Another view of dog evidence

[ferryman]

According to Martin Grime.

I suspect, actually, Grime there took what Robert Lowe actually says that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result is derived.

Grime (I reckon) took that a stage further and asserted that the dog will find blood even when they can find no trace in a laboratory.

But how would he know?

@Carana, I wonder whether what I've said might be, at least in part, the answer?

It's true, I think, that nowhere in Lowe's report is there a direct reference to blood.

[Redblossom]

Was any blood associated with the dog searches in PdL actually forensically proven to be so?

However, on the subject of blood, whatever happened to the tests on some street wall in PdL?

I already answered the question about Keela finding blood and the FSS not being able to prove it was. If she alerts to nothing unless it is blood, then that is a pretty a sure thing, that she alerted to blood. I dont see the problem here also because many people are saying Keela alerted to Gerry Mccanns blood on the car key fob. Why they think she did, well apart from people sayng no blood was found LOL, is a mystery because the exaxt same phraeseology from the FSS was given vis a vis Madeleines , all known markers matched.....
 DNA, but of course, it wasn't hers and could have been anyones on the planet, yes ok

[Redblossom]

According to Martin Grime.
I suspect, actually, Grime there took what Robert Lowe actually says that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result is derived.

Grime (I reckon) took that a stage further and asserted that the dog will find blood even when they can find no trace in a laboratory.
But how would he know?
@Carana, I wonder whether what I've said might be, at least in part, the answer?

It's true, I think, that nowhere in Lowe's report is there a direct reference to blood.

Because he has trained and tested her and knows first hand

[DCI]

How on earth can Amaral be taken seriously?.

On August 2nd, at 6pm, the inspectors arrive at the McCanns' residence and present the search warrant. The principle of the examination by the specialist dogs is explained. Kate and Gerry are in the swimming pool in the garden with the twins. Contrary to all expectations, they allow us access to their house in a very natural way.

He wasn't there. Designated Officers: Paulo Pancadas and Nuno Nunes, PJ Inspectors
Contrary to all expectations, they allow us access to their house in a very natural way.
Hello, search warrant!!

Eddie goes immediately to the lounge. He comes to a stop in front of a wicker armchair on which is lying Madeleine's small pink soft toy, which Kate was never without in the early days of the investigation. Nowadays, she wears a rosary and a green ribbon around her neck. Eddie barks to let us know that he has detected an odour: the soft toy has been in contact with a body.

So Eddie, not only detected an odour on cuddlecat in 5A, twice, but by a miracle, turns up in the new property, and Bingo, Eddie does it again.

[Carana]

Was any blood associated with the dog searches in PdL actually forensically proven to be so?

However, on the subject of blood, whatever happened to the tests on some street wall in PdL?

I already answered the question about Keela finding blood and the FSS not being able to prove it was. If she alerts to nothing unless it is blood, then that is a pretty a sure thing, that she alerted to blood. I dont see the problem here also because many people are saying Keela alerted to Gerry Mccanns blood on the car key fob. Why they think she did, well apart from people sayng no blood was found LOL, is a mystery because the exaxt same phraeseology from the FSS was given vis a vis Madeleines , all known markers matched.....
 DNA, but of course, it wasn't hers and could have been anyones on the planet, yes ok

I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.

What was found was:
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

Concerning Madeleine and "all known markers matched", I'm not sure which result you're thinking of.

[C.Edwards]

I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.

Just to be fair here, just because no forensic evidence of blood is recovered does not mean that the dog was wrong in alerting, you do understand that, right?  Grime is talking evidentially in that a dog alert is not sufficient as anything other than an indication. The way that McCann supporters go on about this seems to assume that Keela was "wrong" to alert as no blood was recovered.

I see the dog alerts as highly indicative of something worthy of further investigation to try and explain why the alerts happened where they did and not elsewhere.

[Carana]

I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.

Just to be fair here, just because no forensic evidence of blood is recovered does not mean that the dog was wrong in alerting, you do understand that, right?  Grime is talking evidentially in that a dog alert is not sufficient as anything other than an indication. The way that McCann supporters go on about this seems to assume that Keela was "wrong" to alert as no blood was recovered.

I see the dog alerts as highly indicative of something worthy of further investigation to try and explain why the alerts happened where they did and not elsewhere.

I didn't say that she was "wrong" to alert.

[C.Edwards]

I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.

Just to be fair here, just because no forensic evidence of blood is recovered does not mean that the dog was wrong in alerting, you do understand that, right?  Grime is talking evidentially in that a dog alert is not sufficient as anything other than an indication. The way that McCann supporters go on about this seems to assume that Keela was "wrong" to alert as no blood was recovered.

I see the dog alerts as highly indicative of something worthy of further investigation to try and explain why the alerts happened where they did and not elsewhere.

I didn't say that she was "wrong" to alert.

I didn't say YOU did!  The general tenet of those that support the McCanns, I'm sure you'd agree Carana, is that the dog alerts are meaningless without forensic corroboration.  That's not true, the alerts have meaning, but they are evidentially (i.e. suitable as evidence) worthless without corroboration.  There's a whole world of difference between those states.

I'm only posting this here as otherwise this kind of differentiation gets lost in the noise and anyone new (is there anyone left?) to the case may be confused.

[Carana]

I think she probably did, as that is all she is trained to detect. However, it's only an assumption as no blood was confirmed by forensics.

Just to be fair here, just because no forensic evidence of blood is recovered does not mean that the dog was wrong in alerting, you do understand that, right?  Grime is talking evidentially in that a dog alert is not sufficient as anything other than an indication. The way that McCann supporters go on about this seems to assume that Keela was "wrong" to alert as no blood was recovered.

I see the dog alerts as highly indicative of something worthy of further investigation to try and explain why the alerts happened where they did and not elsewhere.

I didn't say that she was "wrong" to alert.

I didn't say YOU did!  The general tenet of those that support the McCanns, I'm sure you'd agree Carana, is that the dog alerts are meaningless without forensic corroboration.  That's not true, the alerts have meaning, but they are evidentially (i.e. suitable as evidence) worthless without corroboration.  There's a whole world of difference between those states.

I'm only posting this here as otherwise this kind of differentiation gets lost in the noise and anyone new (is there anyone left?) to the case may be confused.

I see the issue the other way around.

Something within the parameters of his training made him alert. Any lingering scent related to human or porcine decomposition could have triggered an alert, the scent of an actual cadaver (or something that had been in contact with a dead person) being a possibility amongst others.

Without evidence, there is no way of knowing whether he was alerting to something significant or totally irrelevant.

[Carana]

According to Martin Grime.

I suspect, actually, Grime there took what Robert Lowe actually says that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result is derived.

Grime (I reckon) took that a stage further and asserted that the dog will find blood even when they can find no trace in a laboratory.

But how would he know?

@Carana, I wonder whether what I've said might be, at least in part, the answer?

It's true, I think, that nowhere in Lowe's report is there a direct reference to blood.

I don't think so as he mentions it in his profile.

I don't know how he would know, either. He may have information on how much blood would be needed for a forensic confirmation and tested her with less. Dunno.

[ferryman]

According to Martin Grime.

I suspect, actually, Grime there took what Robert Lowe actually says that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result is derived.

Grime (I reckon) took that a stage further and asserted that the dog will find blood even when they can find no trace in a laboratory.

But how would he know?

@Carana, I wonder whether what I've said might be, at least in part, the answer?

It's true, I think, that nowhere in Lowe's report is there a direct reference to blood.

I don't think so as he mentions it in his profile.

I don't know how he would know, either. He may have information on how much blood would be needed for a forensic confirmation and tested her with less. Dunno.

Fair point that Grime wrote his profile before Lowe wrote his report.

On the other hand, it is probably generally known that in results obtained by LCN, it is not possible to identify the material from which the result was obtained.

[Carana]

Actually that is not what Mr Harrison said, but never mind, the general point being, that even if no forensics are found, it does not mean a dog is wrong on a certain search, just that an alert on its own is not proof. To dismiss a cadaver dog alert just because no forensics has been found is as I said irresponsible, as there are many cases of cadaver dogs alerting, with no forensics, where it has been been proven that they were right. you do know that people can die with no blood spillage.

I have read accounts of both: a dog alerted and someone later admitted to having moved the body, and others in which a dog alerted but the body had never been anywhere near the location. So both can happen.

I'm not dismissing the possibility, but I find it irresponsible for people (particularly those involved in the investigation) to assert that she did die in that apartment, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, because a dog barked.

[Angelo222]

And who in their right mind would put a body in a bedside cupboard which wasn't even wide enough to accommodate it?   Complete gibberish.   I nearly laughed at Amaral when in his video he claimed this had happened.  What a k..b

[debunker]

It is worth pointing out that Mr Grime is fundamentally d........t over the accuracy of his dogs.

If further forensic evidence is found, then it is a ´hit´.

If no further forensic evidence is found it is also a ´hit´.

He counts every alert as correct despite the later outcome of tests.

He ignores the known facts about the accuracy of such dogs.

[Admin]

It is worth pointing out that Mr Grime is fundamentally d.........t over the accuracy of his dogs.

If further forensic evidence is found, then it is a ´hit´.

If no further forensic evidence is found it is also a ´hit´.

He counts every alert as correct despite the later outcome of tests.

He ignores the known facts about the accuracy of such dogs.

Has he an out if and when Madeleine is eventually found alive and well?