Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

[SapphireSteel]

Oh and, Madeleine might be alive, but every indication so far tells us that she is not...including her parents speech on Crimewatch.

They do not think she's alive, clearly, so why should we?

 

[Meteor]

Thank you but I don't believe in that theory.
Scotland Yard is right now looking for Madeleine. She might be alive, that is what they said, there is a possibility she is recovered alive.
I firmly believe their words, rather than some 'hear say' internet made theories.

I too have faith in Scotland yard. However, they have peers and superiors and unfortunately have to do as they are told occasionally.
If this reinvestigation is a whitewash because that is what they've been told to do with it then it is not their own skills that come into question.
If on the other hand it is a genuine reinvestigation then they WILL get to the bottom of it.
My concern that the agenda of internet freedom will be brought into it at some point is relevant. It wouldn't shock me to find in ten years time there is a law called 'Maddies law' that stops all of us from having internet freedom. Got my suspicions that the political interest is about that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I provided evidence, DC Redwoods clear statement!
He wouldn't say this if it wasn't true, it is his career we are talking about that can be jeopardised, not mine.

We cannot know his motive for what he says on tv.

LE works in mysterious ways.

 

[haden]

We cannot know his motive for what he says on tv.

LE works in mysterious ways.

I respect your opinion if you think this might be the case and DC Redwood is lying to the whole world.

I personally don't believe he is lying and never heard of anything similar happened in the police history.

 

[Meteor]

I respect your opinion if you think this might be the case and DC Redwood is lying to the whole world.

I personally don't believe he is lying and never heard of anything similar happened in the police history.

Hahahahahaha, that is a beauty.
I think you need to look into the case file of the Birmingham six.
That's a real beauty Haden.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I respect your opinion if you think this might be the case and DC Redwood is lying to the whole world.

I personally don't believe he is lying and never heard of anything similar happened in the police history.

Well someone's lying.

It's either AR, the McCanns, or the dogs and the entire PJ.

Pick a team - which one is most trustworthy?

I'm backing the dogs, they have no ulterior motive.

The dogs say M died in 5a.

:seeya:

 

[haden]

Well someone's lying.


The dogs say M died in 5a.

:seeya:

No, they never. :seeya:

 

[SapphireSteel]

I honestly don't think sleuthing the dad with the night crèche kid is going to do one bit of good.

I don't really care what direction he was going.

I care that SY have ruled out JT's sighting, and ruled in the Smiths sighting.

That is what's important here. Whether the PJ checked the night crèche or not, meh, hardly matters.

SY have checked it and proven Tanner to be a liar.

:sick:

 

[SapphireSteel]

No, they never. :seeya:

In your opinion.

In my opinion, and that of the British police back in 2007, Madeleine is deceased.

Apparently the McCanns don't think she's alive either...or recoverable, if she is deceased.

The McCanns did not speak of Madeleine being found on their Crimewatch spiel. Not once did they refer to a live daughter. They want "resolutions" and "answers" but never once said "when we get her back".

:scared:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Since Eddie is trained as a blood-scent hound finding the three samples is a good sign he knows what he is doing. Now a cadaver dog is trained to detect, well, cadaver-related elements such as blood and other fluids from a cadaver, among other things cadaver-related.

It looks to me that your saying that HRD or "cadaver" dogs will only alert to scents produced from a dead body and not from a living human being. From what I've read that's not accurate.

While you may feel that they cannot be substituted, the dogs do not seem to share your position. They have demonstrated to me and others that the degredation of material received from a living donor (removed limbs, body parts, internal organs, etc) are equal and consistant with the degredation of the same material received from non-living donors. I have spoken to other HRD handlers to see if there is any validity to your argument. As one put it ".... then we should be running into situations were some dogs alert and others don't. But all the dogs are alerting......all the dogs can't be wrong." You see at seminars, everybody brings stuff to use. To the dog, every dog, have alerted without prompting to amputations received from living donors and to amputations received from dead ones. It's not me telling you this. It's the dogs. The dogs are telling you this. Maintain to your beliefs if it pleases you, ..... in the end, the dogs do not support your allegations.

Possibly. It would largely depend on what kind of surface the blood was deposited on.

For example, I too had an injury in the past year that produced a lot of blood inside a residence. Actually it was a trail from outside to inside, which may help explain even further.

In my situation; there was blood deposited on grass, then on dirt, then on cement, then on sealed hardwood floors, then on tile, then on a towel, then on stainless steel.

We cleaned everything up, of course- but certain surfaces retain HR scent particles (such as blood) much longer than others. The concrete, for example. Scrubbed it with bleach and can't see a thing. But one of our HRD dogs will still hit on it if we put him to work.

The tile? Scrubbed that too- but the grout retains the scent. He'll hit on that also. The sealed hardwood floors- no. The towel we threw away, so I've no idea, lol. If we hadn't thrown it away, I guarantee he'd be hitting on that. The stainless steel- no. But that's because it is a sink, and not a sealed stainless steel container.

Does that make any sense?

These experts say that a positive HRD dog alert can be caused by material from a living person. I agree with them.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - the cadaver dog


Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Human Remains (*cadaver) Detection (HRD) dog questions and answers **NO DISCUSSION**

 

[SapphireSteel]

Eddie and Keela were extremely valuable and well paid dogs.

The reason is because they were very, very good at their jobs.

There are scent dogs and scent dogs, and Eddie and Keela were brought in by the British Police because they were trained and owned by the British Police. Martin Grime is actually PC Grime, a police dog handler.

So who's wrong? The dogs?

Or the British police, specifically South Yorkshire, who spent an absolute fortune on training these dogs and others like them, and brought these allegedly unreliable animals into a foreign country at massive cost, to pee on a lamppost and bark at a butterfly?

:dunno:

My point is, the dogs are a valuable resource to mankind, have been for eons, mans best friend and all that, yet only in this particular case (the one with the expensive PR guru at the helm) are they considered incompetent and unreliable.

You could say that the dogs are wrong, or you could say that their detractors are rewriting history and everything we know about sniffer dogs.

BTW, if you ever have the misfortune to have some little car stealing criminal hiding in your backyard, you want to hope someone brings the dogs. It happened to me and that dog knew she'd ran into my yard but LE couldn't find her...I don't have a lot of hidey spots. Dog was led away but insisted on coming back and I heard her bark and whaddaya know, there was the car thief in my garbage bin.

I've seen them work with my own eyes and I am so glad the dog was there, she found the criminal who'd been hiding in my yard for a couple of hours while my kids played in their sandpit, despite being led away by her handler.

 

[Meteor]

I love the way people are laying into the Police dogs. Prior to the McCann case they were brilliant, now they are virtually useless despite having passed all the Police trials and being licensed to be used in convictions.
Suddenly Eddie can't smell where a dead body has been and he can only smell blood of a living human being.
What a load of nonsense, does anyone here believe that Cadaver dogs would be used in a murder trial if they could get the smell of a dead body confused with a nose bleed of a living person. This is getting silly.
Haden, I'm still waiting for your explanation that high ranking British Police officers have never lied and what happened to the Birmingham six. That case has ties well beyond high ranking Police officers, into the Civil service, top ranking politicians and more.
C'mon lets have it Haden!!

 

[SapphireSteel]

I understand folks who think an abductor did it. Fair enough.

What I don't understand is the argument is always, always, always one of these -

the dogs are wrong
amaral was wrong (make that a convicted criminal)
the pj was wrong
the gnr was wrong
the british police were wrong (oops sorry scrap that one, theyre right this time erm...?)
the smiths are wrong (except now we know they weren't)
the McCanns are perfect

I'd really love it if the above were just accepted as a given and the sleuthing moves on...preferably in the "evidence that points to an abductor" direction.

Going back over the same old half empty/half full arguments just doesn't seem constructive kwim?

 

[haden]

Eddie and Keela were extremely valuable and well paid dogs.

The reason is because they were very, very good at their jobs.

There are scent dogs and scent dogs, and Eddie and Keela were brought in by the British Police because they were trained and owned by the British Police. Martin Grime is actually PC Grime, a police dog handler.

So who's wrong? The dogs?

Or the British police, specifically South Yorkshire, who spent an absolute fortune on training these dogs and others like them, and brought these allegedly unreliable animals into a foreign country at massive cost, to pee on a lamppost and bark at a butterfly?

:dunno:

My point is, the dogs are a valuable resource to mankind, have been for eons, mans best friend and all that, yet only in this particular case (the one with the expensive PR guru at the helm) are they considered incompetent and unreliable.

You could say that the dogs are wrong, or you could say that their detractors are rewriting history and everything we know about sniffer dogs.

BTW, if you ever have the misfortune to have some little car stealing criminal hiding in your backyard, you want to hope someone brings the dogs. It happened to me and that dog knew she'd ran into my yard but LE couldn't find her...I don't have a lot of hidey spots. Dog was led away but insisted on coming back and I heard her bark and whaddaya know, there was the car thief in my garbage bin.

I've seen them work with my own eyes and I am so glad the dog was there, she found the criminal who'd been hiding in my yard for a couple of hours while my kids played in their sandpit, despite being led away by her handler.

Nobody said the dogs are not the perfect creatures.
They are used to help police, they leave markers.
The markers are checked up, and this is what is the most important, to scientificly check on what the dogs have alerted on.
There was NO Madeleine's DNA on those places. Meaning, we cannot conclude Madeleine died.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Let me make this clear. I'm not saying that I believe that the dogs used in this case are wrong or that I know that the alerts are from a living donor. I'm only posting some links that can help people to understand what these dogs can do.

I think that HRD dogs are great tools for LE. They can help find clandestine graves. They can be used to get search warrants that can find forensic or other evidence which can be used in court.

I don't believe that a positive alert is proof that a dead human being was at the location of the alert. Without evidence to backup the alert it remains only a possibility that a dead human was at the location. It could mean that the alert was on blood from who knows when.

IMO.

 

[Meteor]

Let me make this clear. I'm not saying that I believe that the dogs used in this case are wrong or that I know that the alerts are from a living donor. I'm only posting some links that can help people to understand what these dogs can do.

I think that HRD dogs are great tools for LE. They can help find clandestine graves. They can be used to get search warrants that can find forensic or other evidence which can be used in court.

I don't believe that a positive alert is proof that a dead human being was at the location of the alert. Without evidence to backup the alert it remains only a possibility that a dead human was at the location. It could mean that the alert was on blood from who knows when.

IMO.

Poor old Eddie the Cadaver dog is getting some stick tonight. Eddie once found a dead body buried six feet under the ground because of the odours associated with such bodies. Now can you imagine poor old Eddie in this big bad world responding to every time someone had a nose bleed or cut their finger in the past or when someone scratched their leg on a rosebush etc. They'd need a JCB to dig all the holes and the place would have thousands of 'Eddie was wrong again craters'.
The truth is every time this dog has been used there has been a positive result and Grimes has told us so. EDDIE RESPONDS TO CADAVER NOT NOSE BLEEDS. Not anything else. He barks when he smells the odour a dead body releases and the chemicals that go with it.
Leave Eddie alone, he's a great asset.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Nobody said the dogs are not the perfect creatures.
They are used to help police, they leave markers.
The markers are checked up, and this is what is the most important, to scientificly check on what the dogs have alerted on.
There was NO Madeleine's DNA on those places. Meaning, we cannot conclude Madeleine died.

Here's that half empty half full thing.

You say "there was no Madeleine's DNA".

I say "there was DNA consistent with Madeleine's".

Technically, we are both right. I think the words of the FSS guy were pretty much -

Short answer? It could be Madeleine's but we cannot state that definitively.

Long answer? It is partial DNA made up of a mix of people primarily McCann, and some of the DNA is thought to be from a female child of one Gerry McCann.

In fact, there was DNA which was consistent with Madeleine's, but not enough recovered to 100% prove it's hers.

This is a far cry from "there was no Madeleine DNA".

 

[haden]

EDDIE RESPONDS TO CADAVER NOT NOSE BLEEDS..

Untrue. Eddie alerts on old/dried blood from live humans too.

Source: Madeleine Files, Martin Grime interview

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Poor old Eddie the Cadaver dog is getting some stick tonight. Eddie once found a dead body buried six feet under the ground because of the odours associated with such bodies. Now can you imagine poor old Eddie in this big bad world responding to every time someone had a nose bleed or cut their finger in the past or when someone scratched their leg on a rosebush etc. They'd need a JCB to dig all the holes and the place would have thousands of 'Eddie was wrong again craters'.
The truth is every time this dog has been used there has been a positive result and Grimes has told us so. EDDIE RESPONDS TO CADAVER NOT NOSE BLEEDS. Not anything else. He barks when he smells the odour a dead body releases and the chemicals that go with it.
Leave Eddie alone, he's a great asset.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree on this one. If you can provide a link that shows Eddie will not alert to the scent of human decomposition from material provided by living people I'm willing to take a look at it. Otherwise I'll stick with what the experts have written.

MOO.

 

[haden]

Here's that half empty half full thing.

You say "there was no Madeleine's DNA".

I say "there was DNA consistent with Madeleine's".

Technically, we are both right. I think the words of the FSS guy were pretty much -

Short answer? It could be Madeleine's but we cannot state that definitively.

Long answer? It is partial DNA made up of a mix of people primarily McCann, and some of the DNA is thought to be from a female child of one Gerry McCann.

In fact, there was DNA which was consistent with Madeleine's, but not enough recovered to 100% prove it's hers.

This is a far cry from "there was no Madeleine DNA".

I am sorry to be pain in the neck but can you link at place in files where it says that the DNA is possibly Madeleine's, or you have some other sources?