Could the cadaver scent have been planted?

[Mr Gray]

Oops! Epic fail! From the files as part of Grimes summary:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

I have to go out now but in the report I read a couple of years ago, the words cadaver scent were not used .The words were "may have been reacting to cadaverine contaminant". Someone is changing the wording.

[Redblossom]

And we know as a scientific fact that cadaver odor transfers easily from cloth to cloth.

Thats why  it was all over Praia da luz.........NOT
 

[Eleanor]

A 2 hours post-mortem body (accidentally dead, not a sick person) doesn't smell yet (for a human nose) under 18° C. Rescue dogs are trained to avoid cadaver scent.
In cemeteries where funeral urns are deposited in little chapels with broken glass, there's a funny smell.

No doubt you would know about that, although I must say that I don't.  I don't spend too much time in cemeteries.
But do people go around these places holding their noses?

[Eleanor]

Did she not call somebody a prick ?

Or a plank.  It doesn't make much difference with her.  Stupid woman.  No use to any debate.

[Albertini]

No its not an epic fail, just above this grime states

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent'
 contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence
 reliability can  be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating
 evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without
 any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.

So there's a contradiction.

I am not sure of the accuracy of the whole thing as it is an anti McCann site. I would like to see the original in Portuguese, I will look for it.

Edit, apologies i thought Debunker had stated that.

[Albertini]

Where have I defamed Mr Grime?

No problem!

Here:

No forensics were found in 5A. Mr Grime new 5A was the Mccanns'. He has already shown that he encouraged Eddie to react to the Mccann car. Clever Hans effect?

Here:

It would be interesting to see a clear description of what is and what is not an alert. Mr Grimes seems to say different things at different times

.

And here:

His technique is not very ordered or scientific and there seems to be a lot of cuing and instruction going on. He is also inconsistent, saying at one point that intensity cannot be indicated, but at another saying that there was only a slight odor.

[Rachel Granada]

No problem!

Here:
Here:
.

And here:

To be fair Albertini, I would call the opinion rather than defamation.

[Albertini]

To be fair Albertini, I would call the opinion rather than defamation.

What:

He has already shown that he encouraged Eddie to react to the Mccann car.

Mr Grimes seems to say different things at different times

His technique is not very ordered or scientific and there seems to be a lot of cuing and instruction going on

Encouraged?? Cuing?

That is defaming Mr Grime with no evidence to support it.

Precisely the accusation Debunker has been throwing at those McCann sceptics.

[Albertini]

I would say that all of those were fair comment. His method is more of an art than a science. He does direct the dogs. He spent 11 times as long and called eddie back 9 times to the McCann's car. The Clever Hans effect is well known, dogs respond to their master's wishes etc.

I'm sure you would say that but given the potential significance of his dogs alerts to even suggest that he somehow directs or cues the dogs (and not producing any evidence to support that claim) is highly defamatory given the personal and professional repercussions for Mr Grime.

It's a good job he doesn't watch this corner of the internet nor have the same legal appetite as the McCann's, i would suggest, is fortunate for you.

[Albertini]

There is a difference between defamation and fair comment.


No where have I harmed his reputation, merely commented on what seem like shortcomings in his technique.


Not 'quite' as serious as suggesting that Gerry McCann secreted his daughters dead body and drove it round Spain!

Really? By suggesting he encourages or cues his dogs to give alerts to dead bodies is "fair comment"?

Are you sure? With no evidence other than what you think - mere opinion- i think you called it earlier, to support your claim?

I'd suggest, and i think deep down you know, that this is beyind mere fair comment.

[Albertini]

Unconscious cuing is well documented. I could see signs of it in the videos, but it would take formal analysis to prove it. Bias is certainly demonstrable in the garage- I would love to see a defense lawyer take him apart on the numebr of times he called eddie back to the clearly marked Mccann vehicle.

What is your evidence or indeed expertise to put you in a position to be able to defame mr grime in this way?

You are simply giving your unsupported opinion, something you criticised others for doing earlier today.

Double standards methinks.

[Mr Gray]

What is your evidence or indeed expertise to put you in a position to be able to defame mr grime in this way?

You are simply giving your unsupported opinion, something you criticised others for doing earlier today.

Double standards methinks.

do you feel that SY are insulting Mr Grime by completely ignoring the dog's reactons.

[Mr Gray]

What is your evidence or indeed expertise to put you in a position to be able to defame mr grime in this way?

You are simply giving your unsupported opinion, something you criticised others for doing earlier today.

Double standards methinks.

do you feel SY have insulted Mr Grime by ignoring the dog's so called signals.

[Benice]

What:
Encouraged?? Cuing?

That is defaming Mr Grime with no evidence to support it.

Precisely the accusation Debunker has been throwing at those McCann sceptics.

There is nothing defamatory in saying Grime may have cued his dog.   Tests have proved that handlers can unconsciously cue their dogs.  IOW they don't realise they are doing it.    That's not a crime - it's just something that  can happen when a dog knows every tiny move his handler makes - even the ones his handler may not even know himself he is making.

[Albertini]

There is nothing defamatory in saying Grime may have cued his dog.   Tests have proved that handlers can unconsciously cue their dogs.  IOW they don't realise they are doing it.    That's not a crime - it's just something that  can happen when a dog knows every tiny move his handler makes - even the ones his handler may not even know himself he is making.

There is actually because unless you can provide clear evidence to state that mr grime has done that here or elsewhere you are spouting an unfounded opinion defaming mr grime's professionalism, with nothing substantive to back it up.