Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[sadie]

I agree

Let's  address those  'explanations'  given by Gilet   :

1 )  Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because  witness interviews are being undertaken

2 )   Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A  because of discussion with the PJ which is currently being undertaken 

3 )  Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because they are reviewing the modus operandi of suspects


What a load of gobbledigook  ! 


In the meanwhile,  the explanation being   fiercely rejected,  is the in-your-face  obvious one  :


Scotland think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because a cadaver dog alerted there

Is that your answer Icabod? ..... a load of gobbledegook!

How about some defensive, well thought out, argument rather than just abusive stuff.

[Anna]

Suggestive or otherwise, SY now stating that Madeleine might be dead is significant.  For them to state she might have died in apartment 5a is revealing to say the least.  This is quite a change in position for SY.

The only evidence which points to this being the case is that provided by the dogs.  There is no evidence that any of the known suspects had killed previously so effectively rules out modus operandi.  Had a stranger committed the crime he would hardly have stayed around for 85 minutes while cadaver odour formed.  If the dogs were correct that only leaves one possibility.

“May not follow with all  of our thinking“ and the other statement……….. “police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was”

 I read this , to be including the Portuguese police investigators as well as NSY….. As in “All”
Hence a difference of opinion between the police of Portugal, who are the investigators of a crime in their own country and NSY , who are not Portuguese officials.
He did not say, British police or NSY.   He said “police”

Hopefully they will explain this statement soon, so we can all understand their motive for saying it.
and whether or not it has to do with dogs

[icabodcrane]

Back on topic  then 

What reason  IS  there to presume Scotland Yard's  'thinking'  has  not  been influenced by the dog intelligence  ? 

[Benice]

I agree

Let's  address those  'explanations'  given by Gilet   :

1 )  Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because  witness interviews are being undertaken

2 )   Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A  because of discussion with the PJ which is currently being undertaken 

3 )  Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because they are reviewing the modus operandi of suspects


What a load of gobbledigook  ! 


In the meanwhile,  the explanation being   fiercely rejected,  is the in-your-face  obvious one  :


Scotland think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because a cadaver dog alerted there

But they have known that a dog alerted in 5a all along  - since the very beginning - and yet they still concluded that the McCanns were not suspects or even persons of interest in spite of that.

Their present investigations are centred on the monster who targetted British families and who has not been tracked down.       It seems obvious to me that the comment was in relation to that person - who seems to have been completely forgotten in the eagerness of some people to make 'the comment' prove that SY are now pointing the finger at the McCanns.

We are told that SY keep the McCanns up to date.   Do you think they said to the McCanns ''Oh BTW we are going to say that Madeleine may have died in the apartment - because of the dog alerts' ?  Or is it more likely that they have told the McCanns that in view of what they have found out during interviews with the 12 families  they feel that may be a possibility?    I know which one I think is believable.

[icabodcrane]

But they have known that a dog alerted in 5a all along  - since the very beginning - and yet they still concluded that the McCanns were not suspects or even persons of interest in spite of that.

Their present investigations are centred on the monster who targetted British families and who has not been tracked down.       It seems obvious to me that the comment was in relation to that person - who seems to have been completely forgotten in the eagerness of some people to make 'the comment' prove that SY are now pointing the finger at the McCanns.

We are told that SY keep the McCanns up to date.   Do you think they said to the McCanns ''Oh BTW we are going to say that Madeleine may have died in the apartment - because of the dog alerts' ?  Or is it more likely that they have told the McCanns that in view of what they have found out during interviews with the 12 families  they feel that may be a possibility?    I know which one I think is believable.

What are you saying  ?   ...  that Scotland Yard  can't have been influenced by the cadaver dog alerts   because if they  had  been,  they would have said so before now  ?

What about those efits from  Henri Exton then  ?  ...  those were in the McCanns' private detectives files weren't they  ?  ...  files that were given to the Yard three years ago  ? 

Yet here we are,  only  recently being told of them 

Why would you suggest,  therefore,  that Scotland Yard would be immediately forthcoming with any information regarding their  'thinking'  on the case  ? 

[Benice]

Suggestive or otherwise, SY now stating that Madeleine might be dead is significant.  For them to state she might have died in apartment 5a is revealing to say the least.  This is quite a change in position for SY.

The only evidence which points to this being the case is that provided by the dogs.  There is no evidence that any of the known suspects had killed previously so effectively rules out modus operandi.  Had a stranger committed the crime he would hardly have stayed around for 85 minutes while cadaver odour formed.  If the dogs were correct that only leaves one possibility.

But you are assuming that the scent alerted to was deposited on the 3rd May.   No-one knows  - or can know when it was left there.    It could have been at any time during the months after 3rd May -  right up to the day before the dogs searched.

A dead body does not have to have been in situ for cadaverscent to be present.    Why is that so hard to understand when Martin Grime himself has said there are other innocent reasons for why it may be present. 

[sadie]

But you are assuming that the scent alerted to was deposited on the 3rd May.   No-one knows  - or can know when it was left there.    It could have been at any time during the months after 3rd May -  right up to the day before the dogs searched.

A dead body does not have to have been in situ for cadaverscent to be present.    Why is that so hard to understand when Martin Grime himself has said there are other innocent reasons for why it may be present.

 

[pegasus]

... that in view of what they have found out during interviews with the 12 families  they feel that may be a possibility? ...

12 families whose cases did not involve death.

[Mr Gray]

Suggestive or otherwise, SY now stating that Madeleine might be dead is significant.  For them to state she might have died in apartment 5a is revealing to say the least.  This is quite a change in position for SY.

The only evidence which points to this being the case is that provided by the dogs.  There is no evidence that any of the known suspects had killed previously so effectively rules out modus operandi.  Had a stranger committed the crime he would hardly have stayed around for 85 minutes while cadaver odour formed. If the dogs were correct that only leaves one possibility.

Do you simply not understand the dogs alerts....as Grime has stated there are several reasons the dogs may have alerted...mainly cross contamination...but you want to contradict grime and say there is only one possibility

[slartibartfast]

Do you simply not understand the dogs alerts....as Grime has stated there are several reasons the dogs may have alerted...mainly cross contamination...but you want to contradict grime and say there is only one possibility

Of course you could work in the assumption of the most obvious cause until such time as one of the other causes is identified as more probably.

[ferryman]

Benice:

Their [Scotland Yard's] present investigations are centred on the monster who targetted British families and who has not been tracked down.       It seems obvious to me that the comment was in relation to that person - who seems to have been completely forgotten in the eagerness of some people to make 'the comment' prove that SY are now pointing the finger at the McCanns.


Benice is bang-on right (as usual).

A monster with a predilection for sexually abusing children in their beds was identified and Scotland Yard are seeking to eliminate him from the Madeleine enquiry.

Doubtless the same line of enquiry would have been followed even if an English dog had never set paw on Portuguese soil ...

[gilet]

I agree

Let's  address those  'explanations'  given by Gilet   :

1 )  Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because  witness interviews are being undertaken

2 )   Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A  because of discussion with the PJ which is currently being undertaken 

3 )  Scotland Yard think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because they are reviewing the modus operandi of suspects


What a load of gobbledigook  ! 


In the meanwhile,  the explanation being   fiercely rejected,  is the in-your-face  obvious one  :


Scotland think Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A because a cadaver dog alerted there

Your utterly illogical refusal to accept that other possibilities could exist and your clinging to your guess that SY are entirely reliant on information which has been known for 7 years for what you suppose is a recent change of direction in their thinking is actually quite sad.

The content of the above post demonstrates that you are not approaching the case with an open mind but are determined to make the new statement fit a predetermined idea that you have.

It is simply a guess on your part as to what the motive for this change is and indeed you are also guessing that this statement does reflect such a change. It may. It may not. Just as the reason may be the dogs or it may not.

The good thing is that the refusal of forum posters to accept that other alternatives do in fact exist does not make those alternatives disappear in the real world where SY are conducting their investigation.

[sadie]

Your utterly illogical refusal to accept that other possibilities could exist and your clinging to your guess that SY are entirely reliant on information which has been known for 7 years for what you suppose is a recent change of direction in their thinking is actually quite sad.

The content of the above post demonstrates that you are not approaching the case with an open mind but are determined to make the new statement fit a predetermined idea that you have.

It is simply a guess on your part as to what the motive for this change is and indeed you are also guessing that this statement does reflect such a change. It may. It may not. Just as the reason may be the dogs or it may not.

The good thing is that the refusal of forum posters to accept that other alternatives do in fact exist does not make those alternatives disappear in the real world where SY are conducting their investigation.

The good thing is that the refusal of forum posters to accept that other alternatives do in fact exist does not make those alternatives disappear in the real world where SY are conducting their investigation.

Well put, gilet.

SY are the important ones NOT a load of forum posters second guessing.  People who never have an open mind... but are stuck in a vindictive and suspicious groove.

[Mr Gray]

The good thing is that the refusal of forum posters to accept that other alternatives do in fact exist does not make those alternatives disappear in the real world where SY are conducting their investigation.

Well put, gilet.

SY are the important ones NOT a load of forum posters second guessing.  People who never have an open mind... but are stuck in a vindictive and suspicious groove.

high five Sadie

[Carana]

Suggestive or otherwise, SY now stating that Madeleine might be dead is significant.  For them to state she might have died in apartment 5a is revealing to say the least.  This is quite a change in position for SY.

The only evidence which points to this being the case is that provided by the dogs.  There is no evidence that any of the known suspects had killed previously so effectively rules out modus operandi.  Had a stranger committed the crime he would hardly have stayed around for 85 minutes while cadaver odour formed.  If the dogs were correct that only leaves one possibility.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

- There is a possibility that Eddie was correct, but there is no evidence as to what caused his alert. It could be any human decomp scent within his training parameters. Human remains do not necessarily involve the death of the individual, and body fluids are not just blood.

- 'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.RD.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood to very small samples in any environment or terrain.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

He states that Keela only reacts to the physical presence of blood, but he does not say that of Eddie. The bedroom alert was to an airborne scent, but there's no way of knowing what that may have been, when it got there, how it got there, nor when any material object related to that scent may have been removed. The last occupants left only one week before, after which it was presumably locked up, thereby potentially leaving recent scent. It would then have been up to the police to eliminate potentially irrelevant explanations, which seems to have amounted to asking around if anyone knew if someone had died there. There is nothing in the files to suggest that the more recent occupants had been interviewed (although the Met have have contacted them as part of their review).

- A sexual abuser can go on to commit even more serious crimes if the opportunity arises.  The police would presumably be able to build up a profile of based on the information they've gathered. No one knows if he may have killed before or not. I hope they have his DNA to identify him, whether he was involved in Madeleine's disappearance or not, for the sake of the other families and to get him off the street.