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

[ferryman]

Must be a new definition of the word critique

Nope.

Honest and rigorous application of the word by its traditional and long-established meaning

[Mr Gray]

Grime said of Eddie;

 he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour.

So Eddie recognised an odour and responded by barking as he had been trained to do.

Grime then explains further. Although the dog has communicated that the odour is there, that doesn't explain why it's there or how it got there. These questions have to be answered in order to secure a conviction in court. In order to take a case to court evidence is needed to explain the who why what when and where.

I have no problem with what Grime says..eddie alerts when he recognises an odour...what Grime does not say is that every alert indicates an odour has been found...Grime was asked twice in his rog if the alert confirmed the odour...he did not answer the question

[ferryman]

Grime said of Eddie;

 he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour.

So Eddie recognised an odour and responded by barking as he had been trained to do.

Grime then explains further. Although the dog has communicated that the odour is there, that doesn't explain why it's there or how it got there. These questions have to be answered in order to secure a conviction in court. In order to take a case to court evidence is needed to explain the who why what when and where.

Eddie, apparently, recognised an odour in the gym he could find no trace of when the same clothing was in the villa.

[Brietta]

There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.


Martin Grime.

It is very difficult to understand why people misinterpret what Martin Grime is saying.  He could not be more specific and uses simple and straightforward language in explanation.

[Mr Gray]

'With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver'
 OR
 Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred''
 There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.


posters on here are assuming that eddie's alerts are to cadaver odour......Grime says that in order to undoubtedly affirm there must be confirmation....posters on here can say what they like...it's what Grime says that counts

[Mr Gray]

It is very difficult to understand why people misinterpret what Martin Grime is saying.  He is could not be more specific and uses simple and straightforward language in explanation.

it's very easy to understand..its called denial

[stephen25000]

It is very difficult to understand why people misinterpret what Martin Grime is saying.  He is could not be more specific and uses simple and straightforward language in explanation.

So when exactly did he say the dogs indications weren't triggered by the presence of a body ?

[ferryman]

So when exactly did he say the dogs indications weren't triggered by the presence of a body ?

Wrong question.

When, exactly, did he say they were?

[Mr Gray]

So when exactly did he say the dogs indications weren't triggered by the presence of a body ?

if you understood you would not ask that question...because the alerts may have been triggered by a cadaver... the whoLe point is that you cannot seem to grasp...and as John pointed out.  is NO ONE KNOWS

[stephen25000]

Wrong question.

When, exactly, did he say they were?

Why is it the wrong question ?

The dogs alerted.

Get over it.

Nothing you can say will ever change that.

[Mr Gray]

Why is it the wrong question ?

The dogs alerted.

Get over it.

Nothing you can say will ever change that.

and what did they alert to...no one knows

[Brietta]

Why is it the wrong question ?

The dogs alerted.

Get over it.

Nothing you can say will ever change that.

Nothing will ever change the fact that no-one will ever know to what Eddie alerted ... although we can strongly suspect that we were watching the first act of a dog which was past its prime the finale of which was enacted in Haute de la Garenne.

[stephen25000]

Nothing will ever change the fact that no-one will ever know to what Eddie alerted ... although we can strongly suspect that we were watching the first act of a dog which was past its prime the finale of which was enacted in Haute de la Garenne.

You will find the Haute de la Garenne case isn't over yet.

[ferryman]

You will find the Haute de la Garenne case isn't over yet.

So you keep saying.

That aspect of the enquiry that probed possible murder at the former home was long ago over.

There may be further enquiries about abuse ....

[stephen25000]

So you keep saying.

That aspect of the enquiry that probed possible murder at the former home was long ago over.

There may be further enquiries about abuse ....

There will be.

Now who brought up this matter this morning ferryman ?