Have the dog alerts any significance?

[misty]

When the handler is unable to precisely identify what the EVRD is alerting to (as shown in the CC episode) how, exactly, is corroborating evidence supposed to be obtained? The CSI dog did not screen anything in the rented villa
so the EVRD could have been alerting to blood on the carpet, worktop, chair, etc etc, which was not McCann related

[Robittybob1]

When the handler is unable to precisely identify what the EVRD is alerting to (as shown in the CC episode) how, exactly, is corroborating evidence supposed to be obtained? The CSI dog did not screen anything in the rented villa
so the EVRD could have been alerting to blood on the carpet, worktop, chair, etc etc, which was not McCann related

If the EVRD alerts they need to check the immediate area for bodies or body parts.  For that is the type of corroborating evidence required.

[Mr Gray]

When you quote Grime you could at least quote him properly ergo

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. '

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

So the important factor here is corroborating evidence meaning alerts can have evidential reliability in the right circumstances. Stating that dog alerts generally are not reliable evidence is false.

If evidence is found it is that evidence that would be used in court
The alert itself would be unimportant
I'm right

[Lace]

Both Eddie and Keela alerting to the keyfob indicates human blood was on it but I take your point, cadaver odour and lots more could also have been on it...as davel states, we just don't know.

What makes me think Eddie was alerting to the key fob as did Keela,  is that Eddie also alerted to the very same spot that Keela did behind the sofa.  Too much of a coincidence for me.   If there had been a body lying behind that couch,  Eddie would have alerted to it immediately and not gone and sniffed a tiny spot on a tile.

[Lace]

I am going to mention the black and white trousers of Kate's,   which were alerted to by Eddie with a white top also belonging to Kate.   So these trousers are supposed to have been in contact with a dead body,  Kate wore those trousers when she appealed to the abductor,  I think it was a few days after the 3rd of May but not sure.   If these trousers are supposed to have been in contact with a dead body,   when would this have happened?   If they were the trousers Kate had worn when hiding Madeleine,   would she wear them again to appeal to the abductor?   If they had been subject to cross contamination,  then why just these trousers?   why not every other piece of clothing,  which must have been in the dirty laundry bag as the trousers would have been worn?   That would mean then that Kate would have worn them,  washed them to wear making her appeal.   It really doesn't make sense.

[Robittybob1]

What makes me think Eddie was alerting to the key fob as did Keela,  is that Eddie also alerted to the very same spot that Keela did behind the sofa.  Too much of a coincidence for me.   If there had been a body lying behind that couch,  Eddie would have alerted to it immediately and not gone and sniffed a tiny spot on a tile.

Remember it isn't just a matter of having a dead body behind the couch.  It is a matter of having a body that had been deceased for more than an hour and a half.
Even if you can imagine an accident happening that resulted in the death of Madeleine where does the hour and half come into the scenario for the cadaver odour to develop.  Who moved it from behind the couch and at what time. 
These were the questions Gerry was referring to when he said when the accident occur and when did we move  the body?

[John]

If evidence is found it is that evidence that would be used in court
The alert itself would be unimportant
I'm right

Wrong.  The alert is important in that it potentially connects the body to the evidence.  I notice you have never replied to my post pointing out that dog handlers do testify at trials.

[Mr Gray]

Wrong.  The alert is important in that it potentially connects the body to the evidence.  I notice you have never replied to my post pointing out that dog handlers do testify at trials.

It's you who is wrong
The evidence is the body
Dog handlers may testify at trials but Grime has already given a stated saying the alerts in this case have no evidential reliability

[John]

It's you who is wrong
The evidence is the body
Dog handlers may testify at trials but Grime has already given a stated saying the alerts in this case have no evidential reliability

You were wrong about dog handlers testifying and again you have quoted Grime out of context.  What he actually said was that the alerts had no evidential reliability until corroborated by other evidence.  Ergo, if corroborative evidence is found then the alerts become highly significant.

[John]

I am going to mention the black and white trousers of Kate's,   which were alerted to by Eddie with a white top also belonging to Kate.   So these trousers are supposed to have been in contact with a dead body,  Kate wore those trousers when she appealed to the abductor,  I think it was a few days after the 3rd of May but not sure.   If these trousers are supposed to have been in contact with a dead body,   when would this have happened?   If they were the trousers Kate had worn when hiding Madeleine,   would she wear them again to appeal to the abductor?   If they had been subject to cross contamination,  then why just these trousers?   why not every other piece of clothing,  which must have been in the dirty laundry bag as the trousers would have been worn?   That would mean then that Kate would have worn them,  washed them to wear making her appeal.   It really doesn't make sense.

A good point Lace.  Cross contamination is a major issue with cadaver inspections.  Take the hire car for example, heaven knows how many people used it before and after the McCanns so the opportunity for contamination was epic.  I personally think the whole dog inspection exercise was somewhat futile coming as it did so long after Madeleine's disappearance.  The dogs should have been brought in immediately and not months later.

[misty]

Can we assume, due to the lack of reference to the Soham case in Grime's CV, that his dog/the cadaver dogs did not indicate in Huntley's house or car?

[slartibartfast]

Can we assume, due to the lack of reference to the Soham case in Grime's CV, that his dog/the cadaver dogs did not indicate in Huntley's house or car?

Can you provide any cites as to how Grime was involved in the Soham case?

[Mr Gray]

You were wrong about dog handlers testifying and again you have quoted Grime out of context.  What he actually said was that the alerts had no evidential reliability until corroborated by other evidence.  Ergo, if corroborative evidence is found then the alerts become highly significant.

Where are they going to find corroratve evidence to support the alerts
Evidence would need to be found at the site the dog alerted
A body found anywhere else would no corroborate the alerts

[slartibartfast]

Where are they going to find corroratve evidence to support the alerts
Evidence would need to be found at the site the dog alerted
A body found anywhere else would no corroborate the alerts

Corroborative evidence could take many forms, someone walking away with an inert child for example.

[misty]

Can you provide any cites as to how Grime was involved in the Soham case?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sniffer-dog-used-in-search-for-madeleine-1050817
*snipped*
Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies and was used in the McCann case and the Soham murders inquiry, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick on June 24.