So, apparently this has all been explained before but I must have missed it or not understood it, therefore could we please have an expert give us the science behind this, ie: why did the dog fail to alert to clothing worn by someone who allegedly carried a body around town, clothing which appeared not to leave any residual scent on any other clothing owned by this man, nor on the sofa where the man's jacket was apparently flung after committing the heinous deed.
So his alerts in the apartment were quite random then? i thought he was trained to be precise, to home in on a scent source and bark over the source of the scent?
MG commented that Eddie's behaviour changed as soon as he got to the apartment. From that I can conclude that there was scent all over that apartment but Eddie detects the strongest scent source and he alerted in two areas.
Spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
Confirmed by forensics.
Correct alert.
Clever dog.
But there might have been blood in any of the other 9 vehicles.
Not such a clever handler ....
No blood on the clothes.
I've gave the obvious reason. Eddie never examined that black jacket 3 months later. If Eddie didn't examine the clothes he wore on 3 May then it's guesswork.
I've gave the obvious reason. Eddie never examined that black jacket 3 months later. If Eddie didn't examine the clothes he wore on 3 May then it's guesswork.a) why were certain obvious effects such as Gerry's jacket not examined? b) what about the other clothes Gerry was wearing that night and c) what about scent transferral from the clothes he wore that night to the rest of his wardrobe and d) why did the dog not sniff these out when it was rootling around in the rental apartment?
Did Eddie examine Gerry's beige fleece?
Erm .....but there's no suggestion that Kate changed her clothes - so why didn't Eddie alert in the Payne's apartment where she stayed for hours not long after Madeleine had disappeared.These are mere details that I'm sure I can explain away if I think really, really hard about it and cobble together some cockamamie reason for it...
I can see one t-shirt of his that I think Eddie alerted to along with Kate's pants and the kids red t-shirt. I see no fleece worn on 4 May or beige pants. Amaral wanted to send Eddie into their house in England for further investigation.Is that in the report?
The cynic might suggest there was a (particular) bias (conspiracy?) against Kate?
So, apparently this has all been explained before but I must have missed it or not understood it, therefore could we please have an expert give us the science behind this, ie: why did the dog fail to alert to clothing worn by someone who allegedly carried a body around town, clothing which appeared not to leave any residual scent on any other clothing owned by this man, nor on the sofa where the man's jacket was apparently flung after committing the heinous deed.
(snip) ...a child's T-shirt which IIRC was claimed by the PJ to belong to Madeleine ...(snip)Are you talking about the red aeroplane T-shirt with a label that says "For Ages 2 to 3, Height 98cm"?
Clothing which may have been, by then, neatly folded in a drawer in a rather tasteless new built somewhere in Leceistershire.but only after contaminating all the other clothes they had been folded up next to in their rather tasteful Portuguese rental villa...
A dead body can go undetected before the smell is noticed. A few days after death, bacteria and enzymes start the process of breaking down their host.You are all over the place. How long does it take before a dead body emits cadaver odour scent detectable by a dog on surfaces it has come into contact with?
You are all over the place. How long does it take before a dead body emits cadaver odour scent detectable by a dog on surfaces it has come into contact with?
How did Kate and S's clothes get contaminated?At the exact location within the flat those items were that night?.
At the exact location within the flat those items were that night?.there are photos of kate and sean wearing the clothing items when the mccanns were living in 4g. there wasn't an alert in 4g.
there are photos of kate and sean wearing the clothing items when the mccanns were living in 4g. there wasn't an alert in 4g.
so those clothes got contaminated during the stay at 27 rua das flores, in this scenario. if one believes the dogs.
there are photos of kate and sean wearing the clothing items when the mccanns were living in 4g. there wasn't an alert in 4g.
so those clothes got contaminated during the stay at 27 rua das flores, in this scenario. if one believes the dogs.
Yes but if your theory was correct Pathfinder that rog would say "to'ing and fro'ing, in wearing blue jeans, out wearing white trousers, in wearing white trousers, out wearing blue jeans"
The rog doesn't say that, which suggests that that your triple costume switch theory is ... ?
Picking stuff up is not a trained reaction ....
How do you know?are yu au fait with all current dog handling things? Got a cite?
Use of the ST 100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises
are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert
deployment. At a11 other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.
We can therefore conclude the dogs didn't alert to Gerry's clothing because none of it had cadaver odour or blood on it.
(Martin Grime).
And I think we can conclude that he didn't alert to any of Kate's clothing for the same reason ....
So why did Eddie alert to Kate's clothing?
I'm sure there's a reason why Mark Harrison waited until after the inspection at the gym (which followed the inspection at the villa) to issue PJ personnel with translated written instructions on how to conduct inspections in buildings and vehicles ....
There is a video of Eddie checking all the clothing from this box.
http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1h56s
So why did Eddie alert to Kate's clothing?Because he scented cadaver scent, smokes
What right had Mark Harrison to issue anything to the Portuguese police, that wasn't his job?
He didn't.
He barked and picked stuff up in his mouth (the latter, an untrained reaction).
This was clothing previously ignored by Eddie during the inspection in the villa.
Why did Grime feel it necessary to have Eddie inspect the same clothing twice in two different locations?
I have my own (evidence-based) theory ....
He didn't.
So in your opinion Eddie simply chose random items of clothing to have a go?
So in your opinion Eddie simply chose random items of clothing to have a go?
Was Harrison supposed, simply, to ignore the wilder excesses of his dog-handler colleague?
Yes he did,its a fact, you cant change facts
You don't want police dogs attending a crime-scene picking stuff up in their mouths.
Appalling practise ....
Its accepted as per your previous cite, besides, why does protocol matter if and when cdaver scent is there
(snip) ... too small ...(snip)Did you read the label Ferryman?
Did you read the label Ferryman?
If you read the 'official' record of the inspection in the gym, there was no gap between the 'prior' reconnoitre of the gym (for pre-existing scents) and the inspection of the clothing, suggesting the clothes were laid out before the reconnoitre. So what was the point of the reconnoitre?Unlss youree arguing cadaver scent was there before then well i suppose peole can have heart attacks at the gym but wouldnt lie there for hours
Or did the PJ read the instructions Harrison gave them and crib from them in their 'official' record of that inspection?
Harrison issued the instructions (after both inspections at villa and gym) because of what he perceived as bad practice (by Grime).
Is there any evidence in the files the PJ identified the clothing worn by Kate & Gerry on the night of the 3rd May?
Is there any evidence they did not just select random items of clothing & linen for the cadaver dogs to inspect?
What happened about the little pair of blue shorts the dog hit on first?
What people recall from the inspections at Ocean Club, the rental villa and at the gym is that only clothing and belongings which had come into contact with Maddie were alerted to. Does anyone else find that simply too much of a coincidence?
Is there any evidence in the files the PJ identified the clothing worn by Kate & Gerry on the night of the 3rd May?Why not just believe what they say in their statements?
...(snip)
Why not just believe what they say in their statements?
Why not just believe what they say in their statements?
I agree. Which begs the question - what was the point of the PJ exercise in the gym if it didn't specifically include the very items worn on 3rd May (including what was worn before dinner) in the dogs' inspection?
They were obviously advsed by uk police
What people recall from the inspections at Ocean Club, the rental villa and at the gym is that only clothing and belongings which had come into contact with Maddie were alerted to. Does anyone else find that simply too much of a coincidence?
Why not just believe what they say in their statements?
I agree. Which begs the question - what was the point of the PJ exercise in the gym if it didn't specifically include the very items worn on 3rd May (including what was worn before dinner) in the dogs' inspection?
Unlss youree arguing cadaver scent was there before then well i suppose peole can have heart attacks at the gym but wouldnt lie there for hours
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.
2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.
Of course no clothes would be unboxed or laid out before the dogs had checked the place for any odour. What is this nonsense.
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
What people recall from the inspections at Ocean Club, the rental villa and at the gym is that only clothing and belongings which had come into contact with Maddie were alerted to. Does anyone else find that simply too much of a coincidence?
No one knows what clothes they wore on 3 May.
IMO it's an amazing co-incidence that not a single soul out of the thousands of people who must have stayed in the other apartments, apparently ever bled or left residual scents of any other alertable cellular material - which Martin Grime assures us his dogs would alert to - even decades after they were deposited and even if they were not visible to the naked eye, and were too minute to be detected by forensic examination.
Also may I ask you Angelo - what is your opinon of Martin Grime's observation that every item of clothing alerted to in the gym had all been packed in the same box? What are of the chances of that happening by sheer co-incidence?
Your reply would be appreciated.
(snip) Also may I ask you Angelo - what is your opinon of Martin Grime's observation that every item of clothing alerted to in the gym had all been packed in the same box? What are of the chances of that happening by sheer co-incidence? (snip)This box contained items all from the "sala comum" which is the dining area. Not a usual place to store clothes. So why were these clothes pillows and pillowcases in the dining area?
To add to Benice's excellent post above (the first 3 letters apart, spit!), why was an inordinate amount of time spent in inspection of apartment 5a, while inspection of all other villas were whistle-stop?
This box contained items all from the "sala comum" which is the dining area. Not a usual place to store clothes. So why were these clothes pillows and pillowcases in the dining area?
Easy, they had been washed in the washing machine, dried on the racks outside on the jacuzzi patio area, then brought into the adjacent dining area and folded and placed in neat piles in the dining area, ready to be put away upstairs later.
So the thing all the items in the "sala comum" box have in common is they had all just been washed and dried?
We know what Gerry wore - a light brown polar top, blue jeans and trainers.
They were obviously advsed by uk police
Correction; we know what Gerry said he wore. Certainly he was wearing it on 4th as his wife was wearing what she said she wore the night before. How did Silvia describe what Gerry wore as 'dark coloured' then?
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tcm16.jpg)
What are the chances of ALL of the clothes alerted to just happening by co-incidence to have been in the same wash? The chances of that happening by chance must be as astronomical.In the Panorama footage by JC lots of clothing etc is drying on racks on the patio just outside the dining area, that footage was taken on 2 Aug, and the villa search was later on 2 Aug.
Also - AFAIK most people separate the coloureds from the whites when they are sorting out the washing for the washing machine. For instance - I wouldn't be putting a red top and blue shorts in the same wash as a white top.
Whether they did that or not I don't know - but it still doesn't explain how - out of an entire wardrobe of 5 people - all the items which were subsequently alerted to - just happened by sheer coincidence to have been washed on that day.
Sorry - doesn't work for me Pegasus.
In the Panorama footage by JC lots of clothing etc is drying on racks on the patio just outside the dining area, that footage was taken on 2 Aug, and the villa search was later on 2 Aug.
In the Panorama footage by JC lots of clothing etc is drying on racks on the patio just outside the dining area, that footage was taken on 2 Aug, and the villa search was later on 2 Aug.
Interesting that the soft toy was 'boxed up' by the PJ before the family exited the villa.
**Snip
CORNER: They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa.
BILTON: The crew?
CORNER: Everybody.
BILTON: So they searched the whole villa?
CORNER: Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
Thanks Brietta. If the residents left the villa as soon as the search people and dog arrived, the residents would not have seen the cat being boxed up. So there is a timing mystery. Not the only one that day.
Interesting that the soft toy was 'boxed up' by the PJ before the family exited the villa.
**Snip
CORNER: They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa.
BILTON: The crew?
CORNER: Everybody.
BILTON: So they searched the whole villa?
CORNER: Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
Interesting that the soft toy was 'boxed up' by the PJ before the family exited the villa.
**Snip
CORNER: They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa.
BILTON: The crew?
CORNER: Everybody.
BILTON: So they searched the whole villa?
CORNER: Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
IMO it's an amazing co-incidence that not a single soul out of the thousands of people who must have stayed in the other apartments, apparently ever bled or left residual scents of any other alertable cellular material - which Martin Grime assures us his dogs would alert to - even decades after they were deposited and even if they were not visible to the naked eye, and were too minute to be detected by forensic examination.
Also may I ask you Angelo - what is your opinon of Martin Grime's observation that every item of clothing alerted to in the gym had all been packed in the same box? What are of the chances of that happening by sheer co-incidence?
Your reply would be appreciated.
Eddie goes in first looking for evidence of death not evidence of a shaving cut. His job is to find cadaver scent. Keela the blood dog is only used if he alerts.
It's so easy to be a sceptic if you adopt the theory that anything Kate or Gerry said which suits your agenda - is set in stone, but anything they said which doesn't fit in with your agenda - has to be considered as - shall we say..... 'unreliable'.
Tell me G - if Gerry had said he was wearing light coloured trousers, a dark top and shoes on the evening of the 3rd May- would you still be saying...... ''We know what Gerry said he wore'' (hint hint) - or would you be claiming there was irrefutable proof that he wore clothing matching that of Smithman - because he said so?
As I've said before - anyone can make a case against anybody by using those 'tactics.
It's so easy to be a sceptic if you adopt the theory that anything Kate or Gerry said which suits your agenda - is set in stone, but anything they said which doesn't fit in with your agenda - has to be considered as - shall we say..... 'unreliable'.
Tell me G - if Gerry had said he was wearing light coloured trousers, a dark top and shoes on the evening of the 3rd May- would you still be saying...... ''We know what Gerry said he wore'' (hint hint) - or would you be claiming there was irrefutable proof that he wore clothing matching that of Smithman - because he said so?
As I've said before - anyone can make a case against anybody by using those 'tactics.
Inspection in the gym
Keela deployed first (without alerting).
Eddie deployed anyway.
Why was Keela deployed first?
And why was Eddie deployed at all?
Why was Keela deployed first on clothes? To rule out blood.
And clothing Eddie could find no hint of a trace of scent on in the villa was packed into bog-standard cardboard boxes (with zero regard to principles of cross-contamination) for a second inspection at the gym.
And lo!
Clothing devoid of scent (discernible to Eddie) in the villa suddenly yields a scent (he can detect) in the gym.
All most odd ....
So you're an expert in dogs ?
You don't have to be a dog to smell a rat.
However, yku do need to know what you're talking about, and I'm afraid. Ferryman's googling does not make him an expert.
And clothing Eddie could find no hint of a trace of scent on in the villa was packed into bog-standard cardboard boxes (with zero regard to principles of cross-contamination) for a second inspection at the gym.In villa video Eddie sniffs a pile of clothes then barks.
And lo!
Clothing devoid of scent (discernible to Eddie) in the villa suddenly yields a scent (he can detect) in the gym.
All most odd ....
I noted the size of the tee-shirt (as did several other people) ....But Ferryman why not read the label? The label that says "height 98cm"
In villa video Eddie sniffs a pile of clothes then barks.
Are you implying that the handler misread an alert?I watch where the dog's nose is just before the bark Misty and make my own deduction.
I watch where the dog's nose is just before the bark Misty and make my own deduction.
There are 2 alerts on video at that property IMO and they are -
1. nose pointing at seat of dining chair but table blocks our view of what is on seat of dining chair.
2. nose pointing at one particular pile of clothes on sideboard.
I agree. Problem is, Pegasus - who put the clothes in piles ready to be boxed up?Panorama - earlier same day many clothes etc are drying on racks on patio just outside dining area.
Panorama - earlier same day many clothes etc are drying on racks on patio just outside dining area.
I assume the residents then brought them in through patio door to dining area to iron and fold.
Rather like 5a & the Scenic, the PJ/Grime/Harrison were the last people who had control of the clothes the dogs alerted to. The PJ arrived at about 5pm, the McCann family left the premises.Maybe it's allowed for one person or their representative to stay?
Interestingly, RM was present at Casa Liliana during the canine examinations.
3rd August....The police returned our clothes to us later that day, thrown into big black bin bags. ....creased to hell.
(Madeleine page 207)
Did the PJ seriously not keep any of the articles alerted to by Eddie as potential evidence?
Eddie goes in first looking for evidence of death not evidence of a shaving cut. His job is to find cadaver scent. Keela the blood dog is only used if he alerts.
Maybe it's allowed for one person or their representative to stay?
Eddie goes in first looking for evidence of death not evidence of a shaving cut. His job is to find cadaver scent. Keela the blood dog is only used if he alerts.
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
(Martin Grime, rogatory interview).
If I understand Grime right, Eddie doesn't 'look for evidence' of anything; he merely seeks out a scent he has been trained to react to, and barks (his trained reaction to that scent) if he detects it.
Or did (RIP) .....
Are you seriously claiming that Eddie would not have alerted to blood from a shaving cut - if a trace of it had been left in one of the apartments he was searching ? Surely not.
Eddie doesn't sniff every inch of the apartment searching for traces of blood. He would be in there for days. He goes in first to find cadaver scent.
Eddie doesn't sniff every inch of the apartment searching for traces of blood. He would be in there for days. He goes in first to find cadaver scent.
#eddie will alert to whichever he comes across first...you are mistaken if you think he would ignore blood
Where did Keela find microscopic blood? Between a tile that the human eye can't see. It wasn't easy. There's no way Eddie was alerting to blood scent at the wardrobe. That was his first alert in the apartment and there was NO Blood! No blood on the clothes, CC - see the pattern!
there is a much bigger pattern....I don't believe there was ever a cadaver ion 5a
SY must do searching with the dogs. I think Redwood gave you a clue a few years back.
Grime told us all we need to know about the alertsAre you doing a a royal "we" Davel? What about watching where Eddie's nose is just before he barks?
Are you doing a a royal "we" Davel? What about watching where Eddie's nose is just before he barks?
It's certainly not at the pile of clothes in the corner.All items that ended up in the sala comum box are by definition in the sala comum at the beginning of the villa video - the pillows are on the dining table and the clothes are neatly folded in several piles on the sideboard.
Freeze-frame after Grime holds up Cuddlecat following its removal from the cupboard & the small pile of clothes + a larger pinkish object can be seen, none of which resembles the items signalled in the gym. There is no chair there.
Similarly, the items shown on the clothes airer in the Panorama don't resemble anything laid out at the gym from the living room box - but weather conditions seem to show that that footage was not shot on the same day the PJ arrived (do you agree? Kate is also shown leaving in the car with Cuddlecat in her possession)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U2FPr5Ndo8&ebc=ANyPxKo8LeRgx_vj7ZHgORiTYc1kHyNO64cDvZp2tVzXxvkLoJPtSMflBfUh1ag7rC620VnbZxk4OuWjqX7OFpUVjf1xAW5vcw
Correct me where you disagree, please.
All items that ended up in the sala comum box are by definition in the sala comum at the beginning of the villa video - the pillows are on the dining table and the clothes are neatly folded in several piles on the sideboard.
In the villa video the dining chair alert is separate from the sideboard alert.
The panorama footage of the car being loaded was shot before the search, on 2 Aug (not 3 Aug) - listen to the phone conversation.
Eddie doesn't sniff every inch of the apartment searching for traces of blood. He would be in there for days. He goes in first to find cadaver scent.
I'm still not seeing several piles of clothes on the sideboard - just the one, when Eddie barks. (the pinkish object is a lampshade I now realise). When the chair comes into shot, there appears to be nothing, if anything at all, of any height on it, going by the rails on the chair back.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5003.msg177755#msg177755 We had a loooooong discussion on this dog thread, many of the posts supporting there was no neatly folded ironing on the cupboard top but rather a pile of folders with a paper on top.Eddie appeared to be alerting to the pile of folders or the piece of paper. He cetrainly wasn't alerting to CCat, which he had passed by several times at close range.
Eddie also passed the car before alerting to it. There was a scent in that area and CC was hidden. Scent doesn't remain in one place.
Eddie also passed the car before alerting to it. There was a scent in that area and CC was hidden. Scent doesn't remain in one place.
"Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 8 years later."
Your sinature above, pathfinder.
I asked you before
Where did you get that supposed information from? Did you make it up?
In other words, Is it disinfomation put out on a several times daily basis?
I find truth and you will see what that time means when this case is closed. That time is in the files Sadie. Find it.
(http://s30.postimg.org/4p9cbzy41/Mistake_Overconfidence.jpg)
That may be the case in breezy conditions.
The car was in an enclosed garage ~ the source was within the scenic.
Cuddle cat was seen in various locations ...... the area was within a dwelling house ... an enclosed space with nothing to waft a scent away from its strongest point which is surely the source.
- in the bin
- on the floor where it landed after Eddie had removed it from the bin and threw it around before studiously ignoring it
- in the cupboard from whence it made a dramatic appearance after finding its way into it from where we last saw it lying on the floor
My pup sniffs for a second or two prior to launching directly at the source of whatever it is that is attracting attention ... I imagine a trained dog has a similar skill.
August in a mediterranean country is sweltering so door and windows will be opened at times as well as shut at siesta times, plus there may have been air conditioning, not to mention evening breezes, so to say the villa was some type of alcatraz where air did not enter is incorrect IMO of course
Likewise with the garage, afaiaw garages have huge open entrances and exits within which air flows
Garages do not "have huge open entrances and exits through which air flows if they are underground".Oops missed out the "underground"
**Snip
Dog inspection report of cars searched in subterranean garage
Canine Inspection Report
Date 6 and 7 August 2007
Place Underground parking area of 1st of May Square, Portimao.
Participants: three PJ officers; two UK police experts; Eddy and Keela, the English Springer ...
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Garages do not "have huge open entrances and exits through which air flows if they are underground".
**Snip
Dog inspection report of cars searched in subterranean garage
Canine Inspection Report
Date 6 and 7 August 2007
Place Underground parking area of 1st of May Square, Portimao.
Participants: three PJ officers; two UK police experts; Eddy and Keela, the English Springer ...
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Oops missed out the "underground"
They have some , otherwise people would choke on carbon monoxide
Anyway depends how underground doesnt it?
I see you elected to ignore the other half of my post, does that mean you agreed with it, just so i know for future referencd like
I did not agree with the first part of your post either just couldn't be bothered ... but since you insist.
Revisit the Eddie and cuddle cat video ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1617.msg48301#msg48301
Contrary to the doors and windows being open to allow a through breeze, you may notice that some shutters are performing the task it has been my experience they do best in hot countries and that is to keep the sun out. Same with sun shade canopies had there been any.
Therefore there was no force nine blowing through the villa while Eddie's visit was being filmed, some closed floor length curtains, windows and doors (only one slightly ajar) ensured that.
However, it is well worth revisiting that video just for the experience of watching the sequence between Eddie barking and cuddle cat making an appearance from the cupboard. Absolutely classic!
They will be equipped with exhaust systems to remove toxic fumes giving a specific number of air changes per hour ie air is forced in and out ie it flows. There are Harmonised European standards for this.
Our own harmonised standard looks something like this:
http://www.groupscs.co.uk/wp-content/resources/car-park-ventillation-demystified.pdf
Shutters may be drawn at siesta and at very sunny times, windows are rarely closed, air gets through shutters, and any air is welcome
seeing as you couldnt be bothered here, perhaps youd like to have a try to answer my question i n the looking for a new mod thread, IF you can be bothered, which you dont seem to have been either there, strangely, as you might be the next mod
If you care to follow the link I gave you will see no open windows and only one door which is slightly ajar while Eddie was carrying out his inspection.
The grills are clearly visible on the walls when viewing the video of Eddie's inspection in the garage. The point I was making was not that there was no ventilation but that underground garages do not "have huge open entrances and exits through which air flows."
Anyway the ops question is a bit null and void as no one knows what happened to gerrys clothes three months after he wore them if the theory that he was smithman and carryng a dead body is correct
Any particular reason you believe Eddie wouldn't have indicated to the passenger side of the Scenic, given the number of times those checked trousers of Kate's must have been in contact with the seat?
Could the grey trousers and the red tshirt have acquired scent by contact while they were on a wardrobe shelf during the meal?
Kate was wearing those trousers when she made the appeal to the abductor, days later, why would she be wearing trousers that were contaminated by cadaver? You would think that she would have got rid of them wouldn't you?
Only if she knew all about contamination and the abilities of VRD dogs, which I doubt. Or, if she didn't go near any cadavars when wearing them;
I'm being framed.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id16.html
Hasn't it been said though that some think Gerry disposed of his trousers? and that Kate washed CC because the dogs were coming? In that case they would know about contamination wouldn't they?
I really can't see Kate wearing a pair of trousers days after Madeleine disappeared that were in contact with a cadaver.
Kate was wearing those trousers when she made the appeal to the abductor, days later, why would she be wearing trousers that were contaminated by cadaver? You would think that she would have got rid of them wouldn't you?Also wearing them on flight back to UK on Sept 9th 2007.
Also wearing them on flight back to UK on Sept 9th 2007.
This witness is innocent and has no knowledge of what happened.
Its not inconceivable that she had more than one pair.The obvious possibility, which seems to have completely eluded the brains of Amaral Rebelo Redwood and probably Wall, is this: those clothes acquired scent by contact, not while they were being worn, but while they were laying in a pile on a shelf.
The obvious possibility, which seems to have completely eluded the brains of Amaral Rebelo Redwood and probably Wall, is this: those clothes acquired scent by contact, not while they were being worn, but while they were laying in a pile on a shelf.
compare
Those links aren't working for me, so could you just tell me, please.I added descriptions of the 2 small photos Eleanor - IMO that tshirt was laying in that pile
I could never fault your efforts on research, especially as I am not hot on that myself.
In my opinion, they would be very strange Doctors if they didn't know about Cadaver Contamination.
I added descriptions of the 2 small photos Eleanor - IMO that tshirt was laying in that pile
Is it something doctors routinely learn about then?
Okay, T Shirt. But what about the Check Trousers? And what was Kate wearing that evening?
I am genuinely interested.
Sorry, I don't always pay as much attention as I should. But you are never unpleasant. Which is too often my main concern.
Okay, T Shirt. But what about the Check Trousers? ... (snip)IMO just above the tshirt Eleanor and are here coloured solid grey as guide for when you look at original PJ photo.
IMO just above the tshirt Eleanor here coloured solid grey as guide for when you look at original PJ photo.
Okay, T Shirt. But what about the Check Trousers? And what was Kate wearing that evening?
I am genuinely interested.
Sorry, I don't always pay as much attention as I should. But you are never unpleasant. Which is too often my main concern.
She was wearing her running clothes when returning from the tapas. As Gerry was leaving at 6 to play tennis common sense would tell you that she had a shower and changed out of her sweaty gear. That is 45 minutes before she claims she took one just before .... ...... paid a visit. He didn't see her wearing a towel so that is ruled out. Time to bring the three amigos in for questioning.
Any opinions on this item visible in two places, here with added outlining in green as a guide for looking at the original PJ photo
I am sure that you are right. But it doesn't explain the lack of cross contamination to other things.I may come to that question later Eleanor. Re item drawn round in green - can we observe anything about it? Is it plain or patterned material?
I would think so. Isn't it basic, common sense. They all have to deal with dead bodies, even if only in training, which is why Scrubs get dumped in a bin to be decontaminated. I am pretty sure these scrubs aren't destroyed.
I may come to that question later Eleanor. Re item drawn round in green - can we observe anything about it? Is it plain or patterned material?
No, it's not basic common sense. I believe they use embalmed bodies for student dissection lessons. In which case decomposition will not be happening. Nowadays not all students do dissection either. If doctors deal with other dead bodies they will mostly be recently dead so no decomposition to speak of there either.
Gosh. I thought it was only 90 minutes. Doctors all rush to a dead body, do they?
I don't think you can rule out whatever either of them said what she was or wasn't wearing. A gentleman wouldn't feel the need to say that she was only wearing a towel.
At least, no gentleman that I have ever met.
This was the police so you should tell them the whole truth @)(++(* She wasn't wearing a towel or he would have said it.
There is no legal requirement for a doctor to attend an expected death, just to provide a form setting out the reason for the death. If the death happens at home the undertaker should be called, and the same applies to nursing homes. In hospitals the body will be moved to the mortuary.
Most unexpected deaths are reported to the Coroner who will order a post mortem to be carried out to discover the cause of death.
The days of doctors rushing to bedsides to certify deaths are no more.
So Undertakers then. Do they all stink of Cadaver Odour?
A few years ago we were at an undertakers with our dog, for reasons I won't go into. At first the dog was fine, then she suddenly changed. She ran to the door and clawed frantically to get out. I put her lead on and opened the door and she dragged me down the street to our car and only settled when she was in it. So I would say yes, undertakers and their premises stink, at least as far as dogs are concerned.
Any opinions on this item visible in two places, here with added outlining in green as a guide for looking at the original PJ photo
The police could perhaps use undertakers in training their dogs. Would be cheaper than sending the dogs to USA.
Not sure about clothing, but mortuaries do use some sort of fluid (an odour-eater) to get rid of smells.
A's T Shirt?IMO not because this item in pile is manufactured from white or off-white fabric (not blue).
IMO not because this item in pile is manufactured from white or off-white fabric (not blue).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7097.0;attach=6238;image
green outline has been added to show which item, so please see original PJ photo in files is better.
A start is to ask is the fabric plain, or does it have a design, and if so is it checks, or stripes, or ...?
IMO not because this item in pile is manufactured from white or off-white fabric (not blue).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7097.0;attach=6238;image
green outline has been added to show which item, so please see original PJ photo in files is better.
A start is to ask is the fabric plain, or does it have a design, and if so is it checks, or stripes, or ...?
Who needs an excuse?
So (in English law!) we've had an instance of where a child-minder (of all people) forgot about a child in her charge for several hours, but because there was no evidence of mens rai (guilty mind) neither was there an offence committed (no intent to cause harm).
In Portugal, the McCanns certainly never forgot about their children, checked them regularly (perhaps not as regularly as the Portuguese prosecutors would have liked, but certainly regularly enough to comply with the requirements of Portuguese (and seemingly, also, English) law.
There is zero evidence that either McCann (or any of their friends) did anything, directly, to harm Madeleine.
So what excuses do McCann-detractors have left to denigrate the McCanns?
Do you mean mens rea ?
I use one of those to get rid of the smell of dog pee on my mat. But joking aside, permanent Cadaver Odour is a Myth. Especially three months later.
Seemingly being the operative word and you know for a fact these days police swoop on parents whose kids were left in a car for even two minutes .....to back up yur argument you would have to quote a case where the parents or carers left the kids ( toddlers) for half hour stretches, in unlocked flat,one went missing, and it would be considered by them "responsible care".
In Portugal, the McCanns certainly never forgot about their children, checked them regularly (perhaps not as regularly as the Portuguese prosecutors would have liked, but certainly regularly enough to comply with the requirements of Portuguese and seemingly, also, English) law.
There is zero evidence that either McCann (or any of their friends) did anything, directly, to harm Madeleine.
So what excuses do McCann-detractors have left to denigrate the McCanns?
IMO just above the tshirt Eleanor and are here coloured solid grey as guide for when you look at original PJ photo.
It's a patterned fabric, not striped, not a regular check. I can't really make out if the pattern is on a white backgroundIt's easier to see on the original PJ image. IMO that item is off-white fabric on which is printed a design of small pastelly coloured dots Misty, a bit like ...
or not- enhancing colour & enlarging doesn't really help and the article could be crumpled up.
I dont think you are going to get anywhere much with these photos they are to fuzzy and colours and shapes compromisedPossibly by being adjacent to something Merc?
Imo
But if you think the clothes were contamnated, what by?
Possibly by being adjacent to something Merc?
It's easier to see on the original PJ image. IMO that item is off-white fabric on which is printed a design of small pastelly coloured dots Misty, a bit like ...
@PegasusIts easy to measure by scaling from items of known size and IMO this partly-visible item not too large.
I think the item is too large to be the pyjama bottoms.......and the markings wrong....so please continue..
Its easy to measure by scaling from items of known size and IMO this partly-visible item not too large.
@Misty for example height of opening between first shelf and second shelf can be measured by scaling from Mr Amaral's height, then any item in pile can be measured from that.
LOL Do I use the height before of after the McCanns battered him into the ground?Only part of that grey item is visible we see only the part that is not covered.
I make the distance between the shelves roughly 12", going by the suitcase. That makes the grey object a t-shirt, not trousers, imo.
Only part of that grey item is visible.
I know. I've looked & looked at it. I think it's KM's grey t-shirt or possibly her grey cargo shorts but the imagery is very poor. I honestly don't think it's the dogtooth trousers.Maybe. But we know for a fact that these trousers were not being worn that night, therefore they were either in parents bedroom wardrobes or in parents bedroom chest of drawers.
I will ask my son tomorrow if he has any computer software which will enhance the photo far better than on Microsoft OneNote.
Maybe. But we know for a fact that these trousers were not being worn that night, therefore they were either in parents bedroom wardrobes or in parents bedroom chest of drawers.
They could also possibly have been inside the washing machine.(snip)Washing machine possible but no indication anything in there. Most likely place that night for grey item and red item would be in a pile of clothes that had been worn during 6 days of holiday.
(snip) ... here you seem to be suggesting the pyjama bottoms (as shown in the photo) may have caused contamination in the wardrobe. ..(snip)IMO no clothing item was a cause.
Its been scenifically proven that it lasts not only at least three months (carpet squares study) and up to 14 months (residual scent in buildings study) both discussed ad infinitum on here for years eleanor...so u cleaning your pooches pee which is not cadaver scent btw is not a good example of "odourless"
Anyway hey? Just filling you in case youd frgotten those timngs, besides , police wouldnt waste their resources sending dogs in when they did imo
Maybe. But we know for a fact that these trousers were not being worn that night, therefore they were either in parents bedroom wardrobes or in parents bedroom chest of drawers.
absolutely untrue and another example of a sceptic not understanding the evidence re the alerts...scientific proof requires a lot..lot more than two articles on the net with no background.
The truth is that there is no evidence of a cadaver in 5A according to Grime and that is what is important
Could you please refrain from making personal comments towards anyone who has a different opinion.
Mr Grime is on record as stating that there is "no evidential reliability" associated with the dog alerts. In essence, this means that although the dogs were trained to alert to substances associated with deceased persons, there is no way of knowing for sure if that is what they alerted to in this case.
Could you please refrain from making personal comments towards anyone who has a different opinion.
Mr Grime is on record as stating that there is "no evidential reliability" associated with the dog alerts. In essence, this means that although the dogs were trained to alert to substances associated with deceased persons, there is no way of knowing for sure if that is what they alerted to in this case. He went on to state that unless the alerts are backed up by independent forensic evidence, no conclusion can be drawn from them.
Eddie's barking suggests there was. There is definitely no evidence that there wasn't.
Could you please refrain from making personal comments towards anyone who has a different opinion.
Mr Grime is on record as stating that there is "no evidential reliability" associated with the dog alerts. In essence, this means that although the dogs were trained to alert to substances associated with deceased persons, there is no way of knowing for sure if that is what they alerted to in this case. He went on to state that unless the alerts are backed up by independent forensic evidence, no conclusion can be drawn from them.
suggests is a very vague word and as admin confirms no conclusions can be drawn from the alerts
Suggest means 'put forward for consideration', which is exactly what I meant to say. I have drawn no conclusions except that the alerts should be borne in mind in case other indications or evidences arise which point in the same direction.
None of the material gathered during an investigation is discarded until a particular line of inquiry emerges as the most likely explanation of what happened. The information we have at the moment doesn't point strongly in any particular direction in my opinion.
He went on to state that unless the alerts are backed up by independent forensic evidence, no conclusion can be drawn from them.
do you reckon that could mean such as... maddies body ...etc
He went on to state that unless the alerts are backed up by independent forensic evidence, no conclusion can be drawn from them.
do you reckon that could mean such as... maddies body ...etc
according to SY it points to stranger involvement...abduction...murder and they are the ones that count
In actual fact the PJ are the ones that count. The disappearance happened in their country and they are the ones who would be most likely to bring any prosecutions. SY can only prosecute British citizens and can only prosecute them in certain cases.
In actual fact the PJ are the ones that count. The disappearance happened in their country and they are the ones who would be most likely to bring any prosecutions. SY can only prosecute British citizens and can only prosecute them in certain cases.
The PJ are the lead-investigators in Madeleine's abduction because she was abducted on Portuguese soil.
If (as I hope, trust and believe) there is full cooperation between the PJ force still investigating Madeleine's abduction and the Scotland Yard team, then they will all be pulling in the same direction (to solve the abduction, bring Madeleine's abductor(s) to book and try to find Madeleine).
The Public Ministry issued a press release in October 2013 saying the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance was being re-opened due to new evidentiary elements being identified by the PJ. The PJ said much the same. Neither of them mentioned abduction.
Where is the update on (retired) DCI Andy Redwood's statement that Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by strangers?
Where is the update on (retired) DCI Andy Redwood's statement that Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by strangers?
allegedly...........no proof she was though is there ....crime unknown as they say
You need to brush up on your knowledge of due process (both in Portugal and England).
The identity of Madeleine's abductor is not in the public domain (possibly, or possibly not, known to the second joint enquiry).
The identity of Madeleine's abductor is not in the public domain (possibly, or possibly not, known to the second joint enquiry).
so there is no evidence of a cadaver being in 5a...good to get that clear....hopefully posters will accept thisAgreed Davel, and anyone here can do the simple maths - start with the time last seen of about 21:05 then add the CSST 85mins minimum that makes 22:30 earliest which truly would be going back to square one wouldn't it?
Of course if 21.05 is not correct, then its a whole different ballgame.
Of course if 21.05 is not correct, then its a whole different ballgame.On the contrary, if 21:05 is correct, then it's a whole different ballgame.
1. Sensor position immediately before bark
2. Same shelf early hours 4th May
yep ...right again .....who's for tennis @)(++(*
I don't think it works like that for crime scene photographs. No one should have to enlarge areas; that is the job of the photographer who should take shots of objects from different angles and different distances; a descriptive list of what has been photographed should also be attached.On 4th May quality photos were taken of the north bedroom (because that is where the child was and the open window and shutter were) and of the route from there to balcony door. It was assumed it was wandering or abduction.
These aren't fuzzy holiday snaps and to be able to be presented as evidence a good camera with the best lens possible should have been used as I am sure was done ... as well as some indication of scale.
I strongly suspect there are more crime scene photographs which for one reason or another we have not seen.
The evidence that the photographer knew what was required is in the various shots of the children's bedroom ... and if proper procedure was carried out in this instance why wouldn't it have been done for the other images in the shoot?
(snip)
Agreed Davel, and anyone here can do the simple maths - start with the time last seen of about 21:05 then add the CSST 85mins minimum that makes 22:30 earliest which truly would be going back to square one wouldn't it?
Youre assumng she was seen alive there...included in the telling of the story is that that is the only check of all the dozens made all week that GM actually looked in to the bedroom because the door was a bit more open...the last check before abduction was the only visual check..bad coincidence? And befor some smartarse wonders, no I dont mean he killed her!!Just to make it clear Merc, Mr Amaral's theory states that the child was alive and well at the 21:05 check. His film shows the actress representing the child walk out of the north bedroom into another room just after the 21:05 check. So it doesn't really matter whether the 21:05 check was visual, or just non-visual popping into the lounge and bathroom.
Just to make it clear Merc, Mr Amaral's theory states that the child was alive and well at the 21:05 check. His film shows the actress representing the child walk out of the north bedroom into another room just after the 21:05 check. So it doesn't really matter whether the 21:05 check was visual, or just non-visual popping into the lounge and bathroom.
Also wearing them on flight back to UK on Sept 9th 2007.
This witness is innocent and has no knowledge of what happened.
Iyo is gerry the same?I've already told you Merc that IMO the child was alive and well during the 21:05 check. Also JW emphasises that the behaviour a few minutes later was entirely relaxed and normal.
I've already told you Merc that IMO the child was alive and well during the 21:05 check. Also JW emphasises that the behaviour a few minutes later was entirely relaxed and normal.
Changing subject to the PJ Final Report (and truly going back to square one) there is a rather illogical assumption in the Preamble, second paragraph.
- I was asking if in your opnion GM was, like you say, Kate, honest and has no idea what happenedTruly going back to square one Merc, IMO the big error made by every investigation for 8.75 years is the ninth bold word of second paragraph of Preámbulo
- No one knows if the chld was alive and well at 2105
- you mean David Payne?
According to the Time and Place, the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE) at the resort named 'Ocean Club', located in Vila da Luz, Lagos, place, where the minor’s family, along with seven other persons, with whom they had a friendship relationship, where enjoying some holidays, with the duration of one week.
Eta
Appearing relaxed and normal is proof of not very much
9th plus bold= 2200IMO none of the T7 were anything to do with this Merc.
Otherwise just SAY please
Forums deserted, bye for now
Ps you didnt answer all my post, why not?
Truly going back to square one Merc, IMO the big error made by every investigation for 8.75 years is the ninth bold word of second paragraph of Preámbulo
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4526.jpg
For starters, time last seen plus minimum time Misty.
You are using the dog alerts as the basis for your timing. That is a crucial mistake.Even if one completely ignores the dogs and the alerts, it's unsafe to base over 8 years of investigation on such an arbitrary assumption.
Even if one completely ignores the dogs and the alerts, it's unsafe to base over 8 years of investigation on such an arbitrary assumption.
The arbitrary assumption was based on the collective evidence of those present at the scene after KM returned to the apartment with the rest of the group plus those who entered afterwards. A living Madeleine would have been quickly located; a hidden corpse perhaps not so readily so but very difficult to remove from the premises after the police became involved.I read about another case where a whole investigation was based on a residence departure window of noon to 6pm absolute latest. And there was a ten times more thorough indoor search too.
IMO you have to work from 7.30, when the children were put to bed, until 10pm or shortly after.
I read about another case where a whole investigation was based on a residence departure window of noon to 6pm absolute latest. And there was a ten times more thorough indoor search too.
That particular assumption was based on the word of the eventual perpetrator, was it not, but also substantiated by the report from a neighbour that the (already deceased) victim had walked past his window that same day.That whole London investigation was based on a rigidly assumed absolute latest possible departure by any means from residence time of about 6pm, because that is when police presumably searched the residence thoroughly and determined the missing person was not there, nothing to do with any witness statements.
So I think Mercury is right - it is a question of whether you believe the GM sighting at 9.05 to be true or not.
That whole London investigation was based on a rigidly assumed absolute latest possible departure by any means from residence time of about 6pm, because that is when police presumably searched the residence thoroughly and determined the missing person was not there, nothing to do with any witness statements.
"The early searches were just a look around, they were not deep searches" said DCI Nick Scola at the Old Bailey - and they were in possession of the neighbour's report (who was subsequently jailed for 5 months).In the UK case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person had walked out of the property was so strong that the property was only superficially searched.
In the UK case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person had walked out of the property was so strong that the property was only superficially searched.
In the earlier PDL case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person must have wandered out or been abducted out of the property was so strong that that the property was only superficially searched.
All eye witnesses agree and believe it was Madeleine being carried away towards the beach. Do you start there or think she was hiding in a tiny apartment where the smell would be noticed. There's no cellar or attic with an apartment above.
One approach might be to start there, and try to identify the abductor who was carrying Madeleine (at the same time as Kate alerted in the Tapas restaurant that she had discovered Madeleine missing, with Gerry, also, in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert).
A fairly realistic starting-point, I would say ....
One approach might be to start there, and try to identify the abductor who was carrying Madeleine (at the same time as Kate alerted in the Tapas restaurant that she had discovered Madeleine missing, with Gerry, also, in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert).
A fairly realistic starting-point, I would say ....
The police might have stood the slightest chance of locating him had they been informed about his existence before a fortnight had passed and attitudes formed.
Efits were produced in 2008 by McCann investigators and released in 2013 by SY. We got posh spice instead. Go figure.
In the UK case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person had walked out of the property was so strong that the property was only superficially searched.
In the earlier PDL case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person must have wandered out or been abducted out of the property was so strong that that the property was only superficially searched.
The first enquiry was shelved in August 2008.
When the efits were produced isn't clear, but definitely after the end of January 2008.
Perhaps just as the shelved enquiry was winding down.
In all events, it was clear that an efit of (potentially) Madeleine's abductor could only, ever, be released against the backdrop of a live and on-going enquiry, and the Met chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release them. Clearly they had been in the possession of the Met for some considerable period before they (the Met) released them.
That's how the British police conduct criminal enquiries.
They long have ....
Only to you, ferryman, unless others agree and are keeping it quiet. Parents desperate to locate their missing child would have put the information out there regardless imo.
Only to you, ferryman, unless others agree and are keeping it quiet. Parents desperate to locate their missing child would have put the information out there regardless imo.
No.
You can only accuse someone of (potentially) being Madeleine's abductor in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.
Otherwise, there is tacit acknowledgement that the person sighted had nothing to do with events of Madeleine's disappearance (as manifest by the absence of a police enquiry to investigate the sighting).
Is that your 'common sense' again or do you have something from elsewhere to back it up?
Posh spice efit was released in 2009 by McCann investigators. Smithman was still in hiding and getting away with it.
"Investigators searching for Madeleine McCann today issued an image of an Australian woman they want to interview in connection with the girl's disappearance.
The suspect — described as a "Victoria Beckham-lookalike" — was spotted in Barcelona just over 72 hours after Madeleine vanished in the Algarve.
The investigators working for Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, believe she was abducted from the family's apartment and possibly smuggled on to a yacht and taken to Spain."
Thursday 6 August 2009
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mitchelledgar060809.jpg)
1. Private investigators are not the British police
2. Spain is not Portugal; still less Praia da Luz.
3. The sighting was not at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted.
4. British police use efits (particularly of people, potentially, seen red-handed in the commission of a crime) to assist live and on-going criminal enquiries.
Does that help?
(snip) ... No cellar, no attic, no outhouses, a sparsely furnished holiday let containing a few kilos of personal possessions required for a week away....(snip)The apartment was fully furnished.
All eye witnesses agree and believe it was Madeleine being carried away towards the beach (snip)But the girl seen by witness AS was wearing a long-sleeved top Pathfinder so it can't have been the missing girl.
But the girl seen by witness AS was wearing a long-sleeved top Pathfinder so it can't have been the missing girl.
No witness has ever stated they saw any person being removed from the apartment.
The efits should have been released in 2008 to track that man down. This was a matter of great urgency not wait for SY to come years later and release them @)(++(*
Indeed, what is the point of employing detectives to gather evidence and then ignoring it?
How long (after the end of January 2008) were the efits produced?
Obviously a period between January and August, maybe after August, in which case it would have been too late for that enquiry.
Also, we don't when the McCanns took custody of the efits.
One thing is clear.
There was no delay in handing the efits to Scotland Yard after Scotland Yard became involved in joint participation (with the PJ) in the second enquiry.
So what exactly was it that made them thnk it was a brilliant idea to sit on them for a year? Before telling the police like and thnking it was a great idea to publicise moustache man and posh spice more so
The McCanns got the e-fits in mid-November 2008
Thank you.
That's the key fact.
The first investigation was shelved in early August 2008,
There was no excuse for releasing the efit publicly before commencement of the second joint enquiry.
And Scotland Yard (obviously in possession of the efits by then) chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release it.
No wonder the McCanns sued the hide off The Times (so-called) Insight team (Heidi and Blake) ....
No one sat on anything.
Polite reminder ... the subject of the thread is ... 'Why didn't the dogs alert to any of Gerry's clothing?'
The apartment was fully furnished.
And the luggage taken into apartment on arrival must have been at least 2x15kg and 2x5kg which would make 40 kg.
The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
Thank you Brietta.
The dogs didn't alert to any of Gerry's clothes because there was no scent (within either dogs' scent-range) for them to detect.
Let's hope fervently that the second joint enquiry bears fruit in bringing to book Madeleine's abductor (and, perhaps, identifying perpetrators of other crimes against children, too) ....
Yet they alerted to Kate's.
No.
One dog barked and picked stuff of Kate's up its mouth.
After ignoring the same clothing in the villa.
Completely different.
No.
One dog barked and picked stuff of Kate's up its mouth.
After ignoring the same clothing in the villa.
Completely different.
You are not an expert in any way as regards the use of forensic dogs.
You weren't there when the dogs were deployed.
You are merely giving your biased opinions for a well known reason.
Anything to defend the mccanns, who left their precious daughter and her siblings in unnecessary danger.
That is also why you keep repeating 'abductor', for without one, what is left ? &%+((£
A recent quote from Admin:-
Quote
Could you please refrain from making personal comments towards anyone who has a different opinion.
Unquote
Polite reminder ... the subject of the thread is ... 'Why didn't the dogs alert to any of Gerry's clothing?'
What was he wearing at the tapas restaurant on 3 May 2007?That evening his clothing at the restaurant included trainers, and blue jeans
That evening his clothing at the restaurant included trainers, and blue jeans
Do you really imagine SY haven't checked this out Pathfinder?
They have about 20 witnesses they have presumably asked.
For example SY have presumably asked SC and CC he was chatting with, standing up, on arrival.
That's what Gerry McCann said he was wearing. Assuming it has been checked doesn't mean it actually has been checked pegasus.GUnit is your theory that someone would go out for meal wearing white trousers, be seen clearly by 8 fellow diners, by SC and CC whose table he stood at chatting on arrival, and by JW who he stood next to in the street chatting, and then think afterwards, oh I have a cunning plan I will claim I was wearing blue jeans?
GUnit is your theory that someone would go out for meal wearing white trousers, be seen clearly by 8 fellow diners, by SC and CC whose table he stood at chatting on arrival, and by JW who he stood next to in the street chatting, and then think afterwards, oh I have a cunning plan I will claim I was wearing blue jeans?
That evening his clothing at the restaurant included trainers, and blue jeans
Do you really imagine SY haven't checked this out Pathfinder?
They have about 20 witnesses they have presumably asked.
For example SY have presumably asked SC and CC he was chatting with, standing up, on arrival.
I bet others have been asked and it should be interesting. The light brown polar top wasn't seen by SB "Gerry was wearing a dark shirt." ...(snip)Have you considered the mundane everyday explanation that maybe he took off the fleece and had a dark shirt underneath?
Have you considered the mundane everyday explanation that maybe he took off the fleece and had a dark shirt underneath?
I bet others have been asked and it should be interesting. The light brown polar top wasn't seen by SB "Gerry was wearing a dark shirt."
(http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PA-4628047.jpg)
Far too simple, Pegasus. We need conspiracy theories.
Have you considered the mundane everyday explanation that maybe he took off the fleece and had a dark shirt underneath?
Would that be a conspiracy theory similar to the one where the PJ were all bent and fixated with fitting up the McCanns to the exclusion of all else in the universe?
If I trip over a cracked flag because I wasn't watching what I was doing it is because I am a
clumsy old git.
If a prince trips over the same cracked flag the flag was deliberately cracked by parties unknown and 'twas an assassination attempt.[variation on old tale]
Would that be a conspiracy theory similar to the one where the PJ were all bent and fixated with fitting up the McCanns to the exclusion of all else in the universe?
If I trip over a cracked flag because I wasn't watching what I was doing it is because I am a
clumsy old git.
If a prince trips over the same cracked flag the flag was deliberately cracked by parties unknown and 'twas an assassination attempt.[variation on old tale]
Of course, by the "deal" (not, strictly, a "plea-bargain") put to Kate and Gerry, if Kate admitted to finding and concealing "a body" (that of Madeleine's), she would get a few years and Gerry would be let off scot free.
Another (possible) reason why there was no reaction to any of Gerry's clothing ....
Far from all of them.
But Amaral and convicted torturer-by-bastinado Almedes, certainly ....
I thought there was some doubt about the truth of that?
No doubt whatever.
The culmination of a murder enquiry was that the McCanns were made arguidos (but never charged).
Why would there be any doubt?
I was referring to the alleged deal. What murder inquiry? Accidental death was the theory I heard.
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. I also make comment on the recent claims made by a Mr Krugel as to the whereabouts of the missing child.
Some people may have been misled by Amaral's comment to a Spanish paper that (sic) we talked about death by others, not murder.
That was presumably Amaral's attempt to save himself from libel.
It failed.
It was also either a lie or incompetent.
Your attacks on Amaral will not deflect from the truth of who failed Madeleine, and it wasn't Amaral, it was her parents.
As to her ultimate fate, that we will probably never know, and you crying abduction, day after day, won't change that.
Amaral failed Madeleine by pursuing the wrong leads in attempt to solve the crime of what happened to her.
The McCanns reproach themselves for not being there at the moment when she needed them most.
Others do, too, (in my opinion) a little too harshly (although I have softened my stance on those who promote the 'neglect' aspect of those events).
Some people may have been misled by Amaral's comment to a Spanish paper that (sic) we talked about death by others, not murder.A portuguese to spanish mistranslation by El Mundo Ferryman.
That was presumably Amaral's attempt to save himself from libel.
It failed.
It was also either a lie or incompetent.
Far too simple, Pegasus. We need conspiracy theories.Yes it's like when I suggested the reason the bedroom door was open was because the child had opened it to walk through the doorway, you will see the everyday simplicity of that Jean-Pierre, but it met with fierce resistance from some.
Yes it's like when I suggested the reason the bedroom door was open was because the child had opened it to walk through the doorway, you will see the everyday simplicity of that Jean-Pierre, but it met with fierce resistance from some.
Perhaps that's because it was inconsistent with what happened next.On to 11pm at least, Misty that is an interesting calculation.
If the child opened the bedroom door the first time it was discovered in the open position, why hadn't she closed it when she returned to her bed? Why did she get out again & open the door even wider? Your analysis only accounts for one door move upon hearing the shutters being tampered with. It also means the child was very much alive up until around 9.30, moving the cadaver time period on to 11pm at the earliest & further confusing the clothing contamination alert.
Yes it's like when I suggested the reason the bedroom door was open was because the child had opened it to walk through the doorway, you will see the everyday simplicity of that Jean-Pierre, but it met with fierce resistance from some.
To discuss the thread topic requires showing that Eddie was consistent re clothing so I ask what letter is in top right of this zoom?
You'll have to show/tell us what you can see because it's just a blur of colours when I enhance & enlarge it.An O and an N Misty, yellow
An O and an N Misty, yellow
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7097.0;attach=6287;image
Ah, on the side of a book?, yellow lettering on possibly dark green?Colours of small areas are unreliably reproduced by image compression IMO.
How does that relate to the clothing alert?
Colours of small areas are unreliably reproduced by image compression IMO.
I don't think it's a book but if it is a book its title either starts with "NO" or ends with "ON"
"Great Expectation" (the budget edition of the classic)?
I've sort of answered on the other thread. The pile of paperwork looks official, so brought in by Harrison or Grime & possibly inadvertently contaminated at a previous crime scene or during training.So not a passion tshirt then?
Colours of small areas are unreliably reproduced by image compression IMO.
I don't think it's a book but if it is a book its title either starts with "NO" or ends with "ON"
"Great Expectation" (the budget edition of the classic)?
What about "Crime Scene Investigation" or is that just too darned obvious?Or maybe a detective's or dog handler's autobiography "Crime Scene Investigation Is My Passion"?
Or maybe a detective's or dog handler's autobiography "Crime Scene Investigation Is My Passion"?
@ PegasusDo you see a big N in top right corner Sadie and a big O to its left?
Is this the image that you posted onpage 1post #342, or has it been changed somehow? [soz about the error]
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7097.0;attach=6287;image)
@PegasusThe red item is a tshirt see 3 round windows IMO.
There is possibly the letter A in white next to the O.
Apart from that, I'm stumped as to what th green/yellow object is & whether or not it is connected in some way to the red casing.
The red item is a tshirt see 3 round windows IMO.
The item with "..ON" lettering is another tshirt with image compression effects making the grey appear green IMO.
Pillows and pillow cases are on dining table.
All these went into "sala comum" box.
At least we can agree that those are pillows and pillowcases on the dining table Misty?
No I hadn't seen taking stuff out of washing machine, thankyou I will look.
For a split second can see through glass door items being put in box on balcony.
Yes, I think we can agree on the pillows & pillow cases,Haven't tried magnify glass.
It's better to look at the wilyboo dogs video you linked to a while ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8 as the images are a little clearer.
Have you tried using a magnifying glass rather than enlarging the worktop images by editing?
Haven't tried magnify glass.
Do you agree pillows and pillow cases on dining table are same as in PJ photos 23 24 25 Misty?
Do you see a big N in top right corner Sadie and a big O to its left?Thanks Pegasus
And lower down some windows?
@Pegasus
There is possibly the letter A in white next to the O.
Apart from that, I'm stumped as to what th green/yellow object is & whether or not it is connected in some way to the red casing.
IF some of the items are clothes, its possible the yellow/green thing is the dress KM was wearing on Panorama. In the dog video there is also a blue/green and yellow tshirt on one of the beds in the villa.But he is trained not to pick up anythings that he alerts to, I understand?
?
Regarding seeing a N and O I cant see it, where is it? Its like doing a rosach (sp?) test here, you can see what you want.
Lets not forget the dog picked up Gerrys white t-shirt...which can be seen worn by KM in a photo of her on her mobile very early days
Eta
i have to say its not entirely clear which items (apart from the red tshirt which was very clear) eddie was barking at contnuously as he was walking past several items as he was barking but he defintely pcked up three items, that whte t shrt, the red top and the grey trousers
(snip)Sadie - because this is clothing it is not flat like a book would be - that's why the base line is not straight.
I can see somethings that could possibly be an N and an O, but if they are, why is the previos letter on a different base line? Formal lettering normally sits on the same base line. (snip)
(snip) Regarding seeing a N and O I cant see it (snip)Here Merc
(snip) white t-shirt (snip)White? Do you mean light blue Merc?
(snip) windows? (snip)here
here
hereCheers Pegasus.
Cheers Pegasus.
Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying, but I still cannot see any windows. The white patches in a pile of folders [with just maybe some clothes]? But I am not convinced about clothes and I simply cannot understand windows being in a pile of somethin small like that. That is unless they are the plastic slot pockets on the spine of a folder. The ones that one uses to slip in the title labels to the folder? But why aren't they aligned?
Nah, I doubt that is right, unless the folder is a long thin one, maybe suitable for keeping long lists in ?
.... or looking at it in another way a wide, but not tall folder <<< Nah, I cant see the purpose for such a folder as this last suggestion
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8 [/youtube] @ 4.33 [What have i done wrong? Why doesn't the youtube display?]
Alternatively, could the thing, with the ?windows? in, be wrapped in polythene ... and we are getting a reflection of the windows in the room?
Dunno.
Good point Misty, needs experiment.
Please explain the folding method...snip
(snip) officer taking stuff out of the washing machine(snip)what time in video please?
(snip) officer taking stuff out of the washing machine(snip)/quote]what time in video please?
10.21.
Not so sure it is a washing machine looking at it again. What do you think?
10.21. Not so sure it is a washing machine looking at it again. What do you think?@10:21 is an officer outside on the patio taping a box Misty.
@10:21 is an officer outside on the patio taping a box Misty.
My mistake then. Initially I thought it was a washing machine in a utility area.That full length glass door or window opens funny seems to tilt at an angle.
That full length glass door or window opens funny seems to tilt at an angle.No idea if it is relevant. Our patio doors and all windows have a position where they 'lean in' - open at the top, closed at the bottom. You can let air in whilst remaining 100% secure. If your ref looks like this might fit, give me a video time and I'll check it out.
BTW Panorama has footage inside villa IMO evening 1st and daytime 2nd.
No idea if it is relevant. Our patio doors and all windows have a position where they 'lean in' - open at the top, closed at the bottom. You can let air in whilst remaining 100% secure. If your ref looks like this might fit, give me a video time and I'll check it out.
No idea if it is relevant. Our patio doors and all windows have a position where they 'lean in' - open at the top, closed at the bottom. You can let air in whilst remaining 100% secure. If your ref looks like this might fit, give me a video time and I'll check it out.Patio door leaning in Shining at 10 minutes http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=10m
Patio door leaning in Shining at 10 minutes http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=10mThis looks like a system very similar to ours.
Crimewatch Nov 2007 Filming in villa Aug,2007 red & green items in boxDo you have link and time Misty?
Do you have link and time Misty?
@PegasusThose items on white furniture in your daytime 2nd Aug footage by JC are still on white furniture in Eddie footage evening 2nd Aug Misty
Crimewatch Nov 2007 Filming in villa Aug,2007 red & green items in box
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoj-pfBUnY 3.38
But he is trained not to pick up anythings that he alerts to, I understand?
So it seems that the picking up does not indicate an alert. What do you think mercury?
Here Merc
It's clearly a pile of clothes apart from a couple of typed A4 sheets on top Merc.
One alert is to that pile of clothes.
Other alert is to seat of dining chair, or something on it.
BTW in that part of the villa there were two tshirts with design including "ON" letters, one grey, one blue.
Ok, you can see things I cant, so will leave it there, apart from to say I didnt realise eddie made two alerts in that room....why is that not in the dog reports thenHere is the second alert Merc - it is an alert to the seat of the dining chair, or to something on the seat of the dining chair.
Here is the second alert Merc - it is an alert to the seat of the dining chair, or to something on the seat of the dining chair.
http://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=4m13s
@Merc watch the second villa alert is at 4 Mins 13 Secs dining chairSorry, just watched the video link where it started
Sorry, just watched the video link where it started
ok
He first alerts to the sideboard at 4.07 then does a round of the dining table and barks again...
In the files it is all recorded as alert to Cuddlecat toy and not different areas of dining room
This is getting too complicated for me.
(snip) He first alerts to the sideboard at 4.07 then does a round of the dining table and barks again...(snip)... alerting to the seat of the dining chair or to something on the seat of the dining chair
... alerting to the seat of the dining chair or to something on the seat of the dining chair
I don't know Misty. Is it possible there is something on the dining chair? Maybe a pile of clothes?
Any particular reason you think he didn't alert to the chair first, ie, before the handler walked him around?
I don't know Misty. Is it possible there is something on the dining chair? Maybe a pile of clothes?
I don't know Misty. Is it possible there is something on the dining chair? Maybe a pile of clothes?
Must have been a very small pile of clothes as you can see the gap between the chair back & the seating pad.I hadn't seen the seating pad Misty. Are you sure it's a pad not clothes?
I hadn't seen the seating pad Misty. Are you sure it's a pad not clothes?
There was nothing on that chair earlier that day because it was being sat on. Also pillows weren't on table, instead breakfast cereals and laptop.
You can't see the seating pad but you can see the gap. How low was the chair or how small was any pile of clothes that it didn't obscure the gap?Yes so maybe nothing on chair. But why then does Eddie appear to be alerting to it? Is this the first time he walks behind the chair?
Eddie is alerting to scent so it doesn't have to be that chair, table, sideboard but it was something that was also present at the crime scene on 3 May 2007 that was hidden by MG i.e. CC.At what exact time in the video does the dog alert to the cat Pathfinder?
Eddie is alerting to scent so it doesn't have to be that chair, table, sideboard but it was something that was also present at the crime scene on 3 May 2007 that was hidden by MG i.e. CC.
At what exact time in the video does the dog alert to the cat Pathfinder?
Eddie is alerting to scent so it doesn't have to be that chair, table, sideboard but it was something that was also present at the crime scene on 3 May 2007 that was hidden by MG i.e. CC.This one does not fly for me.
This one does not fly for me.
It is known where CC was on 3 May (strictly the early hours of 4 May) when the first PJ team took photos. It was on M's bed in the children's room. Why did Eddie not alert in the bedroom?
I do not know if CC went to the Payne's at 5H. So the fact that Eddie did not alert in 5H tells me nothing about CC.
Unless there was some pretty weird shenanigans, CC went to 4G for 2 months. Eddie did not alert in 4G.
From this pattern, I would only accept that CC was not contaminated during this period.
Therefore in 27 RdF, I am faced with options in understanding Eddie.
1. Contamination, whether direct or by transfer, occurred after the move into 27 RdF. Since 4G was clean, the only interpretation I can put on it is M's body was moved by the McCanns after the transfer to 27 RdF. Folks, don't flame me on this. I am not stating this happened, merely that this is a requirement of a 'valid' alert.
2. The alert to CC in 27 RdF is false in some way. Note I am not discussing all of the alerts re items from 27 RdF, just CC. From the action of Mr Grime, it seems he was concerned this option might be taken as correct. Therefore, after Eddie's first alert to CC, when he appeared to start playing with the toy, Mr Grime moved it into a cupboard for a second check. Mr Grime asserts that Eddie does not alert in situations where there is no 'cadaver' scent present. If that is 100% accurate, I cannot see that a second check is needed. If it is not accurate, and a second check IS needed, I cannot see that Mr Grime's cupboard check tells me anything. I don't know what Eddie was alerting to. Was it 'cadaver' scent? Or was it just that Eddie could smell where his toy was hidden and was, essentially, repeating his first mistake?
Considering the probability of the options, I don't think Eddie tells me much about CC re 27RdF.
While the lack of alerts in the children's bedroom and in 4G, if any weight can be given to them, imply a body retrieval/body disposal scenario while in 27 RdF, a tough challenge.
This one does not fly for me.
It is known where CC was on 3 May (strictly the early hours of 4 May) when the first PJ team took photos. It was on M's bed in the children's room. Why did Eddie not alert in the bedroom?
I do not know if CC went to the Payne's at 5H. So the fact that Eddie did not alert in 5H tells me nothing about CC.
Unless there was some pretty weird shenanigans, CC went to 4G for 2 months. Eddie did not alert in 4G.
From this pattern, I would only accept that CC was not contaminated during this period.
Therefore in 27 RdF, I am faced with options in understanding Eddie.
1. Contamination, whether direct or by transfer, occurred after the move into 27 RdF. Since 4G was clean, the only interpretation I can put on it is M's body was moved by the McCanns after the transfer to 27 RdF. Folks, don't flame me on this. I am not stating this happened, merely that this is a requirement of a 'valid' alert.
2. The alert to CC in 27 RdF is false in some way. Note I am not discussing all of the alerts re items from 27 RdF, just CC. From the action of Mr Grime, it seems he was concerned this option might be taken as correct. Therefore, after Eddie's first alert to CC, when he appeared to start playing with the toy, Mr Grime moved it into a cupboard for a second check. Mr Grime asserts that Eddie does not alert in situations where there is no 'cadaver' scent present. If that is 100% accurate, I cannot see that a second check is needed. If it is not accurate, and a second check IS needed, I cannot see that Mr Grime's cupboard check tells me anything. I don't know what Eddie was alerting to. Was it 'cadaver' scent? Or was it just that Eddie could smell where his toy was hidden and was, essentially, repeating his first mistake?
Considering the probability of the options, I don't think Eddie tells me much about CC re 27RdF.
While the lack of alerts in the children's bedroom and in 4G, if any weight can be given to them, imply a body retrieval/body disposal scenario while in 27 RdF, a tough challenge.
This one does not fly for me.
It is known where CC was on 3 May (strictly the early hours of 4 May) when the first PJ team took photos. It was on M's bed in the children's room. Why did Eddie not alert in the bedroom?
I do not know if CC went to the Payne's at 5H. So the fact that Eddie did not alert in 5H tells me nothing about CC.
Unless there was some pretty weird shenanigans, CC went to 4G for 2 months. Eddie did not alert in 4G.
From this pattern, I would only accept that CC was not contaminated during this period.
Therefore in 27 RdF, I am faced with options in understanding Eddie.
1. Contamination, whether direct or by transfer, occurred after the move into 27 RdF. Since 4G was clean, the only interpretation I can put on it is M's body was moved by the McCanns after the transfer to 27 RdF. Folks, don't flame me on this. I am not stating this happened, merely that this is a requirement of a 'valid' alert.
2. The alert to CC in 27 RdF is false in some way. Note I am not discussing all of the alerts re items from 27 RdF, just CC. From the action of Mr Grime, it seems he was concerned this option might be taken as correct. Therefore, after Eddie's first alert to CC, when he appeared to start playing with the toy, Mr Grime moved it into a cupboard for a second check. Mr Grime asserts that Eddie does not alert in situations where there is no 'cadaver' scent present. If that is 100% accurate, I cannot see that a second check is needed. If it is not accurate, and a second check IS needed, I cannot see that Mr Grime's cupboard check tells me anything. I don't know what Eddie was alerting to. Was it 'cadaver' scent? Or was it just that Eddie could smell where his toy was hidden and was, essentially, repeating his first mistake?
Considering the probability of the options, I don't think Eddie tells me much about CC re 27RdF.
While the lack of alerts in the children's bedroom and in 4G, if any weight can be given to them, imply a body retrieval/body disposal scenario while in 27 RdF, a tough challenge.
CC like clothes are screened separately. It was photographed on the bed at the crime scene. IMO CC was touched after handling the body which has happened in previous cases where Eddie has alerted e.g. a suspects diary. Most of these scent alerts can only be proved from confessions. These alerts are intelligence to help the police.Are you able to post a photo of Eddie alerting to the cat please Pathfinder?
Are you able to post a photo of Eddie alerting to the cat please Pathfinder?
The cat was hidden Pegasus. It was the only thing changed in that area. Eddie went back in and alerted in that area where the cat was hidden. Eddie can detect scent away from the actual source.
The cat was hidden Pegasus. It was the only thing changed in that area. Eddie went back in and alerted in that area where the cat was hidden. Eddie can detect scent away from the actual source.Please can you post a photo of Eddie alerting to a hidden cat Pathfinder?
Why didn't Eddie alert to CC later at the gymnasium?Very good question Misty. IMO the cat was never alerted to.
CC like clothes are screened separately. It was photographed on the bed at the crime scene. IMO CC was touched after handling the body which has happened in previous cases where Eddie has alerted e.g. a suspects diary. Most of these scent alerts can only be proved from confessions. These alerts are intelligence to help the police.
Why could Eddie detect a 'scent' to the toy (in a cupboard) he could find no trace of when it was in front of his nose and he could pick it up and play with it?
Why did Eddie play with it?
Why was Grime's request that the toy be forensically examined ignored?
That post shows you are completely unaware of how dogs behave and how they are trained.
Very good question Misty. IMO the cat was never alerted to.
Was the toy tested in the gym?
I didn't think it was?
Why could Eddie detect a 'scent' to the toy (in a cupboard) he could find no trace of when it was in front of his nose and he could pick it up and play with it?I am in 100% agreement with Ferryman about the toy.
Why did Eddie play with it?
Why was Grime's request that the toy be forensically examined ignored?
See post #414.
Why was it taken if it wasn't to be tested?
I am in 100% agreement with Ferryman about the toy.So you believe you know better than a seasoned dog trainer/handler Pegs?
The plain fact, obvious in the dog video, is: Eddie never alerted to it.
So you believe you know better than a seasoned dog trainer/handler Pegs?
From MG's report
CANINE SEARCH OF MR MCCANNS VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY
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.
From MG's Rogatory interview:
Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
The reward object in Eddie's training was not a soft toy.
It was a tennis ball.
The reward object in Eddie's training was not a soft toy.
It was a tennis ball.
So you believe you know better than a seasoned dog trainer/handler Pegs? (snip)In this instance, yes (unless there is something not shown in the villa video).
In this instance, yes (unless there is something not shown in the villa video).
First it's important to remember that Eddie did not alert in the north bedroom. So if you believe Eddie alerted to the toy, that would automatically be intelligence that KM misrepresented the scene at 10pm wouldn't it? And I am convinced she didn't. In the villa video it's obvious that Eddie does not alert to the toy. This is welcome confirmation of what I already worked out - the scene in the north bedroom at 10pm was truthfully described IMO Merc.
Thank you pegasus.Source for reward object: http://youtu.be/ijFQ_G9QNYo 03:03
In this instance, yes (unless there is something not shown in the villa video).
First it's important to remember that Eddie did not alert in the north bedroom. So if you believe Eddie alerted to the toy, that would automatically be intelligence that KM misrepresented the scene at 10pm wouldn't it? And I am convinced she didn't. In the villa video it's obvious IMO that Eddie does not alert to the toy (unless the toy is on that dining chair). This is welcome confirmation of what I already worked out - the scene in the north bedroom at 10pm was truthfully described IMO Merc.
Shrewd post.And as for the other other bit of EVRD intelligence which was wrongly interpreted by illogical detectives to implicate this witness, I'll state again the obvious:
Quite amazing admission I must say!IMO the second villa alert is when Eddie appears to alert to a dining chair. But we can't see what if anything is on the dining chair. Is it possible that the toy was on that dining chair at that point in the video? Reason I ask is some text in Mr Amaral's book.
You must know that the whole dog video is about a third of the full length one. You must also know that there can be many reasons why Madeleines bedroom (or north as you call it) was not alerted to but her toy was. There are also many permutations possible surrounding the "facts" given by witness statements
IMO the second villa alert is when Eddie appears to alert to a dining chair. But we can't see what if anything is on the dining chair. Is it possible that the toy was on that dining chair at that point in the video? Reason I ask is some text in Mr Amaral's book.Chapter 16 TTotL
IMO the second villa alert is when Eddie appears to alert to a dining chair. But we can't see what if anything is on the dining chair. Is it possible that the toy was on that dining chair at that point in the video? Reason I ask is some text in Mr Amaral's book.
1. You take a dog in to that area and there's no alert.
2. You put a new object in that area and the dog now alerts.
What's your conclusion?
We know (from the corrupted record of the inspection in the gym) that that is how dog-inspections are supposed to be conducted.
You take specific items (such as clothes) and inspect them in one place without reaction.
You take exactly the same items to another place and inspect them a second time (apparently) with results.
What's your conclusion?
Eddie picked the toy out of a bin (the precious CC thrown in a bin!) and marked it so that's why a second test was done.
There was no cadaver contamination on CC or Eddie would have immediately alerted to the toy at the rented villa & also later at the gymnasium.
But Eddie did alert. Was it to the cupboard ?
Was CC the only item in the vicinity?
A second test was done and CC was the only new item added to the area and Eddie alerted. Conclusion is that Eddie alerted to a cadaver scent contaminated CC. MG did the second test to confirm the marking of the toy by Eddie when he picked it up - reverting to puppy toy play mode. MG knows the behaviour of his dog much better than us.
So why didn't Eddie alert to CC at a separate screening in the gymnasium?
That would have been for Keela to check for blood.
Both dogs checked all items taken to the gymnasium, Keela first, then Eddie. I wonder why that section of the video was edited out and you have to read the report to understand that only clothing in the first box examined was alerted to?
Eddie didn't have to check the toy again in the gym. He already alerted to it in the villa. That would have been for Keela to check for blood.
August 2nd 2007
6.36pm - The dog Eddie, who detects cadaver odours, "marked" the area of a cupboard in the living room. On checking, the dog was indicating a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine McCann.
The Gym
11.20pm
1. You take a dog in to that area and there's no alert.
2. You put a new object in that area and the dog now alerts.
What's your conclusion?
- 1:49 the dog pulls toy down - pushes it to centre floor - and leaves it there
- 2:02 the dog passes the toy - ignores it
- 2:10 the dog passes the toy - ignores it -dog and handler return to bedroom
- 4:04 the dog stands on hind quarters to sniff items on top of cupboard
- 4:08 the dog barks
- 4:29 the dog barks in the direction of the cahir
- 4:40 the dog and handler exit and return to the bedroom
- 3:35 on return to the lounge the dog is stood down
- 5:45 the cupboard door is opened and cuddle cat is revealed within
**snip
Thus, the activity started at the indicated time, all rooms at the address [property] having been walked through, the following result being confirmed:
- 18h36 - the dog Eddy, that detects cadaver odour, 'marked' [alerted in] the area of a cupboard in the lounge, it being confirmed that the dog indicated a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine Beth McCann.
This document is drawn up to ratify the truth of the above and is duly signed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
That was the situation in 2007.
The Rebelo analysis in 2008 came to a slightly different conclusion as regards the certainty of cadaver odour on cuddle cat when it was concluded ...
**snip
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'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
- 1:49 the dog pulls toy down - pushes it to centre floor - and leaves it there
- 2:02 the dog passes the toy - ignores it
- 2:10 the dog passes the toy - ignores it -dog and handler return to bedroom
- 4:04 the dog stands on hind quarters to sniff items on top of cupboard
- 4:08 the dog barks
- 4:29 the dog barks in the direction of the cahir
- 4:40 the dog and handler exit and return to the bedroom
- 3:35 on return to the lounge the dog is stood down
- 5:45 the cupboard door is opened and cuddle cat is revealed within
**snip
Thus, the activity started at the indicated time, all rooms at the address [property] having been walked through, the following result being confirmed:
- 18h36 - the dog Eddy, that detects cadaver odour, 'marked' [alerted in] the area of a cupboard in the lounge, it being confirmed that the dog indicated a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine Beth McCann.
This document is drawn up to ratify the truth of the above and is duly signed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
That was the situation in 2007.
The Rebelo analysis in 2008 came to a slightly different conclusion as regards the certainty of cadaver odour on cuddle cat when it was concluded ...
**snip
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'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
http://youtu.be/_qG21K6XJRgIs this the first time Eddie walks between the dining chair and the wall behind it?
(snip) 4:29 the dog barks in the direction of the chair (snip)
Is this the first time Eddie walks between the dining chair and the wall behind it?
No. He walks past the chair twice (around 3m30 on DVD) & ignores it. Barks after jumping up twice to worktop.Thanks I will look at 3m30 Misty.
Grime then leads Eddie around table, stops & retraces his steps. Only then does Eddie bark at chair. So CC can't be on chair & in cupboard at the same time.
Thanks I will look at 3m30 Misty.
Sorry, it's more like 3min 50, but you can clearly see the sequence. (I was busy looking at the removal of the pink top from the bed which suddenly appeared in the wardrobe Grime was checking)
How observant are you, Misty!!!Yes Misty is correct, very observant, but what is the explanation?
I had not noticed that before.
0:44 three garments on bed ... one pink ... one striped ... one grey
0:56 wardrobe door open ... nothing pink in sight inside it
2:26 two garments on bed ... one striped ... one grey
3:24 the dog exits wardrobe ... a pink item which has fallen out is replaced into it
Yes Misty is correct, very observant, but what is the explanation?
Whether by prearrangement with the handler or not (I got the impression he was somewhat puzzled to find that pink garment in the cupboard) someone may have been moving garments around.
Why they should do so is a mystery. If the dog paid no attention to it when it was on the bed he wasn't going to take any notice of it in another place ... with the exception of the gymnasium.
I find the whole episode totally confusing as did the PJ officers in Rebelo's team.
At 3m23 can anyone else hear the sound of the front paws on the chair seat as Eddie put his front paws on the chair seat to lean up at 45 degrees and his head appears for a split second at tabletop height to sniff the tabletop foillowed immediately by barking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8
Eddie was searching for the strongest scent source at the crime scene not a toy on a bed. The bed was stripped of the covers 3 months before Eddie arrived.
(snip) I can't hear the paws (snip)IMO sound is there at 3m23 keratin against wood
IMO sound is there at 3m23 keratin against wood
I believe you, I just can't hear it. The audio on my laptop is not brilliant, or maybe it's just my hearing failing in old age.IMO the reason why he did not alert on his first passes near the dining chair, is that he did not check up on the tabletop. Only when he checks up on tabletop does he alert.
IMO the reason why he did not alert on his first passes near the dining chair, is that he did not check up on the tabletop. Only when he checks up on tabletop does he alert.
In my opinion the dog did not alert to the contents of the cupboard whatever convoluted route the scent may have taken.IMO the first alert is to something on top of sideboard, and the second alert is to something on top of dining table.
In your opinion, not necessarily to something on top of the cupboard either (whether or not neatly folded clothes or folders) but to something on the table top?
IMO the first alert is to something on top of sideboard, and the second alert is to something on top of dining table.
IMO the reason why he did not alert on his first passes near the dining chair, is that he did not check up on the tabletop. Only when he checks up on tabletop does he alert.
Eddie passes by the back of the table twice & didn't alert. Grime led him around (you can briefly see Grime standing with his back to the table at the very place where Eddie then jumped up to).These 3 alerts are higher level than floor.
Eddie only sniffed at the table in the one place before barking. Why only that one place? Why wasn't he directed to sniff the rest of the table?
Grime can next be seen tapping the bottom of the far cupboard door, where I believe he expected to find CC rather than in the adjoining cupboard.
It is impossible to know exactly what, if anything, Eddie was alerting to.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/10VOLUMEXaPage2563.jpg
On the first shelf up is the laundry pile the size you would expect?
It's smaller than mine would have been but I've no idea how much washing KM did that week or how many changes of clothes were taken, worn & dirtied.And what is in the large case on the shelf above?
And what is in the large case on the shelf above?
Something or nothing, don't know. Just not a self-concealed child à la Gareth Williams.Certainly there are cases of children hiding in a suitcase and falling asleep misty.
Certainly there are cases of children hiding in a suitcase and falling asleep misty.
However to get into that bag-case thing on the second shelf up a child would need to climb on a chair.
It would be much easier to hide under that pile of clothes on the first shelf up.
But that's all just hypothetical unless there was some kind of scary event to hide from
A child would not choose the wardrobe with all those shelves to conceal itself imo. The adjoining wardrobe would be the preferred choice. (snip)When a child hides in a wardrobe, if possible they hide under or behind something so that they are not visible if someone opens the wardrobe door.
(snip) What's that item visible on the top shelf - a tennis racquet head?IMO possibly 2 VHS videos Misty
Very intereting disussion about thngs stated as facts that only real grainy pictures show....lets not get ahead of ourselves hey??
If you crop, enhance, filter, enlarge slightly & use a magnifying glass grainy pictures become a lot clearer.
It's like watching the Eddie & Keela videos - at normal play speed you miss things but keep freeze-framing & you see important images which change perceptions. Thanks to Pegasus for making me focus on very fine detail.
If you crop, enhance, filter, enlarge slightly & use a magnifying glass grainy pictures become a lot clearer.Yes but minus the assumptions would be better
It's like watching the Eddie & Keela videos - at normal play speed you miss things but keep freeze-framing & you see important images which change perceptions. Thanks to Pegasus for making me focus on very fine detail.
Yes but minus the assumptions would be better
Which assumptions in particular are you referring to?
Too many to mentionT D I I T D Merc
Between the subject of which cm a cadavef dog alerted to to what a burglar might do or not do its mind numbing.....
Someone is forgetting the bigger pic,night
T D I I T D Merc
I dont speak alien and im sure most other forum members dont either so its about time you spat things out instead
Im not the only member who hasnt a clue what youre talking about half the time."not every reader understands yr "codes" ..youneed tobe a)clear b) open c) clearer still what your point is
I dont speak alien and im sure most other forum members dont either so its about time you spat things out instead
Im not the only member who hasnt a clue what youre talking about half the time."not every reader understands yr "codes" ..youneed tobe a)clear b) open c) clearer still what your point is
The Devil Is In The Detail.
It surely is...depends where you think the devil lies,The details will inevitably lead to that.
Pegasus is an excellent poster who certainly does get tired old brain cells to do a little work. When I don't understand I just wait for Misty to work it out for me. It just takes patience.Thats interesting...misty clarifyng, err
Thats interesting...misty clarifyng, err
I never said pegaus was not a good poster...i read what he writes (or she, as so many make a gender mistake)
Pegasus knows exactly how i view their posts, can we stop talking about posters and their value? And get back to facts?
On the DVD, did you spot any of GM's clothes in the living room that went into the box containing the clothes Eddie indicated to at the gymnasium?Items 13 15 16 18 19 at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CLOTHES.htm
Thats interesting...misty clarifyng, err
I never said pegaus was not a good poster...i read what he writes (or she, as so many make a gender mistake)
Pegasus knows exactly how i view their posts, can we stop talking about posters and their value? And get back to facts?
In villa video pile of clothes on wooden thing in hall could these be clothes taken out of washing machine?
That is the point. Pegasus deals only in meticulous sourcing of facts. IMO any speculation indulged in is fact based and usually interesting.
On the DVD, did you spot any of GM's clothes in the living room that went into the box containing the clothes Eddie indicated to at the gymnasium?
I never got that cross eyed misty...try and remember what we have is a video that records 1/3 of the whole exercise
The topic of this particular thread is GM's clothing & the absence of cadaver dog alerts to them. We are seeking an explanation as to why that should be, with Eddie seemingly only alerting to clothing belonging to KM & SM.
Please bear in mind that much of the video must relate to the searches of the Murat property, beach & street searches & the repeated laborious procedure of donning latex gloves. TDIITD.
Why do you need an explanation? When no ones know a single thing that happened that night...how or when vis a vis MM...nothing much at all
In villa video pile of clothes on wooden thing in hall could these be clothes taken out of washing machine?
Items 13 15 16 18 19 at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CLOTHES.htm
Where are they in villa video?
What right had Mark Harrison to issue anything to the Portuguese police, that wasn't his job?
Whilst the Portuguese certainly have experience in use of sniffer-dogs, they had none in dogs of the type deployed (on the English side) in the shelved investigation.A shelved investigation in which one piece of intelligence was an EVRD alert to a wardrobe shelf on which had been a pile of clothing that night
A shelved investigation in which one piece of intelligence was an EVRD alert to a wardrobe shelf on which had been a pile of clothing that night
But not necessarily to the wardrobe - let alone to a certain shelf - as scent could merely have 'pooled' in that particular area of the apartment and so not be directly connected to it - according to Martin Grime.
But not necessarily to the wardrobe - let alone to a certain shelf - as scent could merely have 'pooled' in that particular area of the apartment and so not be directly connected to it - according to Martin Grime.Eddie sniffed that corner of the room several times and did not alert.
Eddie sniffed that corner of the room several times and did not alert.
Therefore it was not scent pooled up in that corner of the room from some other place.
When he sniffs the first shelf above the floor, he alerts immediately.
Why didn't Eddie alert when he was beside the wardrobe after going in the bedroom a second time - 21m15 onwards on forum video?Because when Eddie heads back towards the first shelf of the left wardrobe the handler specifically calls him away and back to the beds.
Because when Eddie heads back towards the first shelf of the left wardrobe the handler specifically calls him away and back to the beds.
A shelved investigation in which one piece of intelligence was an EVRD alert to a wardrobe shelf on which had been a pile of clothing that night
I heard that instruction. Why would the handler have done that?Because he wants to double-check the room for other locations, not repeat an alert he has already noted.
Because he wants to double-check the room for other locations, not repeat an alert he has already noted.
Isn't it standard procedure to have a second cadaver dog validate an alert?There was only one cadaver dog in PDL on 1st August 2007 Misty.
There was only one cadaver dog in PDL on 1st August 2007 Misty.
Isn't it standard procedure to have a second cadaver dog validate an alert?
All the more reason to have the lone dog validate its original alert, don't you think?No, that is not necessary. Validation is needed only when investigators chose to dismiss the first cadaver dog's alert, as happened in South Addington. There it was necessary to bring in a second cadaver dog 2 or 3 days later, not because the first dog was wrong, but because the investigators were wrong to ignore the first dog.