A Question of Propaganda.

[Alfred R Jones]

And how many of those parents have read those files do you think ?

No idea.  One doesn't need to have read the files, the conclusion of the PT AG which was published when the case was shelved tells everyone what they need to know - no evidence of any crime committed by the McCanns or Robert Murat.

[Benice]

In the real world in a real investigation they would have merited hardly a mention ... there must be many instances when similar investigative occurrences have failed to produce the required evidence, forcing a different tack.

In this instance looking for fresh investigative avenues was not pursued.  The 'findings' of the dogs were added to the pejorative propaganda of 'swingers' and '100% Madeleine's DNA' in the hope that what had worked in Cipriano would work yet again in McCann.

That it is nonsense is proved by lack of charge of the targets.

That it is efficacy as propaganda is proved by a quick glance at any sceptic website or comment arena such as Mr Amaral's Go fund me appeal.

The similarities in pattern are unmistakeable IMO - even down to the claimed usage of a fridge.

[Mr Gray]

So you can tell me how certain items of clothes got contaminated? Let's hear it.

you have everything back to front...as did the pj....its up to grime to explain the alerts...not us or the McCanns...so tell us what explanation Grime gave and we can go from there

[Mr Gray]

b....r all, in all likelihood.

Also, how many of these other parents actually know, there is no evidence which shows an abduction took place ?

they know there is no evidence against the McCANNS that's what's important

[G-Unit]

Why have you taken just that one sentence out of context?

The full context is :-

Quote
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.

unquote

IMO the sentence should be read in context - to ensure that a different 'meaning ' to the one intended by M.Grime in that part of his statement  - will not be conveyed to the reader.

Grime trained and worked with his dogs and was very sure about their abilities;

The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible.....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......The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained..It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell. ....
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

When he gives his professional opinion, therefore, it is based on the above belief in his dogs. When it comes to the legal position he reminds that there is a burden of proof which must be met; dog alerts or their handler's opinion won't stand up in court, forensics are required.

The question to be addressed is whether to dismiss the expert's opinion because the forensic team didn't get sufficient evidence for a court case. If investigators dismiss alerts completely which can't be verified they would look silly if the dogs were later proved correct. if they rely on the alerts completely they would again look silly if another scenario is proved correct. The sensible approach seems to be to keep the alerts in mind during the investigation as they suggest one possible scenario.

[G-Unit]

No idea.  One doesn't need to have read the files, the conclusion of the PT AG which was published when the case was shelved tells everyone what they need to know - no evidence of any crime committed by the McCanns or Robert Murat.

And, as the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary pointed out, no evidence of innocence either. So they are still at square one. No evidence they did anything, no evidence that anyone else did anything.

[faithlilly]

Looking at the reports that concentrated on the dog searches what I find interesting is where the dogs DIDN'T alert as much as where the did. So many properties and not one alert yet multiple alerts in properties and objects connected to the McCanns. Does anyone really believe that this is a coincidence ?

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

[Benice]

And, as the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary pointed out, no evidence of innocence either. So they are still at square one. No evidence they did anything, no evidence that anyone else did anything.

IMO that quote from 2008 (which took into account the fact that the McCanns were still arguidos) -  has long been superseded by SY's statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

[Alfred R Jones]

And, as the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary pointed out, no evidence of innocence either. So they are still at square one. No evidence they did anything, no evidence that anyone else did anything.

I wasn't aware he had said this - do you have the exact quote, and the date when he said it?  Thanks.

[Alfred R Jones]

Looking at the reports that concentrated on the dog searches what I find interesting is where the dogs DIDN'T alert as much as where the did. So many properties and not one alert yet multiple alerts in properties and objects connected to the McCanns. Does anyone really believe that this is a coincidence ?

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

No.

[Benice]

Looking at the reports that concentrated on the dog searches what I find interesting is where the dogs DIDN'T alert as much as where the did. So many properties and not one alert yet multiple alerts in properties and objects connected to the McCanns. Does anyone really believe that this is a coincidence ?

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

IMO it was down to the amount of time spent at each location. 

If not then we are supposed to believe that not a drop of blood or any other alertable cellular material had been deposited in any of those other apartments/cars for years and years on end.   I simply don't buy that.

IMO If the same attention and time had been given to other locations -  then in view of the dog's remarkable abilities to detect the tiniest of odours even from decades ago - more alerts would have occurred.

[Mr Gray]

Grime trained and worked with his dogs and was very sure about their abilities;

The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible.....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......The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained..It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell. ....
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

When he gives his professional opinion, therefore, it is based on the above belief in his dogs. When it comes to the legal position he reminds that there is a burden of proof which must be met; dog alerts or their handler's opinion won't stand up in court, forensics are required.

The question to be addressed is whether to dismiss the expert's opinion because the forensic team didn't get sufficient evidence for a court case. If investigators dismiss alerts completely which can't be verified they would look silly if the dogs were later proved correct. if they rely on the alerts completely they would again look silly if another scenario is proved correct. The sensible approach seems to be to keep the alerts in mind during the investigation as they suggest one possible scenario.

Grime said...in my opinion...the alerts are suggestive... grime could have said...in my opinion the dogs ARE alerting to cadaver scent..he didn't...

That doesn't sound very sure to me and that is an actual quote from Grime...he cannot change that..if ever he appears in any case in court he will be reminded of that.

As regards looking silly...that's absolute rubbish again. Redwood has said Maddie may still be alive...he is prepared to disregard the alert and he is on record as saying so.

The so called alerts are used by the sceptics as propaganda

without confirmation the alerts are useless because they tell us nothing...that's a fact

[xtina]

every parent of  a missing child I can think of supports the McCanns....in fact it's hard to think of anyone in the public eye who doesn't support them

what sort of propaganda is this then

every parent of  a missing child I can think of supports the McCanns....in fact it's hard to think of anyone in the public eye who doesn't support them

how do you know they support the mccs ...they are not going to come out and say they don't are they ...and i think in reality ...they have there own child missing ...so i think you might find the mccs are not on there priority list...

as for the public eye ....get real ....half of them are fed the abduction theory .....that's all they are allowed to know .. ..the other side most of the % of the public aren't bothered and fed up of the mccs whining.because [the mccs sowed there own seed when they left there babies alone].....

the other side of the coin is censored....all the time this is happening ......you will never ...never know what actual support the mccs have babe.....you only think you know

[Mr Gray]

what sort of propaganda is this then

every parent of  a missing child I can think of supports the McCanns....in fact it's hard to think of anyone in the public eye who doesn't support them

how do you know they support the mccs ...they are not going to come out and say they don't are they ...and i think in reality ...they have there own child missing ...so i think you might find the mccs are not on there priority list...

as for the public eye ....get real ....half of them are fed the abduction theory .....that's all they are allowed to know .. ..the other side most of the % of the public aren't bothered and fed up of the mccs whining.because [the mccs sowed there own seed when they left there babies alone].....

the other side of the coin is censored....all the time this is happening ......you will never ...never know what actual support the mccs have babe.....you only think you know

I am going by what they have stated publicly...you can assume they are all liars that's up to you

[Mr Gray]

And, as the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary pointed out, no evidence of innocence either. So they are still at square one. No evidence they did anything, no evidence that anyone else did anything.

square one is innocence..as I have pointed out...there is no evidence the Needhams are innocent...yopu are simply throwing mud and hoping some of it sticks