Does Eddie alert to Pork/Pig/Pig Blood? Martin Grime's Statements.

[pegasus]

Eddie checked 5A, 5B, 5D, 5H, 4G,  27, including the kitchens.
There would have been uncooked porcine remains in some of these fridges, and historically in all of them.
No signalling at any of those fridges

[Redblossom]

Eddie has been trained to find two different scents -  one is from dried blood and the other is cadaverscent - and that is the limit of his 'knowledge' -  and if he comes across either of those scents he will alert.    Whether he is alerting to a dead body or dried blood from a dead person (or a living person)  is not something he can convey to his handler.             If he could  - then MG would have trained him to bark once for blood and twice for cadaverscent - which he plainly has not.

If you listen to MG in the videos - he carefully avoids mentioning cadaverscent when Eddie alerts - and instead says that'' Eddie has alerted to the things he has been trained to alert to ''. (not verbatim).   If he was sure it was cadaverscent - he would have said so.  At no stage does MG ever claim that his dog has alerted to cadaverscent - only to the 'possiblity''.

If you don't accept the abilities/training of the dogs as explained by M.G - then I don't see the point in further discussion.

Eddie alerts to both blood and cadaverscent.  There is no way he can let his handler know which one he is alerting to.

Keela only alerts to blood - therefore she can convey to her handler what it is she is alerting to.


 

All very well and good, mostly, but you skipped around my post so badly,(and also which you seem to have copied ages before replyng so you didnt read/quote my edited version)  and didnt address half the points,  youre right,theres no point continung the discussion with each other! So, so long on this one......i will just sit with the choice of you dont understand or you pretend not to

[Redblossom]

Eddie checked 5A, 5B, 5D, 5H, 4G,  27, including the kitchens.
There would have been porcine remains in some of these fridges, and historically in all of them.
No signalling at any of those fridges

And Murats villa.....

[pathfinder73]

What a joke. The first place Eddie barked and alerted to in 5A was at the wardrobe - no blood was found there by Keela. Eddie alerted to cadaver odour.

[pegasus]

IMO the OP question can be answered in 2 words: seven fridges

[Albertini]

Reported for Goading. John has banned accusations of being other than the screen name.

I would take the dogs alert as an indication, but of no bomb was found, then I would board the plane.

Similarly the reactions of Eddie and Keela are indications, but as no forensicx evidence was found, we can safely and legally assume that the alerts are not substantive evidence. Mr Grime says this repeatedly!

Oh dear! I did not realise what a precious and delicate flower you had become. I'm struggling to see how using one of your nom de plume's constitutes "goading" and i must have missed John's memo regarding "names".  Apologies if i have offended your apparently fragile sensibilities.

Anyway back to the matter in hand.

So you would be happy to go on, or indeed send your loved ones, on a flight where a dog had alerted but no bomb had been found?

Really? Even though bombs are no longer the black metal spheres of old complete with hissing wick and can be concealed these days in shoes, underwear and even (I've read) human bodies?

Well you are a braver man than me, but of course it is very easy to sit here and say you would be happy to board a plane given an alert to prove a point on an internet forum, it is however quite another matter  to say you'd get on if you or yours were actually in that position.

I have never claimed that the alerts represent "firm" evidence have i? You will note i have pointed out that what is strange is that the McCann supporters dismiss the findings of the dogs simply because they believe it indicates guilt against the McCann's when it absolutely does not on its own.

The issue with the supporters of the family is that they are not prepared to accept the dogs findings in the apartment even on the basis that an intruder could have killed the child and removed the body, which is a totally possible scenario.

[Rogerandout]

What a joke. The first place Eddie barked and alerted to in 5A was at the wardrobe - no blood was found there by Keela. Eddie alerted to cadaver odour.

It is possible that Eddie's alert was to cadaver odor within the limits of his reliability. As no confirming forensics were found, Mr Grime says that no conclusions can be drawn from the alert.

[Rogerandout]

Oh dear! I did not realise what a precious and delicate flower you had become. I'm struggling to see how using one of your nom de plume's constitutes "goading" and i must have missed John's memo regarding "names".  Apologies if i have offended your apparently fragile sensibilities.

Anyway back to the matter in hand.

So you would be happy to go on, or indeed send your loved ones, on a flight where a dog had alerted but no bomb had been found?

Really? Even though bombs are no longer the black metal spheres of old complete with hissing wick and can be concealed these days in shoes, underwear and even (I've read) human bodies?

Well you are a braver man than me, but of course it is very easy to sit here and say you would be happy to board a plane given an alert to prove a point on an internet forum, it is however quite another matter  to say you'd get on if you or yours were actually in that position.

I have never claimed that the alerts represent "firm" evidence have i? You will note i have pointed out that what is strange is that the McCann supporters dismiss the findings of the dogs simply because they believe it indicates guilt against the McCann's when it absolutely does not on its own.

The issue with the supporters of the family is that they are not prepared to accept the dogs findings in the apartment even on the basis that an intruder could have killed the child and removed the body, which is a totally possible scenario.

Bomb scares happen. People get back on planes when the aircraft has been cleared. I would also. End of....

I only try to keep people close to the science of EVRDs and away from the Romance of them.

[Rogerandout]

A further problem for Mr Grime's consistency:

I found this quote from the Orkney Case:

"Mr Grime told the court that Eddie's nose is so sensitive that if someone touched a dead body and then touched a piece of paper before hiding it, Eddie would be able to locate the paper using his sense of smell."

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Martin-Grime/1451898808

If cadaver odor is so transferable, why did not all the clothes in the boxes lead to alerts from Eddie?

[pathfinder73]

It is possible that Eddie's alert was to cadaver odor within the limits of his reliability. As no confirming forensics were found, Mr Grime says that no conclusions can be drawn from the alert.

I disagree. Eddie has found the only evidence i.e. cadaver odour in cases and have put the criminals away for thinking they could get away with it. They confessed but if it wasn't for Eddie they would still be free.

[Lyall]

A further problem for Mr Grime's consistency:

I found this quote from the Orkney Case:

"Mr Grime told the court that Eddie's nose is so sensitive that if someone touched a dead body and then touched a piece of paper before hiding it, Eddie would be able to locate the paper using his sense of smell."

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Martin-Grime/1451898808

If cadaver odor is so transferable, why did not all the clothes in the boxes lead to alerts from Eddie?

Context, Roger

You'd need to read the whole of his evidence in that court to draw any conclusions.

[Rogerandout]

I disagree. Eddie has found the only evidence in many cases and have put the criminals away for thinking they could get away with it.

Eddie's evidence can only ever me circumstantial, and so may have contributed to a case which convicted a person, but could never of itself gain that conviction.

There is no case in which he has found the only evidence- I think you are making that up out of emotion rather than reason, although of course I am happy to accept it so long as you provide a cite for it.

[Albertini]

Bomb scares happen. People get back on planes when the aircraft has been cleared. I would also. End of....

I only try to keep people close to the science of EVRDs and away from the Romance of them.

Well as i have stated given the advanced nature and ingenuity of modern terrorist bomb makers you are a braver man than me.

And really the only way to test ones opinion of the science behind these dogs is to put yourself in a position where you actually had to make your own choice about the reliability of them when your own safety was at stake. Hence the bomb analogy.

My own take is that these alerts represent indications. These indications have to be weighed up against the number of searches undertaken and the concentration of the alerts to see if a pattern develops.

Clearly there was a pattern, in that they only alerted to property and possessions belonging to the McCann's.

Whilst this may not be definitive evidence per se it is a starting point with which to investigate further. Although of course the PJ could not because the McCann's fled Portugal and hired certainly the UK's and probably the world's most expensive extradition lawyers before the PJ could complete their investigation into the family.

Which also speaks as loudly as the alerts themselves.

[Rogerandout]

Context, Roger

You'd need to read the whole of his evidence in that court to draw any conclusions.

There is no need for context.

Grime states quite clearly that one touch of a cadaver and a subsequent touch of a piece of paper would transfer the scent. What context could there be that would alter that statement.

[colombosstogey]

Oh dear! I did not realise what a precious and delicate flower you had become. I'm struggling to see how using one of your nom de plume's constitutes "goading" and i must have missed John's memo regarding "names".  Apologies if i have offended your apparently fragile sensibilities.

Anyway back to the matter in hand.

So you would be happy to go on, or indeed send your loved ones, on a flight where a dog had alerted but no bomb had been found?

Really? Even though bombs are no longer the black metal spheres of old complete with hissing wick and can be concealed these days in shoes, underwear and even (I've read) human bodies?

Well you are a braver man than me, but of course it is very easy to sit here and say you would be happy to board a plane given an alert to prove a point on an internet forum, it is however quite another matter  to say you'd get on if you or yours were actually in that position.

I have never claimed that the alerts represent "firm" evidence have i? You will note i have pointed out that what is strange is that the McCann supporters dismiss the findings of the dogs simply because they believe it indicates guilt against the McCann's when it absolutely does not on its own.

The issue with the supporters of the family is that they are not prepared to accept the dogs findings in the apartment even on the basis that an intruder could have killed the child and removed the body, which is a totally possible scenario.

Exactly. Funny enough before the dogs I never thought the McCanns did anything to Maddy no way.

It was actually the reaction to the dogs findings that finally made me realise there was or is something off about them.

I would not have dismissed the findings, why did they make a mockery out of it?

I would have begged the police to check and check to see what could have happened.

Did they simply react this way though because to do otherwise would mean the child was probably deceased? Or for another reason.

No their reaction for me was way off.....