Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

According to the opening post, the purpose of this thread was to discuss what Martin Grime's evidence meant and if it had been misunderstood.

A lot of opinions were posted, mostly by posters who support the parents. They seem to have misunderstood the aim of the thread and haven't really addressed the question posed in the first post.

A good post in my opinion;

"To claim the alerts were to cadaver odour is factually incorrect...it has not been possible  and is impossible to determine what the alerts were to...poeple have opinions...and that is all they are... To claim the alerts may have been to cadaver odour of course is correct" post #52

The above post is good because the expert who trained and used the dogs shared his opinion which has more credibility than others' because of his experience and knowledge. He said;

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

So we have an expert opinion. Grime goes on to say;

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

Some people seem to think that he's referring to forensic confirmation, but that's clearly wrong, because cadaver scent can't be confirmed by forensic tests.

So 'corroborating evidence' means something else.

Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that supports a proposition already supported by initial evidence, therefore confirming the original proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroborating_evidence

So Eddie's unconfirmed alerts were;

G5A
Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door. 
Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
Garden area directly under veranda.

McCann villa
a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge
Mother and child clothing (after removal)

Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and herthat Grimes opinion was that these alerts, were triggered by cadaver scent... mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion.

The PJ tried but failed.

You state that Grimes opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent... That is not true... Showing you don't understand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

According to the opening post, the purpose of this thread was to discuss what Martin Grime's evidence meant and if it had been misunderstood.

A lot of opinions were posted, mostly by posters who support the parents. They seem to have misunderstood the aim of the thread and haven't really addressed the question posed in the first post.

A good post in my opinion;

"To claim the alerts were to cadaver odour is factually incorrect...it has not been possible  and is impossible to determine what the alerts were to...poeple have opinions...and that is all they are... To claim the alerts may have been to cadaver odour of course is correct" post #52

The above post is good because the expert who trained and used the dogs shared his opinion which has more credibility than others' because of his experience and knowledge. He said;

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

So we have an expert opinion. Grime goes on to say;

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

Some people seem to think that he's referring to forensic confirmation, but that's clearly wrong, because cadaver scent can't be confirmed by forensic tests.

So 'corroborating evidence' means something else.

Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that supports a proposition already supported by initial evidence, therefore confirming the original proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroborating_evidence

So Eddie's unconfirmed alerts were;

G5A
Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door. 
Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
Garden area directly under veranda.

McCann villa
a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge
Mother and child clothing (after removal)

Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and her mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion.

The PJ tried but failed.

from Grimes rogatory...

'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
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.

so grime requested forensic analysis of the toy...why do you think he did that

[Carana]

Eddie finds blood from a living person the same way as Keela does so surely if Eddie could smell it so could Keela ?

Grime stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood. He made no such comment (AFAIK) as to whether Eddie would also only alert to the physical presence or not.

Why would he require the physical presence of that one scent of the many involved in human decomposition, whether the victim is actually still alive or not?

Is there any way of discerning whether it was a physical scent, but out of range for Keela, or whether it was a residual scent left by something that had been and removed in that flat by any of the occupants just prior to their inspection?

[Robittybob1]

from Grimes rogatory...

'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
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.

so grime requested forensic analysis of the toy...why do you think he did that

There is an apparent contradiction as to where the positive alert occurred.  I am now aware that when Grimes talks of alert by Eddie on CC this was supposed to have occurred in the place where the clothes were examined, but we generally think this occurred at the villa, but Grimes is quoted this did not happen at the villa.  I don't have the quotes for this on hand but I will provide them as soon as I can. 

[G-Unit]

from Grimes rogatory...

'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
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.

so grime requested forensic analysis of the toy...why do you think he did that

If he did, the question is why? He knew full well that Eddie's alerts couldn't be forensically confirmed. Unless Keela also alerted, but there's no record that she did so.

[Mr Gray]

There is an apparent contradiction as to where the positive alert occurred.  I am now aware that when Grimes talks of alert by Eddie on CC this was supposed to have occurred in the place where the clothes were examined, but we generally think this occurred at the villa, but Grimes is quoted this did not happen at the villa.  I don't have the quotes for this on hand but I will provide them as soon as I can.

as its on video theres no contradiction

[Mr Gray]

If he did, the question is why? He knew full well that Eddie's alerts couldn't be forensically confirmed. Unless Keela also alerted, but there's no record that she did so.

obviously he thought there could be forensic evidence on CC.....grime has never said the alert by eddie could not be confirmed by forensics....eddie barked at CC....when there is no tangible evidence he stays still with his head in the air.....so barking must confirm tangible evidence that could forensically confirm the alert

[faithlilly]

Grime stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood. He made no such comment (AFAIK) as to whether Eddie would also only alert to the physical presence or not.

Why would he require the physical presence of that one scent of the many involved in human decomposition, whether the victim is actually still alive or not?

Is there any way of discerning whether it was a physical scent, but out of range for Keela, or whether it was a residual scent left by something that had been and removed in that flat by any of the occupants just prior to their inspection?

Martin Grime said Eddie’s alert was suggestive of cadaver odour contaminant. He would of course have taken Keela and Eddie’s capabilities into consideration and, in his professional opinion, an alert to blood had been ruled out. Do you not think that if Grime had been concerned that the scent Eddie had alerted to was blood he would have said so or are you another one of those amateur sleuths who think you know better than the professionals?

[Alice Purjorick]

There is an apparent contradiction as to where the positive alert occurred.  I am now aware that when Grimes talks of alert by Eddie on CC this was supposed to have occurred in the place where the clothes were examined, but we generally think this occurred at the villa, but Grimes is quoted this did not happen at the villa.  I don't have the quotes for this on hand but I will provide them as soon as I can.

Unless it winds up in court all this is just coffee house chat.
Should it wind up in court with Mr Grime as an expert witness then he would subject to some very stringent conditions wrt the evidencehe gives [well within UK; I don't know about Portugal].

[Mr Gray]

Unless it winds up in court all this is just coffee house chat.
Should it wind up in court with Mr Grime as an expert witness then he would subject to some very stringent conditions wrt the evidencehe gives [well within UK; I don't know about Portugal].

the whole forum is coffee house chat...

[G-Unit]

There is an apparent contradiction as to where the positive alert occurred.  I am now aware that when Grimes talks of alert by Eddie on CC this was supposed to have occurred in the place where the clothes were examined, but we generally think this occurred at the villa, but Grimes is quoted this did not happen at the villa.  I don't have the quotes for this on hand but I will provide them as soon as I can.

Cuddlecat was taken from the McCann's villa with the clothes and other items. Whether either or both dogs alerted to it isn't recorded, but it was returned to the McCanns on 3rd along with the other items taken. Gerry signed for them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2125.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CLOTHES.htm

[Mr Gray]

Cuddlecat was taken from the McCann's villa with the clothes and other items. Whether either or both dogs alerted to it isn't recorded, but it was returned to the McCanns on 3rd along with the other items taken. Gerry signed for them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2125.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CLOTHES.htm

Grime confirmed eddie signalled CC in his rogatory

[Alice Purjorick]

the whole forum is coffee house chat...

Indeed, however, that does not stop some from thinking they will solve the case or contribute significantly to "The Investigation/Search".

But the dogs take pride of place in the coffee house stakes when all is considered....imo

[Mr Gray]

Indeed, however, that does not stop some from thinking they will solve the case or contribute significantly to "The Investigation/Search".

But the dogs take pride of place in the coffee house stakes when all is considered....imo

Because some sceptics have not understood the evidence ad I have shown

[faithlilly]

Because some sceptics have not understood the evidence ad I have shown

You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.