Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[brit1981]

vvvvvvvvvvv

OK, so this is what I quoted.



This is what you replied.


But I don't see where in this statement Grimes says anything like that.



What my quote and I are talking about is the ability to distinguish where the scent is the strongest as in relative to the surrounding areas where it grows progressively weaker and scout the area to find the strongest scent or the source until the dog alerts.

What Grimes is first talking about is the ability to alert differently to weak signals and strong signals. Apparently his dogs don't know how to do that.



It seems to mean that the dogs alert the same way regardless of whether the scent in the search area is strong or weak, overall.

But he goes on to say that



Now, immediately accessible is open to interpretation but imo it very possibly means that they only give an alert when they're sure that they're found the strongest scent, within the same search area. They may not be able to alert differently in search areas with strong scents and search areas with weak scents but they would know which way their nose points and could go from the less accessible scent to the more accessible (ie. stronger). It would make no sense to alert in the far periphery of the area where the residual scents are the weakest so no one knows what the heck the object is it that is supposed to have an odor.

I don't think this quote means what you implied that it does but I'm not Mr. Grimes.

I admit that is not how I interpreted the "accessible" quote. because he has stated that his dogs react to all scent present, even tiny, washed, historic amounts, and says they do not give different alerts depending on the strength I do not see any evidence that the dogs will fail to give an alert if there is a stronger scent elsewhere. it woudl cause the dogs to ignore things that could be vital. for instance I would imagine that the scent from a large patch of dried blood on the carpet would be stronger than the scent from a twenty year old piece of jaw underneath the floorboards, but I would say it was more damning to find the jaw than the patch of blood.http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

 

[brit1981]

I think he should get his bloodwork checked if a small cut bled for 45 minutes.

I know I wondered that, 45 minutes is a long time for a cut to bleed. Even if it was just a small cut I would be concerned if it took nearly an hour to stop bleeding. But I am always nicking myself and would not remember a few weeks later if someone asked me about it, so I presume the fact it took so long to stop bleeding is why he remembered it so well.

 

[Donjeta]

I admit that is not how I interpreted the "accessible" quote. because he has stated that his dogs react to all scent present, even tiny, washed, historic amounts, and says they do not give different alerts depending on the strength I do not see any evidence that the dogs will fail to give an alert if there is a stronger scent elsewhere. it woudl cause the dogs to ignore things that could be vital. for instance I would imagine that the scent from a large patch of dried blood on the carpet would be stronger than the scent from a twenty year old piece of jaw underneath the floorboards, but I would say it was more damning to find the jaw than the patch of blood.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN...S_RIGATORY.htm

Agreed that if there are several sources of the odor in the same area it might get complicated. Maybe someone with SAR experience could answer that.

However, if they do not have the ability to walk towards the strongest scent within the same area and alert where they think it is they won't find either the pool of blood or the jaw because they're going to alert somewhere in the sidelines when they first sense something, however faint, disregarding that it gets progressively stronger when getting closer to the object.

It does not make sense.

 

[brit1981]

I think the problem with another handler stating anythigh is that all dogs 9at leats in the UK) appear to be different. But i do find it odd.
I mean Grimes states that eddie detects dried blood from a living person, that it doe snot matter if it is historic or washed away the scent will be there. Yet at the same time he did nto alert in the other flats. How is it possible that there has been no blood there ever, or if we were to think historic is nto as old as keela can idnetify is it really likely that there was not one drop of blood in any of them during the year previously? people nick themselves, stub toes, get nose bleeds all the time normally.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't know but I think it's a weighted scale, really.

If the dog requires a very strong smell of blood it's not going to be as useful as it could be because the chances are that the humans could find such a strong source by their own methods too (visually, by Luminol, etc.)

If it reacts to very very ancient traces of very minimal cuts and can't communicate the difference between an ancient scent and a fresh strong one (I think I have read that some dogs can), again it's not going to be as useful as it could be because the chances are that most of those ancient traces of very minimal cuts are the product of harmless injuries that took place so long ago that the statute of limitations has passed if it was a crime to start with and the findings have no value in any criminal investigation.

The first dog would get many false negatives and the second dog many false positives ("false" used here not to mean that he didn't find blood but that he didn't find anything the police could use to prove a crime)

The question is, how to train a dog that does its work the most effectively?

 

[Clutchbag]

the dog trained to scent dead body scent alerted in the wardrobe area of the parents apartment, on the verandah, on their clothes, in the garden and to their car

Someone is trying to argue it was just BLOOD or other bodily fluids in all these cases, but the dog for some reason couldn't find these aromas anywhere else, not in the 6 houses and 10 cars he was taken into, not the roads and beaches either, hmmm

perhaps no person in Portugal has periods, eats sea bass, clips their toenails, urinates has bad breath has sex etc etc All excuses from the apologists for the dogs reaction

All these things happened ONLY in the McCann house, you knowthe one a toddler went missing from

and no where has mr grime ever said his evrd cadaver dog reacts to any of these at all only blood from a living human which he COULDNT have been as most of the places he alerted keel didn't

 

[brit1981]

But Grimes does state that eddie the evrd alerts to dried blood from a living human even tiny amounts, so it is odd in my opinion that he did not react elsewhere. And they only used keela when eddie alerted so she was not I believe used in the other cars and flats which means if Grime is right and eddie is right that no-one ever bled in them, which to me seems rather odd.

 

[Donjeta]

Possibly no one ever died in them?

 

[brit1981]

Possibly no one ever died in them?

But then why would grime state eddie alerted to dry blood from a living person if he did not? If Grime is correct then it is odd that no-one has ever bled in any of the other cars or flats.

 

[Donjeta]

JMO but I think it probably is an unrealistic expectation to assume that any dogs are going to catch 100 % of all the faint traces of cleaned up drops of blood out there. Maybe they sometimes do alert to pretty small traces of blood, but while dogs have an exceptional sense of smell I don't believe they're supernatural and never miss anything.

 

[brit1981]

Then that means we cannot rely on the dog not alerting anywhere then. Grime states that eddie would alert to dried blood from a living human even historic and small amounts and will not miss anything, but if we then eddie does not alert all the time even if the scent is there then Grime is wrong. It just comes down to us having to pick and chose which statements from Grime we believe. There is also the jersey issue, eddie alerted but no bodies were ever found, there are no missing people from the home, and the police are not investigating deaths anymore. So did eddie make a false alert, did eddie make a positive alert to degrading bodily fluids on tissue or did he make a positive alert to bodies or an area where there had been bodies and jersey and kew are just suddenly covering it up as part of a criminal conspiracy?

 

[Donjeta]

Sorry I don't follow you at all, I don't see how we need to jump from the reasonable expectation that no dogs are infallible to the wild assumption that someone is covering the Jersey case in a criminal conspiracy.

Do you mind supplying a link to Grimes saying that his dog "will not miss anything"?
If he ever said so it's obvious nonsense because however clever his dog is, there is always going to be some limit where the scent is so faint that the dog will not perceive it any more. The same as any perception, really. No matter how great a vision somebody has there is going to be text that is so small they can't read it. No matter how good a hearing someone has, there are going to be voices that are so far away he can't make out what they say. No matter how well trained a dog is, there are going to be scents that have a low enough concentration that they will be missed.

That is why I don't believe he said any such thing.

Saying that his dog will alert to old scents does not mean that he will do it everywhere and will not ever miss alerting at somewhere that there has ever been an old scent. How could he know that anyway since he doesn't know the complete scent history of the places his dog has ever been to?

Anyway, I don't really think that it's totally relevant in Maddie's case to know if Eddie will alert to all the ancient scents anyway because the case was a few months old at the time and he was not called upon to ascertain whether there was an ancient smell from something that happened 50 years ago or not.

While some dogs may find older and fainter traces than others every dog is going to get false negatives if the trace gets old and faint enough.

This does not necessarily mean that all their positive alerts are rubbish too. IThe accuracy of that would have to be established by their training history.

 

[fabgod]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/28/jersey-secrecy-culture

Thats not some internet poster spouting vile comment, its the head of the investigation raising his concerns, but if it doesnt fit the "mantra" I guess even he will be wrong?

http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2008/05/22/police-confirm-haut-de-la-garenne-child-death/

So did these bone fragments that were confirmed by two experts suddenly become unconfirmed?

According To Wikipedia, 3 human bones were found and 65 milk teeth there are earlier reports stating experts saying some of the teeth cannot have come out of a living child, but other reports stating most were shed naturally, maybe the bone was part of a natural shedding process too?

Haut de la Garenne is a very complex story as far as I am concerned. As I have mentioned before I would prefer to wait and see what happens with that tale, before making any wild assumptions

 

[fabgod]

Update - man claims to have found remains of Madeleine Mcann 567 CapeTalk Radio

KIENO KAMMIES
13 September 2012 8:20 AM

About a month ago, John spoke to Stephen Birch, who claims that after a 15-month independent investigation that he has found the remains of British toddler Madeleine McCann.

Birch, a Cape Town businessman made international headlines with these claims, five years after McCann inexplicably disappeared while on holiday with her family in Portugal.

He told John that he travelled to London, met with his lawyer and hired a ground penetrating imaging device.

He then travelled to Portugal and from the scans he "illegally" took of the area believed to be the ground in which her remains are buried, he says there is proof that it is indeed true.

Birch joined John on the line from his Cape Town offices with an update.

He says that there is progress and that there is a major cover-up by both the British and Portuguese police.

He says that DNA evidence was planted in the vehicle hired 24 days after McCann's disappearance to frame her parents. He says that he has been liaising with investigators and investigative reporters in Lisbon and that together with them, he still believes that they have significant evidence to determine.

He says that he has a letter from the Portugese Prime Minister stating that they have checked the piece of land Birch claims Madeleine is buried under, however, he claims that even the Prime Minister is involved in the cover-up.


Guest: Stephen Birch
Position: Property Developer


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Well, there we have it!
There was DNA in the car and other places, but it was planted there!
The Dogs were right all along and all that needs to be done now is Mr Murats patch of land at the back of the garage be dug up to find a body!

Now if only there was a court case going on right at this moment, this would deflect a lot of attention from a further possible defeat for someone, hmm, the court case has been delayed?
Finally, I know why the PJ would not show an interest in Stephen Birch

 

[brit1981]

Update - man claims to have found remains of Madeleine Mcann 567 CapeTalk Radio

KIENO KAMMIES
13 September 2012 8:20 AM

About a month ago, John spoke to Stephen Birch, who claims that after a 15-month independent investigation that he has found the remains of British toddler Madeleine McCann.

Birch, a Cape Town businessman made international headlines with these claims, five years after McCann inexplicably disappeared while on holiday with her family in Portugal.

He told John that he travelled to London, met with his lawyer and hired a ground penetrating imaging device.

He then travelled to Portugal and from the scans he "illegally" took of the area believed to be the ground in which her remains are buried, he says there is proof that it is indeed true.

Birch joined John on the line from his Cape Town offices with an update.

He says that there is progress and that there is a major cover-up by both the British and Portuguese police.

He says that DNA evidence was planted in the vehicle hired 24 days after McCann's disappearance to frame her parents. He says that he has been liaising with investigators and investigative reporters in Lisbon and that together with them, he still believes that they have significant evidence to determine.

He says that he has a letter from the Portugese Prime Minister stating that they have checked the piece of land Birch claims Madeleine is buried under, however, he claims that even the Prime Minister is involved in the cover-up.


Guest: Stephen Birch
Position: Property Developer


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Well, there we have it!
There was DNA in the car and other places, but it was planted there!
The Dogs were right all along and all that needs to be done now is Mr Murats patch of land at the back of the garage be dug up to find a body!

Now if only there was a court case going on right at this moment, this would deflect a lot of attention from a further possible defeat for someone, hmm, the court case has been delayed?
Finally, I know why the PJ would not show an interest in Stephen Birch

As far as I am aware stephen Birch is a south african property developer with no official involvement, he has not conducted any tests on the material found int he cra so can not say any more than he has read from the case files. As far as I am aware his involvement consists of breaking into the grounds or Robert Murat's mothers home and conducting his own scan and then telling everyone he knows it is the body of madeleine mccann? I have not seen any mainstream UK media talking about Birch in any great detail.
And if you are talking about either the bennett or Amaral cases it is not the McCanns who have delayed the case, in fact they will not even be attending the trials as far as I am aware.
Has Birch conducted his own tests on the material found in the car, is there a link to that?
You said the dogs were right and all that needs to be done is dig Murats property - did the dogs alert on this property then?

 

[brit1981]

wrong thread - moving my reply

 

[brit1981]

Sorry I don't follow you at all, I don't see how we need to jump from the reasonable expectation that no dogs are infallible to the wild assumption that someone is covering the Jersey case in a criminal conspiracy.

Do you mind supplying a link to Grimes saying that his dog "will not miss anything"?
If he ever said so it's obvious nonsense because however clever his dog is, there is always going to be some limit where the scent is so faint that the dog will not perceive it any more. The same as any perception, really. No matter how great a vision somebody has there is going to be text that is so small they can't read it. No matter how good a hearing someone has, there are going to be voices that are so far away he can't make out what they say. No matter how well trained a dog is, there are going to be scents that have a low enough concentration that they will be missed.

That is why I don't believe he said any such thing.

Saying that his dog will alert to old scents does not mean that he will do it everywhere and will not ever miss alerting at somewhere that there has ever been an old scent. How could he know that anyway since he doesn't know the complete scent history of the places his dog has ever been to?

Anyway, I don't really think that it's totally relevant in Maddie's case to know if Eddie will alert to all the ancient scents anyway because the case was a few months old at the time and he was not called upon to ascertain whether there was an ancient smell from something that happened 50 years ago or not.

While some dogs may find older and fainter traces than others every dog is going to get false negatives if the trace gets old and faint enough.

This does not necessarily mean that all their positive alerts are rubbish too. IThe accuracy of that would have to be established by their training history.

What I meant about Jersey was that either we believe that there were bodies in Jersey and now the police are lying when they say there were no bodies, or we belive like you say thta no dog is infallible and the dogs can alert when no bodies were present. Personally I am going with the idea that the dogs are not always right

Here are some quotes from grime about the evrd

"The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site."

"Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication. "

"There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction"

"Cross-contamination is immediate."

So if Grime is correct something can touch a dead body or dried blood and immediately the scent is transferred to such an extent the dog will recognize it. To be honest i think we can talk about the dogs until the cows come home, no-one will agree, and to be honest it does not matter what we think, the dogs are not considered evidence, and they did not find a body.

 

[brit1981]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/28/jersey-secrecy-culture

Thats not some internet poster spouting vile comment, its the head of the investigation raising his concerns, but if it doesnt fit the "mantra" I guess even he will be wrong?

http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2008/05/22/police-confirm-haut-de-la-garenne-child-death/

So did these bone fragments that were confirmed by two experts suddenly become unconfirmed?

According To Wikipedia, 3 human bones were found and 65 milk teeth there are earlier reports stating experts saying some of the teeth cannot have come out of a living child, but other reports stating most were shed naturally, maybe the bone was part of a natural shedding process too?

Haut de la Garenne is a very complex story as far as I am concerned. As I have mentioned before I would prefer to wait and see what happens with that tale, before making any wild assumptions

I do not think the police base their investigations on wikipedia entries.
No-one is claiming that there was not abuse, but that is not the same as seriel killings. The murder investigation has been wound up now as far as I am aware. can you provide any sources saying an investigation into deaths there is ongoing?

Also I cannot see anywhere in the guardian article where Power says he was suspended because people wanted to cover up killings, he says it was to do with the historic abuse case which I have never denied occurred.

Here are quotes from a report by the jersey government about the case and Powers involvement

"THE USE OF SPECIALIST SEARCH DOGS
Unfortunately, there were a whole number of problems with this.
a) Firstly, the decision was made to use a private firm rather than similar
dogs from another police force and this will have been more expensive.
b) Secondly, the individual who was used was no longer fully accredited.
c) Thirdly, the specialist dog for searching for bodies was 7 months
beyond its police accreditation. It is now apparent that the dog was
giving false positives.
d) Fourthly, the second specialist dog became out of date for testing for
police accreditation after one month.
e) Fifthly, the sum of £92,705 was spent on the dog handler and dogs for
139 days of charged work and yet the dogs were only used for 35
days. A further 23 days of the work of the handler in other capacities
are accounted for but 81 days of work are not accounted for although
17 of these were for days upon which the dog handler was not going to
work (ie Sundays).
f) Sixthly, accommodation costs for the dog handler were £15,818 and he
stayed at an hotel at the wrong side of the Island. Furthermore, the dog
handler was wrongly granted an upgrade for his accommodation which
cost £1,613 extra"

on 31st March 2008 an
expert from LGC Forensics told the States of Jersey Police that he believed
that the “skull fragment” was not bone and that this view was shared by a
Doctor from the British Museum. Notwithstanding this, on 7th April 2008 the
anthropologist still maintained the original view. On 8th April 2008 another
expert concluded that the object came from a Victorian context. On 8th April
2008 the States of Jersey Police maintained that it was a “skull fragment” but
on 9th April 2008 the anthropologist was no longer sure but Mr. Harper
decided not to initiate further testing because of the dating issue. On 1st May
2008 an expert from LGC wrote to Mr. Harper to tell him that the object was
not bone and almost certainly wood. On 17th May 2008 that was confirmed by
an e-mail to Mr. Harper. Despite that and despite further questions in the
States of Jersey the Police never come clean on this issue and never
admitted that the original find was not bone let alone a “skull fragment” or
“partial remains of a child”.
{so an anthropologist thought it was bone at first by looking at it but forensics tests confirmed the material was not bone.
Here is the link for the above http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDoc...mentHomeAffairsMinisterHCAE 20100714 ILeM.pdf

Other reports can be found at http://www.gov.je/pages/search.aspx?query=haut&page=1

 

[fabgod]

I do not think the police base their investigations on wikipedia entries.
No-one is claiming that there was not abuse, but that is not the same as seriel killings. The murder investigation has been wound up now as far as I am aware. can you provide any sources saying an investigation into deaths there is ongoing?

Also I cannot see anywhere in the guardian article where Power says he was suspended because people wanted to cover up killings, he says it was to do with the historic abuse case which I have never denied occurred.

Here are quotes from a report by the jersey government about the case and Powers involvement

"THE USE OF SPECIALIST SEARCH DOGS
Unfortunately, there were a whole number of problems with this.
a) Firstly, the decision was made to use a private firm rather than similar
dogs from another police force and this will have been more expensive.
b) Secondly, the individual who was used was no longer fully accredited.
c) Thirdly, the specialist dog for searching for bodies was 7 months
beyond its police accreditation. It is now apparent that the dog was
giving false positives.
d) Fourthly, the second specialist dog became out of date for testing for
police accreditation after one month.
e) Fifthly, the sum of £92,705 was spent on the dog handler and dogs for
139 days of charged work and yet the dogs were only used for 35
days. A further 23 days of the work of the handler in other capacities
are accounted for but 81 days of work are not accounted for although
17 of these were for days upon which the dog handler was not going to
work (ie Sundays).
f) Sixthly, accommodation costs for the dog handler were £15,818 and he
stayed at an hotel at the wrong side of the Island. Furthermore, the dog
handler was wrongly granted an upgrade for his accommodation which
cost £1,613 extra"

on 31st March 2008 an
expert from LGC Forensics told the States of Jersey Police that he believed
that the “skull fragment” was not bone and that this view was shared by a
Doctor from the British Museum. Notwithstanding this, on 7th April 2008 the
anthropologist still maintained the original view. On 8th April 2008 another
expert concluded that the object came from a Victorian context. On 8th April
2008 the States of Jersey Police maintained that it was a “skull fragment” but
on 9th April 2008 the anthropologist was no longer sure but Mr. Harper
decided not to initiate further testing because of the dating issue. On 1st May
2008 an expert from LGC wrote to Mr. Harper to tell him that the object was
not bone and almost certainly wood. On 17th May 2008 that was confirmed by
an e-mail to Mr. Harper. Despite that and despite further questions in the
States of Jersey the Police never come clean on this issue and never
admitted that the original find was not bone let alone a “skull fragment” or
“partial remains of a child”.
{so an anthropologist thought it was bone at first by looking at it but forensics tests confirmed the material was not bone.
Here is the link for the above http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDoc...mentHomeAffairsMinisterHCAE 20100714 ILeM.pdf

Other reports can be found at http://www.gov.je/pages/search.aspx?query=haut&page=1

Maybe you are choosing to attribute statements by others to me.
Before I need to be stating any proof about serial killings maybe you should show me where I state any such thing?

You stated there was no evidence of any human remains, I have shown a link where experts apparently agreed that human fragments were found

Where did I say there was a murder investigation?
I posted that I would reserve my judgement on Haut de la Garenne until all other litigation and possibly investigations into Haut de la Garenne events come to light in the future, are you saying I shouldn't do that?
In my opinion, Haut de la Garenne is a cover up, of what I don't pretend to know, just as nobody else apart from those involved knows, the difference is, I didn't cherry pick what information I want to promote and state it as fact when it clearly isnt.

I find it a ridiculous comment on a forum such as this to state
"I do not think the police base their investigations on wikipedia entries."
Who said they did?

So are you also saying that Powers is at fault now? This guy was a top Police officer in the UK force and he is suspect as well?
Doesn't offer much hope that the UK produces Police officers of any quality then, which is a worry when the UK police are carrying out this much vaunted review of the Madeleine case if that is the case does it?

 

[brit1981]

Maybe you are choosing to attribute statements by others to me.
Before I need to be stating any proof about serial killings maybe you should show me where I state any such thing?

You stated there was no evidence of any human remains, I have shown a link where experts apparently agreed that human fragments were found

And I have shown a link that confirmed that the anthropologist was proven wrong by forensic testing.

Where did I say there was a murder investigation?

So if there is no murder investigation or investigations into unlawful killings why are you reserving judgement on whether there were murders or unlawful killings. the fact there is no investigation, no charges, nor prosecutions on thse subjects would rather indicate there were no bodies.

I posted that I would reserve my judgement on Haut de la Garenne until all other litigation and possibly investigations into Haut de la Garenne events come to light in the future, are you saying I shouldn't do that?

What exactly are you reserving judgement on - whether the dogs were wrong, whether there were killings or somethign else? According to the sources I have linked to above all investigations into child abuse there were concluded in 2010.
I think it is incorrect to claim the dogs may be right because although no bodies were found, an official report I have linked to abopve stated they made false positives, there is no investigation into unlawful deaths or burials there, no prosecutions regarding unlawful deaths or burials, one never knows it might happen in the future. We could use that same logic to claim that soemone who has be charged, prosecuted and found guilty is innocent because we never know what new evidence might be found in the future.

In my opinion, Haut de la Garenne is a cover up, of what I don't pretend to know, just as nobody else apart from those involved knows, the difference is, I didn't cherry pick what information I want to promote and state it as fact when it clearly isnt.

How do you know it is a cover-up. There have been prosecutions for historic child abuse so that does not appear to be a cover-up, what cover-up could there be and do you have any evidence of this cover-up?

I find it a ridiculous comment on a forum such as this to state
"I do not think the police base their investigations on wikipedia entries."
Who said they did?
Well you were partly basing your claims that body parts were found on a wikipedia entry rather than the official reports which state otherwise.

So are you also saying that Powers is at fault now? This guy was a top Police officer in the UK force and he is suspect as well?

Where have I said he was a suspect? I pointed out he never said he was suspended because of a cover up regarding unlawful deaths, and I linked to a report about the actions against him.

Doesn't offer much hope that the UK produces Police officers of any quality then, which is a worry when the UK police are carrying out this much vaunted review of the Madeleine case if that is the case does it?
Er jersey is not in the UK, so i fail to see why the discplinary action against an officer in Jersey has any influence on the behaviour of the police in the UK.

And if a disciplinary action against a Jersey officer who had nothing to do with the McCann case is a worry in regards to the mccann case, i think the fact that the initial few months of the investigation in Portugal were carried out by an aguido who later received a criminal conviction for fabrication of evidence as well as a mention in an amnesty international report on torture is more of a worry. At least Powers and Harper were never involved in the mccann case[/QUOTE]