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: faithlilly on July 04, 2013, 11:40:15 PM
-
This is the Daily Mail headline less than a week before the McCanns were declared suspects, at a time when we now know they were very much in the frame.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478885/Madeleine-Top-policeman-inisists-McCanns-victims-suspects.html
-
The thing to remember now in 2013 is that the McCanns are no longer 'in the frame'.
Get it?
According to the PJ they weren't 'in the frame' in September 2007 either........oh, except they were !
-
If they weren't suspected, who would care to debate on forums ?
-
It is always Groundhog Day where McCann and the Daily Wail is concerned. I think the endless speculation and recycling of old stories will never end. It makes the Kardashians look interesting.
-
If they weren't suspected, who would care to debate on forums ?
Forums are a breeding ground for loonies, nutters and Grahame Belton (stop showing off on youtube, or I'll tell Carol.)
Having said that, this forum proved once and for all that Sheila Caffell didn't murder her family, and we also exposed the Zenith Burglary.
Not bad going, really. 8((()*/
-
Groundhog Day it probably is faithlilly. Worth noting that the Portuguese have not agreed to reopen the case so the Mets boashut upl announcement could well end up in the dustbin for yet another two years. On the up side it keeps the boys in blue in a job in these difficult times.
-
Groundhog Day it probably is faithlilly. Worth noting that the Portuguese have not agreed to reopen the case so the Mets boashut upl announcement could well end up in the dustbin for yet another two years. On the up side it keeps the boys in blue in a job in these difficult times.
The Ministério publico doesn't need to reopen the case to collaborate with the Met officers in a rogatory mission. They'll help, not taking any initiative, but being perfect hosts. Though many in the UK don't understand it, Portugueses have a high sense of hospitality. That's fine, EU will improve !
-
If they weren't suspected, who would care to debate on forums ?
They are suspected by people who have no right or reason to second guess police investigations and the decisions of legal experts. Keyboard detectives don't count.
It keeps getting underlined, the Mccanns are innocent, their friends are innocent, they didn't kill their little girl and hide her.
It's been groundhog day since day 1, the same empty arguments churning around and around. They still are, even after yesterday's announcement. Evidently, they still will.
-
They are suspected by people who have no right or reason to second guess police investigations and the decisions of legal experts. Keyboard detectives don't count.
It keeps getting underlined, the Mccanns are innocent, their friends are innocent, they didn't kill their little girl and hide her.
It's been groundhog day since day 1, the same empty arguments churning around and around. They still are, even after yesterday's announcement. Evidently, they still will.
In that case you have no right to comment, question or object to anything the PT police have ever said, or concluded, and no, no one has ever declared them innocent apart from themselves, their spokesman, and the British media.
It is a *cold case*, unsolved, thats all. Id be interested in any official declaration that they have been cleared or deemed innocent.
ETA, Oh and btw not a scintilla of evidence to point to an abductor, nothing at least that has led anywhere, flimsy at best
you should also ask yourself the question why so many people are still asking questions on *this* case rather than any others, over 5 yrs or so, what do *you* think is the cause?
-
In that case you have no right to comment, question or object to anything the PT police have ever said, or concluded, and no, no one has ever declared them innocent apart from themselves, their spokesman, and the British media.
It is a *cold case*, unsolved, thats all. Id be interested in any official declaration that they have been cleared or deemed innocent.
ETA, Oh and btw not a scintilla of evidence to point to an abductor, nothing at least that has led anywhere, flimsy at best
you should also ask yourself the question why so many people are still asking questions on *this* case rather than any others, over 5 yrs or so, what do *you* think is the cause?
I'd love to find the post here conclusively proving they were, indeed proven innocent, it wasn't from a "pro" (these labels are so stupid) it exists though. I comment, I point out, not as one who knows anything, as one who accepts the legal and evidential position. I have the right to point out the legal and moral facts.
What right do you have to libel?
-
it doesnt exist, keep up
The PT authorities decided to shelve the case in 2008 due to NO EVIDENCE of any crime including abduction to bring charges and no leads to carry on, they exhausted many possibilities and it was the biggest and most expensive manhunt in their history
They had to release the three suspects from their status, not because they were innocent, but because there was no evidence to charge them or keep the case open, the police in April Jones case did exactly the same, had to give up at some point
its similar to being released without charge even though they were not officially arrested
Mind you Murat was exonerated as the PJ had no suspicions at all over him, remember they said all suspicions over himhad evaporated* unlike the reservations they held over the other suspects and their mates refusing to go bavk and help
-
I think there might be new evidence now that was overlooked by the PJ.
We shall have to wait and see if it is strong emough.
-
I think there might be new evidence now that was overlooked by the PJ.
We shall have to wait and see if it is strong emough.
I think so too Sadie. Keeping my fingers crossed after the positive news from DCI Redwood this week.
-
Several posters have mentioned that the McCanns were never arrested but merely were helping the PJ with their enquiries. It must be pointed out however that had they not cooperated at that stage they would inevitably have been arrested.
Undoubtedly, this was explained to them by their Portuguese lawyer.
-
Several posters have mentioned that the McCanns were never arrested but merely were helping the PJ with their enquiries. It must be pointed out however that had they not cooperated at that stage they would inevitably have been arrested.
Undoubtedly, this was explained to them by their Portuguese lawyer.
Hmmm. And what do you make of Kate's account of her lawyer's advice on arguido night?
-
Hmmm. And what do you make of Kate's account of her lawyer's advice on arguido night?
There are differences between witnesses (as they were in the beginning) & arguidos, as you get certain legal protection as an arguido, one of them is not to answer questions your lawyer think are designed to incriminate you.
-
There are differences between witnesses (as they were in the beginning) & arguidos, as you get certain legal protection as an arguido, one of them is not to answer questions your lawyer think are designed to incriminate you.
And were they ever arrested?
-
And were they ever arrested?
Nope. But according to some loons, the investigation was only archived because Kate McCann didn't answer any of Amaral's pointless 48 questions & their friends didn't agree to go to Portugal for a reconstruction. Which would make Portugal a safe haven for any criminal, you just have to say "nope, I won't cooperate" & they just stop investigation.
-
Nope. But according to some loons, the investigation was only archived because Kate McCann didn't answer any of Amaral's pointless 48 questions & their friends didn't agree to go to Portugal for a reconstruction. Which would make Portugal a safe haven for any criminal, you just have to say "nope, I won't cooperate" & they just stop investigation.
As with so much [ censored word ] (I won't say all!) there is sometimes an element of substance in something that they say.
Madeleine is the victim of a crime.
The investigation failed to uncover any clue of what happened to her.
Any new investigation would start with a clean slate and all possibilities (technically) open, including the (faint) possibility that something could come to light to implicate any or all of the original 3 arguidos.
Saying that is vastly different from saying (as the [ censored word ]s do) that the investigation was closed with a powerful indicator of suspicion against (ususally) Kate and/or Gerry, and all that was lacking was that vital bit of smoking-gun evidence to convict them.
That is the [ censored word ] slant.
It is outright fraudulent ....
-
Which would make Portugal a safe haven for any criminal, you just have to say "nope, I won't cooperate" & they just stop investigation.
For criminals certainly not, but possibly for people who lost a child, when the MP has no reason to suppose the child was killed but likely had an accident that could have been avoided, because 1) The parents themselves reject and hamper the investigation that doesn't suit their views (in this case, the fixed idea of abduction), 2) the parents' conscience is the tougher judge, 3) they don't constitute a risk for society and 4) they've likely learnt that accidents don't happen only to others' kids.
-
There's simply NOT one single piece of evidence that point to Madeleine having met with an accident, it's just Amaral's ludicrous idea, just as ludicrous as "sedated by Calpol" - when will you lot get into your heads that Amaral was sacked because he was INCOMPETENT as well as dishonest (as shown by his perjury conviction) & Tavares de Almeida was even WORSE.
-
There's simply NOT one single piece of evidence that point to Madeleine having met with an accident, it's just Amaral's ludicrous idea, just as ludicrous as "sedated by Calpol" - when will you lot get into your heads that Amaral was sacked because he was INCOMPETENT as well as dishonest (as shown by his perjury conviction) & Tavares de Almeida was even WORSE.
8@??)(
The septics are currently trying to take the mick out of DCI Redwood's West Country burr by posting up Wurzels hits on their hate sites. Yeah, really funny - NOT.
They can take the mick all they want - we now have an honest, straight policeman in charge of the Madeleine case. Not an arguido in another missing child case who tried to cheat his own brother.
-
There's simply NOT one single piece of evidence that point to Madeleine having met with an accident, it's just Amaral's ludicrous idea, just as ludicrous as "sedated by Calpol" - when will you lot get into your heads that Amaral was sacked because he was INCOMPETENT as well as dishonest (as shown by his perjury conviction) & Tavares de Almeida was even WORSE.
You're dreaming, Mrs B ! Mr Amaral is not in the PJ anymore and everybody here understood you hated him.
But you're right, no evidence was found that Madeleine died following an accident, just a possibility since the cadaver dog alerted, as no evidence was found she was abducted, just a possibility, since 2 men were spotted carrying a child.
However none of both hypotheses has been proved impossible. So better wait and see which kind of evidence SY will collect.
-
Not an arguido in another missing child case who tried to cheat his own brother.
Franchement moche..
-
You're dreaming, Mrs B ! Mr Amaral is not in the PJ anymore and everybody here understood you hated him.
But you're right, no evidence was found that Madeleine died following an accident, just a possibility since the cadaver dog alerted, as no evidence was found she was abducted, just a possibility, since 2 men were spotted carrying a child.
However none of both hypotheses has been proved impossible. So better wait and see which kind of evidence SY will collect.
Yes, Anne - Amaral is no longer in the PJ but he was the head honcho when the PJ tried to stitch them up.
At least now we have a straight copper in charge, DCI Redwood.
-
Franchement moche..
Downright ugly, thats a goodun @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Franchement moche..
I wonder if Amaral has paid his brother back yet?
-
They can take the mick all they want - we now have an honest, straight policeman in charge of the Madeleine case. Not an arguido in another missing child case who tried to cheat his own brother.
Careful Rachel, the Jill Dando case and the wrongful conviction of Barry George says differently.
-
You're dreaming, Mrs B ! Mr Amaral is not in the PJ anymore and everybody here understood you hated him.
But you're right, no evidence was found that Madeleine died following an accident, just a possibility since the cadaver dog alerted, as no evidence was found she was abducted, just a possibility, since 2 men were spotted carrying a child.
However none of both hypotheses has been proved impossible. So better wait and see which kind of evidence SY will collect.
Nah, I really don't have to wait. NSY has already made clear that the McCanns & their friends are NOT suspects in this investigation, and that the people who are being considered suspects are UNKNOWN to the McCanns, i.e. they have been eliminated from the investigation. Which means that abduction is the only alternative left to consider. It's you who have to sit & lie to yourself that this is not the case in the real world.
And btw & do not hate Amaral, but I have nothing but disdain for corrupt police officers who lie in court to cover up torture, as any normal person would. Amaral happens to fall in that category & so does Amaral's 2nd in command, Tavares de Almeida.
-
I wonder if Amaral has paid his brother back yet?
I doubt it, if he has paid anything, someone will be lucky. The tax man must be top of the list, anyway!
-
Careful Rachel, the Jill Dando case and the wrongful conviction of Barry George says differently.
I have every faith in DCI Redwood and the Grange team, John. They are straight, honest coppers as far as I am concerned. Unlike Amaral et al....
-
Careful Rachel, the Jill Dando case and the wrongful conviction of Barry George says differently.
So when was Redwood convicted for corruption or lying to a court to cover up torture or even for torturing anyone?
-
I doubt it, if he has paid anything, someone will be lucky. The tax man must be top of the list, anyway!
True - has has many debts. Yet the septics keep on trying to blame Kate and Gerry McCann for the fact that he is broke.
-
So when was Redwood convicted for corruption or lying to a court to cover up torture or even for torturing anyone?
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
True - has has many debts. Yet the septics keep on trying to blame Kate and Gerry McCann for the fact that he is broke.
Well, he's been bent since the 90's, as we know, so what does that tell us? (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/forehead-slap-smiley-emoticon.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html)
-
Well, he's been bent since the 90's, as we know, so what does that tell us? (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/forehead-slap-smiley-emoticon.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html)
I just don't understand why the septics refer to him in such reverential terms - "man of honour, courage, dignity etc".
If they did a bit of thinking for themselves instead of swallowing the lies, and videos, they would see for themselves just what he is. A corrupt liar who tried to cheat his own brother. And then there was the Golden Bullets business....
-
Nah, I really don't have to wait. NSY has already made clear that the McCanns & their friends are NOT suspects in this investigation, and that the people who are being considered suspects are UNKNOWN to the McCanns, i.e. they have been eliminated from the investigation. Which means that abduction is the only alternative left to consider. It's you who have to sit & lie to yourself that this is not the case in the real world.
And btw & do not hate Amaral, but I have nothing but disdain for corrupt police officers who lie in court to cover up torture, as any normal person would. Amaral happens to fall in that category & so does Amaral's 2nd in command, Tavares de Almeida.
How can the sceptics keep ignoring this? It doesn't make any sense. Can you imagine the furore if they found out Gerry had a parking ticket. The lead investigator and one of his officers both convicted criminals and apparently that is quite acceptable to the sceptics, and not even worth a mention.
Two CORRUPT policemen running the investigation - and not a word of condemnation from a single sceptic. Unbelievable.
-
How can the sceptics keep ignoring this? It doesn't make any sense. Can you imagine the furore if they found out Gerry had a parking ticket. The lead investigator and one of his officers both convicted criminals and apparently that is quite acceptable to the sceptics, and not even worth a mention.
Two CORRUPT policemen running the investigation - and not a word of condemnation from a single sceptic. Unbelievable.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
I just can't get my head around why the septics are in thrall to Amaral et al. If the positions were reversed and it came out that DCI Redwood was a proven corrupt liar, can you imagine the furore from the sceptics.
-
Nah, I really don't have to wait. NSY has already made clear that the McCanns & their friends are NOT suspects in this investigation, and that the people who are being considered suspects are UNKNOWN to the McCanns, i.e. they have been eliminated from the investigation. Which means that abduction is the only alternative left to consider. It's you who have to sit & lie to yourself that this is not the case in the real world.
And btw & do not hate Amaral, but I have nothing but disdain for corrupt police officers who lie in court to cover up torture, as any normal person would. Amaral happens to fall in that category & so does Amaral's 2nd in command, Tavares de Almeida.
Have you a source about abduction being the only hypothesis left and besides why ?
I bet the CPS didn't claim to the MP, its homologous, that it was an abduction end of, full point, etc.
I heard that murder was also contemplated.
So, please, kindly don't misinform.
-
What part of this do you NOT understand?
If a British person were charged with a sexual offence or murder in relation to the case, then they could stand trial on UK soil.
While the investigation is at a very early stage, Mr Redwood said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses."
The senior detective said he "genuinely" believes that Madeleine may still be alive, and appealed to the public to keep looking for her.
"Over the last two years what the review has told me is that there is no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead. So on that basis I still genuinely believe that there is a possibility that she is alive.
"I would ask the public to continue to look for her. If you look on the Metropolitan Police website you will see the image that we presented last year to the public and all the contact details.
"If the public aren't happy to talk to police then they can call Crimestoppers.
"Everything we are doing is focused towards trying to find Madeleine McCann. There are no guarantees of any outcome, but I can assure you of our absolute determination to try and establish what has happened to her."
He stressed that neither her parents nor the McCanns' friends who were having dinner with them that night are among the 38 people identified.
"Neither her parents or any of the members of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
"They (the McCanns) are parents who have lost their daughter and we are doing all we can to bring resolution for them to find out what has happened to Madeleine."."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/british-police-launch-new-hunt-for-madeleine-mccann-and-say-she-may-still-be-alive.1372944357
If she was murdered, which may sadly be the case, it was not by her parents hand & as they are VERY clear that there is no evidence that she's dead (i.e. may well be alive) that must have happened AFTER she was taken.
It's not THAT difficult to make out.
-
While the investigation is at a very early stage, Mr Redwood said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses."
One, crucial, word missing from that sentence: leads!
-
While the investigation is at a very early stage, Mr Redwood said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses."
One, crucial, word missing from that sentence: leads!
Well, that might be too loaded at a term to use at this stage (particularly in view of how that would be mangled by the tabloids).
They have a list of people that they and their Portuguese counterparts believe are worth interviewing (or possibly reinterviewing). It doesn't mean that they are suspects, but may have vital information which they may even not been aware of.
-
While the investigation is at a very early stage, Mr Redwood said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses."
One, crucial, word missing from that sentence: leads!
Well, maybe missing from that SENTENCE, but not missing from the article as it was mentioned further up (see link above)
The Portuguese investigation is officially closed but authorities there are backing the Scotland Yard inquiry and officers from both countries will work together in pursuing new leads.
-
It's not THAT difficult to make out.
Again ridiculing, Mrs B ? Is it irresistible every time somebody doesn't agree with you ?
Let's be serious : abduction will have to be proved, this is common sense, even if the perpetrator isn't found. Mr Redwood knows his word will not be sufficient (read again the end of his speech). A police force observing another one is no news, they worked together on the ground up to the departure of the McCanns.
This investigation will have to find some conclusion (it might be the AG's one), they say about 35/40% of the files are still to be reviewed. I frankly don't see how 35 experts working full time and equipped with lots of sophisticated software haven't done more.
-
As a reminder.
'The thing is they have no evidence of an abductor against which to measure any potential suspect. No prints, no DNA, no hair, no fibres, no footprints, no car description or registration, no clue as to nationality, no description outwith of Jane Tanner's ever-changing one of someone who might have had nothing to do with it, no forensic evidence of what happened to Madeleine, no idea what she looks like now and absolutely 100% no confirmed sightings in six years .'
What happened on Thursday has not changed the above, one iota.
-
Again ridiculing, Mrs B ? Is it irresistible every time somebody doesn't agree with you ?
Let's be serious : abduction will have to be proved, this is common sense, even if the perpetrator isn't found.
Jeez, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I don't agree with you, it's not ridiculing you, it's that simple. And Redwood does not have to "prove" abduction to rule out the McCann, NSY can do that anyway & unless the guilty party is found & the case goes to trial we may NEVER know what evidence they have to rule them out. You would just have to accept it as the rest of law abiding citizens have to. It's up to them what information they decide that the public may know or not, as in any police investigation.
ETA LOL & here comes the broken record again who hasn't got a clue what NSY has got or hasn't got. There is proof of abduction, it doesn't cease because someone is too blinkered to understand it.
-
Again ridiculing, Mrs B ? Is it irresistible every time somebody doesn't agree with you ?
Let's be serious : abduction will have to be proved, this is common sense, even if the perpetrator isn't found. Mr Redwood knows his word will not be sufficient (read again the end of his speech). A police force observing another one is no news, they worked together on the ground up to the departure of the McCanns.
This investigation will have to find some conclusion (it might be the AG's one), they say about 35/40% of the files are still to be reviewed. I frankly don't see how 35 experts working full time and equipped with lots of sophisticated software haven't done more.
I think you will find Anne that even if the sceptics don't accept it - SY have accepted that a missing child, raised shutters and an open window- which were both closed when the parents left 5A and two separate sightings by 4 witnesses of a man carrying away a child, is enough proof for them to be satisfied that Madeleine was abducted. Especially as they have been able to forensically prove that there was a window of opportunity - which complies with all the statements, for an abduction to take place.
I would bet my last penny that the McCanns and Jane Tanner (and probably the others) have been interviewed by SY at some length and so (unlike Amaral), SY police officers have been able to assess the credibility of those people by actually meeting them personally and interviewing them.
They will also almost certainly have interviewed the British FLO's who spent time with the McCanns in PdL - and probably even the Trauma Psychologist, Alan Pike - all of whom could verify the behaviour of the McCanns.
It's quite apparent that they are satisfied that the McCanns and their friends are indeed credible witnesses.
What SY do not know is whether Madeleine was abducted and kept alive, or abducted and murdered - and that is what they are now endeavouring to find out.
AIMHO
-
I think you will find Anne that even if the sceptics don't accept it - SY have accepted that a missing child, raised shutters and an open window- which were both closed when the parents left 5A and two separate sightings by 4 witnesses of a man carrying away a child, is enough proof for them to be satisfied that Madeleine was abducted. Especially as they have been able to forensically prove that there was a window of opportunity - which complies with all the statements, for an abduction to take place.
I would bet my last penny that the McCanns and Jane Tanner (and probably the others) have been interviewed by SY at some length and so (unlike Amaral), SY police officers have been able to assess the credibility of those people by actually meeting them personally and interviewing them.
They will also almost certainly have interviewed the British FLO's who spent time with the McCanns in PdL - and probably even the Trauma Psychologist, Alan Pike - all of whom could verify the behaviour of the McCanns.
It's quite apparent that they are satisfied that the McCanns and their friends are indeed credible witnesses.
What SY do not know is whether Madeleine was abducted and kept alive, or abducted and murdered - and that is what they are now endeavouring to find out.
AIMHO
Good call. At least DCI Redwood and the Grange team will have met the McCanns. Unlike Amaral who went on to line his pockets with lies about people he had never even met, let alone interviewed.
-
Jeez, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I don't agree with you, it's not ridiculing you, it's that simple. And Redwood does not have to "prove" abduction to rule out the McCann, NSY can do that anyway & unless the guilty party is found & the case goes to trial we may NEVER know what evidence they have to rule them out. You would just have to accept it as the rest of law abiding citizens have to. It's up to them what information they decide that the public may know or not, as in any police investigation.
ETA LOL & here comes the broken record again who hasn't got a clue what NSY has got or hasn't got. There is proof of abduction, it doesn't cease because someone is too blinkered to understand it.
It's 40° here, everywhere, no kitchen problem !
Your point is always the ruling out of the McCanns. Mr Redwood never pretended he ruled them out. The fact is the McCanns' involvement was never contemplated, it was off the game ! Amazingly regardless of basic rules, SY wasn't requested to start where the PJ ended, but to find an abducted child whose parents kept insisting she was alive by default. They were never asked to examine whether those parents had told the truth or not. This wasn't the subject. Why is another question.
A SY that just does the asked job, not wanting to make waves, hasn't much in common with the SY of the origins, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a figure inspired in Mr Whicher, Sherlock Holmes.
BTW there's no more proof of abduction than there's proof of accident. 15 all.
-
SY have accepted that a missing child, raised shutters and an open window- which were both closed when the parents left 5A and two separate sightings by 4 witnesses of a man carrying away a child, is enough proof for them to be satisfied that Madeleine was abducted.
No, Benice, SY wasn't asked to examine the McCanns statements nor to interview the TP9 again. It wasn't the point. They were asked to start with the study hypothesis that the McCanns' story of abduction was true.
The shutters/window/curtains seen open (PJ)/forced (family and friends > medias) only by the McCann, evidence ?
Hum.
The Smithcarrier, a Mr McCannlookalike man, evidence that Mr McCann wasn't involved ?
Hum.
-
It's 40° here, everywhere, no kitchen problem !
Your point is always the ruling out of the McCanns. Mr Redwood never pretended he ruled them out. The fact is the McCanns' involvement was never contemplated, it was off the game ! Amazingly regardless of basic rules, SY wasn't requested to start where the PJ ended, but to find an abducted child whose parents kept insisting she was alive by default. They were never asked to examine whether those parents had told the truth or not. This wasn't the subject. Why is another question.
A SY that just does the asked job, not wanting to make waves, hasn't much in common with the SY of the origins, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a figure inspired in Mr Whicher, Sherlock Holmes.
BTW there's no more proof of abduction than there's proof of accident. 15 all.
Unadulterated rubbish!
The Met's remit was as follows:-
"This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation/s that have been conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance."
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2012/jan_2012/2011120000848.pdf
ETA There is proof of an abduction, several people saw a man - or two different men - carrying away a child on the very night a child had been taken from the area. Unidentified person/s has NOT come forward to eliminate themselves. The "accident" is pure fantasy based on nothing.
-
No, Benice, SY wasn't asked to examine the McCanns statements nor to interview the TP9 again. It wasn't the point. They were asked to start with the study hypothesis that the McCanns' story of abduction was true.
The shutters/window/curtains seen open (PJ)/forced (family and friends > medias) only by the McCann, evidence ?
Hum.
The Smithcarrier, a Mr McCannlookalike man, evidence that Mr McCann wasn't involved ?
Hum.
Anne that's nonsense. SY were asked to review the whole of the case in it's entirety - from the beginning. They had all the statements at their diisposal and could interview anyone they wanted to. It may well be true that they believed the McCanns to be innocent from the start as the McCann's behaviour in the years since Madeleine disappeared has been the complete opposite of a couple who were guilty - and as experienced policemen that would not have gone unnoticed.
Even so, I still think they will have interviewed the McCanns and their friends for several various reasons - one of which would be to make their own personal assessments of them.
Why Amaral didn't do the same or even want to do the same is incomprehensible - and a decision he knows was wrong or he wouldn't have gone such lengths to hide that fact from the public.
-
It's 40° here, everywhere, no kitchen problem !
Your point is always the ruling out of the McCanns. Mr Redwood never pretended he ruled them out. The fact is the McCanns' involvement was never contemplated, it was off the game ! Amazingly regardless of basic rules, SY wasn't requested to start where the PJ ended, but to find an abducted child whose parents kept insisting she was alive by default. They were never asked to examine whether those parents had told the truth or not. This wasn't the subject. Why is another question.
A SY that just does the asked job, not wanting to make waves, hasn't much in common with the SY of the origins, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a figure inspired in Mr Whicher, Sherlock Holmes.
BTW there's no more proof of abduction than there's proof of accident. 15 all.
You are wrong.
There were witnesses ... but Amaral chose to ignore them. He chose to ignore all the brits.
There is NOTHING to suggest an accident apart from the story of a cop who has proved himself a liar
.... and has history as a story teller.
-
There is proof of an abduction, several people saw a man - or two different men - carrying away a child on the very night a child had been taken from the area. Unidentified person/s has NOT come forward to eliminate themselves. The "accident" is pure fantasy based on nothing.
I'll certainly not send you back "Unadulterated rubbish!", let it vanish !
Are you a police officer within the SY's secrets ? What authority allows you to affirm that "the 'accident" is pure fantasy based on nothing" ? There's no evidence of accident but no evidence of abduction as well.
-
Anne that's nonsense. SY were asked to review the whole of the case in it's entirety - from the beginning. They had all the statements at their diisposal and could interview anyone they wanted to. It may well be true that they believed the McCanns to be innocent from the start as the McCann's behaviour in the years since Madeleine disappeared has been the complete opposite of a couple who were guilty - and as experienced policemen that would not have gone unnoticed.
Even so, I still think they will have interviewed the McCanns and their friends for several various reasons - one of which would be to make their own personal assessments of them.
Why Amaral didn't do the same or even want to do the same is incomprehensible - and a decision he knows was wrong or he wouldn't have gone such lengths to hide that fact from the public.
Benice, can't we leave Mr Amaral aside ? I don't know him, I don't agree with him, I'm not defending him. People like you just push me to try to know him, understand him and help him, which I wish I will not do.
You think they will have interviewed the McCanns and their friends, but you don't know. Or do you ?
Why would they have kept this secret ? They didn't have to conclude !
Their agenda never was to investigate the McCanns, but to obey PM's orders, subsequent to an open letter from Mrs McCann and the tabloid's queen's, Rebekah Brook, pressure : find Madeleine, she's alive !
Give me an argument turning unlikely the most plausible event, an accident !
-
I'll certainly not send you back "Unadulterated rubbish!", let it vanish !
Are you a police officer within the SY's secrets ? What authority allows you to affirm that "the 'accident" is pure fantasy based on nothing" ? There's no evidence of accident but no evidence of abduction as well.
So why introduce an accident, if there is nothing to point to it? It is just make believe.
I could say that Anne Guedes was in 5A at that time, but I would not for three reasons:
1) Nothing to point to it
2) I dont think you were
3) It would be just make believe
I am NOT suggesting that you are in any way involved, Anne, but am just using your name to drive a point home.
Edited : Three reasons not two
-
Benice, can't we leave Mr Amaral aside ? I don't know him, I don't agree with him, I'm not defending him. People like you just push me to try to know him, understand him and help him, which I wish I will not do.
You think they will have interviewed the McCanns and their friends, but you don't know. Or do you ?
Why would they have kept this secret ? They didn't have to conclude !
Their agenda never was to investigate the McCanns, but to obey PM's orders, subsequent to an open letter from Mrs McCann and the tabloid's queen's, Rebekah Brook, pressure : find Madeleine, she's alive !
Give me an argument turning unlikely the most plausible event, an accident !
So you think SY were given instructions just to read through the paperwork but under no circumstances could they interview anyone - even if that would assist them in their deliberations? IMO Common sense dictates that would not be the case as there is no sensible reason why such an obstructive proviso would be included in their remit.
IIRC we were told at the beginning that SY would not be giving a public running commentary on the review, and that is what has happened. We've had general announcements but no details. So nothing unexpected or sinister there.
IMO the theory of accidental death and the subsequent disposal of Madeleine's body by her parents, aided and abetted by 7 others is completely unbelievable.
You obviously don't agree. You must have given it a lot of thought to come to that conclusion so why don't you share your thoughts with us and describe what you think may have happened to Madeleine - why her parents reacted in the way you think they did, and what their subsequent actions were.
-
So why introduce an accident, if there is nothing to point to it? It is just make believe.
I'm not introducing an accident, Sadie, a cadaver dog pointed to it in the 5A.
As a man carrying a child pointed to an abduction.
No more, no less.
-
So you think SY were given instructions just to read through the paperwork but under no circumstances could they interview anyone - even if that would assist them in their deliberations? IMO Common sense dictates that would not be the case as there is no sensible reason why such an obstructive proviso would be included in their remit.
IIRC we were told at the beginning that SY would not be giving a public running commentary on the review, and that is what has happened. We've had general announcements but no details. So nothing unexpected or sinister there.
IMO the theory of accidental death and the subsequent disposal of Madeleine's body by her parents, aided and abetted by 7 others is completely unbelievable.
You obviously don't agree. You must have given it a lot of thought to come to that conclusion so why don't you share your thoughts with us and describe what you think may have happened to Madeleine - why her parents reacted in the way you think they did, and what their subsequent actions were.
I never suggested that and, like you, I find it unbelievable.
If SY had been asked to resume the PJ investigation instead of searching for Madeleine, they would logically have started where the Portuguese, according to the AG's report, were forced to stop. They didn't, they looked for leads, new leads, as every new sighting of Madeleine was comforting the search she could be found. About 200 leads after one year review ! It sounded as if they had done a pretty job ! Miroir aux alouettes, imo.
Now, after 2 years they've got to make a move, though those 38 persons of interest don't appear do be "enough" (they're still asking for the help of the public). Will it bring the needed evidence of, as they say, "abduction and or murder" ?
My mind is open, Benice, I've no rigid idea about what happened to Madeleine. The only certainty I have is that she's either dead or fine.
-
I never suggested that and, like you, I find it unbelievable.
If SY had been asked to resume the PJ investigation instead of searching for Madeleine, they would logically have started where the Portuguese, according to the AG's report, were forced to stop. They didn't, they looked for leads, new leads, as every new sighting of Madeleine was comforting the search she could be found. About 200 leads after one year review ! It sounded as if they had done a pretty job ! Miroir aux alouettes, imo.
Now, after 2 years they've got to make a move, though those 38 persons of interest don't appear do be "enough" (they're still asking for the help of the public). Will it bring the needed evidence of, as they say, "abduction and or murder" ?
My mind is open, Benice, I've no rigid idea about what happened to Madeleine. The only certainty I have is that she's either dead or fine.
Ann first of all you said
''Give me an argument turning unlikely the most plausible event, an accident !''
To which I replied-
''IMO the theory of accidental death and the subsequent disposal of Madeleine's body by her parents, aided and abetted by 7 others is completely unbelievable.
You obviously don't agree. You must have given it a lot of thought to come to that conclusion so why don't you share your thoughts with us and describe what you think may have happened to Madeleine - why her parents reacted in the way you think they did, and what their subsequent actions were.''
Then you said:-
I never suggested that and, like you, I find it unbelievable.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So which one is it please? As they are contradictory statements.
.
-
Benice, I bolded in your post the statement I agreed with as unbelievable (and I never suggested) : aided and abetted by 7 others is completely unbelievable
-
benice is under the impression for some reason that anyone who thinks there is a possibility that madeleine suffered an accident outwith her parents presence, must also think her parents got all their seven mates to cover it up, zzzzz
-
benice is under the impression for some reason that anyone who thinks there is a possibility that madeleine suffered an accident outwith her parents presence, must also think her parents got all their seven mates to cover it up, zzzzz
We have to acknowledge Benice is not alone in insisting the TP7 (-1) covered up. Absurd !
-
We have to acknowledge Benice is not alone in insisting the TP7 (-1) covered up. Absurd !
Of course it is absurd
benice and others , more so certain others though to be fair,on here put words into peoples mouths from mouths that are not even here on this board...they drag in all and sundry from other areas of the net and say just because they are skeptics then all skeptics here saythe same, its pretty dire dishonest and sad, mrs b is the worst offender
8)--))
now, if we were half as bad and reprinted here what some of the apologists posts elsewhere and how disgusting it is, there would be pandemonium, but we are more polite and diplomatic than the rabids
-
We have to acknowledge Benice is not alone in insisting the TP7 (-1) covered up. Absurd !
What? When have I ever said the TP7 covered anything up? And I have no idea what (-1) means.
-
I never suggested that and, like you, I find it unbelievable.
If SY had been asked to resume the PJ investigation instead of searching for Madeleine, they would logically have started where the Portuguese, according to the AG's report, were forced to stop. They didn't, they looked for leads, new leads, as every new sighting of Madeleine was comforting the search she could be found. About 200 leads after one year review ! It sounded as if they had done a pretty job ! Miroir aux alouettes, imo.
Now, after 2 years they've got to make a move, though those 38 persons of interest don't appear do be "enough" (they're still asking for the help of the public). Will it bring the needed evidence of, as they say, "abduction and or murder" ?
My mind is open, Benice, I've no rigid idea about what happened to Madeleine. The only certainty I have is that she's either dead or fine.
What would have been the legal basis for this happening a few years back? As far as I can work out, it's been a long process of cooperation and negotiation for the review to move on to a new investigative process.
-
Benice, I bolded in your post the statement I agreed with as unbelievable (and I never suggested) : aided and abetted by 7 others is completely unbelievable
Ahh right I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However the usual claim is that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the McCanns disposed of her body and then asked their friends to lie for them. The two do usually go together. I'm sure I didn't dream all those posts about whether or not the T7 would agree to do such a stupid thing as to aid and and abet the disposal of a dead child.
-
Ahh right I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However the usual claim is that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the McCanns disposed of her body and then asked their friends to lie for them. The two do usually go together. I'm sure I didn't dream all those posts about whether or not the T7 would agree to do such a stupid thing as to aid and and abet the disposal of a dead child.
Fine, so now you know, Benice, there are sceptics and sceptics. I'm sceptic about Mr Amaral's theory (I wonder whether he changed it meanwhile), I'm sceptic also about time and place of JT's sighting, I'm extremely sceptic about a 4 years old's resilience, etc. I favoured the woke and searched parents hypothesis, but it's in conflict with Eddie in the bedroom corner and I'm almost not sceptic at all concerning late Eddie.
-
I am sticking my neck out now
Don't do that, Sadie. The neck is the most fragile part of our body : think the carotid and the jugular have just a bit of skin to protect them !
-
Fine, so now you know, Benice, there are sceptics and sceptics. I'm sceptic about Mr Amaral's theory (I wonder whether he changed it meanwhile), I'm sceptic also about time and place of JT's sighting, I'm extremely sceptic about a 4 years old's resilience, etc. I favoured the woke and searched parents hypothesis, but it's in conflict with Eddie in the bedroom corner and I'm almost not sceptic at all concerning late Eddie.
[/b]
If you believe Martin Grime's description of Eddie's abilities (as I do) then it's quite clear why he places such emphasis on the fact that without corroberrating evidence to prove what Eddie alerted to - then nothing can be taken for granted from them. There are just too many reasons as to WHY he alerted which would have nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine.
-
[/b]
There are just too many reasons as to WHY he alerted which would have nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine.
Try convince me ! But, careful, I'm prone to be an Eddie unconditional ;)
-
Try convince me ! But, careful, I'm prone to be an Eddie unconditional ;)
Well I can certainly try to convince you Anne, but not tonight. It's too hot, too late and I'm too tired. But I will get back to you.
-
Try convince me ! But, careful, I'm prone to be an Eddie unconditional ;)
Martin Grime tells us that Eddie can detect very ancient cadaver odour - so unless the 'material' he alerted to is discovered (i.e. unless corroberrating evidence is found) we don't know how old the scent was. For instance It could be from something that had been buried in that area - say 50 years ago - or more. Eddie could alert to stuff which had been buried up to a couple of feet below ground. He could even detect the residual scent of material which itself had long since decayed away.
Eddie also alerted to decaying body 'bits' from living people, i.e. a torn nail part, teeth, hair or semen. The alert near the wardrobe, was also an alert near to the bed. As Grime states -the scent drifts and so it's not impossible that it was scent from semen residue that was alerted to. Cleaning and washing does not eliminate the scent.
Eddie barked outside the door of the renault. The key fob was inside the door compartment on the other side of that door, The only person to whom the FSS could partially match the DNA found on the keyfob was Gerry - who is very much alive.
Therefore it is incorrect to claim that whenever Eddie barked he could only have been alerting to cadaver scent from a dead person.
Cadaverscent is transferrable - and so could have been innocently transferred there by any number of people - over any number of years. There are loads of progs on TV about sniffer dogs at airports. Occasionally the drug dogs will alert to a person who is found not to have drugs on them, (or in them), and the reason given for the alert is not that it was a false one - but that the scent must have been transferred to them by contact with something or someone who did have direct contact with drugs. It's the same with cadaverscent.
Some people are more likely than others to come into contact with dead bodies and so would be more prone to be carriers of cadaver scent. These obviously include doctors, police officers and forensic personnel amongst others. So it cannot be ruled out that innocent cadaverscent transferral could have happened by one or more of those people who entered 5A on 3/4 May.
The above comments are based on facts given to us by Martin Grime re the abilities of his dogs. IMO the dogs are so good that it actually works against them. e.g. the dogs can detect scent deposited decades ago. That in itself is truly amazing - but is unhelpful in this instance.
Then there is the matter of 'cueing'.
Although it is a proven fact that cueing does happen - whether Martin Grime unconsciously cued Eddie or not - is a matter of opinion not fact. Personally I would feel more confident that he didn't cue his dog - if I had NOT known that he was on the very brink of self employment where the performance of his dogs in such a high profile case could have massive repercussions on his own future.
Tests have proved that dogs may falsely alert in places where the Handler expects an alert to occur - and have unconsciously passed that message on to their dogs.
For the searches to be unbiased the same amount of time and attention would have to be spent at each location and at each car. That was clearly not the case. Did the fact that Grime spent three times longer calling Eddie's attention back to the Renault than to the other cars eventually send a message to Eddie? I think it may have.
-
Members are asked not to discuss or make comments derogatory or otherwise about other members in their absence. Any such posts will be expunged on sight.
Admins continue to remove a number of posts which are unacceptable as they represent a breach of forum rules. Please continue to report any posts which you feel fall into this category. TY
-
I appreciate your arguments, Benice, but I'm still not convinced and I'll try to say why.
Martin Grime tells us that Eddie can detect very ancient cadaver odour - so unless the 'material' he alerted to is discovered (i.e. unless corroberrating evidence is found) we don't know how old the scent was. For instance It could be from something that had been buried in that area - say 50 years ago - or more. Eddie could alert to stuff which had been buried up to a couple of feet below ground. He could even detect the residual scent of material which itself had long since decayed away.
Those flats blocks require very deep foundations, especially because of seismic activity. Would Eddie have alerted only in the flowerbed, it would be inconclusive, but the dog alerted in 4 places and indicated before entering the flat that he had picked back the scent he had been trained to detect.
Eddie also alerted to decaying body 'bits' from living people, i.e. a torn nail part, teeth, hair or semen. The alert near the wardrobe, was also an alert near to the bed. As Grime states -the scent drifts and so it's not impossible that it was scent from semen residue that was alerted to. Cleaning and washing does not eliminate the scent.
If true, then Eddie would have alerted to all flats.
Eddie barked outside the door of the renault. The key fob was inside the door compartment on the other side of that door, The only person to whom the FSS could partially match the DNA found on the keyfob was Gerry - who is very much alive.
Therefore it is incorrect to claim that whenever Eddie barked he could only have been alerting to cadaver scent from a dead person.
Where there are no residues and where Keela didn't alert, there the likeliness of alerting to cadaver molecules is high.
Cadaverscent is transferrable - and so could have been innocently transferred there by any number of people - over any number of years. There are loads of progs on TV about sniffer dogs at airports. Occasionally the drug dogs will alert to a person who is found not to have drugs on them, (or in them), and the reason given for the alert is not that it was a false one - but that the scent must have been transferred to them by contact with something or someone who did have direct contact with drugs. It's the same with cadaverscent.
Some people are more likely than others to come into contact with dead bodies and so would be more prone to be carriers of cadaver scent. These obviously include doctors, police officers and forensic personnel amongst others. So it cannot be ruled out that innocent cadaverscent transferral could have happened by one or more of those people who entered 5A on 3/4 May.
5A wasn't the only flat inhabited by doctors. If Eddie, who worked for the police, alerted to any officer or forensic worker, this would have been noticed, don't you think ?
The above comments are based on facts given to us by Martin Grime re the abilities of his dogs. IMO the dogs are so good that it actually works against them. e.g. the dogs can detect scent deposited decades ago. That in itself is truly amazing - but is unhelpful in this instance.
The dogs are so sensitive that they're of no use ? Though they have helped in many investigations ? Even here in Portugal the GNR now has a cadaver dog and a blood dog !
Then there is the matter of 'cueing'.
Although it is a proven fact that cueing does happen - whether Martin Grime unconsciously cued Eddie or not - is a matter of opinion not fact. Personally I would feel more confident that he didn't cue his dog - if I had NOT known that he was on the very brink of self employment where the performance of his dogs in such a high profile case could have massive repercussions on his own future.
Either negative or positive, the dogs' reactions were important findings. Mr Grime had no reason to favour one instead of the other, both being valuable. And unless you imagine he was corrupt (which would raise other questions), Mr Grime's first interest was to keep his dogs reliable. I remind you that Prof Harrison advised to use those dogs and to start with the flat. Have you any reason to suspect Prof Harrison ?
Tests have proved that dogs may falsely alert in places where the Handler expects an alert to occur - and have unconsciously passed that message on to their dogs.
For the searches to be unbiased the same amount of time and attention would have to be spent at each location and at each car. That was clearly not the case. Did the fact that Grime spent three times longer calling Eddie's attention back to the Renault than to the other cars eventually send a message to Eddie? I think it may have.
It's not clear : nobody has seen all the video. The filming didn't start where the available video does.
These dogs' work is exhausting, they have to rest very often and it is well known that errors occur when those breaks aren't respected. Obviously the effort will have to focus on places where they globally picked up the scent, as before entering in 5A.
-
8@??)( 8@??)(
Well said Anne, the dog findings just cant be discarded for numerous reasons and that is how it is. Unless Madeleine is ever found alive or a proven causative explanation,they remain solid grounds for reasonable suspicion. Until then, they remain solidly in the equation, even though it is to the chagrin of many
-
Why are you wumming again Red?
As you well know, the dog indications were of no use.
It has been gone over and over in earlier threads
-
8@??)( 8@??)(
Well said Anne, the dog findings just cant be discarded for numerous reasons and that is how it is. Unless Madeleine is ever found alive or a proven causative explanation,they remain solid grounds for reasonable suspicion. Until then, they remain solidly in the equation, even though it is to the chagrin of many
Quote from Martin Grime
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
End Quote
IOW Eddie could be alerting to cadaverscent, but even if he is, it means nothing because of a number of various innocent scenarios which could be the reason for the presence of this scent. Unless forensic evidence is found to confirm the alerts - then NO evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from them.
Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. No forensic evidence was found.
-
Play nicely now guys >> the last thing I want to have to do is to remove posts. 8((()*/
-
8@??)( 8@??)(
Well said Anne, the dog findings just cant be discarded for numerous reasons and that is how it is. Unless Madeleine is ever found alive or a proven causative explanation,they remain solid grounds for reasonable suspicion. Until then, they remain solidly in the equation, even though it is to the chagrin of many
The dog alerts are only proof of one thing and that is that a dog can bark. Even Martin Grime wasn't prepared to put his neck and entire reputation on the line by saying any differently.
-
Grime deployed the dogs in places Madeleine never lived or never went near.
The only clue from the files for the reason for the inspection at the gym was that it was so that clothes could be re-tested (sic) possibly reacted to in the villa.
The only other proffered explanation is from Amaral's book.
All we can say certainly is that neither search had anything whatever to do with attempting to uncover the truth of what happened to Madeleine.
I could proffer a (highly plausible) explanation of how (and why!) those searches came about.
But I shan't ...
-
Grime deployed the dogs in places Madeleine never lived or never went near.
The only clue from the files for the reason for the inspection at the gym was that it was so that clothes could be re-tested (sic) possibly reacted to in the villa.
The only other proffered explanation is from Amaral's book.
All we can say certainly is that neither search had anything whatever to do with attempting to uncover the truth of what happened to Madeleine.
I could proffer a (highly plausible) explanation of how (and why!) those searches came about.
But I shan't ...
Evidence please regarding your assumption that the clothes were 'possibly reacted to' in the villa ?
As to not divulging your 'highly plausible explanation ', I'll eat my own head if it s
1. Plausible
2. Backed by evidence.
-
Evidence please regarding your assumption that the clothes were 'possibly reacted to' in the villa ?
As to not divulging your 'highly plausible explanation ', I'll eat my own head if it s
1. Plausible
2. Backed by evidence.
The dogs reactions were evidentially worthless without forensics to back them up. Grime knows it, people who can read and think for themselves know it.
Going to eat your own head?
-
The dog alerts are only proof of one thing and that is that a dog can bark. Even Martin Grime wasn't prepared to put his neck and entire reputation on the line by saying any differently.
Mr Grime didn't travel to Portugal with two dogs on his own authority nor begged the Portuguese to let him prove his dogs could bark. Prof Harrison not only was the origin of the dog project, but observed and oriented the process. So, instead of ridiculing Mr Grime who isn't MBE, honestly consider Prof Harrison who is.
If there had been human remains in the 5A, the cadaver dog wouldn't have been necessary, a simple human nose, like yours, would have been sufficient, John ;)
-
8@??)( 8@??)(
Well said Anne, the dog findings just cant be discarded for numerous reasons and that is how it is. Unless Madeleine is ever found alive or a proven causative explanation,they remain solid grounds for reasonable suspicion. Until then, they remain solidly in the equation, even though it is to the chagrin of many
What equation is that then?
pi = in the sky?
The dogs can easily be discarded, as without forensic back-up, their alerts are evidentially worthless.
-
Evidence please regarding your assumption that the clothes were 'possibly reacted to' in the villa ?
As to not divulging your 'highly plausible explanation ', I'll eat my own head if it s
1. Plausible
2. Backed by evidence.
Pages 2100-2102
Official record of the canine inspection at 23h20 on 2 August 2007 at the Municipal Pavilion of Lagos, [situated in] Lagos.
The ten participants are indicated as being five PJ Chief Inspectors (2)/Inspectors (3); The UK NPIA officer (Harrison); the UK dog handler (Grime); the Portuguese-speaking officer from Scotland Yard (Freitas); and the two UK English Springer spaniels - Eddy and Kila.
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
-
Mr Grime didn't travel to Portugal with two dogs on his own authority nor begged the Portuguese to let him prove his dogs could bark. Prof Harrison not only was the origin of the dog project, but observed and oriented the process. So, instead of ridiculing Mr Grime who isn't MBE, honestly consider Prof Harrison who is.
If there had been human remains in the 5A, the cadaver dog wouldn't have been necessary, a simple human nose, like yours, would have been sufficient, John ;)
I am not ridiculing anyone, just making an observation. Martin got his money regardless Anne so why should he stick his neck out one way or another when he wasn't require to do so?
Human noses are incapable of picking up on minute amounts of cadaver scent, that's why we use the doggies. 8(0(*
-
Quote from Martin Grime
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
End Quote
IOW Eddie could be alerting to cadaverscent, but even if he is, it means nothing because of a number of various innocent scenarios which could be the reason for the presence of this scent. Unless forensic evidence is found to confirm the alerts - then NO evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from them.
Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. No forensic evidence was found.
Is the red sentence a quotation of Mr Grime ?
Mr Grime knows as we all do that without forensic corroboration the alerts wouldn't be accepted by a court as evidence of death nor of Madeleine's death. As Prof Harrison says it well, an alert or the lack of alert just might help orientating the investigation.
For a similar reason, the very ordinary sighting of a man carrying a child, without forensic corroboration, can't be accepted by a court as evidence of abduction.
It is a possibility, he (admitting one carrier and the other were the same) was seen by various people, but none of them saw his face and would recognize him, except for two persons who believed 60/80, through his carrying way, this man was possibly the child's father. A court wouldn't accept this as evidence of Mr McCann's mislead.
The extraordinary way of carrying of the first man and the uncomfortable though usual way of the second let think the child was dead. This either wouldn't be accepted by a court, in lack of forensic corroboration, as evidence of body disposal.
-
Human noses are incapable of picking up on minute amounts of cadaver scent, that's why we use the doggies. 8(0(*
I'm glad you reckon that dogs have other capabilities than barking. Besides Keela would possibly bark meeting you but wouldn't when she meets blood, human blood.
But, yes, you did mock Martin Grime ;)
-
Pages 2100-2102
Official record of the canine inspection at 23h20 on 2 August 2007 at the Municipal Pavilion of Lagos, [situated in] Lagos.
The ten participants are indicated as being five PJ Chief Inspectors (2)/Inspectors (3); The UK NPIA officer (Harrison); the UK dog handler (Grime); the Portuguese-speaking officer from Scotland Yard (Freitas); and the two UK English Springer spaniels - Eddy and Kila.
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
More errors in Statements/Translations, on that link Ferryman.
Letter regarding technical inspection of Murat villa 4-5 August
2007
Canine Inspection Report
Date 4 and 5 August 2007
Place Residence of arguido Robert Murat ... Praia da Luz - Lagos
Participants: three PJ officers; two UK police experts; Eddy, the English Springer [Spaniel]
THE ENTIRE WORK WAS RECORDED IN IMAGE AND SOUND [on video]
Today, within the scope [authority] of the domestic search performed in the current residence of
the arguido Robert Murat, canine inspections were also conducted, in the exterior gardens and
inside the residence of the arguido, at the above address.
Thus, at 19h28 of 4 May 2007, the work started in the residence gardens, with the dog EDDY, that
detects cadaver odour, examining the entire exterior grounds within the perimeter of the property, it
having been verified that the dog signalled [alerted to] nothing.
On 5 August 2007, at 15h23, the same dog examined every room in the residence, it having been
verified that nothing was signalled [alerted to].
... the present document has been duly signed:
-
More errors in Statements/Translations, on that link Ferryman.
Letter regarding technical inspection of Murat villa 4-5 August
2007
Canine Inspection Report
Date 4 and 5 August 2007
Place Residence of arguido Robert Murat ... Praia da Luz - Lagos
Participants: three PJ officers; two UK police experts; Eddy, the English Springer [Spaniel]
THE ENTIRE WORK WAS RECORDED IN IMAGE AND SOUND [on video]
Today, within the scope [authority] of the domestic search performed in the current residence of
the arguido Robert Murat, canine inspections were also conducted, in the exterior gardens and
inside the residence of the arguido, at the above address.
Thus, at 19h28 of 4 May 2007, the work started in the residence gardens, with the dog EDDY, that
detects cadaver odour, examining the entire exterior grounds within the perimeter of the property, it
having been verified that the dog signalled [alerted to] nothing.
On 5 August 2007, at 15h23, the same dog examined every room in the residence, it having been
verified that nothing was signalled [alerted to].
... the present document has been duly signed:
Quite:
...attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
And
On 5 August 2007, at 15h23, the same dog examined every room in the residence, it having been
verified that nothing was signalled [alerted to].
When is something nothing, and nothing something?
-
Quite:
...attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
And
On 5 August 2007, at 15h23, the same dog examined every room in the residence, it having been
verified that nothing was signalled [alerted to].
When is something nothing, and nothing something?
You missed the main one
Thus, at 19h28 of 4 May 2007, the work started in the residence gardens, with the dog EDDY, that
detects cadaver odour, examining the entire exterior grounds within the perimeter of the property, it
having been verified that the dog signalled [alerted to] nothing.
-
You missed the main one
Thus, at 19h28 of 4 May 2007, the work started in the residence gardens, with the dog EDDY, that
detects cadaver odour, examining the entire exterior grounds within the perimeter of the property, it
having been verified that the dog signalled [alerted to] nothing.
Interesting.
I suppose it could mean that the dog alerted but nothing was retrieved to account for the alert.
That was actually the case.
Cuttings from the flower bed were sent to the FSS, but nothing was found ...
-
Pages 2100-2102
Official record of the canine inspection at 23h20 on 2 August 2007 at the Municipal Pavilion of Lagos, [situated in] Lagos.
The ten participants are indicated as being five PJ Chief Inspectors (2)/Inspectors (3); The UK NPIA officer (Harrison); the UK dog handler (Grime); the Portuguese-speaking officer from Scotland Yard (Freitas); and the two UK English Springer spaniels - Eddy and Kila.
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
Is that it ? @)(++(*
-
Eddie's alerts brought a change of orientation in the investigation. There's no doubt about that (see the AG's report). As a consequence the McCanns were made arguidos, which gave them rights, rights of defence, particularly on the move that had culminated with the arguido status. They were entitled to ask for a contra expertise operation : other dogs, other handler, same stuff.
Why didn't they ?
-
Eddie's alerts brought a change of orientation in the investigation. There's no doubt about that (see the AG's report). As a consequence the McCanns were made arguidos, which gave them rights, rights of defence, particularly on the move that had culminated with the arguido status. They were entitled to ask for a contra expertise operation : other dogs, other handler, same stuff.
Why didn't they ?
And if Amaral hadn't jumped the gun he might still be a senior detective now instead of a nobody. C'est la vie!!!! @)(++(*
-
And if Amaral hadn't jumped the gun he might still be a senior detective now instead of a nobody. C'est la vie!!!! @)(++(*
And if the McCanns had listened to Madeleine, they might still have her with them now instead of having lost a child. C'est la vie!!!
-
Interesting.
I suppose it could mean that the dog alerted but nothing was retrieved to account for the alert.
That was actually the case.
Cuttings from the flower bed were sent to the FSS, but nothing was found ...
Not at 19h28 on the 4 May 2007, he didn't, the work started in the residence gardens, with the dog EDDY
-
Quote from Martin Grime
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
End Quote
IOW Eddie could be alerting to cadaverscent, but even if he is, it means nothing because of a number of various innocent scenarios which could be the reason for the presence of this scent. Unless forensic evidence is found to confirm the alerts - then NO evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from them.
Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. No forensic evidence was found.
No, that is not what it means. He does not say that unless forensic corroboration is found then the alert means nothing and could be from an *innocent* source. He is saying forensic corroboration is needed to put more weight behind the find, because obviously a dogs barks cantbe taken as evidence on their own.
Corroboration in this case comes from Keela, ie blood. (as no physical remains were found there or anywhere else that connected the two). Keela did find blood, so for starters your argument that no forensics was found falls down.
Now, we have the possibility, that Eddie was right in his alert to cadaver scent, and Keela was right in her scent of blood, but that could mean blood shed innocently was found in the same place, so in this scenario, the corroboration still might not be evidence, if you see what I mean.
IN the same way no corroboration AND corroboration can never prove if it was innocent, in itself alone, that is, its a TOOL, but a very useful one, and cant be derided, treated with contempt or dismissed with NO evidence, as to why, rest my case.......
-
Not at 19h28 on the 4 May 2007, he didn't, the work started in the residence gardens, with the dog EDDY
Keep your hair on, that was obviously a mistake, and who could blame anyone from having the date 4 may seared through their mind when reading and translating thousands of pages, its no big deal, one click on the original PT document shows it was August 4, common sense tells anyone August 4 it was and and meant, hardly a sinister deliberate lie to make people think Murats garden was being looked into on May 4!!
Oh and dont fret, Ive emailed the pjfiles site to correct the error, so it should not give you irrelevant headaches any longer
-
The dogs reactions were evidentially worthless without forensics to back them up. Grime knows it, people who can read and think for themselves know it.
Going to eat your own head?
Only Eddies alerts required physical corroboration. He, and other cadaver dogs, alert to remnant non physical scent. This is a scientifically proven fact and react to it many many months after its deposition,again, scientifically proven. Those alerts, in the absence of scientific ability to corroborate them, require physical remains to prove the alert is correct or the next nearest which is circumstantial evidence, blood. The investigators take it from there.
-
Only Eddies alerts required physical corroboration. He, and other cadaver dogs, alert to remnant non physical scent. This is a scientifically proven fact and react to it many many months after its deposition,again, scientifically proven. Those alerts, in the absence of scientific ability to corroborate them, require physical remains to prove the alert is correct or the next nearest which is circumstantial evidence, blood. The investigators take it from there.
According to the orthodox opinion, all this is rubbish or c'est la vie.
The doxa (the implausible abduction), that excludes a plausible woke and deliberately searched for parents, indicates that the enemy to destroy, the only one in fact, is guilt.
-
According to the orthodox opinion, all this is rubbish or c'est la vie.
The doxa (the implausible abduction), that excludes a plausible woke and deliberately searched for parents, indicates that the enemy to destroy, the only one in fact, is guilt.
Yes, I do think their whole actions and behaviours have been based on atonement, ...somewhat,.... though, combined with other less spiritual motivations, cough,whether it will work is another matter
-
No, that is not what it means. He does not say that unless forensic corroboration is found then the alert means nothing and could be from an *innocent* source. He is saying forensic corroboration is needed to put more weight behind the find, because obviously a dogs barks cantbe taken as evidence on their own.
Corroboration in this case comes from Keela, ie blood. (as no physical remains were found there or anywhere else that connected the two). Keela did find blood, so for starters your argument that no forensics was found falls down.
Now, we have the possibility, that Eddie was right in his alert to cadaver scent, and Keela was right in her scent of blood, but that could mean blood shed innocently was found in the same place, so in this scenario, the corroboration still might not be evidence, if you see what I mean.
IN the same way no corroboration AND corroboration can never prove if it was innocent, in itself alone, that is, its a TOOL, but a very useful one, and cant be derided, treated with contempt or dismissed with NO evidence, as to why, rest my case.......
Red, as you know - both dogs alerted to blood.
The only corroberration Keela can give is to confirm that Eddie alerted to blood - and that is what Grime claims when both dogs alert at the same place. This is because Keela ONLY alerts to blood.
But both Eddie and Keela also alerted to blood from living people. i.e. innocent sources. So without corroberrating evidence to prove otherwise, all their 'dual' alerts indicate is that someone bled in the apartment - but whether it was from a simple injury or whether it was from someone who died - no-one can say.
With regard to Eddie alone - there are also the other 'number of given scenarios' which Grime mentions - i.e. the possibilty of an ancient deposit being alerted to, cross contamination from an outside source, body 'bits' from live people etc etc . All of which prevent the conclusion from being made that Madeleine's body or anyone's body was ever at the places where Eddies alerts were made. If those are not the 'given scenarios' that Grime is referring to below then WHAT scenarios is he alluding to?
Grimes said
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios
End Quote
My statement that in Eddie's case there were no forensics is based on what Grime says here:
Grime states
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
END QUOTE
Therefore IMO it is correct to say no forensic evidence was found as a result of alerts made only by Eddie.
You will notice in the videos that when Keela and Eddie both alert - Grime says 'this is indicative of the detection of blood'. However, when Eddie alerts on his own, Grime is very careful not to say 'this is an alert to a cadaver'. Instead he says Eddie has alerted to 'the things he has been trained to find'. This is because Grime knows that an alert by Eddie does not necessarily prove that a cadaver was ever in that spot - which is why he keeps emphasing in his reports that the alerts have no evidential value unless they are corroberrated. ( i.e. with a cadaver.)
The dogs are excellent tools but that is all they are.
-
The dogs are excellent tools but that is all they are.
Well, Benice, is it like this ?
Since Mr Grime knows that Eddie can react to dried blood (from a person who bled but didn't necessarily died of bleeding), he uses Keela. As Redblossom said, Keela is a kind of forensic for Eddie's alerts. If Keela doesn't react where Eddie alerted, then it is cadaver. This is what happened strikingly in the bedroom corner, which confirmed the global feeling of Mr Grime when he noted how excited Eddie was, when A5's door was open. Mr Grime knew that Eddie had picked it up.
Now, and it's a totally different topic, 1) Eddie's nose detects volatile smelling molecules, too minute for us, humans, to identify and for forensics to analyse and 2) the characteristic odour of death is the same for all humans, so without forensic analysis it's impossible to identify the body that provided the odour.
Without analysable particles for DNA, no court would accept the cadaver smell as evidence of a person's death. If a person dies without bleeding, if for some reason the body was removed, Eddie will alert in vain.
Though the presence of cadaver odour in a flat from where vanished a little girl without leaving a trace seems too much for a coincidence.
-
You are aware Anne that Tasmin Silences grandpa owned 5A and lived there with his wife?
He died in hospital. It was suggested on one forum that the pyjamas he died in were laundered and sent back home to stored in the wardrobe.
I have no idea whether this is true, or not, but there has to be a question mark.
-
You are aware Anne that Tasmin Silences grandpa owned 5A and lived there with his wife?
He died in hospital. It was suggested on one forum that the pyjamas he died in were laundered and sent back home to stored in the wardrobe.
I have no idea whether this is true, or not, but there has to be a question mark.
For heaven's sake sadie !
You are not suggesting that we should consider a theory by virtue of the fact that it was 'on a forum once' ?
If you have no idea whether it is true or not, then why even mention it ?
-
I dont offer it as proof but as a possibiity. It was mentioned on a forum. I qualified it well, if you noticed.
Take it or leave it, Icabod.
...........but if it is true, then it puts a completely different perspective on the case.
As I said, take it or leave it.
Anyway, hasn't it been proven over and over, that what happened with Eddie and Keela, in 5A and in the car has no solid evidence behind that either? But you guys keep pushing it.
Pot calls the kettle black again
-
DCI
Not at 19h28 on the 4 May 2007, he didn't, the work started in the residence gardens, with the dog EDDY
Doh!
4th May ...
I completely missed that.
And even after you highlighted it, too ....
-
Doh!
4th May ...
I completely missed that.
And even after you highlighted it, too ....
No worries Ferryman 8((()*/
-
Well, Benice, is it like this ?
Since Mr Grime knows that Eddie can react to dried blood (from a person who bled but didn't necessarily died of bleeding), he uses Keela. As Redblossom said, Keela is a kind of forensic for Eddie's alerts. If Keela doesn't react where Eddie alerted, then it is cadaver. This is what happened strikingly in the bedroom corner, which confirmed the global feeling of Mr Grime when he noted how excited Eddie was, when A5's door was open. Mr Grime knew that Eddie had picked it up.
No sorry Anne - it's not like that. Cadaverscent does not necessarily come from a dead person, it is also emitted from torn fingernail parts, teeth and bodily fluids etc. which have parted company with their living owners. That is the problem (along with all the other scenarios quoted by Grime) which in the absence of corroberratting evidence, prevents any firm conclusions from being arrived at.
With regard to the alert in the bedroom, Martin Grime states (in that room) that scent drifts, dependent on temperature etc and so the corner of the bedroom cannot be reliably pinpointed as a source.
As Eddie also reacts to blood as well as cadaverscent - how would anyone know which scent 'excited' him at the door.
-
As Eddie also reacts to blood as well as cadaverscent - how would anyone know which scent 'excited' him at the door.
It has already been explained, Benice.
Keela only reacted behind the sofa. Eddie reacted in 3 other places and, behind the sofa, possibly because of cadaver scent and not because of blood. The general scent wasn't blood. We know that thanks to Keela.
Would it be reasonable to imagine Prof Harrison MBE, in an attack of madness, thought human remains were decomposing in the flat ? Why do you think he called the dogs then ?
Imo he wasn't properly looking for Madeleine's blood (even if found in the flat, it was proof of nothing), he was just contemplating the possibility (a study hypothesis) that both dogs would (or not) react on the same spots, the blood eventually revealing identity through DNA. Not really a proof Madeleine died, but a very solid indication.
If you're the person who cleans your place, you know were the dust is. It's a bit the same with volatile molecules, they're pushed by draughts towards corners and there they stay. This is what Mr Grime explains in the video. The same phenomenon exists in trailing because of the wind.
-
The whole discussion is meaningless anyway, because, as Grime says, the place Eddie reacts isn't necessarily the source of a scent:
What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But strong indication and I would say its positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief.
(Martin Grime)
-
It has already been explained, Benice.
Keela only reacted behind the sofa. Eddie reacted in 3 other places and, behind the sofa, possibly because of cadaver scent and not because of blood. The general scent wasn't blood. We know that thanks to Keela.
Would it be reasonable to imagine Prof Harrison MBE, in an attack of madness, thought human remains were decomposing in the flat ? Why do you think he called the dogs then ?
Imo he wasn't properly looking for Madeleine's blood (even if found in the flat, it was proof of nothing), he was just contemplating the possibility (a study hypothesis) that both dogs would (or not) react on the same spots, the blood eventually revealing identity through DNA. Not really a proof Madeleine died, but a very solid indication.
If you're the person who cleans your place, you know were the dust is. It's a bit the same with volatile molecules, they're pushed by draughts towards corners and there they stay. This is what Mr Grime explains in the video. The same phenomenon exists in trailing because of the wind.
Anne, Grimes always sent Eddie in first. If he didn't alert, Grime didn't deploy Keela at all, because he knew that if any blood was present Eddie would have alerted. If Eddie did alert he then sent Keela in. If she alerted in the same place then Grime knew this could be not a cadaverscent alert, because Keela only alerted to blood. So whenever both dogs alerted at the same place - he assumed blood. The key fob - to which both dogs alerted, is an example.
If Keela did NOT alert at the same place, then Grime assumed Eddie may have alerted to cadaverscent. However, because of all the different scenarios of WHY and HOW cadaverscent could be present - scenarios which would be entirely unassociated with Madeleine, and because cadaverscent can also come from material that is from living people, the alert on its own does not and cannot prove that a cadaver was ever at that place - UNLESS corroborating evidence was found. This did not happen.
Quote from Martin Grime - for the millionth time
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
End quote
None of Eddie's single alerts were confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Why don't you believe Martin Grime?
-
Benice:
Anne, Grimes always sent Eddie in first.
Ah!
There are always exceptions.
In the gym, Keela was deployed first, and didn't react!
Then Eddie was deployed.
What the hell was Eddie looking for?
And what was Eddie expected to find that he didn't find in the prior inspection at the villa, where all clothes were present and on site?
-
Red, as you know - both dogs alerted to blood.
The only corroberration Keela can give is to confirm that Eddie alerted to blood - and that is what Grime claims when both dogs alert at the same place. This is because Keela ONLY alerts to blood.
But both Eddie and Keela also alerted to blood from living people. i.e. innocent sources. So without corroberrating evidence to prove otherwise, all their 'dual' alerts indicate is that someone bled in the apartment - but whether it was from a simple injury or whether it was from someone who died - no-one can say.
With regard to Eddie alone - there are also the other 'number of given scenarios' which Grime mentions - i.e. the possibilty of an ancient deposit being alerted to, cross contamination from an outside source, body 'bits' from live people etc etc . All of which prevent the conclusion from being made that Madeleine's body or anyone's body was ever at the places where Eddies alerts were made. If those are not the 'given scenarios' that Grime is referring to below then WHAT scenarios is he alluding to?
Grimes said
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios
End Quote
My statement that in Eddie's case there were no forensics is based on what Grime says here:
Grime states
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
END QUOTE
Therefore IMO it is correct to say no forensic evidence was found as a result of alerts made only by Eddie.
You will notice in the videos that when Keela and Eddie both alert - Grime says 'this is indicative of the detection of blood'. However, when Eddie alerts on his own, Grime is very careful not to say 'this is an alert to a cadaver'. Instead he says Eddie has alerted to 'the things he has been trained to find'. This is because Grime knows that an alert by Eddie does not necessarily prove that a cadaver was ever in that spot - which is why he keeps emphasing in his reports that the alerts have no evidential value unless they are corroberrated. ( i.e. with a cadaver.)
The dogs are excellent tools but that is all they are.
Rubbish
keela is not there to confirm eddie has alerted to blood, lesson one, if eddie only alerts to blood, then they would take samples from where he alerts! Keela is only required to find blood as back up if its there,wherever eddie alerts, ie to cadaver scent, no use confusing yourself
-
You are aware Anne that Tasmin Silences grandpa owned 5A and lived there with his wife?
He died in hospital. It was suggested on one forum that the pyjamas he died in were laundered and sent back home to stored in the wardrobe.
I have no idea whether this is true, or not, but there has to be a question mark.
@)(++(*
-
The whole discussion is meaningless anyway, because, as Grime says, the place Eddie reacts isn't necessarily the source of a scent:
What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But strong indication and I would say its positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief.
(Martin Grime)
And? So?
the cadaver scent originated *somewhere* in the room but could have ended up coalesced in another part, changes and means nothing
see ya for now
-
And? So?
And so ...
Eddie could have been reacting to traces of blood from Paul Gordon's shaving cut (for example) ...
-
And so ...
Eddie could have been reacting to traces of blood from Paul Gordon's shaving cut (for example) ...
@)(++(*
omg
Eddie the wonder dog alerts in the bedroom the living room the verandah the garden all cos of paul gordons blood but keela doesnt, and SHES the expert singular dog trained to find blood
@)(++(*
Ok mate, filll yer boots, ha ha funniest post of the day,
Straws + clutch + laughing
Whatever way u try and twist it, eddie alerted to several places that keela didnt
ERGO NOT BLOOD, its not rocket science
and if you go on to say oh well he was reacting to bitten fingernails, semen, urine, etc oh well ,thats great, he only did that in the place a child went missing and no where else but it means nothing!! You really need to Get a grip!
-
Rubbish
keela is not there to confirm eddie has alerted to blood, lesson one, if eddie only alerts to blood, then they would take samples from where he alerts! Keela is only required to find blood as back up if its there,wherever eddie alerts, ie to cadaver scent, no use confusing yourself
JEEZUZ Red.
I dont believe it. After all the hours spent trying to explain it by such patient people , you still in a mix up and spouting about it.
What a confused mind you have.
-
@)(++(*
omg
Eddie the wonder dog alerts in the bedroom the living room the verandah the garden all cos of paul gordons blood but keela doesnt, and SHES the expert singular dog trained to find blood
@)(++(*
Ok mate, filll yer boots, ha ha funniest post of the day,
Straws + clutch + laughing
Whatever way u try and twist it, eddie alerted to several places that keela didnt
ERGO NOT BLOOD, its not rocket science
and if you go on to say oh well he was reacting to bitten fingernails, semen, urine, etc oh well ,thats great, he only did that in the place a child went missing and no where else but it means nothing!! You really need to Get a grip!
Here you are again. Twisting words ... enlarging on what Ferryman actually said. Changing the meaning.
You should know by now that Eddie alerts to blood, and cadervescence. Cadervescence includes cadavar odour and other bodily fluids.
What Ferryman said is totally possible. He used a limited sample area. Had he included the garden outside ... then his hypothesis for that area, if he chose to give one, would most probably be totally different.
For instance that little quiet private garden of 5a would make a stopping off area for some bloke anxious to relieve himself on his way home after a drink; somewhere pretty private.
And dont laugh your sneering head off, cos I witnessed it happening in my front garden in the middle of the night.
It only had to happen once in the months berfore hand ... and it would have been alerted to.
-
Anne, Grimes always sent Eddie in first. If he didn't alert, Grime didn't deploy Keela at all, because he knew that if any blood was present Eddie would have alerted. If Eddie did alert he then sent Keela in. If she alerted in the same place then Grime knew this could be not a cadaverscent alert, because Keela only alerted to blood. So whenever both dogs alerted at the same place - he assumed blood. The key fob - to which both dogs alerted, is an example.
If Keela did NOT alert at the same place, then Grime assumed Eddie may have alerted to cadaverscent. However, because of all the different scenarios of WHY and HOW cadaverscent could be present - scenarios which would be entirely unassociated with Madeleine, and because cadaverscent can also come from material that is from living people, the alert on its own does not and cannot prove that a cadaver was ever at that place - UNLESS corroborating evidence was found. This did not happen.
Quote from Martin Grime - for the millionth time
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
End quote
None of Eddie's single alerts were confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Why don't you believe Martin Grime?
What's bold is wrong, Benice.
Don't you understand that all cadavers smell the same ? Without residue, without blood, it's impossible to identify whose body provides the scent.This is why it has no value in court.
So Eddie smelt death, but whose death ?
-
What's bold is wrong, Benice.
Don't you understand that all cadavers smell the same ? Without residue, without blood, it's impossible to identify whose body provides the scent.This is why it has no value in court.
So Eddie smelt death, but whose death ?
Eddie smelled death .... or urine, or semen or nail clippings, or any bodily fluid. It has been gone over and over. Please stop wumming.
Are you trying to change the subject to protect Red in post # 123 above?
-
Eddie smelled death .... or urine, or semen or nail clippings, or any bodily fluid. It has been gone over and over. Please stop wumming.
Are you trying to change the subject to protect Red in post # 123 above?
The idea Prof Harrison MBE called UK dogs to Algarve when temperature goes around 35°C, day AND night to bark at urine, semen or nail clippings is perfectly ridiculous.
-
The idea Prof Harrison MBE called UK dogs to Algarve when temperature goes around 35°C, day AND night to bark at urine, semen or nail clippings is perfectly ridiculous.
It has been made clear that Eddie alerts to these things along with blood. Why deny that?
What is missing from the equation is a body ... and there wasn't any body.
Simples
You are bashing your head against a brick wall Anne. Time to pause and rethink.
-
Rubbish
keela is not there to confirm eddie has alerted to blood, lesson one, if eddie only alerts to blood, then they would take samples from where he alerts! Keela is only required to find blood as back up if its there,wherever eddie alerts, ie to cadaver scent, no use confusing yourself
I'm not the one who is confused Red. I have never said Eddie only alerts to blood. Both dogs alerted to blood. But Eddie also alerted to cadaverscent.
When Eddie alerted Grime had no way of knowing whether he was alerting to blood or cadaverscent as he was trained to alert to both, so he then sent Keela in knowing that she only alerted to blood. If she also alerted that confirmed that blood was in the place where Eddie alerted. However, it did not confirm that cadaverscent was present because she was not trained to alert to that particular odour - only to blood.
-
I'm not the one who is confused Red. I have never said Eddie only alerts to blood. Both dogs alerted to blood. But Eddie also alerted to cadaverscent.
When Eddie alerted Grime had no way of knowing whether he was alerting to blood or cadaverscent as he was trained to alert to both, so he then sent Keela in knowing that she only alerted to blood. If she also alerted that confirmed that blood was in the place where Eddie alerted. However, it did not confirm that cadaverscent was present because she was not trained to alert to that particular odour - only to blood.
Eddie alerted in the McCann's bedroom, Keela didn't, therefore Eddie must have alerted to cadaver scent. It really is that simple.
-
Eddie alerted in the McCann's bedroom, Keela didn't, therefore Eddie must have alerted to cadaver scent. It really is that simple.
I'm not disagreeing with that Faith. But without corroborating evidence it does not prove that a cadaver was ever in the bedroom. The scent could have been present for a number of reasons none of which had any connection to Madeleine.
-
I'm not disagreeing with that Faith. But without corroborating evidence it does not prove that a cadaver was ever in the bedroom. The scent could have been present for a number of reasons none of which had any connection to Madeleine.
Can you suggest some ?
-
Benice:
Anne, Grimes always sent Eddie in first.
Ah!
There are always exceptions.
In the gym, Keela was deployed first, and didn't react!Then Eddie was deployed.
What the hell was Eddie looking for?
And what was Eddie expected to find that he didn't find in the prior inspection at the villa, where all clothes were present and on site?
Well Ferryman - I didn't know that. I was going by Grime's comments regarding other places (I can't remember where at the moment) where he states that because Eddie made no alerts at all - the CSI dog i.e. Keela was not deployed. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think he does state somewhere (maybe in one of the videos - or in one of his reports ) that he sends Eddie in first. But I can't vouch for that - it's just from memory.
-
Can you suggest some ?
It could be from a scent left by something buried underground decades ago.
It could be by scent transferrence from any number of people entering the apartment who may have been in contact with a cadaver elsewhere.
It could be scent from body 'bits' from living people which had once been deposited there.
-
09_VOLUME_IXa 09-Processo 9 pages 2473 to 2483
Eddie & Keela Martin Grimes Report
August 2007
OPERATION TASK CANINE SEARCH REPORT
Personal Profile
I am a 'retired' police officer, formally a senior instructor at the South Yorkshire Police dog training establishment.
I have 35 years experience in the training of dogs both within the police service and in the public sector.
I specialise in the development and training of specialist search dogs to include narcotics, explosives, currency, human remains, blood and semen.
I am the Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
I am a U.K.A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers, England and Wales) accredited police dog training instructor. I am a Subject Matter Expert in forensic canine search and on the N.P.I.A. (National Policing Improvement Agency) Expert Advisers database.
I advise Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the operational deployment of Police Dogs in the role of Homicide investigation.
I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training.
I am regularly deployed to homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys and USA.
I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs:
•'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD).
•'Keela' is a three-year old English Springer spaniel bitch who is trained as an Human blood search dog (C.S.I. dog).
OPERATION TASK CANINE DEPLOYMENTS 1-8 AUGUST 2007
On the instruction of The PJ Director, The Portuguese police kept all search records concerning the deployment of the search dogs. All dog searches were recorded by video.
The following searches were conducted:
•Five apartments at a complex in Praia Da Luz.
•Mr. Murat's property at Pria Da Luz.Mr.
•McCann's Villa at Pria Da Luz ( Present occupancy).
•Articles of clothing from Mr. McCann's residence.
•Western beach Pria da Luz.
•Eastern Beach Pria Da Luz.
•10 Vehicles screened at Portimao.
CANINE SEARCHES AT FIVE APARTMENTS AT PRIA DA LUZ.
All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications were at apartment 5a, the reported scene.
The EVRD alerted in the:
•Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door.
•Living room, behind sofa.
•Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
•Garden area directly under veranda.
My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment. He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search. On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent' and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.
I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge.
The dog's behaviour for these alerts led me to the following opinions:
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood.
The forensic science support officers were then deployed to recover items for laboratory analysis.
There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response.
CANINE SEARCH OF MR MURAT'S PROPERTY.
The property was subjected to a search for human remains or blood stained articles. The outside of property was stripped of vegetation and after the ground being probed was searched by the EVRD dog. The inside of the property was then searched by the dog. There were no alert indications and no human remains were located.
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
BOXES OF CLOTHING 1 PROPERTY FORM MR McCANN'S RESIDENCE.
At a suitable venue numerous boxes of clothing 1 property taken from the McCann present residence were screened using both the EVRD and the CSI dog. The venue was screened by both dogs prior to introducing clothing / property. Neither gave an alert indication. The screening then took place with the contents of each box being placed around the room in turn. The process was recorded by video and written records were taken by PJ officers.
The only alert indication was by the EVRD on clothing from one of the boxes. I am not in possession of the details as these were recorded by the PJ officers present.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
WESTERN BEACH
The beach above the waterline was searched. This extended to areas of fallen rock and the cliff face as far as the dog could negotiate the incline. There were no alert indications.
EASTERN BEACH
The beach above the waterline was searched. This extended to areas of fallen rock and the cliff face as far as the dog could negotiate the incline. There were no alert indications.
CANINE VEHICLE SEARCHES.
Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details, were parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle placement video recording and management of the process was conducted by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door.
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.
SUMMARY
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or Human blood.
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
-
What's bold is wrong, Benice.
Don't you understand that all cadavers smell the same ? Without residue, without blood, it's impossible to identify whose body provides the scent.This is why it has no value in court.
So Eddie smelt death, but whose death ?
It's not me you are claiming is wrong Anne, it's Martin Grime. The detection of cadaverscent without a body being found does not prove that the scent is from a dead person. Eddie smelt decaying human remains - which could be from body parts/fluids from living people.
-
BUMPED to bring this important document over page into view
DCI
« Reply #134 on: Today at 01:26:34 AM »Quote09_VOLUME_IXa 09-Processo 9 pages 2473 to 2483
Eddie & Keela Martin Grimes Report
August 2007
OPERATION TASK CANINE SEARCH REPORT
Personal Profile
I am a 'retired' police officer, formally a senior instructor at the South Yorkshire Police dog training establishment.
I have 35 years experience in the training of dogs both within the police service and in the public sector.
I specialise in the development and training of specialist search dogs to include narcotics, explosives, currency, human remains, blood and semen.
I am the Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
I am a U.K.A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers, England and Wales) accredited police dog training instructor. I am a Subject Matter Expert in forensic canine search and on the N.P.I.A. (National Policing Improvement Agency) Expert Advisers database.
I advise Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the operational deployment of Police Dogs in the role of Homicide investigation.
I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training.
I am regularly deployed to homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys and USA.
I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs:
•'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD).
•'Keela' is a three-year old English Springer spaniel bitch who is trained as an Human blood search dog (C.S.I. dog).
OPERATION TASK CANINE DEPLOYMENTS 1-8 AUGUST 2007
On the instruction of The PJ Director, The Portuguese police kept all search records concerning the deployment of the search dogs. All dog searches were recorded by video.
The following searches were conducted:
•Five apartments at a complex in Praia Da Luz.
•Mr. Murat's property at Pria Da Luz.Mr.
•McCann's Villa at Pria Da Luz ( Present occupancy).
•Articles of clothing from Mr. McCann's residence.
•Western beach Pria da Luz.
•Eastern Beach Pria Da Luz.
•10 Vehicles screened at Portimao.
CANINE SEARCHES AT FIVE APARTMENTS AT PRIA DA LUZ.
All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications were at apartment 5a, the reported scene.
The EVRD alerted in the:
•Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door.
•Living room, behind sofa.
•Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
•Garden area directly under veranda.
My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment. He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search. On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent' and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.
I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge.
The dog's behaviour for these alerts led me to the following opinions:
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood.
The forensic science support officers were then deployed to recover items for laboratory analysis.
There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response.
CANINE SEARCH OF MR MURAT'S PROPERTY.
The property was subjected to a search for human remains or blood stained articles. The outside of property was stripped of vegetation and after the ground being probed was searched by the EVRD dog. The inside of the property was then searched by the dog. There were no alert indications and no human remains were located.
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
BOXES OF CLOTHING 1 PROPERTY FORM MR McCANN'S RESIDENCE.
At a suitable venue numerous boxes of clothing 1 property taken from the McCann present residence were screened using both the EVRD and the CSI dog. The venue was screened by both dogs prior to introducing clothing / property. Neither gave an alert indication. The screening then took place with the contents of each box being placed around the room in turn. The process was recorded by video and written records were taken by PJ officers.
The only alert indication was by the EVRD on clothing from one of the boxes. I am not in possession of the details as these were recorded by the PJ officers present.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
WESTERN BEACH
The beach above the waterline was searched. This extended to areas of fallen rock and the cliff face as far as the dog could negotiate the incline. There were no alert indications.
EASTERN BEACH
The beach above the waterline was searched. This extended to areas of fallen rock and the cliff face as far as the dog could negotiate the incline. There were no alert indications.
CANINE VEHICLE SEARCHES.
Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details, were parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle placement video recording and management of the process was conducted by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door.
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.
SUMMARY
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or Human blood.
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
-
Here you are again. Twisting words ... enlarging on what Ferryman actually said. Changing the meaning.
You should know by now that Eddie alerts to blood, and cadervescence. Cadervescence includes cadavar odour and other bodily fluids.
What Ferryman said is totally possible. He used a limited sample area. Had he included the garden outside ... then his hypothesis for that area, if he chose to give one, would most probably be totally different.
For instance that little quite private garden of 5a would make a stopping off area for some bloke anxious to relieve himself on his way home after a drink; somewhere pretty private.
And dont laugh your sneering head off, cos I witnessed it happening in my front garden in the middle of the night.
It only had to happen once in the months berfore hand ... and it would have been alerted to.
I have often wondered why they didn't dig up the garden. I can understand them not wanting to dig up floors inside apartments and concrete patios/paths etc. to establish whether the alerts were due to ancient deposits etc. but why not the garden when we are told by Martin Grime that Eddie can detect odours from several feet below ground? He alerted there - so why not dig down? Very odd.
-
@)(++(*
omg
Eddie the wonder dog alerts in the bedroom the living room the verandah the garden all cos of paul gordons blood but keela doesnt, and SHES the expert singular dog trained to find blood
@)(++(*
Ok mate, filll yer boots, ha ha funniest post of the day,
Straws + clutch + laughing
Whatever way u try and twist it, eddie alerted to several places that keela didnt
ERGO NOT BLOOD, its not rocket science
and if you go on to say oh well he was reacting to bitten fingernails, semen, urine, etc oh well ,thats great, he only did that in the place a child went missing and no where else but it means nothing!! You really need to Get a grip!
Yes very strange that Red. We are told that Eddie and Keela could detect the tiniest minutest traces of blood and cadaverscent from as far back as the 1960's in Keela's case and IIRC over a hundred years ago in Eddie's case. - in fact traces so small that even the FSS couldn't detect them (e.g. the curtains in 5A) and so why no alerts anywhere else? Are we to believe that in all those other apartments, Murats home and garden, the beach, the cliffs and everywhere else that Eddie searched in PdL that not a soul had ever spilt a single drop of blood in any of those places in the last 60 years - or that no-one had died etc.?? Surely that can't be so.
Have you any thoughts on this Red?
BTW personally I do believe Grime's claims about the abilities of his dogs.
-
Eddie alerted in the McCann's bedroom, Keela didn't, therefore Eddie must have alerted to cadaver scent. It really is that simple.
I don't find it "that simple". He's trained to find the scent of human decomposition, but that doesn't necessarily mean a cadaver, just that it could be.
-
Yes very strange that Red. We are told that Eddie and Keela could detect the tiniest minutest traces of blood and cadaverscent from as far back as the 1960's in Keela's case and IIRC over a hundred years ago in Eddie's case. - in fact traces so small that even the FSS couldn't detect them (e.g. the curtains in 5A) and so why no alerts anywhere else? Are we to believe that in all those other apartments, Murats home and garden, the beach, the cliffs and everywhere else that Eddie searched in PdL that not a soul had ever spilt a single drop of blood in any of those places in the last 60 years - or that no-one had died etc.?? Surely that can't be so.
Have you any thoughts on this Red?
BTW personally I do believe Grime's claims about the abilities of his dogs.
The dogs according to my reading of the situation were only useful in certain situations but proving that they were effective in the absence of further evidence was impossible. Alerts may be one thing but how many instances are there where they have either missed an alert or made a false one? Nobody will ever know and that included their handler.
-
I don't find it "that simple". He's trained to find the scent of human decomposition, but that doesn't necessarily mean a cadaver, just that it could be.
This is the rock that the [ censored word] argument will always perish on. You cannot say Eddie alerted thus there was a cadaver in the car or the apartment. Even Martin Grime isn't so naive as to believe that.
-
This is the rock that the [ censored word] argument will always perish on. You cannot say Eddie alerted thus there was a cadaver in the car or the apartment. Even Martin Grime isn't so naive as to believe that.
Likewise John you cannot say it didn't.
The lack of corroborative D.N.A. evidence does not mean the dogs can be ignored.
There is no proof anything else happened, and personally I don't think anything will change, unless something extraordinary happens in this case.
-
This is the rock that the [ censored word] argument will always perish on. You cannot say Eddie alerted thus there was a cadaver in the car or the apartment. Even Martin Grime isn't so naive as to believe that.
You cannot say there categorically was a cadaver but you can say that it is a distinct possiblity.
-
Likewise John you cannot say it didn't.
The lack of corroborative D.N.A. evidence does not mean the dogs can be ignored.
There is no proof anything else happened, and personally I don't think anything will change, unless something extraordinary happens in this case.
I accept that. There can only be one conclusion therefore and that is that the dog alerts in this particular situation are meaningless and should not be used as proof of anything.
-
You cannot say there categorically was a cadaver but you can say that it is a distinct possiblity.
Just as you cannot say there categorically was life on Mars but you can say it is a distinct possibility.
And that means what exactly??
-
Just as you cannot say there categorically was life on Mars but you can say it is a distinct possibility.
And that means what exactly??
Absolutely nothing...one way or the other. The dog alerts are meaningless.
-
Just as you cannot say there categorically was life on Mars but you can say it is a distinct possibility.
And that means what exactly??
I think when a child is missing with no apparent evidence of an abduction the alerts, when put in context, carry slightly more weight than the evidence of life on any other planet.
-
I accept that. There can only be one conclusion therefore and that is that the dog alerts in this particular situation are meaningless and should not be used as proof of anything.
Those are the only indications that exist of anything in this case.
As I said last week all parties should be open to investigation in this case. Clearly this isn't happening.
As it stands I don't see the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance being solved.
Redwood's request last week for people to look out for Madeleine said everything, he and the rest of the team haven't a clue ( and I know I've said that before ).
-
I think when a child is missing with no apparent evidence of an abduction the alerts, when put in context, carry slightly more weight than the evidence of life on any other planet.
In context, I don't see how the alerts mean anything significant.
Eddie could have been alerting to:
- the scent of something that had been in contact with someone who had died;
- the scent of anything other than the physical presence of blood (if one is to believe that Keela is always accurate);
- the dog's perception of what the handler was tasking him to do.
Even if Eddie had reacted to the lingering scent of some decomposing substance, without corroboration, it could have been anything that had been removed even the week prior to the search. And the apartment had been let out just prior to the search and the statements of any post-disappearance occupants aren't in the files, as far as I'm aware.
He could have been reacting to anything.... even a dropped bandaid that had been removed after the previous occupants had moved out.
-
In context, I don't see how the alerts mean anything significant.
Eddie could have been alerting to:
- the scent of something that had been in contact with someone who had died;
- the scent of anything other than the physical presence of blood (if one is to believe that Keela is always accurate);
- the dog's perception of what the handler was tasking him to do.
Even if Eddie had reacted to the lingering scent of some decomposing substance, without corroboration, it could have been anything that had been removed even the week prior to the search. And the apartment had been let out just prior to the search and the statements of any post-disappearance occupants aren't in the files, as far as I'm aware.
He could have been reacting to anything.... even a dropped bandaid that had been removed after the previous occupants had moved out.
Then why no alerts in any other of the apartments where similar human detritus would also have been deposited ?
-
Then why no alerts in any other of the apartments where similar human detritus would also have been deposited ?
Why not indeed - as no alerts anywhere else flies in the face of Martin Grime's claims about his dogs.
My own opinion is that whether the dogs alert or not is largely dependent on how much time they are allowed to search or are encouraged to search. Also in this case I think 'unconscious cueing' was a real possiblity.
-
Why not indeed - as no alerts anywhere else flies in the face of Martin Grime's claims about his dogs.
My own opinion is that whether the dogs alert or not is largely dependent on how much time they are allowed to search or are encouraged to search. Also in this case I think 'unconscious cueing' was a real possiblity.
Or flies in the face of your interpretation of his claims ?
-
Or flies in the face of your interpretation of his claims ?
I haven't interpreted his claims I have repeated them.
What do you think his claims were regarding the abilities/skills of his dogs?
-
I haven't interpreted his claims I have repeated them.
What do you think his claims were regarding the abilities/skills of his dogs?
He cant make false claims without the possibility of comeback, but he is a salesman.
Thta should be borne in mind
-
He cant make false claims without the possibility of comeback, but he is a salesman.
That should be borne in mind
I think his claims are true Sadie - and his dogs can detect minute traces of material/blood both from the present and also going back decades. But that means there must be other reasons why there were no alerts anywhere else - and in places where it is is impossible to believe that not a single drop of blood had ever been spilt over such a long period of time.
-
I think his claims are true Sadie - and his dogs can detect minute traces of material/blood both from the present and also going back decades. But that means there must be other reasons why there were no alerts anywhere else - and in places where it is is impossible to believe that not a single drop of blood had ever been spilt over such a long period of time.
Benice, I am happy to accept your opinion. I know you to be a person of integrity and an expert in this field. 8((()*/
-
It is unfortunate that Mr Grime wrongly chose to use the term cadaver scent in his Report thereby insinuating that the dog detected signs of a corpse when we know that the dogs can react to many other substances.
He also knows that his claims cannot be substantiated or challenged as no such substance has ever been found worthy of forensic analysis. 8(0(*
-
It is unfortunate that Mr Grime wrongly chose to use the term cadaver scent in his Report thereby insinuating that the dog detected signs of a corpse when we know that the dogs can react to many other substances.
He also knows that his claims cannot be substantiated or challenged as no such substance has ever been found worthy of forensic analysis. 8(0(*
I think Grimes choose his words very carefully while writing his report as he knew the weigh they would carry.
-
Benice, I am happy to accept your opinion. I know you to be a person of integrity and an expert in this field. 8((()*/
Aww Thank you Sadie, I'm certainly no expert - but I have read Martin Grime's statements and done some research on sniffer dogs in general. It's a fascinating subject.
-
It is, indeed, quite remarkable that no one ever bled any apartment other than in apartment 5a ...
Or is it that Eddie (finally) detected a scent of blood in apartment 5a because the dog spent far longer in that apartment than any of the others.
Or could Eddie's, apparent, "reaction", same as (undoubtedly) cuddle-cat have been alerting error?
-
My own opinion is that whether the dogs alert or not is largely dependent on how much time they are allowed to search or are encouraged to search. Also in this case I think 'unconscious cueing' was a real possiblity.
Casting suspicion on Prof Harrison MBE, Benice ?
-
It is unfortunate that Mr Grime wrongly chose to use the term cadaver scent in his Report thereby insinuating that the dog detected signs of a corpse when we know that the dogs can react to many other substances.
Which other substances ? Eddie didn't react to cadaverine, this is an important fact.
-
I think his claims are true Sadie - and his dogs can detect minute traces of material/blood both from the present and also going back decades. But that means there must be other reasons why there were no alerts anywhere else - and in places where it is is impossible to believe that not a single drop of blood had ever been spilt over such a long period of time.
Keela wasn't sent to the other flats : without cadaver scent, no use.
-
It is, indeed, quite remarkable that no one ever bled any apartment other than in apartment 5a ...
Or is it that Eddie (finally) detected a scent of blood in apartment 5a because the dog spent far longer in that apartment than any of the others.
Or could Eddie's, apparent, "reaction", same as (undoubtedly) cuddle-cat have been alerting error?
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Martin Grime might have seen it as an alert, I saw it as playing with cuddle cat. So how did he alert to it, when it was moved and put in a cupboard? Why was it allowed to be moved? >@@(*&)
-
It is, indeed, quite remarkable that no one ever bled any apartment other than in apartment 5a ...
Or is it that Eddie (finally) detected a scent of blood in apartment 5a because the dog spent far longer in that apartment than any of the others.
Or could Eddie's, apparent, "reaction", same as (undoubtedly) cuddle-cat have been alerting error?
Yep, quite remarkable as you say. >@@(*&) Similarily quite remarkable as Kates finger prints being the only ones found on the window >@@(*&) yet everyone would be fiddling with it looking out.
Also remarkable that the Front door was totally and utterly ignored as a possible entry point.
Yet it was the most likely place, as it was deeply recessed in a very dark spot, and completely hidden to anyone crossing the front parking lot to block 5.
Also strange that the PJ told Gerry that they had proof that a dead Madeleine had been carried in their hire car. A car that wasn't hired until several weeks afterwards.
Of course an empty threat, a lie like that 8()(((@#, was preferable to torturing Gerry ... to illicitly get a confession out of him ... very sinister tho !
-
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Martin Grime might have seen it as an alert, I saw it as playing with cuddle cat. So how did he alert to it, when it was moved and put in a cupboard? Why was it allowed to be moved? >@@(*&)
Perhaps you should put these enquiries in a letter and send them to Mr Grime. I'm sure he'll be delighted to hear from you 8)-)))
-
CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.
The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Martin Grime might have seen it as an alert, I saw it as playing with cuddle cat. So how did he alert to it, when it was moved and put in a cupboard? Why was it allowed to be moved? >@@(*&)
The EVRD played with cuddle cat. How did he alert to it, when it was moved and put in a cupboard?
good question DCI >@@(*&)
-
Yes very strange that Red. We are told that Eddie and Keela could detect the tiniest minutest traces of blood and cadaverscent from as far back as the 1960's in Keela's case and IIRC over a hundred years ago in Eddie's case. - in fact traces so small that even the FSS couldn't detect them (e.g. the curtains in 5A) and so why no alerts anywhere else? Are we to believe that in all those other apartments, Murats home and garden, the beach, the cliffs and everywhere else that Eddie searched in PdL that not a soul had ever spilt a single drop of blood in any of those places in the last 60 years - or that no-one had died etc.?? Surely that can't be so.
Have you any thoughts on this Red?
BTW personally I do believe Grime's claims about the abilities of his dogs.
I dont think Eddie is used to find microscopic bits of blood, Keela is, but only when directed *after Eddie the cadaver dog alerts anywhere*. So, no, its not a fact that no blood was ever spilled anywhere over the years.
All I was saying is that I disagree with the theory/suggestions put forward that Eddie was always alerting to blood, and that if Keela reacts in the same spot it must have been blood. And as we know, she did not react to blood on several occasions after Eddie made his alerts. Logic dictates this. Eddie was alerting to something else, and to something the scent of which remains after months, that rules out semen, urine, faeces, bad breath,etc, datewise plus also logicwise, as why would 5a be such an unhygienic place over others?
It is possible as Mr Grime said it could be contamination from other sources, but you must agree it must have been so very unlucky to have just occurred there.
This discussion is indeed a groundhog day one, perhaps we should all get off the merrygoround. Cos lets face it, those that think there is no way on this earth Eddies alerts could mean Madeleine dead and must be something else are no different to those saying it does or could mean Madeleine dead, there is no difference between the two,apart from one faction not admitting it could be a possibility, onlyfact is no one knows, so both options are on the table, so pointless arguing about possibilities and impossibilities or pretending to know better than/libelling a dog handler, (including saint kate) who had no reason to lie and didnt as this would come back to bite him andmake him look stupid if he did
-
Eddie was alerting to something else, and to something the scent of which remains after months, that rules out semen, urine, faeces, bad breath,etc,
Where do you get the info that certain scents just vanish in days? Cite please.
It is possible as Mr Grime said it could be contamination from other sources
Do you think he was trying to subtly give the hint that there had been tampering of some sort?
Rest assured, Red, there is NO way that Eddies alerts point to anything involving the Mccanns as has been proven over and over in previous threads. and present threads. Nor in Official findings by the PT authorities and SY.
No groundhog day, as you call it, here. Wishful thinking , my dear.
Cos lets face it, those that think there is no way on this earth Eddies alerts could mean Madeleine dead
... are right
onlyfact is no one knows
But we do know, so that's a non-runner
libelling a dog handler
Who has done that Red? My impression was that there might be question marks against Amaral and his cronies; not against the dog handlers
including saint kate,who had no reason to lie
Well she doesn't lie, does she? That is the beauty of kate, she is direct and completely open, which you guys dont seem to understand.
and didnt as this would come back to bite him andmake him look stupid if he did
Well I am sorry, but I cant understand that bit
Sorry Red, but NO GROUNDHOG DAY
-
Casting suspicion on Prof Harrison MBE, Benice ?
I have never mentioned Harrison Anne. I was talking about Martin Grime.
-
Where do you get the info that certain scents just vanish in days? Cite please.
Do you think he was trying to subtly give the hint that there had been tampering of some sort?
Rest assured, Red, there is NO way that Eddies alerts point to anything involving the Mccanns as has been proven over and over in previous threads. and present threads. Nor in Official findings by the PT authorities and SY.
No groundhog day, as you call it, here. Wishful thinking , my dear.
... are right
But we do know, so that's a non-runner
Who has done that Red? My impression was that there might be question marks against Amaral and his cronies; not against the dog handlers
Well she doesn't lie, does she? That is the beauty of kate, she is direct and completely open, which you guys dont seem to understand.
Well I am sorry, but I cant understand that bit
Sorry Red, but NO GROUNDHOG DAY
Groundhog Day
2nd Septembet 2007 :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
"I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true.
5th July 2013 :
'Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood: Neither her parents or any of the member of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.'
Discuss.
-
2nd Septembet 2007 :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
C.I Olegaro Sousa was the PJ Ofiicer who fronted the TV reports from the PJ, wasn't he? I liked him ... a genuine guy
He was the officer who resigned when Amaral let him down, wasn't he?
-
2nd Septembet 2007 :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
C.I Olegaro Sousa was the PJ Ofiicer who fronted the TV reports from the PJ, wasn't he? I liked him ... a genuine guy
He was the officer who resigned when Amaral let him down, wasn't he?
Please stick to the topic sadie. The more cynical among us may think you are trying to derail the thread.
-
I beg your pardon. It came straight out of your post above. I copied and pasted it.
Groundhog Day
2nd Septembet 2007 :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said"I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true.
5th July 2013 :
'Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood: Neither her parents or any of the member of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.'
Discuss.
-
2nd Septembet 2007 :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
C.I Olegaro Sousa was the PJ Ofiicer who fronted the TV reports from the PJ, wasn't he? I liked him ... a genuine guy
He was the officer who resigned when Amaral let him down, wasn't he?
Yes, you can't accuse ALL of them of being corrupt & incompetent, Amaral obviously was & so was Tavares de Almeida. There are court sentences to prove that.
Olegario Sousa must be pleased that the AG proved him right in the end, and now so has Scotland Yard.
-
I have never mentioned Harrison Anne. I was talking about Martin Grime.
You always seem to forget that Mr Grime was acting under the responsibility and control of Prof Harrison. Do you ignore Prof Harrison since attacking a MBE isn't politically correct ?
-
You always seem to forget that Mr Grime was acting under the responsibility and control of Prof Harrison. Do you ignore Prof Harrison since attacking a MBE isn't politically correct ?
If Martin Grime unconsciously cued his dogs, then obviously, by definition, he wouldn't know he was doing it. It's nothing whatsoever to do with anybody else.
-
If Martin Grime unconsciously cued his dogs, then obviously, by definition, he wouldn't know he was doing it. It's nothing whatsoever to do with anybody else.
And what evidence do you have that he 'unconsciously' cued his dogs ? The fact that you didn't like what the alerted to ?
-
And what evidence do you have that he 'unconsciously' cued his dogs ? The fact that you didn't like what the alerted to ?
No - because it could be one reason why his dogs only alerted to McCann related stuff - but didn't alert anywere else - despite his claims that they could detect ancient odours from many decades ago.
IMO it's impossible to believe that materials which leave such odours had never been present in any of the other apartments or in any of the other cars - within the timescales Martin Grime himself had specified.
-
If Martin Grime unconsciously cued his dogs, then obviously, by definition, he wouldn't know he was doing it. It's nothing whatsoever to do with anybody else.
Come on, Benice, Prof Harrison was there and observing. He's not "anybody else" !
-
IMO it's impossible to believe that materials which leave such odours had never been present in any of the other apartments or in any of the other cars - within the timescales Martin Grime himself had specified.
Your insistence in despising Prof Harrison MBE by refusing to admit his authority on the operation is amazing.
-
Your insistence in despising Prof Harrison MBE by refusing to admit his authority on the operation is amazing.
With Grime they can insinuate that financial interest played a part in his dog's reactions, not so with Harrison
-
Quote from: Benice on Today at 11:46:50 AM
IMO it's impossible to believe that materials which leave such odours had never been present in any of the other apartments or in any of the other cars - within the timescales Martin Grime himself had specified. [/quote]
AnneYour insistence in despising Prof Harrison MBE by refusing to admit his authority on the operation is amazing.
Why have you introduced Professor Harrison, Anne?
That is just a diversionary tactic as far as I can see. Benice is very clear.
-
With Grime they can insinuate that financial interest played a part in his dog's reactions, not so with Harrison
This would be despicable if it weren't first ridiculous, as it has been said before : Mr Grime's prosperity only depends on the correct handling of his dogs in order to provide accuracy.
-
With Grime they can insinuate that financial interest played a part in his dog's reactions, not so with Harrison
But it has already been pointed out that you are the only people who point to Harrison.
Why do you keep on?
-
But it has already been pointed out that you are the only people who point to Harrison.
Why do you keep on?
The point is Harrison was present at the dog searches. If he suspected Grime of any unprofessional or misleading conduct he would have alerted the PJ or detailed it in his report.
-
The point is Harrison was present at the dog searches. If he suspected Grime of any unprofessional or misleading conduct he would have alerted the PJ or detailed it in his report.
Was he? Where did you get thta from?
I wonder why he allowed Grime to keep calling the dog back if he was in charge.
-
Was he? Where did you get thta from?
I wonder why he allowed Grime to keep calling the dog back if he was in charge.
Perhaps because what Grime was doing was exactly what he should have been doing ?
-
Faith Lilly:
The point is Harrison was present at the dog searches. If he suspected Grime of any unprofessional or misleading conduct he would have alerted the PJ or detailed it in his report.
Harrison conspicuously distanced himself from those searches he, clearly, had nothing whatever to do with ...
From Mark Harrison's report:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
Summary
The aim of the search activity was to re-search known and relevant locations in the immediate vicinity of the place Madeleine McCann was last seen using solely a search scenario that she was deceased and her body had been concealed by a third party. No human remains were located during the searches undertaken.
Conducting searches in places Madeleine never lived or went near (the villa and the gym) had sod-all with anything to with Madeleine.
Neither did inspecting a car hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction.
And notice how selective Harrison is in owning UK participation in those searches.
Both inspections at villa and gym are described as PJ exercises, and Harrison gives no clue who took part in the inspection of vehicles.
Harrison owns UK participation in those searches he recommended.
That's it!
-
What do you think Prof Harrison MBE was doing in PDL during all this time ? Going to the beach ?
-
What do you think Prof Harrison MBE was doing in PDL during all this time ? Going to the beach ?
I feel sure he wasn't swanking about being an MBE
Only jumped up, insecure peeps have to do that ... and he doesn't seem insecure, or jumped up, to me.
My bet is that he wouldn't like all the MBE business Anne. My next door neighbour is one, but you would never know. She carries it with dignity.
-
My next door neighbour is one, but you would never know. She carries it with dignity.
Speaking of a MBE, this is pleonastic.
-
With Grime they can insinuate that financial interest played a part in his dog's reactions, not so with Harrison
Not so Faith. Unconscious cueing is something which happens only between a handler and his dog. No-one else is involved.
-
Faith Lilly:
The point is Harrison was present at the dog searches. If he suspected Grime of any unprofessional or misleading conduct he would have alerted the PJ or detailed it in his report.
Harrison conspicuously distanced himself from those searches he, clearly, had nothing whatever to do with ...
From Mark Harrison's report:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
Summary
The aim of the search activity was to re-search known and relevant locations in the immediate vicinity of the place Madeleine McCann was last seen using solely a search scenario that she was deceased and her body had been concealed by a third party. No human remains were located during the searches undertaken.
Conducting searches in places Madeleine never lived or went near (the villa and the gym) had sod-all with anything to with Madeleine.
Neither did inspecting a car hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction.
And notice how selective Harrison is in owning UK participation in those searches.
Both inspections at villa and gym are described as PJ exercises, and Harrison gives no clue who took part in the inspection of vehicles.
Harrison owns UK participation in those searches he recommended.
That's it!
1. All the inspections were described as PJ exercise, nothing telling in that.
2. Notice the word 'relevant'.
From Harrison's rogatory statement :
How did the searches evolve ?
Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps.
-
Not so Faith. Unconscious cueing is something which happens only between a handler and his dog. No-one else is involved.
And it hasn't been proven here.
-
And it hasn't been proven here.
That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Martin Grime is human after all.
-
Speaking of a MBE, this is pleonastic.
pleonastic ?
Oh, Yeah Right! @)(++(*
-
Quote from: Faithlilly on Today at 12:46:12 PM
With Grime they can insinuate that financial interest played a part in his dog's reactions, not so with Harrison
Not so Faith. Unconscious cueing is something which happens only between a handler and his dog. No-one else is involved.
What do you mean, Benice ? That unconscious cueing doesn't happen between a handler and his boss, in this case, Prof Harrison MBE ?
-
Quote from: Faithlilly on Today at 12:46:12 PM
With Grime they can insinuate that financial interest played a part in his dog's reactions, not so with Harrison
What do you mean, Benice ? That unconscious cueing doesn't happen between a handler and his boss, in this case, Prof Harrison MBE ?
Prof Harrison his boss? I always thought that it was Grimes own business. where do you get Prof Harrison being his boss from Anne?
-
Prof Harrison his boss? I always thought that it was Grimes own business. where do you get Prof Harrison being his boss from Anne?
Prof Harrison MBE was the head of the cadaver and blood dogs operation. He suggested it, organized it, observed it, i.e cautioned it.
-
Prof Harrison MBE was the head of the cadaver and blood dogs operation. He suggested it, organized it, observed it, i.e cautioned it.
Maybe, but he wasn't the boss was he? It was Grimes own business, wasn't it?
-
Faith Lilly:
1. All the inspections were described as PJ exercise, nothing telling in that.
Wrong! Harrison acknowledged UK involvement in all those searches he recommended: the holiday apartments, the Murats' place and areas in and around PdL
In those inspections Harrison did not recommend (such as the villa and the gym) he described them as PJ exercises.
While Harrison did recommend an inspection of vehicles, only 2 (of 3) cars he recommended be inspected made the final line-up of 10. Harrison gave no clue who took part in that exercise.
It's all documented.
2. Notice the word 'relevant'.
From Harrison's rogatory statement :
How did the searches evolve ?
Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps.
Harrison found a form of diplobabble-speak for saying he was presented with the fait-accompli of searches he nothing to do with.
-
Here, for example, is what Harrison had to say about inspection of vehicles:
Murat's Vehicles.
All vehicles Murat has had access to have been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however they may all benefit from a full search by the EVRD and CSI dogs. They may be able to detect whether a dead body has been transported in one of the vehicles for intelligence purposes or detect human blood deposits that can be recovered and
examined in a laboratory for Madeleine McCann's blood.
A car Murat hired never made the line-up, while 8 cars Harrison said nothing about made the line-up, including the McCanns' Renault which (as we know) turned out to be the only car of real interest (at least to humans).
The canine interest had to be cajoled ...
-
Harrison found a form of diplobabble-speak for saying he was presented with the fait-accompli of searches he nothing to do with.
Pas de fait accompli du tout, Ferryman, Prof Harrison was delicate enough to advise and not to impose, since he was very aware the pride of a country that had searched restlessly Madeleine had to be preserved. You can criticize Amaral a thousand times and I'll likely agree with you on a few topics, but you have to acknowledge the great respect he betrays for Prof Harrison.
-
Anne:
This is Mark Harrison's summary of searches, disproving Faith's claim above that all searches were described by Harrison as PJ exercises:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
Note that in those searches Harrison recommended, he acknowledges UK participation: the holiday apartments, the Murats' place and areas in and around PdL.
That's it!
Harrison did recommend an inspection of vehicles, but only 2 (of 3) cars he recommended be inspected made the final line-up of 10.
Harrison gave no clue who took part in that exercise ....
-
Faith Lilly:
1. All the inspections were described as PJ exercise, nothing telling in that.
Wrong! Harrison acknowledged UK involvement in all those searches he recommended: the holiday apartments, the Murats' place and areas in and around PdL
In those inspections Harrison did not recommend (such as the villa and the gym) he described them as PJ exercises.
While Harrison did recommend an inspection of vehicles, only 2 (of 3) cars he recommended be inspected made the final line-up of 10. Harrison gave no clue who took part in that exercise.
It's all documented.
2. Notice the word 'relevant'.
From Harrison's rogatory statement :
How did the searches evolve ?
Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps.
Harrison found a form of diplobabble-speak for saying he was presented with the fait-accompli of searches he nothing to do with.
So Harrison recommended and was present, along with British officers, during the search of the only place where we can be certain, with the help of Keela, that Eddie was not alerting to blood but cadaver scent, 5a.
Thanks for that ferryman.
-
Rude again
You say that you are a teacher ? Have I got that right ?
How about somne facts Stephen?
Don't try talking about being rude when you insult posters who don't agree with you regularly.
-
Don't try talking about being rude when you insult posters who don't agree with you regularly.
I only ever reciprocate Stephen