Author Topic: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA  (Read 56181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #105 on: April 04, 2013, 01:53:09 AM »
Mr. Grime used the video made in Portugal, as an advertising tool.  He used it to convince Lenny Harper in Jersey that he should employ the dogs.

Are you suggesting Mr Grime is a chancer who steered  his dogs into making false alerts in the McCann case so he could raise his profile  ?

That is a serious accusation  ...  what do you base it on  ?

I would base it on logic
getting paid shedloads for a grainy video made in Luz/Portugal - which resulted in no scientific findings
to be paid shedloads to go to Jersey to find a piece of coconut shell - as confirmed by Kew Gardens

Genius
give that man a cigar


Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'


Indeed and he was paid £93,000 for the privilege.  Some coconut shell!   @)(++(*
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline gilet

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #106 on: April 04, 2013, 02:29:02 AM »
Even from the very truncated and badly edited video we have seen its clear the dog handler spent far more time calling the dog back to the McCanns car than to the other cars. If they had spent as much time on the other cars who knows what they may have found?

The full 20 minute video in the car park is worth watching - Mr Grime certainly calls Eddie backto the McCann's car six times more often than any other car.

THe alerts may have been serial errors- incorrect se base recgnised and alerted followd by reinforcement by the handler- watch the videos. Dogs smell the same scent around other McCann possessions and alert again.


I agree, dogs aren't stupid and if they are  recalled several times they can learn that a reaction is required and bobs your uncle.

I have great difficulty with the suggestion that the dogs can be  'guided'  by their handlers to alert falsely  in order to please  (  or get a treat )

Take Mr Grimes, as the case in point  ...  it matters not a jot to him if his dogs alert or not,  indeed,  them  not  alerting can be seen as a successful outcome providing the  'non alert'  was accurate

It is  the accuracy  of the dogs that matters to the handler,   whether they alert or not   ...  their, and his, reputation and livelihood depend on it

It is very unfair and utterly insupportable to suggest that Mr Grimes,  for some inexplicable reason,  'caused'  his dogs to falsely alert in the McCann case

I really have to ask the question. Do you actually understand the adjective "insupportable"? If you do I think it rather odd that you make the statement that a claim about the dogs being guided in the car alerting is insupportable because the claim is totally supported by the video of the event where the extra time devoted to the clearly identifiable McCann car is so obvious.

Mr Grime at the time of the visit to PDL (31 July -8 August 2007) was retiring from the police force and starting up his own company. There is a saying that all publicity is good publicity and from his dogs intervention in PDL he certainly has had a great deal of publicity.

With regard to the timings of the canine searches, most were done in the evening or overnight but the dogs on some occasions were working from 3pm to 5am and for other extended periods. I suppose the aim was to work when it was coolest but surely such strange hours to the dogs would be very unsettling to their normal work patterns?

Offline Eleanor

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #107 on: April 04, 2013, 02:53:36 AM »

Best I can do for the moment.  From The Gloucestershire Echo.

Officers are considering a claim he strangled her after a row in a shooting lodge, and then buried her on their 276 acre farm.


Read more: http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Kate-Prout-murder-Ex-husband-admits-killing/story-13876025-detail/story.html#ixzz2PSIDt2dG
Follow us: @thisisglos on Twitter | thisisgloucestershire on Facebook

Offline John

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #108 on: April 04, 2013, 04:23:32 AM »
I stand corrected Eleanor, it does seem that he strangled her in the shooting lodge on the farm.


At the inquest into the former teacher's death, Detective Inspector Steve Bean, of Gloucestershire CID said on November 5, 2007, Prout went out to the lodge at Redhill Farm to prepare for the following day's shoot.

"She followed him and they began arguing," Mr Bean said.

"She was planning to humiliate him in some way the following day. He snapped, and thrust his right hand into her neck and squeezed for 10 to 15 seconds. She didn't struggle. She fell backwards."

He told Assistant Deputy Coroner Katie Skerrett that Prout fixed himself a glass of whisky, before wrapping Kate's body in a curtain, putting it in the back of his Land Rover and went to the pub. When he returned, he drove to a pheasant pen and dug a hole with a shovel and buried her body.


http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Kate-Prout-inquest-finally-hears-husband/story-16000525-detail/story.html#axzz2PSeEKbqV


There is no reference to the body ever being in the house.

This really does render dog-handler expert Mr Grimes claim that one of his dogs indicated that a body had been in the living room of the family home all the more bizarre?  8-)(--)
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 04:53:44 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #109 on: April 04, 2013, 08:03:20 AM »
We really need to be aware that no anti is willing to enter into discussion about the dogs.

WHY


Offline Eleanor

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #111 on: April 04, 2013, 11:04:06 AM »
I stand corrected Eleanor, it does seem that he strangled her in the shooting lodge on the farm.


At the inquest into the former teacher's death, Detective Inspector Steve Bean, of Gloucestershire CID said on November 5, 2007, Prout went out to the lodge at Redhill Farm to prepare for the following day's shoot.

"She followed him and they began arguing," Mr Bean said.

"She was planning to humiliate him in some way the following day. He snapped, and thrust his right hand into her neck and squeezed for 10 to 15 seconds. She didn't struggle. She fell backwards."

He told Assistant Deputy Coroner Katie Skerrett that Prout fixed himself a glass of whisky, before wrapping Kate's body in a curtain, putting it in the back of his Land Rover and went to the pub. When he returned, he drove to a pheasant pen and dug a hole with a shovel and buried her body.


http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Kate-Prout-inquest-finally-hears-husband/story-16000525-detail/story.html#axzz2PSeEKbqV


There is no reference to the body ever being in the house.

This really does render dog-handler expert Mr Grimes claim that one of his dogs indicated that a body had been in the living room of the family home all the more bizarre?  8-)(--)

Sorry.  I don't particularly like proving people wrong.  And thanks for the additional article. 
Unfortunately I now know more about Cadaver Dogs than I ever wanted to.

I also know far too much about how to make chloroform, which is, I suspect, how the abductor sedated the three children.

Offline sika

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #112 on: April 04, 2013, 11:12:49 AM »
I stand corrected Eleanor, it does seem that he strangled her in the shooting lodge on the farm.


At the inquest into the former teacher's death, Detective Inspector Steve Bean, of Gloucestershire CID said on November 5, 2007, Prout went out to the lodge at Redhill Farm to prepare for the following day's shoot.

"She followed him and they began arguing," Mr Bean said.

"She was planning to humiliate him in some way the following day. He snapped, and thrust his right hand into her neck and squeezed for 10 to 15 seconds. She didn't struggle. She fell backwards."

He told Assistant Deputy Coroner Katie Skerrett that Prout fixed himself a glass of whisky, before wrapping Kate's body in a curtain, putting it in the back of his Land Rover and went to the pub. When he returned, he drove to a pheasant pen and dug a hole with a shovel and buried her body.


http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Kate-Prout-inquest-finally-hears-husband/story-16000525-detail/story.html#axzz2PSeEKbqV


There is no reference to the body ever being in the house.

This really does render dog-handler expert Mr Grimes claim that one of his dogs indicated that a body had been in the living room of the family home all the more bizarre?  8-)(--)

Sorry.  I don't particularly like proving people wrong.  And thanks for the additional article. 
Unfortunately I now know more about Cadaver Dogs than I ever wanted to.

I also know far too much about how to make chloroform, which is, I suspect, how the abductor sedated the three children.

Would it have been possible to detect if chloroform had been administered?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 11:15:29 AM by John »

Offline Eleanor

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #113 on: April 04, 2013, 11:35:01 AM »
I stand corrected Eleanor, it does seem that he strangled her in the shooting lodge on the farm.


At the inquest into the former teacher's death, Detective Inspector Steve Bean, of Gloucestershire CID said on November 5, 2007, Prout went out to the lodge at Redhill Farm to prepare for the following day's shoot.

"She followed him and they began arguing," Mr Bean said.

"She was planning to humiliate him in some way the following day. He snapped, and thrust his right hand into her neck and squeezed for 10 to 15 seconds. She didn't struggle. She fell backwards."

He told Assistant Deputy Coroner Katie Skerrett that Prout fixed himself a glass of whisky, before wrapping Kate's body in a curtain, putting it in the back of his Land Rover and went to the pub. When he returned, he drove to a pheasant pen and dug a hole with a shovel and buried her body.


http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Kate-Prout-inquest-finally-hears-husband/story-16000525-detail/story.html#axzz2PSeEKbqV


There is no reference to the body ever being in the house.

This really does render dog-handler expert Mr Grimes claim that one of his dogs indicated that a body had been in the living room of the family home all the more bizarre?  8-)(--)

Sorry.  I don't particularly like proving people wrong.  And thanks for the additional article. 
Unfortunately I now know more about Cadaver Dogs than I ever wanted to.

I also know far too much about how to make chloroform, which is, I suspect, how the abductor sedated the three children.

Would it have been possible to detect if chloroform had been administered?

It doesn't smell if made properly.  If it smells you haven't made it right. And it doesn't linger in the body.  And then, of course, the bedroom window had been opened.
A pad soaked in chloroform in a plastic bag in your pocket would do the trick.
It is very easy to make.

Beware when Googling.  If I ever get arrested for a crime I could be in serious trouble with my Google history.

Offline Matthew Wyse

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #114 on: April 04, 2013, 11:38:34 AM »
Why would any would be abductor even need to use chloroform?
Most people suspect the truth but few are able to admit it.

Offline Eleanor

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #115 on: April 04, 2013, 11:49:09 AM »
Why would any would be abductor even need to use chloroform?

Because they wouldn't want the child or children to wake up and start hollering.  A kicking and screaming Madeleine being carried through the streets would not have been a good idea.
The twins crying could have attracted attention.

Offline Milly

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #116 on: April 04, 2013, 01:15:29 PM »
I must admit I thought these dogs were infallible and the bees knees but that doesnt appear to be the case.   >@@(*&)    There are so many myths around it is difficult to know where to begin sometimes and you would think i would have known better having studied the Jeremy Bamber case.  Silly me.   8(8-))

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #117 on: April 04, 2013, 01:29:26 PM »
I stand corrected Eleanor, it does seem that he strangled her in the shooting lodge on the farm.


At the inquest into the former teacher's death, Detective Inspector Steve Bean, of Gloucestershire CID said on November 5, 2007, Prout went out to the lodge at Redhill Farm to prepare for the following day's shoot.

"She followed him and they began arguing," Mr Bean said.

"She was planning to humiliate him in some way the following day. He snapped, and thrust his right hand into her neck and squeezed for 10 to 15 seconds. She didn't struggle. She fell backwards."

He told Assistant Deputy Coroner Katie Skerrett that Prout fixed himself a glass of whisky, before wrapping Kate's body in a curtain, putting it in the back of his Land Rover and went to the pub. When he returned, he drove to a pheasant pen and dug a hole with a shovel and buried her body.


http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Kate-Prout-inquest-finally-hears-husband/story-16000525-detail/story.html#axzz2PSeEKbqV


There is no reference to the body ever being in the house.

This really does render dog-handler expert Mr Grimes claim that one of his dogs indicated that a body had been in the living room of the family home all the more bizarre?  8-)(--)

Sorry.  I don't particularly like proving people wrong.  And thanks for the additional article. 
Unfortunately I now know more about Cadaver Dogs than I ever wanted to.

I also know far too much about how to make chloroform, which is, I suspect, how the abductor sedated the three children.

Would it have been possible to detect if chloroform had been administered?

It doesn't smell if made properly.  If it smells you haven't made it right. And it doesn't linger in the body.  And then, of course, the bedroom window had been opened.
A pad soaked in chloroform in a plastic bag in your pocket would do the trick.
It is very easy to make.

Beware when Googling.  If I ever get arrested for a crime I could be in serious trouble with my Google history.

So please explain precisely, how you would make Chloroform 'easily' ?

It is banned in most countries due to it's carcinogenic properties.

Offline Eleanor

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #118 on: April 04, 2013, 01:33:52 PM »
I must admit I thought these dogs were infallible and the bees knees but that doesnt appear to be the case.   >@@(*&)    There are so many myths around it is difficult to know where to begin sometimes and you would think i would have known better having studied the Jeremy Bamber case.  Silly me.   8(8-))

A lot of us got taken in at the start, and there were so many fibs being told.  The research by some has been phenomenal, but we have had six years to get to what we now know.
This is the problem with The Dog Supporters.  They don't actually do any research, probably because it suits them to spread the lies.

Offline Eleanor

Re: The truth about the Cadaver Dogs and DNA
« Reply #119 on: April 04, 2013, 01:37:06 PM »

Google "How to make Chloroform", that's what I did.  It is made with easily purchased components, so impossible to ban, I would say.