Did Eddie and Keela work as a team prior to the Madeleine McCann case?

[ferryman]

My first post offended you because I tried to explain to you how the alerts are evidence and saying  now do you get it? because its not rocket science but you seem to have some difficulty with the basic issue.... a paltry example in any case when compared to some of the things you come out with!

I have never said the cadaver dog alerts were confirmed so why you felt the need to type that to me is anyone's guess...as for being of no use, well that's a matter of opinion, they are of use, Mark Harrison stated they are uncorroborated indications they might not be of use in a court, but who is talking court? The alerts are in general valid cause for justifiable suspicion of death ...cadaver dogs are used for this very reason and not to go find evidence of someone who forgot to brush their teeth!

Google circumstantial evidence and swot up on that...these are the facts, not my opinions

In response to the part I underline, no they aren't.

Anything unacceptable for use in court is not evidence.

Particularly when delivered by a dog incompetently handled at a crime scene ...

[ferryman]

No alert means Eddie found no trace of the scent he was trained to find. When he alerted it was because he did find the scent he was trained to find. There's a big difference.

Not the way Eddie was handled at PdL ....

[mercury]

the alerts are not evidence according to Grime

Whatever mate, you are free to run around the mulberry bush all year and beyond on this issue, and behave like a despot, but it won't be with me and I'm sure that will please you to no extent so don't say I never did you any favours lol

[Mr Gray]

Whatever mate, you are free to run around the mulberry bush all year and beyond on this issue, and behave like a despot, but it won't be with me and I'm sure that will please you to no extent so don't say I never did you any favours lol

you posted the alerts are evidence,,,they are not

[Mr Gray]

No alert means Eddie found no trace of the scent he was trained to find. When he alerted it was because he did find the scent he was trained to find. There's a big difference.

that is just your opinion...there is no evidence eddie alerted to any scent

[mercury]

In response to the part I underline, no they aren't.

Anything unacceptable for use in court is not evidence.

Particularly when delivered by a dog incompetently handled at a crime scene ...

It all depends how you are prepared to define the word

But to say anythng that is not acceptable in any court proceeding is not evidence just for that reason is pushing it to say the least...

As is claiming Grime was incompetent

[Mr Gray]

It all depends how you are prepared to define the word

But to say anythng that is not acceptable in any court proceeding is not evidence just for that reason is pushing it to say the least...

As is claiming Grime was incompetent

Grime has said they have no evidential reliability...what part of that don't you understand

[ferryman]

you posted the alerts are evidence,,,they are not

Correct.

In an English court ...

Mercury/

There is intelligence and there is evidence.

Uncorroborated dog-alerts are intelligence

If you don't believe me, read Mark Harrison's reports.

He confirms that what I say is true.

[Alfred R Jones]

What were the dog alerts evidence of?

[mercury]

Correct.

In an English court ...

Mercury/

There is intelligence and there is evidence.

Uncorroborated dog-alerts are intelligence

If you don't believe me, read Mark Harrison's reports.

He confirms that what I say is true.

Depends how wide the gap is between intelligence and evidence. How can a cadaver dog alert be intelligence if not evidence? Unless it's a false positive. If it is not a false positive it has to be evidence, IE the very fact that a cadaver dog has reacted in a missing person case.  If you think this means nothing at all, well, that's your choice. Ta anyway

[Anna]

I know it is difficult in a “Dog Topic”, but can we please try and keep it within the boundaries of the forum rules. No insults and goading, would be appreciated. Thank You.

[Anna]

I believe that you are all correct in a sense….

Keela was pretty accurate and Eddie was also on the blood alerts.

Apart from that, the only evidence that I can see…. is  that either

a. Eddie was wrong and it was a false alert
or
b. That there was actually a body there at some time.

Neither of the possibilities above have been corroborated with any other evidence, hence no corroborated evidence to date.
 
Unless a confession is obtained at some stage, stating that a body was left in the master bedroom for some time and contaminated clothing with a scent that lasted 3 months, the situation regarding evidence is unlikely to change. IMO

………………………………...............................
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

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

[Mr Gray]

Depends how wide the gap is between intelligence and evidence. How can a cadaver dog alert be intelligence if not evidence? Unless it's a false positive. If it is not a false positive it has to be evidence, IE the very fact that a cadaver dog has reacted in a missing person case.  If you think this means nothing at all, well, that's your choice. Ta anyway

Quite simply they are not evidence because the person who knows the most about them says so

[Mr Gray]

I believe that you are all correct in a sense….

Keela was pretty accurate and Eddie was also on the blood alerts.

Apart from that, the only evidence that I can see…. is  that either

a. Eddie was wrong and it was a false alert
or
b. That there was actually a body there at some time.

Neither of the possibilities above have been corroborated with any other evidence, hence no corroborated evidence to date.
 
Unless a confession is obtained at some stage, stating that a body was left in the master bedroom for some time and contaminated clothing with a scent that lasted 3 months, the situation regarding evidence is unlikely to change. IMO

………………………………...............................
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

http://www.m
ccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

You are wrong Anna
The alerts are not evidence

[ferryman]

Depends how wide the gap is between intelligence and evidence. How can a cadaver dog alert be intelligence if not evidence? Unless it's a false positive. If it is not a false positive it has to be evidence, IE the very fact that a cadaver dog has reacted in a missing person case.  If you think this means nothing at all, well, that's your choice. Ta anyway

Murat's House and Garden.

The property has been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however the house and gardens may benefit from a fully invasive specialist search to preclude the presence of Madeleine McCann.
A method previously employed on similar cases has been to use the below assets.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.

Mark Harrison.