Grime said the alerts were suggestive of cadaver contaminant...the sceptics seem to believe he has confirmed cadaver contaminant...he didnt ..they are wrong...simpleWell what caused the cadaver dog to alert then Davel?
Well what caused the cadaver dog to alert then Davel?
You should know the answer to this Rob, a sea bass sandwich or a used tampon, left lying around - as you do on holiday.
As, I said Rob.... Posters, will try and, avoid, the point in questionWhat is the evidence then?
Obviously the cadaver dogs will feature quite a bit in this thread; it is worth bearing in mind though that we have a myriad of posts throughout the forum concerning them.
In my opinion it would be great if we could take a broader view of what evidence there was available.
For example what information was available to the PJ to justify making Kate and Gerry arguidos on the 7th of September 2007 just a few days prior to the introduction of amendment to the Criminal Code which necessitated firm evidence to be in place before taking that step?
As, grime, has, said they are only suggestive and not confirmed you would, need to ask him...You should take note of your words the Davel. I appreciate your initiative in starting your own thread.
I don't want the argument side tracked... Grime says, suggestive.. Sceptics believe it's, a confirmation... That's, the point that needs, to be, answered.. Let's, answer this question rather than move to another one
You should take note of your words the Davel. I appreciate your initiative in starting your own thread.
Sorry Brietta I've, started this thread to explore, faithlillys, claim that although grime used, the word suggestive he actually confirmed, the, alerts
To me this is, a basic error in the sceptics logic and needs, to be, addressed
What I can show is that the whole sceptic movement is based on a misconceptionDo it then.
Do it then.
What I can show is that the whole sceptic movement is based on a misconception
FFS! Why don't we have farting duck emoji ?
"And the only reason I'm
Singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
Situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a
Situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
The shrink wherever you are, just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
Anything you want, at Alice's restaurant. ". And walk out. You know, if
One person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and
They won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
They may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
Singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
Organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said
Fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
Walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement".
So another one who cannot address, the point in question.. And neither, will anyone else
Dogs read window stickers!
Excellent point... The dogs dont but the handler does... And the dogs don't call themselves back... The handler doesSo if there was no odour Eddie still not going to alert to nothing.
So if there was no odour Eddie still not going to alert to nothing.
They are trained to detect cadaver scent. If they fail in their training then they won't be doing the job. Corroborating evidence is required to prove the positive alerts.
So another one who cannot address, the point in question.. And neither, will anyone else
Dogs read window stickers!
Clever Hans effect not to mention Zampo :)
Groundhog Day to the power of plenty.... @)(++(*
The tape has now done a complete loop.
Mercy
I take it you know of Clever Hans effect ... where the dog can 'read' what its master know and is unconsciously signalling?
Therefore dispensing with the necessity to be capable of reading the McCann stickers for itself.
Similarly, Zampo the cadaver dog alerted at supposed deposition sites ... only problem being that there had never been a mass murderer and there had never been murder victims to justify any alerts.
Well what caused the cadaver dog to alert then Davel?The cadavar dog Eddie also alerts to the dried blood from a living person. That could have caused it.
My views on this case were formed without input from dawgs.
I know dawgs have been used in tracking and sniffing capacities for nearly 300 years.
The dawg is a tool much like any other tool.
If I want to know about tools I look up in the appropriate manual not by visiting sites such as this...
The cadavar dog Eddie also alerts to the dried blood from a living person. That could have caused it.
Also the brought home from hospital clothes and belongings from a deceased resident who was Tasmin Silences Grandpa could have caused the alerts ... as could his ashes if his widow stored them at home.
ETA: And as Misty pointed out, Eddie was trained on dead piglets
You'll find some tools here which are quite good at hitting a nail on the head. ?>)()<
The cadavar dog Eddie also alerts to the dried blood from a living person. That could have caused it.
Also the brought home from hospital clothes and belongings from a deceased resident who was Tasmin Silences Grandpa could have caused the alerts ... as could his ashes if his widow stored them at home.
ETA: And as Misty pointed out, Eddie was trained on dead piglets
But as Davel demonstrates from Grimes reports, the alleged alerts need to be confirmed by corroborating evidence. There was no corraborating evidence, so the alerts are NOT confirmed
So to claim the alerts, were to cadaver odour is incorrect.
There is absolutely no forensic evidence linking the alerts in any way to the disappearance of Madeleine.
Logic dictates that when a cadaver dog alerts in an apartment where a child has disappeared those alerts and the disappearance are statistically more likely to be connected than not.Even DNA results are expressed in statistical terms, so why not dog alerts, except there will be no science backing up your conclusion.
Logic dictates that when a cadaver dog alerts in an apartment where a child has disappeared those alerts and the disappearance are statistically more likely to be connected than not.
In this case, statistics & logic are not backed up by forensic evidence & circumstances.
Do you have any evidence that the grandparents of Tamsin Silence were even living in 5a when her grandfather died ?
Further if Eddie had alerted in the bedroom to dried blood Keela would have alerted too.
Snip......Could have been to the scent of Tasmins Grandpas ashes, which a widow in a foreign country would probably find very comforting if by her bedside. She would feel his presence near her IMO
What forensics would verify death if Madeleine had met with an accident in or outside the apartment where she had lived for six days ? As to circumstances, until we know the truth of what happened that night we can make no judgement on whether a death was possible in or outside the apartment.
How can you therefore apply logic & statistics to unverified circumstances & absence of evidence relating to any accident or unlawful incident?
I said nothing about statistics. Logic dictates that if a cadaver dog alerts in a certain location and in that location a child has gone missing then the two are more probably than not linked. There may be no collectible forensics to prove that the death occurred but the alert is nonetheless indicative and will certainly be given its due weight by any investigating police force.
You referred to statistics in post #35.
How can you apply logic & statistics to any alert in a residence over a decade old contaminated by multiple unknown occupants?
The above was also true of Murat’s villa and the various other locations Eddie was taken to yet at none of those did he alert to the scent he was trained to find. Can you give a logical explanation for that ?
I said nothing about statistics. Logic dictates that if a cadaver dog alerts in a certain location and in that location a child has gone missing then the two are more probably than not linked. There may be no collectible forensics to prove that the death occurred but the alert is nonetheless indicative and will certainly be given its due weight by any investigating police force.
Using that criteria, how many deaths does logic dictate occurred in Haute de la Garrenne? Eddie's trained response was to bark ... how often did he 'alert' in the exclusive footage shown below?Exclusive footage of 'Eddie'- Cadaver Dog at Haut de la Garennehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MczCU66raBE
That video is excruciating. What on earth is Eddie barking at?
Please do not repost claims you can not substantiate.Show me the colaborating evidence Faith.
Show me the colaborating evidence Faith.I can only imagine an instruction "Please do not repost claims you can not substantiate" must mean that all options have to be on the table.
You cant, because there isn't any.
I can only imagine an instruction "Please do not repost claims you can not substantiate" must mean that all options have to be on the table.
"So to claim the alerts, were to cadaver odour is incorrect." would become "So to claim the alerts, were to cadaver odour is unproven so can't be claimed as correct or incorrect.
Logic dictates that when a cadaver dog alerts in an apartment where a child has disappeared those alerts and the disappearance are statistically more likely to be connected than not.
I said nothing about statistics. Logic dictates that if a cadaver dog alerts in a certain location and in that location a child has gone missing then the two are more probably than not linked. There may be no collectible forensics to prove that the death occurred but the alert is nonetheless indicative and will certainly be given its due weight by any investigating police force.
the point of this thread is to show taht the sceptics belief is based on a fallacy. faith has stated as a fact that the alerts were to cadaver odour based on grimes statement which is a logical fallacy.There are many types of logical fallacy, which type is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
There are many types of logical fallacy, which type is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
We have not seen Eddie in action at Casa Liliana, where "nothing of any significance" was reportedly found.
Neither Eddie nor Keela was granted access to the interior of any vehicle except the McCanns hire car.
Eddie was not granted a similar amount of time in other apartments as in 5A. Furniture was not moved around in the other apartments.
Was Eddie trained to find scent in the spectrum of a human cadaver under 5 hours old?
Firstly unless you are suggesting that Grime, Harrison and half the PJ failed to report an alert in Casa Liliana then your first point is irrelevant.
Secondly the dogs reacted to no other car.
Thirdly Eddie’s behaviour changed on entering 5a and continued during the search. I’m sure this was the reason more time was spent there. This doesn’t appear to have happened in any other of the apartments.
And finally the fact that Eddie was used suggests so.
Using that criteria, how many deaths does logic dictate occurred in Haute de la Garrenne? Eddie's trained response was to bark ... how often did he 'alert' in the exclusive footage shown below?Exclusive footage of 'Eddie'- Cadaver Dog at Haut de la Garennehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MczCU66raBE
Show me the colaborating evidence Faith.
You cant, because there isn't any.
You claimed Tamsin Silence’s grandad’s ashes/clothes caused Eddie to alert yet have posted no proof that her grandfather even died in Portugal never mind that his ashes/clothes were stored in 5a. So as per forum etiquette either provide a cite or withdraw your misleading posts.Sadie only said "could have been". "Could have been to the scent of Tasmin's Grandpas ashes ...."
Sadie only said "could have been". "Could have been to the scent of Tasmin's Grandpas ashes ...."
Could have been therefore no need for a cite.
Could have been is suggestive of,either they were in 5a or they were not.
Could have been therefore no need for a cite.
Sadie only said "could have been". "Could have been to the scent of Tasmin's Grandpas ashes ...."
When you have to have a number of independent assumptions for a theory to work it tends towards speculation, which is frowned on here.
so we need to stick to facts...no confirmation of cadaver odour according to the experts
Easy get out.It is the way it is done around here.
Dogs read window stickers!
Martin Grime knew the car was the one the McCann's were using, Martin Grimes knew 5a was the apartment that the McCann's stayed in. In my opinion Eddie spent a lot more time being called back to the McCann's car and apartment. With regards to the apartment, Eddie would have sniffed about the bedroom of 5a and left as he did the other apartments, but Martin Grimes called him back numerous times. In my opinion Eddie either barked just to please Martin Grimes or he barked because he could smell something that may be remotely connected to the smell he was supposed to alert to, something that was once in the bedroom and been taken away, such as stained clothing or something that had been walked in from the outside.True, it seemed to be inconsistent really, and I have made note of this previously.
Martin Grime knew the car was the one the McCann's were using, Martin Grimes knew 5a was the apartment that the McCann's stayed in. In my opinion Eddie spent a lot more time being called back to the McCann's car and apartment. With regards to the apartment, Eddie would have sniffed about the bedroom of 5a and left as he did the other apartments, but Martin Grimes called him back numerous times. In my opinion Eddie either barked just to please Martin Grimes or he barked because he could smell something that may be remotely connected to the smell he was supposed to alert to, something that was once in the bedroom and been taken away, such as stained clothing or something that had been walked in from the outside.
‘Suggestive of cadaver contaminant’.
Of course that was said, but Eddie alerts to blood of a living person, washing could have had blood on them and been removed and scent was still there.
Keela didn’t alert so not blood.
‘Suggestive of cadaver contaminant’.In the full context "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
you are missing the point. Is it confirmed that edddie detected cadaver scent in 5a...you claim it is and you are wrong
Keela alerted to blood that was present, Eddie would alert to blood that was there but had been removed.
From Grime’s profile
‘
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human
blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic
science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.
She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing
and examine crime scenes for minute human blood deposits. She will accurately
locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or
having been subjected to severa1 washing machine cycles.
In training she has accurately located minute samples of blood on property up to
thirty-six years old.’
In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any
'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.
I fear this is a particularly grey area but the actual truth as far as the inspection of 5a is concerned is that Eddie did alert to substances for which he was trained.
The difficulty arises when one attempts to put a label on those substances because we know, as Sadie already pointed out, that Eddie could alert to many substances including cadaver odour. That is why Mr Grime had to apply the caveat to the dog alerts to the effect that the alerts had no evidential reliability unless corroborated by other evidence.
Where does it say that Keela will alert to a scent that has been left in the location by something such as clothing that has been removed?
As most people know, salt and cold water removes blood from fabric, totally, in my experience. Would a Blood Scent Dog still be able to smell the blood afterwards?
Where does it say that Keela will alert to a scent that has been left in the location by something such as clothing that has been removed?
Firstly unless you are suggesting that Grime, Harrison and half the PJ failed to report an alert in Casa Liliana then your first point is irrelevant.
Secondly the dogs reacted to no other car.
Thirdly Eddie’s behaviour changed on entering 5a and continued during the search. I’m sure this was the reason more time was spent there. This doesn’t appear to have happened in any other of the apartments.
And finally the fact that Eddie was used suggests so.
Didn’t Eddie alert to dried blood ? If a blood dog hadn’t also screened the area isn’t it possible that Eddie was alerting to blood ? Fortunately Keela also searched 5a and didn’t alert in the bedroom so we can rule dried blood out in that instance.
From memory Eddie alerted toContamination ?
- tissues used to clean up and discarded after a sexual encounter
From a cadaver or deposited in same area as cadaver ?
- milk teeth
From a cadaver.
- very old bones
Contained collagen. Coconuts do not contain collagen.
- JAR/6 - which was a coconut shell
A burned cadaver.
- a spot where cremation ashes had been scattered
Therefore the cadaver dog alerted. Samples collected - forensic tests conducted and conclusions were as detailed above.
Therefore the dog did its job, found what he was trained to find, but he didn't find cadaver scent which did not have an explanation.
We know what Eddie alerted to in the Renault ... a key fob contaminated with cellular material from Gerry McCann.
So he did alert to the substance he was trained to ... but since Gerry McCann was and is very much alive ... it just was not 'cadaver scent'.
We know what Eddie alerted to in the Renault ... a key fob contaminated with cellular material from Gerry McCann.It is still cadaver scent even if the person the tissue comes from is still alive. Imagine if a person lost his arm in an accident, and makes his way to hospital. The people never recover his arm, but he survives.
So he did alert to the substance he was trained to ... but since Gerry McCann was and is very much alive ... it just was not 'cadaver scent'.
Eddie alerts to blood. There was blood on the key fob. In 5a Eddie alerted but Keela didn’t so it couldn’t have been to blood but cadaver scent.
It is still cadaver scent even if the person the tissue comes from is still alive. Imagine if a person lost his arm in an accident, and makes his way to hospital. The people never recover his arm, but he survives.
Years later dogs on a cadaver dog training exercise find a years old bones from a human victim.
Wouldn't the dog trainers immediately think the person had died?
Keela alerts to blood. Eddie alerts to blood and cadaver scent. If Eddie alerts and Keela doesn’t then that is suggestive that Eddie is alerting to cadaver scent. I really can’t make it any simpler.
Eddie alerts to blood. There was blood on the key fob. In 5a Eddie alerted but Keela didn’t so it couldn’t have been to blood but cadaver scent.
I wouldn't.Do you want to take a bet on that?
Bolloxs.
Bolloxs.
I have just been given a warning for using bleedin' and blx @)(++(*
you forgot IYO
Bolloxs.
It wasn't In My Opinion.
Eddie alerts to blood. There was blood on the key fob. In 5a Eddie alerted but Keela didn’t so it couldn’t have been to blood but cadaver scent.
You are missing the point I am trying to make.
Keela alerts to blood. Eddie alerts to blood.
Keela alerts to blood that is present, on an object even if it has been cleaned.
Eddie will alert to blood that is present, but as a cadaver dog will also alert to blood that has been on something such as clothing which was once in the area of alert but which has been removed.
Another problem is three families stayed in 5a after the McCann's.
I’m sorry Lace but Eddie does not alert to blood that has been removed.
Ah right, forgot you were a mod.
Isn't it goading - not a very nice example for a mod
I’m sorry Lace but Eddie does not alert to blood that has been removed.
You know this how?
I shall post this clip again -
Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.
Where does this clip come from Lace ?
http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
1998 ? I’m sure our knowledge of cadaver dogs has moved on since this paper was written.
1998 ? I’m sure our knowledge of cadaver dogs has moved on since this paper was written.
Mine has certainly progressed by leaps and bounds ... but back in the nineties it appears a lack of in-depth knowledge allowed a lot of anomalies to enter the evidence chain allowing some really weird occurrences not least among which was the get out of jail free card given to quite a few Swedish murderers.
One only has to consider Thomas Quick the serial killer who never was ... and Zampo the sniffer dog who checked out each murder site + no DNA evidence, no fingerprint evidence, no eye witness evidence or production of murder weapons.
There was even eye witness evidence that Quick had a cast iron alibi for some of his confessed murders.
Quick was convicted of over thirty murders without a shred of evidence to support a single one and in one case despite semen which was not a match for his DNA being found on the victim's body.
Snip
"Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found ... "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
So as you so rightly pointed out, our knowledge in 2018 is far more refined as once unknown words such as "putrescine and cadaverine" slip from our keyboards with an ease impossible for us in 2007.
But that was the sum of our knowledge way back then reliant on studies such as that of 1998 ... at least at present we are now aware that evidence does not consist of "dogs don't lie" ... and if we ever doubt that we need only think of Zampo.
I’m not interested in your or my knowledge but the professionals who do actually know what they are talking about and posting a research paper which is twenty years old as some kind of proof of a cadaver dog’s fallibility is ridiculous in the extreme.
As to Zampo he is described as a sniffer dog, and not a very well trained one at that. As far as we can tell he was neither an EVRD dog like Eddie nor a blood dog like Keela and was used by people who obviously didn’t know what they were doing.so any likeness to the McCann case ends right there, no matter how hard you try to push those ‘similarities’.
1998 ? I’m sure our knowledge of cadaver dogs has moved on since this paper was written.I read the paper and I would say what was found was sound and won't change with time.
You need to listen ti the, experts
Grime said that the alerts were suggestive... That's, all
Not confirmed... Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the, evidence
Ever wondered why there was no ‘suggestive’ alerts in any other apartment searched by Eddie ?You know you can say things like that, and that it is only Madeleine who is missing, and no one else is known to have died in the apartment 5A. OK it looks bad but there is no corroborating evidence found to confirm that the alerts had any positive connection to Madeleine McCann.
You know you can say things like that, and that it is only Madeleine who is missing, and no one else is known to have died in the apartment 5A. OK it looks bad but there is no corroborating evidence found to confirm that the alerts had any positive connection to Madeleine McCann.
It doesn't look badat all when you understand why it happened ...it makes, the, alerts look badSo are you saying you know why it happened?
We are told by Grime that Eddie’s behaviour changed profoundly when entering 5a. Obviously that didn’t happen when entering the other apartments.and Grime repeatedly said there would need to be corroborating evidence found to confirm the alerts.
You need to listen ti the, experts
Grime said that the alerts were suggestive... That's, all
Not confirmed... Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the, evidence
We are told by Grime that Eddie’s behaviour changed profoundly when entering 5a. Obviously that didn’t happen when entering the other apartments.
Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the, evidence
What actual evidence is there - that mccanns are innocent, none.
What actual evidence is there - that maddie was abducted, none.
the "evidence" of the dogs...seeing as taht is what we are talking about
Has it? How would you train a cadaver dog not to alert to something that he is trained to alert to such as blood? Grime himself says the cadaver scent remains, so could the scent of blood.
so why did it change...grime doesnt give us any reason...perhaps picking something up from grime. What we have now is grime reading doggie body language...
whatever you say grime wasnt sure enough to say in his opinion it was cadaver scent...so ..still...no confirmation...lots of innuendo but tahts it
Of course it has.
How can I put this as simply as possible Lace. Grime, who is the expert, says that Eddie alerts to cadaver scent and dried blood from a living person. Keela alerts to dried blood from a living person even if there has been attempts to wash that blood away. Both Eddie and Keela smell the blood. However, and this is the important part, Keela didn’t smell blood in the bedroom of apartment 5a so didn’t alert. Eddie alerted and we know it wasn't to the scent of blood because if it had been Keela would have alerted ergo it must have been to the other scent he was trained to alert to ie cadaver scent.
Of course it has.
How can I put this as simply as possible Lace. Grime, who is the expert, says that Eddie alerts to cadaver scent and dried blood from a living person. Keela alerts to dried blood from a living person even if there has been attempts to wash that blood away. Both Eddie and Keela smell the blood. However, and this is the important part, Keela didn’t smell blood in the bedroom of apartment 5a so didn’t alert. Eddie alerted and we know it wasn't to the scent of blood because if it had been Keela would have alerted ergo it must have been to the other scent he was trained to alert to ie cadaver scent.
Do you have evidence of Eddie being 'rushed' or is that just your (non-expert) opinion?
So are you saying you know why it happened?
Faith, if I agreed with you on this point, I'd say so. However, I don't.
Grime stated that Keela would only react to the PHYSICAL trace of blood. If blood wasn't physically present, she wouldn't react.
He never said that Eddie also required the physical presence of blood in order to alert, but he did say that he could react to lingering odours in the air.
That's why I find the much touted matrix of K + E = x or y, K - E = y, E - K = z to be simplistic.
If you want to be rude. How can I put this as simply as possible Faithlilly.
Keela didn't smell blood in the bedroom as there was no blood present for her to smell.
So therefore Eddie alerted to the other discipline he was trained in.
Carana how do you think Keela finds blood ?
Carana how do you think Keela finds blood ?
You've seen the video's.
Can you provide a cite that these various videos are the same as the official videos? Can you provide evidence of your expertise on the correct usage of police dogs?
This thread is about 'sceptics' misunderstanding evidence. In my opinion certain people can't even identify evidence, let alone assess it.
To be clear the alerts have no value as evidences
I’m not interested in your or my knowledge but the professionals who do actually know what they are talking about and posting a research paper which is twenty years old as some kind of proof of a cadaver dog’s fallibility is ridiculous in the extreme.
As to Zampo he is described as a sniffer dog, and not a very well trained one at that. As far as we can tell he was neither an EVRD dog like Eddie nor a blood dog like Keela and was used by people who obviously didn’t know what they were doing.so any likeness to the McCann case ends right there, no matter how hard you try to push those ‘similarities’.
Of course it has.
How can I put this as simply as possible Lace. Grime, who is the expert, says that Eddie alerts to cadaver scent and dried blood from a living person. Keela alerts to dried blood from a living person even if there has been attempts to wash that blood away. Both Eddie and Keela smell the blood. However, and this is the important part, Keela didn’t smell blood in the bedroom of apartment 5a so didn’t alert. Eddie alerted and we know it wasn't to the scent of blood because if it had been Keela would have alerted ergo it must have been to the other scent he was trained to alert to ie cadaver scent.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable with the title of this thread, as it seems to be of the tennis-match variety, so I doubt that I will often post on it.
If it had been a more generic "do case-followers simply misunderstand the evidence", I think I'd have found that to be more open to potential misunderstandings and to possibly bridge the gap in some aspects.
JMO.
I agree. But then what did you expect when you consider the instigator is the self appointed arbiter of evidence?
It's a nice place in which to hone one's "Goyalka* skills" when one feels the desire to do so..... ?{)(**
* that'll keep the "Googlers" busy for ten or twelve years! ?{)(**
If you want to be rude. How can I put this as simply as possible Faithlilly.
Keela didn't smell blood in the bedroom as there was no blood present for her to smell.
Exactly. So the alert from Eddie couldn’t have been from blood.
Why not?
Personally, I don't feel comfortable with the title of this thread, as it seems to be of the tennis-match variety, so I doubt that I will often post on it.
If it had been a more generic "do case-followers simply misunderstand the evidence", I think I'd have found that to be more open to potential misunderstandings and to possibly bridge the gap in some aspects.
JMO.
I agree. It's purpose seems to be to identify and insult a particular group of people while at the same time suggesting that the author and those who agree with him are superior. I think it's very close to breaking forum rules.
I'm not getting into an argument over this. Anyone could have started it and my view would be the same.Propose a better title and get Davel to agree to the change and we'll see if the editing can be done.
All I'm saying is that I'd have been more interested if there had been a more inclusive title over potential misunderstandings of evidence.
I agree. It's purpose seems to be to identify and insult a particular group of people while at the same time suggesting that the author and those who agree with him are superior. I think it's very close to breaking forum rules.
I'm not getting into an argument over this. Anyone could have started it and my view would be the same.
All I'm saying is that I'd have been more interested if there had been a more inclusive title over potential misunderstandings of evidence.
Its not meant to insult anyone its a genuine question which I think is important. On a leading sceptic site which you have praised, a letter has been posted which has been sent to the net flix film makers,
In it it states that the TWO cadaver dogs alerted to cadaver odour in 17 places and that this hs been confirmed by Grime...we also had faithlilly claming that grime has effectively confirmed taht the alerts are confirmed as cadaver odour....this is a very serious misrepresentation of the truth which needs to be addressed...It seems to me that sceptics in general believe the alerts are evidential and confirm the presence of a cadaver...this is patently wrong.
all sceptics have to do is point out where I am wrong...it shouldnt be that difficult if I am...so go ahead...so far no one has
You seem to believe that Eddie alerts to the residual sent from blood. Do you have a cite for that ?
There is no grey are whatsoever... The alerts, are not
Confirmed
Why not?
Its not meant to insult anyone its a genuine question which I think is important. On a leading sceptic site which you have praised, a letter has been posted which has been sent to the net flix film makers,
In it it states that the TWO cadaver dogs alerted to cadaver odour in 17 places and that this hs been confirmed by Grime...we also had faithlilly claming that grime has effectively confirmed taht the alerts are confirmed as cadaver odour....this is a very serious misrepresentation of the truth which needs to be addressed...It seems to me that sceptics in general believe the alerts are evidential and confirm the presence of a cadaver...this is patently wrong.
all sceptics have to do is point out where I am wrong...it shouldnt be that difficult if I am...so go ahead...so far no one has
Its not meant to insult anyone its a genuine question which I think is important. On a leading sceptic site which you have praised, a letter has been posted which has been sent to the net flix film makers,
In it it states that the TWO cadaver dogs alerted to cadaver odour in 17 places and that this hs been confirmed by Grime...we also had faithlilly claming that grime has effectively confirmed taht the alerts are confirmed as cadaver odour....this is a very serious misrepresentation of the truth which needs to be addressed...It seems to me that sceptics in general believe the alerts are evidential and confirm the presence of a cadaver...this is patently wrong.
all sceptics have to do is point out where I am wrong...it shouldnt be that difficult if I am...so go ahead...so far no one has
Confirmed as cadaver odour no, but the EVRD certainly alerted to a substance or substances for which he was trained and there's no getting away from that fact.
I don't read other forums or the sceptic forum of which dave speaks. I just about bother reading & posting here.
I understand that the alerts don't prove Maddie's demise. So you can count me out from misunderstanding.
However, when I consider the fact that a cadaver dog did alert, in conjunction with other events, things like the sighting of a Gerry-a-like carrying an unconscious child, the McCann's abduction story, which fails to convince me an abduction ever occurred, the shortage of missing people returning alive & well after a dog has alerted to areas or items associated with them (1 apparently)..
When I consider all that, I have to conclude the same as the PJ did, & no amount of 'not suspect' chants are going to convince me I'm wrong.
I don't read other forums or the sceptic forum of which dave speaks. I just about bother reading & posting here.
I understand that the alerts don't prove Maddie's demise. So you can count me out from misunderstanding.
However, when I consider the fact that a cadaver dog did alert, in conjunction with other events, things like the sighting of a Gerry-a-like carrying an unconscious child, the McCann's abduction story, which fails to convince me an abduction ever occurred, the shortage of missing people returning alive & well after a dog has alerted to areas or items associated with them (1 apparently)..
When I consider all that, I have to conclude the same as the PJ did, & no amount of 'not suspect' chants are going to convince me I'm wrong.
Confirmed as cadaver odour no, but the EVRD certainly alerted to a substance or substances for which he was trained and there's no getting away from that fact.
Oh, so you're just singling out the people who wrote that letter, not 'sceptics' all over the world wherever they may be? Why didn't you say so then?
You are clearly drawing inferences from the, alerts.... Which as Harrison says you cannot do that your reasoning is, flawed... And no amount of dogs don't lie make any difference... The alerts, are not confirmed
They are still alerts though. I'll infer from them whatever I damn well wish.
You can infer what you want... But the experts don't agree with you
I don't see that is a fact and I don't see on what basis you make that claim as certain
It can be taken as a fact that Eddie did alert, can't it? However, what to is less than limpid...
It can be taken as a fact that Eddie did alert, can't it? However, what to is less than limpid...Initially he didn't.... Until being repeatedly called back... That sounds most unconvincing....
Which substances was he referring to when he mentioned that he was alerting to those within his "training parameters". No one seems to have questioned that...
What exactly was included or excluded from those "training parameters"?
I thought we'd done dog threads to death... and I'm not sure what there could be to say that hasn't been raised on literally dozens of threads before now.
We have but try:
"Were it North Korea we would all be having a barbecue by now; Airedale leg with kimchi anyone"?
Initially he didn't.... Until being repeatedly called back... That sounds most unconvincing....
You appear to be inferring something from the alerts. I thought we weren't supposed to do that.
I'm not inferring anything... You ate using the alerts as evidence to support your belief in the McCann's guilt but the experts are clear they have no evidential value... So you prove my point
No, I'm using the fact a dog alerted.
I can't just ignore that fact, I'm not the police.
You are, using the alert as, evidence... It isn't... That's, what you don't understand
It's not evidence, it's an indication.You confirm you don't understand the, evidence
I don't ignore indicators when I'm driving, & I'm not about to start.
You confirm you don't understand the, evidence
You confirm you don't understand the, evidenceNow you got us all confused.
I'm singling out sceptics who mistakenly think inferences can be drawn from the, alerts... According to expert ..opinion.. They cannot
We've had posters here claim they are circumstantial evidence... They are not IMO
Would you be willing to share your view on the alerts... I somehow doubt it
It's the absence of one concerning Eddie that intrigued me.
Re Keela, from a transcript:
"She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the ..."
(Trying to find a working link.)
I've never read any such thing as regards Eddie. On the contrary, Grime talked about air cones and whatnot.
https://www.annmarieackermann.com/category/cadaver-dogs/
This is an interesting read with some very relevant points in various sections (especially about the use of pork).
Having read a good portion of your link Misty the thing for me that comes across very clearly is the cadaver dog’s trainer’s faith in the capabilities of their dogs.
I think some members are forgetting that cadaver dogs which are not trained using an actual cadaver will alert to many other substances. The best trained dogs are those which are trained solely using cadavers.
IYO did Grime express the same faith in Eddie when he said "suggestive" of an alert being to whatever it was Eddie was trained to find?
Fact: Eddie did alert in 5a and to clothing laid out in the gym. The difficulty as we all know is that it is not known what he alerted to.
Eddie was trained to alert to two scents, dried blood and cadaver odour. Grime said when Eddie alerted it was ‘ suggestive of cadaver scent contaminant. It therefore doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out the most likely source of the alert.
There was no identifiable source, though, as Grime clearly described when talking about scent-coning.
In many cases a cadaver dog will alert to the scent they are trained to detect long before any source of that scent is ever found, that’s why they are used. An alert is given great weight in an investigation and is often the reason why an investigation is steered in a certain direction. To suppose that because there is no identifiable source at that time that the alert shouldn’t, or isn’t, being viewed as an important piece of intelligence is naive to say the least.
There was no identifiable source, though, as Grime clearly described when talking about scent-coning.scent-coning??? what's that?
scent-coning??? what's that?
scent-coning??? what's that?
Quite a bit about it on the internet. Picked this one at random, a quick scan suggests it might cover a bit of the theory. http://www.vsrda.org/how-scent-and-airflow-works
The source of the scent could be coming from another area of the room but moved by air current, resulting in pooling in another area such as a corner or inside the fitted furniture.
Eddie showed a reaction in the enclosed passageway outside apartment five A and couldn't wait to get inside, if memory serves me well.
Bit odd that he could smell something while still outside.
That doesn't seem to gel with what Grime describes, does it?
Why would Eddie have reacted outside anyway when he wasn't in working mode at that particular time?
Grime was operating in an enclosed space in a small flat where wind currents weren't a factor. Why would a scent be discernible to the dog from the area of small passageway to pool in that particular corner?
I think the scent must have been carried in on someone's clothing or footwear.
I do wonder how much cross-contamination was on the dog lead Grime carried when he was gloved up & ready to deploy Eddie.
I never thought of that before.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the gloves are to prevent cross contamination of evidence gathered at a scene - skin cells, grease etc? But if the gloves themselves have been subject to prior contamination ... that defeats the purpose rather?
Fact: Eddie did alert in 5a and to clothing laid out in the gym. The difficulty as we all know is that it is not known what he alerted to.And we don't know how it got onto the clothing.
That doesn't seem to gel with what Grime describes, does it?Working cadaver dogs inside bedrooms has another level of complexity to the search.
Grime was operating in an enclosed space in a small flat where wind currents weren't a factor. Why would a scent be discernible to the dog from the area of small passageway to pool in that particular corner?That is an interesting point. For the dogs to be brought in such a long time after the event, who is to say what has happened in the between times. No wonder Martin Grimes told the PJ to get corroborating forensic evidence.
I think the scent must have been carried in on someone's clothing or footwear.
The point is as shown by spam is that [posters are using the alerts as evidence in their thought process to decide that madeleine died in teh aprtment when the FACT is taht according to the experts the alerts should not be used as evidence...therefore these posters do not understand what the evidence is
rIf the, alerts could be shown to be, reliable they would be, allowed as evidence... The fact that they cannot be means, they are not
Always remembering that those experts are policemen and talking about acceptable legal evidence and not evidence in general.
Always remembering that those experts are policemen and talking about acceptable legal evidence and not evidence in general.
Some people seem unable to understand that there are different kinds of evidence.Then enlighten us... Tell us what type of evidence the alerts are... Seeing as they have no reliability or value as evidence and no inference can be drawn from them..
Then enlighten us... Tell us what type of evidence the alerts are... Seeing as they have no reliability or value as evidence and no inference can be drawn from them..
If that were the case, why does it bother you so much.
Then enlighten us... Tell us what type of evidence the alerts are... Seeing as they have no reliability or value as evidence and no inference can be drawn from them..
Has any one ever said - that the dog alerts, have been ruled out completely.
A while back, Innominate pointed out that the r/h bed in the parents' bedroom covered an area of flooring which, during Eddie's exercise, had been exposed on the night of 3/5. The wardrobe was also not dismantled to check for traces of blood which may have been present on the unexposed parts of the fixture. The examination for any source of scent prompting the alert was therefore incomplete.
Some people seem unable to understand that there are different kinds of evidence.
Always remembering that those experts are policemen and talking about acceptable legal evidence and not evidence in general.
You have made a, claim you should substantiate it..Evidential value and evidence are different things.
The alerts have no evidential value so what type of evidence are they.... More excuses
Evidential value and evidence are different things.
So it seems that the alerts, are, a special type of evidence... Perhaps, those, making this, strange claim could tell us more about this, special type of evidence
Explain then... Substantiate your claimwhat that they are different.
Yes, grime said they are ruled out as evidence... Did you not know, that
DNA evidence is similar. By itself DNA evidence may prove nothing but put together with other evidence may provide the police with a strong case.
How do you think Keela finds blood ? Do you think it has to be visible?
It can only be found in the places they looked. How many of the 17 alert places (?) did they look for corroborating evidence?
Would that be the case, if they found corroborating evidence.
The blood has to be present in the area where Keela is searching.But what does present mean?
what that they are different.
evidence
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More
verb
1.
be or show evidence of.
https://thelawdictionary.org/evidential-value/
"What is EVIDENTIAL VALUE?
Value of records given as or in support of evidence, based on the certainty of the records origins. The value here is not in the record content. This certainty is essential for authentic and adequate evidence of an entity's actions, functioning, policies, and/or structure."
Different definitions or description so they are different concepts.
It can only be found in the places they looked. How many of the 17 alert places (?) did they look for corroborating evidence?
Semantics... One is a noun and one an adjective. The alerts have no evidential value and therefore no value, as, evidence.. No inference cabn be drawn from them and therefore they cannot be used to support a fact and therefore by definition are not evidence... Of any kind
why would you think SY , chose the opinion maddie may have not left the apartment alive.
They did not have to say that.
surely, that would be knowledge of the dog alerts.
why would you think SY , chose the opinion maddie may have not left the apartment alive.
They did not have to say that.
surely, that would be knowledge of the dog alerts.
They had to say that, they started the investigation saying they would investigate whether Madeleine was alive or sadly dead.
It would appear that they still don't know, after a number of years on intense investigation.
DNA never proves nothing... It proves the presence if a persons DNA.... It doesn't explain how it got
The akert dies not prove the presence if cadaver contaminant
It would appear that they still don't know, after a number of years on intense investigation.
Of course DNA can carry huge weight in a criminal investigation, think a child’s DNA in the boot of a suspect’s car. DNA can also be part of a circumstantial case which, while not proving anything on its own, taken together with other evidence builds a very strong case for an accused’s guilt. The cadaver dog alerts are the same. By themselves, without a body, they are only suggestive of death but together with other evidence, such as blood splatter or proveable lying by the suspect, and they can be part of a very strong case.
They have to find the person who took her to determine that don't they? IMO
They have to find the person who took her to determine that don't they? IMO
Then enlighten us... Tell us what type of evidence the alerts are... Seeing as they have no reliability or value as evidence and no inference can be drawn from them..
I see no difference between a trained dog's alert and a statement by a person. Both exist, both express opinions and both can be proved right or wrong by other evidence.
To say the alerts are the same as DNA is patently ridiculous and proves my point
Dna proves the presence of the suspects dna but does not explain how it got their
The alert isn't even evidence of cadaver odour
Context is everything. DNA is not always evidence of guilt but in a circumstantial case where there is other evidence supporting it it can be. Cadaver dog alerts are similar as in the case of Suzanne Pilley. There was no body to prove Miss Pilley was dead but together with other evidence a case was built which was strong enough to prove David Gilroy’s guilt.
THE man accused of murdering Suzanne Pilley had scratches that could have been from “grappling” with someone, a court heard yesterday.
Consultant pathologist Dr Nathaniel Cary said David Gilroy’s injuries could have been caused by fingernails.
Dr Cary studied photos taken of Gilroy by police in the days after bookkeeper Suzanne, 38, went missing.
The witness thought a “skin tone substance” had been used on one of Gilroy’s injuries.
Yesterday, a police officer told the trial a sniffer dog gave “a full blown positive indication” that he could smell human remains or blood on the outside of Gilroy’s car.
South Yorkshire PC Simone Thompson’s dog Buster was used in the search for Suzanne.
The animal also indicated he could smell human remains in the boot, PC Thompson said.
Another cop told how Gilroy’s Vauxhall Vectra looked like it may have been driven in “off-road” conditions.
PC Alastair Bain said he found “vegetative” matter on the underside of the car. PC Bain also said three of the car’s four coil suspension springs were fractured.
The trial earlier heard how Gilroy drove to Lochgilphead in Argyll the day after Suzanne was last seen. Asked by prosecution QC Alex Prentice if he would have made that journey with the car in such a condition, PC Bain replied: “No.”
Gilroy, 49, of Silverknowes, Edinburgh, denies murdering ex-lover Suzanne on May 4, 2010. He denies trying to defeat the ends of justice by applying make-up to disguise the extent of his injuries.
Cadaver alert no evidential value.... Are you suggesting DNA has no evidential value... To suggest they are similar is ridiculous
So, as far as you are aware, Grime has never claimed that Eddie alerts to only the residual scent of blood. Is that correct ?
What like, find the body - prove we killed her.
I see no difference between a trained dog's alert and a statement by a person. Both exist, both express opinions and both can be proved right or wrong by other evidence.
Without context DNA has no evidential value.
The point is as shown by spam is that [posters are using the alerts as evidence in their thought process to decide that madeleine died in teh aprtment when the FACT is taht according to the experts the alerts should not be used as evidence...therefore these posters do not understand what the evidence is
Again you are, trying to compare DNA, to alerts
Dna always, has evidential value
What I said is that Grime stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood. He never stated that Eddie would only react to the physical presence.
I find it therefore possible that Eddie could react to a residual scent of blood in the absence of any physical presence.
Whether that's what happened or not... no one knows.
My main point being that the "matrix" of possibilities is simplstic and flawed, yet still touted by some - a decade later - as the (presumably undeniable) "truth".
IMO, it's not an undeniable "truth", even if I don't discount the possibility that she may indeed have died there.
Do you think that is what Gerry meant when he said 'show us the body'? In my opinion he meant show us the body to prove Madeleine is dead, as Gerry said unless there was proof they would go on beleiving Madeleine was alive.
I agree on that one, DNA is unique to the individual with only a few exceptions.
You might not but a court does... On the basis a human can be Cross examined but a dog can't... More evidence you do not understand the evidence
I'm not discussing how courts deal with evidence, I'm Rdiscussing what evidence is, and it's not just omething that's used in court.
I see no difference between a trained dog's alert and a statement by a person. Both exist, both express opinions and both can be proved right or wrong by other evidence.
So Grime, through all his correspondence and statements, has never said that Eddie reacts only to the residual scent of blood.
I am not on about what [you] thought he meant, its what he said. - you are twisting it.
your opinion is wrong - on what you thought he meant.
He challenged the police, find the body prove we killed her.
I am not on about what [you] thought he meant, its what he said. - you are twisting it.
your opinion is wrong - on what you thought he meant.
He challenged the police, find the body prove we killed her.
There is no evidence that Gerry said 'find the body and prove we killed her'.
The PJ know who did it in this case. They've always wanted to reopen to finish it. Their Supreme Court confirmed it. SY can be the media focus. After 2007 the PJ didn't need another circus IMO.
The PJ know who did it in this case. They've always wanted to reopen to finish it. Their Supreme Court confirmed it. SY can be the media focus. After 2007 the PJ didn't need another circus IMO.
He could equally have asked if there was proof that she was definitely dead and that, as her parents, they wanted to know if there was any proof, or whether they were still in limbo as to her fate.
Where did this 'find the body and prove we killed her' headline originate?
You've totally lost me, PF. I haven't the faintest idea what you're basing your assertions on.
I don't know where it originated from Carana, but it is obvious that whatever Gerry said it has been twisted.
So where does Gerry say 'find the body and prove we killed her?'
Another example of not understanding the evidence?
You are giving your own opinion of what evidence is... I'm giving a recognised standard of evidence
So are we only discussing evidence which is admissible in court? Grime's opinion on the alerts would be admissible then.
As far as courts are concerned there are two types of evidence.
Direct Evidence and Indirect Evidence a.k.a Circumstantial Evidence. The judge is final arbiter on what may be presented in his court.
Few convictions are realised from direct evidence alone.
As far as this thread is concerned I wonder what Talking Heads would say about it? This maybe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtCittJyr0
I’m not arguing that but often finding DNA, such as when someone is known to have lived at the property, is not evidence.
Can you see any situation where Grimes opinion... The alerts have no evidential value... Would be if interest to the court
Which court, in which country?
As I said... Any court
I've no idea what you're trying to make me say, nor why, Faith. lol
For the umpteennth time, Grime never said that Eddie would only react to the physical presence of blood, but he did say that about Keela.
Can you see any situation where Grimes opinion... The alerts have no evidential value... Would be if interest to the court
I think he could say a lot more than that.
He also never said that Eddie alerted to the residual scent from blood. You are simply making assumptions.
I know... but why make the distinction between one dog and not the other? Grime stated that Eddie alerted to residual scent (the cone spiel). He never stated that he would alert to residual scents except blood, AFAIK.
All I'm saying is that that early matrix (not stated by Grime himself, but by a certain faction of case followers) is simplistic to the exclusion of other plausible possibilities. If people wish to stick with that mantra, then that's their choice. Ten years on, those that haven't realised that it may not be as simple as that are unlikely to accept other possibilities anyway.
In the case of the murder of Bianca Jones Grime's evidence was allowed and it's use was upheld on appeal. An interesting read.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
He also never said that Eddie alerted to the residual scent from blood. You are simply making assumptions.
Also in the case of Aurelio Montano cadaver dog evidence gained a conviction without a body. http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/chi-former-aurora-man-found-guilty-of-wifes-1990-murder-20131030-story.html
There's a single molecule in blood which has been shown to attract carnivores (such as dogs) to the source. As Eddie could reportedly alert to the residual scent of various cadaver elements, in which blood plays a part, it was possible that he could alert to residual scent from blood. I'm guessing that the identified molecule is quite volatile, given the way a predator can seek it out but have no idea how long it remains detectable in the air.Human blood as opposed to other types of blood so it has to be a unique chemical or combination of chemicals in my opinion . OK this chemical might give the dog the "blood" bit and there must be some other molecule(s) that indicate "human".
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/heres-what-draws-carnivores-blood
Here's what draws carnivores to blood
By Puneet KolliparaNov. 10, 2014 , 2:45 PM
What is it about the scent of blood that makes carnivores go crazy? It may all come down to a single molecule, according to a new study. Tigers and wild dogs were drawn to this compound as much as to blood itself. The findings shed light on how animals recognize complex substances through smell and could even help curb some human phobias.
Like footprints in the snow, the scent of blood can guide meat-hunting animals to wounded prey. Yet blood, like many substances with strong smells, contains myriad molecular ingredients, only some of which may play a role in attracting predators. In general, it’s tough to pin down the role that all molecules in a substance might play, says Matthias Laska, a zoologist at Linköping University in Sweden. “You have to start by making a best guess.”
For Laska and his colleagues, that guess started with a molecule called trans-4,5-epoxy-(E)-2-decenal. The molecule—a so-called aldehyde—carries the telltale metallic stench of blood and is found in pigs’ blood and perhaps in all mammalian blood, Laska says.
To find out if the molecule is really what attracts predators, Laska and colleagues tested how 40 meat-eating mammals from four species would react to its scent. The researchers partnered with Kolmården Wildlife Park, a zoo in Sweden, which gave them access to Siberian tigers (Panthera tigris altaica), South American bush dogs (Speothos venaticus), African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus), and Asian wild dogs (Cuon alpinus) for the study.
The researchers soaked wooden blocks with one of four substances: the aldehyde, horse blood, the fruity-smelling molecule isopentyl acetate, or a nearly odorless solvent. After throwing these substance-laced blocks to the animals, the researchers observed and noted how the creatures responded and interacted with the blocks.
The researchers recorded thousands of interactions between the animals and the blocks in 20 days of experiments per species. On average, all four carnivore species played with the aldehyde-laced blocks just as much as with the blood-laced blocks, the team reports today in PLOS ONE. Moreover, the animals interacted with the blood- and aldehyde-laced blocks twice to four times as much as they did with blocks laced with the other two substances.
Laska says he was surprised that his team’s initial best guess worked so well. “This is one of the things you can only dream of and hope for that happens not so often in your experiments,” he says.
Still, he warns that the findings may not apply to all carnivorous animals and their olfactory systems. “Other animals and other olfactory systems might have evolved an alternative strategy,” he says. He hopes to answer that question by doing similar studies on other blood compounds and other carnivorous species, such as wolves. Laska even has a student performing a similar study using mice instead of carnivores. “We want to see if blood elicits escape behavior in prey species,” he says
“It’s an elegantly done study that’s trying to answer a basic question: whether one single molecule can trigger a complex behavior as well as a complex odor does, and it answers that question beautifully,” says Johan Lundström, an experimental neuropsychologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Lundström notes the findings could have implications for human health, as some people fear blood’s smell or link it to a traumatic past event. By understanding which components of blood trigger responses in people, researchers could generate better treatments for mental issues such as blood-related post-traumatic stress disorder or phobias.
Human blood as opposed to other types of blood so it has to be a unique chemical or combination of chemicals in my opinion . OK this chemical might give the dog the "blood" bit and there must be some other molecule(s) that indicate "human".
Lol Alice re the song.
Yes, there have been convictions in the absence of a body. Some may be justified by a solid mass of other evidence, others not.
In this case, aside from the somewhat iffy issue of dog alerts, and non-corroborating forensic evidence, what solid evidence is there to come to any conclusion whatsoever?
If you are starting from square one and basic principles you are probably kicking against an open door...
There is no direct evidence of either parental involvement or abduction.
Indirect/Circumstantial evidence has never properly been put to the test as there have been no court proceedings. It would seem there is no indirect evidence which links a crime of either abduction by persons unknown or abduction by identifiable parties nor sufficiently strong indirect evidence to allow charges of parental involvement to be brought hence the filing of the case.
What we know is that a little girl seemingly vanished off the face the earth between the hours of 17:30 and 22:00 on 3rd May 2007.
Not a lot to work with but plenty of chaff has been generated.
He could... But anything he said Re the alerts would carry that caveat making it rather useless
I would say there is plenty of evidence the parents, were not involved
If the opposing expert witness showed Grime was erroneous in his assessment it wouldn't.You are, assuming another expert witness could be found.... That he, would disagree... And the fact that there us, no real scientific evidence to support the unconfirmed alerts... That's the important point
You keep making the same mistake regarding Grime's status should the case ever wind up in court.
I expect that there are more dog-related threads on here and no doubt elsewhere than on anything else, for some unfathomable reason.It can't be that complicated as a dog can do it. It can't be a blend of odours as that would give too many combinations and the dog would never be able to always identify "human cadaver" only. all these smells will be there but they have been trained to isolate the right one. That is how I'm thinking.
There are hundreds of components in the global "bouquet", Rob. A number of which are in common with other species, some are found in greater concentration at certain peak times, some are found depending on what is decomposing, and some are even found in perfectly ordinary environments.
At the end of the day, there was no forensic evidence to corroborate them. A few anecdotal accounts on the vague possibility that the alerts may be valid even in the absence of any corroboration may keep the debate alive - much as whether the person who claimed to be Anastacia was actually the surviving daugher of the Tsar.
Abduction can be proved on the balance of possibilities, taking all the evidence into account.. Imo
If we are talking stastistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger.
Absolute rubbish... If I am allowed to say soIt was a trick statement and you fell for it IMO. Using "statistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger." But the evidence does not support this in this case. The stats are the summation/analysis of thousands of cases.
It was a trick statement and you fell for it IMO. Using "statistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger." But the evidence does not support this in this case. The stats are the summation/analysis of thousands of cases.
You are, assuming another expert witness could be found.... That he, would disagree... And the fact that there us, no real scientific evidence to support the unconfirmed alerts... That's the important point
The lack of 'real scientific evidence' isn't the important point. What would it have proved? It couldn't tell the investigators what happened to Madeleine...
It was a trick statement and you fell for it IMO. Using "statistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger." But the evidence does not support this in this case. The stats are the summation/analysis of thousands of cases.
..
Scientific testing would give us an idea how accurate the alerts, are... We simply do not know
Scientists have no test which can confirm or deny the accuracy Eddie's alerts.No but it would be very simple to design double blind studies ti test and calibrate the dogs in training
No but it would be very simple to design double blind studies ti test and calibrate the dogs in training
How frightfully unobservant of you.
I think Alice is spot on.So, are you unobservant too?
So, are you unobservant too?
Using statistics it is not more probable that maddie was harmed by her parents than a, stranger
Police dogs are licensed only if they pass tests. I assume the police are happy with the testing they carry out. TheRrefore I assume they would be prepared to testify as to the skill and reliability of one of their dogs.
Please do show us...
Best get your facts right.. I didn't fall for it because it isn't true....We are talking statistics not the actual cause of this case in particular.
As you have confirmed... I trust you understand why it isn't true
Using statistics it is not more probable that maddie was harmed by her parents than a, strangerAs you were asked - you do it then show us the statistics!
As you were asked - you do it then show us the statistics!
As you are a moderator remove the ad hom attackYou had other posters backing you up. So be happy with that.
As I said... Faith madebthe claim... She should start the discussion supporting her claim... And then we can discuss it..
But... If a child is put to bed in it's own house.. And in the morning found murdered... Statistically is it more likely the parents were involved than a stranger
You had other posters backing you up. So be happy with that.
Faith does not follow orders. I could start it or you for I'd love to get the real stats behind cases like this. As I said the other day Yvonne Martin's experience of 99.9% due to the family seemed rather high.
If we are talking stastistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger.
And I do not follow orders but it seems ad hom posts directed towards me, are allowed on the forumDid you not follow the thread on Yvonne Martin?
You didn't answer the question in my post
What is the 99% Re martin all about
Did you not follow the thread on Yvonne Martin?
As far as I am concerned you did not ask me a question?
See post 322 directed to you
I followed the martin thread but don't recall the significance of the 99%...could you explain
I know you would
Delineate the "plenty of evidence" then.
I've just read some of this thread,He is still around. ( I getting confused with Pathfinder73 sorry)
So what is the evidence for abduction?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.0
The evidence appears to be the fact that Maddie is missing & 'not suspects'.
I noticed some posts by ferryman in there, whatever happened to him?
He is still around.
We are talking statistics not the actual cause of this case in particular.
The text of 322 "As you are a moderator remove the ad hom attack
As I said... Faith made the claim... She should start the discussion supporting her claim... And then we can discuss it..
But... If a child is put to bed in it's own house.. And in the morning found murdered... Statistically is it more likely the parents were involved than a stranger"
I'm not allowed to delete or edit post (other than strict situations).
You made a claim about stats but stats are based on an analysis of data. Where is your data?
In my opinion the statistics are used by some as 'evidence' to 'prove' a case ... which in my opinion indicates a total misconception regarding what constitutes evidence ... as well as a misuse of statistics.
Every other day there are cases of parental abduction reported in the media ... usually ending with the bodies of one parent and the children s/he has murdered being found in a beauty spot and the body of the other parent lying murdered at home.
In my opinion what the statistics do show is how rare stranger abductions are ... but they are not evidence which proves they never happen.
In fact what they are evidence proven by their rarity ... that the Tapas nine were lulled into a false sense of security before Madeleine became a statistic among children who vanish without trace.
Faiths claim that statistically the McCann's, are involved is patently absurd but posters don't seem to want to address it
If we are talking stastistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger.
Just to see what Faith said rather than what Davel and his supporters said she said.
But thankfully no longer on here
In your opinion which you are entitled to have.
Just as I hold the same opinion about some sceptics, who thankfully are no longer here!
We must be thankful that we are both satisfied.
Perhaps you would like to see more posters leave
I can see why there is a reluctance to discuss it as the statistics referred to are clearly not applicable in Madeleine's case just as they weren't for Holly and Jessica or any of the other cases of stranger abduction.
In my opinion manufacturing a factoid that it is relevant to Madeleine's case when the police have quite obviously ruled it out and have said so might be considered libel ... and if not that, certainly incredibly cruel and unkind
Well we do occasionally have intervals of fruitful discussion.
We must be thankful that we are both satisfied.
Well we do occasionally have intervals of fruitful discussion.
I have found this thread fruitful. I have a better understanding of what evidence actually is and a better understanding of how it might be used imo.
I have found this thread fruitful. I have a better understanding of what evidence actually is and a better understanding of how it might be used imo.
An expected response. IMO you have yet to proof any evidence of abduction which doesn’t also apply to many of the other scenarios.
Well i don't think it proves any thing
He did his job the dogs did the job they were trained to do.
I would think, M G credibility and the dogs, would have been zero
If maddie had been found alive.
If a body was found - things would have been different, it would have been used as evidence.
I'm glad you have learnt something from a thread I have introduced.. My understanding hasn't changed but it didn't need to
If Madeleine had been found alive, would the video inspections have been leaked and uploaded?
If she had been found alive the case wouldn’t have been archived and the files wouldn’t have been released until after any court case, if ever.
Well i don't think it proves any thing
He did his job the dogs did the job they were trained to do.
I would think, M G credibility and the dogs, would have been zero
If maddie had been found alive.
If a body was found - things would have been different, it would have been used as evidence.
I didn't say anything had been 'proved'. I said the alerts are evidence, which has consistently been denied.
If Madeleine had been found alive, would the video inspections have been leaked and uploaded?
I didn't say anything had been 'proved'. I said the alerts are evidence, which has consistently been denied.
I didn't say anything had been 'proved'. I said the alerts are evidence, which has consistently been denied.
Sorry G-Unit it was a mistake quoting your post it should have been davels - i will remove it from my post.
No, it's my opinion that you'll cling to and repeat your convictions that 'the alerts mean nothing' andt 'the alerts weren't 'scientifically confirmed' despite the fact that the alerts do mean something and scientific confirmation has no bearing on that.
But not evidence allowed in court... So basically useless
It's Grimes opinion that these alerts have no evidential value.. They are therefore worthless as evidence
The trainer/handler's evidence is allowed in court, as are the dog's operational and training records. All evidence which could be used to demonstrate the likelihood of the reliability of the alerts.
The trainer/handler's evidence is allowed in court, as are the dog's operational and training records. All evidence which could be used to demonstrate the likelihood of the reliability of the alerts.
In this instance the trainer has said the alerts have no evidential reliability si that would make the statements useless... Do you have a cite, where the alerts have been allowed in a UK or Portuguese court..
It seems a bit pointless presenting the alerts, as evidence then having the expert say they have no evidential value... Sounds ridiculous
Suzanne Pilley and Bob Rose.
In this instance the trainer has said the alerts have no evidential reliability si that would make the statements useless... Do you have a cite, where the alerts have been allowed in a UK or Portuguese court..
It seems a bit pointless presenting the alerts, as evidence then having the expert say they have no evidential value... Sounds ridiculous
In the Bob rise case Eddie found the body... Hardly an unconfirmed alert
You asked for examples of dog alerts being allowed in court. I gave you two examples.So they can be mentioned in court if, a body is found...
The only provenance we have on the value if the alerts is the trainer... And he has, stated clearly they have ni evidential value... So some sceptics still don't understand the evidence imo
The dogs have operational and test records which can be used as evidence when evaluating their alerts. In my opinion you have misunderstood what Grime meant.I don't misunderstand anything.... Harrison went further and said no inferences could be drawn from the alerts..
In my opinion he meant the alerts alone don't prove anything. In this case only Keela's alerts could have been confirmed by the scientists, but they would still have proved nothing.
I don't misunderstand anything.... Harrison went further and said no inferences could be drawn from the alerts..
I know, what no evidential value or reliability mean
The dogs have operational and test records which can be used as evidence when evaluating their alerts. In my opinion you have misunderstood what Grime meant.
In my opinion he meant the alerts alone don't prove anything. In this case only Keela's alerts could have been confirmed by the scientists, but they would still have proved nothing.
That was an educated guess - because there was no body.
Definitions of
inference
1
n the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation
So they can be mentioned in court if, a body is found...
So no inference
During a 2009 television interview with Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueira, Gerry McCann was asked about the cadaver dogs alerting to the scent of a dead body in apartment 5A and their rental car.
"I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they're incredibly unreliable," McCann replied
seems gmccann agrees with you.
In one of his preliminary reports, Harrison said any alerts by the dogs may suggest that a body had been in the property and then removed. He added "no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence".
https://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/20/14/18/madeleine-mccann-cadaver-sniffer-dogs-reaction-apartment-car-didnt-make-sense
interesting comment
CORRECTION: On March 21 this article was changed to reflect that 'arguido' status was lifted (instead of 'cleared') from Kate and Gerry McCann.
And Suzanne Pilley ? We were told on Crimewartch that the dog alerts were crucial in gaining a conviction without a body.The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has revieed this case at the request of gilroys family...there only real finding is that the dog evidence was unreliable...so your claims are meaningless.
But thankfully no longer on here( I was getting confused with Pathfinder73 sorry) Pathfinder is being quiet too.
I'm glad you have learnt something from a thread I have introduced.. My understanding hasn't changed but it didn't need toI think your understanding re the stats has room for improvement.
I didn't say anything had been 'proved'. I said the alerts are evidence, which has consistently been denied.Evidence of what though?
I think your understanding re the stats has room for improvement.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has revieed this case at the request of gilroys family...there only real finding is that the dog evidence was unreliable...so your claims are meaningless.https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
In a statement the Gilroy family said: “ We are shocked not just at the decision but also at what seems to us to be many instances where the Commission’s analysis has fallen far short of a full and fair investigation into the detail of the application which David, supported by us, made to them in November 2014. “One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.”
Read more at: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/suzanne-pilley-murder-killer-s-family-shocked-by-closure-of-review-1-4465183
isnt it about time sceptics faced the truth re the alerts
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
‘The case against him ( Gilroy ) would have been overwhelming. There would have been evidence of: (a) the turbulent nature of his relationship with the deceased, involving intense jealousy in the context of expressed views from the deceased that their relationship was at an end; (b) the proximity of the arrivals of the deceased and the appellant at 11 Thistle Street on the morning of the disappearance; (c) the undoubtedly sinister cessation of text messages between the appellant and the deceased at about the time of her disappearance; (d) the appellant's strange demeanour on the morning of the disappearance and his sudden departure to collect his car on the pretext of having lost the minutes; (d) the cadaver dog's reaction to his car; (e) most significant, the state of the appellant's car upon his return from an unexpectedly long and sudden trip to Lochgilphead; and (f) the injuries on his hands, which he tried to conceal and which were characteristic of a reaction of someone being strangled.
I think your understanding re the stats has room for improvement.
That's, a personal insult ...my knowledge of stats is pretty good... What don't you think I understand and I can correct youYou have not provided proof of that as yet.
The evidence was overwhelming.... The review body however decided that the cafaver dog evidence wad unreliable... Which supports my view
You have not provided proof of that as yet.You have criticised my knowledge of stats.. On what basis
I have provided a cite that the Court of Appeal considered the dog alerts to be a valuable piece of evidence. Can you provide a cite, other than the obviously upset family, that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission considered the dog’s evidence ‘unreliable’ ?
You have criticised my knowledge of stats.. On what basisFrom the little that you've said on the matter.
From the little that you've said on the matter.
I think that's, a pretty damning condemnation of the alerts.. Don't you
If I've said little it's not enough for you to form an opinion... What particularlyI can form an opinion whenever I like.
Abduction can be proved on the balance of possibilities, taking all the evidence into account.. Imo
I have provided a cite that the Court of Appeal considered the dog alerts to be a valuable piece of evidence. Can you provide a cite, other than the obviously upset family, that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission considered the dog’s evidence ‘unreliable’ ?
I don't think abduction can be proved at all. The only reliable evidence which exists indicates the child left the apartment under her own steam which might very well have resulted in an abduction thereafter.
I don't think abduction can be proved at all. The only reliable evidence which exists indicates the child left the apartment under her own steam which might very well have resulted in an abduction thereafter.
So no cite ?
I can form an opinion whenever I like.
Which would make mccanns, totally responsible.
That's like blaming US parents for sending their children to school knowing full well they could be shot by a deranged gunman. The risk is high - 17 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018.
Nothing like it at all. In the shooting cases there are identified culprits, whereas there is no identified culprit in the McCann case.
I don't misunderstand anything.... Harrison went further and said no inferences could be drawn from the alerts..
I know, what no evidential value or reliability mean
That's like blaming US parents for sending their children to school knowing full well they could be shot by a deranged gunman. The risk is high - 17 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018.
Leaving a child home alone is a parental choice. Sending children to school is a legal requirement.
no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed withit means these alerts have no relaibility as evidence....what do you think it means
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
What do you think that means?
sending a child to school is not a legal requirement...just being picky
Well, they can be educated at home if someone really wants to take on that responsibility. They must be educated by law, which for most children involves attending school.
I've just read some of this thread,
So what is the evidence for abduction?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.0
The evidence appears to be the fact that Maddie is missing & 'not suspects'.
I noticed some posts by ferryman in there, whatever happened to him?
He was given the bums rush for refusing to obey orders about libeling folk I believe.
it means these alerts have no relaibility as evidence....what do you think it means
Can you explain what the rest of the sentence means? Is the word 'unless' significant, do you think?
"unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
That's like blaming US parents for sending their children to school knowing full well they could be shot by a deranged gunman. The risk is high - 17 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018.
The mccanns left there children in an unlocked room,.
totally out of order comparing it with what you have.
Those parents would be victims, of tragic events.
The mccanns left there children, to go to a tapas - ,leaving maddie to face a tragic event
The true victim, in all this.
that isnt what the portugues police...who had all the information concluded in their final report....they said that was highly unlikely
its clear...he also said this..
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.
thats forensic confirmation
So you agree that the use of the word 'unless' means that when there is corroborating evidence the alerts do have evidential or intelligence reliability."We have our methods of extracting the truth out of you" - 'specialized investigation methods' something like trickery will do it.
no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I do wish you would provide cites.
You seem to have concentrated on 'forensic confirmation' and ignored 'specialized investigation methods'. What do you think they are?
So you agree that the use of the word 'unless' means that when there is corroborating evidence the alerts do have evidential or intelligence reliability.
no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I do wish you would provide cites.
You seem to have concentrated on 'forensic confirmation' and ignored 'specialized investigation methods'. What do you think they are?
It's your turn.. What do you think they are..grime also says this..
. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
In my opinion the best way for someone to learn is to do the research themselves. I could tell you and you would continue to ignore the things that were said which don't suit your opinion.have you not seen them before ..grimes interview...grimes rogatory. you think you could tell me...I think you cannot...so it is simply your opinion. You and others are ignoring GRimes and Harrisons reservations on the alerts because they do not suit your opinion
Please provide cites for your quotes.
The family are quoting the report...if you want to speculate they are lying...
Unless we actually see the report there is no way of knowing. What we do know however is that Gilroy is, despite the review, still in prison convicted of murder, which rather suggests that the dog’s alerts were absolutely reliable.
It is interesting though that the only individuals who ever claim that cadaver dogs are unreliable are always the ones who are on the wrong end of an alert.
a bit like the only poeple who claim a miscarriage of justice are those who have been convicted ...are they all wrong too...
suggests is the right word ...no confirmation...and ther is evidence that the alerts were considered unreliable
With no body the only evidence that Suzanne is dead are the dog alerts and Gilroy is still wallowing in prison charged with murder. You do the maths.on that basis ..the only evidence that maddie is dead are the alerts....once again you show how litle you understand the evidence..keep on proving me right
With no body the only evidence that Suzanne is dead are the dog alerts and Gilroy is still wallowing in prison charged with murder. You do the maths.Do you know this case Davel. Was the conviction based on dog alerts? What is the name of the case?
on that basis ..the only evidence that maddie is dead are the alerts....once again you show how litle you understand the evidence..keep on proving me right
Do you know this case Davel. Was the conviction based on dog alerts? What is the name of the case?
Nail on the head Davel. Gilroy was convicted of Suzanne’s murder. The only evidence that she is dead was the cadaver dog alerts. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission closed the case therefore they could not have found the dogs unreliable as there would then be no proof of death and no case to answer.
of course I know the case ...the conviction was not based on the dog alerts...there was lots of evidence to convict..the accused family launched an appeal and the conviction was upheld...but theinvestigating body ruled the dog alert evidence was unreliable...but as there was so much other evidence it didnt matter...david Gilroy
Did you see this which I posted a couple of days ago from Crimewatch ? ‘https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CA-C-2yU2D0
It claims ‘The key evidence came from police dogs’
The rest of the case was circumstantial, the dog alerts was the key piece of evidence that drew the other strands together into a cohesive case of murder.
BTW I didn’t think you were claiming that the dog’s were unreliable in the McCann case but merely that their alerts carried no weight.
of course I know the case ...the conviction was not based on the dog alerts...there was lots of evidence to convict..the accused family launched an appeal and the conviction was upheld...but theinvestigating body ruled the dog alert evidence was unreliable...but as there was so much other evidence it didnt matter...david Gilroyhttps://youtu.be/CA-C-2yU2D0 CRIMEWATCH. How they CAUGHT David Gilroy- Suzanne Pilley.
https://youtu.be/CA-C-2yU2D0 CRIMEWATCH. How they CAUGHT David Gilroy- Suzanne Pilley.
cite for the dog alerts were the key piece of evidence ,,,,its just your opinion....and its my opinion that the alerts in the mccann case..based on common sense...the way the dogs were repeatedly called back...the testimony of grime and harrison...are unreliable in this case
are you aware of the apeal to the SCCRC...obviuosly not
the SCCRC ruled that the dog alerts were unreliable but therewas so much other evidence the conviction stood
Have you watched the video ? It is not my opinion that the dog alerts were the key piece of evidence, I’m quoting from the programme.
Your last sentence ( actually can you write in proper sentences with proper punctuation ) is very close to libel. Grime called Eddie back because he recognised his change in behaviour around places and objects related to the McCanns.
It’s odd how you suggest that Grime is unprofessional on the one hand yet quote him as if his word is law on the other.
Have you watched the video ? It is not my opinion that the dog alerts were the key piece of evidence, I’m quoting from the programme.Do you accept what Davel says here: "are you aware of the apeal to the SCCRC...obviuosly not
Your last sentence ( actually can you write in proper sentences with proper punctuation ) is very close to libel. Grime called Eddie back because he recognised his change in behaviour around places and objects related to the McCanns.
It’s odd how you suggest that Grime is unprofessional on the one hand yet quote him as if his word is law on the other.
I have never sugested grime was unprofessional...my posts are all here he is welcome to sue me if he wishes..you again obviously dont understand the evidence
You implied Grime dishonestly brought his dog’s back again and again to objects that belonged to the McCanns even though Eddie showed no interest. Is that correct ?It was Davel's opinion. He is not claiming it was a fact.
You implied Grime dishonestly brought his dog’s back again and again to objects that belonged to the McCanns even though Eddie showed no interest. Is that correct ?
It was Davel's opinion. He is not claiming it was a fact.
no its not correct and again shows your poor understanding...where have mentioned dishonesty..absolutely pathetic observation of the written word...you are starting to look somewhat foolish...Do you think there was absolutely nothing wrong with the dog handling techniques?
grime certainly called the dogs back ...that is a fact...but i dont consider his actions dishonest...as i have posted previously
Do you think there was absolutely nothing wrong with the dog handling techniques?
no its not correct and again shows your poor understanding...where have mentioned dishonesty..absolutely pathetic observation of the written word...you are starting to look somewhat foolish...
grime certainly called the dogs back ...that is a fact...but i dont consider his actions dishonest...as i have posted previously
According to you he knew he was skewing the evidence when he called Eddie back even though he had previously shown no interest. What else would you call it but dishonest?Simply needed a double check. Are you saying dogs lie?
Tell you what Davel you explain to me how you think Grime could honestly bring a cadaver dog back to objects he knew the dog had shown no interest in ?
According to you he knew he was skewing the evidence when he called Eddie back even though he had previously shown no interest. What else would you call it but dishonest?
Tell you what Davel you explain to me how you think Grime could honestly bring a cadaver dog back to objects he knew the dog had shown no interest in ?
Simply needed a double check.
have you not seen them before ..grimes interview...grimes rogatory. you think you could tell me...I think you cannot...so it is simply your opinion. You and others are ignoring GRimes and Harrisons reservations on the alerts because they do not suit your opinion
It is against forum protocol to provide quotes without cites.
You think my understanding of the nature of 'specialized investigation methods' is just my opinion? How do you know when you don't know what my understanding is? Talk about illogical!
I have explained the reservations, it's you who have ignored the rest of what was said because it doesn't support your opinions.
It is against forum protocol to provide quotes without cites.
You think my understanding of the nature of 'specialized investigation methods' is just my opinion? How do you know when you don't know what my understanding is? Talk about illogical!
I have explained the reservations, it's you who have ignored the rest of what was said because it doesn't support your opinions.
very simple ...if there was evidence to be found it would be in5a...nothing should be missed...therefore it was important the dogswere repeatedly brought back to examine sites grime felt were important..but nothing of any significance was found
and he wasnt skewing evidence because the alerts themselves are not evidence
Why did Grime consider the sites important if Eddie was showing no interest ? Further why did Eddie alert if there was nothing of interest in the apartment?
or even triple check...it was important no evidence was missedAs in sites to find possible corroborating evidence after an alert.
As in sites to find possible corroborating evidence after an alert.
the best cadaver dogs in the world...found nothing.The dogs did their job they alerted or stayed quiet if there was nothing to signal on. The dogs are not looking for evidence. You can't say they found nothing for that is not their job but to locate an area of alert. But if it is in the air and the air moves there is no actual location from which to take samples.
and that is a FACT ...that no one can dispute
are you aware of the apeal to the SCCRC...obviuosly not
the SCCRC ruled that the dog alerts were unreliable but therewas so much other evidence the conviction stood
The dogs did their job they alerted or stayed quiet if there was nothing to signal on. The dogs are not looking for evidence. You can't say they found nothing for that is not their job but to locate an area of alert. But if it is in the air and the air moves there is no actual location from which to take samples.
Keela pointed actual spots to take the samples from but not so much with Eddie.
If Maddie was abducted as i believe she was...then Maddie and all her family are victims...show some compassion
You ask me to show compassion , on your belief.
I Don't believe, maddie was abducted.
The true victim is maddie.
The mccanns are victims of there own actions.
Well its a fact, you cant misunderstand evidence of abduction - because there isn't any.
Your ability to take quotes and change them to suit your agenda is fascinating. The Gilroy family said;
One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp
So the SCCRC never said the dog alerts were unreliable, they said the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
The interesting point is that the dog handler's evidence was admissible in court.
Unless we actually see the report there is no way of knowing. What we do know however is that Gilroy is, despite the review, still in prison convicted of murder, which rather suggests that the dog’s alerts were absolutely reliable.
It is interesting though that the only individuals who ever claim that cadaver dogs are unreliable are always the ones who are on the wrong end of an alert.
so if abduction was proved...would you then feel some compassion towards the mccanns
About as much as you felt for Amaral when he was cleared of libel, I would imagine.
so if abduction was proved...would you then feel some compassion towards the mccanns
so if abduction was proved...would you then feel some compassion towards the mccanns
Hard question really, as i have never thought maddie was abducted since week 1
Not compassion, but i would feel some regret of what i have said about them - i would think
If i had thought maddie...was abducted... i would never have got involved with this case.
I could not fight the corner of the mccanns... who brought this on themselves.
My compassion lies 100% with maddie.
How would you feel... if there was no abduction, and the mccanns were involved. [
Hard question really, as i have never thought maddie was abducted since week 1
Not compassion, but i would feel some regret of what i have said about them - i would think
If i had thought maddie...was abducted... i would never have got involved with this case.
I could not fight the corner of the mccanns... who brought this on themselves.
My compassion lies 100% with maddie.
How would you feel... if there was no abduction, and the mccanns were involved. [
Hard question really, as i have never thought maddie was abducted since week 1
Not compassion, but i would feel some regret of what i have said about them - i would think
If i had thought maddie...was abducted... i would never have got involved with this case.
I could not fight the corner of the mccanns... who brought this on themselves.
My compassion lies 100% with maddie.
How would you feel... if there was no abduction, and the mccanns were involved. [
The SCCRC ruled that the evidence given re the dog alerts was unreliable....it has been discussed before that for some reason the alerts are allowed as evidence in scotland
The evidence given by the dog handler. Was it her evidence re: the alerts? Was it her evidence re: training? Was it how she used the dog?
Your assumption that they were unhappy with the alerts is an unjustified assumption in my opinion. It wasn't 'alerts' that were 'allowed as evidence' it was the testimony of a police dog handler. Expert witness testimony is allowed in any court, not just those in Scotland.
You implied Grime dishonestly brought his dog’s back again and again to objects that belonged to the McCanns even though Eddie showed no interest. Is that correct ?
The evidence given by the dog handler. Was it her evidence re: the alerts? Was it her evidence re: training? Was it how she used the dog?
Your assumption that they were unhappy with the alerts is an unjustified assumption in my opinion. It wasn't 'alerts' that were 'allowed as evidence' it was the testimony of a police dog handler. Expert witness testimony is allowed in any court, not just those in Scotland.
It seems you are simply trying to find an excuse for the fact her evidence was criticised
Maybe they were unhappy with the alerts as the handler said the dog smelt cadaver scent or blood. There could have been an innocent reason why blood was smelt in that room.
In this case they found her body.
This is interesting -
PC Thompson said the dog gave "positive indications" of a smell of decomposing human remains or blood in the building which housed IML during the probe.
OR BLOOD you see a cadaver dog can smell the scent of blood even when there is no blood to find. Which was my point in the 5a bedroom, Eddie could have smelt blood which had been in the room, thought it may not have been a body, it could have been blood on clothing or someone could have had a nose bleed, it could even have been blood in fertiliser used on the garden and walked into the grout of the tiles. Three families stayed in 5a after the McCann's.
Dishonestly? where did you get that from? It is obvious from the video's that Grime brought Eddie back again and again. He knew he was in 5a and he wanted Eddie to have a really good search.
In one of the other apartments, Eddie is trying to get at something under the bed, Grime lifts the bed up and looks to see what is under it then puts it back down again. Eddie still tries to get under the bed and Grime tells him to leave it. Now why? why didn't he let Eddie sniff what he wanted to get at? If it had been 5a no doubt he would have.
Why did Grime chose Cuddle Cat to hide in the cupboard? Eddie had ignored it, why didn't he give it to Eddie to sniff again? Why put it in the cupboard.
Nobody knows unless they have the report, do they? What's the point of guessing?
Could you please provide a proper cite for the case quoted above ? Was a blood dog also used in the case ?
You have provided no evidence that any cadaver dog alerts to just the scent of blood. You must have found one if you believe that to be the case so please let the rest of us read it.
You baulk at the word dishonesty then go on to accuse Grime of, at the least incompetence, amend at the harshes downright dishonesty.
Eddie alerted to the scent of blood from the keyfob and behind the sofa.
Could you please provide a proper cite for the case quoted above ? Was a blood dog also used in the case ?
You have provided no evidence that any cadaver dog alerts to just the scent of blood. You must have found one if you believe that to be the case so please let the rest of us read it.
You baulk at the word dishonesty then go on to accuse Grime of, at the least incompetence, amend at the harshes downright dishonesty.
They are just questions, can you answer them?
You accuse the McCann's of being dishonest, you don't seem to mind doing that.
I dont accuse grime of incompetence either..you are confused
David Gilroy was caught and convicted because of painstaking and detailed work by the police. Paying close attention to detail was a specialism of mine in my work; if something needed analysing in detail I used to get the job.
You make assumptions without having evidence to support them. I try very hard not to.
They are not just questions. They suggest that you think there is the possibility that Grime was being dishonest.
I’m afraid you did and I am anything but confused.
Eddie alerted to the scent of blood from the keyfob and behind the sofa.
Faithlilly here is where I found the quote. -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17270117
Is that a fact or an opinion? How do you know what Eddie was alerting to?
What else was there?
Cellular matter.
Is that a fact or an opinion? How do you know what Eddie was alerting to?Does Martin Grime say, or does he just say Eddie alert to the key fob?
Is that a fact or an opinion? How do you know what Eddie was alerting to?
no one knows...thats the whole point..even grime doesnt know
Do you think that Suzanne is still alive ?
See post #475
Does Martin Grime say, or does he just say Eddie alert to the key fob?
And since there was blood found on the key fob. Adding 2 and 2 seems reasonable.
They found her body.Wiki says they never found her body.
There was other evidence against Gilroy.
Wiki says they never found her body.
There was other evidence against Gilroy, including the dog alerts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley
Wiki says they never found her body.
There was other evidence against Gilroy, including the dog alerts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley
attention to detail is somethng I deal with every day...assessing evidence is something I deal with everyday and is something I have been taught to do...
that wasnt my post
Didn’t say it was.
A soup of DNA from up to five people, hardly cadaver scent is it?
But certainly blood identified as Gerry's on the key fob.
lots of evidence...but the evidence provided by the dog handler was deemed unreliablePresumably you have a cite?
Presumably you have a cite?
Given that it is relevant.
But certainly blood identified as Gerry's on the key fob.
It wasn't though.
it was given yesterdayIf you are unwilling to provide or re-provide a simple cite, then I am committing your comment to the general dustbin of rubbish.
If you are unwilling to provide or re-provide a simple cite, then I am committing your comment to the general dustbin of rubbish.Put in your dustbin if you like... I dont really care.. The cite was provided yesterday... Read back... It's forum rules to provide a cite... I have done
I.e. I have no reason to believe that Buster's alerts were dismissed by the court. This is based on the information from the BBC and Wiki that this did not happen.
Over to you. Cite?
Yes it was.
Put in your dustbin if you like... I dont really care.. The cite was provided yesterday... Read back... It's forum rules to provide a cite... I have doneI could re-read through 10 pages to see if you provided a cite.
I could re-read through 10 pages to see if you provided a cite.Post 376 I think
The much-easier path is simply to provide your cite. Go on, just do it. It will only take you a moment. *&(+(+
Post 376 I thinkMany thanks for your link. *&(+(+
Many thanks for your link. *&(+(+
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/suzanne-pilley-murder-killer-s-family-shocked-by-closure-of-review-1-4465183
What I understand from this is that the Gilroy family objected to the evidence re the dogs. Is there anything solid that the Scottish court actually ruled out this testimony?
Otherwise this is groundhog day. The McCanns claim the dogs are unreliable. The Gilroys claim the dogs are unreliable. The McCanns are free. David Gilroy is serving a life sentence.
Is there anything solid that the court rejected the evidence of the dogs, whilst still finding Gilroy's conviction was secure?
It was The SCRCC who criticised the dog evidence... Reprted byy the family... I've emailed the SCRCC for a copy of their reviewPlease update us if you get a copy of the review.
And of course both Harrison and Grime have said that the uncomfirmed alerts are unreliable
Please update us if you get a copy of the review.
Until then, it is a Gilroy family statement that...
Akin to, it is a McCann family statement that ...
Or a Clarence Mitchell statement that ...
Or a friend of the family said ...
Or an unnamed source close to the family said ...
Good luck with the SCRCC. Genuinely.
Could you point out the relevant page in the FSS report, then, in case I missed it?
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
Thanks, I'm aware of that. Where does it state that blood had been identified?Since Keela was trained to only alert to human blood in traces than can't be seen with the eye, we tend to call it "blood" even though we can't see it.
Since Keela was trained to only alert to human blood in traces than can't be seen with the eye, we tend to call it "blood" even though we can't see it.
Like I've read somewhere if a knife had been used and it had been wiped clean multiple times so there are no visible traces of blood left on it she will still alert to the knife. I think we are entitle to say "she is still alerting to the traces of blood" but it can't be proven it was blood.
Now Keela alerted to the key fob as well as Eddie. Can you accept that Keela identified it as blood?
Thanks, I'm aware of that. Where does it state that blood had been identified?
Eddie alerts to cadaver odour and blood. Eddie alerted to the key fob so he was either alerting to cadaver odour or blood. Agreed ? Cadaver odour is made up of volatile organic compounds, blood of cells. QED it can’t be cadaver odour.
As keela can alert to remains so small as not to be detectable by science... What was recovered may not be what she was, alerting to &%%6 &%%6Think about it just a little more please.
Could have been blood and cadaver odour on the key FOB... QED
The Renault Scenic + its key were taken by the PJ on 6/8/2007.
on 7th August 2007
"At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire
System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand."
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2187.jpg)
On 8th August at lunchtime Joao Carlos returned the car (logically with key) to the McCanns).
How did the key get sent to the FSS Birmingham for forensic testing if the McCanns had it back? Hire cars aren't rented out along with the spare key.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Samples recovered in the car.
Between August 6th at 9.30pm and August 7th at 4am, the following samples were recovered in the grey Renault Scenic car.
snipped
9, 10 and 11: Hair
12: Car key
13: Control samples of seat fabric
All of these were handed over to Birmingham FSS for analyses.
As keela can alert to remains so small as not to be detectable by science... What was recovered may not be what she was, alerting to &%%6 &%%6Even a scientific test will have a degree of uncertainty.
Shall we just stick to the point Misty ? Eddie does not alert to just the scent of blood without blood being present.
Could have been blood and cadaver odour on the key FOB... QEDThere is no scientific test for cadaver odour.
I'm understanding the point of the argument as long as the correct key card was being tested by the FSS.
There is no scientific test for cadaver odour.
It had Gerry’s DNA on it so not sure the pint you’re trying to make ?
I'm understanding the point of the argument as long as the correct key card was being tested by the FSS.Was there ever a photo of the key and key card so we know what it was like? Could the key be separated from the fob?
Was there ever a photo of the key and key card so we know what it was like? Could the key be separated from the fob?What key card
What key cardThat is right where is a photo of the object in question, was it a key, a key fob or a key card or a key ring? Did it ever feature on the video?
The DNA sample was incomplete. Was it actually Gerry's?
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)).
Let’s see. Either the cards got muddled and the card that was sent to the FSS was not used by Gerry but the DNA taken from it just happened to match the corresponding DNA components of his or it was Gerry’s. What do you think are the chances of the former ?
Anyway back to the point. Neither you nor Carana have been able to prove that Eddie alerts to only the residual smell of blood. Keela didn’t alert to blood in the bedroom of 5a, Eddie did therefore he must have been alerting to cadaver scent
We go round & round in circles. Was Eddie ever trained to alert to remnant scent of a HUMAN cadaver under 5 hours old - given that the odour of decomposition changes as a cadaver goes through various phases?
We are talking about whether Eddie alerts to just the residual scent from blood. Have you any proof that he does ?
As decomposing blood is an integral part of a complete human cadaver, how do you separate the scent to know whether he would alert to a pool of blood from a leaking fresh cadaver which had been forensically cleaned up?
Forensically cleaned ? In a holiday apartment?
If Eddie was alerting to the scent of decomposing blood from a cadaver then a cadaver would have to have been in the room, surely ?
Eddie alerts to blood from a living person, so does Keela. Keela didn’t alert, so Eddie’s alert couldn’t have been to blood from a living person.
Forensically cleaned ? In a holiday apartment?"Eddie alerts to blood from a living person" where does this come from?
If Eddie was alerting to the scent of decomposing blood from a cadaver then a cadaver would have to have been in the room, surely ?
Eddie alerts to blood from a living person, so does Keela. Keela didn’t alert, so Eddie’s alert couldn’t have been to blood from a living person.
"Eddie alerts to blood from a living person" where does this come from?
When Eddie alerted to the car key, there was a car door between him & the key. Is it therefore possible there was a bed between Eddie & the source of the blood in 5A bedroom?
Not sure what you mean Misty. There was no blood as Keela had already searched the property and didn’t alert in the bedroom.
Keela only alerts with her nose at the source of the scent. What happens when that source is hidden by a bed or a wardrobe fitment?
Eddie finds blood from a living person the same way as Keela does so surely if Eddie could smell it so could Keela ?
Eddie finds blood from a living person the same way as Keela does so surely if Eddie could smell it so could Keela ?IMO you would have no idea of the decision making process a dog would have to go through.
IMO you would have no idea of the decision making process a dog would have to go through.
According to the opening post, the purpose of this thread was to discuss what Martin Grime's evidence meant and if it had been misunderstood.
A lot of opinions were posted, mostly by posters who support the parents. They seem to have misunderstood the aim of the thread and haven't really addressed the question posed in the first post.
A good post in my opinion;
"To claim the alerts were to cadaver odour is factually incorrect...it has not been possible and is impossible to determine what the alerts were to...poeple have opinions...and that is all they are... To claim the alerts may have been to cadaver odour of course is correct" post #52
The above post is good because the expert who trained and used the dogs shared his opinion which has more credibility than others' because of his experience and knowledge. He said;
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
So we have an expert opinion. Grime goes on to say;
This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Some people seem to think that he's referring to forensic confirmation, but that's clearly wrong, because cadaver scent can't be confirmed by forensic tests.
So 'corroborating evidence' means something else.
Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that supports a proposition already supported by initial evidence, therefore confirming the original proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroborating_evidence
So Eddie's unconfirmed alerts were;
G5A
Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door.
Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
Garden area directly under veranda.
McCann villa
a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge
Mother and child clothing (after removal)
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and herthat Grimes opinion was that these alerts, were triggered by cadaver scent... mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion.
The PJ tried but failed.
According to the opening post, the purpose of this thread was to discuss what Martin Grime's evidence meant and if it had been misunderstood.
A lot of opinions were posted, mostly by posters who support the parents. They seem to have misunderstood the aim of the thread and haven't really addressed the question posed in the first post.
A good post in my opinion;
"To claim the alerts were to cadaver odour is factually incorrect...it has not been possible and is impossible to determine what the alerts were to...poeple have opinions...and that is all they are... To claim the alerts may have been to cadaver odour of course is correct" post #52
The above post is good because the expert who trained and used the dogs shared his opinion which has more credibility than others' because of his experience and knowledge. He said;
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
So we have an expert opinion. Grime goes on to say;
This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Some people seem to think that he's referring to forensic confirmation, but that's clearly wrong, because cadaver scent can't be confirmed by forensic tests.
So 'corroborating evidence' means something else.
Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that supports a proposition already supported by initial evidence, therefore confirming the original proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroborating_evidence
So Eddie's unconfirmed alerts were;
G5A
Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door.
Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
Garden area directly under veranda.
McCann villa
a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge
Mother and child clothing (after removal)
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and her mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion.
The PJ tried but failed.
Eddie finds blood from a living person the same way as Keela does so surely if Eddie could smell it so could Keela ?
from Grimes rogatory...
'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.
so grime requested forensic analysis of the toy...why do you think he did that
from Grimes rogatory...
'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.
so grime requested forensic analysis of the toy...why do you think he did that
There is an apparent contradiction as to where the positive alert occurred. I am now aware that when Grimes talks of alert by Eddie on CC this was supposed to have occurred in the place where the clothes were examined, but we generally think this occurred at the villa, but Grimes is quoted this did not happen at the villa. I don't have the quotes for this on hand but I will provide them as soon as I can.
If he did, the question is why? He knew full well that Eddie's alerts couldn't be forensically confirmed. Unless Keela also alerted, but there's no record that she did so.
Grime stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood. He made no such comment (AFAIK) as to whether Eddie would also only alert to the physical presence or not.
Why would he require the physical presence of that one scent of the many involved in human decomposition, whether the victim is actually still alive or not?
Is there any way of discerning whether it was a physical scent, but out of range for Keela, or whether it was a residual scent left by something that had been and removed in that flat by any of the occupants just prior to their inspection?
There is an apparent contradiction as to where the positive alert occurred. I am now aware that when Grimes talks of alert by Eddie on CC this was supposed to have occurred in the place where the clothes were examined, but we generally think this occurred at the villa, but Grimes is quoted this did not happen at the villa. I don't have the quotes for this on hand but I will provide them as soon as I can.
Unless it winds up in court all this is just coffee house chat.
Should it wind up in court with Mr Grime as an expert witness then he would subject to some very stringent conditions wrt the evidencehe gives [well within UK; I don't know about Portugal].
There is an apparent contradiction as to where the positive alert occurred. I am now aware that when Grimes talks of alert by Eddie on CC this was supposed to have occurred in the place where the clothes were examined, but we generally think this occurred at the villa, but Grimes is quoted this did not happen at the villa. I don't have the quotes for this on hand but I will provide them as soon as I can.
Cuddlecat was taken from the McCann's villa with the clothes and other items. Whether either or both dogs alerted to it isn't recorded, but it was returned to the McCanns on 3rd along with the other items taken. Gerry signed for them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2125.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CLOTHES.htm
the whole forum is coffee house chat...
Indeed, however, that does not stop some from thinking they will solve the case or contribute significantly to "The Investigation/Search".Because some sceptics have not understood the evidence ad I have shown
But the dogs take pride of place in the coffee house stakes when all is considered....imo
Because some sceptics have not understood the evidence ad I have shown
You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.
You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.
Because some sceptics have not understood the evidence ad I have shown
Where precisely, pray, have you demonstrated that?
have a look on the other thread...Ive pointed out points where gunit was misquoting the files...
that eddie was independently scientifically tested is one example of an untrue statement
Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained.
When gauze pads are laid out for a dog to sniff and some have scent on them and some don't, that is blind testing, which is 'scientific'.
That is not accepted scientific testing.... They actually use the, word anectdotal..
Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a dialy
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.
Please provide a cite for you “quote”.
could we ask gunit for a cite to this statement...there isnt one..do you still dispute that?
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent
do you still dispute that?
have a look on the other thread...Ive pointed out points where gunit was misquoting the files...
that eddie was independently scientifically tested is one example of an untrue statement
About as much as you felt for Amaral when he was cleared of libel, I would imagine.
You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.We can be quite sure that SY understand what precisely regarding the dog alerts in this case? Perhaps you could clarify, thanks.
That is not accepted scientific testing.... They actually use the, word anectdotal..http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a dialy
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.
Where is the cite which supports it?Well where is the post by G-unit using the disputed words?
Where is the cite which supports it?"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
You would have to work out what "Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases" means before you say it is unscientific. It might be like "mock exercises" where they know there is cadaver odour at the scene and the dogs have to find it to pass their qualification.
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence." source http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
What is, going on... My post is, supported by a statement from the PJ that is, in the files.... Are moderators not aware of this
When you find them you can post them.
it has been posted on the forum before...is it only me who remembers them...its part of the files
Gunit had claimed that Grimes opinion is that it IS cadaver contaminant when grime has never stated that.... He's used the words possible and suggestive... Can you not see the differenceI can obviously see the word "suggestive" in one sentence and "is" in the other. But the thing to consider is we are determining Grime's opinion and as far as opinion can be turned into fact does it really make any difference whether it was written "in my opinion it was triggered by cadaver odour" or whether it was "in my opinion it was triggered as I suggest by cadaver odour"
I can obviously see the word "suggestive" in one sentence and "is" in the other. But the thing to consider is we are determining Grime's opinion and as far as opinion can be turned into fact does it really make any difference whether it was written "in my opinion it was triggered by cadaver odour" or whether it was "in my opinion triggered as I suggest by cadaver odour"
You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.
We can be quite sure that SY understand what precisely regarding the dog alerts in this case? Perhaps you could clarify, thanks.
Grime did not say the alert was triggered by cadaver odour...he used the word suggestive and possible...there is an absolute world of difference....we are looking at what grime said...NOT what some poster THINKS he meantNo matter what is actually written it has to be read and that requires thought and understanding. You are technically correct but I don't see the difference. How are the two views different?
No matter what is actually written it has to be read and that requires thought and understanding. You are technically correct but I don't see the difference. How are the two views different?
And besides it is only Grime's opinion. He needed corroborating evidence before he would say it was a fact.
No matter what is actually written it has to be read and that requires thought and understanding. You are technically correct but I don't see the difference. How are the two views different?
And besides it is only Grime's opinion. He needed corroborating evidence before he would say it was a fact.
We can be quite sure that SY understand what precisely regarding the dog alerts in this case? Perhaps you could clarify, thanks.
so you cannot see the difference betweenOpinions aren't facts. Opinions are possibilities.
...it is my opinion that the dog alerted to cadaver...and,...
it is my opinion that it is possible that the dog alerted to cadaver...if you cannot see the massive difference its pointless me trying to explain
The weight of those alerts as evidence.Which weighs heavier a ton of feathers or a ton of lead?
Opinions aren't facts. Opinions are possibilities.
The weight of those alerts as evidence...
The weight of those alerts as evidence.
You have totally missed the point... I'm talking facts... What was actually saidYou might have quoted Grime more correctly but can you explain what it was he meant? Have a go at answering Misty's question.
You have totally missed the point... I'm talking facts... What was actually said
Is that what you think Mr Grime might have said in his verbal report of which there is no record [apparently] prior to it being translated into Portuguese for the police files or the version of what you think Mr Grime might have said in his verbal report of which there is no record [apparently] after it was translated into Portuguese for the police files then back into English by a translator of unknown provenance and ability which is on the files that are bandied about or the written version of the report Mr Grime subsequently submitted which is on the files that are bandied about ?
If you see what I mean ?
Plenty of ground to cover there
You might have quoted Grime more correctly but can you explain what it was he meant? Have a go at answering Misty's question.I would rather stick to facts...and i have quoted grime correctly whereas gunit quoted incorectly..any speculation I make would most probably be removed
You might have quoted Grime more correctly but can you explain what it was he meant? Have a go at answering Misty's question.
By using the words "suggestive of" & "possibly" Grime was inferring that Eddie's alerts may not have been to cadaver odour, meaning the dog was not always correct and thus unreliable as a definitive source of intelligence. IMO.That is one way of looking at it. I was interested to see how Davel interpreted those words?
By using the words "suggestive of" & "possibly" Grime was inferring that Eddie's alerts may not have been to cadaver odour, meaning the dog was not always correct and thus unreliable as a definitive source of intelligence. IMO.
That is one way of looking at it. I was interested to see how Davel interpreted those words?
I take it as more of a standard police evidence approach. Unless they can be 100% certain they will qualify their statements. It doesn’t mean the dog was not always correct.
Im not interreting anything...that would be opinion...Im taking the words at face value.If it was only possible cadaver odour what other possibilities are there?
grime has not sated its his opinion the dogs alerted to cadaver...hes said its possible...you cant seem to see the difernece which questions your ability to analyse the evidence...imo
I take it as more of a standard police evidence approach. Unless they can be 100% certain they will qualify their statements. It doesn’t mean the dog was not always correct.
If it was only possible cadaver odour what other possibilities are there?
ask grimeOK let's ask him.
OK let's ask him.
how do you propose to do that and what makes you think he would answer...its an ongoing case...you expect to \ask an important witness questionsI'll get you to do that! The case could be shut down next month. Must be getting close to the end now.
I'll get you to do that! The case could be shut down next month. Must be getting close to the end now.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=83.0
He's also been subjected to the alleged D-Notice.
Its gunit who has quoted gime incorrectly...perhaps all the files are innaccurate and its a total dogs dinner...could be
what of course really matters is the mccanns ...according to both investiagtions are not suspects
Jeez is this a matter of National Security then?
A pretyy inept bodyswerve if I may say so sir!
The post I responded to was all your own work and nothing to do with G-Unit or whether indeed the McCanns are or are not suspects.
I was (un)reliably informed 'twas so, when I first stumbled upon t'internet chat.
The weight of those alerts as evidence.That doesn't answer my question but thanks anyway.
Blimey! you mean like Burgess, MaClean and the Krogers? and even like what's going on "up the road" from me as we speak ? Watch out for bold Bulgars with umbrellas.
I take it as more of a standard police evidence approach. Unless they can be 100% certain they will qualify their statements. It doesn’t mean the dog was not always correct.
We've been informed on this thread that the Met know the weight of the dogs' so-called evidence, the implication being that they consider the alerts highly significant. Is there any verbatim reference to the dog alerts in this case by any member of the Met that supports this contention? If so, what was said and by whom?DCI Redwood March 2014
DCI Redwood March 2014DCI Redwood also said back in 2013(?) he believed it quite possible that Madeleine was still alive, which suggests that the dog alerts were not the weighty piece of evidence that some would have us believe.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mccann/uk-police-in-madeleine-mccann-case-probe-new-intruder-link-idUSBREA2I1D220140319
*snipped*
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options"
That statement inplies that SY did not fully support the cadaver dog's alerts at that time, although there is no direct reference to same.
DCI Redwood also said back in 2013(?) he believed it quite possible that Madeleine was still alive, which suggests that the dog alerts were not the weighty piece of evidence that some would have us believe.
DCI Redwood also said back in 2013(?) he believed it quite possible that Madeleine was still alive, which suggests that the dog alerts were not the weighty piece of evidence that some would have us believe.That will take some figuring out how that can be. Smithman carrying possible Madeleine away from the Ocean Club, no suggestion she had been dead whilst being carried, by the Met.
DCI Redwood also said back in 2013(?) he believed it quite possible that Madeleine was still alive, which suggests that the dog alerts were not the weighty piece of evidence that some would have us believe.
That will take some figuring out how that can be. Smithman carrying possible Madeleine away from the Ocean Club, no suggestion she had been dead whilst being carried, by the Met.
Would a person carry a dead child past a whole family?
The Met use cadaver dogs regularly so wont be as eager to dismiss their alerts as some supporters.
Would that person have a choice in the matter?I would like to see what that would be like. Someone deceased long enough to leave cadaver odour in the apartment. And then get someone else to carry the cadaver along the road making it look like a girl asleep.
Was he supposed to turn round & walk the other way when he was already the best part half way down the road before the family emerged from the alleyway.
I would like to see what that would be like. Someone deceased long enough to leave cadaver odour in the apartment. And then get someone else to carry the cadaver along the road making it look like a girl asleep.
Two problems:
1. How long has the girl been deceased.
2. How do you carry a person who has been deceased that long and make it look natural as you carry her.
He did not look comfortable carrying the child.I don't know if that is a fair interpretation.
Dead weight.
I would like to see what that would be like. Someone deceased long enough to leave cadaver odour in the apartment. And then get someone else to carry the cadaver along the road making it look like a girl asleep.
Two problems:
1. How long has the girl been deceased.
2. How do you carry a person who has been deceased that long and make it look natural as you carry her.
Perhaps it doesn't look natural;
He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
DCI Redwood also said back in 2013(?) he believed it quite possible that Madeleine was still alive, which suggests that the dog alerts were not the weighty piece of evidence that some would have us believe.
DCI Redwood also said back in 2013(?) he believed it quite possible that Madeleine was still alive, which suggests that the dog alerts were not the weighty piece of evidence that some would have us believe.
Digging up the mound is also suggestive of if she left the apartment alive it wasn't for very long.
DCI Redwood also said back in 2013(?) he believed it quite possible that Madeleine was still alive, which suggests that the dog alerts were not the weighty piece of evidence that some would have us believe.
No, it means the evidence was inconclusive and that he was keeping his options open. IMO
They weren't looking for a live child or an abductor there, were they?
The Met use cadaver dogs regularly so wont be as eager to dismiss their alerts as some supporters.That is something of a non sequitur - in my opinion.
No, it means the evidence was inconclusive and that he was keeping his options open. IMOFaithlilly contended that the Met believe the dog evidence held considerable weight (though actually doesn't provide any evidence of this). The fact that the Met have made several statements clearly indicating they believe Madeleine may have left the apartment alive and may even yet BE alive shows that whatever weight they have placed on the alerts it is not a particularly weighty weight.
Faithlilly contended that the Met believe the dog evidence held considerable weight (though actually doesn't provide any evidence of this). The fact that the Met have made several statements clearly indicating they believe Madeleine may have left the apartment alive and may even yet BE alive shows that whatever weight they have placed on the alerts it is not a particularly weighty weight.
Faithlilly contended that the Met believe the dog evidence held considerable weight (though actually doesn't provide any evidence of this). The fact that the Met have made several statements clearly indicating they believe Madeleine may have left the apartment alive and may even yet BE alive shows that whatever weight they have placed on the alerts it is not a particularly weighty weight.
Faithlilly contended that the Met believe the dog evidence held considerable weight (though actually doesn't provide any evidence of this). The fact that the Met have made several statements clearly indicating they believe Madeleine may have left the apartment alive and may even yet BE alive shows that whatever weight they have placed on the alerts it is not a particularly weighty weight.
‘Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.
‘Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.’Where is the reference to the weight given to the dog alerts in this statement? Consider this: the Met has spent £11m+ on an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. If they were in any way convinced that the dog alerts were correct, then what do you think they have been spending their money on? If the McCanns were behind Madeleine's disappearance then by now the only way to prove this would be to elicit a confession as we know that there is no forensic evidence to link them to any foul play. What better way to put pressure on them than for the Met to signal to them (indirectly) that they believed them responsible by giving great weight to the dog alerts. If the Met said we are almost certain Madeleine died in the apartment then that very much narrows it down to the McCanns without outright accusing them. The pressure on them would be immense. But they haven't done that have they? Instead they have spent £11+ million on investigating numerous other lines of investigation - why have they done that, in your opinion?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
Faithlilly contended that the Met believe the dog evidence held considerable weight (though actually doesn't provide any evidence of this). The fact that the Met have made several statements clearly indicating they believe Madeleine may have left the apartment alive and may even yet BE alive shows that whatever weight they have placed on the alerts it is not a particularly weighty weight.
We don't have evidence telling us if Madeleine is alive or dead.
Where is the reference to the weight given to the dog alerts in this statement? Consider this: the Met has spent £11m+ on an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. If they were in any way convinced that the dog alerts were correct, then what do you think they have been spending their money on? If the McCanns were behind Madeleine's disappearance then by now the only way to prove this would be to elicit a confession as we know that there is no forensic evidence to link them to any foul play. What better way to put pressure on them than for the Met to signal to them (indirectly) that they believed them responsible by giving great weight to the dog alerts. If the Met said we are almost certain Madeleine died in the apartment then that very much narrows it down to the McCanns without outright accusing them. The pressure on them would be immense. But they haven't done that have they? Instead they have spent £11+ million on investigating numerous other lines of investigation - why have they done that, in your opinion?
We don't have evidence telling us if Madeleine is alive or dead.
Faithlilly contended that the Met believe the dog evidence held considerable weight (though actually doesn't provide any evidence of this). The fact that the Met have made several statements clearly indicating they believe Madeleine may have left the apartment alive and may even yet BE alive shows that whatever weight they have placed on the alerts it is not a particularly weighty weight.
Where is the reference to the weight given to the dog alerts in this statement? Consider this: the Met has spent £11m+ on an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. If they were in any way convinced that the dog alerts were correct, then what do you think they have been spending their money on? If the McCanns were behind Madeleine's disappearance then by now the only way to prove this would be to elicit a confession as we know that there is no forensic evidence to link them to any foul play. What better way to put pressure on them than for the Met to signal to them (indirectly) that they believed them responsible by giving great weight to the dog alerts. If the Met said we are almost certain Madeleine died in the apartment then that very much narrows it down to the McCanns without outright accusing them. The pressure on them would be immense. But they haven't done that have they? Instead they have spent £11+ million on investigating numerous other lines of investigation - why have they done that, in your opinion?
Where is the reference to the weight given to the dog alerts in this statement? Consider this: the Met has spent £11m+ on an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. If they were in any way convinced that the dog alerts were correct, then what do you think they have been spending their money on? If the McCanns were behind Madeleine's disappearance then by now the only way to prove this would be to elicit a confession as we know that there is no forensic evidence to link them to any foul play. What better way to put pressure on them than for the Met to signal to them (indirectly) that they believed them responsible by giving great weight to the dog alerts. If the Met said we are almost certain Madeleine died in the apartment then that very much narrows it down to the McCanns without outright accusing them. The pressure on them would be immense. But they haven't done that have they? Instead they have spent £11+ million on investigating numerous other lines of investigation - why have they done that, in your opinion?
No idea. All we do know for certain is what the various police officers have said over the years and Redwood said abduction may not be the lead OG is following.
A very pertainant question that many have asked before.
One has to assume that they are looking for additional evidence to support their theory - whatever that is.
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Donald Rumsfeld
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/donald_rumsfeld_148142
I think that sums up this case very nicely.
You've only highlighted one, though, Jassi. ;)
I find the whole of that to be pertinent as we aren't privy to all of the details.
What was the context?
I provided a link Carana which explains the context.
Just looked back, Yes, thanks, Faith.
So it was indeed in the context of the as yet unidentified peretrators in the other child molestation / assault cases in the area.
I think this better explains the context Carana.
• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
Clear as mud as to what that correction was actually about.
If he'd said that she might still be alive, but was THEN asked questions re Smellyman (or al. ) and whether that had implications as to whether police thinking was that she could indeed have died prior to a removal from the flat, that would make sense to me in the context of a presser.
We've been informed on this thread that the Met know the weight of the dogs' so-called evidence, the implication being that they consider the alerts highly significant. Is there any verbatim reference to the dog alerts in this case by any member of the Met that supports this contention? If so, what was said and by whom?
Why does that matter?
1) Has a crime been committed in this case within the jurisdiction of the MPS?
2) With respect to weighting that would only come into consideration should a case be heard in court in which case the judge and jury would be the arbiters of weighting with the judge directing the jury where appropriate.
There might be a reason as to why the police force deemed most suitable to take up the case wasn't one with the least experience...
Which if it fails,then the experience means jack all.
No idea. All we do know for certain is what the various police officers have said over the years and Redwood said abduction may not be the lead OG is following.
Not all cases are solved, sadly, however competent the force may be.
Then the expertise that SY are supposed to bring may not be all its cracked up to be.
There might be a reason as to why the police force deemed most suitable to take up the case wasn't one with the least experience...
Yeah, but there are things we know we knowAnd there are things you think we know but are mistaken.
In my opinion you've got that entirely wrong.
Snip
Mr Rowley said there was no ‘definitive evidence’ as to whether Madeleine is alive or dead.
He added: ‘That’s why we describe it as a missing person inquiry. We understand why, after this many years, people will be pessimistic, but it’s important we keep an open mind.’ The officer added that however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/25/madeleine-mccann-police-following-significant-leads-as-10th-anniversary-approaches-6595974/?ito=cbshare
Mark Rowley back in April last year.That seems fairly conclusive proof that the Met don't consider the dog alerts to be evidence of anything at all.QuoteWe don't have evidence telling us if Madeleine is alive or dead.
I think that would be included in the ‘what every officer has said’You said "No idea. All we do know for certain is what the various police officers have said over the years and Redwood said abduction may not be the lead OG is following."
Please stop picking holes Brietta when there are none to pick.
Why does that matter?It matters only in the context of a discussion between myself and another forum member, this is a discussion forum and I was enjoying an exchange of views, not preparing for court.
1) Has a crime been committed in this case within the jurisdiction of the MPS?
2) With respect to weighting that would only come into consideration should a case be heard in court in which case the judge and jury would be the arbiters of weighting with the judge directing the jury where appropriate.
That seems fairly conclusive proof that the Met don't consider the dog alerts to be evidence of anything at all.
It matters only in the context of a discussion between myself and another forum member, this is a discussion forum and I was enjoying an exchange of views, not preparing for court.
Would the Portuguese judges have accepted the evidence of Grime as an expert witness in any court case during 2007/8?Who knows but I am sure someone with a professed phenomenal knowledge of Portuguese law will be along presently to advise us.
Who knows but I am sure someone with a professed phenomenal knowledge of Portuguese law will be along presently to advise us.
If the judges don't then end of dawg saga[ if only!]
If the judges do then there will be court rules to follow the result of which will be perm any one from about half a dozen as we lie at present.
So just your idle musings that have no real relevance to the case ?Thanks, I certainly intend to, if that's not a problem. The post that you picked up on was relevant to the case, we were discusiing but yes, it was just an idle musing if that's what you want to call it. I'm not expecting to crack the case, offer startling new insight or assist anyone in preparing for court, perhaps your expectations are set a bit too high?
Who knows but I am sure someone with a professed phenomenal knowledge of Portuguese law will be along presently to advise us.
If the judges don't then end of dawg saga[ if only!]
If the judges do then there will be court rules to follow the result of which will be perm any one from about half a dozen as we lie at present.
We have had the benefit of discussing the dogs' alerts & what they represented for the last 10 years. SY are also aware of the limitations of cadaver alerts, given current research. For anyone to have had such alerts used against them as evidence of death, without other definitive evidence, would have been a gross miscarriage of justice IMO. I do think that the change of PJ co-ordinator + sidekick in October 2007 prevented such a moj,
http://vnonline.co.uk/vn/news/16012/Scientists-work-with-dogs-to-ID-human-remains
*snipped*
The University of Leicester project is the only one in the UK to apply multidimensional chromatography to the understanding of decomposition. The team are currently supporting cadaver dog training in the UK as police forces are often very limited as to which samples they can use, which can reduce their effectiveness during investigations.
“Within the UK we are restricted to the use of animal samples in both research and police dog training, due to current legislation,” Mr Brooks said.
Protocols are currently being introduced to allow police forces to use human samples donated from hospitals, in order to increase the dogs’ reliability and effectiveness. This is yet to be implemented, however, and it is not known how regular or consistent the supply will be.
==========================================================
That sounds eminently reasonable.
Most cases however are decided on the weight of circumstantial evidence. The notion someone will be banged up on the strength of a dog "alert" is somewhat fatuous as is presuming it will all be at the behest of a prejudiced police officer.
What standing does the research quoted above have in court? For example is it accepted ?
"It was held that the duty of the expert witness “... is to furnish the Judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the Judge or jury to form their own
independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested, becomes a factor (and often an important factor) for consideration along with the whole other evidence in the case, but the
decision is for the Judge or jury. In particular the bare ipse dixit of a scientist, however eminent, upon the issue in controversy, will normally carry little weight, for it cannot be tested by cross-examination nor independently appraised, and the parties have invoked the decision
of a judicial tribunal and not an oracular pronouncement by an expert.”
Expert evidence will only be admissible where it will assist the court in
reaching its conclusions and is given by an expert who is impartial and
sufficiently qualified in a field of expertise, which itself is considered to be
reliable.
Plenty to go at there 8(0(*
Having had a read over the past few posts it was in my mind to admonish members to beware their conduct towards new members to the forum and to be polite and welcoming as per forum rules.
However Vertigo Swirl seems to be coping very well without any such comment from me.
It is as s/he says a discussion forum to which I would add that members expressing all points of view ... which are within forum rules ... are very welcome.
Welcome Vertigo Swirl, I hope you enjoy posting here.
so are the alerts part of a field that is considered reliable...what scientintific evidence is there to support them....
apart from grime saying they have no evidential reliability
That sounds eminently reasonable.
Most cases however are decided on the weight of circumstantial evidence. The notion someone will be banged up on the strength of a dog "alert" is somewhat fatuous as is presuming it will all be at the behest of a prejudiced police officer.
What standing does the research quoted above have in court? For example is it accepted ?
"It was held that the duty of the expert witness “... is to furnish the Judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the Judge or jury to form their own
independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested, becomes a factor (and often an important factor) for consideration along with the whole other evidence in the case, but the
decision is for the Judge or jury. In particular the bare ipse dixit of a scientist, however eminent, upon the issue in controversy, will normally carry little weight, for it cannot be tested by cross-examination nor independently appraised, and the parties have invoked the decision
of a judicial tribunal and not an oracular pronouncement by an expert.”
Expert evidence will only be admissible where it will assist the court in
reaching its conclusions and is given by an expert who is impartial and
sufficiently qualified in a field of expertise, which itself is considered to be
reliable.
Plenty to go at there 8(0(*
Circumstantial evidence & prejudiced police officers - check out the case of case of David Dooley (appeal still pending) - https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/murder-without-forensic-evidence/3006995.article
Re. expert witnesses - do we expect the judge & jury to be competent enough in a particular science to apply it to the case in hand? Is the equivalent of the US Daubert standard now enshrined in UK Criminal Law & is there anything similar in Portugal?
You too need to brush up on the duties of the expert witness.http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cgga/Guide-4-WEB.pdf
You may not like the rules and I may not like them either but you and I do not constitute a majority, until we both are advocates we stand no chance of altering the rules.
I don't know what the rules are in Portugal as I have repeatedly stated. I am sure the basic rule of the expert not being allowed to usurp the powers of the court will stand though.
If you know what they are you could apprise us.
http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cgga/Guide-4-WEB.pdf
Case Assessment and Interpretation of Expert Evidence
Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses
4.2. How to evaluate the response of a sniffer dog p 76-83
page 82-83
In the final analysis, every individual case has its own unique facts and circumstances.
Experimental data produce generalisations and approximations of reality, and even evidently
flawed data may be superior to pure guesswork. Forensic scientists need to make intelligent
use of whatever pertinent data might be available to help them tame the uncertainties and deal
with the investigative and evidential demands of the instant case. Experienced and
knowledgeable forensic experts will adjust the available data, taking account of its
methodological strengths and limitations, better to reflect what they judge to be the
probabilities of obtaining particular scientific findings in the circumstances of particular
investigations or proceedings.
Doesn't that sound like the judge is expected to determine the admissibility of any cadaver dog evidence in a UK court case?
It will depend on what the judge says based on all the information he receives and Mr Grime providing the judge with all relevant information including that which may cast doubt on his own opinion.
But:
"In particular the bare ipse dixit of a scientist, however eminent, upon the issue in controversy, will normally carry little weight information".
No matter how hard you try you will be unable to place Mr Grime in a position where he behaves as an advocate as that simply is not acceptable to the courts, backed up by case law.
You did take that seriously: "You too need to brush up on the duties of the expert witness"!
Here's the section in the CÓDIGO DE PROCESSO PENAL Lei 48/2007, de 29 de Agosto re experts:
CAPÍTULO VI
Da prova pericial
*snipped*
Artigo 163.o
Valor da prova pericial
1 — O juízo técnico, científico ou artístico inerente à prova pericial presume-se subtraído à livre apreciação do julgador.
2 — Sempre que a convicção do julgador divergir do juízo contido no parecer dos peritos, deve aquele fundamentar a divergência.
Robbie Coltrane's new series features the Suzanne Pilley case and say that the cadaver dog alerts were critical evidence.
"The dogs provide the evidence and gave support that Suzanne had been murdered." "They are a remarkable tool." "Where the car boot was situated in the garage, the dog gave an alert at that spot." Now the investigation focused on David Gilroy. Detective Chief Inspector Gary Flannigan
from "Robbie Coltrane's Critical Evidence" Series 2 Episode 8 "Into Thin Air"
"The cadaver dog provided critical evidence."
Robbie Coltrane's new series features the Suzanne Pilley case and say that the cadaver dog alerts were critical evidence.
"The dogs provide the evidence and gave support that Suzanne had been murdered." "They are a remarkable tool." "Where the car boot was situated in the garage, the dog gave an alert at that spot." Now the investigation focused on David Gilroy. Detective Chief Inspector Gary Flannigan
from "Robbie Coltrane's Critical Evidence" Series 2 Episode 8 "Into Thin Air"
"The cadaver dog provided critical evidence."
In my opinion the indications provided by the cadaver dog in areas where it is likely Suzanne Pilley's remains had lain for some time, reinforced compelling evidence of CCTV footage/phone pings which proved that David Gilroy's apparently hastily arranged work related car journey had taken longer than necessary and had included evidence of off-road activity.
I think the dog indications assisted police to form an opinion about what may have been part of the sequence of events in Suzanne's disappearance ... but they were not stand alone evidence ... Gilroy was convicted as a result of an accumulation of evidence, including having a motive before the event and as a result of his actions afterwards.
Unfortunately the CCTV footage of Suzanne outside her workplace did not actually record her entering the building but obviously the jury were of the opinion the police had gathered enough evidence for them to return a guilty verdict.
Snip
Gilroy's mistake was to underestimate the huge electronic footprint that became a compelling body of evidence.
After analysing CCTV evidence, police had recreated a journey he made to Argyll and back three times.
They discovered Mr Gilroy had taken two hours longer than their average time each way.
And a comparison of fuel consumption suggested there were 124 miles unaccounted for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colleagues described him as seeming clammy, sweaty and with scratches on his neck and face. But he got his act together.
He made an excuse to go home and collect the car. He bought air freshners in Superdrug on Princes Street.
He used make-up to cover scratch marks on his hands.
He adjusted his diary to give him a reason to go to Argyll the following day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the court prosecution pointed out, Mr Gilroy, who was the one person with intimate knowledge of Ms Pilley, had gone on a journey of "no importance" the day after she had disappeared instead of "assisting the police inquiry".
He returned home that night and spent the evening with his family, all the time Ms Pilley's body was in the boot of his car.
He had made a journey to Lochgilphead, to check on a school his firm was overseeing.
However, he did not take a direct route and instead headed much further north.
He was logged at Tyndrum at 13:22, then Inveraray at 15:51 before arriving at Lochgilphead at 16:26.
Gilroy's car suspension was found by investigators to be badly damaged and it had vegetation stuck underneath.
They were convinced he had driven off road.
Detectives were certain he had detoured along the A83 to somewhere near the beauty spot, Rest and Be Thankful, with enough time to dispose of Ms Pilley's body.
A targeted, intensive search was organised for a weekend in August. The terrain was tough and ultimately Ms Pilley's body was not found.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17358340
Yes, some people think the McCann alerts needed to be confirmed with forensic evidence, but corroborating evidence isn't always forensic."forensic
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Yes, some people think the McCann alerts needed to be confirmed with forensic evidence, but corroborating evidence isn't always forensic.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Yes, some people think the McCann alerts needed to be confirmed with forensic evidence, but corroborating evidence isn't always forensic.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
,,,Article 163
Value of forensic evidence
1 — the technical, scientific or artistic judgment inherent in the forensic evidence is assumed to be subtracted from the judge's free judgement.
2 — where the conviction of the judge differs from the judgment contained in the opinion of the experts, it shall substantiate the divergence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your interpretation of that clause, please, Carana?
Grime and Harrison say physical evidence... So what could that beSomething more substantial than a hypothesis.
Here's the section in the CÓDIGO DE PROCESSO PENAL Lei 48/2007, de 29 de Agosto re experts:I do believe that is the catch of the day. Many thanks Carana. *&(+(+
CAPÍTULO VI
Da prova pericial
Artigo 151.o
... etc. etc.
Robbie Coltrane's new series features the Suzanne Pilley case and say that the cadaver dog alerts were critical evidence.You quote Robbie Coltrane and I will quote martin grime
"The dogs provide the evidence and gave support that Suzanne had been murdered." "They are a remarkable tool." "Where the car boot was situated in the garage, the dog gave an alert at that spot." Now the investigation focused on David Gilroy. Detective Chief Inspector Gary Flannigan
from "Robbie Coltrane's Critical Evidence" Series 2 Episode 8 "Into Thin Air"
"The cadaver dog provided critical evidence."
Grime and Harrison say physical evidence... So what could that be
Grime didn't say that in my quote. Corroborating evidence is anything which supports a hypothesis.
You need to read all the quotes made by Grime and Harrison.... They both specifically refer to physical evidence..
Again it seems, there is something you are unaware of
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
then from grime..
Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
There was none in the Gilroy case, just corroborting evidence.
There was none in the Gilroy case, just corroborting evidence.
You quote Robbie Coltrane and I will quote martin grime
I'll see your Martin Grime and raise a John Coltrane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcN5LP4WLAA
There was none in the Gilroy case, just corroborting evidence.
There was none in the Gilroy case, just corroborting evidence.
once again you are making assunptions...who says the alerts were corroborated...another pointer tha you do not understand the evidence...it may well be the alerts ahve been discredited
Not according to Grime they haven't.
I'm talking about the Gilroy case... Grime does not support the alerts as evidence in the McCann case..
Not officially but he believes Ediie did alert to cadaver scent.
Cite
I'm afraid I can't post a cite but I do know he believed in Eddie and that he genuinely alerted in accordance with his training regimes.
So now it's not cadaver scent but training regime which include blood... That's why you need a cite
But his training regimes included cadaver scent.
And blood.. Theres, confusion already...
Ah but blood was easily excluded using Keela.waht about other body fluids in the training regime
strange choice..Coltrane payed cracker ...the criminal profiler....as used in the Colin Stagg case and we know what use that was.
John Coltrane played tenor and soprano saxophones. See the youtube clip I posted.
Robbie Coltrane who played Cracker took his stage surname from John Coltrane.
There is nothing strange about the choice of John Coltrane.
Simples.
And what do you imagine that proves... There is evidence that that the dog evidence was considered unreliable
That corroborating evidence plus alerts without forensic confirmation can be used to secure a conviction. The courts didn't find anything to be unreliable.
It is only you saying the alerts are corroborated... You are making things up... It will be interesting to see what my FOI request brings up
And what do you imagine that proves... There is evidence that that the dog evidence was considered unreliable
Apart from the family’s anguished claim after Gilroy’s case was closed by the SCRCC there is no evidence that the aforementioned SCRCC said any such thing.
And blood.. Theres, confusion already...And Eddie was trained on dead piglets
And Eddie was trained on dead piglets
Once a dog has been trained on something, he cannot be detrained.
So Eddie was trained on :
1) Dessicated blood from a living person
2) Cadaver odour from dead piglets
3) And at some time, after the period we are thinking of IIRC, he was trained ion the USA on human cadavers
And?I don't believe that means a cadaver dog will be fooled by a bacon sandwich.
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I
introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I don't believe that means a cadaver dog will be fooled by a bacon sandwich.
Whoever thinks it might is clutching at straws in my opinion;
This ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
waht about other body fluids in the training regime
you make a clain and have no cite...you say grime confirmed cadaver then you change it to within training regime...your claim ..imo...therfore has no credibility..
I have a quote from grime saying its possible the alert was to cadaver...Harrison says something similar...both say the alerts ahve no evidential vlue...I have a cite for all that....mine can all be confirmed...yours cannot
Grime is legally constrained as to what he could and can say publicly in this case but he is the dog expert who trained Eddie so was best placed to know if any alert was significant. It is my understanding that he believes the dog did alert to a cadaver related odour. Where that odour came from however was the subject of a long debate previously.It's not really important... We have several statements from Grime and Harrison...
It's not really important... We have several statements from Grime and Harrison...
No cite no credibility... Imo
Whoever thinks it might is clutching at straws in my opinion;
This ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Can not believe how you can think - the dogs failed....or Martin Grime.
Probably posted before, but interesting all the same.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/martin-grime-and-eddie-and-keela-t35.html
I have never said either failed... Just failed to find any evidence
SY agree Maddie may still be alive or may be dead... Which is the same situation without any alerts
It's not really important... We have several statements from Grime and Harrison...
No cite no credibility... Imo
Sorry but I am unable to share my emails with you for obvious reasons.
The same situation as in - no evidence of abduction, either.
With a lot more searching than 2 dogs. not to mention the millions spent.
Its like when you think about it, you cant misunderstand evidence on abduction - because there is nothing.
Sorry but I am unable to share my emails with you for obvious reasons.
The dog did grab food from a kitchen in his mouth and run with it until reprimanded during the filmed inspection of the apartments, though.
May not have been a bacon sandwich ... but it was in his mouth as was CC in the villa and as were items of Kate and Sean's clothing in the gymnasium. So if we can see what grabs his attention it equals nothing? But if we cannot see what grabs his attention it equals 'cadaver scent'?
Hmmm ... I think there may be a big dose of 'emperor' and 'new clothes' coming on there ... to say nothing of Zampo.
The dog did grab food from a kitchen in his mouth and run with it until reprimanded during the filmed inspection of the apartments, though.
May not have been a bacon sandwich ... but it was in his mouth as was CC in the villa and as were items of Kate and Sean's clothing in the gymnasium. So if we can see what grabs his attention it equals nothing? But if we cannot see what grabs his attention it equals 'cadaver scent'?
Hmmm ... I think there may be a big dose of 'emperor' and 'new clothes' coming on there ... to say nothing of Zampo.
It is the alert which is important. Did Eddie alert to the foodstuff in his mouth before picking it up ?
the alerts..this is what I find strange...and what the pj found strange too..
u) 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.
v) 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'
so not just CC but most of the alerts
Could you provide context for those questions please ?You mean you haven't seen them before... 2 min
Most dogs, like people, take food in their mouths in order to eat it. They're unlikely to take non-food items in their mouths for the same reason. In my opinion that's more likely to be connected to the dog's vomeronasal organ.
https://www.dailydogdiscoveries.com/dogs-vomeronasal-organ/
Perhaps you should endeavour to read cites prior to posting ... but enough diversion ... let's return to the topic.
Evidence! Misunderstanding of which causes so much ... misunderstanding. We have all read about Eddie's prowess and his training regime and whether he used his vomeronasal-organ when working at his day job will forever remain a mystery but since it is part of the anatomy of the dog nose I imagine not.
Perhaps you can provide a cite which says Eddie's trained response when working in the field included picking up waste food from a kitchen bin? and running around with potential evidence in his mouth ... then you might have ammunition to give weight to your argument.
Otherwise in my opinion you are either playing games or waffling.
As I've said before it would be extremely unprofessional of Grime to share information Re, an on-going case... And you have repeated his supposed opinion... I find the whole thing unrealistic... I think you've been had
I think it is safe to say you aren’t a forensic dog handler or trainer so we are on fairly solid ground in assuming your attempt at casting doubt on the dogs is not based on knowledge.
It isn't really safe for you to make any assumption about any other member is it?
Maybe you think it is normal for a working dog who we are told apparently does not become distracted by food to be seen becoming distracted by food. One doesn't really require to be much of a dog expert to find that a bit extraordinary does one?
Which comment drops you neatly back into square one. If you know nothing about the subject you are in no position to make any sensible contribution whatever.
I previously posted about this on the dog poll thread, but for those who haven't read it I'll leave you to decide whether the dog or handler was the weak link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Preston_(dog_handler)
John Preston (died 2008)[1] was a dog handler and former state trooper from Pennsylvania[2] who testified for the prosecution in criminal cases across the country in the early 1980s.[3] Preston claimed that his dog (named Harass II[4] or Harrass 2[5]) could perform feats of forensic detection far beyond the abilities of other investigative dogs.[3]
As an expert, Preston was paid $300 per day; in his previous job as a Pennsylvania state trooper, he was paid $20,000 per year.[1] Brevard County, Florida, paid Preston $37,429 in the first half of 1984 alone.[1]
Claimed abilities of his dog
Preston claimed that his dog could smell human traces years or months after a suspect walked over the ground,[6] on heavily trafficked streets,[1] or both.[7] He claimed that his dog could smell underwater, and, in a case against a man who was eventually freed on DNA evidence, Preston claimed that his dog could track a human scent even after hurricanes.[8] Tracking dog experts say these feats are impossible.[7][8]
Preston's dog would sometimes urinate on the evidence while Preston claimed it was working.
Repudiated testimony
Preston's testimony was repudiated by the Kings County District Attorney in New York and the Arizona Supreme Court, who called him a "charlatan".[1][3] A U.S. Postal Service investigation in 1983 claimed Preston led Harass II to the results requested by investigators, which Preston requested before using the dog.[1]
When tested by Judge Gilbert Goshorn during a 1984 trial in Brevard, Florida, Harass II failed to track a scent much simpler, fresher, and shorter in length than those it supposedly tracked in other cases.[2][4][8] Goshorn offered Preston another chance at the test the next day, but Preston left town instead.[1][2] He did not return to Brevard to testify again.[1]
In a 2008 affidavit, Goshorn said:[1]
It is my belief that the only way Preston could achieve the results he achieved in numerous other cases was having obtained information about the case prior to the scent tracking so that Preston could lead the dog to the suspect or evidence in question. I believe that Preston was regularly retained to confirm the state's preconceived notions about a case.
Sam Bardwell, a former prosecutor in Brevard County, Florida in the 1980s who used Preston as a witness in a rape case, has claimed that "John Preston was a total fraud, and everyone knew it."[1] Karen Brandon, who worked in the same office at the same time, denied that anyone knew this.[1]
Preston testified falsely at least twice about his certification as a tracking expert.[9] Preston was never charged with any crime.
Effect and fallout
Preston helped convict at least two men who were eventually freed by DNA evidence.[4] Each spent more than twenty years in prison.[2] One, Bill Dillon, was not informed of the repudiation of Preston's testimony until 2006.[8] The state of Florida had launched no investigation into Preston's cases.[8]
The Brevard/Seminole State Attorney claimed that it would not be possible to discover which cases Preston testified in.[4] Later, he announced that he would "re-review" those cases, but that the cases had already been reviewed in 2004.[2][11] The 2004 review did not flag the case of Bill Dillon, who was later freed on DNA evidence contradicting Preston's testimony.[11] In 2009, J. Preston Silvernail, chief judge of Florida's 18th judicial circuit, declined to call a grand jury to investigate the Florida State Attorney's Office's hiring of Preston.[12]
Preston testified as an expert witness at dozens of criminal trials in Florida.[13] The Innocence Project of Florida believes that as many as 60 people may have been convicted based partially or solely upon Preston's testimony. Florida Today found 15 cases in which Preston testified.[1][6]
Across the country, Preston's testimony resulted in over 100 criminal convictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you should endeavour to read cites prior to posting ... but enough diversion ... let's return to the topic.
Evidence! Misunderstanding of which causes so much ... misunderstanding. We have all read about Eddie's prowess and his training regime and whether he used his vomeronasal-organ when working at his day job will forever remain a mystery but since it is part of the anatomy of the dog nose I imagine not.
Perhaps you can provide a cite which says Eddie's trained response when working in the field included picking up waste food from a kitchen bin? and running around with potential evidence in his mouth ... then you might have ammunition to give weight to your argument.
Otherwise in my opinion you are either playing games or waffling.
I haven't a clue what you mean about reading cites, please explain.Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth? Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence. Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?
Is there evidence that Eddie was forbidden to use his mouth? I'm afraid I haven't seen that, so I would appreciate a cite please.
The vomeronasal organ is also connected to the mouth.
Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth? Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence. Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?That concern seems a valid point but it hasn't been raised before AFAIK.
That concern seems a valid point but it hasn't been raised before AFAIK.Perhaps the dogs are thoroughly decontaminated after every search, put through a sheep dip for dogs and their teeth brushed and noses scrubbed?
Perhaps the dogs are thoroughly decontaminated after every search, put through a sheep dip for dogs and their teeth brushed and noses scrubbed?I would imagine the cadaver dog trainers are keen not to give their dog bad experiences after using their dogs. In my experience dogs could be upset by the procedures you describe.
Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth? Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence. Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?
As this thread is about evidence perhaps you could provide some rather than basing your opinion on what seems reasonable and logical to you.The issue raised by Vertigo Swirl could be raised against the evidence of the dogs by the defence team. If raised it could cast an element of doubt on their findings.
As this thread is about evidence perhaps you could provide some rather than basing your opinion on what seems reasonable and logical to you.
As this thread is about evidence perhaps you could provide some rather than basing your opinion on what seems reasonable and logical to you.Some evidence of what exactly (apart from my own IMO reasonable and logical conclusions)?
Were that rule of yours to be observed across the board ... the potential for a benign and happy social media scene would be immense ... as very few would be able to meet the criteria. Possibly not even you ;)
The issue raised by Vertigo Swirl could be raised against the evidence of the dogs by the defence team. If raised it could cast an element of doubt on their findings.
They could ask the question of Grime and he would answer. It would then be up to the Judge/jury to decide if his answer was satisfactory.
Some evidence of what exactly (apart from my own reasonable and logical conclusions)?
Grime has already given his opinion re the alerts...as has Harrison...no evidential relaibility...are you sugggesting he might change it
It wasn't his opinion of the alerts that was being discussed, it was a layman's opinion of his training methods.
In the absence of evidence to support our claims we are required to include an imo, I am told.I think you will find that if you review what I wrote carefully, I made no unsubstantiated claims, merely posed a couple of questions and was only seeking your opinion - I take your unnecessary request for evidence as an attempt at deflection.
I think you will find that if you review what I wrote carefully, I made no unsubstantiated claims, merely posed a couple of questions and was only seeking your opinion - I take your unnecessary request for evidence as an attempt at deflection.I doubt that a simple denial will resolve anything?
Here's what I wrote again:
Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth? Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence. Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?
You can of course answer: no it does not stand to reason that a dog should be trained not to contaminate a crime scene, and no risk of cross-contamination from the dog, and that will be the end of it.
I think you will find that if you review what I wrote carefully, I made no unsubstantiated claims, merely posed a couple of questions and was only seeking your opinion - I take your unnecessary request for evidence as an attempt at deflection.
Here's what I wrote again:
Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth? Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence. Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?
You can of course answer: no it does not stand to reason that a dog should be trained not to contaminate a crime scene, and no risk of cross-contamination from the dog, and that will be the end of it.
Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth? Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence. Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?
You mean you haven't seen them before... 2 min
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
Does anyone know who in the SYP conducted the regular testing of Eddie?
It was ACPO which assessed, tested and licensed Eddie.
U.K., A.C.P.O. licensed and accredited cadaver dogs
Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent A.C.P.O. authorised assessors.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
OK then Ace you tell us how it should be done or does your ability extend merely as far as "only asking questions" ? Which if you will pardon my bluntness adds nothing to debate.It seems to me that your role on this forum is to antagonise and name call. For this reason I consider your ripostes unworthy of consideration or further reply.
It seems to me that your role on this forum is to antagonise and name call. For these reasons I consider your ripostes unworthy of consideration or further reply.It might seem like that at times but I'd say just try and do the things that Alice asks and see where it takes you.
It was ACPO which assessed, tested and licensed Eddie.
U.K., A.C.P.O. licensed and accredited cadaver dogs
Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent A.C.P.O. authorised assessors.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Here is a link to the ACPO dog training manual, implemented in 2011. Page 116 onward deals with Victim Detection Dogs.
https://www.btp.police.uk/PDF/FOI%20Response%201074-16%20-%20Police%20Dogs%20Manual%20of%20Guidance.pdf
From what I have gleaned, the dogs are not tested by an ACPO assessor for their abilities to detect cadaver odour, only actual cadaver deposits.
Presumably, the training of Eddie on elements of cross contamination & remnant scent falls outside the scope of ACPO accreditation.
Grime's dogs had their own unique tests;
They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if required.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
So who formulated & conducted those unique tests which were outside the scope of ACPO?
You mean the 2011 manual?
No, I mean the stand-alone system for the unique dogs, as claimed by Grime in G-Unit's last post.
Before there was a manual.
So which agency conferred upon Eddie the unique title Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog? And based on what tests, conducted by whom?
He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent sample.
I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a Scent Transference Unit. Operational use of the STU is in a developmental and evaluative stage used in conjunction with selective FBI casework.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
And?
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I
introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Thank you Gunit. You have just showed that a cadaver dog will alert to pig cadaver odour, especially a dog trained on piglet corpses, as Eddie was.
I have been looking for evidence that cadaver dogs are also able to alerrt to burnt flesh and came across these references to Cadaver dogs being used to find corpses in the Californian forest fires
Seems the police in California have proved that Cadaver dogs alert to badly burned bodies.
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171015182721AA4kLJf
http://www.sfexaminer.com/death-toll-in-california-fires-jumps-as-two-more-bodies-found/
According to some, it is mainly the burnt body fat that holds the scent.
On pigs that would be the pork crackling. Eddie trained on piglets, so he would alert to anything contaminated by the smell of pork crackling IMO
Someone having eaten pork crackling could have contaminated Cuddlecat that Eddie (only maybe) alerted to.
Personally I think that Eddie alerted not to Cuddlecat but to a piesce of paper on top of a pile of folders .... or maybe to the folders themselves.
Who put the piece of paper/ folders there?
Interesting !
AIMO, of course
Thank you Gunit. You have just showed that a cadaver dog will alert to pig cadaver odour, especially a dog trained on piglet corpses, as Eddie was.
I have been looking for evidence that cadaver dogs are also able to alerrt to burnt flesh and came across these references to Cadaver dogs being used to find corpses in the Californian forest fires
Seems the police in California have proved that Cadaver dogs alert to badly burned bodies.
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171015182721AA4kLJf
http://www.sfexaminer.com/death-toll-in-california-fires-jumps-as-two-more-bodies-found/
According to some, it is mainly the burnt body fat that holds the scent.
On pigs that would be the pork crackling. Eddie trained on piglets, so he would alert to anything contaminated by the smell of pork crackling IMO
Someone having eaten pork crackling could have contaminated Cuddlecat that Eddie (only maybe) alerted to.
Personally I think that Eddie alerted not to Cuddlecat but to a piesce of paper on top of a pile of folders .... or maybe to the folders themselves.
Who put the piece of paper/ folders there?
Interesting !
AIMO, of course
Thank you Gunit. You have just showed that a cadaver dog will alert to pig cadaver odour, especially a dog trained on piglet corpses, as Eddie was.
I have been looking for evidence that cadaver dogs are also able to alerrt to burnt flesh and came across these references to Cadaver dogs being used to find corpses in the Californian forest fires
Seems the police in California have proved that Cadaver dogs alert to badly burned bodies.
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171015182721AA4kLJf
http://www.sfexaminer.com/death-toll-in-california-fires-jumps-as-two-more-bodies-found/
According to some, it is mainly the burnt body fat that holds the scent.
On pigs that would be the pork crackling. Eddie trained on piglets, so he would alert to anything contaminated by the smell of pork crackling IMO
Someone having eaten pork crackling could have contaminated Cuddlecat that Eddie (only maybe) alerted to.
Personally I think that Eddie alerted not to Cuddlecat but to a piesce of paper on top of a pile of folders .... or maybe to the folders themselves.
Who put the piece of paper/ folders there?
Interesting !
AIMO, of course
You think you've spotted a flaw in the training and use of cadaver dogs which has gone completely unnoticed by the expert who work with them? I very much doubt that.
Grime said Eddie alerted only to cuddle cat at the villa. He trained and handled the dog. Are you qualified to contradict him? Not as far as I know.
You mean there was no manual or criteria on which ACPO tested dogs prior to 2011?
Interesting;
may lead to the expenditure of large resources in following up an indication from a dog with no way of knowing how reliable that indication was in the first place.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf
The police do follow up 'indications' then, sometimes using 'large resources'.
Interesting;
may lead to the expenditure of large resources in following up an indication from a dog with no way of knowing how reliable that indication was in the first place.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf
The police do follow up 'indications' then, sometimes using 'large resources'.
Interesting;
may lead to the expenditure of large resources in following up an indication from a dog with no way of knowing how reliable that indication was in the first place.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf
The police do follow up 'indications' then, sometimes using 'large resources'.
If they hadn't followed up on the indications in Shannon's case there would have been nothing to explain that it was contact with second hand furniture which had caused the dogs to indicate in the first instance.
Follow up = no mystery
No follow up = mystery
If they hadn't followed up on the indications in Shannon's case there would have been nothing to explain that it was contact with second hand furniture which had caused the dogs to indicate in the first instance.
Follow up = no mystery
No follow up = mystery
The dogs alerted but there was no body in place. They were, therefore, unconfirmed. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be placed on unconfirmed alerts, apparently. In this case they acted on them, however. That suggests to me that they weren't seen as of no interest.
No interpretation was given to the dogs' reactions.
The reason for them was investigated and a solution for them was found ... which was very obviously the correct one ... for the simple reason that thankfully, Shannon was proved to be very much alive.
So alerts do need to be investigated. That's what I thought.
I think some confuse “not to be relied on” with unimportant.
I think some confuse “not to be relied on” with unimportant.
They were very important in the conviction of David Gilroy. The police had CCTV evidence that Suzanne was heading to work, but not of her entering the building. It was the dog alerts that suggested she entered the building, was killed and was then removed in Gilroy's car boot. The alerts suggested a reason for his wounds, for him going to get his car and for his unexplained mileage the following day.
I'm not sure why there is a belief in some quarter that I am here because I believe my views will help shape a future court action. I'm simply shooting the breeze. I thought that's what internet discussions were for? Nor contrary to insinuation above am I implying that Mr Grime is potentially guilty of the crime of fraud, however I do think my questions are relevant to the case and to the discussion at hand. Should Mr McCann claim to be an Enhanced Heart Surgeon, one might wonder where and how he came by such a prestigious title, or whether it was just him bigging himself up?
So you think the only reason death was suspected was because of the alerts... As I understand the SSCRC stated that there was, ample evidence without the evidence of the dog handler
Do you think he would not have been convicted without the alerts... Of course he would have been.... There was, real evidence against him
Do you have a cite for that?
So you think the only reason death was suspected was because of the alerts... As I understand the SSCRC stated that there was, ample evidence without the evidence of the dog handler
Do you think he would not have been convicted without the alerts... Of course he would have been.... There was, real evidence against him
I can't say what the verdict would have been without the dog alerts and neither can you. Police often ask five questions; who, what, why, where and when.In your opinion...
Who and why soon became clear. What, where and when were suggested by the alert evidence. All the evidence was equally important in my opinion.
There's a newspaper article that supports, that statement
I'm on a phone at the moment... I'm fairly sure I've quoted it before... It really is quite obvious when you look at the amount of evidence against Gilroy
In your opinion...
From what I have, read that is not the case.... And surely you can see the overwhelming amount I'd evidence against Gilroy
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GILROY FAMILY
In response to The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decision to close the case against David Gilroy’s claim he had suffered a miscarriage of justice.
One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable. They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court. However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict. That verdict was by a majority so some jurors did not agree that the case against him had been proved.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp
The family argued that without the dog evidence more jurors may have been convinced not to convict ... maybe they were hoping for the infamous Scottish "not proven" ... which some interpret as saying: "We know you did it we just can't prove it".
However the Commission didn't agree with the family's contention and Gilroy's conviction for Suzanne Pilley's murder remains with The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission declaring that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
What's admissible in one jurisdiction isn't necessarily the case in another.
Blablaland might have a law that states that an uncorroborated woof is sufficient to convict someone and sentence them to death.
How would that be relevant to the present case?
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GILROY FAMILY
In response to The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decision to close the case against David Gilroy’s claim he had suffered a miscarriage of justice.
One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable. They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court. However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict. That verdict was by a majority so some jurors did not agree that the case against him had been proved.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp
The family argued that without the dog evidence more jurors may have been convinced not to convict ... maybe they were hoping for the infamous Scottish "not proven" ... which some interpret as saying: "We know you did it we just can't prove it".
However the Commission didn't agree with the family's contention and Gilroy's conviction for Suzanne Pilley's murder remains with The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission declaring that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
If you are really that interested in the reason I would suggest you concentrate your efforts in a place where you will find that reason. Asking questions in this small corner of cyber world is unlikely to deliver.Never mind, I enjoy posing the questions nonetheless, but thank you for your advice and concern.
So nothing from the SCCRC ?
Not only is the evidence misunderstood in this case, but I think some are guilty of reading too much significance into the utterances of people connected to the case, for example some seem to get rather excited when Madeleine is referred to by the police as "missing" rather than "abducted". There seems to be this belief that this is a carefully chosen description designed to send a subtle message to the world that the police don't believe she was abducted, however taking one phrase out of context and holding it up as evidence of police scepticism about the abduction theory is a bit silly, particularly as there are numerous instances of the police referring specifically to Madeleine as having been abducted, even fairly recently.And every now and then the death word is used. Then it is assumed to have real significance.
So you think the family have made this up... That the SCCRC only criticise the dog evidence and nothing else... That would be simply bizarre... We don't have a transcript of the decision but, I have emailed the SSCRC and they tell me it Is being treated as a FOI
I think, like Gerry in Lisbon, the Gilroys knew the importance of the dog alerts so commented on those specifically. Until we know exactly what the SCCRC said we can’t know how accurate those comments from the family were.
I do find it rather bizarre though that you took the time to email the SCCRC to prove we sceptics wrong.
Edit: Personal comments against another member removed.
And Suzanne Pilley ? We were told on Crimewartch that the dog alerts were crucial in gaining a conviction without a body.
your opinon of me is of no imprtance to me based on my opinion of you......Ive reached my own conclusions on the case....ive emailed them out of interest...Angelo and John both claim to have been in email correspondence with grime...do you find that bizarre too.didnt you say you had been to PDL....my email pales into insignificance in that light,
Ive read a little more...it seems no dog alerted in the boot of the car...one dog sniffed at an area ...thats all. I think gilroy is probably guilty but I think the dog evidence played little to no part in his conviction...but it does make good tv which is important to the programme makers.
I simply said that the McCanns would more than likely find your stalkerish behaviour rather alarming. As to a PDL my interest in the case developed because I had holidayed there several times before the incident not as a result of the incident. As is your want you made an assumption and built a framework of justification around that assumption.
two dogs...neither dog alerted to the boot of the car..
do you have a cite that a dog alerted to the boot of the car
Have you watched the Crimewatch episode ? It specifically says the dog’s evidence was key to the prosecution and that they alerted to the boot of the car, 6.40 approx minutes in.
The dog never alerted in the boot according to evidence given at the trial...you are watching a sensationilist tv programme...
‘Specialist cadaver dogs brought in from South Yorkshire Police were used to search the basement and garage of the Thistle Street building where they both worked at Infrastructure Managers Limited. They also turned their attention to the boot of Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra car.’
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13050602.David_Gilroy__how_police_solved_a_murder_mystery/
‘Specialist cadaver dogs brought in from South Yorkshire Police were used to search the basement and garage of the Thistle Street building where they both worked at Infrastructure Managers Limited. They also turned their attention to the boot of Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra car.’
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13050602.David_Gilroy__how_police_solved_a_murder_mystery/
Edit - flaming comments removed
read my post with direct quotes from the trial
a cite from a reputable source that a dog alerted in the boot....my information is taht it didnt
QUOTE .....Asked what happened after that, he said: "The dog went into the boot and showed some interest in the boot."
"What is it you saw?" asked Mr Prentice.
Mr Heron replied: "My observation was that at the top-right corner and the left-front corner the dog paused and showed interest in these areas."
Asked what the dog did then, Mr Heron said: "Just paid particular attention, sniffing at that particular area."...end QUOTE
so now sniffing at aparticular area becomes an alert.......in the vague world of the cadaver alerts
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/suzanne-pilley-murder-trial-dog-1117604
Is there any evidence that the dog handlers actually gave evidence...it seems there isnt.
I must apologise for my stalkerish behaviour in trying to establish the truth in this rather important area...it seems some want the truth subdued
In the documentary it reveals that the dog alerted to the car space of Gilroy (where the boot would have been) and later also alerted to the boot of his car.
Then the TV programme is sensationalising the alerts and is not accurate....the dog never alerted in the boot of the car ...unless sniffing is now classed as an alert. THe alerts played little or no part in the prosecution...According to the SCCRC the conviction would have been made without the alerts...and its clear from the evidence that that is the case
On 23 February 2012, the advocate depute led evidence from a Lothian and Borders Police constable who told the court that they had enlisted the help of specially trained cadaver dogs from South Yorkshire Police to search the offices where David Gilroy and Suzanne Pilley worked. The dogs were specially trained to smell for blood and human remains. The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall vectra.
http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gilroy-david.htm
"Our use of the cadaver dog is certainly groundbreaking." Detective superintendent Gary Flannigan
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13050602.David_Gilroy__how_police_solved_a_murder_mystery/
A “VICTIM recovery” dog which reacted positively in the search for missing bookkeeper Suzanne Pilley had once located a body under nine feet of water, a jury has heard.
Buster, a springer spaniel, and his police handler were taken to Edinburgh from their base in South Yorkshire to help the inquiry into Ms Pilley’s disappearance, and he searched the basement garage at her work. PC Simone Thompson, 44, said her dog showed interest in a number of areas of the garage and an internal staircase which led to the offices in the building. “It signified he was locating the scent of what he was trained for … human remains and human blood scent,” said PC Thompson.
Asked about previous operations in which Buster had taken part, PC Thompson said she had had “some very good results” with him and that he had “done extremely well”. She recounted an inquiry in which a woman had been reported missing by her husband. “We were requested to search a stretch of fast-flowing river. From the bank, Buster gave a positive indication. The dog was adamant there was an indication at that point. The underwater search team attended and, at the point Buster had indicated, the missing female was found in nine feet of water,” said PC Thompson.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/suzanne-cadaver-dog-once-found-body-in-9ft-of-water-1-2156838
If certain posters think that OG will treat the dog alerts as unimportant are they are obviously fooling themselves.
Members should be in no doubt that there was a catalogue of evidence which supported the Crown case and it was that cumulative evidence which enabled the guilty verdict to be returned on Gilroy.
Any who believe that Gilroy's case ... or any other ... stands or falls on dogs indicating an interest rather than other substantive and compelling evidence, in my opinion fail to understand the rule of law and the amount of investigative work and corroboration required before a case can be brought to court and a verdict reached.
In other words ... they simply misunderstand the evidence and the role it plays in securing justice.
How surveillance society solved a murder with no body
By Steven Brocklehurst - BBC.co.uk
April 17, 2012
Two years ago, Suzanne Pilley disappeared on her way to work in the centre of Edinburgh. Her body was never discovered but her killer was convicted last month after his movements were traced by a range of surveillance devices. On Wednesday, David Gilroy was sentenced to a minimum of 18 years before he can apply for parole.
CCTV footage, mobile phone records, emails, shop receipts - our everyday routine leaves an "electronic footprint".
David Gilroy went to great lengths to cover his tracks after he killed Suzanne Pilley in May 2010.
But an extraordinary police investigation tracked his movements in the smallest of detail.
CCTV footage from a supermarket two days before Suzanne's disappearance shows the pair buying groceries for a meal near her flat.
What looks on the screen to be an unremarkable domestic scene is in fact his last desperate attempt to resurrect the relationship.
Gilroy, a married man, had been having a secret relationship with his work colleague for about a year but she had been trying to end it.
That night they had a massive row and two days later he killed her.
At 08:19 on Tuesday 4 May, Suzanne's final commute to work was captured by CCTV cameras which track virtually every bus passenger in the Scottish capital.
She had spent the night with a new man whom she had recently met.
Suzanne got off the bus at 08:49 and was picked up by other CCTV cameras as she walked the last part of her journey to work.
She was seen going into a supermarket before she finally disappeared from view.
Specialist CCTV analysts looked at images from 84 cameras in the area and built up a case that a tiny image of Suzanne could be seen from a distant camera as she entered her work.
Gilroy had spent the previous few weeks besieging her with numerous texts and voicemails, desperate to continue their relationship.
Police were able to recover everything left on her phone, even though the phone itself has never been found.
Gilroy knew there were no CCTV cameras at the place where he and Pilley worked.
However, CCTV cameras on properties outside the building show him going in and out of the basement garage.
The man who quickly became a suspect had arrived at work by bus but later made excuses to go home and collect his car.
Later he was caught by CCTV having just bought four air fresheners.
Police believe Gilroy lured Suzanne to the basement and killed her.
He then hid her body in a stairwell before later transferring it to the boot of his car.
Specialist cadaver dogs were used to search the basement and garage of the building.
They found areas of interest but no DNA or forensics.
Before Gilroy went home he went to his computer and arranged an appointment which would require him to drive about 130 miles to Lochgilphead in rural Argyll the next day.
The killer then went home and acted naturally.
CCTV images even caught him attending a school concert and a restaurant that evening.
Police reconstructed Gilroy's trip to Argyll on 5 May through CCTV at various places along the route, such as when he stopped for petrol.
Officers had to trawl for CCTV footage from hundreds of cameras - not just on the main route to Lochgilphead but surrounding roads as well.
It was a route Gilroy took regularly but on this occasion he went much further north than the direct route and police were suspicious.
Gilroy's mobile phone was later seized by police, along with his car.
Experts found that the phone had been switched off between Stirling and Inveraray and the same on the way back.
Police suspected Gilroy had deliberately switched his phone off to conceal his movements while he did a "reccy" for a site to dispose of Suzanne's body. He repeated this on his way back when he actually buried the body.
But Gilroy did not realise that his car would provide more clues that he had been driving along rough forest tracks.
Damage to the suspension, scrape marks on the underside of the car and vegetation attached to the car were all clues of his off-road activities.
Police reckoned that the average time for the journey between Tyndrum and Inveraray was 36 minutes.
CCTV analysis of the time taken by Gilroy indicated that he took five hours and eight minutes.
Footage from CCTV also showed that an umbrella on the back parcel shelf of his car, probably put there when Suzanne's body was placed in the boot, disappeared from view on the return journey, having been placed back in the boot.
Despite extensive searches, Suzanne's body was never found.
However, due to the cumulative evidence built up in the police investigation, Gilroy was convicted at the High Court in Edinburgh last month.
On Wednesday, he was given a life sentence with a minimum of 18 years before he can apply for parole.
http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gilroy-david.htm
The evidence which convicted Gilroy was indeed cumulative but the cadaver dog alerts were seen as a key piece of that cumulative evidence. There was no body or forensic evidence, just as in the McCann case but, just again as in the McCann case, there was strong indications from a cadaver dog. We have no idea whether at this very moment OG are building the same kind of cumulative case that brought Gilroy to justice, with the cadaver dog indications, again, as a central plank.
If certain posters think that OG will treat the dog alerts as unimportant are they are obviously fooling themselves.
. In this series, Robbie Coltrane reveals eight of the hardest, most complex and baffling murder cases ever to be investigated by British police
was this case really one of the hardest and most complex........it was fairly obvious early on who the main suspect was and it really was the CCTV that was the critical evidence that cracked the case....imo
The CCTV evidence strongly suggested that Suzanne Pilley was heading to work, but it didn't prove she arrived there. In fact Gilroy's family seemed to be suggesting a possible alternative;
They are questioning key aspects of the case including the critical CCTV recordings that placed Ms Pilley within minutes of her workplace on the day she disappeared and have claimed a small blue car seen near their Thistle Street office on the same morning has never been found.
http://gilroyfamily.info/archive.asp
It was the dog alerts which suggested she did arrive, died, and was removed in Gilroy's car.
He seems to have been a cool customer as he showed no outward signs of what he had done. His workmates noticed nothing unusual in his behaviour, I believe, and;
After killing Pilley, Gilroy is thought to have kept her body in the boot of his car overnight while he attended a family dinner and a school concert.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/david-gilroy-jailed-murder-suzanne-pilley
If certain posters think that OG will treat the dog alerts as unimportant are they are obviously fooling themselves.
Snip
Gilroy's mistake was to underestimate the huge electronic footprint that became a compelling body of evidence.
Snip
He hid her body in a recess under a stairwell.
Then he began his cover up.
Colleagues described him as seeming clammy, sweaty and with scratches on his neck and face. But he got his act together.
He made an excuse to go home and collect the car. He bought air freshners in Superdrug on Princes Street.
He used make-up to cover scratch marks on his hands.
He adjusted his diary to give him a reason to go to Argyll the following day.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17358340
In my opinion anyone promoting that the case brought against Gilroy rested on "dog evidence" is entirely wrong and shows a clear misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence.
I would have thought that by July 2013, the Met had had time to review the potential significance of the alerts.
"Over the last two years what the review has told me is that there is no clear, definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead," Det Ch Insp Redwood said.
"So on that basis, I still genuinely believe that there is a possibility that she is alive."
He added: "It is a positive step in our hunt for Madeleine that our understanding of the evidence has enabled us to shift from review to investigation."
4 July 2013
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23179230
By March 2014 the view that she might still be alive appears to have been tempered by the focus on smellyman. Who, AFAIK, still hasn't been identified.
I don't see a huge amount of importance attached to the dog alerts.
UK police in Madeleine McCann case probe new intruder link
Sarah Young
March 19, 2014
LONDON (Reuters) - British detectives investigating the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann said they were looking for a man suspected of carrying out a series of sexual assaults on young girls staying in Portuguese holiday villas between 2004 and 2010.
Kate and Gerry McCann pose with a computer generated image of how their missing daughter Madeleine might look now, during a news conference in London May 2, 2012. REUTERS/Andrew Winning
McCann, then aged three, went missing from her bedroom at the Praia da Luz holiday resort in the Algarve region while her parents were dining with friends at a nearby restaurant, leading to a global search that gripped the world’s media.
London police, who started a review of the case in 2011 and began their own investigation last year, said on Wednesday they were looking for more information about 12 crimes committed in Portuguese holiday resorts.
In four cases between 2004 and 2006 a man sexually assaulted five white girls, aged between 7 and 10 years, in their beds, in three different Algarve resorts, police said. Two of the 12 offences were committed in Praia da Luz.
“We need to eliminate this man from our enquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine’s disappearance,” Andy Redwood, senior investigating officer at London’s Metropolitan Police Service, told a news briefing.
The man, described as being tanned with short, dark, unkempt hair, spoke English with a foreign accent and would appear early in the morning. In some incidents, he was disturbed and left.
“This an offender who has got a very, very unhealthy interest in young, white female children who he’s attacking while they’re on holiday in their beds,” Redwood said.
“ALL OPTIONS” OPEN
Redwood said the new appeal for information on the man who carried out the attacks was just one of the “priority lines” of inquiry currently being pursued. British police are also in contact with their counterparts in Spain, Belgium, Jersey, Switzerland, Netherlands and Germany over the case.
British Prime Minister David Cameron ordered a new investigation by London police after the McCanns wrote to him three years ago saying neither British nor Portuguese authorities had done enough to try to find their daughter.
Redwood said McCann might have long been dead.
“There is always the potential that she didn’t leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,” he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mccann/uk-police-in-madeleine-mccann-case-probe-new-intruder-link-idUSBREA2I1D220140319
The dog alerts suggested that she entered the building and died there. That's why it was one of the important components of the circumstantial evidence collected. All the components combined suggested what had happened.
It seems there are contradictory reports concerning Gilroy's colleagues.
The defence case began on the morning of 12 March 2012 and lasted half a day. The court heard from a number of witnesses who worked in the offices of Infrastructure Managers Ltd, who spoke to the fact that they did not see anything out of the ordinary at the premises in Thistle Street on 4 May 2012.
http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gilroy-david.htm
I would have thought that by July 2013, the Met had had time to review the potential significance of the alerts.
"Over the last two years what the review has told me is that there is no clear, definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead," Det Ch Insp Redwood said.
"So on that basis, I still genuinely believe that there is a possibility that she is alive."
He added: "It is a positive step in our hunt for Madeleine that our understanding of the evidence has enabled us to shift from review to investigation."
4 July 2013
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23179230
By March 2014 the view that she might still be alive appears to have been tempered by the focus on smellyman. Who, AFAIK, still hasn't been identified.
I don't see a huge amount of importance attached to the dog alerts.
UK police in Madeleine McCann case probe new intruder link
Sarah Young
March 19, 2014
LONDON (Reuters) - British detectives investigating the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann said they were looking for a man suspected of carrying out a series of sexual assaults on young girls staying in Portuguese holiday villas between 2004 and 2010.
Kate and Gerry McCann pose with a computer generated image of how their missing daughter Madeleine might look now, during a news conference in London May 2, 2012. REUTERS/Andrew Winning
McCann, then aged three, went missing from her bedroom at the Praia da Luz holiday resort in the Algarve region while her parents were dining with friends at a nearby restaurant, leading to a global search that gripped the world’s media.
London police, who started a review of the case in 2011 and began their own investigation last year, said on Wednesday they were looking for more information about 12 crimes committed in Portuguese holiday resorts.
In four cases between 2004 and 2006 a man sexually assaulted five white girls, aged between 7 and 10 years, in their beds, in three different Algarve resorts, police said. Two of the 12 offences were committed in Praia da Luz.
“We need to eliminate this man from our enquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine’s disappearance,” Andy Redwood, senior investigating officer at London’s Metropolitan Police Service, told a news briefing.
The man, described as being tanned with short, dark, unkempt hair, spoke English with a foreign accent and would appear early in the morning. In some incidents, he was disturbed and left.
“This an offender who has got a very, very unhealthy interest in young, white female children who he’s attacking while they’re on holiday in their beds,” Redwood said.
“ALL OPTIONS” OPEN
Redwood said the new appeal for information on the man who carried out the attacks was just one of the “priority lines” of inquiry currently being pursued. British police are also in contact with their counterparts in Spain, Belgium, Jersey, Switzerland, Netherlands and Germany over the case.
British Prime Minister David Cameron ordered a new investigation by London police after the McCanns wrote to him three years ago saying neither British nor Portuguese authorities had done enough to try to find their daughter.
Redwood said McCann might have long been dead.
“There is always the potential that she didn’t leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,” he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mccann/uk-police-in-madeleine-mccann-case-probe-new-intruder-link-idUSBREA2I1D220140319
'The man, described as being tanned with short, dark, unkempt hair, spoke English with a foreign accent and would appear early in the morning. In some incidents, he was disturbed and left.'
12 offences in total, in various resorts, & not a mention of how he was gaining access to these children's bedrooms, other than just 'appearing'. Now that's magic.
Early ideas about sex predators, child traffickers and "a burglary gone wrong" were largely dismissed before both detective teams joined forces to focus on the latest theory.
'The man, described as being tanned with short, dark, unkempt hair, spoke English with a foreign accent and would appear early in the morning. In some incidents, he was disturbed and left.'
12 offences in total, in various resorts, & not a mention of how he was gaining access to these children's bedrooms, other than just 'appearing'. Now that's magic.
I would have thought that by July 2013, the Met had had time to review the potential significance of the alerts.
"Over the last two years what the review has told me is that there is no clear, definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead," Det Ch Insp Redwood said.
"So on that basis, I still genuinely believe that there is a possibility that she is alive."
He added: "It is a positive step in our hunt for Madeleine that our understanding of the evidence has enabled us to shift from review to investigation."
4 July 2013
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23179230
By March 2014 the view that she might still be alive appears to have been tempered by the focus on smellyman. Who, AFAIK, still hasn't been identified.
I don't see a huge amount of importance attached to the dog alerts.
UK police in Madeleine McCann case probe new intruder link
Sarah Young
March 19, 2014
LONDON (Reuters) - British detectives investigating the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann said they were looking for a man suspected of carrying out a series of sexual assaults on young girls staying in Portuguese holiday villas between 2004 and 2010.
Kate and Gerry McCann pose with a computer generated image of how their missing daughter Madeleine might look now, during a news conference in London May 2, 2012. REUTERS/Andrew Winning
McCann, then aged three, went missing from her bedroom at the Praia da Luz holiday resort in the Algarve region while her parents were dining with friends at a nearby restaurant, leading to a global search that gripped the world’s media.
London police, who started a review of the case in 2011 and began their own investigation last year, said on Wednesday they were looking for more information about 12 crimes committed in Portuguese holiday resorts.
In four cases between 2004 and 2006 a man sexually assaulted five white girls, aged between 7 and 10 years, in their beds, in three different Algarve resorts, police said. Two of the 12 offences were committed in Praia da Luz.
“We need to eliminate this man from our enquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine’s disappearance,” Andy Redwood, senior investigating officer at London’s Metropolitan Police Service, told a news briefing.
The man, described as being tanned with short, dark, unkempt hair, spoke English with a foreign accent and would appear early in the morning. In some incidents, he was disturbed and left.
“This an offender who has got a very, very unhealthy interest in young, white female children who he’s attacking while they’re on holiday in their beds,” Redwood said.
“ALL OPTIONS” OPEN
Redwood said the new appeal for information on the man who carried out the attacks was just one of the “priority lines” of inquiry currently being pursued. British police are also in contact with their counterparts in Spain, Belgium, Jersey, Switzerland, Netherlands and Germany over the case.
British Prime Minister David Cameron ordered a new investigation by London police after the McCanns wrote to him three years ago saying neither British nor Portuguese authorities had done enough to try to find their daughter.
Redwood said McCann might have long been dead.
“There is always the potential that she didn’t leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,” he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mccann/uk-police-in-madeleine-mccann-case-probe-new-intruder-link-idUSBREA2I1D220140319
If we're taking unsubstantiated reports as the true story then is this true?
"Early ideas about sex predators, child traffickers and "a burglary gone wrong" were largely dismissed before both detective teams joined forces to focus on the latest theory."
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-set-to-be-extended-as-police-ask-for-more-funds-11024595
If certain posters think that OG will treat the dog alerts as unimportant are they are obviously fooling themselves.Mark Rowley has said that there is no evidence that Madeleine is alive or dead. How do you square that with what you've just written?
Redwood’s last statement on the case was when.....5 years ago. A lot can happen in 5 years. Have we heard anything from Nicola Walls ? If not, why not ?IN YOUR OPINION.
It does come back to the simple question I asked on the other thread. If OG was investigating the McCanns would the public be told ? Of course the answer is no.
Mark Rowley has said that there is no evidence that Madeleine is alive or dead. How do you square that with what you've just written?
I think Mark Rowley is being very frugal with information related to the case. We were told at the beginning that there would be no running commentary from OG so his non answer is no more than we were told to expect.That being the case what leads you to believe the Met are taking the dog alerts as serious evidence of Madeleine's death?
That being the case what leads you to believe the Met are taking the dog alerts as serious evidence of Madeleine's death?
I’m not sure I did say that. What I said is that OG certainly won’t see the dog alerts as unimportant as some supporters believe.
Your opinion again... I would, say that Grange would find the alerts unimportant... The dogs are used to find evidence.
The alerts themselves tell us nothing
And you base this opinion on what? There is certainly evidence to suggest that they don't take them seriously otherwise they wouldn't say there was "no evidence" of Madeleine's death, they would say there is "little evidence", for example. IMO.
I’m not sure I did say that. What I said is that OG certainly won’t see the dog alerts as unimportant as some supporters believe.
And you base this opinion on what? There is certainly evidence to suggest that they don't take them seriously otherwise they wouldn't say there was "no evidence" of Madeleine's death, they would say there is "little evidence", for example. IMO.
I base my opinion on every police authorities use of and faith in cadaver dogs and their indications.Do you have a link to verify the claim that every police authority has "faith" in cadaver dogs and their indications?
Have OG released an updated construct of how Madeleine may look now recently ? You would think that that may have been a priority on the 10th anniversary of her disappearance, if they thought she was alive of course.
Faithlilly you have repeatedly claimed that it is a "certainty" that the current investigating police force have given the dog alerts the "due weight" you think they deserve. I think that this is stating opinion as fact. Please tell me why you think it is a factual statement, and what weight you think the police have actually given to the alerts? A heavy weight, a medium weight or a light weight?
Let’s look at it this way. If OG do not believe the dog alerts are in any way significant then there’s nothing to worry about but if they do, as the police in the Pilley and Bianca Jones’s cases did, then it will lead them to more difficult questions. Is that clear enough ?
Do you have a link to verify the claim that every police authority has "faith" in cadaver dogs and their indications?
Again you seem to be discerning coded messages from the police through their actions or, in this case, inactions.
Let’s look at it this way. If OG do not believe the dog alerts are in any way significant then there’s nothing to worry about but if they do, as the police in the Pilley and Bianca Jones’s cases did, then it will lead them to more difficult questions. Is that clear enough ?Are you therefore retracting your claim that it is a "certainty" that the police in this case have given the alerts "due weight"? That would make things crystal clear thank you.
Are you therefore retracting your claim that it is a "certainty" that the police in this case have given the alerts "due weight"? That would make things crystal clear thank you.
If you like I could give you case upon case where cadaver dogs have been used. Why would police authorities use them if they had no confidence in their abilities?I think this has been explained time and time again but I can have another go at it if you like?
I think I said ‘the weight they deserve’ .subjective. The weight they deserve according to whom? What weight? Great or little?
I think I said ‘the weight they deserve’ .What you actually said:
I think this has been explained time and time again but I can have another go at it if you like?
subjective. The weight they deserve according to whom? What weight? Great or little?
What you actually said:
"I said nothing about statistics. Logic dictates that if a cadaver dog alerts in a certain location and in that location a child has gone missing then the two are more probably than not linked. There may be no collectible forensics to prove that the death occurred but the alert is nonetheless indicative and will certainly be given its due weight by any investigating police force".
If you like I could give you case upon case where cadaver dogs have been used. Why would police authorities use them if they had no confidence in their abilities?
Whatever pleases you. Please include though why dog trainers are asked to give evidence in court in cases where there is no body.The prosecution calls all sorts of people (witnesses, experts, etc) to give evidence if they think their testimony will help build a case against the accused and convince the jury, just as the defence will have their own witnesses and experts to dismantle that testimony.
Faithlilly, are you aware of the 2011 report by the National Policing Improvements Agency which found that the use of sniffer dogs can actually hinder police work and which called for better training and standards in this area, a recommendation which the Association Of Chief Police Officers promised they would be acting on by introducing improved standards?
https://news.sky.com/story/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work-10488976
This would seem to indicate IMO that there is an understanding amongst the police themselves that dog work is not a completely reliable method of ascertaining what has happened in a crime scene where no body or actual forensic evidence is present. Would you not agree?
This report was 7 years ago and actually proved how reliable the dog alerts were as the alerts were always prompted by furniture which was linked to a dead body. That this hindered the investigating authorities as it was the wrong body does not prove, in itself , that the dogs were unreliable. They detected what they were trained to detect.Correct me if I'm wrong but the dog alerts in this case occurred in 2007, the NPIA report which found that sniffer dogs could actually hamper police work occured in 2011, so why do you require more recent reports, do you think there is one which contradicts the findings of the NPIA? If there is then by all means post it yourself. I have not made any claim about fixtures and fittings in 5a so am at a loss as to why you would require me to find proof that they did have a connection to a dead body, though if I may I would like to ask the question - was the provenance of each stick of furniture in that apartment traced, and if not, why not?
If you have something more up to date about the use of cadaver dogs that would be great and, while you’re having a google, if you could find proof that any of the fixtures and fittings in 5a had any connection to a dead body that would be great too.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the dog alerts in this case occurred in 2007, the NPIA report which found that sniffer dogs could actually hamper police work occured in 2011, so why do you require more recent reports, do you think there is one which contradicts the findings of the NPIA? If there is then by all means post it yourself. I have not made any claim about fixtures and fittings in 5a so am at a loss as to why you would require me to find proof that they did have a connection to a dead body, though if I may I would like to ask the question - was the provenance of each stick of furniture in that apartment traced, and if not, why not?
The only thing that OG don't believe in was Tannerman,nothing else has got a mention.
In my opinion you are expressing the wrong opinion regarding 'Tannerman'. In my opinion DCI Redwood vindicated Jane Tanner's sighting ... the rest is in the detail.
As we are looking at the weight OG give to the cadaver dog alerts NOW then a report with the most up to date information of how alerts are viewed and used NOW would be helpful. Out of date reports really do not move us much further forward.I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. In 2011, the NPIA found that police work could be hampered by dog alerts, based on information they had gathered up to that point and recommended systems be put in place to address various issues. The alerts in the McCann case happened well before these changes were made, so why do you think a more recent report about standards of reliability of dog alerts in police work would be relevant exactly? In any case, I'm sure you'd agree that if there was a more recent report that said actually the NPIA report was incorrect and that police work is not and has never been hampered by sniffer dogs then those of us who follow this case would have heard about it by now. These things are hardly top secret.
You are right that you made no claims about the fixtures and fittings of 5a but as the report you posted referred to them as the cause of dog alerts I thought that’s what you were putting forward as the reason for the alerts in 5a. Wasn’t that the case ?
As to your last question are you now saying that furniture may have played a part ?
As we are looking at the weight OG give to the cadaver dog alerts NOW then a report with the most up to date information of how alerts are viewed and used NOW would be helpful. Out of date reports really do not move us much further forward.
You are right that you made no claims about the fixtures and fittings of 5a but as the report you posted referred to them as the cause of dog alerts I thought that’s what you were putting forward as the reason for the alerts in 5a. Wasn’t that the case ?
As to your last question are you now saying that furniture may have played a part ?
I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. In 2011, the NPIA found that police work could be hampered by dog alerts, based on information they had gathered up to that point and recommended systems be put in place to address various issues. The alerts in the McCann case happened well before these changes were made, so why do you think a more recent report about standards of reliability of dog alerts in police work would be relevant exactly? In any case, I'm sure you'd agree that if there was a more recent report that said actually the NPIA report was incorrect and that police work is not and has never been hampered by sniffer dogs then those of us who follow this case would have heard about it by now. These things are hardly top secret.
I am putting forward no reason for the the alerts in 5a, nor am I saying that furniture played a part, but given that we know from another case that furniture played a part in an alert, it would be reasonable (would it not?) to investigate whether or not it did in this case. If this is an unreasonable suggestion perhaps you could explain why.
I guess Faithlilly raises an interesting point about the shelf-life of reports though. For how long does any report on any particular subject remain valid? Is it out of date within 24 hours, 24 days, 24 months, 24 years? If we can find no recent report about the reliability of cadaver dogs, are we OK to dismiss the claims as not worth the paper they're written on if the report is over a number of months or years old?
Until it is proven to be invalid following review by a group of experts in that particular field ?Sounds good to me.
At the time of the report the NPIA was not incorrect because it was based on the knowledge they had then. Our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on so it would be ridiculous to assume the police’s understanding of the dog alerts hasn’t. OG will be using the knowledge they have now to understand the alerts.Could you kindly provide a cite to back up your statement that our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on since 2011, and also how this knowledge negates the findings of the NPIA report which was that dog work can hamper police investigations, thanks in advance.
Again just for clarity, the report, if you insist on referring to it, did not say that the alerts were unreliable, on the contrary each time that a dog alerted then there was a dead body connected to that alert and, in the end, the source of that alert was identified. The detrimental effect of having to deploy extra resources to identify the source is the object of the report. The reliability of the dogs is not.
As to the dogs alerting to the furniture in 5a, why 5a and no other properties that the dogs were deployed in ? Is this another one of those ‘coincidences’ Kate talks of ?
At the time of the report the NPIA was not incorrect because it was based on the knowledge they had then. Our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on so it would be ridiculous to assume the police’s understanding of the dog alerts hasn’t. OG will be using the knowledge they have now to understand the alerts.
Again just for clarity, the report, if you insist on referring to it, did not say that the alerts were unreliable, on the contrary each time that a dog alerted then there was a dead body connected to that alert and, in the end, the source of that alert was identified. The detrimental effect of having to deploy extra resources to identify the source is the object of the report. The reliability of the dogs is not.
As to the dogs alerting to the furniture in 5a, why 5a and no other properties that the dogs were deployed in ? Is this another one of those ‘coincidences’ Kate talks of ?
I guess Faithlilly raises an interesting point about the shelf-life of reports though. For how long does any report on any particular subject remain valid? Is it out of date within 24 hours, 24 days, 24 months, 24 years? If we can find no recent report about the reliability of cadaver dogs, are we OK to dismiss the claims as not worth the paper they're written on if the report is over a number of months or years old?
Could you kindly provide a cite to back up your statement that our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on since 2011, and also how this knowledge negates the findings of the NPIA report which was that dog work can hamper police investigations, thanks in advance.
Re; your second para, I made no claim that the report said the dogs were unreliable, only that their use had the potential to hamper police work.
re: your third para: until we know the provenance of the furniture in 5a how can we answer the question either way? You have refrained from saying whether or not checking out the furniture would have been a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.
You do know that the report was not on the reliability of the dogs but how the reliability of their alerts sometimes send an investigation in the wrong direction.Yes, and I have repeatedly said so. You however are dismissing the report on the grounds that it is out of date, so what do you expect a more recent report to say that contradicts the NPIA report? That dog alerts never send the investigation in the wrong direction, and that the NPIA report was wholly mistaken?
Okay. 1. It is simply common sense that, with the research which is being carried out on the subject, that our knowledge of how cadaver dogs work will have moved on.
2. I didn't say you did.
3. Checking the furniture would have been an excellent idea. Do you know whether the PJ did not at the time or it has been done since ?
I accept your answers 2 and 3 but answer number 1 simply won't do I'm afraid. You have made a claim that our understanding of dog alerts (inasmuch as how they affect the direction of an investigation, as per the NPIA report which is what we were discussing and which you rejected for being out of date) will have moved on, but that is only your belief and with no report cited, I'm afraid it has to remain just that - a belief.
Going back to point 3 I have no idea if the furniture has been tested since the case was closed the first time, but have no reason to believe it was in 2007-2008. Do we know if it was the same furniture in situ when the investigation re-opened in 2013, and if it was wouldn't the fact that dozens if not hundreds of people had used it since make a nonsense of any such test?
I accept your answers 2 and 3 but answer number 1 simply won't do I'm afraid. You have made a claim that our understanding of dog alerts (inasmuch as how they affect the direction of an investigation, as per the NPIA report which is what we were discussing and which you rejected for being out of date) will have moved on, but that is only your belief and with no report cited, I'm afraid it has to remain just that - a belief.
Going back to point 3 I have no idea if the furniture has been tested since the case was closed the first time, but have no reason to believe it was in 2007-2008. Do we know if it was the same furniture in situ when the investigation re-opened in 2013, and if it was wouldn't the fact that dozens if not hundreds of people had used it since make a nonsense of any such test?
Not entirely sure I care whether my first answer will do. It's simply common sense.I understand that "common sense" won't do as a cite and that despite your claims that the NPIA report has been superseded and is therefore out of date, you have provided nothing to back this up. Therefore as you have posted nothing to refute the NPIA findings that sniffer dogs can adversely effect the outcome of a police investigation I think it safe to say that their's is still a valid conclusion, and in fact is more valid than yours.
As to the furniture being the cause of the alerts can I refer you to my previous answers.
Not entirely sure I care whether my first answer will do. It's simply common sense.
As to the furniture being the cause of the alerts can I refer you to my previous answers.
Edit : removed insult.
I understand that "common sense" won't do as a cite and that despite your claims that the NPIA report has been superseded and is therefore out of date, you have provided nothing to back this up. Therefore as you have posted nothing to refute the NPIA findings that sniffer dogs can adversely effect the outcome of a police investigation I think it safe to say that their's is still a valid conclusion, and in fact is more valid than yours.
Yet again you misquote me ( Delete) I didn't say the NPIA report had been superseded I said that in all probably the knowledge surrounding the work of the dogs would have moved forward. As the use of dogs are now seen more than ever in cases of missing people, Tia Sharpe, April Jones and the recent searches in Greece for Ben Needham to name but three, it would be logical to suppose the problems identified in the 2011 report had been partly if not fully resolved.Any problems now fully resolved since 2011 would have no bearing whatsoever on any problems present in 2007.
In fact the use of cadaver dogs in PDL by OG recently suggests they recently know their value.
Yet again you misquote me ( Delete ) I didn't say the NPIA report had been superseded I said that in all probably the knowledge surrounding the work of the dogs would have moved forward. As the use of dogs are now seen more than ever in cases of missing people, Tia Sharpe, April Jones and the recent searches in Greece for Ben Needham to name but three, it would be logical to suppose the problems identified in the 2011 report had been partly if not fully resolved.
In fact the use of cadaver dogs in PDL by OG recently suggests they recently know their value.
Any problems now fully resolved since 2011 would have no bearing whatsoever on any problems present in 2007.
I understand that "common sense" won't do as a cite and that despite your claims that the NPIA report has been superseded and is therefore out of date, you have provided nothing to back this up. Therefore as you have posted nothing to refute the NPIA findings that sniffer dogs can adversely effect the outcome of a police investigation I think it safe to say that their's is still a valid conclusion, and in fact is more valid than yours.
Unless you are claiming that in all fields of human endeavour the only one that hasn’t progress one iota is the study of sniffer dogs, then I think the common sense argument is a valid logical approach.
This is 2014.....
Cadaver dogs 'are an incredible investigatory tool - no question about it,' says Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor and chairman of the department of sciences at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Certainly, he says, they can help uncover valuable evidence in criminal cases - a body, or bones or maybe clothing.
But he is among those who doesn't think the dogs' alerts and subsequent tests of soil and air where should be admissible in court, at least not yet.
'What we need to do is strengthen the science,' Kobilinksy says.
And even in investigations, dogs alerting is often just the first step in what can be a lengthy, sometimes fruitless endeavor.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2801234/buster-ed-cadaver-dog-helped-track-remains-200-people.html#ixzz5A8I2KmTY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
yet more confirmation of what grime and Harrison said
Unless you are claiming that in all fields of human endeavour the only one that hasn’t progress one iota is the study of sniffer dogs, then I think the common sense argument is a valid logical approach.Is it logical to say that dog alerts now no longer adversely effect the outcome of police investigations? In other words what advancements have been made to ensure that a dog no longer alerts to a piece of furniture that has the been contaminated by a dead body that has no relevance to the case under investigation? And in any case what have any supposed advancements since 2011 got to do with alerts that took place in 2007?
So it appears things have moved on in the last decade, in America at least.
'Local police departments have been reluctant to use the cadaver dogs for searches because their trainers are volunteers, but that's been changing, as the dogs' training has become more standardized in the last decade - and as they've helped solve more cases.'
you would need to understand how they have helped to solve cases....common sense would say by finding evidence..The article quoted him as saying he thinks and now you are saying he confirms. I tend to think a confirmation would need to be based on a study rather than just his opinion.
the eminent professor confirms taht the alerts themselves should not be pesented in court as evidence
Is it logical to say that dog alerts now no longer adversely effect the outcome of police investigations? In other words what advancements have been made to ensure that a dog no longer alerts to a piece of furniture that has the been contaminated by a dead body that has no relevance to the case under investigation? And in any case what have any supposed advancements since 2011 got to do with alerts that took place in 2007?
The article quoted him as saying he thinks and now you are saying he confirms. I tend to think a confirmation would need to be based on a study rather than just his opinion.
You may as well say fingerprinting adversely effects police investigations as unidentifiable prints may cause extra work...It's not me saying it, it was the NPIA. Do you think their report is invalid then? In any case unidentifiable prints are unlikely to be used as evidence against anyone, and nor should dog alerts for much the same reasons.
He confirms that in his opinion..... The whole point is there are no proper scientific studies.. Grime was only quoting opinion
Does anyone have an expert opinion that the alerts should be admissable as evidence... It seems not
State the definition of "expert" on which you are relying.
A recognised expert in their field... I believe you first introduced the term relating to expert witnesses
A recognised expert in their field... I believe you first introduced the term relating to expert witnessesGoogle that:
It doesn't matter what I introduced. It was your definition that counted it was your post.As you mentioned it first I'm asking for your definition... I think it's, a pointless argument...
As you mentioned it first I'm asking for your definition... I think it's, a pointless argument...State which particular alerts you have in mind.
Let's hear an expert supporting the admission of alerts... We can then look at his qualifications
State which particular alerts you have in mind.
Any claimed unconfirmed cadaver alert
That statement seems to be an oxymoron. Care to clarify?It's clear enough
It's clear enoughIt is all the same difference. Perfectly clear as mud. You are clearly confused. I find the solution weirdly normal.
you would need to understand how they have helped to solve cases....common sense would say by finding evidence..
the eminent professor confirms taht the alerts themselves should not be pesented in court as evidence
Why do you keep pushing these myths. We do not get crackling from decaying charred whole pigs.The finest pork flavour is thought to come from pigs that have been hung for 9 days. Depending on the cut, pigs are normally hung for 4-12 days. It wouldn't take long for a dead pig to develop cadaver odour that would be discernable to the sensitive nose of a Cadavar dog
The finest pork flavour is thought to come from pigs that have been hung for 9 days. Depending on the cut, pigs are normally hung for 4-12 days. It wouldn't take long for a dead pig to develop cadaver odour that would be discernable to the sensitive nose of a Cadavar dog
http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/2364/ageing-and-the-impact-on-meat-quality
A cadaver dog such as Eddie which was trained on dead pig would be able to alert to pork crackling because cadaver dogs are known to recognise the cadaver odour even after burning. As stated before they were used in the forest fires in California to identify the dead.
There seems to be little doubt that a cadaver dog trained on pigs would alert to pork crackling IMO
Would a dog trainer would wish to advertise this weakness in the dogs likely range of identifying cadaver odiour ? Would people paying good money for the dogs services want a dog that might be alerting to the cadaver odour of a pig, rather than a missing human ?
OMO, but what I am saying is logical based upon
1. Our knowledge that Eddie was trained on dead pigs
2. Dead pigs smell very like humans
3. Pigs are hung for several days for the meat to mature if bred for pork, so would have a cadaver odour about them
4. Dogs are used in forest fires etc to identify the burnt cadavers of humans, which would smell very like burnt cadavers of pigs ( Pork crackling included)
So, did someone who had been eating pork crackling / scratchings handle the paper or those folders on the counter above the cupboard that Cuddlecat was produced from ?
Eddie certainly didn't alert to Cuddlecat; he had just been playing with it, with no alert !!
It is all the same difference. Perfectly clear as mud. You are clearly confused. I find the solution weirdly normal.I'm certainly not confused..... Harrison... Grime say the, alerts, have no evidential value
In my opinion the attempts to cast doubt on Grime and his dog occasionally verge on the ridiculous.
There's a significant difference between a pig which has been hung and a decaying piglet used for training cadaver dogs. The clue is that the piglets are whole - there's nowt taken out.
Martin Grime said his dog alerted to Cuddle Cat. He is the expert and he was there. Armchair detectives, in my opinion, have no expertise and their opinions count for nothing.
Grime has, said, the, alerts, have, no evidential value... I totally agree, with him..You'd better find them. I have not seen that as yet.
What is, surprising is, the, fact that the, dog trained, to react to cadaver on most occasions, originally didn't react to it... As in cuddle cat... Those, aren't my words, but the, words, of the, pj and, are in the, files
You'd better find them. I have not seen that as yet.
The finest pork flavour is thought to come from pigs that have been hung for 9 days. Depending on the cut, pigs are normally hung for 4-12 days. It wouldn't take long for a dead pig to develop cadaver odour that would be discernable to the sensitive nose of a Cadavar dog
http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/2364/ageing-and-the-impact-on-meat-quality
A cadaver dog such as Eddie which was trained on dead pig would be able to alert to pork crackling because cadaver dogs are known to recognise the cadaver odour even after burning. As stated before they were used in the forest fires in California to identify the dead.
There seems to be little doubt that a cadaver dog trained on pigs would alert to pork crackling IMO
Would a dog trainer would wish to advertise this weakness in the dogs likely range of identifying cadaver odiour ? Would people paying good money for the dogs services want a dog that might be alerting to the cadaver odour of a pig, rather than a missing human ?
OMO, but what I am saying is logical based upon
1. Our knowledge that Eddie was trained on dead pigs
2. Dead pigs smell very like humans
3. Pigs are hung for several days for the meat to mature if bred for pork, so would have a cadaver odour about them
4. Dogs are used in forest fires etc to identify the burnt cadavers of humans, which would smell very like burnt cadavers of pigs ( Pork crackling included)
So, did someone who had been eating pork crackling / scratchings handle the paper or those folders on the counter above the cupboard that Cuddlecat was produced from ?
Eddie certainly didn't alert to Cuddlecat; he had just been playing with it, with no alert !!
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material.
You'd better find them. I have not seen that as yet.
It is all the same difference. Perfectly clear as mud. You are clearly confused. I find the solution weirdly normal.
In my opinion the attempts to cast doubt on Grime and his dog occasionally verge on the ridiculous.
There's a significant difference between a pig which has been hung and a decaying piglet used for training cadaver dogs. The clue is that the piglets are whole - there's nowt taken out.
Martin Grime said his dog alerted to Cuddle Cat. He is the expert and he was there. Armchair detectives, in my opinion, have no expertise and their opinions count for nothing.
I am not clearly confused... Your post should at least carry... IMO... Please alterOxymoron
I have posted them several times... Recently tooI want you to show me what the source of this sentence is "What is, surprising is, the, fact that the, dog trained, to react to cadaver on most occasions, originally didn't react to it... As in cuddle cat... Those, aren't my words, but the, words, of the, pj and, are in the, files"?
I want you to show me what the source of this sentence is "What is, surprising is, the, fact that the, dog trained, to react to cadaver on most occasions, originally didn't react to it... As in cuddle cat... Those, aren't my words, but the, words, of the, pj and, are in the, files"?
Where in the files?
That is the third time you have resisted finding a requested cite, I will delete your posts without cites in th6e future.
Oxymoron
u) 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.
v) 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'
w) 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
I have pointed out several times in my analysis there is no alert at all on Cuddle Cat.
It is good to see the overseeing body expressed doubts about that too...so they expressed doubts about other alerts too
I want you to show me what the source of this sentence is "What is, surprising is, the, fact that the, dog trained, to react to cadaver on most occasions, originally didn't react to it... As in cuddle cat... Those, aren't my words, but the, words, of the, pj and, are in the, files"?
Where in the files?
That is the third time you have resisted finding a requested cite, I will delete your posts without cites in the future.
Now who is clearly confused.. Post 952 this morningThat analysis report - who do you think wrote it?
You need to read the posts before making such a fool of yourself
Most posters have seen this several times before... It's in the files... And I've posted the cite many times
That analysis report - who do you think wrote it?
"ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE FIRST 11 VOLUMES OF THE INQUIRY (pages 1-3004) Central Department of Criminal Investigation, February, 5th, 2008" Is the "Central Department of Criminal Investigation" part of the PJ?
I know who wrote it.. Do youCan you answer my question please? It is certainly written by the Portuguese, but is the CID part of the PJ or above it? The report makes requests for clarifications so it appears to me to be a higher authority than the PJ.
Can you answer my question please? It is certainly written by the Portuguese, but is the CID part of the PJ or above it? The report makes requests for clarifications so it appears to me to be a higher authority than the PJ.If you look at the link provided your question will be answerred
If you look at the link provided your question will be answerredCan you answer my original question please? That analysis report - who do you think wrote it? And what is the relationship to the PJ?
Can you answer my original question please? That analysis report - who do you think wrote it? And what is the relationship to the PJ?
Have you not looked at the report... It tells you who wrote it..Is that part of the report or just a translators note?
Stop badgering me for simple information that is on the cite I have provided
Is that part of the report or just a translators note?I'll leave you to make your own mind up
I'll leave you to make your own mind upI take it that this part is a translator note "TRANSLATION BY LUZ
I take it that this part is a translator note "TRANSLATION BY LUZ
*12-11 OUTROS APENSOS FILE 12: 11 VOLUMES - Pages 1a to 1s
This file, 113 pages in total, has no written page numbers. It consists of a detailed analysis/report of the First 11 volumes of the investigation (pages 1 to 3004) re the mobile phone antennas activated and other calls made during the period under investigation. It includes the detailed chart (diagrammatic) created by the PJ re phone calls made by the Tapas 9 and others.
NOTE:
This is the second report demanded to a team of independent analysts from the Central Department of Criminal Investigation (Central Division of Information Analysis - PJ), dated from February 2008.
The references to the annexes and pages of the files were kept, just in order to allow anyone to ask for some particular document(s) to be translated ' I would do them ALL if I had the time, but I fear I won't be able to, so I'll be happy to go over those that you consider more interesting, if the request is rationally founded."
Is that how you read it?
If that is true then "(Central Division of Information Analysis - PJ)" is not actually a verified fact but a note.
are you sure...its there in portuguese on page 13...on PJ headed notepaper and its by Paolo Dias...and you had the nerve to say ...I was confusedI'm letting you teach me here. I want you to explain to me how you are sure that this is a report written by the PJ.
I'm letting you teach me here. I want you to explain to me how you are sure that this is a report written by the PJ.While I was watching my favourite tv show... Misty has, done, the honours
OK so the DCICPT is a branch of the PJ dealing with analysis. We might have called it internal audit, or Standards.Amaral ignored, Grime and Harrison... Which is, more important
So do we end up with one part of the PJ disputing what another part has found? What I found out in my profession was that the "Standards Group's" decisions over ruled the verifiers on the ground.
Or did in this case Goncalo Amaral just ignore what the DCICPT found?
Amaral ignored, Grime and Harrison... Which is, more importantYou can do what you like to the UK cops but you must not cross the DCICPT! You have to show obedience. IMO.
You can do what you like to the UK cops but you must not cross the DCICPT! You have to show obedience. IMO.Amaral ignored the, experts.. Grime and, Harrison
OK so the DCICPT is a branch of the PJ dealing with analysis. We might have called it internal audit, or Standards.
So do we end up with one part of the PJ disputing what another part has found? What I found out in my profession was that the "Standards Group's" decisions over ruled the verifiers on the ground.
Or did in this case Goncalo Amaral just ignore what the DCICPT found?
Amaral had been removed by Feb 2008, when that report was written.Did he take no notice of it when he came to writing his book?
Did he take no notice of it when he came to writing his book?
No. He shouldn't have had access to it anyway.I read the other day that GA was kept in the loop on the case even though he had resigned. I have no idea where the cite is now sorry.
Amaral ignored the, experts.. Grime and, Harrison
He's not the only one.One of Davel's guessing games again?
He's not the only one.
No he isn't... You have too
You claimed that according to grime the alerts, we're triggered by cadaver, of our... Which is, of course not true
Grime said initially it was possible the, alerts, were to cadaver and later changed that to suggestive
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent[/font......from your post
... and therein lies the puzzle of precisely what is classed as "cadaver odour" which can be a varied soup made up of many constituents.
In my opinion amateur interpretation of any points of interest shown by Eddie in Luz are very much a case of running before learning to walk.
... or lack of interest.
... and therein lies the puzzle of precisely what is classed as "cadaver odour" which can be a varied soup made up of many constituents.
In my opinion amateur interpretation of any points of interest shown by Eddie in Luz are very much a case of running before learning to walk.
... or lack of interest.
Or imaginings about tired, hot or thirsty dogs, pork crackling, bacon sarnies, fertilizer, kebabs etc. etc....
Did anyone check your suggestions out? If not ... why not? The video did show the dog having to be relieved of an item of food stuff from his mouth, which he had picked up while working, after all.
Did anyone check your suggestions out? If not ... why not? The video did show the dog having to be relieved of an item of food stuff from his mouth, which he had picked up while working, after all.
They're not my suggestions, they have been made by those who seem prepared to go to any lengths no matter how ridiculous to try to discredit Grime and his dogs.
Eddie didn't alert to any food items in PdL, or at any other time. As to picking them up, so what? It means nothing.
Did he alert to the foodstuff?
They're not my suggestions, they have been made by those who seem prepared to go to any lengths no matter how ridiculous to try to discredit Grime and his dogs.We don't know, what Eddie, alerted to and according to his, statements neither does Grime
Eddie didn't alert to any food items in PdL, or at any other time. As to picking them up, so what? It means nothing.
It means that the dog which allegedly ignores foodstuffs when working was seen not to ignore but to lift food in his mouth when working.
If you fail to see the significance of that ... that is entirely up to you.
Did he alert to Cuddle Cat?
He alerts only when he barks. Did he bark ?
He also alerts without barking... Read grimes, statement
We don't know, what Eddie, alerted to and according to his, statements neither does GrimeBut is the event of an alert a defined action. Do you know what an alert is?
People have to remember that a scent dog and his handler work as a team and develop an intuition after a while which nobody else will appreciate. Grime was best placed to know when Eddie was reacting and what that reaction meant in terms of his exhaustive training.
But is the event of an alert a defined action. Do you know what an alert is?
Does he? Do you have a cite ?
You mean you are not, aware of this
I agree... And his, statement says that it is possible... And later suggestive of cadaver odour... He, says the, alerts have no evidential value... I'm happy to accept his statements
Both Harrison and Grime say the alerts can be used as intelligence.
McCann's Apartment.
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim
Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's.
The dogs suggest that a dead body was inside that apartment and the police follow it up. The dogs provide the police with intelligence as in the Kate Prout, Theresa Parker, Pilley etc. cases - the missing person has never turned up alive. If you think the police ignore such intelligence in a missing person case then you are clearly living in fantasy land.
From dog intelligence, the police will think a dead body was inside that apartment. It's their job to follow it up and prove if it was the case or not!The police will not think a dead body has been in there... You are wrong... They will think it a, possibility... Read what grind has to say...
Eddie's first alert was in the parent's bedroom (Blood dog Keela did not alert there!) suggests to the police there probably was a dead body in this missing person case with no other explanation. There job is to prove it or not with corroborating evidence. Following the many alerts by the cadaver dog the handler believes:
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The dogs suggest that a dead body was inside that apartment and the police follow it up. The dogs provide the police with intelligence as in the Kate Prout, Theresa Parker, Pilley etc. cases - the missing person has never turned up alive. If you think the police ignore such intelligence in a missing person case then you are clearly living in fantasy land.
Did he bark ?
Shannon Matthews ... ???
Did you watch the video? The answer to your question is illustrated within.
In the Karen Matthews case the reason for the scent was found and it was indeed from a cadaver.
In the Karen Matthews case the reason for the scent was found and it was indeed from a cadaver.
So there, was no dead body
In the Karen Matthews case the reason for the scent was found and it was indeed from a cadaver.
In the Karen Matthews case the reason for the scent was found and it was indeed from a cadaver.
Agreed there was a body, just not the one they were looking for.
Exactly. Now if supporters can show any evidence that there was any connection between the fixtures and fittings in 5a and a dead body there may be some mileage in their argument.
Agreed there was a body, just not the one they were looking for.
Exactly. Now if supporters can show any evidence that there was any connection between the fixtures and fittings in 5a and a dead body there may be some mileage in their argument.
reminds of the stage psychic.......does anyone know a Paul...you might be easily impressed but I am not
Exactly. Now if supporters can show any evidence that there was any connection between the fixtures and fittings in 5a and a dead body there may be some mileage in their argument.
If the PJ had checked, who knows whether there may have been or not?
So only in 5a ? A tad unfortunate for the parents of a missing child wouldn’t you say ?
Agreed there was a body, just not the one they were looking for.where was the body in the Shannon Matthews case then?
So only in 5a ? A tad unfortunate for the parents of a missing child wouldn’t you say ?You could say the same in the Shannon Matthews case. If the child was still missing I do believe we'd have a whole bunch of people convinced she died in that bedroom, wouldn't we?
If the PJ had checked, who knows whether there may have been or not?It might have also helped if they'd checked out all the other people who'd ever stayed in that apartment (both before and after Madeleine went missing) for details of their possible proximity to a dead body.
You could say the same in the Shannon Matthews case. If the child was still missing I do believe we'd have a whole bunch of people convinced she died in that bedroom, wouldn't we?plus of course,,,cadaver dogs are only taken to sites where poeple are believed dead or missing...perhaps if they were taken to every missing person site....
not sure if you actually read this forum...how long were the dogs allowed to reconsider in 5a when in most cases they failed to alert...in other apartments where they failed to alert were they just brought staright out..
particularly with the alleged alert to CC...the opinion of the PJ officers who watched the dogs and had doubts...with Grime saying the alerts have no evidential value....my opinion that the alerts are basically valueless has some basis
In my opinion amateur interpretation of any points of interest shown by Eddie in Luz are very much a case of running before learning to walk.
As Brietta said...
there will be no mileage whatsoever...its a celestial teapot argumnet...and all you have to support your beliefsWhere is the IMO ?
but I dont agree with Briietta for obvious reasons......we all have the right to question professional opinion..post shipman
Would you be questioning Grime’s professional opinion if his dogs hadn’t alerted in 5a ?
Imagine if they'd alerted to Murat's house and car!Hopefully he would be consistent.
Imagine if they'd alerted to Murat's house and car!Do you think perhaps in such a circumstance they same arguments would still be raging 11 years on, but with the sides of the debate reversed?
Do you think perhaps in such a circumstance they same arguments would still be raging 11 years on, but with the sides of the debate reversed?
Do you think perhaps in such a circumstance they same arguments would still be raging 11 years on, but with the sides of the debate reversed?
That is an interesting thought though.
First of all there would have to have been a trial and it would have been interesting indeed to see what supporting evidence would have been presented.
Would Amaral have talked himself into getting the sack ... or would he have become the unassailable hero cop who had solved two 'murders' ... and who would therefore not have embarked on his career as an author or as a media pundit whose specialist subject was vilifying the McCanns.
Therefore in my opinion, all things considered, I don't think there would be any discussion at all. But eleven years down the line Madeleine would still be missing.
Why would there have to be a trial ? There wasn’t one when the dogs alerted to items connected to the McCanns. If it was Murat would the alerts gain more significance than with the McCanns ?
Without supporting evidence the reactions of the dogs would have exactly the same significance in both cases you mention ... in my opinion.
In my opinion those who support the McCanns would be supporting the alerts. Those who don't wouldn't be suggesting he'd eaten pork crackling before the dogs arrived.What would they be suggesting instead then, those who don't support the McCanns?
Would you be questioning Grime’s professional opinion if his dogs hadn’t alerted in 5a ?
What would they be suggesting instead then, those who don't support the McCanns?
Is there any good reason for people not to believe the dogs- supporter or sceptic? No one has claimed that the dogs identified Maddies cadaver- they were used to identify scents and signpost -along with other evidence a case may have been brought.I think a fair few people have concluded that Madeleine died in the apartment on the strength of the dog alerts alone IMO.
I think a fair few people have concluded that Madeleine died in the apartment on the strength of the dog alerts alone IMO.
I think a fair few people have concluded that Madeleine died in the apartment on the strength of the dog alerts alone IMO.
And what is wrong with some people believing that, they may add more things to the list to get their answer- they saw it and believed it what can you do about it? Calling the dogs and handlers liars is not going to change their minds.People can believe what they like, I'm simply responding to your claim that no one has claimed that the dogs identified Madeleine's cadaver. I think you'll find that some people have, and yet as you yourself appear to agree, they did not!
I think OG may have concluded that she died in the apartment too.That is your belief, unsupported by any evidence.
People can believe what they like, I'm simply responding to your claim that no one has claimed that the dogs identified Madeleine's cadaver. I think you'll find that some people have, and yet as you yourself appear to agree, they did not!
• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
If, as has been suggested by some supporters, the dog alerts are meaningless, it does make you wonder what other evidence OG have to suggest Madeleine may have been dead when she left the apartment?
So this from you ‘First of all there would have to have been a trial ‘ is not true ?
I think OG may have concluded that she died in the apartment too.When you say "OG may have concluded that she died in the apartment too" is that in the sense of all things are possible?
• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.Have you got anything more up to date? The last we heard from Mark Rowley (2017) he said there was no evidence that Madeleine was dead, nor any that she was alive. So either we accept what the police say, and that their most recent statements trump earlier statements made by ex officers on the case, or we don't. Which is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
If, as has been suggested by some supporters, the dog alerts are meaningless, it does make you wonder what other evidence OG have to suggest Madeleine may have been dead when she left the apartment?
Indeed, however the point I was making was: people looked at the dogs alerts and their purpose,along with other things and then concluded the dogs must be correct and it was/could be MBM. there is a difference!I think Gerry's comment has been taken out of context, twisted and used as an internet meme to propagandise against him and his wife IMO.
I find Gerrys response to that quite bizzarre if I am honest. The parents claim their daughter was abducted- she could have been killed in the apartment by the abductor an removed. but the parents were smug about answering with "ask the dogs". I mean WTF is that about.
That interview really convinced me something was not right at all.
I think Gerry's comment has been taken out of context, twisted and used as an internet meme to propagandise against him and his wife IMO.
Indeed, however the point I was making was: people looked at the dogs alerts and their purpose,along with other things and then concluded the dogs must be correct and it was/could be MBM. there is a difference!
I find Gerrys response to that quite bizzarre if I am honest. The parents claim their daughter was abducted- she could have been killed in the apartment by the abductor an removed. but the parents were smug about answering with "ask the dogs". I mean WTF is that about.
That interview really convinced me something was not right at all.
I think Gerry's, rather clever comment has gone over the heads of some posters
The fact that the dogs cannot talk and cannot be cross examined is one reason why the, alerts have no evidential value
I don't see what's clever about making a childish comment about dogs which assist the police in finding the bodies of people so their nearest and dearest can have closure. In fact it was incredibly stupid, in my opinion. It suggested that the police forces using these dogs were spending money on training and maintaining handlers and dogs which were only occasionally successful.
I don't see what's clever about making a childish comment about dogs which assist the police in finding the bodies of people so their nearest and dearest can have closure. In fact it was incredibly stupid, in my opinion. It suggested that the police forces using these dogs were spending money on training and maintaining handlers and dogs which were only occasionally successful.
You singularly overestimate any significance attached to dog indications ... even hypothetical ones.
Had Madeleine been killed in the apartment during a bungled burglary & her body removed, Eddie's alerts would have been meaningless when considering minimum post-mortem contamination time.
So you think a dead body may have been in 5a but the cadaver dog alert had nothing to do with that body ? Further that the McCanns were unlucky enough to be the only ones to actually have a dead body in there apartment AND for the cadaver dogs to alert to the scent they were trained to ?
Wouldn’t that be one coincidence too far ?
That's, your opinion... As we know the PJ have completely misunderstood the, alerts hence the proven facts.... When people are misrepresenting things to prove your daughter is dead and that you are responsible... I find Gerry's actions quite reasonable
There, are no coincidences there
Your last statement is making an assumption that the alert was to cadaver... That has not been confirmed
5a is the only apartment where the digs we're given an extended, amount of time to alert
If maddie had died in the apartment and been removed soon after there would have been no time for the odour to develop
Interesting you were critical of ferryman yesterday yet it was ferryman who established that Eddie had only been deployed 37 times, in 5 years..... That's, almost one case, every two months. Eddie hasn't found a fat lot in his career... So occasionally successful seems, quite accurate
It is indeed my opinion, as I think I made clear. What was gained by making such a flippant comment then? How did it advance the McCann's aims?Why does it have to advance any aims... The poor man was upset are his daughter
So the cadaver dog alerted to what it was trained to alert to in apartment 5a and only 5a, an apartment that, OG have claimed, may have had a dead body in it and the alert isn’t to that dead body. Do you know how bonkers that sounds ?
Further I’m no dog trainer but I would assume Grime spent more time in 5a than any other apartment because of the dog’s reaction before he even entered the apartment. Even the untrained eye can see the change in his behaviour.
Ferryman's argument was based on an FOI request to South Yorkshire police. The answer didn't cover a five year period, it covered a four year period;
"The information supplied therefore relates to his service between 2003 and 2007."
During that time Eddie was used 37 times, mostly outside the SYP area.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8032.315
The other point I would make is whether SYP held all of the records relating to Eddie, or just the ones they had been paid for?
Anyone doing research should, in my opinion, be careful to present the correct facts. Failing to do that tends to mislead those who later quote their findings.
You do not know what the dog alerted to... Neither dies grime... Now you are reading the digs body language
The bottom lir
No evidential reliability... That's, what counts
You do not know what the dog alerted to... Neither dies grime... Now you are reading the digs body language
The bottom lir
No evidential reliability... That's, what counts
Even if I couldn’t see how excited Eddie became on entering 5a Grime says his behaviour changes. He also says Eddie alerts to what he is trained to alert to.
TBH if you think that OG would be foolish enough to believe the dog alerts weren’t connected to what may have been a dead child in 5a then there really is no convincing you.
Check your maths.. 2003,4,5,6,7....is 5 years
Eddies CV. supplied by grime is sparse in results
Eddie was used 37 times and it's clear that includes usage bothb inside and outside the SYP area
What months? Even if the period started in January 2003 it is not a full 5 year period. To say it is is misleading.
SYP speak of 'usage', Grime of 'searches'. They aren't the same thing. In my opinion usage could refer to one quick house search in the SYP area or to the hiring out of the team to PdL for a week. Two usages, but how many searches?
over 200 criminal case searches
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Why does it have to advance any aims... The poor man was upset are his daughter
Every time they gave interviews it was to advance their aims. On this occasion it was to appeal to the people of Portugal, via RPT to help them with information. A good interview with Sandra could have helped with that aim. Gerry made a mess of it my opinion by refusing to answer her questions in a reasonable manner. He also prompted a lot of people to go off and research cadaver dogs.
sandra was obviously advancing her own aims and gerry was uoset...no big deal imo...with amarals propaganda they had no chance of cooperaton from the portuguese public
I don't see what's clever about making a childish comment about dogs which assist the police in finding the bodies of people so their nearest and dearest can have closure. In fact it was incredibly stupid, in my opinion. It suggested that the police forces using these dogs were spending money on training and maintaining handlers and dogs which were only occasionally successful.It's perhaps as stupid as the oft-repeated phrase "dogs don't lie".
Every time they gave interviews it was to advance their aims. On this occasion it was to appeal to the people of Portugal, via RPT to help them with information. A good interview with Sandra could have helped with that aim. Gerry made a mess of it my opinion by refusing to answer her questions in a reasonable manner. He also prompted a lot of people to go off and research cadaver dogs.What was the question Sandra asked him that prompted this response that you so object to?
He certainly was upset. He didn't like being asked questions he didn't want to answer, did he? He probably alienated a few more Portuguese with that performance. If it was the brainwave of their new Portuguese PR Agency it was a massive fail imo. Unlike Bilton et al Sandra didn't give a fig about Carter-Ruck.It's obvious he should have received better media training, than to appear like an upset father of a missing child. But then of course, he would have been criticized for something else.
He certainly was upset. He didn't like being asked questions he didn't want to answer, did he? He probably alienated a few more Portuguese with that performance. If it was the brainwave of their new Portuguese PR Agency it was a massive fail imo. Unlike Bilton et al Sandra didn't give a fig about Carter-Ruck.
Your hatred of the mccanns is palpable.....
He wasn't upset because of the questions.... He was upset because he had lost his daughter... Is, that so difficult to understand
What a strange idea. Why should I hate them? They've done me no harm.
You're entitled to interpret his reactions in a different way than me, but not to suggest I struggle with understanding. In my opinion you need to learn to debate without resorting to insults.
I would, say it means in years 3 to 7...that's 5 years.... In all of those years utilized 37 times
200 case searches evidently relates to multiple searches in each case..
Again... Look at the CV... How many criminal cases, has eddies evidence been critical in solving... Very... Very few
It's not an insult it's my opinion... You think Gerry was angry because he couldn't answer the question... When in reality his, anger was understandable as he had lost his daughter...G-unit has just told you she does not hate the McCanns so please leave it at that.
Your hatred is palpable...IMO... Do you have no sympathy for them... You don't... IMO... Which to me is very odd
It's perhaps as stupid as the oft-repeated phrase "dogs don't lie".
It's perhaps as stupid as the oft-repeated phrase "dogs don't lie".
Do they lie.? how do they do that? did they lie in the McCann case? you have no expert knowledge about those particular dogs at all. To say it is stupid to say dogs don't lie would be pretentious on your part.Not at all. Dogs do lie - on the ground when resting or sleeping, however dogs have no concept of honesty so cannot choose whether or not to deceive, that's why it's as stupid as saying "ask the dogs" because as we know dogs can't talk either, though some do believe that when a trained dog barks it's saying "there used to be a body here". When that happens they may be correct, they may be not, we have no way of knowing for certain either way without supporting evidence. .
Perhaps as strange as thinking that dogs are capable of lying.I don't know anyone who believes that, do you?
I don't know anyone who believes that, do you?
Well as you said it was stupid, one would have to assume you believe it?I said "dogs don't lie" is a stupid phrase because dogs CAN'T lie! I'm not sure why you think I think they do.
Shucks. I've got to eat some humble pie here. It seems I was wrong. Dogs do lie after all!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201703/do-dogs-ever-lie-or-try-deceive-people
Shucks. I've got to eat some humble pie here. It seems I was wrong. Dogs do lie after all!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201703/do-dogs-ever-lie-or-try-deceive-people
Dogs are driven by their own self interest and the need to please. They do not have the capability to deceive or lie.That experiment really showed that dogs can think in terms of self interest. Isn't that why humans lie as well?
It's not an insult it's my opinion... You think Gerry was angry because he couldn't answer the question... When in reality his, anger was understandable as he had lost his daughter...
Your hatred is palpable...IMO... Do you have no sympathy for them... You don't... IMO... Which to me is very odd
Your opinion being that I have difficulty understanding something which you, being more perceptive than me, can. Gerry McCann refused to answer the questions and, with no mention of being upset he explained;I believe the archiving report stated ..no evidence....there is not much prospect of understanding the truth re the dogs when amaral claims in his book that eddie discovered a body under a slab of concrete in jersey..totally untrue..
"The place to have those discussions is in the judicial and legal environment where they can be properly assessed and dealt with within the bounds of the law
So there you have it. 'Judicial secrecy', their previous reason/excuse for not answering questions, may have ended, but it's been replaced by another reason/excuse. Gerry McCann stated their position very clearly;
the Portuguese judiciary have agreed that there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead or that we were involved....."If people accept that, then they will accept that Madeleine is missing and can still be found."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm
It's not quite true, of course, what Gerry McCann said. Suspicions remained and 'absolutely no evidence' was actually 'insufficient evidence', which the Portuguese people understood and which the SC officially clarified
again years later.
Gerry McCann was asking the Portuguese people to accept, without question, his version of the conclusions of the investigation.
As Sandra Felgueiras said;
"It is two-and-a-half years after Madeleine disappeared and this was the first time they talked to us in a big interview since the files were closed. I think I should feel free and they should feel free to talk about it. It would be the only chance to clear up the rumours."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm
A chance which the McCanns didn't take.
I do have sympathy for the McCanns, but my reasons are probably very different from yours.
I believe the archiving report stated ..no evidence....there is not much prospect of understanding the truth re the dogs when amaral claims in his book that eddie discovered a body under a slab of concrete in jersey..totally untrue..
a tv interview is not the place to discuss the evidence in the case...do you realy think it would be possible to understand the dog alerts when ther has been endless discussion here and still no agreement...do you think Gerry could have settled it in a few sentences
I could argue, but I don't need to. It's well known now what weight the archiving report carried, so belive what you like.
In my opinion a sincere and reasonable attempt to answer Sandra's questions would have been far more likely to persuade the Portuguese public to put their trust in the couple and to help them than the response I saw.
I could argue, but I don't need to. It's well known now what weight the archiving report carried, so belive what you like.
In my opinion a sincere and reasonable attempt to answer Sandra's questions would have been far more likely to persuade the Portuguese public to put their trust in the couple and to help them than the response I saw.
What did Sandra actually ask?
What did Sandra actually ask?
Comment from Sandra F
RB: One big problem is only the Portuguese authorities can re-open the case. Sandra Felgueiras is one of Portugal’s leading TV presenters and has covered the McCann story from the start. With her own nightly news show she’s watched Portuguese public support shift away from the McCanns.
SANDRA FELGUEIRAS: They were following the case as it was a big movie. So if you start saying three months later from her disappearance that maybe the McCanns are involved people start thinking, “Oh my God, those guys, the same that were asking for help, I gave them money. I tried to help them and now they must be involved. The police is saying that.” And peoples minds changed and I never felt really that the Portuguese were likely to give a chance to the McCanns again.
Thanks, Byron, but my question is about what the actual question was that she asked to get that response from Gerry?
On more general issues, I'm not sure the world was waiting for Cambridge Analytica to reveal just how easily people's opinions can be influenced if you regularly hit the right button on emotive subjects...
Kate McCann made it quite clear why they were speaking to Sandra;
we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people...
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm
It seems to have escaped her notice that the 'good people' of Portugal had to first be convinced that it was possible to find Madeleine. Perhaps she thought their Portuguese PR agency would deal with that for them.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/BBC_23_09_09.htm
Kate McCann made it quite clear why they were speaking to Sandra;
we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people...
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm
It seems to have escaped her notice that the 'good people' of Portugal had to first be convinced that it was possible to find Madeleine. Perhaps she thought their Portuguese PR agency would deal with that for them.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/BBC_23_09_09.htm
Kate McCann made it quite clear why they were speaking to Sandra;
we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people...
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm
It seems to have escaped her notice that the 'good people' of Portugal had to first be convinced that it was possible to find Madeleine. Perhaps she thought their Portuguese PR agency would deal with that for them.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/BBC_23_09_09.htm
But Sandra had no intention of helping the promote the search for Maddie... She was more interested in promoting the lies re the investigation. She asked how Gerry could explain the alert to cadaver scent... Did she believe there was an alert to cadaver scent.... Because we know that there, was no confirmed alert... Just an alleged alert... That has no evidential value
It is better to try and change public opinion rather than reinforce it.It would have been impossible for the mccanns to change public opinion with SF asking questions that reinforced it
It would have been impossible for the mccanns to change public opinion with SF asking questions that reinforced it
It is better to try and change public opinion rather than reinforce it.
Why?Because she, was, able to reinforce the lie, that the dogs had alerted to cadaver...
Why?
Because she, was, able to reinforce the lie, that the dogs had alerted to cadaver...
It’s not a lie. If you could prove the dogs didn’t alert to a cadaver odour then maybe you could call it a lie. It would be easy to put together a response that acknowledged the alerts, expressed concern a ps to what it may mean and pledged to work with the PJ to identify the source of the odour...
If it is that easy ... please indicate what the dogs' various reactions signified?It is that easy.
It is that easy.
The dogs alerted. Fact.
What they alerted to is a matter of debate or opinion.
Because she, was, able to reinforce the lie, that the dogs had alerted to cadaver...
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
It is that easy.
The dogs alerted. Fact.
What they alerted to is a matter of debate or opinion.
Proved
Proved facts,so who lied?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Proven in what way.... What does the proven mean in this instance...because there certainly is no absolute proof the alerts were to cadaver
You'll have to take that up with the court in question,I provided a link which clearly states its a proven fact,is that fact in question?
It isn't... It's a matter of fact.... We just don't know what it is..... Even grimeCould we say we aren't sure but most likely cadaver odour?
Could we say we aren't sure but most likely cadaver odour?
I dont need to take it up with anyone it is not a proven fact as we understand it and I have no idea what the portugues court means by it...if they think its proven they obviously dont have a clue (IN MY OPINION)."they obviously dont have a clue" that was the opinion part.
Edit: (IN MY OPINION) added
No it's not my opinion it's a fact.... If they think it's proven what other explanation is there... Please, tell us
Could we say we aren't sure but most likely cadaver odour?
You'll have to take that up with the court in question,I provided a link which clearly states its a proven fact,is that fact in question?Do you believe it's a proven fact then? That the dog definitely alerted to cadaver, because the court said so?
"they obviously dont have a clue" that was the opinion part.
Do you believe it's a proven fact then? That the dog definitely alerted to cadaver, because the court said so?
Do you believe it's a proven fact then? That the dog definitely alerted to cadaver, because the court said so?
What a court says stands as correct until proved otherwise.But you at least admit that a court declaration still could be wrong and changed on a later date.
I believe its written down as a proven fact,do you question a courts judgement because it doesn't suit?No, I question it because I'd like to know how they arrived at the decision that it was definitely a cadaver. Based on the court ruling are you certain the dog alerted to cadaver?
If the court thinks it's a proven fact then the court does not have a clue... That has to be a fact... How can it not be a factSo its not in dispute thats its written in a court judgement,so maybe the thread title should read "do understand the evidence".
No, I question it because I'd like to know how they arrived at the decision that it was definitely a cadaver. Based on the court ruling are you certain the dog alerted to cadaver?
I believe its written down as a proven fact,do you question a courts judgement because it doesn't suit?
No, I question it because I'd like to know how they arrived at the decision that it was definitely a cadaver. Based on the court ruling are you certain the dog alerted to cadaver?
No I question it because it is not correctDid you not read the link?
What I DO KNOW.. is that the Portuguese courts have some strange ideas about what is a proven fact...this is plainly and 100% not a proven fact... As we understand it..
When was it proven... In which court
I'm certain its written down.Cite the words then please?
Did you not read the link?
I'm certain its written down.As you've avoided answering directly twice it would seem to me that you don't accept it's a certainty that the dog alerted to cadaver, and unless you tell me otherwise I will continue to hold that assumption.
Perhaps if you obtained a transcript of the court proceedings you might discover that which you seek.I don't need to read the court transcript to know for a fact that there is no way of proving what the dog in this case alerted to.
Cite the words then please?
keep up rob you being a mod an all,post 1127.I've just woken up. A bit of reminding doesn't hurt.
As you've avoided answering directly twice it would seem to me that you don't accept it's a certainty that the dog alerted to cadaver, and unless you tell me otherwise I will continue to hold that assumption.
I'm certain its written in a court judgement,my opinion is of no consequence along with all other posters.
I've just woken up. A bit of reminding doesn't hurt.
I'm certain its written in a court judgement,my opinion is of no consequence along with all other posters.that's the third time you've avoided a direct answer. Your opinion, my opinion, none of it matters, but when you're shooting the breeze as we are on this forum, a little honesty and directness always helps the chat flow more civilly I find.
that's the third time you've avoided a direct answer. Your opinion, my opinion, none of it matters, but when you're shooting the breeze as we are on this forum, a little honesty and directness always helps the chat flow more civilly I find.
it is of course...but as i have asked you and you dont know the answer is...what does the court mean by proven facts...because it certainly is not proven...so what does that say about the decalration of the portuguese courtI don't need to know the answer, its indisputable that's its written down.
I don't need to know the answer, its indisputable that's its written down.
that's the third time you've avoided a direct answer. Your opinion, my opinion, none of it matters, but when you're shooting the breeze as we are on this forum, a little honesty and directness always helps the chat flow more civilly I find.
but its not indisputable taht it is correct
In fact it's indisputable that the court is, wrong
imo...barrier cannot answer because she knows it hs not been proven
I can say with out fear of contradiction its a proven fact written down.
I'm a mere poster,I don't presume to know more than any official,the judge clearly wrote down in her court that its an undisputed fact,thats good enough for me.You prove she was wrong in her written judgement.you don't need to know more than the judge or any official to use logic and common sense. Without tangible evidence of a cadaver, there is no certainty about what the dog alerted to.
Or are the [ censored word ] now admitting that because this is wrong (proven facts) that the whole premise of the court case was wrong and that was why Amaral successfully appealed and had it upheld on appeal in the SC.
imo...barrier cannot answer because she knows it hs not been provenWas the problem not so much the judges but the parties to the case allowing that fact to be included in the list of "undisputed facts".
Was the problem not so much the judges but the parties to the case allowing that fact to be included in the list of "undisputed facts".No... Because it's listed as a proven fact... Which of course it isnt
No... Because it's listed as a proven fact... Which of course it isntThe reference quoted says "undisputed fact" not proven fact. ""6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
The reference quoted says "undisputed fact" not proven fact. ""6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]."
This has all been discussed many times before... In the SC judgement is listed as, a, proven fact... Page 19Was that page 19 of the SC ruling?
Was that page 19 of the SC ruling?Yes
Was that page 19 of the SC ruling?" – Fundamental principles
" – Fundamental principlesIt says proven.... Doesn't matter what you feel
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :
1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.
2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
I have a feeling these are considered undisputed facts, not that the SC had actual proof of these. Did they have the McCanns marriage licence in court. Did they have birth certificates for the kids?
It says proven.... Doesn't matter what you feelIt says "considered proven" doesn't mean proven, just not disputed by the parties.
So why is the court saying it's proven when it's not proven
It says "considered proven" doesn't mean proven, just not disputed by the parties.If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.
If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.
I think it possible that Kate and Gerry have found the situation regarding the Portuguese judgement so unacceptable that they are in the process of complaining about it to the European Court of Human Rights.I agree but if you remember G-unit and I went to considerable effort in understanding where the components of the SC ruling came from and I'd say the undisputed facts were from a previous case. I don't believe that is the bit they are complaining about. But on what basis their case to the ECHR depends is all unknown currently.
If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.
Hey? They didn't, but the judge wouldn't let Gerry dispute it.Can you prove that?
I think it possible that Kate and Gerry have found the situation regarding the Portuguese judgement so unacceptable that they are in the process of complaining about it to the European Court of Human Rights.
Can you prove that?
How is that going ?
It says "considered proven" doesn't mean proven, just not disputed by the parties.
It says "considered proven" doesn't mean proven, just not disputed by the parties.
As it is not disputed it is accepted by the parties.
It clearly isn't.... So the court must therefore be wrong.... It clearly isn't proven... So once, again the court must be wrong... My opinion and your post needs a similar caveat...
Where is the court case disputing it?I thought the McCanns were taking the case to the ECHR?
Where is the court case disputing it?
I thought the McCanns were taking the case to the ECHR?
How is that going ?
I thought the McCanns were taking the case to the ECHR?
It clearly isn't.... So the court must therefore be wrong.... It clearly isn't proven... So once, again the court must be wrong... My opinion and your post needs a similar caveat...
A case v Portugal its not known just what they are contesting.the verdict of the Portuguese court I would have thought, but perhaps that's too obvious.
the verdict of the Portuguese court I would have thought, but perhaps that's too obvious.
Not agreeing with Portuguese Court verdict is unlikely to a suitable ground for bringing a case.
There will need to be something specific that breaches human rights.
Defamation
Allegedly but no one knows for certain, nor what grounds they would make the appeal.
It's one of these wait and see things.
Of which the truth is a defends.
Of which the truth is a defends.the truth is there is no proof regarding what the dogs alerted to, and that's just one tiny part of it.
I would say the statement in the accounts shows the case is being taken to the, ECHR
It didn't say it had been accepted though.
I've done some research... Have you... And there are no grounds to reject itIYO
IYO
Then let's have your opinion.... On what grounds will it not be accepted...do you have any opinion at all
I would say the statement in the accounts shows the case is being taken to the, ECHR
Do you accept therefore that the judgement against Amaral was wrong then?
There is more than one judgement against Amaral on the books I believe ... to which one is it you refer?
Even if the McCanns are successful at the ECHR, the good book will have received yet more publicity from the process.Did the book surge to the top of the bestsellers list when the court found in favour of Amaral? Did it get published here as was suggested in some quarters? By now IMO it's not a question of how far and wide it is read, what is important for the McCanns IMO is that it is legally acknowledged to be defamatory and based on nothing more than half-truths and fictions. Then people can read it forearmed with that knowledge. And also, that the author of this defamatory tale never profits from it, would be a strong motivating factor IMO.
Supposing the good book is somehow banned again, that will just make more people want to read it to see what the problem is. They won't be able to remove all trace of it, it will still be available to read somewhere on the interweb.
The McCann's main issue is that they don't want their remaining children to read it. Eventually, I believe they will.
Something of a lose, lose situation for the Doctors McCann.
Even if the McCanns are successful at the ECHR, the good book will have received yet more publicity from the process.
Supposing the good book is somehow banned again, that will just make more people want to read it to see what the problem is. They won't be able to remove all trace of it, it will still be available to read somewhere on the interweb.
The McCann's main issue is that they don't want their remaining children to read it. Eventually, I believe they will.
Something of a lose, lose situation for the Doctors McCann.
My opinion counts for nothing along with yours,we have a knowledge that the McCanns have supposedly applied to the ECHR,its not known what they are contesting or even if its been accepted,end of.
Did the book surge to the top of the bestsellers list when the court found in favour of Amaral? Did it get published here as was suggested in some quarters? By now IMO it's not a question of how far and wide it is read, what is important for the McCanns IMO is that it is legally acknowledged to be defamatory and based on nothing more than half-truths and fictions. Then people can read it forearmed with that knowledge. And also, that the author of this defamatory tale never profits from it, would be a strong motivating factor IMO.
IMO I think the McCanns are fully aware that their case will not get much further than their application but what else could they do?
Bolded bit,by who please, certainly not in Portugal.
On what do you base your opinion.... Have you looked at any libel cases dealt with by the ECHR
I doubt they would care if their children read the book...... The twins would recognise it for the rubbish it is... ImoThere will be many people associated with the McCanns, friends, family, work colleagues etc, who will be only too well aware of the book, the allegations within it, and who may even have read it, who still are completely supportive of the couple. If their children haven't already read it, if and when they do it's unlikely to turn them against their parents, but it may well make them angry and upset about the nonsense perpetrated by its author. IMO.
Bolded bit,by who please, certainly not in Portugal.I don't understand your question, sorry.
There will be many people associated with the McCanns, friends, family, work colleagues etc, who will be only too well aware of the book, the allegations within it, and who may even have read it, who still are completely supportive of the couple. If their children haven't already read it, if and when they do it's unlikely to turn them against their parents, but it may well make them angry and upset about the nonsense perpetrated by its author. IMO.
It us deemed libel per se by definition...
Did the book surge to the top of the bestsellers list when the court found in favour of Amaral? Did it get published here as was suggested in some quarters? By now IMO it's not a question of how far and wide it is read, what is important for the McCanns IMO is that it is legally acknowledged to be defamatory and based on nothing more than half-truths and fictions. Then people can read it forearmed with that knowledge. And also, that the author of this defamatory tale never profits from it, would be a strong motivating factor IMO.
There will be many people associated with the McCanns, friends, family, work colleagues etc, who will be only too well aware of the book, the allegations within it, and who may even have read it, who still are completely supportive of the couple. If their children haven't already read it, if and when they do it's unlikely to turn them against their parents, but it may well make them angry and upset about the nonsense perpetrated by its author. IMO.
English definition? not Portuguese.
You seem to be arguing it has had no impact?I don't believe it has changed the opinion of those nearest and dearest to the McCanns, there is no evidence that it has, however it has undoubtedly caused them distress, and hurt IMO.
As you say, all in your opinion.Yes, that's why I used copious IMOs throughout my post - any reason why this was was especially noteworthy and needed repeating by yourself?
Very much a niche market, I think, particularly as not published in English.Where would you say (geographically speaking) there is the most interest in this case?
Yes, that's why I used copious IMOs throughout my post - any reason why this was was especially noteworthy and needed repeating by yourself?
Where would you say (geographically speaking) there is the most interest in this case?
Do you now accept you are wrong robIn the quote Carana gave it just mentioned blood not cadaver odour. So no I'm not wrong yet.
Rothley , Skipton and Ullapool at a guessRight, the UK, I would say that was the correct answer.
I thought you might like the publicity 8(>((Not particularly, but thanks for your efforts.
In the quote Carana gave it just mentioned blood not cadaver odour. So no I'm not wrong yet.
If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.
There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when GMC claims that he has something to say.This argument only mentions blood. Nothing about cadaver odour.
The judge says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!
GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.
And so it ended
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Gerry_McCann_08_07_2014.htm
You seem to be talking about cadaver odour here.... And in your other postsSee Carana's post does it talk about cadaver odour?
See Carana's post does it talk about cadaver odour?
The one I posted a link to previously.post no 1127 if memory serves.
No, it doesn't. However:We don't know then do we?
"GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him."
If that is an accurate rendering, he wasn't given time to finish his point.
The evidence is there that Martin Grime has attested that dog indications have to be proven by forensic evidence; but the sceptics know better and instead prefer to follow other theories which do not have a shred of supporting evidence.
Have sceptics looked beyond what they have been assured is evidence ... or have they dug a bit deeper for more information to inform their opinion?
In my opinion they have not - therefore their misunderstanding and misinterpretation of whatever evidence there is.
Much like Scotland Yard when it allowed its officers to be photographed scrambling around the Portuguese countryside in the hot sun in pursuit of nothing, all imo of course.How can you possibly be in a position to make any judgement at all about what they may or may not have been looking for?
How can you possibly be in a position to make any judgement at all about what they may or may not have been looking for?
Probably in a similar position to those who have a view on the original PJ investigation.Incorrect. We know far more about the original PJ investigation thanks to the copious case files released to the public. We know next to nothing about the current investigation. Big difference.
We don't know then do we?
Incorrect. We know far more about the original PJ investigation thanks to the copious case files released to the public. We know next to nothing about the current investigation. Big difference.
How can you possibly be in a position to make any judgement at all about what they may or may not have been looking for?
We don't know then do we?
It wasn't for a live and findable child I'd venture.So does that mean that the searches were "in pursuit of nothing" or is it possible that looking for a live and findable child was not the purpose of that particular search, but something else entirely which you know nothing about?
You don't seem to have any knowledge or opinion... It's clear from the recent accounts they have taken the case to the ECHR IMO
I doubt they would care if their children read the book...... The twins would recognise it for the rubbish it is... Imo
Just another delaying tactic by the parents of a missing child who gave b....r all thought to her human rights when they left her alone with her twin toddler siblings night after night. It's rather hypocritical of them now to attempt to seek human rights imo but then no real surprise if I'm honest. 😏IMO, it's never too late to make try and make amends for past ill-judged actions, perhaps that is the driving force behind all of this for the last 11 years?
IMO, it's never too late to make try and make amends for past ill-judged actions, perhaps that is the driving force behind all of this for the last 11 years?
Then again it could just be guilt.Of course, that's what I meant. Making amends for past ill-judged actions, driving their actions would in large part be a sense of guilt.
We do because both Kate and Gerry have both publicly contested the alerts to cadaver... Trying to show they haven't is a tad ridiculous.... ImoCan you actually find one and we will look at what they say please?
No. What I'm trying to say is that it's not accurate to assert that they'd accepted that Eddie did in fact react to "cadaver odour"."Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance"; acceptance by whom?
Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance.
"Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance"; acceptance by whom?
"Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance"; acceptance by whom?
It was in answer to a previous post of yours:It was the judges who called it an accepted fact or whatever the term was. "Undisputed fact".
If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=452880;topic=9213.1170
The process of law is adversarial whereby if you don't contest something, then by default you are accepting it.
It was the judges who called it an accepted fact or whatever the term was. "Undisputed fact".
Just another delaying tactic by the parents of a missing child who gave b....r all thought to her human rights when they left her alone with her twin toddler siblings night after night. It's rather hypocritical of them now to attempt to seek human rights imo but then no real surprise if I'm honest. 😏
And what happened when Gerry attempted to dispute it?He was told this isn't the time to dispute it, so where did they get the notion it was an undisputed fact? It had to be some prior case IMO.
I do not think it was anymore complicated than an application to the ECtHR was the only card left to play and play it they must in order to preserve credibility.
He was told this isn't the time to dispute it, so where did they get the notion it was an undisputed fact? It had to be some prior case IMO.
My point was that Gerry never mentioned cadaver odour but he mentioned blood.
What did he say now - there was no blood found? I was wondering what he really meant by that?
Was he saying he knows about Madeleine and she never bled on the night she died? (In the sense there was no bleeding therefore no blood to find.)
Or was he saying the lab never found any blood? (As the spots that Keela alerted too were too small to test for blood and DNA testing at the same time. That was my impression.)
What did you think he meant?
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge - We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
Thanks. G-Unit. I did vaguely recollect that Gerry mentioned "cadaver odour", but that wasn't in the notes in the cite I'd found.There is also the disclaimer "Important Notice
The process of law is adversarial whereby if you don't contest something, then by default you are accepting it.Different rules for civil and criminal cases. Civil cases are not adversarial.
There is also the disclaimer "Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary.
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity. All reports are made in good faith."
Even if I was to accept that Gerry said in court "GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour..." It is then clear that he is not talking about the apartment. He is only disputing the undisputed facts about the hire car.
I think Gerry would be aware that cadaver odour can not be confirmed by scientific test so if a cadaver dog alerts you can never prove whether it was to cadaver odour other than in the case of a known training test.
Then how can the court claim the cadaver odour, as a proven fact..... Although I now think I know the answer
Then how can the court claim the cadaver odour, as a proven fact..... Although I now think I know the answerThat is an interesting question Davel, for it was never established in a court trial. So who decided on the undisputed facts? I have a feeling it must be some sort of pretrial decision. Did the McCann lawyer get to check what facts were considered undisputed facts?
That is an interesting question Davel, for it was never established in a court trial. So who decided on the undisputed facts? I have a feeling it must be some sort of pretrial decision. Did the McCann lawyer get to check what facts were considered undisputed facts?
Are the defendants' documents online? If so, seeing what they wrote about the dogs might help. Was that assertion submitted, with simply Grime's report as an annexe? If so, I find it inaccurately worded as a factual statement, but on the other hand it was a major feature presented in GA's book / documentary / articles.It is an undisputed fact that the dogs (blood and cadaver) alerted to the hire car and in the apartment.
IMO, as there was no forensic evidence to invalidate or corroborate it, there was no direct omission of e.g., forensic evidence that could be disputed, although, for some reason, the caveats about needing corroboration didn't seem to have been taken into account. Maybe coffee spilled on them all.
A key point, IMO, is that it was a civil case, not a criminal one:
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.
Thinking about it.. It may be that the police.. Prosecution... Put forward their claimed proven facts on which the case is based. In a criminal trial these facts can then be countered... Disputed.. By the defence. As there never was, a, criminal trial these proven facts, remain on file and undisputedCould be but that would be rather rough justice, as there was never any case put forward against the McCanns (or if there was it never proceeded).
Are the defendants' documents online? If so, seeing what they wrote about the dogs might help. Was that assertion submitted, with simply Grime's report as an annexe? If so, I find it inaccurately worded as a factual statement, but on the other hand it was a major feature presented in GA's book / documentary / articles.
IMO, as there was no forensic evidence to invalidate or corroborate it, there was no direct omission of e.g., forensic evidence that could be disputed, although, for some reason, the caveats about needing corroboration didn't seem to have been taken into account. Maybe coffee spilled on them all.
A key point, IMO, is that it was a civil case, not a criminal one:
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.
Could be but that would be rather rough justice, as there was never any case put forward against the McCanns (or if there was it never proceeded).
Where do undisputed facts come from in a trial in Portugal? Does the prosecution just list a series of undisputed facts - like it and lump it?
Its,what the prosecution base it's, case, on... It's up to the defence to answer is... But there never was a trialSurely that would never be accepted as the undisputed facts! If it was Portugal needs to be reprimanded in the ECHR court.
Surely that would never be accepted as the undisputed facts! If it was Portugal needs to be reprimanded in the ECHR court.
They are technically undisputed facts because the mccanns had no chance to dispute them...There must be a better definition somewhere.
Different rules for civil and criminal cases. Civil cases are not adversarial.
The judge allows Gerry to say something but it had conditions on it: "MC Can I make a statement?Gerry should have asked the Judge to clarify where the list of undisputed facts came from. Had it been a question rather than a statement it might have maintained its legal validity.
Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist of a series of questions put by the lawyers and Judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.
Gerry was told this rebuttal of the undisputed facts "won't have any legal validity".
So can we now take it a give it some legal validity?
Gerry should have asked the Judge to clarify where the list of undisputed facts came from. Had it been a question rather than a statement it might have maintained its legal validity.
Some will have come from the plaintiffs' submissions and the others from the defendants' submissions.But who decides what is on the list.
But who decides what is on the list.In this discussion, "Question of Fact" it says the judge can decide the matters considered indisputable fact.
I think posters, are making the mistake of assuming they understand what the, Portuguese court mean by proven facts..... They certainly are not proven facts as, we understand the term... More like what the prosecution believe to be true and on what they base their case... It's then up yo the defense to dispute them but this, can only be done at a criminal trial.... That's why the judge would not let Gerry question themwell you can make that suggestion, but is it a indisputable fact?
well you can make that suggestion, but is it a indisputable fact?It is an indisputable fact that the cadaver alerts are not proven... 100%
It is an indisputable fact that the cadaver alertsvare not proven... 100%Indisputable fact that there were cadaver dog alerts, by dogs who are trained to alert to cadaver odour.
Indisputable fact that there were cadaver dog alerts, by dogs who are trained to alert to cadaver odour.No... One dog... Not dogs... And by a dog that alerts to their things apart from cadaver... Plus, the, alerts care not confirmed or proven
No... One dog... Not dogs... And by a dog that alerts to their things apart from cadaver... Plus, the, alerts care not confirmed or ProvenceSorry 1 cadaver dog and 1 CSI dog.
Sorry 1 cadaver dog and 1 CSI dog.
2 cadaver dogs giving the same alert independently in the same spot would be a totally different situation... Perhaps I could give grime some advice.. With different handlersIt would be a matter of expense, they don't come cheap.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm (10th September 2007)
snipped
Nevertheless, before the Media they kept (and keep) declaring their hope on finding their daughter alive: the first time that the hypothesis of the death of the little girl was raised it was, effectively, suggested by the McCann.
Although maintaining all the lines of the investigation opened it was, nevertheless, decided to advance in the direction of a new inspection to the local where the girl disappeared.
The inspection technique is frequently used in the United Kingdom and consists on the use of dogs especially trained.
As it's natural it is the dog's olfact the 'sense' used. In the case of this 'sense' the difference between the human and the dog is 5 million cells to 200 millions.
It must be highlighted that the resource to this kind of inspection is frequent in the UK and the success rate is 100%.
One of the dogs is trained to detect the odour of cadaver and the other to identify vestiges of human blood.
We refer now that the location of the cadaver odours signifies that physically the body (cadaver) is not on the place, marked by the dog, but certainly it has been there, as long as the dog signals it.
As it can be verified from the 'Autos', in the inquiry, the dogs inspected the locales and objects with the results described below.
All the inspections were recorded in sound and image and were directed by our British colleagues that accompanied the dogs.
Among the great number of objects and locales inspected, the dogs marked the following places:
1. Apartment 5 A, Ocean Club resort, the place from where the child disappeared
1.1. Cadaver odour
* Master bedroom, in a corner, by the wardrobe
* Living room, behind the sofa, by the side window
1.2. Blood dog:
* Living room behind the sofa, close to the lateral window (on the same spot signalled by the cadaver dog);
2. Front garden to the apartment 5A
2.1. Cadaver dog
* Flower bed (the dog handler commented on the 'lightness' of the odor)
3. Apartments where the rest of the group were staying
* NOTHING was detected by the dogs
4. Actual residence of the McCann
* NOTHING was detected on the house by any of the dogs
5. At Aldeia da Luz
* NOTHING was detected by any of the dogs
6. Clothes and belongings of McCann family
6.1. Cadaver dog:
* 2 pieces of clothing of Kate McCann
* One piece of Madeleine McCann
* Madeleine's soft toy
* The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann
* It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
7. Vehicle used by the McCann family
7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the booth
7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the booth
8. Car used by a family friend that was staying in the same resort, in some of the same days
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs
9. All the cars used by the arguido Robert Murat and the people that are close to him
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs.
(In a total of 10 cars the cadaver dog and the blood dog only marked the car of the McCann family, rented at May 27th)
The places and the pieces marked and signaled by the blood dog are being subjected to forensic exams, part of which are already concluded.
Not less relevant is the refinement of the results that point towards Madeleine's DNA as being present at the apartment 5A behind the sofa, a place marked by the cadaver and the blood dog. In every place marked by the blood dog it was confirmed there was DNA.
================================================================
It is an undisputed fact that there is a record in the files from the original investigation, during Amaral's time in charge, stating that the dog alerted to cadaver. Rightly or wrongly, if the book is a reflection of the investigation, then the alert to cadaver is a fact within itself but not necessarily the truth of the matter.
It would be a matter of expense, they don't come cheap.They could do this on one or two occasions and, see, what the, results, we're... They used, two dogs in the gilroy case, but both at the same time
That's what I thought it was all about, that the book matched the files. Whether what the files and the book said was true was a different question to be decided by the criminal courts.
@ Rob
Read Misty's post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg453083#msg453083
It's now ringing a bell that it was the TdeA report that was submitted to justify the assertion of what the dogs alerted to (not Grime documents). That would make sense as it's quite clever: it avoids Lowe's email and Grime & Harrison's caveats.
Along the lines of what Misty pointed out, it is therefore an undisputed fact that there is a report in the investigation that makes that claim, and Amaral's defence was that he was only discussing the contents of the investigation up to when he left (in the book and documentary).
The McCanns could have complained that Amaral was going around claiming that the McCanns were Martians and that this was causing harm. Amaral's defence was that there is a report to that effect in the investigation, which is true. It doesn't matter if the reasoning was that e.g., someone had heard the McCannns had mentioned life on Mars, were therefore homesick and therefore Martians.
The judge's position was that it was true that there was a report to that effect (undisputable fact), and that therefore Amaral's claim was valid.
What I haven't worked out is whether the McCanns' lawyer could have counter-submitted Lowe's email or not (that at least had arrived prior to Amaral being booted). That would require wading through the Civil Procedural Code all over again, and I'm not sure I have the energy to do that, at least not today.
Anyway, the bottom line, IMO, is that it's not correct to state that a judge had ruled that the dogs had indisputably reacted to x or y, just that there was indeed a statement to that effect in the files.
They could do this on one or two occasions and, see, what the, results, we're... They used, two dogs in the gilroy case, but both at the same timeWhat if two dogs alerted at the same place you'd accept it as evidence - traitor!
If they could show, two and independent handlers, with a, different dog... Alerted to the, same place
Without knowing the other result... That would be, real evidence... And I don't see, a, good reason why they haven't done this
What if two dogs alerted at the same place you'd accept it as evidence - traitor!
In my opinion a lot of people simply misunderstand the evidence, not just those labelled 'sceptics'. In fact people have trouble identifying evidence, let alone understanding it.
If two dogs, alerted at the, same place with a, different handler... And each handler having no knowledge of the other, alert then that would have to be, strong evidence and highly suggestive... But could, still be as, a result of cross contamination and not necessarily cadaver
imo its predominately the sceptics...you yourself has stated that it was Grimes opinion that cadaver odour triggered the alert...which is not what he stated...so thers an example of you not understanding the evidence...you also claimed the dogs were scientifically tested...again untrueWell it was something like that. He said "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination."
Well it was something like that. He said "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination."It was not what he said... And if anyone thinks it is... They do not understand English never mind the evidence....
He didn't say he was 100% certain that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. Just that it was possible.
I'm not sure I agree with that, Davel.They would still have to have some corroborating evidence to say who's body was the cause of the cadaver odour. IMO.
IMO, it would still just be intelligence, albeit of a potentially higher value, depending on all the variables.
It was not what he said... And if anyone thinks it is... They do not understand English never mind the evidence....That was a copy and paste from the report. "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. " http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Well it was something like that. He said "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination."
He didn't say he was 100% certain that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. Just that it was possible.
That was a copy and paste from the report. "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. " http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
That was a copy and paste from the report. "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. " http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
It can be argued with the failure to find Madeleine either dead or alive then that corroborating evidence won't be confirmed to be either way.Well to be honest I have a feeling the evidence the PJ were hoping for was a confession.
Well to be honest I have a feeling the evidence the PJ were hoping for was a confession.
I think that OG might now be of a similar mindsDo they have means of persuasion? I can't see any pressure coming on anyone to confess at the moment.
Do they have means of persuasion? I can't see any pressure coming on anyone to confess at the moment.
It can be argued with the failure to find Madeleine either dead or alive then that corroborating evidence won't be confirmed to be either way.
Do they have means of persuasion? I can't see any pressure coming on anyone to confess at the moment.
What "corroborating evidence"?
That was a copy and paste from the report. "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. " http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The only pressure will be a conscience.
What "corroborating evidence"?Short of a confession. even if they found Madeleine's body somewhere there is no linkage between the apartment and where it could be found.
Short of a confession. even if they found Madeleine's body somewhere there is no linkage between the apartment and where it could be found.
If they found a blue bag with bones inside of it, then that could be significant if it matched the one in the photo.
Short of a confession. even if they found Madeleine's body somewhere there is no linkage between the apartment and where it could be found.
If they found a blue bag with bones inside of it, then that could be significant if it matched the one in the photo.
- Not necessarily, but possibly. Do you remember the Ozzy case of the girl in a suitcase?The one in the wardrobe. I think the cadaver was in the apartment all the time. That is why there were questions about this directed at Kate.
- What "blue" bag in "the" photo?
The one in the wardrobe. I think the cadaver was in the apartment all the time. That is why there were questions about this directed at Kate.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm
02 --- If she looked inside the cupboard of the couple's bedroom, she said No in response.
03 --- Shown two photographs of the cupboard of her bedroom, and asked for a description of the contents, she did not respond.
--- The viewing ended and after signs of cadaver odour in her bedroom next to the cupboard and behind the sofa against the window of the living room, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned.
The one in the wardrobe. I think the cadaver was in the apartment all the time. That is why there were questions about this directed at Kate.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm
02 --- If she looked inside the cupboard of the couple's bedroom, she said No in response.
03 --- Shown two photographs of the cupboard of her bedroom, and asked for a description of the contents, she did not respond.
--- The viewing ended and after signs of cadaver odour in her bedroom next to the cupboard and behind the sofa against the window of the living room, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned.
Interesting that she admitted to not looking in the wardrobe!
The one in the wardrobe. I think the cadaver was in the apartment all the time. That is why there were questions about this directed at Kate.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm
02 --- If she looked inside the cupboard of the couple's bedroom, she said No in response.
03 --- Shown two photographs of the cupboard of her bedroom, and asked for a description of the contents, she did not respond.
--- The viewing ended and after signs of cadaver odour in her bedroom next to the cupboard and behind the sofa against the window of the living room, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned.
Interesting that she admitted to not looking in the wardrobe!
Yes interesting indeed. Once Kate KNEW instantly that her daughter was abducted she searched the apartment- not looking in the wardrope?- she left the other children and ran to tell the others.
of course we are told by the supporters that it was not at the moment Kate knew her daughter had been abducted but when she was told about JT's sighting.. all very confusing ...key stone cops drama.
ok- to summarise Kate did not search the apartment. Yes she did, well....
Except if you check the original, she didn't say that she hadn't checked...
That's line 11, which says "... disse não responder."Are you suggesting it is a translation error?
Except if you check the original, she didn't say that she hadn't checked...Well what did she say in the original?
Well what did she say in the original?http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg453209#msg453209
That's line 11, which says "... disse não responder."Google Translate converts that to "said not responding" "Not" rather than "No". Same difference.
Google Translate converts that to "said not responding" "Not" rather than "No". Same difference.
I would take Google Translate with a pinch of salt were I you.
OK for a rough pass but NBG for much else.
Try going into a German drugstore in Koln, yes that one at any cross roads opposite the Dr Mullers Sex Shop, to buy a razor using Google translate.
May I have a safety razor please?
translates to:
Darf ich bitte einen Rasierapparat haben
translates back to:
May I have a razor, please
Razor translates to ein rasierer
Safety razor to Sicherheitsrasierer
Rasierapparat translates to shaver apparatus.
But in the drug store:
Darf ich bitte einen Gillette [oder ein stelbar] haben, will deliver what you want.
Darf ich bitte einen Rasierapparat haben will probably be greeted by a blank stare, then laughter possibly followed by the waving of a cut throat.
Like I said use Google translate at your peril.
[Based on personal experience of asking for "einen rasierer" in Koln ca 1974. The young lady the store manager and I finished up like this when all was explained..... (&^& ]
I would take Google Translate with a pinch of salt were I you.
OK for a rough pass but NBG for much else.
Try going into a German drugstore in Koln, yes that one at any cross roads opposite the Dr Mullers Sex Shop, to buy a razor using Google translate.
May I have a safety razor please?
translates to:
Darf ich bitte einen Rasierapparat haben
translates back to:
May I have a razor, please
Razor translates to ein rasierer
Safety razor to Sicherheitsrasierer
Rasierapparat translates to shaver apparatus.
But in the drug store:
Darf ich bitte einen Gillette [oder ein stelbar] haben, will deliver what you want.
Darf ich bitte einen Rasierapparat haben will probably be greeted by a blank stare, then laughter possibly followed by the waving of a cut throat.
Like I said use Google translate at your peril.
[Based on personal experience of asking for "einen rasierer" in Koln ca 1974. The young lady the store manager and I finished up like this when all was explained..... (&^& ]
The one in the wardrobe. I think the cadaver was in the apartment all the time. That is why there were questions about this directed at Kate.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm
02 --- If she looked inside the cupboard of the couple's bedroom, she said No in response.
03 --- Shown two photographs of the cupboard of her bedroom, and asked for a description of the contents, she did not respond.
--- The viewing ended and after signs of cadaver odour in her bedroom next to the cupboard and behind the sofa against the window of the living room, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned.
Interesting that she admitted to not looking in the wardrobe!
Welcome to the dark side of the fence.
and
IMO Rob has been 'on the dark side of the fence' for quite a long time, maybe since the time he joined the forum .... altho he hides it well.
I have noticed that straight from the start, he is reluctant to accept that an abduction may have taken place; in fact I don't think that he has ever accepted the possibility ... except when trying to work out if the Tapas group are involved. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Rob is a thoroughly nice person to talk to and does look at most angles, which is good. However, are you following a set agenda, Rob ?
This is the first time that he has come straight out with the fact that he thinks that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the cadaver was in the apartment all the time.
This makes him a sceptic IMO
Bet this post doesn't last long 8(>((
I haven't discarded the possibility that she may have died in the apartment, just as I haven't eliminated the possibility that she may have been alive when she disappeared from it.
andNot so Sadie. I believe in rather an unique situation of there being an abduction and a cadaver.
IMO Rob has been 'on the dark side of the fence' for quite a long time, maybe since the time he joined the forum .... altho he hides it well.
I have noticed that straight from the start, he is reluctant to accept that an abduction may have taken place; in fact I don't think that he has ever accepted the possibility ... except when trying to work out if the Tapas group are involved. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Rob is a thoroughly nice person to talk to and does look at most angles, which is good. However, are you following a set agenda, Rob ?
This is the first time that he has come straight out with the fact that he thinks that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the cadaver was in the apartment all the time.
This makes him a sceptic IMO
Bet this post doesn't last long 8(>((
Not so Sadie. I believe in rather an unique situation of there being an abduction and a cadaver.
That is why I have found Blonk's posts so interesting as it times Smithman perfectly for an abduction at 21H42.
But a cadaver can still be in the suitcase. The PJ must have had the same problem how can they ask Kate about the wardrobe and at the same time consider an abduction even if it was a getting rid of the body type abduction.
When I started here in July 2016 I had partially developed a theory and true I have been looking to see if I can disprove my theory so to answer your last question "However, are you following a set agenda, Rob ?" Yes I have been following an agenda - that is to to find fault with my basic theory, but I'm sorry to say I have not faulted it yet with evidence.
Rob, are you suggesting that her body was in whatever that dark blob (sack / case, whatever) in the wardrobe despite both the GNR searches and, more importantly, the forensic PJ unit having beenn there that night?I don't use the word "her body" but yes there is a possibility there is a cadaver in that suitcase type object.
I don't use the word "her body" but yes there is a possibility there is a cadaver in that suitcase type object.
Yes unless someone admits to checking the content of it we don't know. Next day same wardrobe shelf appears empty. No one has admitted removing the suitcase type object.
But I now really think Smithman removed Madeleine at 21H42 or thereabouts so the cadaver is not Madeleine, for Smithman is not seen or behaves like he is carrying a deceased victim.
We all know that the forensic lady only had one glove... but are you seriously suggesting that they could have missed a body in a bag??
I don't use the word "her body" but yes there is a possibility there is a cadaver in that suitcase type object. 📸
Yes unless someone admits to checking the content of it we don't know. Next day same wardrobe shelf appears empty. No one has admitted removing the suitcase type object.
But I now really think Smithman removed Madeleine at 21H42 or thereabouts so the cadaver is not Madeleine, for Smithman is not seen or behaves like he is carrying a deceased victim.
We all know that the forensic lady only had one glove... but are you seriously suggesting that they could have missed a body in a bag??Do you see Eddie putting his nose up near the shelf where the bag had been just prior to alerting in the bedroom?
Do you see Eddie putting his nose up near the shelf where the bag had been just prior to alerting in the bedroom?
Do you see the bag there on the night photo?
Do you see the wardrobe door moved and no sign of the bag in the day photo?
Who moved the door between photo 1 and Photo 2?
What was in the bag? Was there a dead piglet in it? (Remember Eddie can't distinguish between pig and human flesh.) It had been left over night possibly so plenty of time for cadaver odour to develop?
I'm not saying the forensic lady missed the body in the bag next day, no because it was there one minute and gone the next, but when did that disappearance occur?
If they were as incompetent as some on here love to claim, then perhaps they did.It is not incompetence. I would think it is a matter of being several steps behind those that are committing the crime.
So Eddiebput his nose up but did not alert to a whole cadaver in a bagThe dogs arrived months after the event. The bag is long gone by August.
I would say that's, probably the most ridiculous, ideas, we've, had, on the, forum including those, who were just jokingYou need to look at the list of events I outline again and refute it logically and not just emotionally by using emotive words like "that's, probably the most ridiculous, ideas, we've, had, on the, forum including those, who were just joking", that is not an argument that carries any weight.
So Madeleine was supposed to be in a bag in the cupboard, which the forensic people never noticed, hours after some believe that Gerry was supposed to have been carrying her down towards the beach?No. That is what GA thought at times too (I'd say this from looking at the arguido questions), but it becomes too complicated because then the body was removed from the apartment under his watch. No one can figure out that dilemma. Dilemma: How can she be carried away by Smithman and be in the suitcase at the same time?
How does that work?
No. That is what GA thought at times too (I'd say this from looking at the arguido questions), but it becomes too complicated because then the body was removed from the apartment under his watch. No one can figure out that dilemma. Dilemma: How can she be carried away by Smithman and be in the suitcase at the same time?
IMO that suggests it can't be Madeleine in the suitcase. I'm more in favour of the replacement child theory, or some variant of that rare occurrence.
Whoever knew the body was in the suitcase just needs to remove it at some time before the PJ return the next morning. Were there GNR guarding the apartment all night? Was it possible to enter the apartment after the PJ call it a night?
Alternatively it could mean that it wasn't Madeleine being carried by SmithmanTrue, but then I think Smithman would have come forward by now IMO.
True, but then I think Smithman would have come forward by now IMO.
Tannerman didn't come forward but was tracedI'm not sure about that?
I'm not sure about that?
I haven't discarded the possibility that she may have died in the apartment, just as I haven't eliminated the possibility that she may have been alive when she disappeared from it.
Rob, are you suggesting that her body was in whatever that dark blob (sack / case, whatever) in the wardrobe despite both the GNR searches and, more importantly, the forensic PJ unit having beenn there that night?Please can someone clear up when the PJ forensic team turned up? When do you think it happened Carana? I know photos were taken of the scene on the night of the 3rd/4th. I have this impression finger printing was delayed till the next day i.e on the 4th day time.
This is a very good post Carana. It takes me to thinking why the parents feel offended at the thought their daughter may have died in the apartment - and dismiss the dogs scent. It just makes no sense at all.Logic would suggest if she died in the apartment she would be found in the apartment, So who found her dead in your theory. Was it earlier or Gerry Matt or Kate?
This is a very good post Carana. It takes me to thinking why the parents feel offended at the thought their daughter may have died in the apartment - and dismiss the dogs scent. It just makes no sense at all.I think if I was a parent of a missing child I would be offended by the thought that the child may have been murdered in the place where I last saw her.
I think if I was a parent of a missing child I would be offended by the thought that the child may have been murdered in the place where I last saw her.
Worried yes, offended no.Similar thing happened to me that I haven't yet forgotten, my son went to the doctors with a sore hip, the doctor made inquiries as to whether I had abused my son. I was offended. Tests were run and he has the same genetic condition I have - reactive arthritis. I had not kicked him.
Worried yes, offended no.even if the implication was that you must have known?
even if the implication was that you must have known?
I would know if I were innocent or not. Innocence is a great protection.If it was there would be no miscarriages of justice
If it was there would be no miscarriages of justice
So you think in those miscarriages they should have lied or not cooperated?I think they should have not been convicted...
I think they should have not been convicted...
You are implying that the truth is not a good approach just because there are miscarriages of justice, though you haven’t shown that in those miscarriages of justice the convicted told the truth.
I'm not implying that, at all... I'm saying as, a fact innocence is not a cast iron protection against a, miscarriage of justice...
This is a very good post Carana. It takes me to thinking why the parents feel offended at the thought their daughter may have died in the apartment - and dismiss the dogs scent. It just makes no sense at all.
Given the small number of miscarriages of justice it has to be the best approach.
A few possibilities:
1. She did die in that flat
1.a and Eddie correctly alerted to her cadaver odour.
1.b She did die in the flat, and Eddie coincidentally alerted to some irrelevant human decomposition scent.
2. She left the flat alive, and Eddie's alerts were to some irrelevant human decomposition scent
The problem I have is that a) no evidence was found, b) quite apart from the forensics people, etc., the flat had been occupied by 4 lots of people, the last lot leaving just one week prior to the dog inspection, and AFAIK there aren't any witness statements from any of them in the PJ files, c) nowhere is it stated clearly exactly what "items he is trained to find" (cf the car video) actually includes or excludes.
Can it be excluded that he sniffed the scent of a bloody sock or plaster left lying around for a while by one of the post-disappearance occupants prior to removal? The PJ did organise interviews from pre-disappearance occupants, but apparently none of the post- ones? Wouldn't it have been logical to do so?
If scent tends to cling to porous materials... The flat was used for holiday rentals. Did anyone think to turn over the mattress?
Are you suggesting that a bloody sock or plaster which was once in 5a would cause Eddie to alert ? That there was only ever someone with a plaster in 5a and no other apartment screened by Eddie ?
If the post-disappearance occupants had been interviewed, we might have the answer to that.
If the other flats had been regularly occupied, they would presumably be cleaned and aired on a regular basis. 5A was presumably shut up for the week prior.
It may not have been a sock or a plaster, did anyone check the underside of the mattress?
Apart from a very short period in time 5a was let, and cleaned, just like the other apartments and certainly before the dogs were brought in.
Doesn’t it stretch credibility for you that the only apartment in which Eddie alerted is the only apartment where someone ever left traces of blood and, coincidently, is the very apartment where a child has gone missing?
Apart from a very short period in time 5a was let, and cleaned, just like the other apartments and certainly before the dogs were brought in.
Doesn’t it stretch credibility for you that the only apartment in which Eddie alerted is the only apartment where someone ever left traces of blood and, coincidently, is the very apartment where a child has gone missing?
I've never understood why people take the trouble to try to think of innocent reasons for Eddie's alerts. Who are they trying to convince?
Given the small number of miscarriages of justice it has to be the best approach.
Apart from a very short period in time 5a was let, and cleaned, just like the other apartments and certainly before the dogs were brought in.
Doesn’t it stretch credibility for you that the only apartment in which Eddie alerted is the only apartment where someone ever left traces of blood and, coincidently, is the very apartment where a child has gone missing?
It certainly is better to be innocent.... Answering questions in a, hostile environment may not be
I've never understood why people take the trouble to try to think of innocent reasons for Eddie's alerts. Who are they trying to convince?
I don’t have a problem with innocent reasons for the alerts and I would be fairly confident that the investigators would have identified those likely contaminants if they existed.
I didn't say never, for a start.
It's unlikely that we'll ever know how much - if any - possibly unconscious stress / excitement Eddie could have picked up on (5a was his first inspection upon arrival).
Dog alerts by salaried police dog handlers have proven irrelevant at times, but they go back and continue to get paid their salary.
Grime was embarking on a solo career and I find it highly improbable that he wasn't aware of where she'd disappeared from, nor which car the McCanns had hired.
If the dogs hadn't alerted to anything, how would that have enhanced his career? He did use footage from the McCannn-related inspections to showcase his dogs for the Jersey contract.
I'm not saying that it was deliberate, but simply the dog could have picked up on unconscious signals. Is there any way of excluding that possibility?
On the other hand, the same could be said of Murat's place... but were the PJ as hot on that lead by that stage or not?
I've never understood why people take the trouble to try to think of innocent reasons for Eddie's alerts. Who are they trying to convince?accept nothing. Believe no one (including dogs). confirm everything. A simple rule of thumb which doesn't just apply to one side of the argument.
accept nothing. Believe no one (including dogs). confirm everything. A simple rule of thumb which doesn't just apply to one side of the argument.
A simple rule used by police officers, not an excuse for inventing scenarios without evidence.including inventing the scenario that the child died in the apartment and her body carried through PdL, or that the body was kept frozen and transported in the hire car 23 days later.
including inventing the scenario that the child died in the apartment and her body carried through PdL, or that the body was kept frozen and transported in the hire car 23 days later.
Those were attempts to explain evidence. Where is the evidence of bloody socks and plasters? There is none, they are figments of someone's imagination.
As is the claim you made are Grimes statement... Grime said the alerts, we're suggestive and possible.... He did not confirm any cadaver alerts
You can't really pontificate on evidence when you have misunderstood Grimes evidence yourself
Just because you have interpreted Grime's statement differently than me doesn't make your interpretation correct, so please stop pretending it is.
Interpreting existing evidence is one thing. Inventing evidence which doesn't exist is quite a different thing.
I'm not pretending anything... I haven't interpreted Grimes, statement I've, stated it factually
He said the alerts were suggestive or possibly to cadaver odour.... He did not say in his opinion the, alerts we're triggered by cadaver odour... That is what you said and you are totally incorrect... You show you do not understand the evidence
All we know is what was in his statement, on the balance of probabilities Grime saying it was suggestive of cadaver odour is more likely to mean he thought it was rather than he thought it wasn’t.
I'm not pretending anything... I haven't interpreted Grimes, statement I've, stated it factually
He said the alerts were suggestive or possibly to cadaver odour.... He did not say in his opinion the, alerts we're triggered by cadaver odour... That is what you said and you are totally incorrect... You show you do not understand the evidence
Arguing about meanings involves interpretation. How are you interpreting the word 'suggestive'?
We can't interpret it... We don't know exactly what it means.... It certainly means not certain... As you claimed... He also used the word possible... So that gives us more information
How do you interpret suggestive
We can't interpret it... We don't know exactly what it means.... It certainly means not certain... As you claimed... He also used the word possible... So that gives us more information
How do you interpret suggestive
We don’t know what Grime thinks, purely what he wrote in a legal document.Then look at your post again
We don’t know what Grime thinks, purely what he wrote in a legal document.
Then look at your post again
He never talked of balance of probability and not of being suggestive of more likely than not... As you have posted
He must have had some opinion of how suggestive of cadaver odour it was.Of course he did.... But no one here knows yet posters, are making assumptions
Those were attempts to explain evidence. Where is the evidence of bloody socks and plasters? There is none, they are figments of someone's imagination.Where is the evidence of corpses in the apartment and frozen cadaver in the car, out of interest?
Where is the evidence of corpses in the apartment and frozen cadaver in the car, out of interest?
I never said he was certain - unless you have a cite?
You posted that in his opinion the alerts were triggered by cadaver... That is not true
I would be very surprised if Grime thought Eddie might be alerting to something else. He seemed to have every faith in his training methods and his dog's reliability.
Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.R.D. system of alert. He has been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead body scent'.
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I think you need to read the files again...... The quote re false alerts relates to food as I understand.... Grime has no way of knowing if unconfirmed alerts are false, or not
I would be very surprised if the alert to CC... Which grime confirms... Was, a, positive alert to cadaver... But grime felt it was suggestive and worth testing
Eddie was conditioned to alert to cadaver scent. He had done so many times. There's no reason for Grime to think he was alerting to anything else.
Is that your opinion?...
It's my opinion that Grime's opinion was that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent. If he thought something else was possible he would have said so.
It's my opinion that Grime's opinion was that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent. If he thought something else was possible he would have said so.
Grime said it was his opinion that the alert was possibly to ...or suggestive...of cadaver odour....Thats the evidence from grime...you believe something different...so you dont understand the evidenceWas that ever translated into Portuguese? The version in the file did that need to be re-translated?
Was that ever translated into Portuguese? The version in the file did that need to be re-translated?
why do you say thatI asked the question in the search to see if the wording could be introduced by a translation error. Like the rogatory interviews were never translated into Portuguese so did they miss the clues that were in them? Did they totally miss what Crime said in his statement since it was possibly never translated into Portuguese?
I asked the question in the search to see if the wording could be introduced by a translation error. Like the rogatory interviews were never translated into Portuguese so did they miss the clues that were in them? Did they totally miss what Crime said in his statement since it was possibly never translated into Portuguese?
grime made the statement in his witness statement and in his rogatory.....Harrison made a similar statement in his witness and rog statements...are you seriously suggesting what is probably 4 different translators made the exact same mistakeI'm asking for a clarification. Are you suggesting, by referring to "probably 4 different translators", that it was translated and re-translated?
Grime said it was his opinion that the alert was possibly to ...or suggestive...of cadaver odour....Thats the evidence from grime...you believe something different...so you dont understand the evidence
So he didn’t say ‘this is definitely not ‘ cadaver scent ?
He also didn't say he didn't know, nor did he suggest any other substances which might have triggered Eddie's alerts.
No one knew that Eddie could also react to blood from a living human being until he was specifically asked in his rogatory statement made a year later... As, unfortunately he wasn't asked about any other substances, perhaps we'll never know.
The interesting thing about the cadaver dog inspections is that Eddie only reacted to places visited, a car hired by and stuff belonging to the missing girls parents. Does everyone really believe in coincidences??On the first look at it it doesn't look good, but there could still be an alternative explanation.
On the first look at it it doesn't look good, but there could still be an alternative explanation.
The interesting thing about the cadaver dog inspections is that Eddie only reacted to places visited, a car hired by and stuff belonging to the missing girls parents. Does everyone really believe in coincidences??
The interesting thing about the cadaver dog inspections is that Eddie only reacted to places visited, a car hired by and stuff belonging to the missing girls parents. Does everyone really believe in coincidences??
Too much of a coincidence if you ask me. Lo and behold Kate's clothes also alerted to, Kate who had been accused by the PJ. Why not Gerry's clothes? Kate was wearing those trousers a few days after Madeleine went missing, does anyone believe she would have worn them with cadaver scent on them? Really? IMO
No one else seems to find it odd that there was only one pair of underwear (one pair of Kate's knickers) in the whole lot.
Either, after 4 months, their only other underwear was what they were wearing that day, or underwear wasn't considered suitable for the sniffing exercise. Why should they be excluded unless there was a possibility of false alerts?
ETA: And where were these other pairs of underwear when the other clothes were taken? Had any been together prior to washing?
A very strange exercise if you ask me. Eddie in the end snatched up some of Kate's clothes in a playful way, plus a t shirt which looked as though it belonged to Sean, but was 'Madeleine's' very strange IMO
The interesting thing about the cadaver dog inspections is that Eddie only reacted to places visited, a car hired by and stuff belonging to the missing girls parents. Does everyone really believe in coincidences??
Such as?Why I said "On the first look at it it doesn't look good, but there could still be an alternative explanation" was because I believe there are alternative explanations. I was working on the idea in the thread ""both Kate and Gerry have both publicly contested the alerts to cadaver" T/F?" http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9281.0, for IMO Kate and Gerry never say there were no cadaver alerts in those places, but they do say it wasn't Madeleine.
Why I said "On the first look at it it doesn't look good, but there could still be an alternative explanation" was because I believe there are alternative explanations. I was working on the idea in the thread ""both Kate and Gerry have both publicly contested the alerts to cadaver" T/F?" http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9281.0, for IMO Kate and Gerry never say there were no cadaver alerts in those places, but they do say it wasn't Madeleine.
If someone showed me a clear denial of the cadaver dog alerts by the McCanns I might have reconsidered, but the nearest we got to a denial was that "cadaver dogs are unreliable" by Gerry or Kate's "unconscious cuing" excuse.
So I looked for other reasons they could be aware of a cadaver odour source that wasn't Madeleine.
I don't go along with deceased piglets brought into the apartment. To me no one has really eliminated the possibility that there had been another death of someone else, the body being held temporarily in the apartment.
Amaral tried to show no one else had died prior to the 3rd, but he did not show no one else died on the night of the 3rd. Particularly the demise of another child, small enough to be hidden in the sports bag.
OK the question then becomes "when could they have first been aware of this"?
What has that to do with the fact that the cadaver dog only reacted to McCann-related objects? Noticeably, Eddie spent hours going through the Murat's property and not even a squeak... explain that if you can Robbo?Could it be due to the McCanns or other people moving this other cadaver around the apartment. Wherever GA says Madeleine could have been placed the other cadaver could have been put in the same place. The dogs don't differentiate between cadavers, they are only seeking cadaver odour not Madeleine's cadaver odour in particular. Hence Grime saying "they needed corroborating evidence", why?; to determine the cadaver. Also remember cadaver odour takes a couple of hour on average to develop, so there is a difference between handling a freshly deceased body and one that has been sitting for 7 hours or more.
It seems the only explanations people seem to be able to think of is;
a) suggest foul play
b) suggest incompetence
What has that to do with the fact that the cadaver dog only reacted to McCann-related objects? Noticeably, Eddie spent hours going through the Murat's property and not even a squeak... explain that if .....
It might turn out that Eddie was correct and did indeed alert to her brief post-mortem presence months later. At whose hands would still remain to be seen. An accident followed by an implausible cover-up by the parents, friends and half of the universe? A weirdo who got in, caused her death and removed her?
Even if that's potentially possible, after nearly 11 years of zilch physical or forensic evidence, what other options seem feasible?
"Incompetence" might not be be right term, but there all kinds of questions related to what has been ruled out as potential explanations - including interviewing post-disappearance occupants, what exactly Grime meant by "items he's trained to find" are... the questions go on.
I acknowledge that it's difficult to explain what might have happened if Eddie was right. That's no excuse, in my opinion, for casting aspersions on the integrity or job skills of the investigators.
I acknowledge that it's difficult to explain what might have happened if Eddie was right. That's no excuse, in my opinion, for casting aspersions on the integrity or job skills of the investigators.
The dogs were brought in on the advice of the NPIA's National Search Adviser. The dog's handler was the leading UK expert on training, handling and deploying search dogs. They organised, directed and carried out the searches, not the PJ. Any criticisms, therefore, are criticisms of the best the UK had to offer in my opinion.
The dogs were brought in on the advice of the NPIA's National Search Adviser. The dog's handler was the leading UK expert on training, handling and deploying search dogs. They organised, directed and carried out the searches, not the PJ. Any criticisms, therefore, are criticisms of the best the UK had to offer in my opinion.
I haven't used the word "incompetence", AFAIK.I can see how they might have focused on what appears to be the most likely explanation of the cadaver odour, that it being due to Madeleine's death.
However, I'm not sure what other term could cover failing to explore a variety of potentially innocent / irrelevant explanations.
To be fair, they didn't have any experience with such dogs... whereas police forces with such experience would presumably have a better idea of limitations.
If ever there was a "misunderstanding" over their abilities, potential for error, substances within their training parameters, etc., then they wouln't necessarily feel the need to explore irrelevant alternative explanations.
At the same time, this was arguably Grime's first solo venture. There is also the pro-PJ build-up in the media, which must have been a double-edged sword, IMO.
According to the hype, the brilliant PJ team led by Amaral was about to close in... how could it then back down? The Portuguese social researcher Helena Machado has written some interesting papers on the subect.
And that's more or less my conclusion over the Jersey fiasco and a few others I can think of.
I can see how they might have focused on what appears to be the most likely explanation of the cadaver odour, that it being due to Madeleine's death.Well she would have had to have died at or before the time the McCanns left the appartment so any such theory would not be permitted to be discussed on this forum IMO.
But if we accept Gerry's explanation that Madeleine was alive at 9:05 PM and laying on top of the covers who removed her from her bed? If she had been lying there long enough why was there no cadaver alert to the bed covers?
If the PJ didn't believe Gerry at all, why were the arguido questions directed stronger at Kate rather than to Gerry? OK maybe they thought Kate will crack first. (Both were arguidos but were the PJ playing "bad cop good cop" across the parents?)
Has anyone worked out a comprehensive theory that includes cadaver odour coming from a deceased Madeleine? I struggle to remember one.
Well she would have had to have died at or before the time the McCanns left the appartment so any such theory would not be permitted to be discussed on this forum IMO.The whole point of the thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9252.0 "Latest theory lands on Portuguese AG's desk" is based on a theory of an earlier death.
This used to be a decent forum.....when you joined I thought you were actually winding people up with your ridiculous ideas...but it seems you are actually serious... I think at one time you were quite intelligent but now havw some severe mental problems and I have sympathy for you...but you have been made a moderator....Im sorry but the phrase...the lunatics have taken over the asylum springs to mind...you may wish to edit my post...feel freeI appreciate that everyone is allowed to have an opinion. If you think what I say is so terrible, you being the high IQ one, should be able to muster a better argument rather than just resorting to ridicule. Have a go, give me a reason why Madeleine's disappearance is not related to some variant of a replacement child theory.
I appreciate that everyone is allowed to have an opinion. If you think what I say is so terrible, you being the high IQ one, should be able to muster a better argument rather than just resorting to ridicule. Have a go, give me a reason why Madeleine's disappearance is not related to some variant of a replacement child theory.
Kate's wish is that this is the case, where Madeleine has been taken to be looked after by another loving caring couple. It is extremely rare but it is the best option of them all.
im not saying what you are saying is terrible and I am not resorting to ridicule...Im stating the facts as I see them.....what about the other dead child you mention ...in the blue bag...the one taht isnt maddie..I am not actually accusing anyone if you read it carefully. I'm saying how can you rule it out? I know it has happened before when drugs are administered by different people and the combined dosage is what does the damage.
maddie may well have been taken as a replacemnet child...but why all the accusations of multiple people giving maddie calpol...thats barmy
I am not actually accusing anyone if you read it carefully. I'm saying how can you rule it out? I know it has happened before when drugs are administered by different people and the combined dosage is what does the damage.you are absolutely right ..it cannot be ruled out...just as alien abduction cannot be ruled out..
you are absolutely right ..it cannot be ruled out...just as alien abduction cannot be ruled out..But what you can't rule out is that someone seeing Madeleine in a distressed state and taking her to get medical or palliative treatment.
overdosage of paracetamol takes days to kill...so if maddie was ok at 5.30.pm. I think we can rule it out
The dogs were brought in on the advice of the NPIA's National Search Adviser. The dog's handler was the leading UK expert on training, handling and deploying search dogs. They organised, directed and carried out the searches, not the PJ. Any criticisms, therefore, are criticisms of the best the UK had to offer in my opinion.
But what you can't rule out is that someone seeing Madeleine in a distressed state and taking her to get medical or palliative treatment.
The leading UK expert? Perhaps he was, but according to whom?
I think Mick Swindells would have something to say about that, especially as he is still deploying dogs.
http://searchdogsuk.co.uk/photo-gallery/
If someone had sedated her up to the eyeballs prior to bedtime I don't see how she would have been wandering around, but anyway.Smithman goes up to LuzDoc (it was closed) and then somewhere else. Palliative care is just like nursing her. Looking after her in other words.
If she'd walked and wandered in a distressed state, as you suggest, and had taken her for medical care... assuming someone wouldn't have administered first aid while phoning for an ambulannce... then what? A doctor, medical clinic or hospital simply forgot that a young child had died and didn't bother to contact the police?
What do you mean by taking her for palliative care as opposed to emergency medical assistance?
I suppose there's a remote possibility that she woke and wandered and was the victim of a hit-and-run... who then came back to pick her up, but what evidence would one expect to find if that had been the case? And was any found to support that theory?
I think Mick Swindells would have something to say about that, especially as he is still deploying dogs.If you have other links to how VR dogs are trained and tested, I would be most grateful if you would post them.
http://searchdogsuk.co.uk/photo-gallery/
Or John EllisI think it will be like wine tasting - a finely tuned pallet. The dogs will need a good memory for all the correct odour combinations that make up human cadaver odour.
http://www-old.hud.ac.uk/news/2014/august/forensicsresearchtomakecadaverdogsmoreefficient.php
They were still trying to identify what dogs actually react to in 2014.
If someone had sedated her up to the eyeballs prior to bedtime I don't see how she would have been wandering around, but anyway.The only evidence was that cars had left from outside the secondary reception, around the time of Kate's alert. (Arlindo's statement.)
If she'd walked and wandered in a distressed state, as you suggest, and had taken her for medical care... assuming someone wouldn't have administered first aid while phoning for an ambulannce... then what? A doctor, medical clinic or hospital simply forgot that a young child had died and didn't bother to contact the police?
What do you mean by taking her for palliative care as opposed to emergency medical assistance?
I suppose there's a remote possibility that she woke and wandered and was the victim of a hit-and-run... who then came back to pick her up, but what evidence would one expect to find if that had been the case? And was any found to support that theory?
I think Mick Swindells would have something to say about that, especially as he is still deploying dogs.
http://searchdogsuk.co.uk/photo-gallery/
The leading UK expert? Perhaps he was, but according to whom?
Smithman goes up to LuzDoc (it was closed) and then somewhere else. Palliative care is just like nursing her. Looking after her in other words.Palliative care is what is sometimes administered to those with a terminal illness, over a period of time usually. Are you suggesting that Madeleine was secretly whisked away because she was terminally ill and taken somewhere unknown to be looked after by persons unknown in her dying days?
Smithman goes up to LuzDoc (it was closed) and then somewhere else. Palliative care is just like nursing her. Looking after her in other words.Nah, imo, he almost certainly didn't go to LuzDoc, Rob.
If you have other links to how VR dogs are trained and tested, I would be most grateful if you would post them.
I want to train our new puppy, Gonçalo, as a VR dog. Before anyone chucks in the usual insults, I don't expect ever to deploy Gonçalo as a VR dog. I simply want to learn about the hands-on practical aspects of training and testing such a dog.
TY.
What are, you going to train him with... Pork chopsHopefully not human remains!
What are, you going to train him with... Pork chopsPork chops sounds fine as I am struggling to think where I might get my hands on decomposing piglets.
Just google the topic... There is lots of information online
Pork chops sounds fine as I am struggling to think where I might get my hands on decomposing piglets.If you make friends with a local pig farmer he'll probably provide you with the odd dead piglet now and again.
And to VS, AFAIK human remains are illegal in Portugal, just as they are in the UK.
So it's pork chops until I can find the nearest pig farm for some piglets.
Pork chops sounds fine as I am struggling to think where I might get my hands on decomposing piglets.You'll be making a mistake if you use pork chops IMO. Any pig farm will have dead piglets.
And to VS, AFAIK human remains are illegal in Portugal, just as they are in the UK.
So it's pork chops until I can find the nearest pig farm for some piglets.
Nah, imo, he almost certainly didn't go to LuzDoc, Rob.If it is closed it is closed.
Martin Smith and his group were standing right outside LuzDocs .... and would have noticed. The two other parts of the family were not far away either and looking in that general direction
Palliative care is what is sometimes administered to those with a terminal illness, over a period of time usually. Are you suggesting that Madeleine was secretly whisked away because she was terminally ill and taken somewhere unknown to be looked after by persons unknown in her dying days?That would be a narrow meaning of the word.
That would be a narrow meaning of the word.So what exactly are you suggesting with regard to palliative care and Madeleine McCann?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care
"Palliative care is provided by a team of physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other health professionals who work together with the primary care physician and referred specialists and other hospital or hospice staff to provide additional support. It is appropriate at any age and at any stage in a serious illness and can be provided as the main goal of care or along with curative treatment. Although it is an important part of end-of-life care, it is not limited to that stage. Palliative care can be provided across multiple settings including in hospitals, at home, as part of community palliative care programs, and in skilled nursing facilities. Interdisciplinary palliative care teams work with people and their families to clarify goals of care and provide symptom management, psycho-social, and spiritual support."
So what exactly are you suggesting with regard to palliative care and Madeleine McCann?If she was involved in an accident and someone rushed her down to LuzDoc but it was closed, where would they go after that.
If she was involved in an accident and someone rushed her down to LuzDoc but it was closed, where would they go after that.
Everyone tends to think Smithman was heading to the beach but basically that just means going South, we don't actually know if he went to the beach or to someone's house. Did he know someone who could offer help? Someone with nursing skills.
If it is closed it is closed."Emergency
If she was involved in an accident and someone rushed her down to LuzDoc but it was closed, where would they go after that.Rushing to find medical treatment in an emergency is hardly what I would describe as "palliative care".
Everyone tends to think Smithman was heading to the beach but basically that just means going South, we don't actually know if he went to the beach or to someone's house. Did he know someone who could offer help? Someone with nursing skills.
"EmergencySo if you walked there is there a phone to use at the premises to call up the doctor, or do you have to go to somewhere where there is a phone to use?
This is a service that covers the times of the day and night when there are no booked general medicine consultations. A doctor is always available at Luzdoc during weekday afternoons, bank holidays, Saturdays and Sundays and on call every night."
There was a 24 hr service.
Rushing to find medical treatment in an emergency is hardly what I would describe as "palliative care".I agree. The first step may have been to get medical help, it was shut, so what does he do next?
I agree. The first step may have been to get medical help, it was shut, so what does he do next?Book her into a top secret hospice?
So if you walked there is there a phone to use at the premises to call up the doctor, or do you have to go to somewhere where there is a phone to use?They had mobiles in 2007. I assume the Smiths had mobiles.
They had mobiles in 2007. I assume the Smiths had mobiles.You can't be sure what a person had with them.
We seem to have progressed from misunderstanding evidence to speculating about something for which there is no evidence at all.That's progress?
We seem to have progressed from misunderstanding evidence to speculating about something for which there is no evidence at all.Well how do you understand when you read a statement/report in which it says Smithman was heading towards the beach?
Book her into a top secret hospice?OK so we should check admissions and appointments at other medical facilities. How many 3 or 4 year olds were treated in accident and emergency facilities on the night of the 3/4th within a 50 km area around PdL?
OK so we should check admissions and appointments at other medical facilities. How many 3 or 4 year olds were treated in accident and emergency facilities on the night of the 3/4th within a 50 km area around PdL?This was quite a high profile case in the area - do you not think any medical staff that might have treated a child fitting Madeleine's description (particularly with her distinctive eye mark) on the night she went missing may have come forward to let the authorities know?
If it was a replacement child situation the name given would not be Madeleine McCann.
This was quite a high profile case in the area - do you not think any medical staff that might have treated a child fitting Madeleine's description (particularly with her distinctive eye mark) on the night she went missing may have come forward to let the authorities know?When was the fact about her eye known? It wasn't on that night. Next couple of days a busy clinic might have had some suspicion but not enough to raise the alarm, especially if the girl had come in with "her father".
When was the fact about her eye known? It wasn't on that night. Next couple of days a busy clinic might have had some suspicion but not enough to raise the alarm, especially if the girl had come in with "her father".If you say so Robbitybob, I however think this theory can be filed in the "highly implausible" drawer.
Well how do you understand when you read a statement/report in which it says Smithman was heading towards the beach?
E.g. From the "PJ Final Report": "Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach."
What does "lead to the beach" mean to you?
Looking at the Smith statements none of them mention anything about "in one of the streets that lead to the beach". That seems to be a PJ interpretation to me.
But what you can't rule out is that someone seeing Madeleine in a distressed state and taking her to get medical or palliative treatment.
Well how do you understand when you read a statement/report in which it says Smithman was heading towards the beach?
E.g. From the "PJ Final Report": "Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach."
What does "lead to the beach" mean to you?
Looking at the Smith statements none of them mention anything about "in one of the streets that lead to the beach". That seems to be a PJ interpretation to me.
Smithman goes up to LuzDoc (it was closed) and then somewhere else. Palliative care is just like nursing her. Looking after her in other words.
Nah, imo, he almost certainly didn't go to LuzDoc, Rob.
Martin Smith and his group were standing right outside LuzDocs .... and would have noticed. The two other parts of the family were not far away either and looking in that general direction
Pork chops sounds fine as I am struggling to think where I might get my hands on decomposing piglets.
And to VS, AFAIK human remains are illegal in Portugal, just as they are in the UK.
So it's pork chops until I can find the nearest pig farm for some piglets.
The street he was seen on takes you to the church then to the beach.The way that he was walking was generally in a southerly direction.
If you say so Robbitybob, I however think this theory can be filed in the "highly implausible" drawer.Thanks for conceding it is a possibility.
Thanks for conceding it is a possibility.Anything's possible. Have you checked whether the circus was in town that day?
I answered that around a week ago when you last raised it, Rob.Got me there for I don't remember raising this issue previously.
ETA: So did you, by posting the diagramme.
A remote possibility in my book. If strangers did hear a child crying constantly in distress the correct action would be to inform reception immediately.John and I both support the woke and wandered theory (in the past for sure) so any distressed state I'm talking about is some considerable distance from the apartment. It is not a crying in the apartment scenario that I was trying to portray.
The street he was seen on takes you to the church then to the beach.How direct is that?
His progress was charted at various points by the Smith party one group of which included Peter Smith.The "PJ final report" emphasises the "leading to the beach" aspect whereas without a doubt Smithman walked past LuzDoc.
Mary and Martin Smith saw him at another point of his walk.
Aoife had the last sight of him.
Did any one of them suggest he either approached or showed the slightest interest in LuzDoc?
Anything's possible. Have you checked whether the circus was in town that day?Have you heard of the expression "the McCann Circus".
If you have other links to how VR dogs are trained and tested, I would be most grateful if you would post them.
I want to train our new puppy, Gonçalo, as a VR dog. Before anyone chucks in the usual insults, I don't expect ever to deploy Gonçalo as a VR dog. I simply want to learn about the hands-on practical aspects of training and testing such a dog.
TY.
Two legally obtainable training aids might not be too easy to easy to come by.Thank you for this Brietta.
Snip
She occasionally gets access to the surface, be it a piece of carpet or some dirt, for example, on which a body was found.
But the most common training aid is placenta, donated by new moms.
"I'm in the habit of congratulating family members and in the second sentence saying, 'So, what are you doing with your placenta?" said Cooper, who has a few placentas in her freezer at home.
She said a handler will train a dog with the same odour source for approximately six months so the dog learns the subtle changes that take place during decomposition.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cadaver-dogs-science-training-1.3654993
You are barking up the wrong tree asking folk on here.Actually, at the moment I think I have got at least 4 documents to read up on thus far. So I've got my starters for ten.
Anything's possible. Have you checked whether the circus was in town that day?
How direct is that?
Walking at a fast pace about 2-3 minutes away from the rocky part of the beach.Do you read more into the Harrison report than just instructions on how to conduct a search?
Report Aim
'This report solely considers the search scenario that Madeline McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed on the beach at PD Luz or has been put into the sea from the shore.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Do you read more into the Harrison report than just instructions on how to conduct a search?
It was a lot more than that. He assessed the early searches, examined Krugel's claims and advised where a body may have been concealed.Yes OK I wasn't really meaning his whole report, but the section of the beach search part that Pathfinder had referred to.
Thank you for this Brietta.If the victim is there you will know if it's dead or alive so you must be reffering to remnant scent...
I have already given thought to how I might obtain human remains, and I think that problem is solvable.
Here's where the wheels come off the bus.
We have a very small freezer, so any human remains would be getting stored alongside my steak and kidney pies, pizza and frozen fish. Commonly known as yuk!
My family already think I'm weird. Starting up a human body farm in our back garden might convince them I should be committed to the loony bin.
But what I want is a victim recovery dog. I would like the dog to be able to give two different alerts, one for dead and one for alive.
I don't want to train Gonçalo as a cadaver dog. I want him to be able to tell me when a victim is still alive. A victim recovery dog. VRD.
If the victim is there you will know if it's dead or alive so you must be reffering to remnant scent...You haven't got your starter for ten right.
So a cadaver dog and a live tracking dog...
Don't really see the use... We know there was a live maddie in that apartment for absolute sure... Some think there was, also a deceased one... What is your theoretical dog going to theoretically tell us.... The dog can only tell us... If it's accurate.... If the victim was alive... Not if the victim is still alive
You haven't got your starter for ten right.
I am not trying to train Eddie or Keela.
Nor am I interested in deploying Gonçalo in a crime scene a la Madeleine.
I am interested in what is involved in the training of a VR dog.
You haven't got your starter for ten right.A VR dog is a cadaver dog..
I am not trying to train Eddie or Keela.
Nor am I interested in deploying Gonçalo in a crime scene a la Madeleine.
I am interested in what is involved in the training of a VR dog.
Thank you for this Brietta.
I have already given thought to how I might obtain human remains, and I think that problem is solvable.
Here's where the wheels come off the bus.
We have a very small freezer, so any human remains would be getting stored alongside my steak and kidney pies, pizza and frozen fish. Commonly known as yuk!
My family already think I'm weird. Starting up a human body farm in our back garden might convince them I should be committed to the loony bin.
But what I want is a victim recovery dog. I would like the dog to be able to give two different alerts, one for dead and one for alive.
I don't want to train Gonçalo as a cadaver dog. I want him to be able to tell me when a victim is still alive. A victim recovery dog. VRD.
You haven't got your starter for ten right.
I am not trying to train Eddie or Keela.
Nor am I interested in deploying Gonçalo in a crime scene a la Madeleine.
I am interested in what is involved in the training of a VR dog.
I did have a link at one time to a blog specifically for VRD handlers/trainers as well as newbies which is interesting and very very informative. They share experiences etc. It is American based.
I've not read it for a while and don't have a link but it should be easy to locate in a search ... it does question and answer too and there is a generic mix of posts and posters ... that could cut a few corners for you if you can locate the blog.
I'll have a look too if you have no success.
I don't recall reading anything about dogs trained for both search and recovery (alive) and victim recovery (dead). In disasters, AFAIK, they send in S&Rs first, then when, sadly hope's run out, the VRDs.I don't see why not, a dog in the natural state would attempt to track several different species.
I don't recall reading anything about dogs trained for both search and recovery (alive) and victim recovery (dead). In disasters, AFAIK, they send in S&Rs first, then when, sadly hope's run out, the VRDs.
You haven't got your starter for ten right.
I am not trying to train Eddie or Keela.
Nor am I interested in deploying Gonçalo in a crime scene a la Madeleine.
I am interested in what is involved in the training of a VR dog.
You don't seem sure you know, what you want to train this dog to do... Which is not a good place to startAll of the above IYO.
All of the above IYO.