UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: debunker on April 08, 2013, 09:03:13 PM
-
Report: Sniffer Dogs Hindering Cop Probes
Share Comments7:35am UK, Thursday March 24, 2011
Gerard Tubb, Sky News correspondent
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.
Sniffer dog Eddie was relieved of his police duties after complicating investigations
The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency says specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.
"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."
The report says the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an enquiry."
There is an urgent need to have national policy on (police sniffer dogs') training, accreditation and deployment.
National Policing Improvement Agency report
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concludes.
One kidnap investigation is highlighted in the report where dogs tied up valuable police time by detecting human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.
The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.
A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.
But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.
Sniffer dogs hindered the police probe into Shannon Matthew's disappearance
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.
"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
-
The EVRD reacts to residues, volatile molecules, this is the trouble and explains the confusion, like in the Shannon Matthew case.
Eddie died.
-
The fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
You can bone up ( pardon the pun ) on dogs ... you can start endless threads relentlessly presenting alternative explanations ... or denigrating the dogs' abilities generally ... or the handler's professionalism ... or the questionability of the dogs usefulness at all
And still, the fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
You can, "yeah but ... no but ... yeah but" forevermore
The fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
There is simply no getting around that stark reality and the most obvious and logical conclusion to draw from it
-
@ icabodcrane
You forgot to add....and nowhere else.
-
@ icabodcrane
You forgot to add....and nowhere else.
That's the real sticker for me ... why, if the dog is so unreliable, wasn't he alerting randomly all over the place ?
... only where the McCanns were concerned >@@(*&)
-
@ icabodcrane
You forgot to add....and nowhere else.
That's the real sticker for me ... why, if the dog is so unreliable, wasn't he alerting randomly all over the place ?
... only where the McCanns were concerned >@@(*&)
If you watch the video of the dog going round the different cars you might have noticed that its handler kept bringing the poor mut back to McCann's hire car. I mean wtf!! Talk about pointing the dog in a particular direction. And there was me thinking these tests were unbiased. Another thing, did you notice the handler put his hand down by the sill of the nearside front door before the dog reacted. Got to laugh it was so pathetic.
-
@ icabodcrane
You forgot to add....and nowhere else.
That's the real sticker for me ... why, if the dog is so unreliable, wasn't he alerting randomly all over the place ?
... only where the McCanns were concerned >@@(*&)
If you watch the videop of the dog going round the different cars you might have noticed that its handler kept bringing the poor mut back to McCann's hire car. I mean wtf!! Talk about pointing the dog in a particular direction. And ther e was me thinking these tests were unbiased. Another thing, did you notice the handler put his hand down by the sill of the nearside front door before the dog reacted. Got to laugh it was so pathetic.
Martin Grime's impressive credentials, which includes the fact that he is Special Advisor to the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and additionally advises Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies in the deployment of police dogs in the role of homicide investigations, also makes mention of his expertise in the matter of 'false alerts and cueing'
"My experience as a trainer has shown that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in behaviour. This increases handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour otherthan to direct the search"
You see, Martin Grime is employed by International Law enforcement agencies to advise on how to ensure dogs are not influenced or 'cued' by their handlers
-
All promotional material on his website. If Grimes doesn't deliver his reputation goes down the tubes. Consequently there is an overriding need to achieve results. Any idiot can stand at a car and keep calling a dog back. What a charade. @)(++(*
-
All promotional material on his website. If Grimes doesn't deliver his reputation goes down the tubes. Consequently there is an overriding need to achieve results. Any idiot can stand at a car and keep calling a dog back. What a charade. @)(++(*
hmm
Grime is an 'idiot' ... and you know more about his job than he does
OK then ...
-
All promotional material on his website. If Grimes doesn't deliver his reputation goes down the tubes. Consequently there is an overriding need to achieve results. Any idiot can stand at a car and keep calling a dog back. What a charade. @)(++(*
hmm
Grime is an 'idiot' ... and you know more about his job than he does
OK then ...
I know that a dog will tell its handler what they want to hear in the right circumstances. I have been training dogs longer than Grimes in all sorts of pursuits so yes I probably do have more experience with dogs.
What you must realise is that this is only a game to a dog, the dog wants to please and the dog wants to get his reward for his performance. A bit like the circus it really is.
-
All promotional material on his website. If Grimes doesn't deliver his reputation goes down the tubes. Consequently there is an overriding need to achieve results. Any idiot can stand at a car and keep calling a dog back. What a charade. @)(++(*
Excellent point. The reality is that what icabodcrane has posted is Grime's own promotional fluff.
-
@ icabodcrane
You forgot to add....and nowhere else.
That's the real sticker for me ... why, if the dog is so unreliable, wasn't he alerting randomly all over the place ?
... only where the McCanns were concerned >@@(*&)
I have explained this on another thread. It is called serial error.
A dog erroniously responds to a false non cadaver scent specific to the subjects (dogs are no more than 90% accurate and 75% is probably a better estimate). This scent could be anything but it could be spread over many objects. The dog senses that the handler approves ( look at Mr Grime's body language throughout) and temporarily learns to alert to that false scent.
Problems like these are why dog evidence is not certain unless confirmed.
Additionally, cadaver odor is only indicated where both dogs were deployed, Eddie alerted and Keela did not. These circumstances occured few times- much fewer than [ censored word] claim.
-
The Dogs are allowed to Free Search? Don't make me laugh. Eddie was just getting fed up with being dragged back.
And as for alerts only from Eddie. So called Cadaver Dogs do alert to decomposing body fluids from live people. Cadaver Dog Handlers say this.
-
Oh good grief, now I've seen it all. A moderator on a message board is more experienced with dogs than a professional handler seconded to the FBI. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I have a spaniel that has an incredible nose. If I hide a treat in a room somewhere, he is off all over the room trying to catch a whiff. You can see him pass near the place it's hidden and pause then move on elsewhere. He then often goes way off elsewhere before returning to the same spot, this time getting a bit closer. He will often even then go off elsewhere, as though he's looking for the "edges" of the scent and gradually zeroes in. This is an untrained dog.
Tell D'Andre Lane he's off the hook then...
Scent dogs are probably correct about 4 times out of 5 in real trials.
-
The Dogs are allowed to Free Search? Don't make me laugh. Eddie was just getting fed up with being dragged back.
And as for alerts only from Eddie. So called Cadaver Dogs do alert to decomposing body fluids from live people. Cadaver Dog Handlers say this.
The more I read about these dogs the less I believe that they are any use as deployed in Portugal where they were out of their comfort zone. The only real use a cadaver dog is for finding corpses as has been shown with some recent cases. Anything else and they are useless.
-
The Dogs are allowed to Free Search? Don't make me laugh. Eddie was just getting fed up with being dragged back.
And as for alerts only from Eddie. So called Cadaver Dogs do alert to decomposing body fluids from live people. Cadaver Dog Handlers say this.
The more I read about these dogs the less I believe that they are any use as deployed in Portugal where they were out of their comfort zone. The only real use a cadaver dog is for finding corpses as has been shown with some recent cases. Anything else and they are useless.
Which on translation means......
It's OK to use them in other cases, but it wasn't quite cricket in the Mccann case 8)><( 8)><( 8)><(
-
The Dogs are allowed to Free Search? Don't make me laugh. Eddie was just getting fed up with being dragged back.
And as for alerts only from Eddie. So called Cadaver Dogs do alert to decomposing body fluids from live people. Cadaver Dog Handlers say this.
The more I read about these dogs the less I believe that they are any use as deployed in Portugal where they were out of their comfort zone. The only real use a cadaver dog is for finding corpses as has been shown with some recent cases. Anything else and they are useless.
My dog can find a Cadaver if there is one. And I don't charge those exorbitant prices.
-
The more I read about these dogs the less I believe that they are any use as deployed in Portugal where they were out of their comfort zone. The only real use a cadaver dog is for finding corpses as has been shown with some recent cases. Anything else and they are useless.
If you weren't such an expert in dog handling I might question your statement on the grounds of D'Andre Lane's conviction. Where's the corpse?
Oh, let me guess, D'Andre Lane is a victim of a corrupt police force too. It was probably Amaral's fault as well.
-
The more I read about these dogs the less I believe that they are any use as deployed in Portugal where they were out of their comfort zone. The only real use a cadaver dog is for finding corpses as has been shown with some recent cases. Anything else and they are useless.
If you weren't such an expert in dog handling I might question your statement on the grounds of D'Andre Lane's conviction. Where's the corpse?
Oh, let me guess, D'Andre Lane is a victim of a corrupt police force too. It was probably Amaral's fault as well.
There was a lot more to the D'andre Case than just dogs. And the dogs didn't actually prove anything. Personally, I have my doubts about that Case.
-
All promotional material on his website. If Grimes doesn't deliver his reputation goes down the tubes. Consequently there is an overriding need to achieve results. Any idiot can stand at a car and keep calling a dog back. What a charade. @)(++(*
hmm
Grime is an 'idiot' ... and you know more about his job than he does
OK then ...
You forgot to add an 'idiot' like the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and International Law enforcement agencies who watched those very publicised videos and fell in the trap !
Now it was a pity the tests weren't double blind (we don't know who decided so, Mark Harrison was leading the team). Knowing where is the suspect thing, anyone would be influenced and influence his/her dog. Nonetheless Eddie interestingly didn't react to all parts of the flat and reacted in a corner where Keela found no blood.
-
Does everyone realise that the dog would find the environment in Portugal to be completely alien to what he was used to. If they were going to do such specialised tests they should have used a Portuguese doggy.
-
Does everyone realise that the dog would find the environment in Portugal to be completely alien to what he was used to. If they were going to do such specialised tests they should have used a Portuguese doggy.
They did use three sniffer dogs (one from Portimao and two from the GNR school), on different days. Interestingly they didn't follow the path of the carrier seen by Jane T. but another one, the same.
-
I couldn't actually see the point, in Grime and his dogs going to Praia Da Luz, at all.
Bit late after 3 months, what was the point.
They could have has UK dogs and police, within the week, but Amaral refused the help.
According to the REAL files, Williams and Grime seemed more interested in getting the right costs, down on paper.
-
All promotional material on his website. If Grimes doesn't deliver his reputation goes down the tubes. Consequently there is an overriding need to achieve results. Any idiot can stand at a car and keep calling a dog back. What a charade. @)(++(*
Excellent point. The reality is that what icabodcrane has posted is Grime's own promotional fluff.
What difference does that make ?
... are you suggesting he is lying about his credentials ?
-
Key point to note about Eddie's alert to the car; actually, two.
1. It was not a false alert.
2. It was not an incriminating alert.
The provenance of the alert is known and innocent; spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition "key" (actually a card, an alternative type of ignition system). This was confirmed after the blood dog, Keela, also alerted to it and Grime took just about the only decision for which I give him (genuine) credit -- to have Eddie test the card separately and independently of the car. It was buried inside a sandbox and Eddie was invited to react to it a second time. He did so.
The card was sent to the FSS and Gerry's dna was extracted from it.
While Grime's decision to have the key card tested independently is to be lauded, his decision to have Eddie inspect 10 cars simultaneously is more questionable. Just as there actually was an innocent scent in the Renault, so there might easily have been innocent scents in any of the other cars.
In that event, what would or should the poor dog have been supposed to react to?
And another question: of the 10 cars inspected, one was hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction (the only real car of interest); two were owned by Robert Murat (fair enough) and 7 were owned or driven by people never suspects in the case.
What was that all about?
One car hired by Murat never made the line-up of 10 ...
-
Key point to note about Eddie's alert to the car; actually, two.
1. It was not a false alert.
2. It was not an incriminating alert.
The provenance of the alert is known and innocent; spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition "key" (actually a card, an alternative type of ignition system). This was confirmed after the blood dog, Keela, also alerted to it and Grime took just about the only decision for which I give him (genuine) credit -- to have Eddie test the card separately and independently of the car. It was buried inside a sandbox and Eddie was invited to react to it a second time. He did so.
The card was sent to the FSS and Gerry's dna was extracted from it.
While Grime's decision to have the key card tested independently is to be lauded, his decision to have Eddie inspect 10 cars simultaneously is more questionable. Just as there actually was an innocent scent in the Renault, so there might easily have been innocent scents in any of the other cars.
In that event, what would or should the poor dog have been supposed to react to?
And another question: of the 10 cars inspected, one was hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction (the only real car of interest); two were owned by Robert Murat (fair enough) and 7 were owned or driven by people never suspects in the case.
What was that all about?
One car hired by Murat never made the line-up of 10 ...
Where did you find the information about the sand box detail ... and who the cars belonged to ?
Just out of interest because I'd like to read it
-
The heat is scorching on this thirtieth day of July 2007 when two Springer Spaniels, Eddie and Keela, get off the British Airways plane, accompanied by their trainer, Martin Grime. An air-conditioned vehicle is waiting to take them to their accommodation. A vet, who will be on hand during their stay, has been brought in to intervene in case of illness or if the dogs get bitten by a snake. Their mission: to find Madeleine's body and expose those responsible.
Eddie has been involved in a great number of cases, helping the police to resolve a good many riddles, thanks to his sense of smell. Even if the body has been moved, objects the body has touched have been contaminated by its odour, especially porous materials, fabrics, the upholstery in cars, etc. And that odour, Eddie knows how to recognise out of a thousand.
Keela, a scenes of crime specialist, is capable of locating particles of blood even after a place has been cleaned with chemical products or bleach. Sometimes, the residues are so microscopic they are missed by the instruments of the forensic police, as sophicticated as they are, and it's impossible to harvest them without taking all of what they are on.
Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred.
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's "Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies.
Amongst the most media-covered cases, which they contributed to resolving, is that of the disappearance in Northern Ireland of Attracta Harron, who was last seen when she was returning home on foot, after having been to church. All searches carried out by the police were unsuccessful. The main suspect's car having been totally burnt out in a mysterious fire, couldn't be examined. They called in Eddie, who examined the charred remains of the vehicle and immediately picked out the characteristic odour. Human tissue was found amongst the debris, the DNA of which corresponded to the missing woman. Later, the dog indicated the place - close to a river - where the victim's body had been abandoned. At the home of the suspect, where the police were searching for incriminating evidence, Eddie identified cadaver odour in one of the bedrooms. The man confessed to having killed the woman then moving her body to the banks of the river.
The case of Amanda Edwards, reported missing, is also very impressive. The police, who conducted a search of her ex-partner's home, found small bloodstains there, but no trace of a body. The dog, who was brought in for the examination of the man''s vehicle, alerted to cadaver odour on the tools stored in the boot (a shovel, a level and a compactor). The police went to the building site where the suspect had worked a few days before and discovered the body, buried in a garage. The murderer had made efficient use of his tools to carry out his task.
It's also thanks to the help of the dogs that the case of Charlotte Pinkley, a missing British woman, who had been imprisoned by her ex-partner, was resolved. The police requested the help of the specialist dog team to try to find the young woman's body. Eddie picked out a place where the abductor had provisionally left his victim. In the surrounding area, the investigators found the button from a dress that had belonged to Charlotte. That clue exposed the murderer, who ended up showing the police the place where he had hidden the body.
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
The achievements of the dog detectives are the result of a very long apprenticeship. It all starts with the selection of the best puppies when they are only a few months old. The most talented breed for this unusual "profession," is the Springer Spaniel. The trainer, Martin Grime, and his pupils undergo aptitude tests every year in order to obtain certificates proving their capability. In Great Britain, the police have no hesitation in calling in the specialist dog teams to assist in certain criminal investigations. Their skills are nowadays recognised by journalists, police and courts all over the world.
-
Key point to note about Eddie's alert to the car; actually, two.
1. It was not a false alert.
2. It was not an incriminating alert.
The provenance of the alert is known and innocent; spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition "key" (actually a card, an alternative type of ignition system). This was confirmed after the blood dog, Keela, also alerted to it and Grime took just about the only decision for which I give him (genuine) credit -- to have Eddie test the card separately and independently of the car. It was buried inside a sandbox and Eddie was invited to react to it a second time. He did so.
The card was sent to the FSS and Gerry's dna was extracted from it.
While Grime's decision to have the key card tested independently is to be lauded, his decision to have Eddie inspect 10 cars simultaneously is more questionable. Just as there actually was an innocent scent in the Renault, so there might easily have been innocent scents in any of the other cars.
In that event, what would or should the poor dog have been supposed to react to?
And another question: of the 10 cars inspected, one was hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction (the only real car of interest); two were owned by Robert Murat (fair enough) and 7 were owned or driven by people never suspects in the case.
What was that all about?
One car hired by Murat never made the line-up of 10 ...
Where did you find the information about the sand box detail ... and who the cars belonged to ?
Just out of interest because I'd like to read it
Scroll down to the seventh section in this link marked by the dark blue band and you'll find the sequence of events described.
If this board permits edits, I will add the relevant section from John Lowe's report.
It does allow edits:
7th section down marked by the dark blue band
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
-
Apologies, I forgot to add the link and this board doesn't allow edits. 7th section marked by the dark blue band:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm#p8p2186
ETA:
Cite from John Lowe's forensic report:
An incomplete, low-level DNA profile that matched corresponding components in the profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material present on the card key - (286C/2007-CRL (12)).
-
A short video showing some of the dog testing in the underground garage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FTF4JTLeOWA
-
Apologies, I forgot to add the link and this board doesn't allow edits. 7th section marked by the dark blue band:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm#p8p2186
Actual link added by John
ETA:
Cite from John Lowe's forensic report:
An incomplete, low-level DNA profile that matched corresponding components in the profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material present on the card key - (286C/2007-CRL (12)).
Thank you ferryman, for supporting your opinion with such well sourced evidence
-
Do listen to what Grime says. @ 3.50
The bit that starts: "Based on this information..."
Does he intend to send Eddie into the car, or not?
-
The heat is scorching on this thirtieth day of July 2007 when two Springer Spaniels, Eddie and Keela, get off the British Airways plane, accompanied by their trainer, Martin Grime. An air-conditioned vehicle is waiting to take them to their accommodation. A vet, who will be on hand during their stay, has been brought in to intervene in case of illness or if the dogs get bitten by a snake. Their mission: to find Madeleine's body and expose those responsible.
Eddie has been involved in a great number of cases, helping the police to resolve a good many riddles, thanks to his sense of smell. Even if the body has been moved, objects the body has touched have been contaminated by its odour, especially porous materials, fabrics, the upholstery in cars, etc. And that odour, Eddie knows how to recognise out of a thousand.
Keela, a scenes of crime specialist, is capable of locating particles of blood even after a place has been cleaned with chemical products or bleach. Sometimes, the residues are so microscopic they are missed by the instruments of the forensic police, as sophicticated as they
are, and it's impossible to harvest them without taking all of what they are on.
Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred.
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's
"Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies.
Amongst the most media-covered cases, which they contributed to resolving, is that of the disappearance in Northern Ireland of Attracta Harron, who was last seen when she was returning home on foot, after having been to church. All searches carried out by the police were unsuccessful. The main suspect's car having been totally burnt out in a mysterious fire, couldn't be examined. They called in Eddie, who examined the charred remains of the vehicle and immediately picked out the characteristic odour. Human tissue was found amongst the debris, the DNA of which corresponded to the missing woman. Later, the dog indicated the place - close to a river - where the victim's
body had been abandoned. At the home of the suspect, where the police were searching for incriminating evidence, Eddie identified cadaver odour in one of the bedrooms. The man confessed to having killed the woman then moving her body to the banks of the river.
The case of Amanda Edwards, reported missing, is also very impressive. The police, who conducted a search of her ex-partner's home, found small bloodstains there, but no trace of a body. The dog, who was brought in for the examination of the man''s vehicle, alerted to
cadaver odour on the tools stored in the boot (a shovel, a level and a compactor). The police went to the building site where the suspect had worked a few days before and discovered the body, buried in a garage. The murderer had made efficient use of his tools to carry out his task.
It's also thanks to the help of the dogs that the case of Charlotte Pinkley, a missing British woman, who had been imprisoned by her ex-partner, was resolved. The police requested the help of the specialist dog team to try to find the young woman's body. Eddie picked out a place where the abductor had provisionally left his victim. In the surrounding area, the investigators found the button from a dress that
had belonged to Charlotte. That clue exposed the murderer, who ended up showing the police the place where he had hidden the body.
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
The achievements of the dog detectives are the result of a very long apprenticeship. It all starts with the selection of the best puppies when they are only a few months old. The most talented breed for this unusual "profession," is the Springer Spaniel. The trainer, Martin
Grime, and his pupils undergo aptitude tests every year in order to obtain certificates proving their capability. In Great Britain, the police have no hesitation in calling in the specialist dog teams to assist in certain criminal investigations. Their skills are nowadays recognised by journalists, police and courts all over the world.
I don't know t h e source of that but it is comple telly in error about dog alerts. Eddie alerts to blood.
-
@Debunker, that doesn't seem to be a verbatim report of that sequence.
-
The heat is scorching on this thirtieth day of July 2007 when two Springer Spaniels, Eddie and Keela, get off the British Airways plane, accompanied by their trainer, Martin Grime. An air-conditioned vehicle is waiting to take them to their accommodation. A vet, who will be on hand during their stay, has been brought in to intervene in case of illness or if the dogs get bitten by a snake. Their mission: to find Madeleine's body and expose those responsible.
Eddie has been involved in a great number of cases, helping the police to resolve a good many riddles, thanks to his sense of smell. Even if the body has been moved, objects the body has touched have been contaminated by its odour, especially porous materials, fabrics, the upholstery in cars, etc. And that odour, Eddie knows how to recognise out of a thousand.
Keela, a scenes of crime specialist, is capable of locating particles of blood even after a place has been cleaned with chemical products or bleach. Sometimes, the residues are so microscopic they are missed by the instruments of the forensic police, as sophicticated as they
are, and it's impossible to harvest them without taking all of what they are on.
Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred.
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's
"Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies.
Amongst the most media-covered cases, which they contributed to resolving, is that of the disappearance in Northern Ireland of Attracta Harron, who was last seen when she was returning home on foot, after having been to church. All searches carried out by the police were unsuccessful. The main suspect's car having been totally burnt out in a mysterious fire, couldn't be examined. They called in Eddie, who examined the charred remains of the vehicle and immediately picked out the characteristic odour. Human tissue was found amongst the debris, the DNA of which corresponded to the missing woman. Later, the dog indicated the place - close to a river - where the victim's
body had been abandoned. At the home of the suspect, where the police were searching for incriminating evidence, Eddie identified cadaver odour in one of the bedrooms. The man confessed to having killed the woman then moving her body to the banks of the river.
The case of Amanda Edwards, reported missing, is also very impressive. The police, who conducted a search of her ex-partner's home, found small bloodstains there, but no trace of a body. The dog, who was brought in for the examination of the man''s vehicle, alerted to
cadaver odour on the tools stored in the boot (a shovel, a level and a compactor). The police went to the building site where the suspect had worked a few days before and discovered the body, buried in a garage. The murderer had made efficient use of his tools to carry out his task.
It's also thanks to the help of the dogs that the case of Charlotte Pinkley, a missing British woman, who had been imprisoned by her ex-partner, was resolved. The police requested the help of the specialist dog team to try to find the young woman's body. Eddie picked out a place where the abductor had provisionally left his victim. In the surrounding area, the investigators found the button from a dress that
had belonged to Charlotte. That clue exposed the murderer, who ended up showing the police the place where he had hidden the body.
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
The achievements of the dog detectives are the result of a very long apprenticeship. It all starts with the selection of the best puppies when they are only a few months old. The most talented breed for this unusual "profession," is the Springer Spaniel. The trainer, Martin
Grime, and his pupils undergo aptitude tests every year in order to obtain certificates proving their capability. In Great Britain, the police have no hesitation in calling in the specialist dog teams to assist in certain criminal investigations. Their skills are nowadays recognised by journalists, police and courts all over the world.
I don't know t h e source of that but it is comple telly in error about dog alerts. Eddie alerts to blood.
The source is Amaral's book ...
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
Martin Grime doesn't appear to have mentioned these other things. Cadaver Dogs also alert to Semen, but perhaps his sensibilities forbade him. There was a time when I had some difficulty in mentioning this, but I have become a little less sensitive of late.
Cadaver dogs will alert to all decomposing body fluids from live people. And all body fluids decompose after they have left a body, dead or alive.
Cadaver Dogs are only any good at finding a Cadaver when there actually is one.
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
Martin Grime is totally aware of that. He is aware of many things which he avoids mentioning or skirts around or uses diverting language.
He knows:
1/ Dog alerts are not exact- they have false positive and false negative errors.
2/ Dogs may engage in serial errors
3/ Dogs may be consciously and unconsciously cued
4/ Eddie was trained on Pork and although desensitised, may still revert
5/ Eddie reacts to any object that has been in contact with decomposing human soft tissue or bodily fluids including blood, extracted teeth, suppurating wound debris, semen, menstrual flow, infected vaginal secretions, infected phlegm or nasal secretions, and so on.
6/ Eddie has made multiple alerts, confirmed as cadaver odor alerts by Keela's reaction, that have resulted inthediscovery of no cadaverous source.
7/ His methods of describing the efficacy of the dogs is statistically flawed.
8/ Requiringtwo separate alerts to confirm cadaver indication squares the uncertainty- 90% becomes 80% , 80% becomes 64%, 70% becomes 50%, 60% becomes 35%, 50% becomes 25% accuracy.
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
Martin Grime is totally aware of that. He is aware of many things which he avoids mentioning or skirts around or uses diverting language.
He knows:
1/ Dog alerts are not exact- they have false positive and false negative errors.
2/ Dogs may engage in serial errors
3/ Dogs may be consciously and unconsciously cued
4/ Eddie was trained on Pork and although desensitised, may still revert
5/ Eddie reacts to any object that has been in contact with decomposing human soft tissue or bodily fluids including blood, extracted teeth, suppurating wound debris, semen, menstrual flow, infected vaginal secretions, infected phlegm or nasal secretions, and so on.
6/ Eddie has made multiple alerts, confirmed as cadaver odor alerts by Keela's reaction, that have resulted inthediscovery of no cadaverous source.
7/ His methods of describing the efficacy of the dogs is statistically flawed.
8/ Requiringtwo separate alerts to confirm cadaver indication squares the uncertainty- 90% becomes 80% , 80% becomes 64%, 70% becomes 50%, 60% becomes 35%, 50% becomes 25% accuracy.
Supposing all this is right, how could be explained that Eddie didn't react in the G5B, G5D, G5H ?
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
Martin Grime is totally aware of that. He is aware of many things which he avoids mentioning or skirts around or uses diverting language.
He knows:
1/ Dog alerts are not exact- they have false positive and false negative errors.
2/ Dogs may engage in serial errors
3/ Dogs may be consciously and unconsciously cued
4/ Eddie was trained on Pork and although desensitised, may still revert
5/ Eddie reacts to any object that has been in contact with decomposing human soft tissue or bodily fluids including blood, extracted teeth, suppurating wound debris, semen, menstrual flow, infected vaginal secretions, infected phlegm or nasal secretions, and so on.
6/ Eddie has made multiple alerts, confirmed as cadaver odor alerts by Keela's reaction, that have resulted inthediscovery of no cadaverous source.
7/ His methods of describing the efficacy of the dogs is statistically flawed.
8/ Requiringtwo separate alerts to confirm cadaver indication squares the uncertainty- 90% becomes 80% , 80% becomes 64%, 70% becomes 50%, 60% becomes 35%, 50% becomes 25% accuracy.
Supposing all this is right, how could be explained that Eddie didn't react in the G5B, G5D, G5H ?
Dogs make positive and negative errors and are susceptible to human cuing and serial errors.
-
The fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
You can bone up ( pardon the pun ) on dogs ... you can start endless threads relentlessly presenting alternative explanations ... or denigrating the dogs' abilities generally ... or the handler's professionalism ... or the questionability of the dogs usefulness at all
And still, the fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
You can, "yeah but ... no but ... yeah but" forevermore
The fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
There is simply no getting around that stark reality and the most obvious and logical conclusion to draw from it
Hi, icabodcrane. Am I correct in thinking that apt 5a was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed?
-
The fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
You can bone up ( pardon the pun ) on dogs ... you can start endless threads relentlessly presenting alternative explanations ... or denigrating the dogs' abilities generally ... or the handler's professionalism ... or the questionability of the dogs usefulness at all
And still, the fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
You can, "yeah but ... no but ... yeah but" forevermore
The fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
There is simply no getting around that stark reality and the most obvious and logical conclusion to draw from it
Hi, icabodcrane. Am I correct in thinking that apt 5a was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed?
The PJ sealed off the apartment and checked it thoroughly. They then deemed it clear and allowed the owners to rent it out to no less than 4 different families.
One of the things that Amaral and others have always complained about, is that the apartment had been contaminated from day one.
Why then after 4 different families had used the apartment, did he see fit to, once more seal off the apartment, and then bring in sniffer dogs, not only that but British sniffer dogs.
Here was a man who having refused British help, suddenly wanted them on the scene.
Surely his own experts would have told him that it was too long after the event to use dogs with any reliability? They must have told him that the sniffer dogs should have been used early on in the investigation?
So why did he think the dogs would find anything after the apartment had been used so much and cleaned many times?
-
@ DCI:
The PJ sealed off the apartment and checked it thoroughly. They then deemed it clear and allowed the owners to rent it out to no less than 4 different families.
One of the things that Amaral and others have always complained about, is that the apartment had been contaminated from day one.
Why then after 4 different families had used the apartment, did he see fit to, once more seal off the apartment, and then bring in sniffer dogs, not only that but British sniffer dogs.
Here was a man who having refused British help, suddenly wanted them on the scene.
Surely his own experts would have told him that it was too long after the event to use dogs with any reliability? They must have told him that the sniffer dogs should have been used early on in the investigation?
So why did he think the dogs would find anything after the apartment had been used so much and cleaned many times?
These are excellent points which are usually overlooked in any discussion about the dogs.
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
Martin Grime is totally aware of that. He is aware of many things which he avoids mentioning or skirts around or uses diverting language.
He knows:
1/ Dog alerts are not exact- they have false positive and false negative errors.
2/ Dogs may engage in serial errors
3/ Dogs may be consciously and unconsciously cued
4/ Eddie was trained on Pork and although desensitised, may still revert
5/ Eddie reacts to any object that has been in contact with decomposing human soft tissue or bodily fluids including blood, extracted teeth, suppurating wound debris, semen, menstrual flow, infected vaginal secretions, infected phlegm or nasal secretions, and so on.
6/ Eddie has made multiple alerts, confirmed as cadaver odor alerts by Keela's reaction, that have resulted inthediscovery of no cadaverous source.
7/ His methods of describing the efficacy of the dogs is statistically flawed.
8/ Requiringtwo separate alerts to confirm cadaver indication squares the uncertainty- 90% becomes 80% , 80% becomes 64%, 70% becomes 50%, 60% becomes 35%, 50% becomes 25% accuracy.
Supposing all this is right, how could be explained that Eddie didn't react in the G5B, G5D, G5H ?
Dogs make positive and negative errors and are susceptible to human cuing and serial errors.
Right, but what do you do with probabilities laws ?
-
The fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
You can bone up ( pardon the pun ) on dogs ... you can start endless threads relentlessly presenting alternative explanations ... or denigrating the dogs' abilities generally ... or the handler's professionalism ... or the questionability of the dogs usefulness at all
And still, the fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
You can, "yeah but ... no but ... yeah but" forevermore
The fact remains ... and will always remain ... that a cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where a missing child was last seen
There is simply no getting around that stark reality and the most obvious and logical conclusion to draw from it
Hi, icabodcrane. Am I correct in thinking that apt 5a was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed?
The PJ sealed off the apartment and checked it thoroughly. They then deemed it clear and allowed the owners to rent it out to no less than 4 different families.
One of the things that Amaral and others have always complained about, is that the apartment had been contaminated from day one.
Why then after 4 different families had used the apartment, did he see fit to, once more seal off the apartment, and then bring in sniffer dogs, not only that but British sniffer dogs.
Here was a man who having refused British help, suddenly wanted them on the scene.
Surely his own experts would have told him that it was too long after the event to use dogs with any reliability? They must have told him that the sniffer dogs should have been used early on in the investigation?
So why did he think the dogs would find anything after the apartment had been used so much and cleaned many times?
Do you doubt Mark Harrison expertise ? He was the one who advised to bring the dogs.
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
The question that screams at me from your post is :
Why wasn't the dog alerting all over the place ?
... I mean if he alerts to anything from traces of dead bodies to human blood and pee ... why was it only the McCann's apartment that this lack of discrimination manifested itself in ?
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
The question that screams at me from your post is :
Why wasn't the dog alerting all over the place ?
... I mean if he alerts to anything from traces of dead bodies to human blood and pee ... why was it only the McCann's apartment that this lack of discrimination manifested itself in ?
You might care to look at how Martin Grime deployed his dogs.
-
Does anyone know how Martin Grimes squares the fact that cadaverine comes from any decomposing human material and not just a corpse?
I have also read that cadaverine is partially responsible for the distinctive odours in urine.
The question that screams at me from your post is :
Why wasn't the dog alerting all over the place ?
... I mean if he alerts to anything from traces of dead bodies to human blood and pee ... why was it only the McCann's apartment that this lack of discrimination manifested itself in ?
You might care to look at how Martin Grime deployed his dogs.
Won't do
Either the dog is incompetent and alerts all over the place to any number of scents, regardless of his handler's abilities
Or the dog is efficient and alerts only to the thing he is trained to alert to ( dead bodies ) and the handler is incompetent ( cueing and influencing )
You can't have it both ways ... because if both the dog and the handler were as shite as you and your cohorts suggest, then there would have been alerts here, there, and everywhere ...
That's not what happened though, was it ?
-
It might have been a better idea to give the dogs as much time in other places as were given in places pertaining to The McCanns. But if you can't see that then there is nothing I can do to help you.
-
It might have been a better idea to give the dogs as much time in other places as were given in places pertaining to The McCanns. But if you can't see that then there is nothing I can do to help you.
You have absolutely no idea how much 'time' the dogs were given in other places
You have no evidence to base that statement on ... do you ?
-
It might have been a better idea to give the dogs as much time in other places as were given in places pertaining to The McCanns. But if you can't see that then there is nothing I can do to help you.
You have absolutely no idea how much 'time' the dogs were given in other places
You have no evidence to base that statement on ... do you ?
Do you? Did you see all of that running around and pulling back in the car park? Did you see the same thing happening in the appartment? That evidence would have been laughed out of Court.
Neve mind, don't answer that. It doesn't matter. You just go on having a good time trying to make the life of someone else even more of a misery than it is already is, although I doubt that it will make your miserable life any better. And it won't get charges brought against The McCanns. Your hatecampaign has failed. It is over.
-
It might have been a better idea to give the dogs as much time in other places as were given in places pertaining to The McCanns. But if you can't see that then there is nothing I can do to help you.
You have absolutely no idea how much 'time' the dogs were given in other places
You have no evidence to base that statement on ... do you ?
Do you? Did you see all of that running around and pulling back in the car park? Did you see the same thing happening in the appartment? That evidence would have been laughed out of Court.
Neve mind, don't answer that. It doesn't matter. You just go on having a good time trying to make the life of someone else even more of a misery than it is already is, although I doubt that it will make your miserable life any better. And it won't get charges brought against The McCanns. Your hatecampaign has failed. It is over.
Eleanor
You made a statement that the dogs were not given enough time in other locations
It was a statement based on no evidence at all
Do you accept that ?
-
It might have been a better idea to give the dogs as much time in other places as were given in places pertaining to The McCanns. But if you can't see that then there is nothing I can do to help you.
You have absolutely no idea how much 'time' the dogs were given in other places
You have no evidence to base that statement on ... do you ?
Do you? Did you see all of that running around and pulling back in the car park? Did you see the same thing happening in the appartment? That evidence would have been laughed out of Court.
Neve mind, don't answer that. It doesn't matter. You just go on having a good time trying to make the life of someone else even more of a misery than it is already is, although I doubt that it will make your miserable life any better. And it won't get charges brought against The McCanns. Your hatecampaign has failed. It is over.
Eleanor
You made a statement that the dogs were not given enough time in other locations
It was a statement based on no evidence at all
Do you accept that ?
Don't be silly. Do you think you are talking to an idiot?
-
It might have been a better idea to give the dogs as much time in other places as were given in places pertaining to The McCanns. But if you can't see that then there is nothing I can do to help you.
You have absolutely no idea how much 'time' the dogs were given in other places
You have no evidence to base that statement on ... do you ?
Do you? Did you see all of that running around and pulling back in the car park? Did you see the same thing happening in the appartment? That evidence would have been laughed out of Court.
Neve mind, don't answer that. It doesn't matter. You just go on having a good time trying to make the life of someone else even more of a misery than it is already is, although I doubt that it will make your miserable life any better. And it won't get charges brought against The McCanns. Your hatecampaign has failed. It is over.
Eleanor
You made a statement that the dogs were not given enough time in other locations
It was a statement based on no evidence at all
Do you accept that ?
Don't be silly. Do you think you are talking to an idiot?
It's not about you being an idiot ... it's about you acknowledging that you made a statement that was not evidence based
... can you do that ?
-
The video of the dogs working in the underground car park is very revealing. He even called the dog away from one of the vehicles when it started to show an interest in it and lingered at the actual target vehicle when the dog wanted to go elsewhere. What the hell was that all about?
As for the testing of the clothes that was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen. For heavens sake the clothes were all packed together in a box where cross contamination was inevitable.
And to think they actually got paid a substantial fee for that effort!
-
As for the testing of the clothes that was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen. For heavens sake the clothes were all packed together in a box where cross contamination was inevitable.
And to think they actually got paid a substantial fee for that effort!
Cross contamination from where? Oh yeah, McCann clothing to McCann clothing. Genius. Did Eddie alert to all the clothing? No.
Yeah, I know, handler cueing, right?
-
As for the testing of the clothes that was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen. For heavens sake the clothes were all packed together in a box where cross contamination was inevitable.
And to think they actually got paid a substantial fee for that effort!
Cross contamination from where? Oh yeah, McCann clothing to McCann clothing. Genius. Did Eddie alert to all the clothing? No.
Yeah, I know, handler cueing, right?
Did Keela alert- that is the important question.
CRoss contamination is a problem with fabrics. One contaminated item could contaminate others. This is a fact, not conjecture. Additionally a previous contact with a missing contaminated item could be serially transferred.
THis is one reason why Mr Grime says that alerts are meaningless unless confirmed by other forensics.
-
Translation by Albym
These two pages are an official document for the case file regarding the search dog examination of apartments in the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Lagos on 31 July 2007.
08 Processo 8 pages 2054 to 2069
The seven participants are indicated as being two members of the Policia Judiciaria (PJ); UK NPIA specialist, Mark Harrison, and the UK dog handler, Martin Grime; the two English Springer spaniels - Eddie and Keela; and Mrs Sylvia Batista, a manager of the Ocean club who is noted as the holder of the keys to the apartment and who was present solely to open doors.
All the work performed was recorded on video in image and sound.
The apartments searched were those previously occupied by the McCanns and members of the holiday group. Only apartment 5A was unoccupied at the time of the search. Holidaymaker occupants of the other apartments gave permission for the search to be conducted in their respective apartments.
In apartment 5A:
* between 20h16 (typing error in the report shows 21h16) and 20h30 the "cadaver" dog alerted:
- at 20h20 in the area of the wardrobe of the main bedroom
- at 20h22 in the lounge, specifically behind the sofa next to the window that overlooks the street.
* between 20h47 and 21.20 the "blood" dog alerted:
- at 21h10 in the lounge, specifically on the floor behind the sofa next to the wondow that overlooks the street.
In apartments 5B between 21h24 and 21h27; 5D between 21h29 and 21h34; 5H between 21h35 and 21h38; 4G between 21h42 and 21h45; the "cadaver" dog made no alerts.
Between 21h49 and 22h00, in the garden adjacent to apartment 5A, accessible from by way of the veranada and steps, the cadaver dog alerted in a garden-bed directly below the veranda.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
-
So there was only one alert there that indicated cadaver rather than blood. As Keela was not deployed apparently in the other apartments or the flower bed, we can assume no cadaver odor or blood in other apartments and possibly blood or cadaver odor in the flower bed, but this is uncertain.
ONe alert indicative of cadaver odor. Dogs are between 70 and 90 per cent reliable. Mr Grime says that alerts without further forensic evidence, alerts do not confirm cadaver presence.
-
Did Keela alert- that is the important question.
CRoss contamination is a problem with fabrics. One contaminated item could contaminate others. This is a fact, not conjecture. Additionally a previous contact with a missing contaminated item could be serially transferred.
THis is one reason why Mr Grime says that alerts are meaningless unless confirmed by other forensics.
Why is it important if Keela alerted or not? The fact that Eddie did indicates cadaver. I don't see your point about cross contamination. All of the clothing was the McCanns' The cross contamination could only have come from their clothing, so unless they wanted to pin the blame on Sean or Amelie it kind of doesn't matter that all the clothing was in contact with other bits of clothing from the house.
I doubt that the PJ decided to lump in the McCann clothing with that of known dead persons, for example.
On that note - Jon Corner (in the panorama documentary) reveals the McCanns knew the pj were coming to do forensic tests. And yet they had clothing in the washing machine. Not damning, I know, but it's just another one of those things to put in the "not exactly being helpful to the investigation" column.
-
At CEdwards
YOuhave messed up thecoding. Those are not my words quoted.
-
So there was only one alert there that indicated cadaver rather than blood. As Keela was not deployed apparently in the other apartments or the flower bed, we can assume no cadaver odor or blood in other apartments and possibly blood or cadaver odor in the flower bed, but this is uncertain.
ONe alert indicative of cadaver odor. Dogs are between 70 and 90 per cent reliable. Mr Grime says that alerts without further forensic evidence, alerts do not confirm cadaver presence.
Yes. Tell D'Andre Lane that. Or Eugene Zapata. I bet they felt as "relieved" as Kate McCann did when the cadaver dogs hit on the relevant places.
-
Did Keela alert- that is the important question.
CRoss contamination is a problem with fabrics. One contaminated item could contaminate others. This is a fact, not conjecture. Additionally a previous contact with a missing contaminated item could be serially transferred.
THis is one reason why Mr Grime says that alerts are meaningless unless confirmed by other forensics.
Why is it important if Keela alerted or not? The fact that Eddie did indicates cadaver. I don't see your point about cross contamination. All of the clothing was the McCanns' The cross contamination could only have come from their clothing, so unless they wanted to pin the blame on Sean or Amelie it kind of doesn't matter that all the clothing was in contact with other bits of clothing from the house.
I doubt that the PJ decided to lump in the McCann clothing with that of known dead persons, for example.
On that note - Jon Corner (in the panorama documentary) reveals the McCanns knew the pj were coming to do forensic tests. And yet they had clothing in the washing machine. Not damning, I know, but it's just another one of those things to put in the "not exactly being helpful to the investigation" column.
How many times do I have to repeat Mr Grime's words?
Eddie reacts to Cadaver odor AND blood.
An alert from Eddie says that blood OR cadaver odor is possibly present.
Only if Keela fails to react (meaning NO BLOOD) can one suggest that it is cadaver odor.
Please confirm that you understand this or provide evidence why Mr Grime is in error.
-
Did Keela alert- that is the important question.
CRoss contamination is a problem with fabrics. One contaminated item could contaminate others. This is a fact, not conjecture. Additionally a previous contact with a missing contaminated item could be serially transferred.
THis is one reason why Mr Grime says that alerts are meaningless unless confirmed by other forensics.
Why is it important if Keela alerted or not? The fact that Eddie did indicates cadaver. I don't see your point about cross contamination. All of the clothing was the McCanns' The cross contamination could only have come from their clothing, so unless they wanted to pin the blame on Sean or Amelie it kind of doesn't matter that all the clothing was in contact with other bits of clothing from the house.
I doubt that the PJ decided to lump in the McCann clothing with that of known dead persons, for example.
On that note - Jon Corner (in the panorama documentary) reveals the McCanns knew the pj were coming to do forensic tests. And yet they had clothing in the washing machine. Not damning, I know, but it's just another one of those things to put in the "not exactly being helpful to the investigation" column.
How many times do I have to repeat Mr Grime's words?
Eddie reacts to Cadaver odor AND blood.
An alert from Eddie says that blood OR cadaver odor is possibly present.
Only if Keela fails to react (meaning NO BLOOD) can one suggest that it is cadaver odor.
Please confirm that you understand this or provide evidence why Mr Grime is in error.
I'm failing to see your point. Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood. That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else. I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.
Please confirm you understand this.
What about the cross contamination issue? Stop prevaricating over the dogs' respective capabilities.
-
As for the testing of the clothes that was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen. For heavens sake the clothes were all packed together in a box where cross contamination was inevitable.
And to think they actually got paid a substantial fee for that effort!
Cross contamination from where? Oh yeah, McCann clothing to McCann clothing. Genius. Did Eddie alert to all the clothing? No.
Yeah, I know, handler cueing, right?
Did Keela alert- that is the important question.
CRoss contamination is a problem with fabrics. One contaminated item could contaminate others. This is a fact, not conjecture. Additionally a previous contact with a missing contaminated item could be serially transferred.
THis is one reason why Mr Grime says that alerts are meaningless unless confirmed by other forensics.
True. If Keela didn't alert, the molecules detected by Eddie weren't blood.
Mr Grime and Mark Harrison (who is a top guy and supervised the operation) never argued the dogs' findings were evidence. Just presumption. Nothing more.
-
@Cedwards
Let's do this step by step
AN alert by Eddie indicates either cadaver odor or blood.
DO you agree?
-
@Cedwards
Let's do this step by step
AN alert by Eddie indicates either cadaver odor or blood.
DO you agree?
No shit, Sherlock. Check my post above: I'm failing to see your point. Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood. That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else. I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.
-
@Cedwards
Let's do this step by step
AN alert by Eddie indicates either cadaver odor or blood.
DO you agree?
No shit, Sherlock. Check my post above: I'm failing to see your point. Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood. That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else. I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.
OK. So there was only one possible cadaver alert (unconfirmed by further forensics) around and in the apartments.
-
Eddie also reacted to tissues used to clean up after sex (in the Jersey report) and Grime found this to be within the parameters of his training. I already posted the reference to this.
So unless this was a case of necrophilia, isn't "cadaver" scent a bit misleading?
To me, it would seem that he reacts to various scents involved in the biological decomposition of human (or porcine) origin.
At a potential crime scene location, an alert could, of course, be indicative of a death and therefore worth examining further. In this particular case, there was nothing to confirm exactly what he was alerting to.
-
@CEdwards
Eddie's alert never confirms cadaver odor.
Agree?
-
C Edwardes (replying to Debunker)
I'm failing to see your point. Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood. That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else. I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.
Please confirm you understand this.
Going off at a relevant tangent (if you'll excuse the oxymoron) think back to the inspection of the vehicles.
In the videos before Levy started messing about with them, Grime is very clearly shown directing Eddie to the rear boot area. Eddie squatted several seconds under the boot, got up, wandered off without alerting and was recalled once more by Grime.
Keela reacted to the boot.
So that was a reaction by the blood dog
It was a non-reaction dog by the cadaver dog.
What does that equal?
-
Wonderful news, NOT
So the US and the UK have been sending people to prison on the account of those marvel dogs.
-
C Edwardes (replying to Debunker)
I'm failing to see your point. Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood. That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else. I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.
Please confirm you understand this.
Going off at a relevant tangent (if you'll excuse the oxymoron) think back to the inspection of the vehicles.
In the videos before Levy started messing about with them, Grime is very clearly shown directing Eddie to the rear boot area. Eddie squatted several seconds under the boot, got up, wandered off without alerting and was recalled once more by Grime.
Keela reacted to the boot.
So that was a reaction by the blood dog
It was a non-reaction dog by the cadaver dog.
What does that equal?
An error
-
Excuse me Mr. Administrators and Moderators,
but how the F. is it not important that 2 of the most prestigious BRITISH CSI, blood and cadaver dogs findings pointed to the existence of cadaver odour and blood in places where no one but little Madeleine could have been the victim?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The handler, Mr. Grimes was very clear - they (doggies) signaled. The fact that we need material evidence to the Court Trial is entirely another question.
There was no f. death in that apartment since it was built until the Mccs rented it;
As far as we know, no corpse whore Ms Healys pants;
I don't think a corpse either whore the little red t-shirt;
etc, etc,..
Are we all crazy or are you trying to make us?
-
Wonderful news, NOT
So the US and the UK have been sending people to prison on the account of those marvel dogs.
No Luz, not on the evidence of the dogs alone. There has to be corroboration of some sort usually from forensics.
-
Didn't Eddie indicate the presence of cadaverine or blood in a cupboard in the bedroom. What was that all about? 8-)(--)
Had somebody kept a sanitary towel there?
-
Excuse me Mr. Administrators and Moderators,
but how the F. is it not important that 2 of the most prestigious BRITISH CSI, blood and cadaver dogs findings pointed to the existence of cadaver odour and blood in places where no one but little Madeleine could have been the victim?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The handler, Mr. Grimes was very clear - they (doggies) signaled. The fact that we need material evidence to the Court Trial is entirely another question.
There was no f. death in that apartment since it was built until the Mccs rented it;
As far as we know, no corpse whore Ms Healys pants;
I don't think a corpse either whore the little red t-shirt;
etc, etc,..
Are we all crazy or are you trying to make us?
Fact is Luz, cadaverine is found in substances other than those which originated from corpses.
-
Excuse me Mr. Administrators and Moderators,
but how the F. is it not important that 2 of the most prestigious BRITISH CSI, blood and cadaver dogs findings pointed to the existence of cadaver odour and blood in places where no one but little Madeleine could have been the victim?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The handler, Mr. Grimes was very clear - they (doggies) signaled. The fact that we need material evidence to the Court Trial is entirely another question.
There was no f. death in that apartment since it was built until the Mccs rented it;
As far as we know, no corpse whore Ms Healys pants;
I don't think a corpse either wore the little red t-shirt;
etc, etc,..
Are we all crazy or are you trying to make us?
Fact is Luz, cadaverine is found in substances other than those which originated from corpses. With the best will in the world the expertise of the 'doggies' is not an exact science.
I guarantee somebody is going to be rather embarrassed when Madeleine shows up alive and well and it wont be the doggies.
-
As I said, poor Uk prisioners on the account of the doggies.
-
As I said, poor Uk prisioners on the account of the doggies.
Why "poor UK prisoners"?
-
Excuse me Mr. Administrators and Moderators,
but how the F. is it not important that 2 of the most prestigious BRITISH CSI, blood and cadaver dogs findings pointed to the existence of cadaver odour and blood in places where no one but little Madeleine could have been the victim?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The handler, Mr. Grimes was very clear - they (doggies) signaled. The fact that we need material evidence to the Court Trial is entirely another question.
There was no f. death in that apartment since it was built until the Mccs rented it;
As far as we know, no corpse whore Ms Healys pants;
I don't think a corpse either whore the little red t-shirt;
etc, etc,..
Are we all crazy or are you trying to make us?
You seem to assume that a reaction from Eddie necessarily meant that there was / had been a cadaver present. It could be, but may not be.
So many people were in that apartment (it was a holiday rental apartment after all).
It was also occupied by 4 sets of people on vacation AFTER the disappearance and BEFORE the UK dogs.
-
Fact is Luz, cadaverine is found in substances other than those which originated from corpses. With the best will in the world the expertise of the 'doggies' is not an exact science.
This is true, though quantity has an obvious effect on smell. But the problem is that cadaverine is far to be the only substance forming cadaver scent, a scent that besides changes with the passing of time !
Why do you think they grow cadavers in farms ?
There are very interesting and technical studies about the components of cadaver scent, a bit tough to read.. Actually scientists are trying to built a device that would copy dog's nose, avoiding any possible human interference.
-
Fact is Luz, cadaverine is found in substances other than those which originated from corpses. With the best will in the world the expertise of the 'doggies' is not an exact science.
This is true, though quantity has an obvious effect on smell. But the problem is that cadaverine is far to be the only substance forming cadaver scent, a scent that besides changes with the passing of time !
Why do you think they grow cadavers in farms ?
There are very interesting and technical studies about the components of cadaver scent, a bit tough to read.. Actually scientists are trying to built a device that would copy dog's nose, avoiding any possible human interference.
From what I've read, dogs are really useful as an asset. However, their reactions are only indicative in the absence of anything substantial.
The science still doesn't seem to be exact. It would have been less so in 2007.
-
Ok Mr. John, yours seems to be a more down to earth description of what could have declenched the cadaver dog's signaling.
Now we can bury the myth of the 6 cadavers examined by Ms. Healy, in what concerns her pants, and instead we consider that she disposed of her hygenic napkins in the living room behind the sofa, in her bedroom closet and in her car,...
not very hygenic that Ms Healy >@@(*&)
I'm sorry but I believe more in the dogs that on those explanations.
-
Ok Mr. John, yours seems to be a more down to earth description of what could have declenched the cadaver dog's signaling.
Now we can bury the myth of the 6 cadavers examined by Ms. Healy, in what concerns her pants, and instead we consider that she disposed of her hygenic napkins in the living room behind the sofa, in her bedroom closet and in her car,...
not very hygenic that Ms Healy >@@(*&)
@)(++(* 8@??)( now now
-
"Reaction" to clothing can be dismissed.
Eddie had an opportunity to alert to anything that might have been within his scent-range during the inspection at the villa.
The only, ostensible, alert at the villa was to the stuffed toy, where Eddie could, apparently, find no trace of a scent all the time he was able to play with the toy, pick it up, toss it in the air and all the rest.
Only after the toy was hidden in a cupboard could Eddie, apparently, detect a "scent".
Whether that was an error of omission (failing to react when he should have) or commission, reacting when he shouldn't have, we can only guess.
And in the gym, clothing Eddie (according to Joao Carlos) might have alerted to or might not was re-tested.
For any dog attending a crime scene to pick stuff up in its mouth is appalling bad practice.
In the meantime, here are the words of the one PJ officer really to understand the dogs, PJ Inspector Dias:
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'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
-
Let's hope the doggies are wrong!
I wish very deeply that child was found alive, but I'm afraid that will never happen.
Let's try to do her justice and find out what has happened to her.
Edited because I can't comment )
-
I wish very deeply that child was found alive, but I'm afraid that will never happen.
Let's try to do her justice and find out what has happened to her.
In a case like this the parents are primary suspects and these have never been thoroughly investigated. Why would we excuse them from that necessary and close investigation?! What makes them special?
Every case I've read about missing children, had the parents completely checked.
You may not believe the dogs, but they gave signs that incriminate the parents, so why wouldn't they allow to be checked?
What irritates me the most is that these people have, from the start, behaved as nobody else. They assumed they could control everything, they despised the authorities, they used them, they went on to a free ride as celebrities - using and abusing the press that they now accuse - and never ever moved a finger to try to get to any place where their daughter reportedly could possibly be.
From the very beginning they established a Fund that they have been using to enhance their life style - remember that when they went to this fatidic vacation, Mr. McCann discussed pennies over services in a low rated facility, but when he first returned to Lisbon he went to the most expensive hotel in town. Ms. Healy had to keep her GP job to make the ends meet, but she was able to leave it after Maddie disapeared.
[a lot more could be said]
Well, it sounds cruel, but they have been doing very well after their daughter's disappearance.
This makes me suspect that they don't have the slightest desire to have the truth come out.
You have no evidence how much if at all they have benefited.
Your own justice system has decided that there is no case to answer.
-
Let's hope the doggies are wrong!
I wish very deeply that child was found alive, but I'm afraid that will never happen.
Let's try to do her justice and find out what has happened to her.
Edited because I can't comment )
The doggies could be right, but they can't say what they were reacting to. Forensics couldn't determine anything conclusive either.
So far, there is nothing to prove that she is dead, let alone who was responsible. Therefore, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there is a possibility that she could still be alive.
If that little girl were your child, niece, neighbour's child, would you seriously - in the absence of proof to the contrary - deny her that right to be considered missing but potentially alive?
-
Let's hope the doggies are wrong!
I wish very deeply that child was found alive, but I'm afraid that will never happen.
Let's try to do her justice and find out what has happened to her.
Edited because I can't comment )
The doggies could be right, but they can't say what they were reacting to. Forensics couldn't determine anything conclusive either.
So far, there is nothing to prove that she is dead, let alone who was responsible. Therefore, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there is a possibility that she could still be alive.
Fair enough. But accounting to the exposure of this case do you honestly believe it? I remember that still in the first half of 2007 (if my memory serves me right) the late Director of Faro PJ said that if the child was alive, the parents by disclosing her coloboma and the mark in her left leg had just killed her. No abductor would keep a child that could be so easily identified
If that little girl were your child, niece, neighbour's child, would you seriously - in the absence of proof to the contrary - deny her that right to be considered missing but potentially alive?
Never.
However, if it was my child I would never do any thing to put her in danger. And furthermore I would help the authorities to help me get her/him back, and never defy them or slander their efforts.
If you are a parent you give your life for your child you don't use your child to make a living.
-
Let's hope the doggies are wrong!
I wish very deeply that child was found alive, but I'm afraid that will never happen.
Let's try to do her justice and find out what has happened to her.
Edited because I can't comment )
The doggies could be right, but they can't say what they were reacting to. Forensics couldn't determine anything conclusive either.
So far, there is nothing to prove that she is dead, let alone who was responsible. Therefore, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there is a possibility that she could still be alive.
Fair enough. But accounting to the exposure of this case do you honestly believe it? I remember that still in the first half of 2007 (if my memory serves me right) the late Director of Faro PJ said that if the child was alive, the parents by disclosing her coloboma and the mark in her left leg had just killed her. No abductor would keep a child that could be so easily identified
If that little girl were your child, niece, neighbour's child, would you seriously - in the absence of proof to the contrary - deny her that right to be considered missing but potentially alive?
Never.
However, if it was my child I would never do any thing to put her in danger. And furthermore I would help the authorities to help me get her/him back, and never defy them or slander their efforts.
If you are a parent you give your life for your child you don't use your child to make a living.
It must be such a burden being such a picture of perfection.
Let us not forget your limited detective abilities when we convinced you that Eddie (a poster) was the mole among the mods on MM.
-
Nice memory Debunker. It shows what you are and what you stand for. After all we've known each other for 6 years.
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.
You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!
Lies again
-
Debunker, as I said I went along with your lie to get you, and I got you. I never was a moderator on any Forum and apart from this (UK Justice Forum) I never denounced or complained against anyone.
So you are making it all up. But if it makes you happy, continue.
-
Debunker, as I said I went along with your lie to get you, and I got you. I never was a moderator on any Forum and apart from this (UK Justice Forum) I never denounced or complained against anyone.
So you are making it all up. But if it makes you happy, continue.
Rubbish.
How can you have 'gone along with it' if you deny that you had nothing to do with it?
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.
You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!
Lies again
Debunker
Who is the 'us' and 'we' you refer to ?
I have no connection with anyone on this forum, and I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.
You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!
Lies again
Debunker
Who is the 'us' and 'we' you refer to ?
I have no connection with anyone on this forum, and I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group
This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.
You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!
Lies again
Debunker
Who is the 'us' and 'we' you refer to ?
I have no connection with anyone on this forum, and I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group
This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.
I see
I can't say I'm impressed that you and others found such great sport in the case of a missing infant
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.
You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!
Lies again
Debunker
Who is the 'us' and 'we' you refer to ?
I have no connection with anyone on this forum, and I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group
This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.
I see
I can't say I'm impressed that you and others found such great sport in the case of a missing infant
The [ censored word] had attacked many Pro forums and caused them to be closed down by making spurious copyright infringement complaints- surprisingly it was Brenda Ryan and Bonnie Braes from the 3As that led this form of attack. From then on it was open season on [ censored word ] forums, but we were more subtle, causing internal dissent and division between Admin, Mods and Posters.
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.
You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!
Lies again
Debunker
Who is the 'us' and 'we' you refer to ?
I have no connection with anyone on this forum, and I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group
This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.
I see
I can't say I'm impressed that you and others found such great sport in the case of a missing infant
The [ censored word] had attacked many Pro forums and caused them to be closed down by making spurious copyright infringement complaints- surprisingly it was Brenda Ryan and Bonnie Braes from the 3As that led this form of attack. From then on it was open season on [ censored word ] forums, but we were more subtle, causing internal dissent and division between Admin, Mods and Posters.
I can only hope the moderators on this forum are taking note of your boasts
-
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.
Sit back and think about that.
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.
I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.
You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!
Lies again
Debunker
Who is the 'us' and 'we' you refer to ?
I have no connection with anyone on this forum, and I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group
This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.
I see
I can't say I'm impressed that you and others found such great sport in the case of a missing infant
The [ censored word] had attacked many Pro forums and caused them to be closed down by making spurious copyright infringement complaints- surprisingly it was Brenda Ryan and Bonnie Braes from the 3As that led this form of attack. From then on it was open season on [ censored word ] forums, but we were more subtle, causing internal dissent and division between Admin, Mods and Posters.
I can only hope the moderators on this forum are taking note of your boasts
Those days seem to be behind us now and the two camps no longer attack each other in that manner.
-
Let's hope the doggies are wrong!
I wish very deeply that child was found alive, but I'm afraid that will never happen.
Let's try to do her justice and find out what has happened to her.
Edited because I can't comment )
The doggies could be right, but they can't say what they were reacting to. Forensics couldn't determine anything conclusive either.
So far, there is nothing to prove that she is dead, let alone who was responsible. Therefore, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there is a possibility that she could still be alive.
Fair enough. But accounting to the exposure of this case do you honestly believe it? I remember that still in the first half of 2007 (if my memory serves me right) the late Director of Faro PJ said that if the child was alive, the parents by disclosing her coloboma and the mark in her left leg had just killed her. No abductor would keep a child that could be so easily identified
If that little girl were your child, niece, neighbour's child, would you seriously - in the absence of proof to the contrary - deny her that right to be considered missing but potentially alive?
Never.
However, if it was my child I would never do any thing to put her in danger. And furthermore I would help the authorities to help me get her/him back, and never defy them or slander their efforts.
If you are a parent you give your life for your child you don't use your child to make a living.
I think that you have got the quotation marks mixed up. The paragraph in blue (but in my name) must be your comment, not mine.
-
@ Luz
What I assume to be your comment to me...
Fair enough. But accounting to the exposure of this case do you honestly believe it? I remember that still in the first half of 2007 (if my memory serves me right) the late Director of Faro PJ said that if the child was alive, the parents by disclosing her coloboma and the mark in her left leg had just killed her. No abductor would keep a child that could be so easily identified
I've never understood this.
How would one launch a missing child alert without distinguishing features?
How could any citizen recognise one child from all others without any?
The PJ's own website lists distinguishing features of missing people...
That said, I'm not certain that the PJ had a website back in 2007.
-
@ Luz
You mentioned: "the late Director of Faro PJ". Are you sure about who made that remark?
-
Debunker, as I said I went along with your lie to get you, and I got you. I never was a moderator on any Forum and apart from this (UK Justice Forum) I never denounced or complained against anyone.
So you are making it all up. But if it makes you happy, continue.
Rubbish.
How can you have 'gone along with it' if you deny that you had nothing to do with it?
Is this relevant to the OP?
I don't think so, but it seems to be relevant to a certain way of conducting the discussions by the McCs'lovers. I hope that people can see how the McCannites operate.
-
Hello
I've been out for some time, and without being prejudiced, I will not review the posts that have been made - please forgive me for that.
I know that dogs have been used and abused in some cases of criminal investigation in the Us, but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance. And they have been used in other cases that went to court based on their signals. There were cases of convictions for murder because of circumstantial evidence, without corpses or forensic evidence...
Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they announced her disappearance?!
There was blood that was recovered for analysis, there were fluids and hair,...but the best laboratory in the world couldn't even say if the hair was from a dead person - the blasted simplest test to do!
And what was the conclusion of the best laboratory of the world (just by chance a British one) after an elongated period of time?
First, someone from the laboratory released a report that ended being splashed in the Times considering that there was a total match between the samples of the blood by the window and Madeleine McCann. The liason officer of the PJ, Ricardo, received the same report, which was used for the interviews.
But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!
I don't buy it. I respect the professionals that did those tests and I believe that someone that signed that report was very unprofessional and unethical.
P.S. sorry for the typos and syntaxe
-
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in a apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they announced her disappearance?!
Eddie, the EVRD, alerted outside the driver door (car key in the door compartment with blood on it) but wasn't sent into the car. Then nobody can say there was cadaver scent inside.
-
Hello
I've been out for some time, and without being prejudiced, I will not review the posts that have been made - please forgive me for that.
I know that dogs have been used and abused in some cases of criminal investigation in the Us, but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance. And they have been used in other cases that went to court based on their signals. There were cases of convictions for murder because of circumstantial evidence, without corpses or forensic evidence...
Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they an
nounced her disappearance?!
There was blood that was recovered for analysis, there were fluids and hair,...but the best laboratory in the world couldn't even say if the hair was from a dead person - the blasted simplest test to do!
And what was the conclusion of the best laboratory of the world (just by chance a British one) after an elongated period of time?
First, someone from the laboratory released a report that ended being splashed in the Times considering that there was a total match between the samples of the blood by the window and Madeleine McCann. The liason officer of the PJ, Ricardo, received the same report, which was used for the interviews.
But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!
I don't buy it. I respect the professionals that did those tests and I believe that someone that signed that report was very unprofessional and unethical.
P.S. sorry for the typos and syntaxe
All that rational argument showing how unreliable the dog evidence is, and then a pretendy pychologist drops by to show that they didn't bother to read anything.
-
You are not my client, why should I read you?!
-
@ Luz
You mentioned: "the late Director of Faro PJ". Are you sure about who made that remark?
I'm sorry, if you redirect me to the quote you are referring to I'll try to clarify. Thanks
-
Hello
I've been out for some time, and without being prejudiced, I will not review the posts that have been made - please forgive me for that.
I know that dogs have been used and abused in some cases of criminal investigation in the Us, but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance. And they have been used in other cases that went to court based on their signals. There were cases of convictions for murder because of circumstantial evidence, without corpses or forensic evidence...
Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they announced her disappearance?!
There was blood that was recovered for analysis, there were fluids and hair,...but the best laboratory in the world couldn't even say if the hair was from a dead person - the blasted simplest test to do!
And what was the conclusion of the best laboratory of the world (just by chance a British one) after an elongated period of time?
First, someone from the laboratory released a report that ended being splashed in the Times considering that there was a total match between the samples of the blood by the window and Madeleine McCann. The liason officer of the PJ, Ricardo, received the same report, which was used for the interviews.
But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!
I don't buy it. I respect the professionals that did those tests and I believe that someone that signed that report was very unprofessional and unethical.
P.S. sorry for the typos and syntaxe
Luz, I've read this several times and I'm not sure which facts you are basing your opinions on.
- The dogs "have been attributed as 100% assurance": as to what? Eddie didn't just react to corpses.
- No blood or body fluids were recovered. It's an assumption that what Keela alerted to was blood as that is all she'd been trained to alert to.
- The hair test: Corte-Real met with the FSS and there's a handover slip, signed by Viegas (ETA: from memory). Didn't the PJ/INML double-check?
- The Times article: which one?
-
Hello
I've been out for some time, and without being prejudiced, I will not review the posts that have been made - please forgive me for that.
I know that dogs have been used and abused in some cases of criminal investigation in the Us, but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance. And they have been used in other cases that went to court based on their signals. There were cases of convictions for murder because of circumstantial evidence, without corpses or forensic evidence...
Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they an
nounced her disappearance?!
There was blood that was recovered for analysis, there were fluids and hair,...but the best laboratory in the world couldn't even say if the hair was from a dead person - the blasted simplest test to do!
And what was the conclusion of the best laboratory of the world (just by chance a British one) after an elongated period of time?
First, someone from the laboratory released a report that ended being splashed in the Times considering that there was a total match between the samples of the blood by the window and Madeleine McCann. The liason officer of the PJ, Ricardo, received the same report, which was used for the interviews.
But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!
I don't buy it. I respect the professionals that did those tests and I believe that someone that signed that report was very unprofessional and unethical.
P.S. sorry for the typos and syntaxe
All that rational argument showing how unreliable the dog evidence is, and then a pretendy pychologist drops by to show that they didn't bother to read anything.
(sic) ... but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance.
No they haven't, not even by Grime. Grime said Eddie had never alerted to food and had never alerted to the cadaver scent of a dead wild animal. That's all.
Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they announced her disappearance?!
We know the provenance of Eddie's reaction to the car and we know it was innocent -- spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
We know that Eddie erred in his, apparent, reaction to cuddle-cat, either by failing to alert when the toy was in his sight and he could pick it up, toss it in the air and play with it; or in alerting erroneously after the toy had been hidden in a cupboard.
In respect of what Amaral refers to as the "preliminary report", that was very clear that no incriminating inference could be drawn. It said, Too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation. In his main report, he summarises the same result without reference to Madeleine by name, but with the same words.
But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!
I think it is no coincidence that we don't see Stuart Prior's report on line and surely people don't still believe Amaral gave Prior a flea in his ear, then instructed him to ring the FSS and berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest.
Do they?
-
Luz- you understand neither DNA nor the Dogs. Educate yourself!
-
Popping in.
Has anyone worked out what happened to the missing hairs yet?
-
Carana, maybe the dogs ate them? wrong thread?
As regards the dogs that so many police forces rely on in the world, and how many cases they have been instrumental in helping to solve, I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler. No doubter seems to be asking the question, what if the cadaver dog was right and that Madeleine did die in that apartment. It is not IMO a possibility that anyone can dismiss. It is not true that the dogs should be dismissed. It is positively irresponsible and biased.
-
I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.
Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.
At least in the short-term he was very successful.
-
I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.
Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.
At least in the short-term he was very successful.
Martin Grime and Mark Harrison said that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Guilhermino ENCARNCAO selected and established the priorities for the search areas.
-
What was cavalier was the way the searches were conducted
-
I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.
Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.
At least in the short-term he was very successful.
A wholly subjective and biased, bordering, if not actually, on libellous view and factually incorrect as well as he continues to be employed six years later.
-
I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.
Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.
At least in the short-term he was very successful.
Martin Grime and Mark Harrison said that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Guilhermino ENCARNCAO selected and established the priorities for the search areas.
Actually that is not what Mr Harrison said, but never mind, the general point being, that even if no forensics are found, it does not mean a dog is wrong on a certain search, just that an alert on its own is not proof. To dismiss a cadaver dog alert just because no forensics has been found is as I said irresponsible, as there are many cases of cadaver dogs alerting, with no forensics, where it has been been proven that they were right. you do know that people can die with no blood spillage.
-
I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.
Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.
At least in the short-term he was very successful.
Martin Grime and Mark Harrison said that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Guilhermino ENCARNCAO selected and established the priorities for the search areas.
Actually that is not what Mr Harrison said, but never mind, the general point being, that even if no forensics are found, it does not mean a dog is wrong on a certain search, just that an alert on its own is not proof. To dismiss a cadaver dog alert just because no forensics has been found is as I said irresponsible, as there are many cases of cadaver dogs alerting, with no forensics, where it has been been proven that they were right. you do know that people can die with no blood spillage.
And there are many cases where no evidence was found and many cases in the researcvh literature where the dogs identify or fail to identify incorrectly. This is why itcan never be stand alone evidence.
-
Moot point unless any of that can be attributed to the actual dog involved IMO
Edited for spelling error.
-
Moot point unless any of that can be atteibuted to the actual dog involved IMO
And only in your very humble opinion- the science is quite clear. Dog evidence alone is never probative.
-
Moot point unless any of that can be atteibuted to the actual dog involved IMO
And only in your very humble opinion- the science is quite clear. Dog evidence alone is never probative.
Your point was not the point of discussion. Not moving goalposts perchance? Unless you can come up with evidence that Eddie, RIP, failed to alert to the remnant scent of a corpse or last place a corpse contaminated before being moved, or that he alerted to a place a missing person was last seen and they turned up alive, you have no argument here, IMHO.
-
Unless you can come up with evidence that Eddie, RIP, failed to alert to the remnant scent of a corpse or last place a corpse contaminated before being moved, or that he alerted to a place a missing person was last seen and they turned up alive, you have no argument here, IMHO.
Shouldn't the burden of evidence be the other way?
-
Unless you can come up with evidence that Eddie, RIP, failed to alert to the remnant scent of a corpse or last place a corpse contaminated before being moved, or that he alerted to a place a missing person was last seen and they turned up alive, you have no argument here, IMHO.
Shouldn't the burden of evidence be the other way?
It is up to the accuser to prove what they say is true.
-
Unless you can come up with evidence that Eddie, RIP, failed to alert to the remnant scent of a corpse or last place a corpse contaminated before being moved, or that he alerted to a place a missing person was last seen and they turned up alive, you have no argument here, IMHO.
Shouldn't the burden of evidence be the other way?
It is up to the accuser to prove what they say is true.
Wrong.
The accusation is against the McCanns (that the dogs might have alerted to something incriminating); the onus on those who suggest they might have to prove their point (or shut up)!
ETA: What evidence is there Eddie has passed on?
-
Eddie passed away from cancer.
No, Ferryman, you are wrong, you and others are accusing Mr Grime of fraud, and saying this particular dog makes errors, etc, was not trained n the USA, etc it is up to you to prove your accusations.
-
Eddie passed away from cancer.
No, Ferryman, you are wrong, you and others are accusing Mr Grime of fraud, and saying this particular dog makes errors, etc, was not trained n the USA, etc it is up to you to prove your accusations.
A SYP FOI answer (now removed) says Eddie's training was (sic) in accordance with standard ACPO guidelines
I've read them. They say nothing about sending dogs to America to be trained on human cadavers.
Another FOI answer says SYP never received a report about the training Eddie allegedly received.
In the UK, it is illegal to use human remains to train dogs. Particularly given that we have a tried and trusted alternative method of training dogs, why would we indulge both the expense and the hypocrisy of sending dogs to America to be trained in ways outlawed here?
And if we are going to indulge that expense and hypocrisy, why ever on a dog (at the time Eddie is supposed to have gone) aged 6 and about 18 months from retirement?
-
Then Ferryman why not just say it out loud, you think Mr Grime is a liar. You are saying it anyway.
-
Then Ferryman why not just say it out loud, you think Mr Grime is a liar. You are saying it anyway.
The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.
The curtain was sent because Keela alerted to it.
They could find no blood ...
-
Then Ferryman why not just say it out loud, you think Mr Grime is a liar. You are saying it anyway.
The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.
The curtain was sent because Keela alerted to it.
They could find no blood ...
That means nothing at all as Keela could scent blood even when it was washed away. Even the FSS have conceded they take Mr Grimes dog evidence over and above their tests which dont stand up to the abilities of the dogs.
-
Was any blood associated with the dog searches in PdL actually forensically proven to be so?
However, on the subject of blood, whatever happened to the tests on some street wall in PdL?
-
According to Martin Grime.
I suspect, actually, Grime there took what Robert Lowe actually says that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result is derived.
Grime (I reckon) took that a stage further and asserted that the dog will find blood even when they can find no trace in a laboratory.
But how would he know?
@Carana, I wonder whether what I've said might be, at least in part, the answer?
It's true, I think, that nowhere in Lowe's report is there a direct reference to blood.
-
Was any blood associated with the dog searches in PdL actually forensically proven to be so?
However, on the subject of blood, whatever happened to the tests on some street wall in PdL?
I already answered the question about Keela finding blood and the FSS not being able to prove it was. If she alerts to nothing unless it is blood, then that is a pretty a sure thing, that she alerted to blood. I dont see the problem here also because many people are saying Keela alerted to Gerry Mccanns blood on the car key fob. Why they think she did, well apart from people sayng no blood was found LOL, is a mystery because the exaxt same phraeseology from the FSS was given vis a vis Madeleines , all known markers matched.....
DNA, but of course, it wasn't hers and could have been anyones on the planet, yes ok
-
According to Martin Grime.
I suspect, actually, Grime there took what Robert Lowe actually says that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result is derived.
Grime (I reckon) took that a stage further and asserted that the dog will find blood even when they can find no trace in a laboratory.
But how would he know?
@Carana, I wonder whether what I've said might be, at least in part, the answer?
It's true, I think, that nowhere in Lowe's report is there a direct reference to blood.
Because he has trained and tested her and knows first hand
-
How on earth can Amaral be taken seriously?.
On August 2nd, at 6pm, the inspectors arrive at the McCanns' residence and present the search warrant. The principle of the examination by the specialist dogs is explained. Kate and Gerry are in the swimming pool in the garden with the twins. Contrary to all expectations, they allow us access to their house in a very natural way.
He wasn't there. Designated Officers: Paulo Pancadas and Nuno Nunes, PJ Inspectors
Contrary to all expectations, they allow us access to their house in a very natural way.
Hello, search warrant!!
Eddie goes immediately to the lounge. He comes to a stop in front of a wicker armchair on which is lying Madeleine's small pink soft toy, which Kate was never without in the early days of the investigation. Nowadays, she wears a rosary and a green ribbon around her neck. Eddie barks to let us know that he has detected an odour: the soft toy has been in contact with a body.
So Eddie, not only detected an odour on cuddlecat in 5A, twice, but by a miracle, turns up in the new property, and Bingo, Eddie does it again.
-
Was any blood associated with the dog searches in PdL actually forensically proven to be so?
However, on the subject of blood, whatever happened to the tests on some street wall in PdL?
I already answered the question about Keela finding blood and the FSS not being able to prove it was. If she alerts to nothing unless it is blood, then that is a pretty a sure thing, that she alerted to blood. I dont see the problem here also because many people are saying Keela alerted to Gerry Mccanns blood on the car key fob. Why they think she did, well apart from people sayng no blood was found LOL, is a mystery because the exaxt same phraeseology from the FSS was given vis a vis Madeleines , all known markers matched.....
DNA, but of course, it wasn't hers and could have been anyones on the planet, yes ok
I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.
What was found was:
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
Concerning Madeleine and "all known markers matched", I'm not sure which result you're thinking of.
-
I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.
Just to be fair here, just because no forensic evidence of blood is recovered does not mean that the dog was wrong in alerting, you do understand that, right? Grime is talking evidentially in that a dog alert is not sufficient as anything other than an indication. The way that McCann supporters go on about this seems to assume that Keela was "wrong" to alert as no blood was recovered.
I see the dog alerts as highly indicative of something worthy of further investigation to try and explain why the alerts happened where they did and not elsewhere.
-
I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.
Just to be fair here, just because no forensic evidence of blood is recovered does not mean that the dog was wrong in alerting, you do understand that, right? Grime is talking evidentially in that a dog alert is not sufficient as anything other than an indication. The way that McCann supporters go on about this seems to assume that Keela was "wrong" to alert as no blood was recovered.
I see the dog alerts as highly indicative of something worthy of further investigation to try and explain why the alerts happened where they did and not elsewhere.
I didn't say that she was "wrong" to alert.
-
I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.
Just to be fair here, just because no forensic evidence of blood is recovered does not mean that the dog was wrong in alerting, you do understand that, right? Grime is talking evidentially in that a dog alert is not sufficient as anything other than an indication. The way that McCann supporters go on about this seems to assume that Keela was "wrong" to alert as no blood was recovered.
I see the dog alerts as highly indicative of something worthy of further investigation to try and explain why the alerts happened where they did and not elsewhere.
I didn't say that she was "wrong" to alert.
I didn't say YOU did! The general tenet of those that support the McCanns, I'm sure you'd agree Carana, is that the dog alerts are meaningless without forensic corroboration. That's not true, the alerts have meaning, but they are evidentially (i.e. suitable as evidence) worthless without corroboration. There's a whole world of difference between those states.
I'm only posting this here as otherwise this kind of differentiation gets lost in the noise and anyone new (is there anyone left?) to the case may be confused.
-
I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.
Just to be fair here, just because no forensic evidence of blood is recovered does not mean that the dog was wrong in alerting, you do understand that, right? Grime is talking evidentially in that a dog alert is not sufficient as anything other than an indication. The way that McCann supporters go on about this seems to assume that Keela was "wrong" to alert as no blood was recovered.
I see the dog alerts as highly indicative of something worthy of further investigation to try and explain why the alerts happened where they did and not elsewhere.
I didn't say that she was "wrong" to alert.
I didn't say YOU did! The general tenet of those that support the McCanns, I'm sure you'd agree Carana, is that the dog alerts are meaningless without forensic corroboration. That's not true, the alerts have meaning, but they are evidentially (i.e. suitable as evidence) worthless without corroboration. There's a whole world of difference between those states.
I'm only posting this here as otherwise this kind of differentiation gets lost in the noise and anyone new (is there anyone left?) to the case may be confused.
I see the issue the other way around.
Something within the parameters of his training made him alert. Any lingering scent related to human or porcine decomposition could have triggered an alert, the scent of an actual cadaver (or something that had been in contact with a dead person) being a possibility amongst others.
Without evidence, there is no way of knowing whether he was alerting to something significant or totally irrelevant.
-
According to Martin Grime.
I suspect, actually, Grime there took what Robert Lowe actually says that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result is derived.
Grime (I reckon) took that a stage further and asserted that the dog will find blood even when they can find no trace in a laboratory.
But how would he know?
@Carana, I wonder whether what I've said might be, at least in part, the answer?
It's true, I think, that nowhere in Lowe's report is there a direct reference to blood.
I don't think so as he mentions it in his profile.
I don't know how he would know, either. He may have information on how much blood would be needed for a forensic confirmation and tested her with less. Dunno.
-
According to Martin Grime.
I suspect, actually, Grime there took what Robert Lowe actually says that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result is derived.
Grime (I reckon) took that a stage further and asserted that the dog will find blood even when they can find no trace in a laboratory.
But how would he know?
@Carana, I wonder whether what I've said might be, at least in part, the answer?
It's true, I think, that nowhere in Lowe's report is there a direct reference to blood.
I don't think so as he mentions it in his profile.
I don't know how he would know, either. He may have information on how much blood would be needed for a forensic confirmation and tested her with less. Dunno.
Fair point that Grime wrote his profile before Lowe wrote his report.
On the other hand, it is probably generally known that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result was obtained.
-
Actually that is not what Mr Harrison said, but never mind, the general point being, that even if no forensics are found, it does not mean a dog is wrong on a certain search, just that an alert on its own is not proof. To dismiss a cadaver dog alert just because no forensics has been found is as I said irresponsible, as there are many cases of cadaver dogs alerting, with no forensics, where it has been been proven that they were right. you do know that people can die with no blood spillage.
I have read accounts of both: a dog alerted and someone later admitted to having moved the body, and others in which a dog alerted but the body had never been anywhere near the location. So both can happen.
I'm not dismissing the possibility, but I find it irresponsible for people (particularly those involved in the investigation) to assert that she did die in that apartment, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, because a dog barked.
-
And who in their right mind would put a body in a bedside cupboard which wasn't even wide enough to accommodate it? Complete gibberish. I nearly laughed at Amaral when in his video he claimed this had happened. What a k..b
-
It is worth pointing out that Mr Grime is fundamentally d........t over the accuracy of his dogs.
If further forensic evidence is found, then it is a ´hit´.
If no further forensic evidence is found it is also a ´hit´.
He counts every alert as correct despite the later outcome of tests.
He ignores the known facts about the accuracy of such dogs.
-
It is worth pointing out that Mr Grime is fundamentally d.........t over the accuracy of his dogs.
If further forensic evidence is found, then it is a ´hit´.
If no further forensic evidence is found it is also a ´hit´.
He counts every alert as correct despite the later outcome of tests.
He ignores the known facts about the accuracy of such dogs.
Has he an out if and when Madeleine is eventually found alive and well?
-
It is worth pointing out that Mr Grime is fundamentally d.........t over the accuracy of his dogs.
If further forensic evidence is found, then it is a ´hit´.
If no further forensic evidence is found it is also a ´hit´.
He counts every alert as correct despite the later outcome of tests.
He ignores the known facts about the accuracy of such dogs.
Has he an out if and when Madeleine is eventually found alive and well?
easy peasey >> just blame the dogs 8@??)(
-
I am sorry. It is a FACT that he is dishonest- I did not say that he lied- which would be actionable, but the way he calculates his statistics is not honest, counting nulls as positives. Simple experimental design fault.
If he was honest he would tally confirmed alerts and non-confirmed alerts as separate categories.
-
It is worth pointing out that Mr Grime is fundamentally d.........t over the accuracy of his dogs.
If further forensic evidence is found, then it is a ´hit´.
If no further forensic evidence is found it is also a ´hit´.
He counts every alert as correct despite the later outcome of tests.
He ignores the known facts about the accuracy of such dogs.
Has he an out if and when Madeleine is eventually found alive and well?
To be fair, he only says that the dog's reaction is a possibility or "suggestive of...". Others exaggerated the importance.
On the other hand, I can sort of understand where others assumed that the dog's reactions equated to a dead person.
On the other hand, again, they should have double-checked - and there's nothing to say that he hadn't pointed out caveats in a verbal briefing.
Back again, to be fair, someone (DCCB?) did wonder and ask... but by then the possibility had become "fact".
Sorry about the number of hands. LOL
-
Carana, ref your post at 8.22am, this was the quote I was referring to from the Lowe report. Substitute corresponding components for known components, my bad.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
My point was, that when the FSS reported that confirmed components matched corresponding components to Gerry Mccann, some people say this is confirmation it was Gerry's blood, while in the same breath saying there is no proof any blood was found, and in another breath saying no blood of Madeleine's was found.
-
ETA post I am replying to:
Carana, ref your post at 8.22am, this was the quote I was referring to from the Lowe report. Substitute corresponding components for known components, my bad.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
My point was, that when the FSS reported that confirmed components matched corresponding components to Gerry Mccann, some people say this is confirmation it was Gerry's blood, while in the same breath saying there is no proof any blood was found, and in another breath saying no blood of Madeleine's was found.
(Red Blossom)
It's always good to take quotes in proper context:
An attempt to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swabs from the tiles 286/2007 CR/L 5 stains 1, 2 & 3 were unsuccessful in that no DNA profile was obtained.
An LCN DNA result which contained to little information for meaningful interpretation was obtained from cellular material on the swab from the tile (286/2007 CR/L 9).
Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
Looks as if Madeleine's DNA might have been traced in the apartment ....
-
Ferryman, I am unclear as to what you are trying to say. If you mean those results show that Madeleine's DNA may have been found in the flat, that is true and means nothing of itself obviously. The samples though were taken from an area where the blood dog alerted. Again, it could mean nothing but she possibly had a nosebleed or grazed her arm or leg for instance. My point was, in case you missed it, was that some say partial DNA found matching correspondent components to Gerry Mccann, to some, means Gerry's blood was found, but when partial DNA found matching correspondent components to Madeleine, it can't have been blood. That is all.
-
Carana, ref your post at 8.22am, this was the quote I was referring to from the Lowe report. Substitute corresponding components for known components, my bad.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
My point was, that when the FSS reported that confirmed components matched corresponding components to Gerry Mccann, some people say this is confirmation it was Gerry's blood, while in the same breath saying there is no proof any blood was found, and in another breath saying no blood of Madeleine's was found.
I'm still confused. Could you be confusing results from the apartment and the car?
The 286A/2007 CRL 3a result was related to the apartment, not the car.
What are you relying on for information? I hope it's not Hideho's videos.
-
I'm still confused. Could you be confusing results from the apartment and the car?
The 286A/2007 CRL 3a result was related to the apartment, not the car.
What are you relying on for information? I hope it's not Hideho's videos.
I am not confusing anything Carana. i get my information from the PJ Files, not any video. It does not matter where a sample came from, the flat or the car. Read my response a few minutes ago to Ferryman and you might see what I am trying to say.
-
I'm still confused. Could you be confusing results from the apartment and the car?
The 286A/2007 CRL 3a result was related to the apartment, not the car.
What are you relying on for information? I hope it's not Hideho's videos.
I am not confusing anything Carana. i get my information from the PJ Files, not any video. It does not matter where a sample came from, the flat or the car. Read my response a few minutes ago to Ferryman and you might see what I am trying to say.
Ok. I just read up.
Is this your comment that you were referring to:
Ferryman, I am unclear as to what you are trying to say. If you mean those results show that Madeleine's DNA may have been found in the flat, that is true and means nothing of itself obviously. The samples though were taken from an area where the blood dog alerted. Again, it could mean nothing but she possibly had a nosebleed or grazed her arm or leg for instance. My point was, in case you missed it, was that some say partial DNA found matching correspondent components to Gerry Mccann, to some, means Gerry's blood was found, but when partial DNA found matching correspondent components to Madeleine, it can't have been blood. That is all.
-
That is the one Carana.
8((()*/
-
It is very interesting that no one has complained about Mr Grime and his dogs until the Mccann case......food for thought perhaps
-
It is very interesting that no one has complained about Mr Grime and his dogs until the Mccann case......food for thought perhaps
And that 'food for thought' could well be a 'Bounty bar' as Brunty reported about Grime's adventures in Jersey
90k was it? - for a coconut shell
nice little earner
-
And that coconut shell alert is not a myth.
There is a redacted report of Wiltshire police that describes precisely the sequence of events.
An anthropologist identified what he took to be a skull and it was given to Eddie to test, just as he tested the ignition key of the car. Eddie alerted and the exhibit was touted as a human skull.
Forensic analysis established it as a coconut.
-
And that coconut shell alert is not a myth.
There is a redacted report of Wiltshire police that describes precisely the sequence of events.
An anthropologist identified what he took to be a skull and it was given to Eddie to test, just as he tested the ignition key of the car. Eddie alerted and the exhibit was touted as a human skull.
Forensic analysis established it as a coconut.
quite -
Kew Gardens confirmed the 'skull fragment' from Jersey as a piece of coconut shell
Anyone brave or silly enough to argue with the world's leading authority in botanical science?
-
That is the one Carana.
8((()*/
OK. So that would be the floor tile in 5A?
If so, what contradiction do you find?
-
Grime made 90+k out of Jersey
maybe the same again out of Luz
motivational factors anyone?
No wonder he's kept a low profile ever since these two 'occurences' - the money is in the bank after all
-
anthropomorphism - I shan't bore you with
So let's stick to facts:
dogs can be trained to do just about anything - if the handler trains them accordingly
for every wag of the tail/bark/frozen posture - there might just be a little treat and the approval of the handler
That's not 'dissing' the dogs - they are ANIMALS - with NO self awareness or logic - just after that little doggy treat when they have done what their handler expected.
There is no moral dilemma with the dogs (they don't have that in their dictionary) but quite possibly with the handler
Especially when huge cash prizes are for the taking - for the handler, clearly not for the dogs - they get a chew if they're lucky
It's really as simple as that
-
Grime made 90+k out of Jersey
maybe the same again out of Luz
motivational factors anyone?
No wonder he's kept a low profile ever since these two 'occurences' - the money is in the bank after all
hate to break it to you when Mr Grime was on PDL he was working for the UK police so no, he didnt make loads of money
In Jersey he was there for months as an independent
And NO he did not keep a low profile after it, he never made his own profile high to start with, the media did for their own paid and PR reasons, he carried on working, the MEDIA decided not to make such a pigs arris out of any further cases he worked successfully on, even if they were high profile aka Keith Prout!!! cadaver dog alerted, no body, no forensics, but man confessed, dont let the facts get in the way of your bias now
-
Oh and btw registrar cadaver dogs do not react to coconut shells or any vegetables per se UNLESS they have the scent of cadaver on them, there you go, think about that whike you teyand figure out why chikdrens milk teethand bones were found in cellars in that goddam awful home which I may remind you is a scene under investigation in the ajimmy Saville sexual abuse inquiry
-
even if they were high profile aka Keith Prout!!!
Grime never had anything to do with anyone called Keith Prout
-
Grime made 90+k out of Jersey
maybe the same again out of Luz
motivational factors anyone?
No wonder he's kept a low profile ever since these two 'occurences' - the money is in the bank after all
Cite please for the suggestion that he was working for the English Police.
hate to break it to you when Mr Grime was on PDL he was working for the UK police so no, he didnt make loads of money
In Jersey he was there for months as an independent
And NO he did not keep a low profile after it, he never made his own profile high to start with, the media did for their own paid and PR reasons, he carried on working, the MEDIA decided not to make such a pigs arris out of any further cases he worked successfully on, even if they were high profile aka Keith Prout!!! cadaver dog alerted, no body, no forensics, but man confessed, dont let the facts get in the way of your bias now
-
Oh and btw registrar cadaver dogs do not react to coconut shells or any vegetables per se UNLESS they have the scent of cadaver on them, there you go, think about that whike you teyand figure out why chikdrens milk teethand bones were found in cellars in that goddam awful home which I may remind you is a scene under investigation in the ajimmy Saville sexual abuse inquiry
They react to anything correctly 80-90% of the time. The other 10-20% are errors.
-
even if they were high profile aka Keith Prout!!!
Grime never had anything to do with anyone called Keith Prout
And Eddie the wonder dog actually gave incorrect signals at a carpet in the front room....when Prout actually confessed to killing his wife in a out building then putting her body in the back of the Land Rover.....again Eddie didn't alert to any body there... strange >@@(*&) >@@(*&) >@@(*&)
-
even if they were high profile aka Keith Prout!!!
Grime never had anything to do with anyone called Keith Prout
And Eddie the wonder dog actually gave incorrect signals at a carpet in the front room....when Prout actually confessed to killing his wife in a out building then putting her body in the back of the Land Rover.....again Eddie didn't alert to any body there... strange >@@(*&) >@@(*&) >@@(*&)
And you don't know that he didn't bring her into the house after killing her before when he wrapped her in a curtain, perhaps from the living room? Food for thought. I will take your post saying he killed her in an outbuilding as true despite having googled for thr information and not found it.
@Debunker, the cite that Mr Grime worked for the UK police when he was in PDL is 1) his Linkedin profile and 2) his rogatory interview which is in the files where he says he is retired but at the time was working for the SYP. It seems he left SYP in August 2007, exact date unknown, after the PDL deployment.
Quote
I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
Unquote
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
@Ferryman, you knew exactly who I was talking about, Adrian Prout, so you could have just corrected my memory lapse instead of making an issue of it
-
Prout said he killed her in the building outside, then put her body in the car and went in the car to a pub, with the body in the car still.
-
Mind you, Eddie the super dog, who was taken to the woods to search for the body, didn't pick up any scent at all in the woods. So not that good a dog is it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062923/Kate-Prout-murder-Husband-Adrian-confesses-shows-police-Red-Hill-Farm-grave.html
-
Prout said he killed her in the building outside, then put her body in the car and went in the car to a pub, with the body in the car still.
So he had a curtain prepared in the car to wrap her up in? Rather than sneek her body back in the house and use a curtain to do so? pls do cite now the report where he killed her in an outbuilding, cheers, and you DO realise dont you that even if he personally didnt bring her body into the living room HE may have contaminated it with HER death scent? Food for thought before you run off and say Eddie is useless
-
Oh and btw registrar cadaver dogs do not react to coconut shells or any vegetables per se UNLESS they have the scent of cadaver on them, there you go, think about that whike you teyand figure out why chikdrens milk teethand bones were found in cellars in that goddam awful home which I may remind you is a scene under investigation in the ajimmy Saville sexual abuse inquiry
The above is .. with respect ... twaddle
Grime bombed in Jersey
you may muse as much as you like about milk teeth and such much
he got paid 90k for that little fishing trip and produced a piece of coconut
END OF
-
Prout said he killed her in the building outside, then put her body in the car and went in the car to a pub, with the body in the car still.
Bump for blind murat
-
Registrar pls provide evidence that eddie has ever alerted to a vegetable when he is trained to alert to dead human bodies, its not rocket science
-
Registrar pls provide evidence that eddie has ever alerted to a vegetable when he is trained to alert to dead human bodies, its not rocket science
A coconut dearest, is a seed or a fruit - NOT a vegetable - and certainly not part of a human skull
-
Registrar pls provide evidence that eddie has ever alerted to a vegetable when he is trained to alert to dead human bodies, its not rocket science
Produce ANYTHING apart from Mr Grime´s claims that Eddie reacts correctly to cadaver scent or blood.
-
Eddie alerted. Humans had a look to see what he barked at. They found what they thought to be a piece of skull, and assumed that that was he was alerting to. It was the humans who got it wrong.
A likely explanation, in my view, is that the coconut fragment was part of a meal and got chucked out along with the rest of the meal. If that meal contained pork, he could have been reacting to decomposed meat.
Poor old Eddie could hardly explain "Noooo, not the coconut...."
-
Prout said he killed her in the building outside, then put her body in the car and went in the car to a pub, with the body in the car still.
So he had a curtain prepared in the car to wrap her up in? Rather than sneek her body back in the house and use a curtain to do so? pls do cite now the report where he killed her in an outbuilding, cheers, and you DO realise dont you that even if he personally didnt bring her body into the living room HE may have contaminated it with HER death scent? Food for thought before you run off and say Eddie is useless
I caught your comment in passing Redblossom and I too was corrected on this just last week. Here is the discussion and the links. Apparently he murdered her in the shooting lodge and wrapped her in one of its curtains.
He put her body in the back of the Land Rover but whether he took it or another vehicle to the pub is still debatable.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1112.msg31414#msg31414
-
Thanks John.
-
Always glad to help 8(0(*