Have the dog alerts any significance?

[Angelo222]

according to grime he did....you dont take much notice of what grime says do you

He alerted to the cupboard unit, Cuddlecat just happened to have been put in there.  Had he found cadaver odour on the toy he would have done so when he lifted it out of the toy bucket.

[Mr Gray]

The dogs are only as good as their training.  They find what they are trained to find.

they do find what they are trained to find but thats not what we are talking about
we are talking about unconfirmed alerts.....grime says no information can be taken from these

[Mr Gray]

He alerted to the cupboard unit, Cuddle at just happened to have been put in there.

so you are saying grime is wrong

The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

[Angelo222]

According to Grime, he did.

But no, he didn't.

Agreed, it is the humans who are fallible.  The dog found a target scent by the cupboard, what that scent related to is unknown.

[ferryman]

He alerted to the cupboard unit, Cuddlecat just happened to have been put in there.  Had he found cadaver odour on the toy he would have done so when he lifted it out of the toy bucket.

Which is where prior reconnoitres are (supposed to) come in and, at the gym, apparently did.

Or did the PJ read these translated instructions Mark Harrison gave them on how to conduct inspections in vehicles and buildings?

[G-Unit]

Grime had an opportunity to say in his opinion the dogs alerted to cadaver odour
He didn't do it
What grime believes is not important...
There are 3 separate sources that tell us the alerts are unreliable as evidence
You can believe what you like
As can Grime
But that's all it is
Belief

I think I have just a little more reason to trust a man who trained and handled detection dogs for a living (and still does) than someone on a discussion board. The possibility of death in 5A remains. It stays there alongside abduction as Redwood said. Whether he thought of it on his own or because of the dogs we don't know, but he brought some in too.

[Alfie]

Isn't that the unknown quantity?

Well it does rather suggest that the dog alerts can tell us nothing useful to further the case doesn't it?  If Madeleine woke and wandered and was removed outside the apartment whatever the dog alerted to is nothing to do with the case.

[Mr Gray]

I think I have just a little more reason to trust a man who trained and handled detection dogs for a living (and still does) than someone on a discussion board. The possibility of death in 5A remains. It stays there alongside abduction as Redwood said. Whether he thought of it on his own or because of the dogs we don't know, but he brought some in too.

the possibility of death in 5a remains....as it did before the dogs alerts
I too trust Grimes opinion as opposed to the posters here who think they understand the alerts better than Grime

glad you agree with me on this

[ShiningInLuz]

Please stop any and all goading.

And I have had to remove a number of forum posts today and yesterday re libel.  Kindly stop that too.

[Brietta]

Yet another layman's view.

LOL, Slarti.  Even a layman has ...
(a) common sense
(b) the ability to read and assimilate information

One source of the information (b) at which you scoff can be read here ...

5.9. Method of Indication
It is recognised that in the operational environment dogs should not be encouraged to
retrieve, mouth or interfere with any item of property. This ensures that evidence can
remain in situ prior to any forensic analysis, photographs etc. It also avoids concerns
regarding cross contamination. It is therefore recommended that all police dogs have a
no contact, passive indication upon locating property. The dog should quickly learn to
understand “I search, I find” and then receive a reward. This reward is normally a toy
delivered once the correct behaviour has been established.
https://cinotecniamilitar.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/201103uopdogsmog1-1.pdf

As far as (a) is concerned ... logic dictates that it is not a good idea to risk contaminating evidence (or being contaminated) ~ hence protective clothing, gloves, masks, evidence bags etc ... and I would imagine that were one a handler with a trained explosives finding dog one would be particularly diligent in ensuring that the dog was trained to the nth degree in not picking up what it was trained to find and throwing it around the place.
Anyway, following the link I have provided will enable even a layman to have a greater understanding of precisely why the dogs visit to Praia da Luz was of no significance either to finding what had happened to Madeleine or to solving the case.

Worth reading just for the explanation of the value of two handlers working a scene. 

[ferryman]

LOL, Slarti.  Even a layman has ...
(a) common sense
(b) the ability to read and assimilate information

One source of the information (b) at which you scoff can be read here ...

5.9. Method of Indication
It is recognised that in the operational environment dogs should not be encouraged to
retrieve, mouth or interfere with any item of property. This ensures that evidence can
remain in situ prior to any forensic analysis, photographs etc. It also avoids concerns
regarding cross contamination. It is therefore recommended that all police dogs have a
no contact, passive indication upon locating property. The dog should quickly learn to
understand “I search, I find” and then receive a reward. This reward is normally a toy
delivered once the correct behaviour has been established.
https://cinotecniamilitar.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/201103uopdogsmog1-1.pdf

As far as (a) is concerned ... logic dictates that it is not a good idea to risk contaminating evidence (or being contaminated) ~ hence protective clothing, gloves, masks, evidence bags etc ... and I would imagine that were one a handler with a trained explosives finding dog one would be particularly diligent in ensuring that the dog was trained to the nth degree in not picking up what it was trained to find and throwing it around the place.
Anyway, following the link I have provided will enable even a layman to have a greater understanding of precisely why the dogs visit to Praia da Luz was of no significance either to finding what had happened to Madeleine or to solving the case.

Worth reading just for the explanation of the value of two handlers working a scene.

Yes! (to what I embolden).

Except that I wouldn't imagine that ....

[slartibartfast]

LOL, Slarti.  Even a layman has ...
(a) common sense
(b) the ability to read and assimilate information

One source of the information (b) at which you scoff can be read here ...

5.9. Method of Indication
It is recognised that in the operational environment dogs should not be encouraged to
retrieve, mouth or interfere with any item of property. This ensures that evidence can
remain in situ prior to any forensic analysis, photographs etc. It also avoids concerns
regarding cross contamination. It is therefore recommended that all police dogs have a
no contact, passive indication upon locating property. The dog should quickly learn to
understand “I search, I find” and then receive a reward. This reward is normally a toy
delivered once the correct behaviour has been established.
https://cinotecniamilitar.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/201103uopdogsmog1-1.pdf

As far as (a) is concerned ... logic dictates that it is not a good idea to risk contaminating evidence (or being contaminated) ~ hence protective clothing, gloves, masks, evidence bags etc ... and I would imagine that were one a handler with a trained explosives finding dog one would be particularly diligent in ensuring that the dog was trained to the nth degree in not picking up what it was trained to find and throwing it around the place.
Anyway, following the link I have provided will enable even a layman to have a greater understanding of precisely why the dogs visit to Praia da Luz was of no significance either to finding what had happened to Madeleine or to solving the case.

Worth reading just for the explanation of the value of two handlers working a scene.

Can you show the dog throwing CC?

[ferryman]

Can you show the dog throwing CC?

It's recorded in the written record of PJ Inspector Dias.

[Eleanor]

I have seen video coverage of Eddie throwing Cuddle Cat around.

[ferryman]

Eddie, the dog with an advanced training to detect mortal victims (E.V.R.D.), searches and locates human remains and body fluids, including blood, in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was done with human blood and decaying piglets that were born dead. The importance of this training is that the dog learnt to identify the odour of a decaying body that is not food. This guaranties that the dog ignores the 'bacon sandwich' and the 'kebab', etc. that are always present in the environment. Besides that the dog will not alert to a meal prepared at home or on any other place. For instance, the dog will be efficient on searching a cadaver in café where the clients can be seated eating a bacon sandwich. As a complement of this training, the dog receives an additional training in the USA, in association with the FBI, in which will be used exclusively human remains' (sic) (page 2493 and 2494).

This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'

These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.

It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.

In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.

From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_11_VOLUMES.htm