Corroborating evidence varies from case to case. If the victim is an adult and they haven't accessed their bank account since disappearing that suggests they may be unable to do so. If the victim is a child medical records may show a history of unexplained injuries.
Iyo and I don't agree. Maddie has not been seen for 11 years and it is highly probable she is dead.... That does not corroborate the alerts
The passage of time, as you say, makes death probable. The dog alerts in 2007 suggested the same outcome. They also suggested a connection between her death and the apartment she was staying in.
The passage of time, as you say, makes death probable. The dog alerts in 2007 suggested the same outcome. They also suggested a connection between her death and the apartment she was staying in.
If even discovery of a body doesn't increase the credibility of the alerts, I fail to see the point of all the effort being put into discrediting the dog alerts over the years.
If even discovery of a body doesn't increase the credibility of the alerts, I fail to see the point of all the effort being put into discrediting the dog alerts over the years.I'm not sure what Grime and Harrison were expecting as corroborating evidence but one thing is certain, if she did turn up alive it can't have been madeleine's cadaver the dogs were alerting to.
I'm not sure what Grime and Harrison were expecting as corroborating evidence but one thing is certain, if she did turn up alive it can't have been madeleine's cadaver the dogs were alerting to.
If her remains were found within a couple of kilometres of the apartment would that corroborate the alerts?
Maybe there is still the possibility of her wandering and then being hurt then picked up then killed. So the body is still not linked with a dead Madeleine being in the apartment.
I find it tricky from all angles. Maybe a confession is the only fool proof corroboration.
But a confession can only come from the guilty parties, so if they are innocent where is the confession going to come from. Is there someone else who could confess?
Only a person closely involved could make such a confession and to date, no such person has been arrested.What makes anyone confess? It depends on whether the person cares about his/her conscience. Can they live with their conscience, or do they have no conscience to worry about like a psychopath?
I was going to write 'identified', but police may have identified a perpetrator without having sufficient evidence to arrest or charge.
I'm not sure what Grime and Harrison were expecting as corroborating evidence but one thing is certain, if she did turn up alive it can't have been madeleine's cadaver the dogs were alerting to.
If her remains were found within a couple of kilometres of the apartment would that corroborate the alerts?
Maybe there is still the possibility of her wandering and then being hurt then picked up then killed. So the body is still not linked with a dead Madeleine being in the apartment.
I find it tricky from all angles. Maybe a confession is the only fool proof corroboration.
But a confession can only come from the guilty parties, so if they are innocent where is the confession going to come from. Is there someone else who could confess?
What makes anyone confess? It depends on whether the person cares about his/her conscience. Can they live with their conscience, or do they have no conscience to worry about like a psychopath?
The individual may feel that they have too much in life to lose, which would go some way to explaining death-bed confessions.Why even do it then?
Why even do it then?
But can you think of the corroboration? Would a perfect DNA match in a blood sample have nailed it for you?
I'm not sure what Grime and Harrison were expecting as corroborating evidence but one thing is certain, if she did turn up alive it can't have been madeleine's cadaver the dogs were alerting to.In one of his statements Harrison mentions the dogs looking for Maddie's remains
If her remains were found within a couple of kilometres of the apartment would that corroborate the alerts?
Maybe there is still the possibility of her wandering and then being hurt then picked up then killed. So the body is still not linked with a dead Madeleine being in the apartment.
I find it tricky from all angles. Maybe a confession is the only fool proof corroboration.
But a confession can only come from the guilty parties, so if they are innocent where is the confession going to come from. Is there someone else who could confess?
Have you ever thought what evidence would confirm an alert?
Over and over we get told the alerts mean nothing unless they are corroborated.
So would you all tell the forum what you would accept as corroborating evidence?
I'll add part of another post I made on the topic:
"We know their reliability depended on the finding of corroborating evidence at the location.
But Madeleine had been living at that location so finding her DNA there was never going to be enough.
In fact finding her blood there was unlikely to be enough, for a kid can get a bleeding nose and that doesn't mean she died.
Does the corroborating evidence have to be found at the site of the alert. They don't actually say that do they. So if her body was found at another location would that be corroborating evidence?"
The passage of time, as you say, makes death probable. The dog alerts in 2007 suggested the same outcome. They also suggested a connection between her death and the apartment she was staying in.
Tell that to Natascha Kampusch who was kept prisoner in a cellar for eight years or Elisabeth Fritzl who was kept prisoner in a cellar for twenty eight years.
However ... I am getting absolutely nowhere in asserting that Martin Grime, throughout and after the operation in Luz has stressed that the relevance of the dog indications is in direct correlation to the forensic results.
Please allow me to quote from the question and answer session from Martin Grime's rogatory interview in which his answers make a nonsense of what you have stated and the professional opinion expressed by him that the alerts mean nothing without forensic confirmation.
Snip
Q :: :: 'Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases''
A :: :: Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.
Q :: :: 'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
A :: :: The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
(For example the key fob in the hire car)
It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes. (Not the dog or it's handler)
Q :: :: 'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.
A :: :: The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'.
Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed.
The signals of an alert are only just that.
Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
I do not see how Martin Grime could possibly have made the situation any plainer.
It was understood perfectly by the Policia Judiciaria under coordinator Rebello.
The Portuguese prosecutors also understood it.
In my opinion a cadaver dog alert can only be confirmed by forensic testing perhaps coupled with an absolute bucketload of other evidence.
In my opinion and in the opinion of Martin Grime ( see his caveats), the PJ and prosecutors none of that is applicable to apartment 5A.
So you are mistaken far enough to be off the wall as far as your interpretation of the nothingness of the dog indications in 5A are concerned.
Cerebro spinal fluid with a match to Maddie would have been pretty strong evidence if found in the apartmentBeing mainly water that would normally be found fresh in the first 24 hours I'd imagine.
Tell that to Natascha Kampusch who was kept prisoner in a cellar for eight years or Elisabeth Fritzl who was kept prisoner in a cellar for twenty eight years.
However ... I am getting absolutely nowhere in asserting that Martin Grime, throughout and after the operation in Luz has stressed that the relevance of the dog indications is in direct correlation to the forensic results.
Please allow me to quote from the question and answer session from Martin Grime's rogatory interview in which his answers make a nonsense of what you have stated and the professional opinion expressed by him that the alerts mean nothing without forensic confirmation.
Snip
Q :: :: 'Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases''
A :: :: Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.
Q :: :: 'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
A :: :: The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
(For example the key fob in the hire car)
It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes. (Not the dog or it's handler)
Q :: :: 'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.
A :: :: The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'.
Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed.
The signals of an alert are only just that.
Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
I do not see how Martin Grime could possibly have made the situation any plainer.
It was understood perfectly by the Policia Judiciaria under coordinator Rebello.
The Portuguese prosecutors also understood it.
In my opinion a cadaver dog alert can only be confirmed by forensic testing perhaps coupled with an absolute bucketload of other evidence.
In my opinion and in the opinion of Martin Grime ( see his caveats), the PJ and prosecutors none of that is applicable to apartment 5A.
So you are mistaken far enough to be off the wall as far as your interpretation of the nothingness of the dog indications in 5A are concerned.
I completely understand that without corroborating evidence the alerts are not evidence. I reserve the right, however, to express my opinion which matches that of the dog handler's;
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
I completely understand that without corroborating evidence the alerts are not evidence. I reserve the right, however, to express my opinion which matches that of the dog handler's;Grime says it suggests.... Not that it is.... So he is not sure
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
That is alright then and I have to agree but without the evidence none of the responses can be said to be from Madeleine, in fact Grime notes the positive result showed blood on the key fob came from Gerry McCann.
Even if Madeleine's blood had been confirmed as present in the apartment by the FSS that wouldn't prove anything except that she bled at some point. It would have been quite different if her blood had definitely been found in the hire car I expect.There are two or more options
Grime says it suggests.... Not that it is.... So he is not sureUp to the degree of certainty he knows his dogs are capable of from his training exercises, was it high 90% range?
There are two or more options
1. Blood and cadaver alerts found separately
2. Blood and cadaver alert in the same area.
I think they would be viewed differently.
it wouldnt be known if there was blood and cadaver in the same area as the cadaver dog could be alerting to bloodI know that is what Grime is reported to have said, but he wasn't questioned on that point, so it remains unconfirmed IMO.
I know that is what Grime is reported to have said, but he wasn't questioned on that point, so it remains unconfirmed IMO.
I dont agree...logic dictates if both dogs alert at the same spot it could just be blood and no cadaver odourImpasse then.
The topic of this thread is mentioned by Grime here "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. "
It expanding on his idea of "etc" that we are specifically looking at.
As a veterinarian by experience and a dog owner most of my life I struggle to understand what Grime is talking about in the first two of his answers.
"The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions." You can't submit the dog's response to a forensic examination.
Maybe he is saying look and see if you can work out what the dog was sniffing before it made the response. Misty did that in another thread and thought he had it wrong. Is he warning us things aren't as clear cut as we are being told. For that is an impossible to understand answer IMO
second answer from above:
"A :: :: The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
(For example the key fob in the hire car)"
What was all that? Grime felt there was corroboration by the forensic testing (For example the key fob in the hire car)
That was Gerry's blood on a key fob not Madeleine's. OK was he just happy that they had found blood; and it doesn't matter who's it was?
There was nothing in it for Grime (except for the agreed rate for the job).
His role was to bring his dogs in to do their job ... it was for the investigation team and the forensic team to take the next step based on his report and his caveat.
I have never seen anywhere that Martin Grime set himself up as judge and jury in Madeleine's case. He did his job, his dogs did theirs and he left it to the appropriately designated bodies to do theirs.
Which did eventually happen despite the pig's ear made of it all subsequently by internet would be sleuths who firmly believe they know better than the evidence or the professionals.
Proving that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
Misty started the other thread not a sceptic. If she hadn't started the thread we wouldn't be discussing it now. Who is the "would be sleuth" here, IMO it is Misty.I have no problem understanding that, and it leaves me convinced there was the smell of cadaver odour in that apartment. How did the cadaver get there? No wonder Kate said she couldn't explain it.
Martin Grime believed Eddie had found a "scent he recognises" i.e. cadaver odour.
Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house the only two places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom, in this corner where he was barking.
I have no problem understanding that, and it leaves me convinced there was the smell of cadaver odour in that apartment. How did the cadaver get there? No wonder Kate said she couldn't explain it.
I don't recall the McCanns ever trying to do so. Certainly Gerry was keen to demonstrate how unreliable dogs were, rather than pursue any possibility that they might be correct.So are you are tending to think Gerry was dodging the subject?
I don't recall the McCanns ever trying to do so. Certainly Gerry was keen to demonstrate how unreliable dogs were, rather than pursue any possibility that they might be correct.
So are you are tending to think Gerry was dodging the subject?
Not all cadaver dogs will be equal, some might be unreliable. Was Gerry aware how reliable Grime's dogs were?
I dont agree...logic dictates if both dogs alert at the same spot it could just be blood and no cadaver odour
This is just your assumption you are not an expert. The dogs alerted to what they were trained to alert to. One qas blood and one was cadaver.But decomposed blood has the same smell as cadaver IMO.
But decomposed blood has the same smell as cadaver IMO.
I think you are wrong, otherwise cadaver dogs would always alert to blood.
This is just your assumption you are not an expert. The dogs alerted to what they were trained to alert to. One qas blood and one was cadaver."No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." Martin Grime
Afaik.. You are right..
I think you are wrong, otherwise cadaver dogs would always alert to blood.Blood can dry - no cadaver odour (suitable for DNA analysis).
"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." Martin GrimeThis is what they were trained to find . One dried human blood, the other human decomposed material (cadaver odour).
Afaik.. You are right..
I think you are wrong, otherwise cadaver dogs would always alert to blood.
I won't be taking action on this cite as it is very unclear as to what you want Davel to produce a cite for.
And you do not know. cite please unless you do and can evidence this.
And you do not know. cite please unless you do and can evidence this.
I looked at some years ago and found that dried blood does not produce cadaverine......why not, ask slarti for a cite as he made the initial claimThe purpose of drying it is to stop it decomposing. (Same process is used to preserve food) dehydration. It stops food from going rotten.
I looked at some years ago and found that dried blood does not produce cadaverine......why not, ask slarti for a cite as he made the initial claim
Mine was an opinion based on it drying quickly. IMO cadaverine is produced in significant quantities in larger body parts that retain/contain or become liquid upon death.Did we all misunderstand your post then? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9966.msg479465#msg479465
Did we all misunderstand your post then? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9966.msg479465#msg479465
Rob "But decomposed blood has the same smell as cadaver IMO.
Slartibartfast: "I think you are wrong, otherwise cadaver dogs would always alert to blood."
IMO Cadaver dogs would always alert to decomposed blood. not rapid fresh dried blood. You could always get dried decomposed blood but that isn't like fresh dried blood (blood spot).
I looked at some years ago and found that dried blood does not produce cadaverine......why not, ask slarti for a cite as he made the initial claim
So you envisage pools of blood that stay liquid long enough to decompose?Yes where the blood seeps between the tiles. In the gaps there will be slow drying and hence decomposition. I thought I'd read about that but certainly that is physically true. You won't get rapid drying where there is a gap in the tiles. They removed the tiles to get to the blood didn't they?
I asked you because you made a claim that 'logic dictates' who's logic- what logic? scientific evidence is what I was looking for. But your claim just needed an IMO. rather than a claim about logic.You need to cite the post
Cheers.
Yes where the blood seeps between the tiles. In the gaps there will be slow drying and hence decomposition. I thought I'd read about that but certainly that is physically true. You won't get rapid drying where there is a gap in the tiles. They removed the tiles to get to the blood didn't they?
"They informed further that in that search the animal specialised in detection of human blood indicated the possible presence thereof on one of the floor tiles in the living room ... "
"In that contact the undersigned were told that they should [OCR error: missing word taken to be "proceder": to proceed] proceed with the recovery of the floor tiles indicated by the dog specialised in the detection of human blood"
"Subsequently it was asked of the undersigned that they watched the films of the searches performed by the dog specialised in detection of human blood so that they obtained an understanding of the area from where the tiles should be collected and how many tiles they should collect.
After seeing the images and in agreement with the officers of DIC of Portimao it was defined that the undersigned should proceed with the recovery of four tiles. It was also defined that this operation of recovery of the tiles would also be filmed.
When looking at the images referred to above it was observed that the floor tiles to be recovered were situated in an area of the living room next to a window where there was a sofa and that the tiles referred to were underneath that sofa."
"Items 16 to 19: Grouting/mortar from between tiles, and between tiles and wall"
"286/2007-CRL (20) Fragments of floor tile and grouting
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA."
That suggests what I'm saying fairly well. There are the cells on the surface of the tiles with DNA present but between the tiles the DNA is decomposed.
Pools of blood are fairly memorable and I would expect them to have been identified if accidental or done previously.
In whose memory would they be in? If they had been wiped up maybe someone saw that blood but it wasn't there to be seen by anyone else. We can't tell who possibly wiped up the blood under the sofa. Was that area even checked on the 4th?
The Portuguese forensics team certainly did use methods to identify blood.I have read that, something like luminol.
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2018, 08:10:19 PM » [ reply from Davel.]
Quote
Quote from: Robittybob1 on August 12, 2018, 08:04:01 PM
I know that is what Grime is reported to have said, but he wasn't questioned on that point, so it remains unconfirmed IMO.
"I dont agree...logic dictates if both dogs alert at the same spot it could just be blood and no cadaver odour"
Quoting Grime again:
"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." Martin Grime (thank Brietta)
"no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence"
What was that evidence he is referring to. That's what I want to know.
Quoting Grime again:
"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." Martin Grime (thank Brietta)
"no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence"
What was that evidence he is referring to. That's what I want to know.
Something which can be presented in court, perhaps.I think you are right, and the best evidence would have been someone seeing a person removing a cadaver from the apartment. Well Jane saw someone carrying a limp child away from the apartment, so she says.
I think you are right, and the best evidence would have been someone seeing a person removing a cadaver from the apartment. Well Jane saw someone carrying a limp child away from the apartment, so she says.
But if it was that child, that means that child had to have been dead for the best part of 2 hours before that.
9:15 minus 2 hour = 7:15 No wonder GA got to thinking bad things. 7:00 PM to 7:30 PM has never been explained very well has it.
You are making an assumption that the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a.... They dontIt would only not be an assumption if Jane saw the person actually carry a cadaver out of apartment 5A.
You are making an assumption that the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a.... They dontWould you admit if someone saw a cadaver being removed from apartment 5A that would be sufficient corroboration?
Would you admit if someone saw a cadaver being removed from apartment 5A that would be sufficient corroboration?
Would you admit if someone saw a cadaver being removed from apartment 5A that would be sufficient corroboration?
For it to be truly evidential (hard evidence) Tannerman would need to be seen leaving the apartment. It is therefore circumstantial evidence (I think) that the window being open lends support that Tannerman was connected with 5A but the timing of finding the window open was wrong so there is no circumstantial evidence linking Tannerman to the apartment.
Like Tannerman ?
You are making an assumption that the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a.... They dont
Do you have a cite for that and what do the alerts mean then Davel? Perhaps you should have added IMO.
I have a cite that the alerts do not confirm the past presence of a cadaver... I've given it many times... You've seen it... No IMO necessaryThat is not a respectful reply Davel, and you have left me with no option but to delete your posts as per John's instructions to us.
You were asked for a cite, and you know your reply. "Cadaver is not confirmed" is not a cite. Even if it was correct it wasn't a cite. When we are asked for a cite we should give cite not more opinion.
my post said a cadaver has not been confirmed...that iss 100% correct...no imo necessaryMy point was that it hasn't been confirmed or refuted. You were telling only part of the story.
My point was that it hasn't been confirmed or refuted. You were telling only part of the story.
the cite has been given many times...by many poeple...That is the nature of the game ATM.
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
my post stated cadaver scent has not been confirmed...the above cite confirms it........do I really need to keep posting it
my point is it hasnt been confirmed and I supplied a cite to support my statement....My post is 100% correct
is the post...cadaver has not been confirmed...not allowed...does it break forum rules...
That is the nature of the game ATM.
my point is it hasnt been confirmed and I supplied a cite to support my statement....My post is 100% correctYou have given a cite now but you hadn't before. The rule was when asked for a cite you give one or the post will be deleted. They are the rules ATM.
is the post...cadaver has not been confirmed...not allowed...does it break forum rules...
Misty started the other thread not a sceptic. If she hadn't started the thread we wouldn't be discussing it now. Who is the "would be sleuth" here, IMO it is Misty.
Martin Grime believed Eddie had found a "scent he recognises" i.e. cadaver odour.
Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house the only two places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom, in this corner where he was barking.
Indeed something was found which tested as blood ... from an area under the tiles.
What else do you think was found?
and someof us know exactly why
It is entirely possible that police know precisely what happened, but are not prepared to announce it to all and sundry.
Quite possible - imo GA knew what happened ...and look what happened there.
In the Suzanne Pilley case the dog alerts were corroborated by CCTV footage, mobile phone records, emails, shop receiptsing
IMO... Amaral hadn't got a clue.... He didn't understand the evidence
Yes iyo - if there is stuff that hasn't yet been revealed ...how do you know exactly what the evidence is.
Is it just iyo that he doesn't understand the evidence - or do you know that for a fact. as he said that.
In the Suzanne Pilley case the dog alerts were corroborated by CCTV footage, mobile phone records, emails, shop receiptsingI believe it formed part of the prosecution case presented in court at the murder trial.
so he would have been convicted without the dogs...the alerts are reason for suspicion...nothing more...dont ask for a citr at the moment but its from an amaerican report
yes he has...this is just one example
Q: Where do you think the body was kept?
A: That is what we were trying to understand when I left the investigation. 15 alleles might not have been conclusive in the eyes of the Public Prosecutor, but for the investigation it was sufficient. The body must have been in the boot of the car. We want to know who drove the car, who was behind the wheel.
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15378-bloggers-meet-with-sofia-leal-and-goncalo-amaral#389423
The FSS expalined in simple terms why the 15 alleles were not significant...amaral it seems didnt understand
so he would have been convicted without the dogs...the alerts are reason for suspicion...nothing more...dont ask for a citr at the moment but its from an amaerican report"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." Wikipedia
"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." Wikipedia
The dog alerts were part of the prosecution case at Gilroy's trial.
That's wrong IMO.
Are those the 15 alleles that would have been sufficient in the uk - or is that wrong.
That's wrong IMO.
There weren't just 19 markers but something like 37 markers in total. So it was a mixed sample therefore inconclusive.
AEK: If on an analysis of DNA, 15 markers out of 19 belong to a person "x", can we conclude that this is this person?
SA: If the profile is complete and quality, and that the markers are analyzed information then no doubt! The result is discriminatory. This result is very reliable. The order of error is 1 for 1 billion! It is almost impossible it otherwise. For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.
Are those the 15 alleles that would have been sufficient in the uk - or is that wrong.
AEK: If on an analysis of DNA, 15 markers out of 19 belong to a person "x", can we conclude that this is this person?
SA: If the profile is complete and quality, and that the markers are analyzed information then no doubt! The result is discriminatory. This result is very reliable. The order of error is 1 for 1 billion! It is almost impossible it otherwise. For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.
so the dogs identified areas of interest...thats all...nothing more...
the evidence against gilroy was overwhelming and the result would have been the same without the alerts...imo...you may not agree ..its all opinion
There weren't just 19 markers but something like 37 markers in total. So it was a mixed sample therefore inconclusive.
So if this happened how does anyone know what the outcome would be - seems humane error stopped any further test.
But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis
EAK: If you get DNA from three different people, can we recreate the DNA of anyone?
SA: If the DNA is collected DNA mixed with that of 3 individuals in an equivalent manner, then we could actually find the DNA profile of anyone. The mine just like yours. But it is important that the mixture is perfectly equivalent. In which case the reliability rate is very low, from 1 to a billion 1 per 1,000 or 1 in 100. It is therefore more question to consider this result as discriminatory.
So what happened? NRL unreliable? The contaminated samples at the second analysis, but not the first? The first botched analysis by the FSS? There would be a good way of knowing. As two expert reports contradict each other, we practise a third analysis in an independent lab. But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis
So if this happened how does anyone know what the outcome would be - seems humane error stopped any further test.
But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis
EAK: If you get DNA from three different people, can we recreate the DNA of anyone?
SA: If the DNA is collected DNA mixed with that of 3 individuals in an equivalent manner, then we could actually find the DNA profile of anyone. The mine just like yours. But it is important that the mixture is perfectly equivalent. In which case the reliability rate is very low, from 1 to a billion 1 per 1,000 or 1 in 100. It is therefore more question to consider this result as discriminatory.
So what happened? NRL unreliable? The contaminated samples at the second analysis, but not the first? The first botched analysis by the FSS? There would be a good way of knowing. As two expert reports contradict each other, we practise a third analysis in an independent lab. But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis[/b]
ho human error...no samples lost...samples destroyed in line with home office regulations
if you knew who the three to 5 people were you could possibly recreate the profiles but its unknown who those were who contributed.......the 15 alleles in this case confirmed nothing
So why is it that it cannot be explained.D... the 2 carried out contradict each other ...so obviously a third should have been done
2 out of three now will never be known - but the 2 that was done contradicted ....so there you go.
But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis
So why is it that it cannot be explained.D... the 2 carried out contradict each other ...so obviously a third should have been done
2 out of three now will never be known - but the 2 that was done contradicted ....so there you go.
But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis
What I would suggest is that Grime arranges for some property conducted scientific tests to be carried out Re cadaver dogs so that some proper conclusions can be drawn
For whose benefit and why specifically Martin Grime?
For the benefit if the justice system. Grime is making claims Re his dogs.... If he wants ti be taken seriously he needs some data to support his claims.... Other wise his claims, are not supported by evidence and therefore of little value
At trial, FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham testified as an expert in forensic canine operation. Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham's protocol called for regular single-and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives. Stockham's program had three full-time handlers in its program, including Martin Grime. Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime's dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range. Stockham testified that dogs have been able to smell the odor of decomposition as soon as 2 hours after a victim's death, or years after a victim's burial.
Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs' responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
According to Grime, on December 4, 2011, he took his dogs to an enclosed warehouse that contained 31 vehicles. Grime was told that Bianca was in one of the vehicles at the time of the carjacking, but was not told which vehicle was involved. Morse alerted Grime to the presence of the odor of decomposition in the back seat and trunk of a silver Grand Marquis. Keela later screened the car and did not alert Grime to the presence of human blood.
Grime testified that, after the vehicle screening, he took the dogs to an administrative building to screen the items removed from Dungey's car. Grime did not know where the objects were located in the building, and the objects had been placed in a room filled with “all sorts of things.” Morse alerted Grime to the odor of decomposition in Bianca's car seat and a bag containing Bianca's blanket. Grime later took the dogs to Dungey's house. Morse alerted him to the odor of decomposition in a room that contained bunk beds and a closet without a door.
For the benefit if the justice system. Grime is making claims Re his dogs.... If he wants ti be taken seriously he needs some data to support his claims.... Other wise his claims, are not supported by evidence and therefore of little value
In my opinion science consists of things like ... experiment - recording data - replication (if that is the correct scientific term showing that results are consistent?) ...
I think independent record keeping to substantiate and improve on findings is essential.
Is it known that its not.Would you be willing to expand that question so even I can understand it please. I think it is a question without a question mark.
Good enough for the American justice system.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
Would you be willing to expand that question so even I can understand it please. I think it is a question without a question mark.
Not really though. Independent scientific research continues to be undertaken in most countries today in the hope of advancing what it is these dogs are capable of and ensuring consistency.
Might I suggest that you find a more appropriate method of indicating quotes ... not just you ... EVERYBODY annoys me ... for a start your post does not appear in my answer so if I don't C&P or without following the link as above (should there be one and most often there is not), what you are posting may be lost ... and second, you reduce the point size of your original.
Good enough for the American justice system.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
I think if cadaver odour is present the dogs will reliably alert to it.... But what if cadaver odour is not present and the dogs are repeatedly brought back? I think it all becomes clear when we see the alert that grime says is, sugggestive of cadaver odour to CCtell us what you think then.
I think if cadaver odour is present the dogs will reliably alert to it.... But what if cadaver odour is not present and the dogs are repeatedly brought back? I think it all becomes clear when we see the alert that grime says is, sugggestive of cadaver odour to CC
It depends what you mean by 'repeatedly brought back''. What a layman thinks he's seen isn't necessarily what he has seen.Laymen have every right to judge and criticise professionals... That is, a fact of life
Laymen have every right to judge and criticise professionals... That is, a fact of life
Eddie did not alert to CC imo... Grime says he did... Who is right...Grime or the layman
Laymen can say what they like, but unless they have evidence to support their claims it comes down to a choice of opinions. A professional opinion trumps an amateur opinion imo.You didn't answer the question... Grime said eddie, alerted to CC... I think that's rubbish
A random question related to another case:- Is it possible to beat a child to death with a stick & leave absolutely no forensic traces of injury or death except remnant scent?
I doubt it very much.
A random question related to another case:- Is it possible to beat a child to death with a stick & leave absolutely no forensic traces of injury or death except remnant scent?I take it they have no body, but they have a stick, or a witness who saw a stick. Yes if the site was cleaned up. and the blow was to the larynx maybe. Heart can stop and death occur.
I take it they have no body, but they have a stick, or a witness who saw a stick. Yes if the site was cleaned up. and the blow was to the larynx maybe. Heart can stop and death occur.Crushed larynx was what I was really after.
"Tracheobronchial injury (TBI) is damage to the tracheobronchial tree (the airway structure involving the trachea and bronchi).[2] It can result from blunt or penetrating trauma to the neck or chest,[3] inhalation of harmful fumes or smoke, or aspiration of liquids or objects.[4]
Though rare, TBI is a serious condition; it may cause obstruction of the airway with resulting life-threatening respiratory insufficiency.[2] Other injuries accompany TBI in about half of cases.[5] Of those people with TBI who die, most do so before receiving emergency care, either from airway obstruction, exsanguination, or from injuries to other vital organs. Of those who do reach a hospital, the mortality rate may be as high as 30%.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracheobronchial_injury
You didn't answer the question... Grime said eddie, alerted to CC... I think that's rubbish
You are asking me to judge something I'm not qualified to judge. You are giving your opinion, but Grime's opinion has more value than yours in my opinion.But when you look at where Martin Grime says Eddie alerted to Cuddle Cat it is in a different location to what the PJ do and at a different location (as seen in the video) to the only bark reflex given by Eddie on the 2nd of August 2007.
But when you look at where Martin Grime says Eddie alerted to Cuddle Cat it is in a different location to what the PJ do and at a different location (as seen in the video) to the only bark reflex given by Eddie on the 2nd of August 2007.
When my children were young we tended to watch films on TV as a family. My husband and I were fascinated to discover that each child described the film differently and none of them described what we thought we had seen. Five people watched the same film and came up with four quite different stories.Well doesn’t that perfectly explain the discrepancies in witness statements too?
Everyone can watch a film, but not everyone has enough knowledge to correctly interpret what they see.
When my children were young we tended to watch films on TV as a family. My husband and I were fascinated to discover that each child described the film differently and none of them described what we thought we had seen. Five people watched the same film and came up with four quite different stories.
Everyone can watch a film, but not everyone has enough knowledge to correctly interpret what they see.
what I dont see is eddie alerting to CC......do you see an alert......are you able to answer that simple questionI think the implication is that Eddie gave a secret alert known only to the expert, one that we’re not able to understand.
You are asking me to judge something I'm not qualified to judge. You are giving your opinion, but Grime's opinion has more value than yours in my opinion.
You are asking me to judge something I'm not qualified to judge. You are giving your opinion, but Grime's opinion has more value than yours in my opinion.It is interesting that you do not consider yourself qualified to judge video tapes and transcripts made as part of the evidence recorded in the PJ files ... but you do consider yourself qualified to base opinions on the evidence from the PJ files a lot of which is in my opinion, hearsay.
but it isnt just my opinion...both John and Angelo have been critical of the alert to CC...
It is interesting that you do not consider yourself qualified to judge video tapes and transcripts made as part of the evidence recorded in the PJ files ... but you do consider yourself qualified to base opinions on the evidence from the PJ files a lot of which is in my opinion, hearsay.
Bit of a conundrum there, I would say.
Did you post opinion on the video of Madeleine and her family in the bus? What is the basis of your qualification to do that?
It is interesting that you do not consider yourself qualified to judge video tapes and transcripts made as part of the evidence recorded in the PJ files ... but you do consider yourself qualified to base opinions on the evidence from the PJ files a lot of which is in my opinion, hearsay.
Bit of a conundrum there, I would say.
Did you post opinion on the video of Madeleine and her family in the bus? What is the basis of your qualification to do that?
When my children were young we tended to watch films on TV as a family. My husband and I were fascinated to discover that each child described the film differently and none of them described what we thought we had seen. Five people watched the same film and came up with four quite different stories.We can at least discuss it.
Everyone can watch a film, but not everyone has enough knowledge to correctly interpret what they see.
We can at least discuss it.
what I dont see is eddie alerting to CC......do you see an alert......are you able to answer that simple questionDid Martin Grime really mean Eddie had alerted by the mere fact he had picked up and carried CC to the centre of the living room?
Though any suggestion of faking alerts or Grime’s motives being less than professional are off limits as libellous.If the PJ set up fake alerts how would Martin Grime or Eddie know that that was happening? I would never say Martin Grime set up fake alerts.
If the PJ set up fake alerts how would Martin Grime or Eddie know that that was happening? I would never say Martin Grime set up fake alerts.
Why would the PJ set it up,who was it who suggested the dogs in the first place?Once the dogs are there the PJ are looking for a way to get a confession. It seems rather an easy thing to do.
Once the dogs are there the PJ are looking for a way to get a confession. It seems rather an easy thing to do.
Look I need to really understand the order of the alerts. Did they examine the villa first then the apartments? On the extended video the villa appears first but was that presented to us in the correct temporal sequence
We can at least discuss it.
You can discuss anything you like, but your conclusions remain opinions without supporting evidence.
As do martin grime's
The difference being that he had years of experience and knowledge. He can testify in a court of law as a subject matter expert. Internet posters can't.
The difference being that he had years of experience and knowledge. He can testify in a court of law as a subject matter expert. Internet posters can't.
As, with any expert his opinion may not be correct
As, with any expert his opinion may not be correct
On the balance of probabilities he has more chance of being right IMO
[libellous parts edited out]
Cite for vested interest.... That shows, a complete lack of understanding imo
It does appear to be a go to subject.
Cite for vested interest.... That shows, a complete lack of understanding imo
I put IMO.Sorry yes.
On the balance of probabilities he has more chance of being right IMOHe just left it to the PJ to find the corroborating evidence. Who says he was wrong? His dog alerts and he says it was an alert, it was just odd he never said Eddie alerted twice in the dining room.
[libellous parts edited out]
He just left it to the PJ to find the corroborating evidence. Who says he was wrong? His dog alerts and he says it was an alert, it was just odd he never said Eddie alerted twice in the dining room.
No-one that matters has ever said he was wrong imo.On the video Eddie is seen barking twice in the dining room at the villa. Does Martin Grime mention that?
On the video Eddie is seen barking twice in the dining room at the villa. Does Martin Grime mention that?
Martin Grime is on record ss saying Eddie never barks... Unless it's an alertDoes he mention those two alerts then?
No-one that matters has ever said he was wrong imo.By your logic the only people allowed to say Martin Grime was wrong are other EVRD dog handlers, however as Martin Grime is the only one in existence (to the best of my knowledge) no one is qualified to say he’s wrong. We must just beeeeeleeeeve.
By your logic the only people allowed to say Martin Grime was wrong are other EVRD dog handlers, however as Martin Grime is the only one in existence (to the best of my knowledge) no one is qualified to say he’s wrong. We must just beeeeeleeeeve.
What of the dogs used in 2014 and their handlers,what were they?Not EVRD unless you know different?
Not EVRD unless you know different?
That is why I asked,so Grime was ahead of the game.
It was Harrison who suggested the dogs...
Who suggested M Grime and his Enhanced vrd dog.
By your logic the only people allowed to say Martin Grime was wrong are other EVRD dog handlers, however as Martin Grime is the only one in existence (to the best of my knowledge) no one is qualified to say he’s wrong. We must just beeeeeleeeeve.
I can watch operations on TV but I don't have the expertise to criticise the surgeon.Even if he picked his nose?
Even if picked his nose? Come on stop hiding.How did this get here?
I can watch operations on TV but I don't have the expertise to criticise the surgeon.If you were at the Hillsborough stadium disaster as a spectator you would not feel it your place to criticise the police for the way they handled the crowds then, seeing as you are not an expert in crowd control?
That is why I asked,so Grime was ahead of the game.And therefore beyond criticism as far as some are concerned.
If you were at the Hillsborough stadium disaster as a spectator you would not feel it your place to criticise the police for the way they handled the crowds then, seeing as you are not an expert in crowd control?
And therefore beyond criticism as far as some are concerned.
IMO anyone can criticize anyone they want as long as it is valid criticism. This goes for Martin Grime or the McCanns themselves.If the dog alerts were evidence they appear to show a cadaver was associated with the McCanns.
What is interesting in this case is that all the supporters (with the possible exception of Brietta) are very keen for Martin Grime to be discredited to varying degrees.
Now why would that be if the dog alerts are not evidence or of any importance at all.
IMO anyone can criticize anyone they want as long as it is valid criticism. This goes for Martin Grime or the McCanns themselves.That is an unfounded allegation, expressed as a fact.
What is interesting in this case is that all the supporters (with the possible exception of Brietta) are very keen for Martin Grime to be discredited to varying degrees.
Now why would that be if the dog alerts are not evidence or of any importance at all.
I don't have any knowledge or experience of crowd control so my opinion would have been just as worthless as those pontificating about dog alerts who have no knowledge or experience of how that works.What a ridiculous response IMO. You don’t need to be a crowd control expert to see that the crowd was not controlled by those responsible, leading to the deaths of dozens. It is therefore legitimate for a non-expert to criticise the experts, if it wasn’t justice would never have been done in that particular case.
IMO anyone can criticize anyone they want as long as it is valid criticism. This goes for Martin Grime or the McCanns themselves.
What is interesting in this case is that all the supporters (with the possible exception of Brietta) are very keen for Martin Grime to be discredited to varying degrees.
Now why would that be if the dog alerts are not evidence or of any importance at all.
Because it's, a discussion forum and I feel my criticism is valid and supported by evidencewe sometimes agree.
What a ridiculous response IMO. You don’t need to be a crowd control expert to see that the crowd was not controlled by those responsible, leading to the deaths of dozens. It is therefore legitimate for a non-expert to criticise the experts, if it wasn’t justice would never have been done in that particular case.
A friend who was there told us that same evening that it was caused by the police. I believed that he sincerely believed that, but I didn't know he was right until many years later. The newspapers got that one spectacularly wrong, didn't they? A lot of Liverpudlians have never forgiven the Sun in particular and Liverpool FC banned it's journalists from Anfield last year.All very interesting, as it goes to prove that a non-expert can criticise an expert and be proven 100% correct in their criticism, thanks for sharing.
All very interesting, as it goes to prove that a non-expert can criticise an expert and be proven 100% correct in their criticism, thanks for sharing.
You will have to identify the players from the anecdote for your assertion. I think you have got it wrong.I am not wrong to say that experts in whatever field can be criticized by non experts and that those criticisms can be perfectly valid. If you think that’s incorrect then feel free to explain why. I look forward to reading your snswer in the morning.
I am not wrong to say that experts in whatever field can be criticized by non experts and that those criticisms can be perfectly valid. If you think that’s incorrect then feel free to explain why. I look forward to reading your snswer in the morning.
I am not wrong to say that experts in whatever field can be criticized by non experts and that those criticisms can be perfectly valid. If you think that’s incorrect then feel free to explain why. I look forward to reading your snswer in the morning.
All very interesting, as it goes to prove that a non-expert can criticise an expert and be proven 100% correct in their criticism, thanks for sharing.
He wasn't inexperienced though. He never missed a Liverpool home or away match, so he was able to see the difference in crowd control. Had I been with him I wouldn't have known it was unusual because it would have been my first football match. .You’d have thought the events at Hillsborough were usual had you been there on your own...? OK then.
You’d have thought the events at Hillsborough were usual had you been there on your own...? OK then.
Tragedy.
Have been watching the cadaver dog handler giving testimony in the Casey Anthony case. It’s astonishing how many of the arguments put forward by supporters to discredit Eddie were used by Jose Baez during the questioning. It could almost have been scripted. Of course we all know that the Anthony verdict ran contrary to the evidence.
If anyone has the time the testimony makes for interesting viewing.
Attacking the dog handler is a bit like attacking the poster on a forum.In both cases the aim is to create the impression that what they say is unreliable.
I think that is a very naieve statement.... You need to understand criticism of professionals is valid... And in many cases important..
If you were in the same profession and underwent the same training methodology then yes,it possibly could be argued to be valid.
Our friend knew enough to realise it was going wrong and he climbed up into the stands. I wouldn't have known it was unusual.Was your friend permitted by you to criticise the actions of the police, despite the fact that (presumably) he was not a policeman expert in crowd control methods?
Was your friend permitted by you to criticise the actions of the police, despite the fact that (presumably) he was not a policeman expert in crowd control methods?
Naieve again... Professionals can be wrong and make mistakes every day
I’m involved in a record release and I know from listening to the test pressing it’s not right. It needs re-mastering. I have absolutely no idea how this is done but I know it sounds wrong from my own (and others) observations. Not being an expert in the process, should I flag up my concerns and get it re-mastered, or should I just accept that the experts know best?
You should tell the experts it doesn’t sound right and let them work out what went wrong.
Where can I get in touch with Martin Grime
Martin.Grime@Staffs.ac.uk
I will do so today... It will be interesting if he replies
If you tell him its in relation to the ongoing McCann case,not a hope in hell.
I’m involved in a record release and I know from listening to the test pressing it’s not right. It needs re-mastering. I have absolutely no idea how this is done but I know it sounds wrong from my own (and others) observations. Not being an expert in the process, should I flag up my concerns and get it re-mastered, or should I just accept that the experts know best?
Your use of the word remastering suggests a higher level of knowledge than mine. Most laymen would just say it doesn't sound right.
Your use of the word remastering suggests a higher level of knowledge than mine. Most laymen would just say it doesn't sound right.
Perhaps Vertigo Swirl is involved in the record industry as a secretary or sales person or even owns a record shop or something like that.I'd say learn it through discussion with her son.
Polite reminder ... the topic is ... "What evidence would confirm a cadaver dog alert?"DNA etc .... whatever etc means.
Polite reminder ... the topic is ... "What evidence would confirm a cadaver dog alert?"
Unless a body is buried under apartment 5a,none what so ever after this time I'd have thought,imo.
Unless a body is buried under apartment 5a,none what so ever after this time I'd have thought,imo.Was there a service crawl space under the apartments?
Was there a service crawl space under the apartments?
Good point Rob,never seen one mentioned.One of the ground floor apartments had some sort of underground basement didn't it? I read about it and could quite picture what it was about.
Was there a service crawl space under the apartments?
One of the ground floor apartments had some sort of underground basement didn't it? I read about it and could quite picture what it was about.
If there was,was anyone made aware of it.
Would the dogs not have barked at the entrance or at the ground. My friend had a untrained dog which barked at her kitched floor on return from holiday. after a week of the racket made by her dog- her husband pulled at the floor boards and found rats!! the same breed of dogs grime used btw. If a body was down there I feel sure it would have picked this up.
You should tell the experts it doesn’t sound right and let them work out what went wrong.Point spectacularly missed, but never mind.
Its in the file, I forget where. I did a search but that depends on using the right words of course.
If there was,was anyone made aware of it.
One of the ground floor apartments had some sort of underground basement didn't it? I read about it and could quite picture what it was about.
The Murat villa had a hidden space of some kind. Is that what you're thinking of?No it was something like an employee had converted the basement into a room for his son. It was all very strange.
Point spectacularly missed, but never mind.
No it was something like an employee had converted the basement into a room for his son. It was all very strange.
Not at all, you posted an example that was particularly ambiguous.There was nothing remotely ambiguous about my post. The point was I (a non-expert) could tell the record wasn’t right, something which the experts should have got right in the first place but didn’t, therefore I was able to criticise the work they did without having the same skill set or knowledge as them.
There was nothing remotely ambiguous about my post. The point was I (a non-expert) could tell the record wasn’t right, something which the experts should have got right in the first place but didn’t, therefore I was able to criticise the work they did without having the same skill set or knowledge as them.
You knew the test pressing was not right, that makes you an expert. A layman would says it didn’t sound right and get the experts to investigate.I am not an expert. I know nothing about recording music or test pressings, I am not a sound engineer or record producer I am a consumer, with a pair of working ears and a brain. I said it didn’t sound right and my opinion was shared by others both consumers and people within the industry. My point stands.
I am not an expert. I know nothing about recording music or test pressings, I am not a sound engineer or record producer I am a consumer, with a pair of working ears and a brain. I said it didn’t sound right and my opinion was shared by others both consumers and people within the industry. My point stands.
How did you get to hear a test pressing then Vertigo Swirl. I would imagine you would have to have some connection with the record industry to hear one.My connection is with a musician, who passed me a copy of the test pressing for my views, do you require any further information? My view was that of someone who listens to a lot of prerecorded music, but that doesn’t make me an expert in making music or recording it.
I imagine anyone could tell if a song sounded wrong but then how do you know that isn't how the producer etc wanted it to sound? Music choice is a very personal thing IMO.
My connection is with a musician, who passed me a copy of the test pressing for my views, do you require any further information? My view was that of someone who listens to a lot of prerecorded music, but that doesn’t make me an expert in making music or recording it.
“I’m involved in a record release and I know from listening to the test pressing it’s not right. It needs re-mastering. I have absolutely no idea how this is done but I know it sounds wrong from my own (and others) observations. Not being an expert in the process, should I flag up my concerns and get it re-mastered.Because it sounded shit.
How do you know it needs remastering?
Because it sounded shit.
So how did you know it wasn’t just a duff pressing?Maybe it was, whatever it was, it was no good and not a faithful reproduction of the original recording I was played. Anyway, this has gone far off topic now, I’ve made my point, you think I’m an idiot as usual, let’s leave it there.
Naieve again... Professionals can be wrong and make mistakes every day
Kizzy - I see that protocol has been devised by Richard Phillips. (RP)
Unless RP has DNA analysis experience I wonder if he is certain this will work. I would like to see this done actually to see if it can work.
The interesting out come if say the DNA was a mixed sample from 3 people we might get sample sites that are from one or two persons. and if these others were subtracted from the result (37 alleles) and see if what remains is all from Madeleine.
It would be horrendously expensive.
They would need to do some tests to see if the method gave valid results, to know how reliable it was.
IIRC he was a scientist.
Surly it would not have cost more than 11 million + what has already been spent.
if it could have either, prove or disprove the mcns involvement
correct - just wonder D what you make of this.Most remarkable idea presented so far.
The hire car sampling.
In the last post I showed how the existing DNA profile from the car sample could be used along with DNA profiles from McCann family & friends + a others to enhance our understanding of who might have contributed to the DNA profile and thus how likely it is that Maddy was one of those people.
Now I would like to consider what else should have been done in 2007 as soon as the DNA profile was known.
The whole of the carpet from the car boot should have been retained and sealed as evidence. It should have been cut into many (at least 100) small pieces in a grid like fashion ad each piece subjected to DNA extraction and LCN DNA analysis.
In addition random samples should have been taken from all interior areas of the car, seats, carpets, swabs from door handles, windows, floor (e.g.under car boot carpet) etc. Perhaps a further 100 samples. These should also have been subjected to LCN DNA analysis.
What would this sampling & testing reveal?
Had this been done several things might have been revealed including:-
1. Was it possible to get DNA profiles from any other parts of the vehicle?
2. Were the 15 (or more or less) Maddy markers present anywhere else in the vehicle?
3. Were there parts of the vehicle that gave single person DNA profiles? (I am aware of the Gerry McCann profile from the key fob I'm talking about the car itself.
4. Were the 15 Maddy markers present in other pieces of carpet from the boot?
5. Were the 22 other markers from the car boot present in any other samples?
6. Were there samples that included markers not found among the 37 in the car boot sample?
7. Was there an area of the car boot carpet that gave significantly poor or zero DNA results?
What might any or these results indicate or prove?
1. If yes then these profiles might be used to show how the 15 Maddy markers could have come together in the single sample from the boot.
2. If yes then the pattern of profiles seen would show whether the 15 Maddy markers were present in only one or a few areas of the car or were widespread. If they were present only in one area that would indicate her body could have been placed in the boot at some point. If widespread the chances are that these markers are coming from the DNA of others.
3. Any single person profiles would identify people who had definitely been in the vehicle (or their DNA transferred there. Clearly a single person profile that matched Maddy's would be significant, but others could also be used in a subtraction analysis on other samples.
4. If yes this would identify an area (or areas) that had Maddy's markers. The size and shape of any such areas would be very informative. e.g. a few drips spread out, a single small area consistent with a pool of liquid soaking into the carpet, a ring with a blank area in the center consistent with cleaning of a spill or leak etc
5. The presence of these other 22 markers in other samples, especially any single ID samples would permit subtraction analysis on the boot sample
6. This would show whether the car boot sample contained all the markers present in the car or not. Creating a complete picture of the amount of DNA contamination in the car.
7. This would indicate an area that had been specifically cleaned shortly before the car was seized as evidence.
Why weren't these things done?
I am at a complete loss to explain why these things or at least some of them were not done. The case was huge worldwide news at the time. The McCann's were being suspected of disposing of Maddy's body. The evidence from the single sample in the car boot suggested that could be the case but was inconclusive. Here was a great opportunity to either clear the McCann's or gather evidence that would help to prove they did dispose of Maddy's body. Why did no one.... NOT EVEN THE McCANN's themselves..... insist that this car was examined thoroughly and every scrap of evidence extracted?
http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.com/
Most remarkable idea presented so far.
it is possible that everyone who had ever entered that car since it manufacture left DNA in it. I'm just wondering if there is a way of sorting out 30 different DNA profiles mixed up in a random pattern.
I think it's, a pretty poor idea...
You go to all that trouble to discover if Maddie's, DNA was in the car... You may or may not be, able to prove it.... As her family had been in the car.. Probably not.
If Maddie's DNA was found it would prove nothing as it could be the result of transfer..
If it wasn't found it would prove nothing... In the Gilroy case none of the victims DNA was found in the boot
If anyone should have been hanging on to the hire car for evidence it should have been the Policia Judiciaria in my opinion.I don't understand your logic Brietta.
Another thought to ponder is that of all the vehicles present in the garage ... the McCann hire car was the only one alerted to.
Something along the lines of there not being anywhere in Luz other than the McCann apartment which caused the dogs to alert.
Had there been no evidence as to what triggered the alerts - as in the bedroom at 5A - there would now be a raft of conspiracy theory doing the rounds just as there is about 5A.
As it is, it is known why the dog alerted in the hire car because it was demonstrated that there was physical evidence present as a cause.
It is also known that there was absolutely no evidence connected to the hire car to support the police theory.(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C78nfr7W4AA69D4.jpg)Yet the iconic image above still lives on in the internet to demonstrate the spurious case still being promoted and based not any longer on a misunderstanding of evidence but an absolute distortion of it.
I don't think one has to look very far for the truth of the lie ... and in my opinion, nothing has been twisted and lied about more than the dog alerts.
I don't understand your logic Brietta.That a real big deal continues to be made out of the fact that out of everywhere checked by the cadaver dog the only place alerted to was a location associated with the McCann family.
That a real big deal continues to be made out of the fact that out of everywhere checked by the cadaver dog the only place alerted to was a location associated with the McCann family.
Out of all the cars set out for inspection in the underground car park ... the only alert by the cadaver dog was to the McCann hire vehicle.
It proved that the alerts in the vehicle were positive although not to cadaver and not to Madeleine ... although some prefer to ignore that.
Whereas the alert in the bedroom was a false positive because it could not be confirmed.
Not confirmed does not equal false positive.
Not confirmed does not equal false positive.
It's impossible to prove a false positive which makes any claims Re false positives meaningless
Not so, you could do it in a controlled environment.I dint see that possible
Not so, you could do it in a controlled environment.
According to the criteria laid out by Martin Grime it was a false positive. He barked ... but there was no evidence why he barked.It could be a false positive, or a positive. Finding evidence to confirm it is a different matter.
It could be a false positive, or a positive. Finding evidence to confirm it is a different matter.
According to the criteria laid out by Martin Grime it was a false positive. He barked ... but there was no evidence why he barked.
With each passing day adding to the total already passed, that will never be found imo.Dave Edgar says "somebody knows". So don't give up yet.
Dave Edgar says "somebody knows". So don't give up yet.
Unless Madeleine did wander out and fall down a hole or into one of the workers trenches and it was filled in before anyone noticed then Dave Edgar is right "somebody knows".
The million dollar question is...who!
Apart from that I haven't seen anything that he contributed to the search for Madeleine.
From "EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIME REPORT"All that is important is how Grime defines corroboration
"The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The only true confirmation of a cadaver dog alert is finding a cadaver at the location.
Corroboration could be something less dramatic. But that would depend on how one defines corroboration.
All that is important is how Grime defines corroboration
If Grime says you need a cadaver to corroborate a cadaver dog alert I wonder what Martin Grime meant when he said: "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 seems like a Catch 22 situation.
The conclusion might have been very different had Grime known that a previous owner of the apartment had died in hospital with the very distinct possibility that cadaver contaminants had been brought back to that property and stored by his wife.
Was the widow even asked about this?
Is Grime even aware of it??
Why has he not officially reviewed his report in the light of these facts???
As I see it ... there has to be evidence of some kind that a dead body has been present at the scene of an alert then the police have to find out who that person might have been,
In the Shannon Matthew's case ... the dogs alerted ... and investigation revealed that furniture which had been in the locale was later passed on to others complete with the contaminating scent.
In the Suzanne Pilley murder, although there was evidence of contamination in areas where the dog alerted, it could not be proved that it had been contributed by anyone (not necessarily dead ... eg Gerry and cellular substance in Luz) let alone Suzanne.
It did give the police intelligence which enabled them to concentrate their focus on finding appropriate evidence to bring a suspect to trial and eventually to justice. Which is what they did.
It is ridiculous that based on the mantra "dogs don't lie" ... some actually wore the T shirt and bought the mugs ... sceptics have waged countless campaigns of opprobrium against the parents of a missing child all based on a total misunderstanding of what the dogs actually do.
The dogs alerted in Shannon's case ... but not for Shannon.
The dogs alerted in Suzanne's case ... her body has never been found ... but a conviction was obtained in court based on all the other evidence there was to support her death and who the killer was.
There was no evidence of death either in Jersey or in Portugal ... which makes it a bit of a mystery why there is such a concentration on this single cadaver dog when there are thousands of others in the world who never get a mention and whose names we do not even know.
Obviously ... he must be middle class.
IMO, the conclusion might have been very different had Grime known that a previous owner of the apartment had died in hospital with the very distinct possibility that cadaver contaminants had been brought back to that property and stored by his wife.
Was the widow even asked about this?
Is Grime even aware of it??
Why has he not officially reviewed his report in the light of these facts???
What cross contamination would you surmise,very unusual one would have thought to have a deceased persons attire to be returned,it never happened in my parents case.We're talking circa 90 minutes for cadaver to develop.
What cross contamination would you surmise,very unusual one would have thought to have a deceased persons attire to be returned,it never happened in my parents case.We're talking circa 90 minutes for cadaver to develop.
When my mother died in hospital she was wearing a white knitted shawl over her shoulders.
She died suddenly and most unexpectedly..
The shawl was given back to me the following day.
I brought it to my home and put it on a shelf in a cupboard.
I kept it because it didn't smell of tobacco, she was a heavy smoker, but because she had only worn it in hospital it did smell of her perfume only.
There it remained for many years.
Possibly a cadaver dog woul alert to that shelf.
All that is important is how Grime defines corroborationWell how do you explain the catch 22 situation in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9966.msg536179#msg536179?
Aside from the possibility that human remains in the form of ashes might have been stored in 5a there are numerous personal items which might have been returned from a deceased person such as clothing, watches, jewelry etc.
Even someone being in direct contact with a deceased person could bring back contaminants because we know how easily cadaver odour is spread and how difficult it is to get rid of.
Well how do you explain the catch 22 situation in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9966.msg536179#msg536179?I don't see it as ambiguous... Grime says the alers were not corroborated... Even though DNA, was found... So that's clear.
Well how do you explain the catch 22 situation in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9966.msg536179#msg536179?
Well tell us, how does Grime define corroboration?
I don't see it as ambiguous... Grime says the alers were not corroborated... Even though DNA, was found... So that's clear.
Then as the alert is not corroborated an alert to cadaver odour is only a, possibility
I think it's more than that. IMO, Eddie did alert to substances for which he was trained but it has no relevance to Maddie's disappearance.
To be honest, every time I think about Cuddle Cat and the claims about him I have to laugh. That farce wasn't Grime's finest hour imo.
You can link to the actual post by clicking on its header bar before copying and pasting.OK I'll try it! So can you explain the sequence please.
I think it's more than that. IMO, Eddie did alert to substances for which he was trained but it has no relevance to Maddie's disappearance.
To be honest, every time I think about Cuddle Cat and the claims about him I have to laugh. That farce wasn't Grime's finest hour imo.
I think it is most revealing that Eddie only picked out the toy seen on the missing child's bed at the crime scene. Did he pick out another toy in the villa? No he did not and there's a good reason why!OK so what is the reason?
I think it is most revealing that Eddie only picked out the toy seen on the missing child's bed at the crime scene. Did he pick out another toy in the villa? No he did not and there's a good reason why!
OK so what is the reason?
The investigating officers were singularly unimpressed by Eddie and Cuddle cat and said as much in their final report.
It's obvious with all the other alerts. SY were looking for a body in Luz - that's where most of their millions went.
as I remember the pj questioned the way the alerts occurredCan you provide the actual cite please?
The dog still alerted to the toy that the missing child's mother had recently washed when it was hidden in the cupboard.
If anyone believes it was washed because it was filthy with suntan lotion, that's their preoperative. But washing her missing daughter's favorite soft toy wasn't Kate McCann's finest hour IMO.
The dog still alerted to the toy that the missing child's mother had recently washed when it was hidden in the cupboard.This further illustrates my somewhat contentious point / opinion re: moral adjustment.
If anyone believes it was washed because it was filthy with suntan lotion, that's their preoperative. But washing her missing daughter's favorite soft toy wasn't Kate McCann's finest hour IMO.
This further illustrates my somewhat contentious point / opinion re: moral adjustment.
I doubt you will find a single female, mother, supporter here who will support the notion that, if this toy was as precious as has been purported (Gerry's favourite word), then no mother would want to wash away the scent of their missing child. Moreover, I suggest that's more to do with a stoical support than their actual opinion, morally incongruent or not.
Do children have a scent?
Can you explain?
When I had a class of children, some smelled of the shampoo used in their hair, some smelled of the washing powder and fabric conditioner used to wash their clothes, sometimes some smelled of a an ointment put on for grazes, some children sadly smelled of unclean bodies and unclean clothes.
What makes up the smell of an individual child?
Is a child born with a scent particular to itself?
If people don't have a scent then tracker dogs are useless.
Please feel free to inform the authorities of the world.
If people don't have a scent then tracker dogs are useless.IMO It will be a combination of all the things the child has been in contact with, and what they have eaten recently.
Please feel free to inform the authorities of the world.
Thank you for your rather rude and less than helpful reply.
I hope for a more informative response from someone else.
IMO It will be a combination of all the things the child has been in contact with, and what they have eaten recently.
The scent of all of those things.
Do children have a scent?
Can you explain?
When I had a class of children, some smelled of the shampoo used in their hair, some smelled of the washing powder and fabric conditioner used to wash their clothes, sometimes some smelled of a an ointment put on for grazes, some children sadly smelled of unclean bodies and unclean clothes.
What makes up the smell of an individual child?
Is a child born with a scent particular to itself?
The scent of all of those things.
The dog still alerted to the toy that the missing child's mother had recently washed when it was hidden in the cupboard.
If anyone believes it was washed because it was filthy with suntan lotion, that's their preoperative. But washing her missing daughter's favorite soft toy wasn't Kate McCann's finest hour IMO.
So this scent will be on everything belonging to an individual?Would you wash Cuddle Cat in this instance?
Will siblings have the same scent, until they reach an age where they wear different perfumes, aftershaves, use different hair products, eat different foods etc,?
Would all of Madeleine's clothes and belongings have the same scent?
So this scent will be on everything belonging to an individual?
Will siblings have the same scent, until they reach an age where they wear different perfumes, aftershaves, use different hair products, eat different foods etc,?
Would all of Madeleine's clothes and belongings have the same scent?
Would you wash Cuddle Cat in this instance?
Therefore not a scent which is only individual to that one child.
And this scent which is a combination of many things will no doubt be recreated on many items belonging to an individual?
https://www.livescience.com/5188-odor-unique-fingerprint.html
I have a scent.
I last ate a slice of pizza.
Would the tracker dogs follow my scent, or go off for a slice of pizza?
The number of kids in Luz who had sun tan cream on and who ate high tea is how many?
This idea is nonsensical.
Is this body odour detectable to a human nose.
Maybe I was a bad mother,but my sons all smelled the same when little.
I used the same soaps, same washing products, same shampoos with them all.
Yes I knew the smell of my children but I couldn't identify any particular one by their smell.
Excuse me while I have a chuckle, I'm thinking of my mother in law who had thirteen children.
I wonder if she could identify each one by their smell.
Are you a tracker dog?
The dog still alerted to the toy that the missing child's mother had recently washed when it was hidden in the cupboard.
If anyone believes it was washed because it was filthy with suntan lotion, that's their preoperative. But washing her missing daughter's favorite soft toy wasn't Kate McCann's finest hour IMO.
Interesting questions that you have intoduced, Erngath. I wonder if we willl get a truly knowledgeable answer?
Is this body odour detectable to a human nose.
Maybe I was a bad mother,but my sons all smelled the same when little.
I used the same soaps, same washing products, same shampoos with them all.
Yes I knew the smell of my children but I couldn't identify any particular one by their smell.
Excuse me while I have a chuckle, I'm thinking of my mother in law who had thirteen children.
I wonder if she could identify each one by their smell.
That is not the question that I was responding to, which was about the scent of an individual person.
When my mother died in hospital she was wearing a white knitted shawl over her shoulders.
She died suddenly and most unexpectedly..
The shawl was given back to me the following day.
I brought it to my home and put it on a shelf in a cupboard.
I kept it because it didn't smell of tobacco, she was a heavy smoker, but because she had only worn it in hospital it did smell of her perfume only.
There it remained for many years.
Possibly a cadaver dog would alert to that shelf.
Aside from the possibility that human remains in the form of ashes might have been stored in 5a there are numerous personal items which might have been returned from a deceased person such as clothing, watches, jewelry etc.
Even someone being in direct contact with a deceased person could bring back contaminants because we know how easily cadaver odour is spread and how difficult it is to get rid of.
Why are you going on about tracker dogs?
This is about a mother washing her child's toy and whether the smell of the child would also be on other belongings.
There are enough dog threads.
This has nothing to do with tracker dogs!
Was your mother likely to have been left for circa 90 minutes for cadaver scent to form on the shawl.
Do you mean that after she died her shawl was still on her for more than ninety minutes?
If you do, then yes, possibly a couple of hours.
I'm not too happy to answer any more questions about this
Sorry..
Thanks.
Do you mean that after she died her shawl was still on her for more than ninety minutes?Nor should you. When members are having to post such personal details to justify a response, then the dignity of the forum is eroded and nobody benefits.
If you do, then yes, possibly a couple of hours.
I'm not too happy to answer any more questions about this
Sorry..
Martin Grime certainly said the dog signaled the toy. I can hardly show you confirmation of it in the forensic reports if the mother had bunged her daughter's favorite soft toy in the washing machine before the dog got there, can I?
Thanks for pointing that out to us!
Yes, individual people will have an individual smell.
But what makes that individual smell, individual to a particular person and recognisable to another human, NOT a tracker dog.
Would this.individual smell be on all the belongings.
I just don't get the fuss about Kate washing Cuddle Cat.
There would be other items which would smell the same.
And Kate said she did wash it shortly before the dog arrived, which sums up the value of the alert to me.
The dogs follow skin cells apparently -
The strongest scent comes from crushed vegetation and disturbed earth. The actual scent of the person comes off in dead skin cells and chemicals released from the skin. Even dressed head to toe in winter gear a person still gives off enough scent for a dog to track them.
12 and a half feet of earth won't stop the dogs.thats because remains are present...the scent may well have leached through soil upwards and be detectable in the first few inches of soil....that isnt remnant scent...it doesnt dissipate
They managed to sniff out Finocchiaro’s body, even though it was buried 12 and a half feet underground.
https://www.inverse.com/article/34350-cadaver-dogs-smell-death-corpse-police
12 and a half feet of earth won't stop the dogs.
They managed to sniff out Finocchiaro’s body, even though it was buried 12 and a half feet underground.
https://www.inverse.com/article/34350-cadaver-dogs-smell-death-corpse-police
I was talking about a blood hound and what it is they follow in the air.
Do you believe Martin Grime said Eddie did alert to cuddle cat?
I'm trying to understand why Lace doesn't believe him?
I don't believe Eddie alerted to Cuddle Cat, if there had been cadaver scent on the toy he should have alerted to it when he first found it, instead he tossed it in the air.
Kate washed Cuddle Cat weeks after Madeleine disappeared as she said there was no smell of Madeleine left on it, just sun cream.
The investigating officers were singularly unimpressed by Eddie and Cuddle cat and said as much in their final report.
"The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in
the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened
separately.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
You mean the laymen?
Why? Surely it wasn't a suspect and what would forensics likely show
Who is to know.
But surely you agree it should have been done.
Just as the bedding on Madeleine's bed should have been done?
Don't you think so?
When ?
When was it decided that Madeleine hadn't just wandered off ?
By the following day CC was being carried about by Kate and might have been handled by a number of people by that time.
Fair enough!
You obviously believe that there should have been no forensic testing of either Madeleine's bedding or Cuddle Cat.
That's not what I have said.
I am questioning when these things should have been collected for analysis, bearing in mind that it was initially being treated as a wandering child.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
How long was the case treated as one of a wandering child?
That's not what I have said.
I am questioning when these things should have been collected for analysis, bearing in mind that it was initially being treated as a wandering child.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
How long was the case treated as one of a wandering child?
Don't know, but there were people searching around PDL area for several days, I believe.According to Amaral, the parents were under suspicion from day one so no excuse not to have bagged up bedding and toy for forensic examination imo.
According to Amaral, the parents were under suspicion from day one so no excuse not to have bagged up bedding and toy for forensic examination imo.
Aside from the possibility that human remains in the form of ashes might have been stored in 5a there are numerous personal items which might have been returned from a deceased person such as clothing, watches, jewelry etc.How long is it likely to be left on a cadaver,not forgetting the circa 90 minutes for scent to develop.Once they are pronounced its straight down the morgue and it would be the sensible course of action to remove any jewellery to be handed to a relative,if its not already been removed at hospitalisation.
Even someone being in direct contact with a deceased person could bring back contaminants because we know how easily cadaver odour is spread and how difficult it is to get rid of.
Why ask the question if you already knew the answer ?Why not? 8(>((
"The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy inCompletely the opposite to what has been discussed here.
the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened
separately.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
That's not what I have said.
I am questioning when these things should have been collected for analysis, bearing in mind that it was initially being treated as a wandering child.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The bedding on Madeleine's bed was tested for a sedating drug. So they were thinking 'abduction' so why didn't they test for any skin cells on the bedding? Could have been done first. IMO
The bedding on Madeleine's bed was tested for a sedating drug. So they were thinking 'abduction' so why didn't they test for any skin cells on the bedding? Could have been done first. IMO
The bedding on Madeleine's bed was tested for a sedating drug. So they were thinking 'abduction' so why didn't they test for any skin cells on the bedding? Could have been done first. IMO
Completely the opposite to what has been discussed here.
Yes it was, but when was it taken into custody ?
When did the idea of possible sedation first arise ?
Do forensics search for that,I'm far from an expert but on recent documentaries on tv following live police investigations,semen,hair and blood seem to be the ones looked for.
When was what taken into custody?
It must have been right at the beginning that they suspected sedation, otherwise why test the bed? I believe Kate when she said that she mentioned that she thought the children could have been sedated to the Police.
I have seen the Police go over bedding or clothing with something which looked like cellotape.
The bedding on Madeleine's bed was tested for a sedating drug. So they were thinking 'abduction' so why didn't they test for any skin cells on the bedding? Could have been done first. IMOThat test was just a "sniff test" wasn't it?
That test was just a "sniff test" wasn't it?
Testing for Chloroform.What sort of test was performed?
Have you ever thought what evidence would confirm an alert?
Over and over we get told the alerts mean nothing unless they are corroborated.
So would you all tell the forum what you would accept as corroborating evidence?
I'll add part of another post I made on the topic:
"We know their reliability depended on the finding of corroborating evidence at the location.
But Madeleine had been living at that location so finding her DNA there was never going to be enough.
In fact finding her blood there was unlikely to be enough, for a kid can get a bleeding nose and that doesn't mean she died.
Does the corroborating evidence have to be found at the site of the alert. They don't actually say that do they. So if her body was found at another location would that be corroborating evidence?"
254
As I understand it this test was carried out by dog handler Martin Grimes from South Yorkshire police? Who actually commissioned the test?The McCann is rather unique in that since it happened in Portugal and they have the habit of releasing the file when the case goes cold (archived), we have a large body of police (PJ) files that we can read.
We probably all have,but as I mentioned earlier it seems as if its,blood,semen,hairs.
Certainly back then.
I'm really not sure that they could have analysed, or had the money, to analyse every skin cell on bedding at the time.
On the other hand, good practice might be to bag everything carefully anyway and keep it in the event of future forensic breakthroughs.
Though it appears that skin cells from gloves can be tested these days.
Though it appears that skin cells from gloves can be tested these days.Is that from the inside of the gloves, showing who wore them last?
Is that from the inside of the gloves, showing who wore them last?
How would that work?
If a pair of gloves was worn by several people, there would be cells present from everyone
I was only trying to clarify what was meant by "Though it appears that skin cells from gloves can be tested these days." are they on the inside or the outside?
How would that work?
If a pair of gloves was worn by several people, there would be cells present from everyone
The McCann is rather unique in that since it happened in Portugal and they have the habit of releasing the file when the case goes cold (archived), we have a large body of police (PJ) files that we can read.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm It takes years of research to go through them.
Martin Grime files are released too
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Davel posted up earlier posted about a case in Scotland where the findings of a cadaver dog search were then used in a criminal trial along with much other evidence I hasten to add.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10808.msg537743#msg537743
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley
It seems it was carried out by S.Yorks police again. Are they the only area in the country that have these dogs?
I'm assuming investigators were able to carry out checks to determine who had previously rented the McCanns hire car?
https://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/
If anyone has a spare 75.00 and some 6 hours to spend on 9th Nov they could always go along to Martin Grime's training course 8)--))
https://www.pact-dogs.com/members-area/product/forensic-canine-foundation-with-martin-grime/
He states that he's unable to answer questions about the McCann case as its an on-going investigation!
The passage of time, as you say, makes death probable. The dog alerts in 2007 suggested the same outcome. They also suggested a connection between her death and the apartment she was staying in.
agree the only unknown thing is if maddie did die there who how and why ??
If even discovery of a body doesn't increase the credibility of the alerts, I fail to see the point of all the effort being put into discrediting the dog alerts over the years.
The FBI have scent dogs referred to as K9 8(>((They would lose track of them. Probably end up chasing a cat or something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-BE-g5lOSI
Why do these dogs need a handler? Why not just unleash them and let them go?
The FBI have scent dogs referred to as K9 8(>((
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-BE-g5lOSI
Why do these dogs need a handler? Why not just unleash them and let them go?
The FBI have scent dogs referred to as K9 8(>((
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-BE-g5lOSI
Why do these dogs need a handler? Why not just unleash them and let them go?
"The dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
"The dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal."Says the dog’s owner.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
He did alert to a coconutThat had bones underneath it.
That had bones underneath it.cite?
cite?No problem. As soon as Davros provides his. Let's keep this in sequence.
That had bones underneath it.
Nope... Unless you have a cite... Which of course you dontNope? See above.
No problem. As soon as Davros provides his. Let's keep this in sequence.
Cite for what... CoconutgateWho asked for a cite first?
Who asked for a cite first?Nope....as Davel might put it......he mentioned coconuts, I want the specific cite or I want him to be the one who goes back to the bookies and asks again. Right now!
Nope....as Davel might put it......he mentioned coconuts, I want the specific cite or I want him to be the one who goes back to the bookies and asks again. Right now!Fair enough - can bookies be rung by phone? As understand it Eddie alerts to a general area, so I won't accept a statement that Eddie alerted to a coconut. That comment was reported and deleted. No asking for cites re that please?
Fair enough - can bookies be rung by phone? As understand it Eddie alerts to a general area, so I won't accept a statement that Eddie alerted to a coconut. That comment was reported and deleted. No asking for cites re that please?
Watch this clever cadaver dog at 26 minutes in, with his handlerWe can't get BBC videos here in NZ - so would you like to share what was the problem?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0005ywg/murder-case-series-1-2-the-search-for-julie-reilly
Alerts to the presence of a dead body
Only one little problem...
Eddy did alert to a piece of coconut shell.
Eddy did alert to a piece of coconut shell.Unless you have actual evidence the coconut was the source of the alert I won't accept it. A cadaver could have been in contact with the coconut and hence the coconut becomes cross contaminated but it isn't the source in reality
Unless you have actual evidence the coconut was the source of the alert I won't accept it. A cadaver could have been in contact with the coconut and hence the coconut becomes cross contaminated but it isn't the source in reality
No different to Eddie alerting to clothing.
You are splitting hairs. Davel's comment was not incorrect.
You are splitting hairs. Davel's comment was not incorrect.IMO he was mocking Eddie, I dog I hold in respect.
three bone fragments (the largest 25 mm = 1 inch long) were identified as possibly human; two of them have been dated to a range from 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008
Thanks for the link
“Criticism intensified after the November 2008 withdrawal by police of claims of evidence[41] with the investigation being described variously as "farcical"[42] and a "shambles".[43] It was suggested that those leading the enquiry had leaped too readily to conclusions.[44] The reliance on indications given by the same sniffer dogs criticised in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was also questioned.[45]”
We can't get BBC videos here in NZ - so would you like to share what was the problem?Sure. The EVRD police spaniel alerted to a dead chick. No doubt there was a human cadaver below it, the dog’s handler didn’t bother to check. @)(++(*
Watch this clever cadaver dog at 26 minutes in, with his handler
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0005ywg/murder-case-series-1-2-the-search-for-julie-reilly
Alerts to the presence of a dead body
Only one little problem...
three bone fragments (the largest 25 mm = 1 inch long) were identified as possibly human; two of them have been dated to a range from 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950I didn't realise what those numbers referred to earlier, but I now understand them to be dates. Were they given a Carbon dating test or such like and found to be up to 400 years old? Does cadaver odour remain for that length of time? Amazing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008
Of course it was.https://www.standard.co.uk/news/human-bone-at-centre-of-jersey-childrens-home-inquiry-is-actually-a-piece-of-wood-or-coconut-shell-6658362.html
Prove Eddie alerted to a coconut shell.........You can't.
But were there uman remains underneath the dead bird... Or had the dead bird been in contact with a cadaverWas the dog in question Eddie? Not all cadaver dogs equal? SIL is finding his cadaver dog is finding all sorts of cadavers.
Was the dog in question Eddie? Not all cadaver dogs equal? SIL is finding his cadaver dog is finding all sorts of cadavers.
Was the dog in question Eddie? Not all cadaver dogs equal? SIL is finding his cadaver dog is finding all sorts of cadavers.Eddie was an Enhanced VRD, the only one there has ever been. He was the Top of the heap. Best nose in the business. Never wrong. A Superdog. All others pale into insignificance.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/human-bone-at-centre-of-jersey-childrens-home-inquiry-is-actually-a-piece-of-wood-or-coconut-shell-6658362.html
Interesting, nothing in that article proves Eddie was alerting to the coconut shell.
Sil doesn't have a cadaver dogA dog that finds road kill is still a cadaver dog in my book.
Interesting, nothing in that article proves Eddie was alerting to the coconut shell.Gosh. You’re quite right.
A dog that finds road kill is still a cadaver dog in my book.Do you actually know what a cadaver is?
A dog that finds road kill is still a cadaver dog in my book.
Gosh. You’re quite right.
Apart from this bit of course.
“The scientists, led by the lab's deputy director, Dr Tom Higham, were so concerned by Mr Harper's continued insistence that the fragment was human bone that they wrote to him formally on May 1.
They restated their findings and added that they had been endorsed by a second opinion from a leading bone expert, palaeontologist Dr Roger Jacobi.
"We concluded that the sample was not in fact bone but almost certainly a piece of wood," the letter said.
"Its curvature may have had something to do with it being misidentified. It appears to be more likely a seed casing or a small piece of coconut. Our conclusion is that this sample is a) not bone and b) not human."
How does any of that prove what Eddie was alerting to?
How does any of that prove what Eddie was alerting to?The sample was “not in fact bone”. So what was it? It doesn’t really matter if it was a coconut or a coco pop. It wasn’t human. FACT.
No-one knows, what Eddie was alerting to... That's, the whole point
The sample was “not in fact bone”. So what was it? It doesn’t really matter if it was a coconut or a coco pop. It wasn’t human. FACT.
I know.
So why do you & Eleanor claim he alerted to a coconut?
Prove Eddie alerted to that item.It’s not for me to prove it, it’s for the scientists who proved that what he alerted to did not originate from a human. Do you think those responsible for excavating the site missed all the human remains and only submitted the coconut shell for analysis?
Eddie was an Enhanced VRD, the only one there has ever been. He was the Top of the heap. Best nose in the business. Never wrong. A Superdog. All others pale into insignificance.I've found another documentary on the search for Julie Reilly and I'm sure the handler called the dog Eddie at one stage. Later he clearly says "Laddie" Eddie and Laddie could be confused on video depending on background noise.
It’s not for me to prove it, it’s for the scientists who proved that what he alerted to did not originate from a human. Do you think those responsible for excavating the site missed all the human remains and only submitted the coconut shell for analysis?
I've found another documentary on the search for Julie Reilly and I'm sure the handler called the dog Eddie at one stage. Later he clearly says "Laddie" Eddie and Laddie could be confused on video depending on background noise.No, his name was Otto or something. Long after Eddie went to the Great Dog Pound in the sky.
Are you ears better than mine? https://youtu.be/SKhKUaQk2UQ?t=1571 soon after that point.
There's no way of knowing what Eddie alerted to.Yet you *know* he alerted to Madeleine’s body, cos you beleeeeeeve.
At either Haut De La Garenne or apartment G5a
Yet you *know* he alerted to Madeleine’s body, cos you beleeeeeeve.
I never said Eddie alerted to the remnant scent of Maddies cadaver in the McCanns bedroom wardrobe.Who did? Name not pronoun please.
But he did though.
I never said Eddie alerted to the remnant scent of Maddies cadaver in the McCanns bedroom wardrobe.Thanks for supplying proof of your blind faith in the little doggie.
But he did though.
Thanks for supplying proof of your blind faith in the little doggie.
But were there uman remains underneath the dead bird... Or had the dead bird been in contact with a cadaverProblem I see with Otto was that he actually got rewarded for finding a dead bird. Grime would have trained that aspect out of his dogs -no reward for finding anything not human.
To be fair, I would suspect the McCanns even without the doggie woofs.Of course you would. You suspected them the minute you heard about the disappearance before you knew anything at all about the case. It was your gut reaction to which you have adhered slavishly for 12 years, come what may. Evidence is for wimps!
Problem I see with Otto was that he actually got rewarded for finding a dead bird. Grime would have trained that aspect out of his dogs -no reward for finding anything not human.That is merely your belief.
Of course you would. You suspected them the minute you heard about the disappearance before you knew anything at all about the case. It was your gut reaction to which you have adhered slavishly for 12 years, come what may. Evidence is for wimps!
Indeed, I suspected them first, which is common Police practice I believe.I predict that no matter what the police say or do, arrest and charge an abductor, get him sent down, you’ll still believe the parents did it. I can’t really see what would persuade you otherwise.
After 12 years, & two police forces currently investigating the case, I'm yet to see any proof that my suspicions are incorrect.
If I ever do, I'll apologise, but until then I stand steadfastly by the notion that it were the parents wot dunnit.
Indeed, I suspected them first, which is common Police practice I believe.PS - G-Unit, proof that you are wrong about no one on this forum believing the McCanns dunnit.
After 12 years, & two police forces currently investigating the case, I'm yet to see any proof that my suspicions are incorrect.
If I ever do, I'll apologise, but until then I stand steadfastly by the notion that it were the parents wot dunnit.
I predict that no matter what the police say or do, arrest and charge an abductor, get him sent down, you’ll still believe the parents did it. I can’t really see what would persuade you otherwise.
That is merely your belief.I didn't see Grime rewarding his dogs for their finds at PdL, did you?
We'll know when the Cops snare this latest suspect. Shouldn't be too long now according to the press.Any further developments that don’t have the parents in the frame shall be met with disbelief, anger, mockery, sneering, and conspiracy theories galore from people like yourself. You must know this is true?
I didn't see Grime rewarding his dogs for their finds at PdL, did you?
I didn't see Grime rewarding his dogs for their finds at PdL, did you?That’s cos they didn’t actually find anything.
PS - G-Unit, proof that you are wrong about no one on this forum believing the McCanns dunnit.
We'll know when the Cops snare this latest suspect. Shouldn't be too long now according to the press.
I don't see the word 'believe'?I believe you are mistaken. That’s my opinion by the way.
An opinion isn't a belief.
Indeed, I suspected them first, which is common Police practice I believe.Would it be accurate to say (based on what you have written above ) that you don’t believe the McCanns are directly responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance?
After 12 years, & two police forces currently investigating the case, I'm yet to see any proof that my suspicions are incorrect.
If I ever do, I'll apologise, but until then I stand steadfastly by the notion that it were the parents wot dunnit.
I don't see the word 'believe'?
An opinion isn't a belief.
of course an opinion is a belief...they can both be based on little or no real evidence or very strong evidence...and anything in betweenAll we need from G-Unit is a cite that proves that holding a belief is quite different from having an opinion and we can put this one to bed once and for all.
I don't see the word 'believe'?
An opinion isn't a belief.
Would it be accurate to say (based on what you have written above ) that you don’t believe the McCanns are directly responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance?
I believe that they are both responsible because had they exercised a modicum of common sense that night then the child would not have been put in danger...all imo of course.Thank you. More proof that people on this forum believe the McCanns are directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Thank you. More proof that people on this forum believe the McCanns are directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Thank you. More proof that people on this forum believe the McCanns are directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Involved to the extent they were ultimately responsible for her wellbeing and safety.
I should add that I do not hold the view that they were criminally involved in her disappearance just so that's clear. Negligence is an entirely different matter though imo. Leaving three young toddlers alone in a strange apartment for over an hour was pure stupid imo.
its quote simple..
Based on the evidence I believe the mccanns are innocent
Based on the evidence its my opinion the mccanns are innocent
whats the diference between the two...nothing...its about time you realised your mistake
I should add that I do not hold the view that they were criminally involved in her disappearance just so that's clear. Negligence is an entirely different matter though imo. Leaving three young toddlers alone in a strange apartment for over an hour was pure stupid imo.
I did this in similar circumstances, so that aspect of it has always been hard for me. I cannot condemn The McCanns for something I did myself.
And in case you ask, No, I don't think I was being stupid.
IMO it is an act that puts the needs of the parent above the needs of the child.
Sometimes parents have a need to stay sane to be a good parent.
Good parent?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-49152/Mother-basked-sun-leaving-children-home-alone.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-49152/Mother-basked-sun-leaving-children-home-alone.html)
That’s cos they didn’t actually find anything.IMO. - In his training exercises I'd think Eddie didn't know if he had found anything either. It was all to do with a region of odour and he would alert. If he got it right he would be rewarded. At PdL Grime would be unsure whether Eddie had alerted correctly so he doesn't reward his dog because he doesn't know if he had found anything.
Belief is less needing of evidence.
“an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”
Do you think the forum should be just for stranger abduction?No, why do you think that?
Belief is less needing of evidence.Which describes Wonderfulspam’s admission of believing the parents guilty from day one to a tee.
“an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”
Belief is less needing of evidence.As there is no proof of Madeleine’s fate, there are only beliefs, right?
“an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”
As there is no proof of Madeleine’s fate, there are only beliefs, right?Some scenarios are definitely ruled out IMO. Ie. not stabbed in apartment 5A,
I did this in similar circumstances, so that aspect of it has always been hard for me. I cannot condemn The McCanns for something I did myself.
And in case you ask, No, I don't think I was being stupid.
three bone fragments (the largest 25 mm = 1 inch long) were identified as possibly human; two of them have been dated to a range from 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008
You were lucky.
youve only given a definition of belief...thats hardly useful...you have not demonstrated a diference beteween the two...
opinion
noun
1.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
so wheres the diference
Especially vs not necessarily...???
Belief is less needing of evidence.
“an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”
Sometimes parents have a need to stay sane to be a good parent.
Then get a babysitter.
I didn't need one. I was only next door.Sounds like the McCann situation!
Davel posted up earlier posted about a case in Scotland where the findings of a cadaver dog search were then used in a criminal trial along with much other evidence I hasten to add.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10808.msg537743#msg537743
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley
It seems it was carried out by S.Yorks police again. Are they the only area in the country that have these dogs?
I'm assuming investigators were able to carry out checks to determine who had previously rented the McCanns hire car?
https://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/
If anyone has a spare 75.00 and some 6 hours to spend on 9th Nov they could always go along to Martin Grime's training course 8)--))
https://www.pact-dogs.com/members-area/product/forensic-canine-foundation-with-martin-grime/
He states that he's unable to answer questions about the McCann case as its an on-going investigation!