the cadaver dog

saggymoon · Jun 20, 2012

the cadaver dog in the madeleine case alerted to

the clothes
the toy
the parents bedroom
the verandah outside the parents bedroom
the flowerbed in the garden
all these alerts were his alone, the blood doog keela did not alert there therefore the cadaver dog was not alerting to blood which was keelas the blood dogs expertise, keela always get sent in after the cadaver dog to find forensics

the cadaver dog also alerted to the mccanns car though this alert was explained away as to blood

all the other alerts were NOT to blood and this dog only alerts to death scent and blood ergo there was a scent of death in flat 5a which has not been explained away

There are people that say the dog smelled bad breath, semen, urine, pooh, clipped toenails,period blood, and to those people I say you are having a laugh, if that were the case cadaver dogs wouldbe barking every second everywhere instead they barked at just ONE place, out of many, the flat where a child went alledgedly missing from after having searched loads of apartments, villas, roads, beaches

rpgman · Jun 20, 2012

saggymoon said:
the cadaver dog in the madeleine case alerted to

the clothes
the toy
the parents bedroom
the verandah outside the parents bedroom
the flowerbed in the garden
all these alerts were his alone, the blood doog keela did not alert there therefore the cadaver dog was not alerting to blood which was keelas the blood dogs expertise, keela always get sent in after the cadaver dog to find forensics

the cadaver dog also alerted to the mccanns car though this alert was explained away as to blood

all the other alerts were NOT to blood and this dog only alerts to death scent and blood ergo there was a scent of death in flat 5a which has not been explained away

Agreed

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

rpgman · Jun 20, 2012

And this is what the dog handler stated:

Quote:

There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.

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.

End Quote:

Which proves the dogs alerted.

All MOO

saggymoon · Jun 20, 2012

exactly it was cadaver scent, where did it come from

brit1981 · Jun 21, 2012

The cadaver dog did not alert to these.
Also here are a few facts
1) Martin Grimes says the alerts mean nothing on their own
2) Grimes and his cadaver dog no longer have a license to practice in the UK as the license was not renewed.
3) British police will no longer work with grimes and his dogs
4) Eddie alerted in an old jersey care home, specifically to a piece of organic material thought to be bone. Experts examined the material eddie alerted to and found it to be coconut shell.
5) when asked about the mistakes grimes said mistakes happen, people are only human. I am not certain if the "only human" was a turn of phrase and he was refering to the dog making a mistake, or if he meant a human had made a mistake in interpreting the dogs signals
6) Grimes also said that the scent can appear through transferance. Tens of people including criminal investigators had been in the flat.
7) Reports have stated that dogs in the UK are not trained well enough for their alerts to be meaningful. They can be helpful when looking for a body, but in no way can be used to identify where there are bodies. this was shown by the care home fiasco when eddie alerted, and the alert turned out to be false and he had alerted to coconut shell.

saggymoon · Jun 21, 2012

brit1981 said:
The cadaver dog did not alert to these.
l.

The dog most certainly did alert to these and was captured on video doing so, said video readily available on the net. If you have problems finding it give me a shout.

I am at a loss to understand why you are refuting the most basic facts in this case.

As to the rest of your points, they are all flawed, I will come back later to rebut when I get use of my laptop.

brit1981 · Jun 21, 2012

reliability of the sniffer dogs - links describing how grimes and eddie no longer have a uk license, and are no longer used by the police, and false alerts in jersey (eddie alerted to coconut shell), and quote from grimes report

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15959107
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...ey/7723860.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1JuPiWWaT

quote from martin grimes "There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.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."

The dog alerted to a piece of coconut, so either the dog is unreliable, or Kew are now involved in a giant conspiracy. Grimes also admits the dog alerts mean nothing without other evidence, and he can make mistakes

brit1981 · Jun 21, 2012

quote from media about jeresey care home excavations
the animal that had supposedly found the ‘scent of death’ in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared – no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months’ work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper’s team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child’s skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell."

saggymoon · Jun 21, 2012

brit1981 said:
1) Martin Grimes says the alerts mean nothing on their own

Are you putting words into his mouth? He never said any such thing. He said the cadaver dog alerts without forensic findings by the blood dog cannot be taken as proof, not that they cannot be intelligence to be followed up

brit1981 said:
2) Grimes and his cadaver dog no longer have a license to practice in the UK as the license was not renewed.
.

So what? Mr Grime went freelance, as explained to you before his own testing methods were more stringent than the ones used by the licensing body. The authorities in the UK and others were satisfied and used him and his dogs on several cases post summer 2007 several which ended up with convictions so what is your point? Hardly a show of no confidence, and cases I might add where the dogs success was shown yet again.

brit1981 said:
3) British police will no longer work with grimes and his dogs

They have continued to do so. examples are the keith prout case, the bob rose case and a couple others i cant remember off the top of my head. Do you have a link that shows the brit police will no longer work with him?

brit1981 said:
4) Eddie alerted in an old jersey care home, specifically to a piece of organic material thought to be bone. Experts examined the material eddie alerted to and found it to be coconut shell.

Rubbish. human bones and over 50 milk teeth were found.Which proves eddie did his job great. The red herring of a coconut shell contained collagen, this is not found in vegetables.

brit1981 said:
5) when asked about the mistakes grimes said mistakes happen, people are only human. I am not certain if the "only human" was a turn of phrase and he was refering to the dog making a mistake, or if he meant a human had made a mistake in interpreting the dogs signals

Link? He said false alerts are always a possibility but in over 200 search cases eddie never falsely alerted.

brit1981 said:
6) Grimes also said that the scent can appear through transferance. Tens of people including criminal investigators had been in the flat.

That is true, damn unlucky though and statistically too high. No where in PDL did the dogs alert, not in any road, outbuilding, fields, beaches, other flats and villas, just in the mccann related ones.

brit1981 said:
7) Reports have stated that dogs in the UK are not trained well enough for their alerts to be meaningful. They can be helpful when looking for a body, but in no way can be used to identify where there are bodies. this was shown by the care home fiasco when eddie alerted, and the alert turned out to be false and he had alerted to coconut shell.

Rubbish. Reports? Well we all know about biased and dodgy reports. Cadaver dogs would not even be sent in to houses or other areas where it was established there was no body if that is all they were capable of finding, therefore your argument, yet again, seems null and void, and it has been explained to you before its untrue seeing as cadaver dogs have indeed both in real cases and in studies alerted to the remnant scent of death when body had been removed. Your continual use of the coconut shell example is wearing a little too thin.

At the very least the cadaver dog findings is much cause for concern in this case. It is interesting how many people are trying to both discredit and libel the dog and its handler. Please do provide a list of missing people that turned up alive after a cadaver dog had alerted at the last place they were seen alive. it will be a non existent or extremely small list.

saggymoon · Jun 21, 2012

brit1981 said:
quote from media about jeresey care home excavations
the animal that had supposedly found the ‘scent of death’ in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared – no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months’ work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper’s team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child’s skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell."

i think you protest too much LOL, would it be so earth shattering for you to even contemplate that the cadaver dog, actually did find the scent of death which it has been highly trained to find, bizarre, it does happen, so maybe time to get over it

brit1981 · Jun 21, 2012

So you think the scientists who said Eddie alerted to coconut shell were wrong and it actually was a piece of skull? Seriously i really do not think pointing out the dog gave a flase alert to coconut shell is protesting too much. I think claiming a dog who alerted to coconut shell is always right is protesting too much. No bones were found by eddie, no murder was committed in the care home. When he did alert the media went crazy, and were reporting on it lile mad, but then it was all a bit embarressing when they had to report the excavations were carried out because the dog barked at a piece of shell!

Grimes claimed his standards were more stringent than the licensing bodies, I have not seen anyone else apart from you claiming they are more stringent and you would not provide a link to where you got this information. That is like driving without a license and then claiming it is OK because you drive to your own standards which you think are higher than the licensing body's! His license was not renewed and he can no longer be employed in the UK by the police in the role.
Also I have not libeled anyone. Just like charity law you might like to look up libel law. First of all a dog cannot be a victim of libel. Second, I have not made a defamatory comment about Grimes - it is true he has said the findings mean nothing without other evidence, it is true he no longer has a license to practice in the UK, it is true he is no longer employed by the police, it is true the dog has made flase alerts, and it is true he has said mistakes can be made, it is true that reports have been made saying cadaver dogs are not very reliable. I have also not seen anywhere saying that grimes and eddie were involved in 200 searchs in the UK. I now south yourkshire police said he had only done about forty searches for them before he left in 2007 and did not find more than a handful of bodies.
If I had made an accusation like, the mccanns lied about their daughter's disappearence, then yes I would be committing the crime of libel as it is both defamatory, and I would not be able to prove it (burden of proof in UK is on the person maing the libelous accusations).

gord · Jun 22, 2012

It is interesting that 5 years on the same arguments / discussions about the dogs are still going on. The point is that it doesnt matter how much the dogs allerted , how accuarate they are - no trace of a body was found , nothing not a jot.

For me this has always been the point in tbis whole case. There has never been a reasonable explanation to how the Mccaans could have disposed of the body in the time frame they had. Bodies dont just dissappear - you cant just hide a dead body and then pick it up later. If the dogs had picked up a scent of a cadaver - then surely to goodness they would have found a hidden body somewhere in the locality

Motive and means are always the key points in any murder/manslaughter cases I have never seen any logiocal reasons why a group of loosely connected people would all gang together to risk their freedom and their whole way of life to help dipose of a body or hide a crime /scene - It didnt make sense then and it still doesnt make sense now - Most murders in cases like this which are purpoted to involve multiple people get solved very quickly as it is almost impossible to hide every clue , every witness - it just doesnt happen.

The harder ones to crack are those that involve complete strangers or random occurences or kidnaps as the suspects are completely unkown. I have studied this case from the moment it happened and my gut feel started with t must be the parents or someone loca; in the group - they will find the body in hours but as it went on and as I read more I concluded it would have been almost impossible to either hide a body after an accident in the 1/2 hour they had or even worse a group of people all concoct a story in a short moment of time. Can you imagine the scene Gerry comes down to dinner and says hey guys we have accidently killed Madeleine would you mind giving us a hand and could you please put your lives at risk by covering it up

It is still a mystery -but the only logical conclusion that I can come to is abduction - it is the only thing that makes any sense has any credence . I see one maybe two individuals - stake the scene - can be in quick hand Maddy out of the window - into a car and then off two hours they are in Spain . In that time frame the police hadnt even informed the border police or even managed to close down the crime scene.

In the past 5 years I have seen every conspiracy theory possible from goverment coverups to priests being involved to prime ministers giving a nod to hide a crime. Still in this country one of the most vocal online campaigners against the parents is now facing ruin and a jail term in the courts because of continued libel .

At the end of it there is still two very opposing camps - but the one truth is that Maddy is still missing no body has ever been found and we are no closer now to finding out what happened as we were 5 years ago

brit1981 · Jun 22, 2012

I agree, the fact is that there were several other cases of intruders breaking into holiday flats and absuing the children there, all within about an hour of where the mccanns stayed and all within about a two or three year period. Plus there was a disappearence of a girl three years before, and in gran canaria there was a disappearence of a child two months before Madeleine disappeared (Gran canaria is not that far). This sort of thing is rare, yet they all happened in an hours distance (aside from the second disappearence), and a three year period. It is too great a conincidence.
Plus the cadaver dogs never found a body, and as you say where the hell was it. The McCanns did not know the area and were surrounded by the media and people constantly - where were they supposed to have hidden it (especially as I do not think they hired a car whilst on the actual holiday only after, and they would not have had much time on the 3rd).
Grimes have said that mistakes do happen, and that an alert cannot be taken as evidence on its own, and the dogs have made false alerts, most famously in the jersey care home. people have a misundertsanding of what they are for, they are just guides to help find a body, not tools to determine of a body was ever there. None of madeleine's DNA was ever identified - the material found in the car could easily have belonged to one of thousands of people including her parents according to the fss.
No-one has ever come up with a believable theory as to how her family are involved. they just cannot explain how they hid a decomposing body for three months in front of the world's media, and then in front of the world's media hid it.

badhorsie · Jun 22, 2012

brit1981 said:
I agree, the fact is that there were several other cases of intruders breaking into holiday flats and absuing the children there, all within about an hour of where the mccanns stayed and all within about a two or three year period. Plus there was a disappearence of a girl three years before, and in gran canaria there was a disappearence of a child two months before Madeleine disappeared (Gran canaria is not that far). This sort of thing is rare, yet they all happened in an hours distance (aside from the second disappearence), and a three year period. It is too great a conincidence.

BBM

Sorry if you have done so already but do you have a sensible link to this info as I would be interested to read about it

brit1981 · Jun 22, 2012

other attacks and disappearences

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sappeared.html (near end of article)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...0/Kate-McCann-why-didnt-they-believe-her.html

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/1315666

http://issuu.com/canarianweekly/docs...w&pageNumber=1 (in gran canaria, but some have said there may be a link due to the timing)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/83773089...sh-paedophiles (as above)

casa pia (and some related to madeleine mccann)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eine-case.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...dprotection.uk

I have seen in the same information on numerous sites so will try to find other links. the problem with this case is that there are so many random websites and blogs, actually trying to dig out anything that is more reliable is a pain in the neck and takes ages.
But it it is very rare in Europe for a child under ten to disappear and never be found, yet there were two cases in two months -madeleine McCann in Portugal, and yeremi Vargas in Gran canaria (robert black killed children in England, scotland and ireland so distance does nto discount a connection especially given they were both holiday areas), and then there was a little girl who disappeared three years before just three miles away and has never been found. In that case the mother was convicted, but sustained injuries in police custody which she claimed were from the police, and the police claimed were from her falling down the stairs. Police officers were charged but acquited after trial, however Amaral was convicted of fabricating evidence which was used in the defense of the police in this case and received a suspended prison sentence.

rashomon · Jun 22, 2012

saggymoon said:
At the very least the cadaver dog findings is much cause for concern in this case. It is interesting how many people are trying to both discredit and libel the dog and its handler. Please do provide a list of missing people that turned up alive after a cadaver dog had alerted at the last place they were seen alive. it will be a non existent or extremely small list.

Excellent point.

rashomon · Jun 22, 2012

gord said:
It is interesting that 5 years on the same arguments / discussions about the dogs are still going on. The point is that it doesnt matter how much the dogs allerted , how accuarate they are - no trace of a body was found , nothing not a jot.

For me this has always been the point in tbis whole case. There has never been a reasonable explanation to how the Mccaans could have disposed of the body in the time frame they had. Bodies dont just dissappear - you cant just hide a dead body and then pick it up later. If the dogs had picked up a scent of a cadaver - then surely to goodness they would have found a hidden body somewhere in the locality.

When the cadaver and blood dog were finally brought in, it was about 3 months after Madeleine's disappearance.

Since cadaver dogs can still pick up dead body scent long after a body has been removed from the scene and has been disposed of far away from the original locality, their finding of the corpse is not a necessary consequence.

gord said:
Motive and means are always the key points in any murder/manslaughter cases

Maybe this was not case of murder/manslaughter but a tragic accident with lethal outcome that happend during the parents' absence, which they then tried to cover up in a panic, and successfully hid the body somewhere before ultimately disposing of it?

brit1981 · Jun 23, 2012

rashomon said:
When the cadaver and blood dog were finally brought in, it was about 3 months after Madeleine's disappearance.

Since cadaver dogs can still pick up dead body scent long after a body has been removed from the scene and has been disposed of far away from the original locality, their finding of the corpse is not a necessary consequence.

Maybe this was not case of murder/manslaughter but a tragic accident with lethal outcome that happend during the parents' absence, which they then tried to cover up in a panic, and successfully hid the body somewhere before ultimately disposing of it?

Actually cadaver dogs are used for searching, not for identifying where a body once was. And Grimes admits they can make mistakes (see the jersey care home fiasco where the dogs alerted to coconut shell and sparked a huge panic ). They are not used as evidence of a body, they are used as a guide to where a body may be. I believe Eddie only found a handful of bodies when he worked for south yorkshire police, despite being used in about forty cases. Also Eddie did nto alert to the toy straight away. he was shown it several times, played with it by tossing it in the air, but would not alert to it. The toy was taken from him, and put in a cupboard, and then he went and barked at the cupboard. Not really good evidence it had been near a body.
besides Grimes said the scent could easily come from transferance, and the police had tramped through the area several times, so for all we now it is possible one of the police officers had been near a corpse in his work.

Also where was the body. madeleine was last seen alive by someone other than her parents at 18:30, her parents were then seen by people at 20:30 at the latest. They did not have a car, and at 22:00, the flat was filled with people searching, and not long after the police were there. So in those two hours where no-one reports seeing them outside the flat, where could they have put the body when they could only walk with it, and it could not have been in the flat at 22:00.
In those two hours madeleine had to go from being alive and well, to dead and beyond help, and her mother had to make the decision to not get her help, come to terms with her daughter's sudden death, hide the body somewhere where tens of people including police and search dogs could not find, make sure the twins did not see anything, tell her husband who also had to come to terms with it and agree, then get ready and go for dinner. At this point they also had to ask jane Tanner to make the description to the police, and somehow find the smiths (who they never met before) and ask them to make the same description. They then had to put on a massive performance of worry and searching, which they have continued for five years. neither of them have a history of mental illness, are both still registered doctors, have no criminal convictions, no history of problems with people at work, etc.

saggymoon · Jun 29, 2012

cadaver dog alerted to dead body 100% percenrt ie maddie mccann rip little one rest in peace ur parents are frauds not ur fault rip

the parents and other immoral slugs are after the dogs LO!O!OLOLOL sad crew the parents know the teuth therefore they are LIARS end of, jail for them

brit1981 · Jun 29, 2012

saggymoon said:
cadaver dog alerted to dead body 100% percenrt ie maddie mccann rip little one rest in peace ur parents are frauds not ur fault rip

the parents and other immoral slugs are after the dogs LO!O!OLOLOL sad crew the parents know the teuth therefore they are LIARS end of, jail for them

I do not get what you mean? The dogs did not find a body, they just barked after being shown things several times. They did not even bark right away they had to be shown something several times, and called back to it several times when they ignored it. Eddie was wrong in jersey , the sniffer dogs used in the shannon mathews case were wrong (she turned up alive), why the certainty here especially given that Eddie also alerts to blood. There is no way anyone can say "yes the dogs did turn out to be wrong in these cases, but we now they are right in this case". Presumably Grimes in Jersey and the handlers used in the Mathews case were not aware the dogs were making mistakes at the time. In the PJ files one of the officers recorded his doubts, due to the way the dogs ignored things for the first few times.

the cadaver dog

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Mouth operational, brain elsewhere...

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics