What evidence would confirm a cadaver dog alert?

[Sunny]

Dave Edgar says "somebody knows".  So don't give up yet.

Unless Madeleine did wander out and fall down a hole or into one of the workers trenches and it was filled in before anyone noticed then Dave Edgar is right "somebody knows".

The million dollar question is...who!

Apart from that I haven't seen anything that he contributed to the search for Madeleine.

[Brietta]

Unless Madeleine did wander out and fall down a hole or into one of the workers trenches and it was filled in before anyone noticed then Dave Edgar is right "somebody knows".

The million dollar question is...who!

Apart from that I haven't seen anything that he contributed to the search for Madeleine.

Anyway, who exactly is this Richard Philips?

[Robittybob1]

From "EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIME REPORT"

"The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

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

The only true confirmation of a cadaver dog alert is finding a cadaver at the location.

Corroboration could be something less dramatic.  But that would depend on how one defines corroboration.

[Robittybob1]

If Grime says you need a cadaver to corroborate a cadaver dog alert I wonder what Martin Grime meant when he said:  "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

That seems like a Catch 22 situation.

[Mr Gray]

From "EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIME REPORT"

"The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

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

The only true confirmation of a cadaver dog alert is finding a cadaver at the location.

Corroboration could be something less dramatic.  But that would depend on how one defines corroboration.

All that is important is how Grime defines corroboration

[Angelo222]

All that is important is how Grime defines corroboration

IMO, the conclusion might have been very different had Grime known that a previous owner of the apartment had died in hospital with the very distinct possibility that cadaver contaminants had been brought back to that property and stored by his wife.

 
Was the widow even asked about this?
Is Grime even aware of it??
Why has he not officially reviewed his report in the light of these facts???

[Brietta]

If Grime says you need a cadaver to corroborate a cadaver dog alert I wonder what Martin Grime meant when he said:  "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

That seems like a Catch 22 situation.

As I see it ... there has to be evidence of some kind that a dead body has been present at the scene of an alert then the police have to find out who that person might have been,

In the Shannon Matthew's case ... the dogs alerted ... and investigation revealed that furniture which had been in the locale was later passed on to others complete with the contaminating scent.

In the Suzanne Pilley murder, although there was evidence of contamination in areas where the dog alerted, it could not be proved that it had been contributed by anyone (not necessarily dead ... eg Gerry and cellular substance in Luz) let alone Suzanne.
It did give the police intelligence which enabled them to concentrate their focus on finding appropriate evidence to bring a suspect to trial and eventually to justice.  Which is what they did.

It is ridiculous that based on the mantra "dogs don't lie" ... some actually wore the T shirt and bought the mugs ... sceptics have waged countless campaigns of opprobrium against the parents of a missing child all based on a total misunderstanding of what the dogs actually do.

The dogs alerted in Shannon's case ... but not for Shannon.
The dogs alerted in Suzanne's case ... her body has never been found ... but a conviction was obtained in court based on all the other evidence there was to support her death and who the killer was.
There was no evidence of death either in Jersey or in Portugal ... which makes it a bit of a mystery why there is such a concentration on this single cadaver dog when there are thousands of others in the world who never get a mention and whose names we do not even know.
Obviously ... he must be middle class.

[barrier]

The conclusion might have been very different had Grime known that a previous owner of the apartment had died in hospital with the very distinct possibility that cadaver contaminants had been brought back to that property and stored by his wife.

 
Was the widow even asked about this?
Is Grime even aware of it??
Why has he not officially reviewed his report in the light of these facts???

What cross contamination would you surmise,very unusual one would have thought to have a deceased persons attire to be returned,it never happened in my parents case.We're talking circa 90 minutes for cadaver to develop.

[barrier]

As I see it ... there has to be evidence of some kind that a dead body has been present at the scene of an alert then the police have to find out who that person might have been,

In the Shannon Matthew's case ... the dogs alerted ... and investigation revealed that furniture which had been in the locale was later passed on to others complete with the contaminating scent.

In the Suzanne Pilley murder, although there was evidence of contamination in areas where the dog alerted, it could not be proved that it had been contributed by anyone (not necessarily dead ... eg Gerry and cellular substance in Luz) let alone Suzanne.
It did give the police intelligence which enabled them to concentrate their focus on finding appropriate evidence to bring a suspect to trial and eventually to justice.  Which is what they did.

It is ridiculous that based on the mantra "dogs don't lie" ... some actually wore the T shirt and bought the mugs ... sceptics have waged countless campaigns of opprobrium against the parents of a missing child all based on a total misunderstanding of what the dogs actually do.

The dogs alerted in Shannon's case ... but not for Shannon.
The dogs alerted in Suzanne's case ... her body has never been found ... but a conviction was obtained in court based on all the other evidence there was to support her death and who the killer was.
There was no evidence of death either in Jersey or in Portugal ... which makes it a bit of a mystery why there is such a concentration on this single cadaver dog when there are thousands of others in the world who never get a mention and whose names we do not even know.
Obviously ... he must be middle class.

Well we know in the McCann case SY are of an opinion in that Madeleine is just as likely to be dead,why else dig up the country side,what put them up to that? cadaver alert? nothing to suggest the three amigos were  murderer's.

[Brietta]

IMO, the conclusion might have been very different had Grime known that a previous owner of the apartment had died in hospital with the very distinct possibility that cadaver contaminants had been brought back to that property and stored by his wife.

 
Was the widow even asked about this?
Is Grime even aware of it??
Why has he not officially reviewed his report in the light of these facts???

I think the police did ask a few witnesses about deaths on the premises ... but that seems to be as far as they took their enquiries.

[Erngath]

What cross contamination would you surmise,very unusual one would have thought to have a deceased persons attire to be returned,it never happened in my parents case.We're talking circa 90 minutes for cadaver to develop.

When my mother died in hospital she was wearing a white knitted shawl over her shoulders.
She died suddenly and most unexpectedly..
The shawl was given back to me the following day.

I brought it to my home and put it on a shelf in a cupboard.
I kept it because it didn't smell of tobacco, she was a heavy smoker, but because she had only worn it in hospital it did smell of her perfume only.
There it remained for many years.
Possibly a cadaver dog would alert to that shelf.

[Angelo222]

What cross contamination would you surmise,very unusual one would have thought to have a deceased persons attire to be returned,it never happened in my parents case.We're talking circa 90 minutes for cadaver to develop.

Aside from the possibility that human remains in the form of ashes might have been stored in 5a there are numerous personal items which might have been returned from a deceased person such as clothing, watches, jewelry etc.

Even someone being in direct contact with a deceased person could bring back contaminants because we know how easily cadaver odour is spread and how difficult it is to get rid of.

[Angelo222]

When my mother died in hospital she was wearing a white knitted shawl over her shoulders.
She died suddenly and most unexpectedly..
The shawl was given back to me the following day.

I brought it to my home and put it on a shelf in a cupboard.
I kept it because it didn't smell of tobacco, she was a heavy smoker, but because she had only worn it in hospital it did smell of her perfume only.
There it remained for many years.
Possibly a cadaver dog woul alert to that shelf.

Very possibly imo.

[Robittybob1]

All that is important is how Grime defines corroboration

Well how do you explain the catch 22 situation in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9966.msg536179#msg536179?

Well tell us, how does Grime define corroboration?

[Brietta]

Aside from the possibility that human remains in the form of ashes might have been stored in 5a there are numerous personal items which might have been returned from a deceased person such as clothing, watches, jewelry etc.

Even someone being in direct contact with a deceased person could bring back contaminants because we know how easily cadaver odour is spread and how difficult it is to get rid of.

I believe Eddie alerted under a tree in Jersey where ashes had been scattered.