion of Eddies abilities are;
What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that. The only times I've ever known him bark since I've got him as a small puppy a) for his dinner and that's just excitement and that's one of the training methods we use to teach to bark when we want him to and when he actually finds something, he won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or something like that, so again I would say that's a positive indication.
So the trainer and handler of Eddie is quite clear about his opinion of his dog's abilities. However, for legal purposes;
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent'
contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
you are desperately trying to find something to support your own opinions...Grime is quite clear...the alerts do NOT confirm the presence of cadaver odour....
No they didn't, Amaral took the alerts and ran with it even though they did not confirm the presence of cadaver scent.
To him the McCann's were guilty.
He then proceeded to say that 100% DNA of Madeleine was found with the blood alert which again wasn't true.
you are desperately trying to find something to support your own opinions...Grime is quite clear...the alerts do NOT confirm the presence of cadaver odour....
I'm not desperately trying to find anything actually, I class as desperate the posts of those trying to discredit Grime and his dogs. I have read Grime's statements and he clearly had great faith in his dogs. Until his dogs are proved wrong I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. As I have said repeatedly Eddie may have been wrong BUT he also may have been right. There is no evidence either way, so it's 50/50.
you have things back to front...no one has to prove the dogs wrong...that is not the way the justice system works and shows how skewed your logic is. The dogs have to be proved right..and they have not been. The alerts are not 50/50...without corroboration they have zero credibility
In fairness, Eddie's alert to the Renault Scenic is corroborated, Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
That key wasn't behind the sofa.
Neither was anything remotely connected to Madeleine.
Next?
Both dogs alerted behind the sofa so they did find what they were trained to do.
Are you seriously suggesting that police searching for a woman missing for four months are going to bring along anything other than a Victim Recovery Dog?
I would have thought that was a given when 'sniffer dogs' were mentioned in the article. When I read it in context I had absolutely no problem identifying what these dogs were trained to find.
Had the article been on a drugs bust and not a missing person ... I would also have been able to deduce what the dogs had been trained to find.
Even these dogs which had been used to look for the remains of victims in the Twin Towers failed to locate the scent of a decomposing bnody on this occasion ... just one instance proving that dogs are not reliable.
**Snip
Sniffer dogs who were used to locate bodies at the site of Ground Zero in New York after the 9/11 terror attack were also sent into the single storey property.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307228/Husband-hoarder-discovers-body-piles-rubbish-messy-house-shared--months-went-missing.html#ixzz3nRyAcMSZ
you have things back to front...no one has to prove the dogs wrong...that is not the way the justice system works and shows how skewed your logic is. The dogs have to be proved right..and they have not been. The alerts are not 50/50...without corroboration they have zero credibility
The justice system? Irrelevant until a case arrives in court.
The dogs wereproved right for some of the alerts, so you are wrong on that point..
The other alerts were either right or wrong. There are no other possibilities. We don't know, without evidence, whether they were right or wrong. Until such evidence is found there's an equal (50/50) chance.
The justice system? Irrelevant until a case arrives in court.
The dogs wereproved right for some of the alerts, so you are wrong on that point..
The other alerts were either right or wrong. There are no other possibilities. We don't know, without evidence, whether they were right or wrong. Until such evidence is found there's an equal (50/50) chance.
We don't know what Eddie alerted to re the car
The fact that blood was found does not prove that's what he alerted to
We don't know what Eddie alerted to re the carYes I find myself agreeing with you Dave, good point.
The fact that blood was found does not prove that's what he alerted to
So by your maths there is a 50/50 chance Maddie is still alive
That would depend on how you were defining "chance" in this context.
to put it simply...just because a given situation has two possibilities...neither of which can be proved... then it does not mean each possibility has an equal probability
I asked how you were defining chance. You haven't answered that question.
It's a stupid question
Not at all. Your answer will tell me whether or not you know what you are on about.If you don't realise by now that I know what I'm on about then you don't know what you're on about
So that will be a don't know then.
No it is quite clear ... sniffer dogs are trained to detect a variety of items from drug contraband to usb memory sticks.
The sniffer dogs used to look for humans are Victim Recovery Dogs as for example ...
Madeleine McCann: Sniffer dogs used in April Jones case enlisted in search
**Snip
Sniffer dogs, which helped in the April Jones murder inquiry, spent the day scouring the four-acre wasteland overlooking the Atlantic.
Tito and Muzzy, two specialist cadaver dogs from South Wales Police, worked with handlers Sally Richards and David Brake combing the area around the iron sheet.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/480081/Madeleine-McCann-Sniffer-dogs-used-in-April-Jones-case-enlisted-in-search
In the American case the dogs were unreliable because they overlooked the complete remains of an adult body ... so to get back to your comment ... why don't you consider putting such puerile comments on the back burner in favour of something constructive.
If you don't realise by now that I know what I'm on about then you don't know what you're on about
I am not the one using incorrect terminology.
I'm not desperately trying to find anything actually, I class as desperate the posts of those trying to discredit Grime and his dogs. I have read Grime's statements and he clearly had great faith in his dogs. Until his dogs are proved wrong I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. As I have said repeatedly Eddie may have been wrong BUT he also may have been right. There is no evidence either way, so it's 50/50.
to put it simply...just because a given situation has two possibilities...neither of which can be proved... then it does not mean each possibility has an equal probability
No one needs to try to discredit Grime and his dogs. You just need to carefully read the case files (as I have done) to see that he does that all on his own, then you need to highlight the examples which underscore and emphasise the point, which I have also done.If we take the two Eddie alerts inside the apartment as primary can you see that they are compatible with a scenario in which both parents and group are completely uninvolved. These two alerts could be the direct result of actions of a stranger intruder in the apartment. Why not investigate these alerts in that light? Obviously given that one of the alerts was at a shelf where a pile of clothes was stored during that meal, it would directly explain the clothing alerts too. That leaves only the vehicle alert which would be secondary transfer from those clothes.
Ally that to the hyperbole of some of his statements and the point is irrefutable.
If we take the two Eddie alerts inside the apartment as primary can you see that they are compatible with a scenario in which both parents and group are completely uninvolved. These two alerts could be the direct result of actions of a stranger intruder in the apartment. Why not investigate these alerts in that light? Obviously given that one of the alerts was at a shelf where a pile of clothes was stored during that meal, it would directly explain the clothing alerts too. That leaves only the vehicle alert which would be secondary transfer from those clothes.
No one needs to try to discredit Grime and his dogs. You just need to carefully read the case files (as I have done) to see that he does that all on his own, then you need to highlight the examples which underscore and emphasise the point, which I have also done.
Ally that to the hyperbole of some of his statements and the point is irrefutable.
Only in your opinion. When did your opinion become the only opinion?
Only in your opinion. When did your opinion become the only opinion?
At the point the files were released.
Your opinion is one among many. You are convinced you're right but that means nothing to those who disagree with you.
If we take the two Eddie alerts inside the apartment as primary can you see that they are compatible with a scenario in which both parents and group are completely uninvolved. These two alerts could be the direct result of actions of a stranger intruder in the apartment. Why not investigate these alerts in that light? Obviously given that one of the alerts was at a shelf where a pile of clothes was stored during that meal, it would directly explain the clothing alerts too. That leaves only the vehicle alert which would be secondary transfer from those clothes.
There are two difficulties of tying what you suggest in with Eddie's alert.How about this very hypothetically?
The first is that if an intruder killed Madeleine in the apartment and took her body, there would be no time for accumulation of a death scent inside the apartment.
And the second is that if an intruder killed Madeleine inside the apartment and left her body there, who found her body? ....
I honestly don't see either being right.
How about this very hypothetically?
An intruder (a petty burglar who is a complete stranger nothing to do with the group) enters just after end of 9.05pm check, somehow triggers an accident, hides evidence within apartment, takes nothing, flees, but later reenters apartment and removes evidence just before start of 10.00pm check. Same time period as Amaral theory but with complete non-involvement of parents and the whole group.
How about this very hypothetically?
An intruder (a petty burglar who is a complete stranger nothing to do with the group) enters just after end of 9.05pm check, somehow triggers an accident, hides evidence within apartment, takes nothing, flees, but later reenters apartment and removes evidence just before start of 10.00pm check. Same time period as Amaral theory but with complete non-involvement of parents and the whole group.
What's your explanation of why Grime was handed the video of the vehicle inspection for personal, promotional, use elsehwhere; and for the fact that was the one, and only, inspection he wore the anti-cross contamination suit of his trade?
I've read your post and Brietta's below, and I'm inclined to agree with Brietta.Agreed it's extremely unlikely. I was just trying to invent an intruder theory with an extended time period.
I really see an intruder, having committed a fatal act, returning to the scene of (almost certainly his) crime.
Too complicated. It was simple and it was done quickly, simply and smoothly.Agreed, too complicated. But I still think there must be scenarios in which the alerts are meaningful but with complete non-involvement of parents and group.
Agreed, too complicated. But I still think there must be scenarios in which the alerts are meaningful but with complete non-involvement of parents and group.
What's your explanation of why Grime was handed the video of the vehicle inspection for personal, promotional, use elsehwhere; and for the fact that was the one, and only, inspection he wore the anti-cross contamination suit of his trade?
Agreed, too complicated. But I still think there must be scenarios in which the alerts are meaningful but with complete non-involvement of parents and group.
What's your explanation of why Grime was handed the video of the vehicle inspection for personal, promotional, use elsehwhere; and for the fact that was the one, and only, inspection he wore the anti-cross contamination suit of his trade?The EVRD handlers in the SY team in PDL wore no forensic suits, and did cue their EVRDs
One very expensive coconut shell and an equally expensive soiled tissue.
I have never quite got my head around making a promotional video containing material relevant to an active case which at the time had the possibility of coming to court.
Perhaps even at that stage, Martin Grime knew that there was no possibility 'the dogs and their findings" would ever be used in any court case.
He didn't need to wait for the forensics to come back from the car; he knew Eddie hadn't alerted to cadaver scent.
I wonder if he explained that to Lenny Harper at the promotional viewing?
**Snip
Just 11 days before Jersey's deputy police chief Lenny Harper made the island a byword for horror by claiming to have found the 'partial remains of a child' beneath the Haut de la Garenne former children's home, he was adamantly refusing to dig for bodies.
'We have not a shred of evidence to suggest there is anything there,' he told his forensic services manager Vicky Coupland in an email dated February 12, 2008 and obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
According to any 'reasoned assessment', Harper added, it was hard to see how a child could have been entombed in concrete in an institution full of children.
He said: 'There is going to be blood from spotty teenagers. We could end up being massively distracted by small bits of blood that have no relevance. In all the statements and intelligence we have not even a suggestion that there may be or have been bodies.'
If only Harper had stuck to that view, he would have prevented much expense and anguish.
**Snip
As the emails to Coupland demonstrate, at first Harper displayed a healthy scepticism. So what made him change his mind? According to a senior detective who worked on Harper's team, one factor was sniffer dog Eddie's handler, Martin Grime.
'Grime made a presentation, showing him [Harper] a video of the dog finding the "scent of death" in Kate and Gerry McCann's car,' the detective said.
'They were still formal suspects and the case had got worldwide publicity. It seemed to get Lenny very excited. I think Grime kind of bewitched him.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz3nXoLecpc
Still being disingenuous and sensationalist I see, Eddie the cadaver dog was not trained to and did not alert to a coconut....but I must admit yu get near to beng funny which is an improvement for you when you say Grime bewitched a senior police officer
@)(++(*
I don't know if it is worth while to point out that the word "bewitched" is not mine ... probably not.
Eddie ... the cadaver dog ... alerted to coconut in Haute de la Garenne. Proving beyond doubt that placing any reliance on his 'findings' on any other occasion without forensic corroboration is a very silly thing to do.
You just cannot in any way shape or form assert this Brietta....not at all, at all, you are free to thnk or wish but that's all basically as cadaver dogs don't alert to coconuts dear
and ETA both you and Ferryman are the very silly ones here that try to promulgate the idea that Eddie is pretty useless , and others who say he might have smelt a mushroom, or a pork chop in the bedroom, and all the other totally ludicrous suggestions, but it suits your rancid agenda doesn't it? All very laughable and puerile at best, what exactly are yu afraid of dear?
Of course I can assert anything that is accurate and a matter of record.
Because you are unable to accept the unreliability of Eddie's 'alerts' doesn't mean it didn't happen and reiterating denial of what is recorded officially as a fact is beginning to look a bit desperate as well as ill informed. U
It is recorded in OPERATION HAVEN
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
• After being examined by experts from the British Museum, a fragment thought to have been from a skull turned out to be a piece of Victorian coconut shell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7723860.stm
there are records and there are records and there are facts,, pls don't try and pretend to be naive
No SANE person believes Eddie alerts to coconut shells because they are coconuts,
Try harder
there are records and there are records and there are facts,, pls don't try and pretend to be naive
No SANE person believes Eddie alerts to coconut shells because they are coconuts and not human corpses
Try harder, you will very very much need to to gain any morsel of credibility in this discussion where yu seem to be siding with ferryman the serial libeller and by the way a serial "gets it totally wrong but passes it as right" kind of poster
ETA...extra
i read on here that the dogs didnt do their job on 9/11 because they missed bodies in the world trade centre on 9/11 do they realise how much metal etc and other things were at the world trade centre?? plus other smells sounds and toxins a really stupid argument imo
Well done you. Eddie is indeed trained to alert to human remains and all that entails. He will also alert to pig.
He most definitely was not trained to alert to coconut. The fact of the matter is that he did alert to a piece of coconut shell which was thought to be a part of a child's skull. Until it was forensically tested and found to be a coconut shell.
He alerted to an object (coconut shell) which the humans thought was a fragment of skull (work that one out clever Hans) which makes him unreliable when it comes to alerts with no later provenance.
It is not fact he alerted to a coconut neither is it a fact any dead pigs were found in 5a bedroom wardrobe, I'm sure you would agree the Mccanns didn't hide dead pigs
i read on here that the dogs didnt do their job on 9/11 because they missed bodies in the world trade centre on 9/11 do they realise how much metal etc and other things were at the world trade centre?? plus other smells sounds and toxins a really stupid argument imo
Well done you. Eddie is indeed trained to alert to human remains and all that entails. He will also alert to pig.
He most definitely was not trained to alert to coconut. The fact of the matter is that he did alert to a piece of coconut shell which was thought to be a part of a child's skull. Until it was forensically tested and found to be a coconut shell.
He alerted to an object (coconut shell) which the humans thought was a fragment of skull (work that one out clever Hans) which makes him unreliable when it comes to alerts with no later provenance.
Collagen is not found in coconut or wood - only in mammals.
On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.
“Hi Vicky (Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND - PF). Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”
“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”
“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/04/lenny-harper-interview-part-1-of.html
Operation Haven
Appendix 1
X completes X report in respect of
Exhibit JAR/6. In it X states that the sample was
not bone and not human, appearing instead to be
more like part of a large seed casing or part of
something like a small piece of coconut.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/03/article-1217863-0271EEB8000005DC-856_468x378.jpg)
Error: A piece of cocunut shell wrongly identified as a fragment of a child's skull during the Jersey probe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz3nbMbvu93
If collagen showed up in the analysis, it would not be from a coconut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collagen
Whatever it is it is not bone. Therefore Eddie's 'alert' was wrong. Therefore Eddie's 'alerts' are unreliable.
Whatever it is it is not bone. Therefore Eddie's 'alert' was wrong. Therefore Eddie's 'alerts' are unreliable.
If there was collagen found, it's not from a coconut.
Eddie alerted to an item forensically determined neither to be from a human cadaver or a pig. Therefore Eddie alerted to something outwith his training parameters. Therefore all Eddie's 'alerts' are questionable and as a result are unreliable.
In your expert opinion then ?
Pull the other one.
Eddie alerted to an item forensically determined neither to be from a human cadaver or a pig. Therefore Eddie alerted to something outwith his training parameters. Therefore all Eddie's 'alerts' are questionable and as a result are unreliable.
The opinion is not mine. I did not test the item Eddie mistakenly alerted to. The deduction that a dog identified as making errors is unreliable stems from using common sense.
Did Eddie alert to the item or to the area of ground where the item was found? I haven't much knowledge of the Jersey case.
Did Eddie alert to the item or to the area of ground where the item was found? I haven't much knowledge of the Jersey case.
As we are constantly told, it is for the dog to alert and the police to retrieve samples for forensic examination. Therefore not Eddie's issue.
of course its not eddie's issue...eddie's job is to indicate where to look for evidence...that's it and that's all
Maybe you should tell your mates.didnt eddie find evidence in 5A?? its not evidence mcann s and their supporters like but oh well
Maybe you should tell your mates.
didnt eddie find evidence in 5A?? its not evidence mcann s and their supporters like but oh well
Eddie found nothing that would have been accepted in an English court.Might not the Portuguese legal system be more relevant?
So it wasn't evidence.
Might not the Portuguese legal system be more relevant?
Since Portugal does not routinely use sniffer dogs that detect human remains, I doubt they will have legislation governing use of such dogs.Yes but if any perp is ever tried it is likely to be in Portugal, where portuguese law will determine to what extent the dog alerts will be considered, even if there are no previous portuguese cases to refer to. I see no reason at all to predict the case would be tried in any other country, do you?
And certainly the Portuguese prosecutors stated that uncorroborated dog-reactions had no evidential value.
As did both Grime and Harrison in their reports.
Eddie alerted to an item forensically determined neither to be from a human cadaver or a pig. Therefore Eddie alerted to something outwith his training parameters. Therefore all Eddie's 'alerts' are questionable and as a result are unreliable.
But that is not quite right is it?
Eddie alerted
The anthropologist identified an item found as being from a child's skull (which by the way was probably outside the tme parameters of the investigation)
The tests conducted by the Lab it was sent to showed it contained collagen
The item was passed around illegally and with no records kept
When it was returned weeks and weeks later the anthropologist noted it looked like a different item in size texture and weight
The myth was created that the item found was coconut and the rest is history
Unless you are willing to call the Deputy Chief Officer at the time and the anthropologist liars
I have IIRC in the past directed you to a video confirming all the above from the horse's mouth to boot
But that is not quite right is it?
Eddie alerted
The anthropologist identified an item found as being from a child's skull (which by the way was probably outside the tme parameters of the investigation)
The tests conducted by the Lab it was sent to showed it contained collagen
The item was passed around illegally and with no records kept
When it was returned weeks and weeks later the anthropologist noted it looked like a different item in size texture and weight
The myth was created that the item found was coconut and the rest is history
Unless you are willing to call the Deputy Chief Officer at the time and the anthropologist liars
I have IIRC in the past directed you to a video confirming all the above from the horse's mouth to boot
a child's skull does not contain 1.6% collagen
a child's skull does not contain 1.6% collagenThe point is that there was collagen, if you want to argue the percentage toss in a fragment or a whole go ahead but its called deflection
A coconut has none. 8(0(*
The point is that there was collagen, if you want to argue the percentage toss in a fragment or a whole go ahead but its called deflection
wheres the report
Are you callng Lenny Harper a liar?
A coconut has none. 8(0(*
you mean there is no report
Its rude to put words into people's mouths and your assumptions are just that, assumptions
What I meant was exactly what I typed, asking you a question, are you calling him a liar? Must be some reason you won't take the word of the chief officer on the case and demanding reports. I suggest you watch the video of him detailing the facts, he was the person on the ground, after all.
I would need to know what he said...as you have misquoted people in the past....so do you have a link to a quoteor are you just making things up
Yes I do
You could try post 1583 for starters
Yes
And for your delectation davel
Discussion of the non coconut begins at 6 minutes or thereabouts, in fact the whole interview is interesting
You still going to call Lenny Harper a liar or that he is making things up?
apart from a wandering statement by harper on a tv channel associated with the idea that the world is ruled by 12 foot lizards...you have nothing to confirm your claim
The channel has nothing to do with anything, I presume it was, given the circumstances,(if you managed to read and listen and more importantly comprehend) one of the places he could speak, and he was not wandering or confused in any statement...so you're callng him a liar on the FACTS then? Yes? No? Which is it?
My claim was confirmed by Lenny Harper's words, THE policeman in the ground, which counts for a thousand times more than any of your spoutings, where's the evidence and provenance for your claims?
everything I have claimed is supported by evidence.....we know from amaral that claims made re forensics may not be trueWhat's amaral to do wth Jersey and Lenny Harper, do try and stay focussed dear and if you have time do answer the questions I posed otherwise I and others will put you down as a denier/evader
What's amaral to do wth Jersey and Lenny Harper, do try and stay focussed dear and if you have time do answer the questions I posed otherwise I and others will put you down as a denier/evader
What's amaral to do wth Jersey and Lenny Harper, do try and stay focussed dear and if you have time do answer the questions I posed otherwise I and others will put you down as a denier/evader
Has anyone bothered to count how many times Eddie woofed at HdlG & how many bodies/remains were found?
I was reading a report and we had the same old....eddie getting excited...and they found bu er all
put me down for both
Has anyone bothered to count how many times Eddie woofed at HdlG & how many bodies/remains were found?
The discussion was about the coconut myth...however seeing as you bypassed that...there were skeletal remains found, Bones and teeth
For which Grime received the princely sum of £93000 & the UK taxpayer was stung for £20m. Oh, & like Amaral, Harper was set up to be the fall guy for the failed investigation under his tenure.
I do hope "they" don't do the same thing to ex DCI Redwood.
The bones were animal and the teeth milk teeth which fall out naturally
Cites?
Nope, try again, and that was a pretty dismal and useless response especially when the media have been implicated here, do try at least to keep up dear
What a horrible post
The taxpayer paid for an institutional child abuse inquiry...if you think that is being stung over but being stung for 50 million in one of Osbornes little financial playgrounds is ok then I feel sorry for you
Martin Grime was remunerated for the time he was kept there, by invitation, and which was financially a tiny fraction but a potentially massive insight into the inquiry, get your priorities straight!
so what was found and your cites,,,,,
read the newspapers
You can't shirk your respnsiblities and run away dear, do learn the basics at least
Eddie wasn't licenced by the UK police force so Harper was out of order straight away.
Grime was no longer a serving police officer or fully trained in CSI so Harper was out of order.
The serving police officer was employed as a chauffeur.
Wonder how much the inquiry cost on top of the £20m?
Yes
And for your delectation davel
Discussion of the non coconut begins at 6 minutes or thereabouts, in fact the whole interview is interesting
You still going to call Lenny Harper a liar or that he is making things up?
what was found and your cites
Nope, you asserted animal bones were found rather than human bones, your cite is missing...newspaper reports hardly ever cut it, as I said, you can't run away
Has anyone bothered to count how many times Eddie woofed at HdlG & how many bodies/remains were found?
Don't be so naive and gullible Davel, the mail is out of the question here for reasons given before, ...try again luv for a real cite, before you are 100 per cent confident Harper is a liar (alledged facts being convenient for you don't count)
im 100% confident harper is a liar
IIRC he was barking here there and everywhere inside the building. Was any explanation given for those many alerts?
im 100% confident harper is a liarWell you are often wrong and emotionally misguided, so let's put that silly comment into the 101 bin,unless you can create a plausible and believable argument with cites and proof why he would make up such a detailed and elaborate lie about the sample jar 6 , the alledged coconut , which was anythng but
Well you are often wrong and emotionally misguided, so let's put that silly comment into the 101 bin,unless you can create a plausible and believable argument with cites and proof why he would make up such a detailed and elaborate lie about the sample jar 6 , the alledged coconut , which was anythng but
Floors yours
it seems harper was a liar.......But on May 17 last year, when he was contacted by The Mail on Sunday about the 'skull' actually being coconut, he said the real story was that newly dug-up fragments 'have been positively identified as being very young children's bones', buried as recently as the Eighties.
He added: 'The anthropologists are saying we have dead children there, not a dead child.' There were also teeth, and 'experts are saying that these teeth could not possibly have come out naturally before death because there is so much of the root attached to them'.
The claims were false. On May 2, Harper had also emailed three senior Jersey officials saying he now had proof that a second child had been buried at Haut de la Garenne: 'The bone fragments are from the skull of a child... The expert's initial findings are that the child died fairly recently - confirmation will mean that a homicide inquiry will have to [be] launched.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz3ndMlxTnD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
r....
the mail article accuses harper of lying and much more
the mail article accuses harper of lying and much more
and the mail always tells the truth dave ? @)(++(*
No one cares about any Mail article, they have been proven to be lies themselves, do keep up chuck
The Mail was quoting accurately from Operation Havern.
Even if it was (which I would have to check five times since its come from you) it doesn't prove a thing in these circumstances
Ps
You only have to compare what the mail says with what Harper says to know who is lying here ...it's clear as crystal
A letter from Dr X at the Oxford laboratory was sent on
1 May 2008 addressed to DCO HARPER confirming the work carried out on
Exhibit JAR/6 and the conclusion that it was not bone but almost certainly wood.
Paragraph 2145 (Operation Havern):
Paragraph 2145 (Operation Havern):
I've seen your quote earlier about WOOD...Harper explains if you watch the video that the fragment that the anthropologist found which SHE identified as from a skull was NOT the fragment (analysed by the original lab as containing collagen before being passed over to others who said it was wood/coconut)returned to her, get it now? Or not?
Never mind, you carry on castigating the chief on the ground trying to find evidence in a child abuse nquiry and calling him a liar so that somehow your argument against Eddie will improve the Mccanns lot....so convoluted and dark its horrid
Harper didn't explain anything. Jar/6 (the exhibit under discussion) was initially found by the anthropologist, tested (and reacted to) by Eddie and passed on to various experts for further opinions.
The technician at the Oxford laboratory conclusively proved and demonstrated was a piece of wood or coconut.
Harper DID explain, the first tests done showed COLLAGEN, ergo NOT a coconut...what happened after that is anyone's guess...illegal and unethical he called it the passing out of the fragment to all and sundry and given the jersey authorities investment in this, well, nothng should surprise you, and you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand simple basics
There was no collagen in the coconut Eddie reacted to.
Coconuts don't contain collagen.
Your (mis)use of capitals won't alter that fact.
There was no coconut at all according to the anthropologist, the sample contained collagen, the fact that the sample went AWOL afterwards should worry you but it doesn't, your denial won't alter these facts either... ps was never my denial, just evidence from two named people on the ground
Ps don't let the facts upset you, your priority should be the truth, I suggest you stop blocking it
Read the Havern report properly and you'll understand ....
Who was it written by? And are you another chancer calling Harper a liar?
Misinformed, wrong, possibly in denial.
Or right all along!
8((()*/
Which interestingly it is the last possibility in your mind, I wonder why
This case has nothng to do with the Mccanns, try and remember that before you start slagging off all and sundry even if you are invested in the saintly duo
Who was it written by? And are you another chancer calling Harper a liar?
Operation HAVEN
An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER
of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008
Senior Investigating Officer:
Brian MOORE QPM
Chief Constable
Wiltshire Police
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
How do you think Grime accounted for all Eddie's other uncorroborated alerts in Jersey?Its not important (eddies alerts being uncorroborated just mean there are no tests available to do so) and not the issue at the moment either
And another one who hasn't watched the video and what was SAID and its ramifications, poor, very poor
With respect, Mercury, why should I be swayed by a third rate interviewer and an interviewee trying to rewrite history on an internet TV endeavour when I have access to an independent disciplinary report outlining the mistakes made in the investigation into alleged events in Haute de la Garenne.The interviewer whether first or third rate has ZILCH to do with anything so you can scrap that for starters as she spoke very very little
In which the actions of the excitable, inaccurate therefore unreliable cadaver dog is recorded for posterity.
The interviewer whether first or third rate has ZILCH to do with anything so you can scrap that for starters as she spoke very very little
So you too are callng Harper a liar just because you have some "independent report" ok then, I see everythng has gone through one ear and out the other. It has just wooshed over your head has it? That the jersey media and govt did everythng they could to scupper the investigations findings? If you are happy with that, your prerogative. LISTEN TO THE WHOLE BLEEDIN INTERVIEW then come back and tell me Harper is a liar, there was no abuse, Eddie found a coconut, and the jersey authorities were squeaky clean!!
Ps your twisted propagandist postings about Eddie have been noted as the total desperate joke they are...it really WONT help the Mccanns me luv, it really won't, only honest postings and not dirty tricks might potentially secure that....give it a try maybe, you never know your luck otherwise youre digging a bigger hole for them than already exists
Or right all along!
8((()*/
Which interestingly it is the last possibility in your mind, I wonder why
This case has nothng to do with the Mccanns, try and remember that before you start slagging off all and sundry even if you are invested in the saintly duo
Eddie reacted to a coconut or a piece of wood.
He isn't supposed to.
And if there was some unconnected scent-source within Eddie's scent range when the test was carried out, Grime didn't do his job properly, because he should have got Eddie to test the area beforehand, just like the report of the inspection at the gym, PdL, says he did ....
Dog reacted, Human recovered item.
I've seen your quote earlier about WOOD...Harper explains if you watch the video that the fragment that the anthropologist found which SHE identified as from a skull was NOT the fragment (analysed by the original lab as containing collagen before being passed over to others who said it was wood/coconut)returned to her, get it now? Or not?
Never mind, you carry on castigating the chief on the ground trying to find evidence in a child abuse nquiry and calling him a liar so that somehow your argument against Eddie will improve the Mccanns lot....so convoluted and dark its horrid
A damp bit of coconut would presumably absorb odours. It's possible that Eddie correctly reacted to something within his training parameters that was on or near it and the humans incorrectly assumed that it was to the fragment itself.
I can't find any trace of whether Keela sniffed it as well or not. Unless they were expecting recent blood, it was probably deemed unnecessary. However, it doesn't exclude the possibility that the construction workers or even the forensic people had cut themselves.
There were also burned bits of animal bone found nearby. He could therefore equally have been reacting to the absorbed smell of those.
Fragment of possibly juvenile human skull was recovered from within a Victorian context of the excavation of the north-western stairwell.
Burnt bone (pending species identification) from context at the north-western stairwell
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
From the anthropologist's notes:
“23 February 2008
09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”
http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1508.245
It would indeed seem to be human assumptions which caused the problems. Eddie alerted to an area and humans decided they had found a piece of skull after digging. Eddie didn't react to animal bone.
Both the EVRD and Human blood search dog are presumptive screening assets. Any alert indications given MUST be forensically corroborated to be conclusive.
A large amount of animal bone historically deposited in the grounds of HDLG as garbage was ignored.
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
Eddie reacted to a coconut (or a bit of timber). He isn't supposed to.
Do you have a quote or a picture of Eddie alerting to this fragment of whatever? He alerted to the area where the fragment was found, but I haven't found anything to say he alerted to the actual fragment. If you have, please share.
It would indeed seem to be human assumptions which caused the problems. Eddie alerted to an area and humans decided they had found a piece of skull after digging. Eddie didn't react to animal bone.
Both the EVRD and Human blood search dog are presumptive screening assets. Any alert indications given MUST be forensically corroborated to be conclusive.
A large amount of animal bone historically deposited in the grounds of HDLG as garbage was ignored.
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
Already covered that.
If Grime had done his job properly, he'd have had Eddie screen the area beforehand to rule out pre-existing scents.
If he didn't (and the evidence of PdL suggests he may not have) blame Grime.
Do dog apologists accept that dogs sometimes make false alerts or is this not part of their belief system?
On of these perchanceI'd appreciate it if you'd stop trolling my posts, I have asked you nicely before and so here I am asking you again, many thanks in advance for your cooperation.
https://twitter.com/dogapologist
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trolling my posts, I have asked you nicely before and so here I am asking you again, many thanks in advance for your cooperation.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trolling my posts, I have asked you nicely before and so here I am asking you again, many thanks in advance for your cooperation.
It would seem it is you who is wearing the hypocrisy cap today Alfie.
Lighten up, just a bit of fun.I thought you were a moderator and I thought posting links to off topic subject matter was not permitted? Hmm... &%+((£
It would seem it is you who is wearing the hypocrisy cap today Alfie.In what way was my post hypocritical Faithlilly? I thought it was very polite.
alfie is in a bad mood todayGoading. Off topic, but I guess it was said in fun so I must just learn to lighten up. @)(++(* ?>)()< 8)--)) *&*%£
As ferryman isn't here, can anyone tell me how you get a VRD dog to screen an area before searching it? I can understand that if you're going to bring items into the area, but how can you screen an area itself?
I thought you were a moderator and I thought posting links to off topic subject matter was not permitted? Hmm... &%+((£
I am quite happy for a bit of light heartedness on here. Helps if we don't take ourselves too seriously all the time.I'll bear that in mind and be sure to act on it regularly. 8((()*/
From the inspection in the gym, PdL
In these terms, the pieces of clothing recovered [from the home] were laid out individually in accordance with instructions given by the British technicians, the dogs [then] walking the area where they [those pieces of clothing] were laid out by order and with the following results described below.
1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.
That's how.
So how could that be done with a building? It already exists, you can't screen another area and then move it there.
You carry out a prior reconnoitre of an area to eliminate existing scents, then introduce into that area anything (specific) you want the dog to test.
It was the area itself they were examining. How can you introduce the area into the area?
The alternative is that Eddie reacted to a coconut.
Take your pick ....
Eddie alerted in an area. People dug up the area and found items. There is no evidence that the items were what triggered the alert.
They put the coconut underground, did they?Nah! they put the lime in the coconut.
Interesting ....
Eddie alerted to a coconut.
The new-fangled way of getting a dog to alert twice to the same object in two, different, spots didn't quite make it in HdLG for some reason ....
And there was no attempt to reconnoitre the area in advance of examination by the dog of the coconut (for some reason).
That Eddie reacted to a coconut can only be explained (away!) if there was some other scent within Eddie's scent-range in adjacent vicinity of the coconut ....
Unless you can show proof that Eddie alerted specifically to a piece of coconut, or to the fragment which was said to be coconut you don't know what he alerted to. The mistake was human, not animal.Are you of the opinion that this dog was incapable of making a mistake or false alert, ever?
Unless you can show proof that Eddie alerted specifically to a piece of coconut, or to the fragment which was said to be coconut you don't know what he alerted to. The mistake was human, not animal.
Eddie alerted in an area. People dug up the area and found items. There is no evidence that the items were what triggered the alert.
Are you of the opinion that this dog was incapable of making a mistake or false alert, ever?
Ignorance is bliss. Eddie wasn't trained to alert to coconut @)(++(* If you watch the video Eddie is alerting for specific areas underground. Then they discovered the cellars where abuse took place.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00657/news-graphics-2008-_657831a.jpg)(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00657/news-graphics-2008-_657832a.gif)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03/25/article-1000855-00B2617E00000578-246_470x286.jpg)
Of course not. You give me proof that he made a mistake and I'll accept it. By that I mean proof, not newspaper gossip, not articles about other dogs, not opinions; proof. Give me a direct quote from an observer or a picture of Eddie sniffing at a piece of coconut and then barking and I'll accept it (not photoshopped either lol).
Isn't Ferrymans word good enough?
Lol don't answer that it was a joke
You mean the guy who thinks that if you want to search, say, a garden with a cadaver dog you first screen another garden to make sure there's no alerts. Then you pick up the garden you want to search and take it to the 'clean' garden. If the dog alerts, you then know the dog is actually alerting to the second garden, not the first one. If that sounds mad it's because it is. @)(++(*
The report of Wiltshire Police into the Haut de la Garenne fiasco is required reading for those who want to know what really happened -- and what didn't ....
You mean the guy who thinks that if you want to search, say, a garden with a cadaver dog you first screen another garden to make sure there's no alerts. Then you pick up the garden you want to search and take it to the 'clean' garden. If the dog alerts, you then know the dog is actually alerting to the second garden, not the first one. If that sounds mad it's because it is. @)(++(*Oh dear, LOL, yes, the man who talks bananas, even when shown the evidence that he is doing so, remains in denial and thinks black is white and also maintains you have to believe black is white
Explain the collagen?
There was none.
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
28th March Ms Brock email to Forensic Manager Vicky Coupland
Collagen is not found in coconut or wood, it is only present in mammals, which would seem to destroy the claims of the Jersey establishment, aided and abetted by the Jersey Evening Post and Channel Television, that JAR/6 is coconut or wood.
I am a great admirer of the dogs and their handler. They worked long and hard hours. We carried out frequent tests on them and they succeeded every time. One such test was when one of the Anthropologists brought some sand which had been in contact with a mummy in another country. It was put on the beach and the dog went to it.
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth.html
Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller
chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a
result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably
not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material,
the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so
the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist
and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU)
concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost
certainly wood. It seemed surprising to us that the material could be
so confidently identified by X , and particularly that it could
be determined to be an infant specimen. We informed X of
our concerns shortly afterwards, by phone and e-mail. We stand by our
original assessment. We suggest that the curvature of the material
may have had something to do with the misidentification. We
think it appears to be more like part of a large seed casing, or part of
something like a small piece of coconut. Certainly, the density of the
material is most unlike bone, it is too light. Our conclusion is that this
sample is: a) not bone and b) not human. We are very surprised that
the forensic archaeologist could be so confident and differ in X
identification. We suggested at the time that a further opinion would be
required, but this not considered by X . A further
analysis of the bone structure under a suitable microscope would
confirm the situation rapidly.
5.6.22 If this sample is bone and close to modern in age, then it would be
unusual in our experience for it to be so poorly preserved and lacking
in collagen. One would expect normally that for a bone coming from
the last few decades that at least some collagen would survive. In the
absence of collagen, one would conclude that the bone is probably
older than this, possibly by several hundred or even several thousands
of years. In this light, it is not liable to be of forensic interest. Our
assessment is, however, that it is almost certainly not bone and it is for
this reason that we have significant doubts over its forensic
importance. This probably explains the problems we encountered with
the sample and the fact that it is not able to be dated using collagen
extraction techniques.
There seems to be not much doubt that Eddie alerted to a coconut or a piece of wood.
The kindest explanation of why so far offered is mine.
Eddie's record speaks for itself and so does Jersey's children's home with underground torture chambers so there's only one winner.
Cuddle-cat.
Clothes not alerted to in the villa, but (the same clothes!) alerted to in the gym
And (Jersey) an alert to a piece of coconut.
I agree.
Eddie's record (as far as we know it) speaks for itself .....
Eddie's record speaks for itself and so does Jersey's children's home with underground torture chambers so there's only one winner.
If this case is proved you will find out how great they were.
Unless you can show proof that Eddie alerted specifically to a piece of coconut, or to the fragment which was said to be coconut you don't know what he alerted to. The mistake was human, not animal.
this is why the alerts are meaningless without corroboration.....even when it seems the alerts were wrong its possible to make excuses.
Until someone can prove an alert was wrong it remains a possibility that the alert was right. Those wishing to destroy Grime and Eddie only have to find one proven false alert, but they haven't managed it so far.
Of course not. You give me proof that he made a mistake and I'll accept it. By that I mean proof, not newspaper gossip, not articles about other dogs, not opinions; proof. Give me a direct quote from an observer or a picture of Eddie sniffing at a piece of coconut and then barking and I'll accept it (not photoshopped either lol).you don't want much do you?! Shame your requirement for proof that the McCanns are involved in something underhand is not quite so onerous.
If this case is proved you will find out how great they were.
Until someone can prove an alert was wrong it remains a possibility that the alert was right. Those wishing to destroy Grime and Eddie only have to find one proven false alert, but they haven't managed it so far.
it is impossible to prove a false alert....not because eddie hasn't made one...it simply is impossible so your logic is flawed...its a chocolate teapot argument
Eddie's record speaks for itself and so does Jersey's children's home with underground torture chambers so there's only one winner.
The media needed little encouragement to paint a graphic and horrific picture of
institutionalised abuse of vulnerable children on the Island. We are clear from the
evidence that such reporting was condoned and even encouraged in a number of
the States of Jersey Police press releases which variously described the ‘partial
remains of a child’, ‘skull’, ‘shackles’, ‘bath’, ‘cellars’ and ‘blood’, none of which
transpired to be accurate. Even when the Attorney General challenged
CO POWER over the nature and effect of media reporting on the fairness of
proceedings against defendants charged with child abuse, CO POWER’s
supervisory intervention against his Deputy – the principal architect of the
misrepresentation in the media – was only to the extent of forwarding to the
Attorney General a copy of the Force’s media strategy which, in any event, could
hardly have been said to have been adhered to at that point.
You need to define carefully what's wrong and right.
For purposes of a criminal enquiry, you want a dog to react when there is incriminating evidence to find; and not to react when there is no incriminating evidence to find.
Irrespective of the reasons, anything outside those parameters is wrong.
These dogs are trained to alert to cadaver scent. There's not always a body still there, unfortunately as those responsible tend to hide them.
the argument from the sceptics seems to be edie is right because he cannot be proved wrong...which is a very weak argument
My argument is that it's not known if Eddie was right or wrong. People saying he was wrong need to present evidence for their assertions otherwise it's just speculation.
Anything not admissible in court is "wrong".
An alert which doesn't result in admissible evidence is an unconfirmed alert, which may or may not have been correct. In some cases evidence found later confirms the correctness of the alert, in others no such evidence is found. To call these alerts wrong is as incorrect as to call them right.
An alert which doesn't result in admissible evidence is an unconfirmed alert, which may or may not have been correct. In some cases evidence found later confirms the correctness of the alert, in others no such evidence is found. To call these alerts wrong is as incorrect as to call them right.
A dog's role is to identify evidence humans determine as identifying victims or culprits.
When dogs stray outside that parameter, they are wrong, irrespective of the reason.
You can say what you like, the fact remains you cannot produce anything showing that Eddie's alerts were wrong.
The fact you don't understand is that I don't have to.
In fact I know that Eddie's alert to the car was right, but wrong, because it contributed nothing of worth to the enquiry.
And the fact that, as noted by a PJ officer, Eddie finally alerted in the places he had passed several times without alerting beforehand places question-marks, not so much over the dog, as over the handling of the dog; as does the fact that Grime wore the anti-cross contamination gear of his trade for only one inspection (of the vehicles) and was handed that video for personal, promotional, use.
Why do you think Grime, in his rogatory interview, was quizzed so closely about a dog's certainty of the scent he is trained to detect?
If a dog's alert is confirmed by forensic testing the dog was 100% right. The dog doesn't know what the humans are looking for. The dog doesn't have a clue whose DNA humans are looking for. The dog reacts to the scent it is trained to find. End of.Eddie alerted to a sex clean up tissue. Was he trained to alert to such things? Do you think there might have been a corpse buried under the tissue and it was his stupid handler who assumed it was the tissue he was alerting to?
If a dog's alert is confirmed by forensic testing the dog was 100% right. The dog doesn't know what the humans are looking for. The dog doesn't have a clue whose DNA humans are looking for. The dog reacts to the scent it is trained to find. End of.
Eddie alerted to a sex clean up tissue. Was he trained to alert to such things? Do you think there might have been a corpse buried under the tissue and it was his stupid handler who assumed it was the tissue he was alerting to?
Eddie alerted to a sex clean up tissue. Was he trained to alert to such things? Do you think there might have been a corpse buried under the tissue and it was his stupid handler who assumed it was the tissue he was alerting to?
My argument is that it's not known if Eddie was right or wrong. People saying he was wrong need to present evidence for their assertions otherwise it's just speculation.
do you have a cite for that please Alfred?
According to Wiki, cadaverine can be found in sperm.
" Basic amines such as putrescine, spermine, spermidine and cadaverine are responsible for the smell and flavor of semen. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen
Isn't Google wonderful 8)--))
The scent of a human corpse is complex. it is the sum of all the constituents of the scent which the dogs alert to, not any part of them.
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
'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.
Base of an oak tree planted as a memorial to the two sons of Mr Hamon, Flat 2 Delborgho Lodge, Upper Clarendon Road, St Hellier. The cremated remains of the two adult sons had been previously scattered just under the surface of the ground and the tree planted as a permanent memorial together with a plaque. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.
There being no other points of interest, intelligence led excavation of the site commenced to locate and investigate defensive positions by excavation, forensic examination and canine screening.'
This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of tht.
Singular possessive.
Just one dog.
Extracts from Operation Rectangle Summary
"Among the victims were a few who said that children had been dragged from their beds at night screaming and had then disappeared. Two others said they had knowledge of human remains at the location but were not specific. A local advocate also came to police and said he had a client who knew there were human remains buried at the home.”
“Information exists of the previous finding of buried bones co mingled with a pair of children’s shoes and fragments of cloth.”
“Anecdotal witness evidence suggested that bones found by builders completing renovations near to the north west stairwell may have been of human origin. An alert indication by the EVRD in this area resulted in the excavation of the site by forensic archaeologists. During this intrusive procedure a 2 inch X 2 inch piece of what appeared to be bone was recovered. This was preliminarily identified ‘in the field’ as possibly being juvenile human skull by the forensic anthropologist and was submitted for confirmation including species carbon dating and DNA.”
“The teeth recovered from cellars 3-4 were identified as juvenile human deciduous teeth and have been conveyed to the UK for further analysis.”
“Anecdotal witness evidence was suggestive of juvenile human bones being recovered from the area of the north-western stairwell during recent building renovations in 2003.”
“Human remains deposited within the ground in that area would contaminate the ground, and any porous material within it. The dog’s reactions were therefore consistent with this scenario.”
“A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human. The remains are at the present time undergoing forensic testing including carbon dating procedures.”
“Control testing of the EVRD would suggest that although the dog alerted to specific areas where human remains were situated the entire top two inches of soil within this area is contaminated with human cadaver odour. Enquiries at this time are suggestive that the human remains were deposited in this area and covered with top soil in a deliberate act of concealment. The deposition could only have taken place during a period of time when the floor had been removed. Research into the historical renovation of the property suggests that the floor above cellars 3, 4 &5 was taken up in the late 60’s early 70’s.”
“Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.”
"Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.
“The series of tests involved the use of samples of soot and debris from the chimney situated in the plant room that was in use at the time the solid fuel furnace was in operation. The tests were completed in such a way as to isolate the samples from containers, human ‘live’ scent and other distracters."
"The tests clearly indicated the presence of human remains decomposition scent.” (END)
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/12/operation-rectanglecase-closed.html
do you have a cite for that please Alfred?Don't play games.