Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Eleanor]

Dear God.  No one knows how often I keep my mouth shut.

[G-Unit]

He said an  alert indicates theres a strong chance of evidnce of the deceased being found... That is not true.. Thats my answer to him.. Hes making things up

"It is an indication that there is a strong chance evidence of the deceased may be found in areas where a cadaver dog and a blood dog have both alerted."

He did say 'may' be found. As neither you, I or Billy know what strength officers assign to the chance, it is clear that they think there's a chance. That's why a search for forensic evidence is carried out; because dog alerts indicate that evidence may be there to be found.

[Eleanor]

"It is an indication that there is a strong chance evidence of the deceased may be found in areas where a cadaver dog and a blood dog have both alerted."

He did say 'may' be found. As neither you, I or Billy know what strength officers assign to the chance, it is clear that they think there's a chance. That's why a search for forensic evidence is carried out; because dog alerts indicate that evidence may be there to be found.

This is one such occasion.  But then there isn't any point in stating the obvious.

[Mr Gray]

"It is an indication that there is a strong chance evidence of the deceased may be found in areas where a cadaver dog and a blood dog have both alerted."

He did say 'may' be found. As neither you, I or Billy know what strength officers assign to the chance, it is clear that they think there's a chance. That's why a search for forensic evidence is carried out; because dog alerts indicate that evidence may be there to be found.

He said there is a strong chance.. None of the professionals have used the word strong chance so hes making that up himself. Im surprised you cant see that

[G-Unit]

He said there is a strong chance.. None of the professionals have used the word strong chance so hes making that up himself. Im surprised you cant see that

Instead of arguing about semantics you need to accept that the police see dog alerts as intelligence. That's why there was a search for forensic evidence where both dogs alerted.

[Brietta]

"It is an indication that there is a strong chance evidence of the deceased may be found in areas where a cadaver dog and a blood dog have both alerted."

He did say 'may' be found. As neither you, I or Billy know what strength officers assign to the chance, it is clear that they think there's a chance. That's why a search for forensic evidence is carried out; because dog alerts indicate that evidence may be there to be found.

I agree there is no point, but I can't help myself when it is sooooo obvious.  Cadaver dogs will alert to blood and CSI dogs alert to blood.
The blood could well be from a living , breathing individual much as both dogs alerted to the key fob where Gerry left traces.

[Brietta]

Instead of arguing about semantics you need to accept that the police see dog alerts as intelligence. That's why there was a search for forensic evidence where both dogs alerted.

Nobody ever said that dog alerts weren't "intelligence".  Alerts are only evidence when they have been verified.

Whether one dog alerted or two there is no option but to check for forensic evidence.  Despite the fact there are those who think dogs talk, they can't really tell us what the excitement is about.  The intelligence they provide has to be verified - did you miss out the bit where Martin Grime told us that.

[Mr Gray]

Instead of arguing about semantics you need to accept that the police see dog alerts as intelligence. That's why there was a search for forensic evidence where both dogs alerted.

It certaimnly isnt semantics....Ive always said the alerts are merely intelligence.....certainly not a strong indication of anything. When barrier says an alert shows a spot where there is a strong chance evidence of a deceased might be found ...what he is saying is not true...that isnt semantics .

An alert is a place where evidence may be found...that evidence might relate to blood of a living person ...it might be contamination...it might be a whole host of things...  what it is not is a strong chance that evidence of a deceased might be found...that is total tripe...again Im surprised you dont understand that

[Vertigo Swirl]

Just offering to help VS who seems to be getting upset about it. If VS doesn't want action I won't take any, I don't care that much about threads going off topic.

it was a polite request, I can’t for the life of me see where you got the idea that Iwas upset from.  I expect you were just exaggerating for effect.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

He said there is a strong chance.. None of the professionals have used the word strong chance so hes making that up himself. Im surprised you cant see that

I used the word “strong” because forensic science journals say the dogs accuracy at alerting to cadaver odour is 92-96%. Now you will next say; “ah but what do they do when there is no cadaver odour?”. I would suggest to you that in these circumstances they don’t alert. I’m sorry but currently I can’t tell you what the research tells us for percentages of false positives. What research I have seen shows the percentage of correct positives.

Given Dave’s keen agenda to trash the dog alerts in this case, I would ask if Eddie false alerts all over the place why does he only alert in the one apartment. 5A where a missing child has never been seen since and where Keela also alerted and correctly identified where it proved possible to recover forensic samples of human blood.

I know you will also dispute it was blood. We will have to settle on “human cellular material” . In my opinion if the FSS are not able to distinguish a blood cell from urine then they don’t sound like they were fit for purpose!!

[Vertigo Swirl]

And 30 pages later still no one able to explain why a young child could not have been removed from an unlocked ground floor apartment while she slept and her parents were dining nearby.  Is anyone going to ut us out of our misery and put us right?  Madeleine could not have been abducted because________________________________________________ (fill in the blanks)

[Mr Gray]

I used the word “strong” because forensic science journals say the dogs accuracy at alerting to cadaver odour is 92-96%. Now you will next say; “ah but what do they do when there is no cadaver odour?”. I would suggest to you that in these circumstances they don’t alert. I’m sorry but currently I can’t tell you what the research tells us for percentages of false positives. What research I have seen shows the percentage of correct positives.

Given Dave’s keen agenda to trash the dog alerts in this case, I would ask if Eddie false alerts all over the place why does he only alert in the one apartment. 5A where a missing child has never been seen since and where Keela also alerted and correctly identified where it proved possible to recover forensic samples of human blood.

I know you will also dispute it was blood. We will have to settle on “human cellular material” . In my opinion if the FSS are not able to distinguish a blood cell from urine then they don’t sound like they were fit for purpose!!

I think you are totally mistaken. Just because the dogs have a 90%+ rate at detecting cadaver in test conditions does not translate to such a success rate in the field. good to see you were posting your opinion as fact....i noticed that straight away. it seems a certain mod didnt.

Why did the dogs only alert to items McCann...simple...and its nothing to do with cadaver odour.. its time.

Eddie totally ignored the McCann car and was callled back 3 times...watch the video. he was not called bvack to any other car. according to the file as recorded by the PJ...the same thing happened in the apartment.

Im not suggesting Grime is a fake....im just stating facts.

Talking of science theres a recent study from the University of california re false alerts. It says taht teh dogs are so sensitive they can pick up body language from their handler so perhaps it was Grime who was excited going into 5 a and eddie picked up on this. It says the handlers are totally unaware of cuing their dogs.

re the time taken for eddie to alert.....there is talk of dogs scenting passengers for covid at airports. it says the dogs are accurate and two dogs can handle 300 persons in under 3o minutes.. That flies in the face of the time eddie spent searching before alerting.

You and others think i trash the dogs...not true.  Gunit posted an ACPO pdf re detection dogs. it talked of victim recovery....and not one word about remnant scent. The job of these dogs is to search for bodies and body parts.

It seems to me it was Harrison and grime in 2005 who decuded that the dogs could be used as intelligence in murder and abduction cases.Nothing wrong with pushing their own agenda ...perhaps that too is unconcious.

so my aim is not to trash the dogs....but get to the truth about what happened to Maddie...quite a laudible aim and nothing wrong with challenging evidence taht took the initial investigation totally in the wrong direction...

final thought...the job of the dogs is to help recover evidence...posters need to remember that. The fact is the dogs found nothing of any use

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

And 30 pages later still no one able to explain why a young child could not have been removed from an unlocked ground floor apartment while she slept and her parents were dining nearby.  Is anyone going to ut us out of our misery and put us right?  Madeleine could not have been abducted because________________________________________________ (fill in the blanks)

Evidence doesn’t work like that VS. You can only prove that an event happened not that it didn’t or couldn’t. Of course it is possible to take a child from an unlocked apartment when they have been left alone. However, an unlocked door and / or an open window go nowhere near proving an abduction beyond reasonable doubt.

[Mr Gray]

Evidence doesn’t work like that VS. You can only prove that an event happened not that it didn’t or couldn’t. Of course it is possible to take a child from an unlocked apartment when they have been left alone. However, an unlocked door and / or an open window go nowhere near proving an abduction beyond reasonable doubt.

For the umpteenth time please take note... No one is claiming the open window proves anything

[Eleanor]

I think you are totally mistaken. Just because the dogs have a 90%+ rate at detecting cadaver in test conditions does not translate to such a success rate in the field. good to see you were posting your opinion as fact....i noticed that straight away. it seems a certain mod didnt.

Why did the dogs only alert to items McCann...simple...and its nothing to do with cadaver odour.. its time.

Eddie totally ignored the McCann car and was callled back 3 times...watch the video. he was not called bvack to any other car. according to the file as recorded by the PJ...the same thing happened in the apartment.

Im not suggesting Grime is a fake....im just stating facts.

Talking of science theres a recent study from the University of california re false alerts. It says taht teh dogs are so sensitive they can pick up body language from their handler so perhaps it was Grime who was excited going into 5 a and eddie picked up on this. It says the handlers are totally unaware of cuing their dogs.

re the time taken for eddie to alert.....there is talk of dogs scenting passengers for covid at airports. it says the dogs are accurate and two dogs can handle 300 persons an hour....that flies in the face of the time eddie spent searching before alerting.

You and others think i trash the dogs...not true.  Gunit posted an ACPO pdf re detection dogs. it talked of victim recovery....and not one word about remnant scent. The job of these dogs is to search for bodies and body parts.

It seems to me it was Harrison and grime in 2005 who decuded that the dogs could be used as intelligence in murder and abduction cases.Nothing wrong with pushing their own agenda ...perhaps that too is unconcious.

so my aim is not to trash the dogs....but get to the truth about what happened to Maddie...quite a laudible aim and nothing wrong with challenging evidence taht took the initial investigation totally in the wrong direction...

final thought...the job of the dogs is to help recover evidence...posters need to remember that. The fact is the dogs found nothing of any use

Thank you Davel for posting that yet again and for explaining it so succinctly re the cars and the other appartments.

I have also just read the article about handlers and inadvertently cuing their dogs.

Let us hope that this won't have to be repeated anymore.