Was it all Amaral's fault?

[sadie]

So do you go along with Amaral in thinking Madeleine is dead?  Isn't that the old view? Like I sensed from reading her posts that Eleanor had a strong view that Madeleine is alive.  I know you blame the McCanns for being so stupid about their child care, well so do I, and I think they have realised that too, but that still doesn't explain what happened to MM.

Me too, I have strong and solid reasons for believing Madeleine to be alive

.... but finding her; that will be very difficult.

I am with you, Robitty, keep searching. 

Without searching Madeleine certainly will not be recovered.

[Robittybob1]

Me too, I have strong and solid reasons for believing Madeleine to be alive

.... but finding her; that will be very difficult.

I am with you, Robitty, keep searching. 

Without searching Madeleine certainly will not be recovered.

I wonder if Amaral has hidden information that might be helpful?  He has kept stuff out of sight so does that mean it is still kept somewhere.
The act of searching can't be done in a physical way.
What happened before in NZ was that one of the people involved in the Scott Watson case became active on a message board and I was alert enough to notice and I contacted him and got his name and asked around and got a photo so we were able to identify the person known in the case as "the mystery man".   Was it possible for the same to happen again?  Weird thought isn't it. 

Goncalo is sure she is deceased so why would you be sure she is alive?  Anyone being sure Madeleine is alive is in the "odd" category, for you could say scientifically "there is a slim chance she is still alive" but being sure?  Where does that assuredness come from?
Goncalo gets his assuredness from incorrect interpretation of the EVR dog alerts and DNA evidence.  Taking a small possibility and turning that into a fact.

[slartibartfast]

I wonder if Amaral has hidden information that might be helpful?  He has kept stuff out of sight so does that mean it is still kept somewhere.
The act of searching can't be done in a physical way.
What happened before in NZ was that one of the people involved in the Scott Watson case became active on a message board and I was alert enough to notice and I contacted him and got his name and asked around and got a photo so we were able to identify the person known in the case as "the mystery man".   Was it possible for the same to happen again?  Weird thought isn't it. 

Goncalo is sure she is deceased so why would you be sure she is alive?  Anyone being sure Madeleine is alive is in the "odd" category, for you could say scientifically "there is a slim chance she is still alive" but being sure?  Where does that assuredness come from?
Goncalo gets his assuredness from incorrect interpretation of the EVR dog alerts and DNA evidence.  Taking a small possibility and turning that into a fact.

Be careful where you take this.

[ferryman]

I wonder if Amaral has hidden information that might be helpful?  He has kept stuff out of sight so does that mean it is still kept somewhere.
The act of searching can't be done in a physical way.
What happened before in NZ was that one of the people involved in the Scott Watson case became active on a message board and I was alert enough to notice and I contacted him and got his name and asked around and got a photo so we were able to identify the person known in the case as "the mystery man".   Was it possible for the same to happen again?  Weird thought isn't it. 

Goncalo is sure she is deceased so why would you be sure she is alive?  Anyone being sure Madeleine is alive is in the "odd" category, for you could say scientifically "there is a slim chance she is still alive" but being sure?  Where does that assuredness come from?
Goncalo gets his assuredness from incorrect interpretation of the EVR dog alerts and DNA evidence.  Taking a small possibility and turning that into a fact.

Dog alerts are intelligence rather than evidence (unless corroborated by something retrieved in the vicinity of the alert and examined in a laboratory).

And the enhanced victim recovery dog is a creation, entirely of Martin Grime's making, that came into existence when Grime bestowed the title upon Eddie (following a largely unsuccessful trip to America on SYP business) and that ceased to exist (worldwide) when Eddie (finally) hung up his paws

[slartibartfast]

Dog alerts are intelligence rather than evidence (unless corroborated by something retrieved in the vicinity of the alert and examined in a laboratory).

And the enhanced victim recovery dog is a creation, entirely of Martin Grime's making, that came into existence when Grime bestowed the title upon Eddie (following a largely unsuccessful trip to America on SYP business) and that ceased to exist (worldwide) when Eddie (finally) hung up his paws

Please cite "unsuccessful"

[ferryman]

Please cite "unsuccessful"

Grime went to America in the New Year 2006 on a trip billed in advance as so that Keela could (sic) assist the FBI in two murder enquiries.

Advanced publicity of that trip contained no reference to Eddie (then unknown outside police circles).

Grime returned back to England (having made the trip, so far as I can gather, without dogs) and in a PDR, pulled the wool over the eyes of some dope in a PDR that he had taken Eddie (who, then, would have been aged about 5 or 6, and just 18 months from retirement as a police dog) across to America for "enhanced" training on human remains.

Two FOI answers to questions submitted by me confirm that SYP have no record of any training on human remains in America (for Eddie).

A third FOI answer (to a question submitted by someone else) asking specifically about Eddie's training and preparation for work as a police dog confirms that Eddie's training was (sic) in accordance with standard ACPO guidelines (which say nothing about sending dogs to America to be trained on human remains).

That same question confirmed the true tally of cases Eddie has been involved in as 37 (rather than over 200 claimed by Grime).

Link to follow:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4198615/The-police-dog-that-earns-more-than-her-chief-constable.html

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

Two key points to note:

first an absence (no reference to Eddie, then unknown outside police circles).

Second, the cited reason for the trip: so that Keela could assist the FBI in two murder enquires

[stephen25000]

Grime went to America in the New Year 2006 on a trip billed in advance as so that Keela could (sic) assist the FBI in two murder enquiries.

Advanced publicity of that trip contained no reference to Eddie (then unknown outside police circles).

Grime returned back to England (having made the trip, so far as I can gather, without dogs) and in a PDR, pulled the wool over the eyes of some dope in a PDR that he had taken Eddie (who, then, would have been aged about 5 or 6, and just 18 months from retirement as a police dog) across to America for "enhanced" training on human remains.

Two FOI answers to questions submitted by me confirm that SYP have no record of any training on human remains in America (for Eddie).

A third FOI answer (to a question submitted by someone else) asking specifically about Eddie's training and preparation for work as a police dog confirms that Eddie's training was (sic) in accordance with standard ACPO guidelines (which say nothing about sending dogs to America to be trained on human remains).

That same question confirmed the true tally of cases Eddie has been involved in as 37 (rather than over 200 claimed by Grime).

Link to follow:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4198615/The-police-dog-that-earns-more-than-her-chief-constable.html

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

Two key points to note:

first an absence (no reference to Eddie, then unknown outside police circles).

Second, the cited reason for the trip: so that Keela could assist the FBI in two murder enquires

What is very discernible, is that you have a very personal involvement in this case.

As to the F.O.I.  requests, can we see them in theior entirety, with personal details redacted ?

[ferryman]

What is very discernible, is that you have a very personal involvement in this case.

As to the F.O.I.  requests, can we see them in theior entirety, with personal details redacted ?

I would like to request the following under the FOI Act:

1.         Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in within the South Yorkshire Force area over the last five years?  Please provide a breakdown for each year.

2.         Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in outside the South Yorkshire Force Area over the last five years? Please provide a breakdown for each year.

3.         What does the South Yorkshire constabulary charge for Eddie the sniffer dog’s services?

4.         Please could you provide a breakdown of the fees and expenses charged for each case Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog has been deployed in outside the South Yorkshire area in the last three years?

5.         To whom is money made payable for the services of Eddie the sniffer dog?

6.  Who owns Eddie the sniffer dog?

7. What training did Eddie receive to assist him in his duties?

Exemptions Applied:
None

SYP Response:
 

1. Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in within the South Yorkshire Force area over the last five years?

Eddie, the specialist dog is no longer with South Yorkshire Police. He and his handler left the Force in August 2007. The information supplied therefore relates to his service between 2003 and 2007.

 

Information relating directly to the nature of each Victim Search Dog deployment, if made public could cause unnecessary distress to the persons and families connected with the deceased. However, we can provide the following details regarding Victim Search Dog deployments between 2003 and 2007:

 

As two teams working together: handler Ellis and dog Frankie, with handler Grime and dog Eddie have been deployed on twenty occasions, with the recovery of four bodies.

 

Working alone, Grime/Eddie have been deployed on seventeen occasions with the recovery of one body and Ellis/Frankie have been deployed on five occasions with the recovery of three bodies, this includes the recovery of two women in one grave.

 

2. Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in outside the South Yorkshire Force Area over the last five years? Please provide a breakdown for each year.

Out of the twenty occasions where the dog teams were deployed together, two deployments were in the South Yorkshire Police Force area and the remainder were out of the force.

 

All seventeen deployments for Grime/Eddie working alone were to external forces.

 

Two deployments for Ellis/Frankie were in the South Yorkshire Police Force area and the remaining three were to external forces.

 

3. What does the South Yorkshire constabulary charge for Eddie the sniffer dog’s services?

The daily charges for the deployment of Eddie were £700 per day Monday to Friday and £900 per day for weekly leave days and bank holidays. These charges have not changed over the last five years and are still applicable to date.

 

4. Please could you provide a breakdown of the fees and expenses charged for each case Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog has been deployed in outside the South Yorkshire area in the last three years?

The breakdown for the fees and expenses charged for the deployment of Eddie the Springer Spaniel Victim Search Dog outside the force area are calculated as follows:

 

The figures are based on 2006-2007 costing:

 

Salary cost Police Constable: £41,900, 8 hour productive day £192.20

 

Deployment based on 16 hour day Mon to Friday more than 7 days notice

Cost for 8 hour working day

Cost for 8 hours overtime

NI on above

Cost dog for the day £10.52

Use of vehicle based on 300 miles

5% Admin fee

The total amounts to £837 but SYP would charge £700

 

Deployment based on 16 hour day Saturday or Sunday including Bank Holidays or less 7 days notice

Cost for 16 hours at double time

NI on above

Cost dog for the day £10.52

Use of vehicle based on 300 miles

5% Admin fee

The total amounts to £1035.50 but SYP would charge £900

 

5. To whom is money made payable for the services of Eddie the sniffer dog?

All monies received for the deployment of Eddie during his time with South Yorkshire Police were paid to South Yorkshire Police.

 

6. Who owns Eddie the sniffer dog?

Ownership of Eddie was transferred from South Yorkshire Police to his handler Martin Grime when he retired from the Force in 2007.

 

7. What training did Eddie receive to assist him in his duties?

When Eddie was with South Yorkshire Police he received training in line with the ACPO dog committee standards for specialist dog training. The training was and in relation to current dogs is 18 days per annum.

 

www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/dog_training_manual.doc

FOI Category:
Investigations

Dear [name deleted],

With regard to your request in relation to:

"1. Can you confirm that the cadaver dog "Eddie", formerly a police dog under
dog handler and dog instructor Martin Grime, now retired from your force, was
sent to America to be trained on human cadavers and be upgraded to "enhanced"
victim recovery dog?

2. Can you confirm that South Yorkshire Police uses, or has used, an American
device for trapping scents, a "Scent Transfer Unit" or "STU100" in the
training of its cadaver dogs?"

RESPONSE

1. South Yorkshire Police holds information which would tend to confirm this part of your request. This information is contained within the anual Personal Development Review of retired PC GRIME for the year 2005/2006 and states at various points,

"(PC GRIMES) has deployed police dog 'Eddie' to train on human remains in the US. This training has been valuable as it is not possible to utilise human remains in the UK. A full report from the F.B.I. to document his training and operational deployments whilst in America remains pending"

"Deployments have been on a national scale and a recent visit to the F.B.I. in America has created some income generation potential in terms of training."

"Complete sponsored visit to FBI to educate on C.S.I. Dog capabilities - Achieved"

2. From enquiries I have made it would appear that South Yorkshire Police have not deployed or used a device known as a 'Scent Transfer Unit' or 'STU100' within Force either operationally or for evaluation. However the Force does hold information that would indicate that Mr GRIME, whilst serving with this Force IN 2006, did utilise such a device whilst engageD in another Force area. A section of a statement apparently made but not signed by Mr GRIME reads: -

" I developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles by a ST 100 Scent Tranference Unit.

The unit is designed in a two main-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. Ther is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second main part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated the ST 100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.

The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the S100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.

Use of the ST100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.

Operational use of the STU 100 is in a developmental stage"

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by following the advice contained in the separate notice attached to this correspondence:

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely

___________________________

The follow-up quetion:

__________________________-

Freedom of Information Request - Reference No:20110231

REQUEST

[Following a response to request 20110186]

Can I ask, did that FBI report described as 'pending' turn up?

RESPONSE

SYP did not receive a report, therefore there is `no information held'.

[stephen25000]

Dear [name deleted],

With regard to your request in relation to:

"1. Can you confirm that the cadaver dog "Eddie", formerly a police dog under
dog handler and dog instructor Martin Grime, now retired from your force, was
sent to America to be trained on human cadavers and be upgraded to "enhanced"
victim recovery dog?

2. Can you confirm that South Yorkshire Police uses, or has used, an American
device for trapping scents, a "Scent Transfer Unit" or "STU100" in the
training of its cadaver dogs?"

RESPONSE

1. South Yorkshire Police holds information which would tend to confirm this part of your request. This information is contained within the anual Personal Development Review of retired PC GRIME for the year 2005/2006 and states at various points,

"(PC GRIMES) has deployed police dog 'Eddie' to train on human remains in the US. This training has been valuable as it is not possible to utilise human remains in the UK. A full report from the F.B.I. to document his training and operational deployments whilst in America remains pending"

"Deployments have been on a national scale and a recent visit to the F.B.I. in America has created some income generation potential in terms of training."

"Complete sponsored visit to FBI to educate on C.S.I. Dog capabilities - Achieved"

2. From enquiries I have made it would appear that South Yorkshire Police have not deployed or used a device known as a 'Scent Transfer Unit' or 'STU100' within Force either operationally or for evaluation. However the Force does hold information that would indicate that Mr GRIME, whilst serving with this Force IN 2006, did utilise such a device whilst engageD in another Force area. A section of a statement apparently made but not signed by Mr GRIME reads: -

" I developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles by a ST 100 Scent Tranference Unit.

The unit is designed in a two main-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. Ther is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second main part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated the ST 100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.

The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the S100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.

Use of the ST100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.

Operational use of the STU 100 is in a developmental stage"

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by following the advice contained in the separate notice attached to this correspondence:

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely

___________________________

The follow-up quetion:

__________________________-

Freedom of Information Request - Reference No:20110231

So Martin Grime did work alone on cases.

Interesting.

[ferryman]

So Martin Grime did work alone on cases.

Interesting.

But always handling one dog.  When two dogs were deployed (on the same investigation) there would be, always, a second handler also (Ellis) who would handle Frankie.

We saw exactly the same in the second enquiry into Madeleine's disappearance, where dogs Tito and Muzzy were deployed (again, with two handlers).

In (standard) UK police-dog deployment, one handler may not handle more than one dog at the same crime-scene, another indication that Grime was freelance in PdL (he handled two dogs).

[stephen25000]

But always handling one dog.  When two dogs were deployed (on the same investigation) there would be, always, a second handler also (Ellis) who would handle Frankie.

We saw exactly the same in the second enquiry into Madeleine's disappearance, where dogs Tito and Muzzy were deployed (again, with two handlers).

In (standard) UK police-dog deployment, one handler may not handle more than one dog at the same crime-scene, another indication that Grime was freelance in PdL (he handled two dogs).

What exactly is the problem with handling two dogs ?

Please explain.

[stephen25000]

Oh, by the way ferryman, what is the standard procedure in Portugal as regards using dogs ?

Clearly Grime's services were requested.  Who requested them ?

[ferryman]

What exactly is the problem with handling two dogs ?

Please explain.

Quite simply bias (or a preoccupation with minimising risk of bias) that can arise when one handler handles two dogs.

I thought the Portuguese, also, had deployed dogs-and-handlers in one-to-one ratio, also, but looking at the record more closely that's actually not so.

[ferryman]

Oh, by the way ferryman, what is the standard procedure in Portugal as regards using dogs ?

Clearly Grime's services were requested.  Who requested them ?

It seems (studying the record closely) the Portuguese do allow one handler to handle more than one dog.

Harrison made reference to this illusory enhanced victim recovery dog facility that he could offer, but, I think, was no more exact about where it would come from than it would come from England.

[stephen25000]

Quite simply bias (or a preoccupation with minimising risk of bias) that can arise when one handler handles two dogs.

I thought the Portuguese, also, had deployed dogs-and-handlers in one-to-one ratio, also, but looking at the record more closely that's actually not so.

How are you quantifying bias exactly ?

Since any comment on this case you have made is jaundiced by your bias.