Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?

[Benice]

It would have been interesting to know who placed CC in the cupboard and an explanation from Martin Grime as to why they decided to do that.

(From memory)  Sylvia Batista was also there.  If that was the case then I'm not sure how appropriate that was considering her status as a Witness.

[ferryman]

It would have been interesting to know who placed CC in the cupboard and an explanation from Martin Grime as to why they decided to do that.

(From memory)  Sylvia Batista was also there.  If that was the case then I'm not sure how appropriate that was considering her status as a Witness.

Agreed that Grime's take on that would be interesting.

Obviously I'm not Martin Grime, but this is my take.

I think Grime bundled the toy into a cupboard to avoid a repeat of the fiasco of Eddie playing with the toy.

I suspect the dog spied Grime putting it in the cupboard and wanted more of the same.

So he barked to say: Give me my toy back.

[Eleanor]

Agreed that Grime's take on that would be interesting.

Obviously I'm not Martin Grime, but this is my take.

I think Grime bundled the toy into a cupboard to avoid a repeat of the fiasco of Eddie playing with the toy.

I suspect the dog spied Grime putting it in the cupboard and wanted more of the same.

So he barked to say: Give me my toy back.

I wish that it was that simple.

Why did Martin Grime keep on pointing to that bloody cupboard door.  Watch it please, will you.

[Carana]

I'm fairly certain that in the early days after the video was released you could view the dog throwing cuddlecat up in the air.  Then, after it became apparent from online discussions in forums about how questionable this appeared to be, the videos were removed and then returned to the public domain with bits missing.

I'm aware of people who are convinced of this.

Perhaps it's too long ago now, but I simply haven't found anything to substantiate that.

I DID at one point think that I'd seen certain details, but when I checked back, there was absolutely nothing that I had found to back that up.

I wonder if I fell into the trap of reading about it and somehow that altered my memory. As I'm at the forefront pointing out how easily memories can become distorted, it wouldn't be fair not to question my own.

Fridges, anyone?

[Carana]

I wish that it was that simple.

Why did Martin Grime keep on pointing to that bloody cupboard door.  Watch it please, will you.

What came first? Amaral's theory, or the dog alerts?

I suspect the former...

[ferryman]

I wish that it was that simple.

Why did Martin Grime keep on pointing to that bloody cupboard door.  Watch it please, will you.

I confess, I missed that.

Do we have a corrupted version on line?

[ferryman]

I'm fairly certain that in the early days after the video was released you could view the dog throwing cuddlecat up in the air.  Then, after it became apparent from online discussions in forums about how questionable this appeared to be, the videos were removed and then returned to the public domain with bits missing.

Delete the word fairly and you are bang-on right.

A certain article on the writingthewrongs blog (the blog now pulled) Eddie The Infallible? The Real Scandal of Cuddle Cat might have had something to do with the decision to b........ise video footage of that sequence.

[Carana]

[quote removed]

I don't think that it is clear who actually paid for his services, nor to whom they were actually paid.

What I find odd is that Amaral & co., seem to have develped their theory prior to the arrival of the dogs.

It involved a child waking up, hearing Jez & Gerry chatting outside and an accident behind a sofa (which would have been squashed by GNR, but he seems to have forgotten that they actually checked) and ... hey, presto, Eddie reacted behind the sofa.

Amaral saw two photos of the parents' bedroom cupboard/wardrobe in which the first showed a case and the second one didn't. Hey presto, Eddie alerts there as well.

Amaral (and others) find the bed to be unsufficiently disturbed and CC was on that bed. Amazingly, Eddie reacts to CC, but not to the bed.

In the car episode, Eddie reacts to the driver's side of the car... but not to the boot. TdeA glossed over that via a helpfully mistaken transcription.

In the clothes episode, Eddie only reacts to one box, with no particular explanation. If the alert is supposed to be the same, then Eddie did not both react in the same way to Kate's trousers and to her shirt. There is no explanation as to why the tiny blue shorts next to the red child's T-shirt were not on the list, nor why a man's large T-shirt wasn't on it either.

It could all be coincidence, of course.

[ferryman]

I don't think that it is clear who actually paid for his services, nor to whom they were actually paid.

What I find odd is that Amaral & co., seem to have develped their theory prior to the arrival of the dogs.

It involved a child waking up, hearing Jez & Gerry chatting outside and an accident behind a sofa (which would have been squashed by GNR, but he seems to have forgotten that they actually checked) and ... hey, presto, Eddie reacted behind the sofa.

Amaral saw two photos of the parents' bedroom cupboard/wardrobe in which the first showed a case and the second one didn't. Hey presto, Eddie alerts there as well.

Amaral (and others) find the bed to be unsufficiently disturbed and CC was on that bed. Amazingly, Eddie reacts to CC, but not to the bed.

In the car episode, Eddie reacts to the driver's side of the car... but not to the boot. TdeA glossed over that via a helpfully mistaken transcription.

In the clothes episode, Eddie only reacts to one box, with no particular explanation. If the alert is supposed to be the same, then Eddie did not both react in the same way to Kate's trousers and to her shirt. There is no explanation as to why the tiny blue shorts next to the red child's T-shirt were not on the list, nor why a man's large T-shirt wasn't on it either.

It could all be coincidence, of course.

I think there are a number of definite clues.  A poster elsewhere (whom I shan't name) has pointed out some.

But the clincher is that two dogs were deployed, and one handler.

SYP would have deployed two dogs and two handlers.

[pathfinder73]

Ah, well.  That's it then.. So Sadie isn't always wrong.

1:48 - there's no cut.

[Carana]

Delete the word fairly and you are bang-on right.

A certain article on the writingthewrongs blog (the blog now pulled) Eddie The Infallible? The Real Scandal of Cuddle Cat might have had something to do with the decision to b........ise video footage of that sequence.

I don't think so, but I know we disagree on that. ;)

I watched the videos very soon after they came online (within a day or so). I don't see how the videos could have been posted, edited and re-uploaded with the same original uploading date.

The only possibility would have been replacing further edited versions on the same day.

[ferryman]

I don't think so, but I know we disagree on that. ;)

I watched the videos very soon after they came online (within a day or so). I don't see how the videos could have been posted, edited and re-uploaded with the same original uploading date.

The only possibility would have been replacing further edited versions on the same day.

Suffice to say that when the writingthewrongs article was written, the bit from Dias' report hadn't been discovered or read.

But Eddie, literally, playing with the toy is still referred to in the wrtingthewrongs article.

I have particular reason to be familiar with that article ...

[Carana]

I think there are a number of definite clues.  A poster elsewhere (whom I shan't name) has pointed out some.

But the clincher is that two dogs were deployed, and one handler.

SYP would have deployed two dogs and two handlers.

Well, that would seem to be good practice, but what about the FOI response in which both Grime and the other chap deployed their dogs on their own? What does that actually mean? That they were deployed on their own, or that no other handler/dog from the same force was present during the searches? I.e., would that exclude a different handler/dog being present as part of a team in an investigation led by a different force or not? The FOI response doesn't seem to make that clear, but the questions didn't specifically request information on those points.

[Carana]

Agreed that Grime's take on that would be interesting.

Obviously I'm not Martin Grime, but this is my take.

I think Grime bundled the toy into a cupboard to avoid a repeat of the fiasco of Eddie playing with the toy.

I suspect the dog spied Grime putting it in the cupboard and wanted more of the same.

So he barked to say: Give me my toy back.

That's certainly a possibility. Or else it was Harrison who hid it. Would this have happened spontaneously, or would there have been discussion about it? If there was any discussion, it doesn't appear in the video, neither does any footage of who actually moved poor old CC from one spot to the next.

I doubt that the PJ would have taken any such initiative.

[ferryman]

Well, that would seem to be good practice, but what about the FOI response in which both Grime and the other chap deployed their dogs on their own? What does that actually mean? That they were deployed on their own, or that no other handler/dog from the same force was present during the searches? I.e., would that exclude a different handler/dog being present as part of a team in an investigation led by a different force or not? The FOI response doesn't seem to make that clear, but the questions didn't specifically request information on those points.

Two dogs and two handlers: Eddie and Grime; Frankie and Ellis (handler)