the cadaver dog

[brit1981]

Mark Harrison states (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html) that the EVRD will locate very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids, and bood.

Martin grimes states "'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Grimes also states that "They [the evrd] find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MA...S_RIGATORY.htm


If you google the jersey case there are news articles printed after the jersey case which try to lay the blame for the claims of bodies beng found at grimes door, which is unfair in my opinion. Assuming he stated the same thing as in the Pj report about the dogs ability he made it very clear that the dogs alerted to things other than cadavers. It was the media jumping all over the case and the alerts before anything had been confirmed who are to blame for all the hype about child killngs there. There were lookng to see if there were bodies there and used the dog to indicate where to dig, its not the dog or grimes fault that there were no bodies there, Grimes made it clear the alerts did not have to mean a cadaver was present (I am assuming he told the jersey police the same as the PJ).

Donjeta,
I have wondered how one knows what is a false positive or not. In jersey eddie alerted but no body was found, but as there were tissues with bodily fluids on i would presume tis would not be considered a false positive as eddie indicated to what he had been trained to indicate to. But at the same time it was not an indication of a body.
And if no body is ever found how do we know if there were false positives or not. Even if the person turned up alive and well as in the shannon mathews case, if the home had cadaver scent in it from transferance, or old bodily fluids in it then that would not be a false positive.
I just do not think that with these dogs we can use them as evidence in their own right. Certainly use them as a guide and even take a close look at people if they do alert there, but I do not think they are evidence in their own right, at least not currently.

I also think it is important that the dogs are referred to as recoery dogs rather than cadaver dogs. Dogs that have received training in the Uk have received training tht does not involve human tissue so they are not as tuned in as it were to dogs that have only been trained using only human tissues. Also the ter cadaver dog indicates that they only alert to cadavers which is not true.

 

[Donjeta]

Donjeta,
I have wondered how one knows what is a false positive or not.

Well, of course one wouldn't know in a field investigation if there is or ever had been anything that is undetectable to human perception or lab testing but they do know if they find something that pushes the investigation forward or not and in a certain sense it would be a false positive a.k.a a waste of time any time the dog alerts to something that humans can't find, understand and use as evidence, even if the dog is absolutely correct from it's own perspective.

The best way to determine the dog's accuracy is to test it in controlled circumstances in which you know exactly which scents you put where and keep score (but the handler doesn't know).

 

[SapphireSteel]

At the end of the day, despite what our resident K9 expert opined, the dogs can and do discern the difference between cadaverine (from a CORPSE) and scent from a live person.

The dog alerted to CADAVERINE which has led the investigation to surmise Madeleine died in 5a.

I note also that the investigation review by Scotland Yard is being undertaken by a "murder team" from Scotland Yards Homicide Division which would tend to support this assumption.

 

[Donjeta]

My main two problems about the dogs are:

1) I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that the dogs used give a lot of false alerts and that they react to minute and historical amounts of blood, sperm, fingernail clippings, vomit, urine etc.

It's reasonable. It's possible. They react to a variety of substances if so trained.

- Going now to the other apts, the investigators are nervous. Who knows what will come next? But to the amazement of all, after very careful exams of all the other apts, Eddie exhibits complete disinterest. Martin decides to not use Keela, since Eddie found no cadaver smell.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12

But if so it seems like an awfully big coinkidinky that the dogs only alerted in the McCanns' apartment because I am not totally willing to seriously consider the possibility that it accidentally was the only apartment in which people have traditionally engaged in any kind of bodily fluid secretion.

Problem number
2)

Why is the Team McCann so sure that the alerts are meaningless and that the dogs must be discredited? If they have no idea what happened how do they know that someone didn't kill Madeleine in the apartment while they were gone? Maybe one of the Tapas people is bad person. Maybe one of the Tapas people knows a really bad person. It still could have been a complete stranger.
How do they know the alerts weren't real?

 

[fabgod]

imo, there is no sense continuing to argue semantics b/w cadaver dog and evrd (which is now occuring in two forums)... it's pointless and futile...

most of us here know the truth about eddie and the other dogs owned by mr grime.

Exactly Redheadedgal.
I dont understand the need to keep trying to portray a theory as fact when it has been proven otherwise on many occasions

 

[brit1981]

My main two problems about the dogs are:

1) I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that the dogs used give a lot of false alerts and that they react to minute and historical amounts of blood, sperm, fingernail clippings, vomit, urine etc.

It's reasonable. It's possible. They react to a variety of substances if so trained.



Quote:
- Going now to the other apts, the investigators are nervous. Who knows what will come next? But to the amazement of all, after very careful exams of all the other apts, Eddie exhibits complete disinterest. Martin decides to not use Keela, since Eddie found no cadaver smell.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12

But if so it seems like an awfully big coinkidinky that the dogs only alerted in the McCanns' apartment because I am not totally willing to seriously consider the possibility that it accidentally was the only apartment in which people have traditionally engaged in any kind of bodily fluid secretion.

They did not go into many flats just three or four. We know for certain that people bled in the mccanns flat, but for some reason the previous occupants of the other flats were not questioned which seems a major flaw. In the mccanns flat there were also lots of police before the EVRD was used, and the chances are they are going to have come into contact with bodies recently (traffic accidents etc). There really shoudl have been a more thourough investigation into all the flats were searched and their contents.

Grime states that the EVRD reacts to historic scent and scent from transfer so i find it hard to believe that in the entire history of the flats and their contents there had been no contact with someone who had been in contact with someone who had died. A vast amount of people will at some point come into contact with a dead body (doctors, health care workers like paramedicas, those who work in old people's homes, people who sat with elderly relatives who died etc especially in the Uk where people still often die at home rather than end their days in hospital, and where GPs are routinely called out to sign death certificates for deaths outside of hospitals) or come into contact with those who have had contact or objects that have been in contact (like second hand furntiture like in the shannon mathews case - often if an old person dies at home their furniture is sold or used by relatives, it is not considered contaminated or thrown away). And that is if we ignore what grimes says about the dog reacting to blood and bodily fluids. Are we really to believe that these flats which had had hundreds of people in, including doctors most recently, have never ever had anyone or anything in them who has come into contact with a body?

Problem number
2)

Why is the Team McCann so sure that the alerts are meaningless and that the dogs must be discredited? If they have no idea what happened how do they know that someone didn't kill Madeleine in the apartment while they were gone? Maybe one of the Tapas people is bad person. Maybe one of the Tapas people knows a really bad person. It still could have been a complete stranger.
How do they know the alerts weren't real?
That is an issue, I mean it is not to hard to imagine that someone could have gone in and somehow madeleine died perhaps in the living room within a couple of minutes (she tried to run away and the grabbed her, they dropped her etc) and they lost their head and decided to take her and hide her body. But if I knew I had never killed my child and really trusted my friends then I would believe the dogs were not reliable rather than believe my child was dead. Is it so bad to cling to the hope your child is alive, the mccanns are hardly unusual in this.<modsnip> (and liek the mccanns have had the misfortune to run into crooked investigators).<modsnip>?

A problem with testing dogs in the UK is that they cannot be tested on human tissue, so it is very difficult to comapre their test results with results in the field. Eddie was slightly different in that he had had some training with human tissue in the US, but not a huge amount most was in the Uk with non human tissue and his testing to obtain his UK licence was not done using human tissue.

 

[Donjeta]

My main two problems about the dogs are:

1) I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that the dogs used give a lot of false alerts and that they react to minute and historical amounts of blood, sperm, fingernail clippings, vomit, urine etc.

It's reasonable. It's possible. They react to a variety of substances if so trained.



Quote:
- Going now to the other apts, the investigators are nervous. Who knows what will come next? But to the amazement of all, after very careful exams of all the other apts, Eddie exhibits complete disinterest. Martin decides to not use Keela, since Eddie found no cadaver smell.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12

But if so it seems like an awfully big coinkidinky that the dogs only alerted in the McCanns' apartment because I am not totally willing to seriously consider the possibility that it accidentally was the only apartment in which people have traditionally engaged in any kind of bodily fluid secretion.

They did not go into many flats just three or four. We know for certain that people bled in the mccanns flat, but for some reason the previous occupants of the other flats were not questioned which seems a major flaw. In the mccanns flat there were also lots of police before the EVRD was used, and the chances are they are going to have come into contact with bodies recently (traffic accidents etc). There really shoudl have been a more thourough investigation into all the flats were searched and their contents.

Grime states that the EVRD reacts to historic scent and scent from transfer so i find it hard to believe that in the entire history of the flats and their contents there had been no contact with someone who had been in contact with someone who had died. A vast amount of people will at some point come into contact with a dead body (doctors, health care workers like paramedicas, those who work in old people's homes, people who sat with elderly relatives who died etc especially in the Uk where people still often die at home rather than end their days in hospital, and where GPs are routinely called out to sign death certificates for deaths outside of hospitals) or come into contact with those who have had contact or objects that have been in contact (like second hand furntiture like in the shannon mathews case - often if an old person dies at home their furniture is sold or used by relatives, it is not considered contaminated or thrown away). And that is if we ignore what grimes says about the dog reacting to blood and bodily fluids. Are we really to believe that these flats which had had hundreds of people in, including doctors most recently, have never ever had anyone or anything in them who has come into contact with a body?

Right, which is why I must very seriously consider the possibility that the reason the dogs reacted in this apartment and not in any of the others is that they were reacting to fresh cadaver scent in the McCann apartment and not some faint historical whiff of transfer from people who went to a funeral ten years ago or shook hands with persons who hadn't washed their hands after going to the bathroom.

Problem number
2)

Why is the Team McCann so sure that the alerts are meaningless and that the dogs must be discredited? If they have no idea what happened how do they know that someone didn't kill Madeleine in the apartment while they were gone? Maybe one of the Tapas people is bad person. Maybe one of the Tapas people knows a really bad person. It still could have been a complete stranger.
How do they know the alerts weren't real?
That is an issue, I mean it is not to hard to imagine that someone could have gone in and somehow madeleine died perhaps in the living room within a couple of minutes (she tried to run away and the grabbed her, they dropped her etc) and they lost their head and decided to take her and hide her body. But if I knew I had never killed my child and really trusted my friends then I would believe the dogs were not reliable rather than believe my child was dead. Is it so bad to cling to the hope your child is alive, the mccanns are hardly unusual in this. <modsnip> (and liek the mccanns have had the misfortune to run into crooked investigators).<modsnip>?

<modsnip>.
It is natural to want to hold on to hope that the child is alive and be in denial to some extent but I think many parents would also say that if their child is dead they want to know and find the ones who are responsible and trashing evidence to that end may not be productive.

I thought the McCanns hardly knew the Tapas people? IIRC you said so when we discussed that the unlikelihood that they would participate in a cover up. Now they know them well enough to trust these virtual strangers completely, strangers who knew they had free access to their apartment from which a child disappeared?

A problem with testing dogs in the UK is that they cannot be tested on human tissue, so it is very difficult to comapre their test results with results in the field. Eddie was slightly different in that he had had some training with human tissue in the US, but not a huge amount most was in the Uk with non human tissue and his testing to obtain his UK licence was not done using human tissue.

Agree that it is a problem.

 

[brit1981]

But we can only go on what Grimes says, and he says both of his dogs react to historic scent (in the case of the CSI dog, tiny washed away bits of blood nearly half a century old!). So if we say he is wrong about the historic scent, then how do we know what he is right about. Do we just pick the bits that incriminate the mccanns and say he is right about that, and if what he says supports the mccanns or fails to incriminate them claim he is wrong? Because that is what it seems like people want to do. Either Grimes is correct and trustworthy or he is not, its as simple as that. I do not see any reason at the moment to say he is wrong about the historic scent etc?

I also do not get why they did not use luminol. keela according to grimes reacts to tiny bits of old blood, so surely it might have been a good idea to see if there had been a lot of blood there and in what pattern.

And if something is being used as evidence in a case then it is not about trashing it, but pointing out if there is gaping big flaws in the evidence. In the PJ files the PJ question the dogs too. If anyone ever gets taken to court over the disappearence the dogs will be brought up either by bthe prosecution or the defence, and I think we can be fairly certain the court is not going to ban the cross examining of a witness just because people do nto want the witness questioned.

As for how well the mccanns knew the tapas nine. They only knew some of them well, others were friends of friends they had met before, and one was the mother of a friend of a friend and they met her on the holiday. But to be honest I would not suspect my friends, or my friends friends especially as they all had children too, and the mccanns also knew that those who left the table had only left for a very few minutes so hardly had time to cause the death of their child and then stage an abduction and hide the body. But just ebcause you know people well enough to not suspectthem of being child killers, it does not mean you know them so well that they are prepared to help you carry out and hide a crime. Do we really think a friend of a friends mother who they met on the holiday is going to take part?

To me the big thing in defence of the tapas nine is the timeline, there is just hardly any time to plan and carry out a death and staged abduction. And thta is going by the timeline set by those outside the tapas nine. madeleine seen alive and well at five thirty at the high tea, gerry seen acting normally on the tennis courts between six and seven thirty. david payne seen leaving the tennis courts at about six thortyish. kate and gerry both seen showered and changed at the restuarant at eitght thirty by other guests. Gerry seen to be alone between eithet thirty and ten for all of five minutes, and the same with kate. I have used the times given by people outside the tapas nine to make that timeline, and it is pretty tight for madeleine to have died, her body hidden somewhere it has never been found despite searching beginning that night with sniffer dogs, police and others, all evidence cleaned up, a couple of friends told and a planned hatched.

 

[Donjeta]

There are two kinds of trust I think.

One is the kind where nothing bad has happened and we say, oh, so-and-so is a nice person, s/he would never.

Another is the kind where something unthinkable has happened and someone did, and when many people are going to feel that they don't know if they can trust anybody any more.

In the first situation a pleasant first impression may be enough to form a kind of trust but to trust people in the second situation may be a lot more difficult and require a far closer intimacy. IMO.

___
All I know about the dogs is what makes sense and what does not. It makes sense to me that most dogs would react more strongly to fresh and strong odors than faint traces of something that went on historically years ago. Also IIRC I've been told here by some of the SAR people on WS that if there is a strong scent and a faint whiff of something way weaker nearby the dog would go for the strong scent and ignore the faint ancient trace.

There are dogs that are specially trained to find ancient scents of very old burials and such but I think these dogs were not.

I don't know these dogs so it's quite possible that they react to historical traces of very faint odors of blood and vomit and sperm and that's what they found in the McCann apartment but then I am at a loss to explain why they didn't find it in the other apartments. Wasn't one of the kids vomiting in one of the Tapas people apartments? If the dogs react to vomit they should have alerted in that apartment.

 

[brit1981]

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

There are two kinds of trust I think.

One is the kind where nothing bad has happened and we say, oh, so-and-so is a nice person, s/he would never.

Another is the kind where something unthinkable has happened and someone did, and when many people are going to feel that they don't know if they can trust anybody any more.

In the first situation a pleasant first impression may be enough to form a kind of trust but to trust people in the second situation may be a lot more difficult and require a far closer intimacy. IMO.

To be honest we do not know what the mccanns have thought privately - I would nto be surprised if doubt about their friends has crept into their minds. But it is a pretty huge thing to think someone you knew even as friends of friends could have preplanned soemthing like this as due to the small timelines it had to be preplanned. But if someone said they had evidence against me I think i woudl have the right to point out a gaping hole in the evidence against me, especially if that evidence was, by putting the focus on me, preventing the search for my child (in excerpts from his book amaral admits to ignoring leads about abduction as he felt the parents had done it - assuming these excerpts are correct).
___
All I know about the dogs is what makes sense and what does not. It makes sense to me that most dogs would react more strongly to fresh and strong odors than faint traces of something that went on historically years ago. Also IIRC I've been told here by some of the SAR people on WS that if there is a strong scent and a faint whiff of something way weaker nearby the dog would go for the strong scent and ignore the faint ancient trace.

There are dogs that are specially trained to find ancient scents of very old burials and such but I think these dogs were not.

I don't know these dogs so it's quite possible that they react to historical traces of very faint odors of blood and vomit and sperm and that's what they found in the McCann apartment but then I am at a loss to explain why they didn't find it in the other apartments. Wasn't one of the kids vomiting in one of the Tapas people apartments? If the dogs react to vomit they should have alerted in that apartment.

I think we can only go on what Grime says about these particular dogs, which were by and large trained in the UK. He does say both of them react to historical scents in the same way as they react to newer or stronger scents. I agree it seems odd, as surely in those flats someone had come into contact with a body at some point, or the furniture had (the mccanns had I believe older furniture in their flat). We know in the mccanns flat they had been at least one prior episode of prolonged bleeding, and according to the PJ files (assuming the translation was correct) a surgical assistant staying there before the mccanns.
I also think they should have searched every flat, not just the mccanns and their friends. For all anyone knows it could have been another guest or someone with access to an empty flat. why not just check, but it now comes across as the entire purpose of the dogs was to get evidence against the mccanns rather than evidence of what happened

 

[Donjeta]

Trying to find evidence, if any, against the the parents of a missing child who were the last to see her, in the apartment that she was last seen in, just seems like SOP to me. *shrug*

A mere finding of cadaver odor in the apartment is not necessarily evidence against the parents since she could have ended up dead there by the actions of other people.


If they didn't do it it would be a botched investigation.

There might be legal issues with search warrants being needed if you want to search the apartments of random people who have no known connection to the case. Not sure how it goes in Portugal. Would the hotel owner's consent be enough or do you need the residents to agree?

Alternatively there might be practical issues with the dogs getting too tired that could prevent doing very prolonged searches


The timelines are small whether it's a stranger or an acquaintance but acquaintances have the advantage of more information. Say, if there were two people one could have been at the dinner and alerted the partner in crime when the coast was clear.

 

[brit1981]

I think they should obviously look at the parents intially, but the search was done three months later. and to be able to discount other scenarios they shoudl have looked in the other flats, I do not think there woudl be a problem with warrants as a child had disappeared on the complex.

Its a bit like if they find a paint chip at a crime scene. It is all very well finding out that there is a person who has a car with that same paint, but it is a pretty poor show if they use it as evidence against them without bothering to check if others in the vicinity also had cars that matched the paint.

I also think it is odd to cling on to these dogs alerts when the original sniffer dogs findings were ignored. tehy followed madeleine's scent to the car park, shoudl they not have least checked to see if they could find anything about cars seen in the vicinity.

 

[Donjeta]

Is there a link saying that nothing was done to check about cars?

 

[Donjeta]

I think they should obviously look at the parents intially, but the search was done three months later. and to be able to discount other scenarios they shoudl have looked in the other flats, I do not think there woudl be a problem with warrants as a child had disappeared on the complex.

Its a bit like if they find a paint chip at a crime scene. It is all very well finding out that there is a person who has a car with that same paint, but it is a pretty poor show if they use it as evidence against them without bothering to check if others in the vicinity also had cars that matched the paint.

I also think it is odd to cling on to these dogs alerts when the original sniffer dogs findings were ignored. tehy followed madeleine's scent to the car park, shoudl they not have least checked to see if they could find anything about cars seen in the vicinity.

I don't really see the paint chip analogy. The dogs were not trying to match any persons to any findings at the crime scene, they were trying to find out if there was a cadaver odor at the crime scene, indicating that the victim might be dead.

I don't see anything whatsoever wrong with that.

If we have unlimited resources we can do that first and then we can broaden the search area to the neighbouring flats and then the whole town and the neighbouring towns but if we don't, we still need to examine the crime scene because it's our starting point.

 

[brit1981]

There is no mention of it in the files, but in fairness not all the files are available.

The analogy with the paint chip, is that soemthing is only really evidence against someone if it can be only applied to them. Now because they did not do a full search if they were asked in court about whether they have any idea about all the other flats they will have to admit they do not. In the same way they should have found out more about the history of all the flats they searched not just the mccanns flat.

 

[Donjeta]

JMO but if it ever goes to court the dog testimonial doesn't come down to whether or not cadaver odor can only be applied to the McCann's apartment or if they searched every flat in the whole wide world. If Madeleine died in that apartment there would be cadaver odor regardless of how many other apartments in Portugal have that for one reason or another.

It comes down to whether or not the dog's recorded history is deemed reliable enough to believe the alert. This is not evidence against a certain person, it is evidence that Madeleine might be dead. (If the dog testimony is allowed in court at all, I don't know about Portugal but I think it's not allowed everywhere. It could be just an investigative tool.)

I don't remember any hrd dog case off hand in which they had to indiscriminately search everything in five mile radius to validate the findings. It's not feasible imo.

A mere cadaver odor in the apartment is not evidence that any single person killed Madeleine. In fact it is not evidence that she was murdered at all. It is just an indicator that she might have died there.

We need to find other paint chips to charge or convict anybody.

Now, the presence of a cadaver smell in some other apartment in PDL might be an important lead as to where the body or the person responsible went afterwards but not finding it or not searching for it does not imo negate the importance of finding cadaver odor in the McCann apartment, (if, in fact, the dog alerts are to be believed).
it just means we missed a lead.

 

[brit1981]

JMO but if it ever goes to court the dog testimonial doesn't come down to whether or not cadaver odor can only be applied to the McCann's apartment or if they searched every flat in the whole wide world. If Madeleine died in that apartment there would be cadaver odor regardless of how many other apartments in Portugal have that for one reason or another.

It comes down to whether or not the dog's recorded history is deemed reliable enough to believe the alert. This is not evidence against a certain person, it is evidence that Madeleine might be dead. (If the dog testimony is allowed in court at all, I don't know about Portugal but I think it's not allowed everywhere. It could be just an investigative tool.)

I don't remember any hrd dog case off hand in which they had to indiscriminately search everything in five mile radius to validate the findings. It's not feasible imo.

A mere cadaver odor in the apartment is not evidence that any single person killed Madeleine. In fact it is not evidence that she was murdered at all. It is just an indicator that she might have died there.

We need to find other paint chips to charge or convict anybody.

Now, the presence of a cadaver smell in some other apartment in PDL might be an important lead as to where the body or the person responsible went afterwards but not finding it or not searching for it does not imo negate the importance of finding cadaver odor in the McCann apartment, (if, in fact, the dog alerts are to be believed).
it just means we missed a lead.

The reason why they have not had to search all around before is because the dogs have never in the EU been used as evidence (and under EU laws are unlikely too be used) so it has never mattered about dog alerts if no body was found. they have only ever used the dogs to find bodies not as evidence a body was ever there. It is people on the internet get in a lather because they are certain the dogs should be used as evidence. If you google about the jersey fiasco you will see there are a few souls convinced there must have been a mass child killer there and now there is a huge cover up simply because a dog alerted. Not one dog handler or anyone involve din the case is claiming this however, they are admitting the dogs are not proof of anything and just a guide.

I think it is important to check all the flats. Now if the police are asked if they found cadaver odour in other flats they will say no, but then look rather foolish when they are asked if it is true that they did not bother to search the other hundred or so flats so have no idea if the mccanns flat would just have been one of many to contain an alert which given that grime claimed even historic transfer would result in an alert is rather important. If it turned out cadaver scent was found in several of the flats it does make it more likely it came from some other source than a dead body in the flat, but the PJ refused to look for this. However as the dog alerts are unlikely to be allowed to be used as prosecution evidence it becomes a moot point except for the internet discussions.

 

[Donjeta]

Jmo but if I was ever in a jury or otherwise in a position in which I would have to evaluate dog reliability I would prefer to see scientific data from a training and testing diary in controlled circumstances, over seeing the results of a random search in apartments with unknown history.

Say they searched 100 apartments and the dogs alerted in five of them. What does it mean? We still wouldn't know whether it means that they're useless dogs because they alert randomly about 5 % of the time, because they alert to innocent traces that are present in about 5 % of all hotel rooms, if the handler was more nervous in those five apartments, if someone who took part in the search brought a contaminating odor in their shoes or if they're really clever dogs who knew that the perp had been in those five apartments, say, if he's a hotel employee or something.


The main reason to search other apartments besides the crime scene and the apartments of any suspects is imo to make the search blinded, ie. the handler doesn't know which apartment is the significant one and can't influence the dog's alerts.

I don't know if a blind search was ever a possibility, however, with all the publicity and the traces left by the crime scene techs in the beginning.

 

[fabgod]

analogy-I kill a person in my house and put that person in my car, I drive a few miles and dispose of the body.
Over time people become suspicious that person x has not been seen and report him/her missing. As I was the last person to have been seen with person x, I am under suspicion, the Police come and search my house, nothing.
They then send in some dogs, one of the dogs alerts in my house and in my car but there is no body.

Eventually, one of my associates cracks and spills the beans, I dont admit it, it goes to court but the trial collapses because not every house in a 5 mile radius has been checked by the dogs - believable?

 

[fabgod]

I wonder why the Dogs didnt search the church in PdL, would the Church be allowed to refuse entry?