Cadaver Dog Alert Convictions without a body

[misty]

Try this thread, Misty,

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3604.msg137130#msg137130

I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The Judicial Police is in possession of the originals of the search reports and the videos showing all searches performed and the reaction of the dogs. In addition to the report, Sam Harkeness of the Progresso Nacional Police Agency sent me by email several written questions sent by the Judicial Police together with a request for a written deposition. This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post425.html#p425

Thanks for that link, Anna. It doesn't really clarify anything for me, though, as that is a transcript from his rogatory in 2008. I can't see the original report of 17th August 2007 anywhere for confirmation that it was submitted on behalf of S. Yorks Police rather than a freelance basis.

[Anna]

Martin Grime was not a serving police officer when working in Praia Da Luz and although retaining his expert accreditation it is interesting to note that his dog did not.

That he was retired, explains why he was not in uniform when working, unlike the officers who took part in the most recent dog searches in PDL.  He was there in a private capacity although someone must have contracted him for the job, whether that was Leicestershire police or the Portuguese authorities ... who knows ... but someone lifted the bill and as a private contractor he would be paid for his work.

I think concerns could legitimately be raised at the elapse of time between Madeleine's disappearance and the deployment of a VRD.

One wonders about the difference in cost, if any, of using a contractor and his dog and using a police dog team.


**snip
Martin GRIME was an ACPO accredited dog handler whilst he was a
serving police officer, but forfeited accreditation upon his retirement in
July 2007. We mentioned that Mr GRIME remains on the ACPO
accredited list of experts though his EVRD is no longer accredited by
ACPO. http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

Thank you, Brietta.
So much has been spoken about whether he was retired from the Police force or not. This seems to determine that he was in fact retired. Was he not in the same association as The officer who brought him to PDL?
I also thought the delay in bringing the dogs was because the PJ were not convinced that they were a necessity.

[Anna]

Thanks for that link, Anna. It doesn't really clarify anything for me, though, as that is a transcript from his rogatory in 2008. I can't see the original report of 17th August 2007 anywhere for confirmation that it was submitted on behalf of S. Yorks Police rather than a freelance basis.

Nothing on headed paper. I think Brietta might have found the answer.

Another link......near bottom page.

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

August 2007

OPERATION TASK CANINE SEARCH REPORT

Personal Profile

I am a 'retired' police officer, formally a senior instructor at the South
Yorkshire Police dog training establishment.


I have 35 years experience in the training of dogs both within the police
service and in the public sector.


I specialise in the development and training of specialist search dogs to
include narcotics, explosives, currency, human remains, blood and semen.


I am the Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.


I am a U.K.A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers, England and Wales)
accredited police dog training instructor. I am a Subject Matter Expert in
forensic canine search and on the N.P.I.A. (National Policing Improvement
Agency) Expert Advisers database.


I advise Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the
operational deployment of Police Dogs in the role of Homicide investigation.


I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use
of dogs and facilitate training.


I am regularly deployed to homicide cases within my portfolio and form a
'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog teams
from Dyfed Powys and USA.


I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs:
'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an
Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD).

[Brietta]

Thank you, Brietta.
So much has been spoken about whether he was retired from the Police force or not. This seems to determine that he was in fact retired. Was he not in the same association as The officer who brought him to PDL?
I also thought the delay in bringing the dogs was because the PJ were not convinced that they were a necessity.

I should have added the following to the link, Anna, makes it easier to find.

3.10.11
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

I too was under the impression that the PJ had refused the help of specialist dogs earlier in the investigation when they would have had more of a chance of finding something ... however I can't find a reliable official source for that.

[Anna]

I should have added the following to the link, Anna, makes it easier to find.

3.10.11
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

I too was under the impression that the PJ had refused the help of specialist dogs earlier in the investigation when they would have had more of a chance of finding something ... however I can't find a reliable official source for that.

Thank you Brietta, Below is a link to Mark Harrison report on page 6 you will see that the police in Britain are restricted to using certain dog teams due to quarantine regulations. This might be why MG was used?
I will look for something regarding the possibility that the PJ were hesitant in having the dogs over, but not now....its too late.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html

[faithlilly]

I belueve Dave Edgar was no longer a serving police officer when employed by the McCanns for his investigative skills. Does that make him less trustworthy ?

[Mr Gray]

I belueve Dave Edgar was no longer a serving police officer when employed by the McCanns for his investigative skills. Does that make him less trustworthy ?

for those who understand the dog alerts it matters not...it's what the dogs find that's important...and they found nothing to confirm Maddie's death

[Eleanor]

for those who understand the dog alerts it matters not...it's what the dogs find that's important...and they found nothing to confirm Maddie's death

And nor did David Edgar.  Does that make him less reliable than the dogs?

[Anna]

I belueve Dave Edgar was no longer a serving police officer when employed by the McCanns for his investigative skills. Does that make him less trustworthy ?

I don't think anyone is saying that MG was not trustworthy, Faith. I think they are just curious, as to who was employing him at the time.
It has been gone over many times, but at the end of the day, the dogs findings were of no evidential value without substantial evidence to back it up.

[faithlilly]

I don't think anyone is saying that MG was not trustworthy, Faith. I think they are just curious, as to who was employing him at the time.
It has been gone over many times, but at the end of the day, the dogs findings were of no evidential value without substantial evidence to back it up.

I think you're being naive Anna  if you think the rubbishing of Grime's reputation is not what's happening here. As to the dog alerts, if they are unimportant why are supporters still after eight years desperately trying to discredit them ?

[Anna]

I think you're being naive Anna  if you think the rubbishing of Grime's reputation is not what's happening here. As to the dog alerts, if they are unimportant we are supporters still after eight years desperately trying to discredit them ?

These arguments will go and on, as well you know, Faith.

[Jean-Pierre]

I think you're being naive Anna  if you think the rubbishing of Grime's reputation is not what's happening here. As to the dog alerts, if they are unimportant we are supporters still after eight years desperately trying to discredit them ?

There is nothing to "discredit".  Grime deployed the dogs, there were a number of alerts.  Material was gathered and and forensically tested.  The forensic material offered nothing of evidential value.  And there this particular avenue of enquiry rests.

Apart from a small group of people with very limited knowledge of legal process and evidence, who insist that the dog alets actually mean something.  Without material evidence they do not. 

[faithlilly]

These arguments will go and on, as well you know, Faith.

Indeed Anna. What is important is that OG know the value of the dog alerts.

[faithlilly]

There is nothing to "discredit".  Grime deployed the dogs, there were a number of alerts.  Material was gathered and and forensically tested.  The forensic material offered nothing of evidential value.  And there this particular avenue of enquiry rests.

Apart from a small group of people with very limited knowledge of legal process and evidence, who insist that the dog alets actually mean something.  Without material evidence they do not.

You would think that wouldn't you JP ? So why the necessity to bring up MG's professional status at this point at all ?

[Eleanor]

There is nothing to "discredit".  Grime deployed the dogs, there were a number of alerts.  Material was gathered and and forensically tested.  The forensic material offered nothing of evidential value.  And there this particular avenue of enquiry rests.

Apart from a small group of people with very limited knowledge of legal process and evidence, who insist that the dog alets actually mean something.  Without material evidence they do not.

That is the problem.  As long as people go on claiming that the dog alerts meant something then others will go on pointing out that they didn't.
Any dog can find a cadaver if there is one, but on this occasion there wasn't.  And nor was there any other evidence pointing to such.

Which brings us back to The Topic of This Thread.  Hopefully.