Dog alerts indicating Cadaver Odor

[AnneGuedes]

 the alert he made to the first shelf in the McCann's wardrobe )

Icabodcrane, he made the alert on the floor, in the corner between the wardrobe and the wall. MG commented it wasn't necessary a corpse had been there, molecules chased by draughts could have been trapped in that corner.

[Carana]

Some excellent points there Icabodcrane.

@Carana, do you have a link to Martin Grime's Jersey report? TIA

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html

Would you  like a link to the independent inquiry as well?

[AnneGuedes]

I believe they are basically honest in their replies. I also believe that Mr Grime chooses his words carefully to remain within the rules of evidence at the same time as avoiding justified questions about the abilities of hisdogs. He does not lie but goes to great lengths to avoid unfortunate truths.

Honest "n their replies", then what about their acts ? And their intentions ?
Who wouldn't try to "avoid unfortunate truths" ? ;)

[ferryman]

Beyond doubt, it is appalling bad practice for any dog attending a crime scene to pick things in up in its mouth.

Also to trample all over stuff the dog is tasked to inspect.

And quite what Grime was playing at putting Eddie in a position where he had no trained response to indicate anything specific, I'm not sure ...

Wouldn't that be for a seasoned dog handler using a single dog to know and not a layman?

A seasoned (and professional!) dog handler would know -- better!

[Redblossom]

Some excellent points there Icabodcrane.

@Carana, do you have a link to Martin Grime's Jersey report? TIA

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html

Would you  like a link to the independent inquiry as well?

Why, is that site not independent? Yes please.

Even if true, it doesn't really change much does it? Either the Mccanns were extremely unlucky and the dog alerted to all sorts of innocent materials only in and outside their flat from where Madeleine disappeared, and nowhere else, what are the odds of that? or there is more to it.

[debunker]

Eddie alerts to dried blood from a currently living person. An alert from him alone NEVER indicates cadaver odor.

Oh really? Well watch this video starting from 1min15secs, and then say his alert was not to cadaver odour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHdPGyQt2M&feature=youtube_gdata_player


You may also like to read Lenny Harper's comments about the testing of the dogs when deployed to Jersey.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/exclusive-footage-of-eddie-cadaver-dog.html

00.0 Getting ready. I was reluctant to let the dog inside as I did not feel that it would do much good. In truth, I was a little sceptical – I had not felt a favourable impression from the handler (Martin Grimes) at our initial meeting and I was dubious, although my opinion of his qualities and integrity was to markedly change as events unfolded. I began to realise as I worked closely with him over a period of months that what I originally took as arrogance was simply supreme confidence in the ability of his dogs in the face of jealous, empire protecting rivals who were not as professionally capable. Throughout the investigation, we subjected Martin and his dogs to many ‘verifying’ tests, from burying swabs in sand (which he always found no matter how large an area), to minute blood stains. The dogs never failed.

Eddie alerts to dried blood ( whether from a living or dead person) AND/OR cadaver odor. Source: Mr Grime in the PJ files.

[debunker]

Thanks Redblossom  ...  and that's my stumbling block

These dogs are valued,  and they are  effective ...  we all know that really

We are asked to believe, though, that on this occasion their alerts were errors.  Scientific explanations are proffered and the fact that no conclusive  forensic evidence was gathered is presented as definitive proof that the dogs were wrong 9

OK then,  even though it is difficult to accept that the dogs were having an inexplicable 'off day'  when they were making nothing but  errors,  I can accept the possibility that they were

What I can not get past,  though, is the fact that all of these 'errors'  were made where the McCanns were concerned  ...  and no errors made where the McCanns were not concerned

I have seen no rational or believable explanation put forward to explain that  stark truth

It does appear to be a bit of a rubix cube conundrum, doesn't it.

Only ifyou do not understand how truth is based on forensic or scientific methods.

Bit of a sweeping statement there. Evidence and truth are not the same thing.

What is "sweeping" about my statement:

"Only ifyou do not understand how truth is based on forensic or scientific methods."

See my post on the scientific method.

[Lace]

Why didn't Eddie alert to CC when he took the toy out of what looked to be a bin?

Eddie later barked alerting to CC  in the cupboard in the kitchen.

If there was cadaver scent on CC why didn't Eddie alert the first time?    He had the toy in his mouth close to his nose.

[ferryman]

You really must work on your English usage.
Debunker, you know as any one what it means when the argumento ad hominem pops up !

That is not ad hominem.

You misused an English word and distorted what I was saying. You pretended that I had accused people of dishonesty and you were wrong. I pointed out the error of your inference and argument.

DB, sometimes I get the impression that you assume that everyone has English as a mother tongue. That's not always the case.

Thanks, Carana, but it has nothing to do with language knowledge, "dishonesty" has equal semantic fields in English, Portuguese and French. I'm glad if Debunker believes the professionals involved in the dogs operation are honest persons. I only wish he would state it clearly.
Now I forgot to say that I don't believe Madeleine was carried in the Scenic. Contamination product ? He wasn't sent into the car... and we don't see Keela freezing in front of the car key.
This strange and imo implausible scenario might have originated from those frozen new-born (quite a few) coupled with the idea a body must have a sepulchre.

I believe they are basically honest in their replies. I also believe that Mr Grime chooses his words carefully to remain within the rules of evidence at the same time as avoiding justified questions about the abilities of hisdogs. He does not lie but goes to great lengths to avoid unfortunate truths.

Debunker He [Grime] does not lie but goes to great lengths to avoid unfortunate truths.

There is an exception, or at the very least an anomaly.

Grime clearly states in his rogatory interview that he instructed cuddle-cat be sent for forensic analysis. 

At most charitable, his instruction was ignored.

And I don't think Keela reacted to the toy.

[Redblossom]

Eddie alerts to dried blood ( whether from a living or dead person) AND/OR cadaver odor. Source: Mr Grime in the PJ files.

So you are saying that the sand containing the scent of a hundred year old cadaver was found by Eddie because he was sniffing blood?
 >@@(*&)

[debunker]

How do you acount for the demonstrable FACTS that Mr Grime makes Eddie return repeatedly to what he knows is the McCann's car, counting bothtime spent before passing on to the next car, and forcing him to return nine times when he ran on to the next car?

MG, who, as a good handler, knew Eddie, understood the dog had picked up something. He supported him. It's your right to be sceptic, but it is unfounded to suggest some kind of a trick.

I am not suggesting any trick. I am merely commenting on the obvious difference in the video in time spent on, and recalls to, the McCann's car.

[debunker]

I don't think the 'unconcious handler cueing' is convincing or rational ...  not in this case

I'll give my reasons

It was of no benefit to Mr Grime to lead his dogs into giving false alerts  ...  their accuracy is what matters to him, Whether they accurately alert,  or accurately  non-alert is of equal value  to any investigation  (  the cueing accusation implies that his dogs are only of value when they do alert,  and that is simply not the case )

Getting on to specifics though

The first time Eddie, the cadavour dog is introduced to the investigation is when he is brought to the McCann's apartment.  Immediately,  still at the front door, Mr Grime notes a change in Eddie's demeanor  ... he is already in a state of excitement  (  with no cue from his handler )

Eddie enters the apartment first  ...  he is on a free search

He alerts in seperate locations.  There can be no question of Mr Grime 'cueing'  Eddie at this point because he  ( Mr Grime )  had no idea which  locations were significant

When Keela, the blood dog is brought in, Mr Grime already knows   which locations are significant  (  the shelf in the wardrobe and the area  behind the sofa )  and he specifically directs Keela to those locations  ...  cueing ?  ...  or simply taking  the logical and necessary steps to validate the alerts Eddie had already made ?

In any  event, Mr Grime pays great attention to the wardrobe where Eddie had already alerted.  He directs Keela to it, and has her jump up onto the first shelf  ...  he even lifts her  onto the second shelf

Now that might be interpretated as  'cueing'  by some,  but here's the thing ...  despite all that handler direction,  the dog did  not alert

When it came to the vehicles, it is quite logical that the McCann's car was the focus of the most thorough investigation  ...  both dogs had already alerted in the McCann's apartment afterall

Had the dogs alerted in Mr Murat's house, for instance, I have no doubt that his  car would have been the one the dogs were repeatedly brought back to  (  and quite rightly )

To present the explanation that the dogs alerted as they did, only because their handler  'cued'  them to, is entirely unsupportable and lacks reason   

You obviously do not understand the meaning of UNCONSCIOUS cuing.

[ferryman]

Also, I think Grime l... outright about Eddie's alleged training in America.

[Redblossom]

Only ifyou do not understand how truth is based on forensic or scientific methods.

*****

DB

What is sweeping is saying that truth is only truth if proven scientifically or forensically. There are things forensics and science cannot prove but which are true. Ie the lingering scent of the hundredsof molecules that make up cadaver odour. if such an instrument exists to do this I have never heard about it.  Truth of anything as provable on a court of law is different.

[debunker]

It's interesting to make a comparison of how much time was spent in all the other apartments and how much time was spent in the places Madeleine was known to have been -- as well as those places Madeleine was known not to have been but the McCanns were known to have been (if you follow the distinction) ...

It's not as simple as that. If the dog showed interest and his behaviour changed,more time would be spent to find the source of the interest. This did not happen in the other apartments, nor the Mccanns villa for that matter. Mr Grime's video commentary says where there was interest and where there wasn't.

You are assuming that with no proof.