Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[brit1981]

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

The quotes above seem to be a little unfounded if I may say.
RE the dogs and the comment (Jersey anyone?) is that proven anywhere at all?

I am sorry are you saying there was a seriel killer operating in the care home even though no bodies were found, there are no missing people etc, and no other evidence of killing has ever been found?

If I may say, Jersey and its allegations of abuse and who knows what ever else is still the subject of legal dealings.
Am I to believe that the comment in someway rubbishes the statements of people who claim to have been victims at the hands of abusers?

Just because abuse occured does not mean mass murder occurred. Not one statement has ever been made about killings at the home. The only accusations have been about abuse which whilst hideous is not evidence of a seriel killer.

Really, Is that the only avenue left in which to attempt to discredit the dogs, because for one unproven as yet case, there are many, many cases that can be forwarded as proof of success.
Uproven case? There werre no bodies found, no charges relating to deaths, no missing people, no witnesses claiming there were killings. Cases go to court when a crime is believed to have occurred. We do not take cases to court when no crime is believed to have been committed.

Odd fabrications?
I dont understand that personally.
Fact is Jane Tanners statements changed over the course of those statements, this has been evidenced on several occasions, here and elsewhere

No it has not, do you have any evidence that her statement changed other than internet rumour. her statements to the police all tally. The only difference is that in one the conversion between feet and inches which tanner gave the height in to centimetres which the PJ used was out. That is hardly tanners fault if who ever made the conversion got it slightly wrong.

The DNA subject is a complex one, the facts are that the dogs involved, alerted in areas that were subsequently tested and found to contain material.
The dogs did there job without question.
The tests came back as being insufficient to point in a decisive direction (at this time) but the most interesting part of this is that the dogs alerted only in locations that the McCanns had been and that is why they are of such interest.

The DNA analysis is fairly simple, the parents of a child will have DNA that contains 100% of the elements found in their child's DNA, the four grandparents will also have DNA that contains 100% of the elements of their grandchild's DNA and other relatives will have a large proportion of shared elements. Strangers may also have some shared elements.
The dogs did not alert to any other areas which is of obvious concern.

As both are supposed to alert to dried blood from living people it is odd that the mccanns flat is the only place to ever have dried blood in it.

Blind Faith, "The dogs are no use, the dogs get it wrong, there was no DNA that had even a possibility of being linked to Madeleine, the statements havent changed, an abductor with not one minute piece of evidence to support the theory, The investigating Police force believing the parents involvement enough to make the Arguidos and on and on.

The DNA could quiet easily have belonged to several other people, if the DNA did belong to madeleine it meant that her family had never left DNA in a car they had used for several weeks! the dogs do get it wrong (although why people are disappointed that there were no child killings in jersey is beyond me, surely the fact several children were not murdered is a good thing) and even when they get it right the alerts can mean things other than a body was there, and the police have admitted that the evidence they used as a basis for making the mccanns aguidos was the dna and dog alerts and that they belived the DNA results pointed to the DNA being madeleines as there was a misunderstanding, and they thought the dogs were infallible and only ever alerted to cadaver scent.
The more desperate, the more to hide!

Not stating fabricatiosn is not hiding.
here on Websleuths we don't have to be told what to believe, we can make our own minds up from the facts!

Exactly, from the facts. But fabrications are not facts. It is a fabrication that jane tanner changed her story, it is a fabrication that the EVRD only alerts to cadaver scent, it is a fabrication that the dna points to it being madeleines, it is a fabrication that there were killings in the jersey care home.

 

[fabgod]

Sweeping statements made in post 827, seemingly aimed at myself.
I will adress these one last time but I do take offence at your manner and apparent disregard to my written replies above.

I have not fabricated anything, Jane Tanners statements to the PJ and the press have changes, I have given links to this and explained my reasonings as have others.
The changes range from the distance that JT saw the man to what was sighted on the man and the child he was carrying. These are not the same from the early PJ statements to the later ones -Is that fabrication?

I am attributed in the above post as stating the dogs only alert to cadaver, I do not make any such statement. I do not make any statements as fact unless I can prove my source, otherwise it will be an opinion. Statement of fact - I have not said the dogs only alert to cadaver

Again you seemingly accuse me of stating that the DNA points to it being Madeleines?
that is evidently a made up accusation because I do not see a statement by myself to that effect.
I have said more than once, that I think that there are other developments that may be revealed in future litigation concernig the Jersey case.

Your post is offensive and baseless

It is a fabrication that there were killings in the Jersey home. again, where do i state that?

 

[brit1981]

vvvvvvvvvv

Sweeping statements made in post 827, seemingly aimed at myself.
First which post 827, this thread does nto have a post of that number. And no I am not aiming at you.

I will adress these one last time but I do take offence at your manner and apparent disregard to my written replies above.

I have not fabricated anything, Jane Tanners statements to the PJ and the press have changes, I have given links to this and explained my reasonings as have others.

The changes range from the distance that JT saw the man to what was sighted on the man and the child he was carrying. These are not the same from the early PJ statements to the later ones -Is that fabrication?

I have not seen any first hand account i.e her statements to the police where her story changes.

I am attributed in the above post as stating the dogs only alert to cadaver, I do not make any such statement. I do not make any statements as fact unless I can prove my source, otherwise it will be an opinion. Statement of fact - I have not said the dogs only alert to cadaver

So you do agree that Grime is correct when he states his dog alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person?Again you seemingly accuse me of stating that the DNA points to it being Madeleines?
that is evidently a made up accusation because I do not see a statement by myself to that effect.
Again not you, but general.
I have said more than once, that I think that there are other developments that may be revealed in future litigation concernig the Jersey case.

That is a bit wide, it comes across as saying you never know they might later find there had been murders of children there even though that is not the case now. One could apply that to anything.
Your post is offensive and baseless

It is a fabrication that there were killings in the Jersey home. again, where do i state that?
again general not you specifically.

 

[Donjeta]

Sweeping statements made in post 827, seemingly aimed at myself.
First which post 827, this thread does nto have a post of that number. And no I am not aiming at you.

You currently have 829 posts and the number of the post in the thread is directly above the number of the posts by the poster. Easy mistake to make.

Discussion here would be easier if no one was called upon to defend themselves at sweeping generalizations that were not made by them but some faceless anonymous crowd out there, possibly. MOO.

 

[fabgod]

In response to post 596 Thanks Donjeta for the correction, my mistake)

No I do not agree with your statement that the dogs alert to bodily fluids.
I say this because I believe that the statement you are making is taken out of context.

I beleive that Martin Grimes states that EVRD Eddie alerts to blood that has been deposited from a live person that has dried in situ.
I also believe that Mr Grimes states that EVRD Eddie alerts to decomposing bodily fluids from a cadaver.

I finally believe that EVRD dog Eddie has been proofed off semen, vomit Dirty nappies Urine and anything else that can be tested against in order to eliminate those odours from being alerted to.

For anyone to prove differently, would require clear documented evidence, from which I would be perfectly willing to amend my beliefs.
Anyone presenting their comments as "proof" in the absence of such proof is plainly stating a belief and while they are welcome to that belief, it is no more or less the truth than any other belief.

 

[brit1981]

In response to post 596 Thanks Donjeta for the correction, my mistake)

Thanks too Donjeta, i was wondering if you meant another thread.

No I do not agree with your statement that the dogs alert to bodily fluids.
I say this because I believe that the statement you are making is taken out of context.

I beleive that Martin Grimes states that EVRD Eddie alerts to blood that has been deposited from a live person that has dried in situ.
I also believe that Mr Grimes states that EVRD Eddie alerts to decomposing bodily fluids from a cadaver.

I have not seen him state that he only alerts to a bodily fluids from a cadaver. he specifically states he will alert to blood from a living person. But once a bodily fluid has left a living person it decomposes all the same and will give off the same scent as if it had come from a cadaver. It is still decomposing human tissue at the end of the day. I know a theory in the jersey case was that eddie alerted to bodily fluids on the many tissues that were found there. The thing is the dogs are just a guide, so if they are looking for abody and a dog alerts then of course they shoudl look there rather than assuming the alert is down to a bodily fluid present. its better to waste time digging to find a missing person, than risk leaving them undiscovered. However I do not think that when no body is found it is then Ok to assume a body had to be there and infer guilt from it.

I finally believe that EVRD dog Eddie has been proofed off semen, vomit Dirty nappies Urine and anything else that can be tested against in order to eliminate those odours from being alerted to.

I have not read Grime stating this anywhere about Eddie. he clearly states it about Keela (CSI) in his statement to the PJ, but does not say this about eddie. If one thinks about it, it is not uncommon for a person to empty their bladder and bowels at the time of death so perhaps it is not possible to ignore these scents.

For anyone to prove differently, would require clear documented evidence, from which I would be perfectly willing to amend my beliefs.
Anyone presenting their comments as "proof" in the absence of such proof is plainly stating a belief and while they are welcome to that belief, it is no more or less the truth than any other belief.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what Grimes has said or meant to be honest.

So moving on. lets assume the alert was down to Madeleine having died there. It was only found in specific places in the living room in the flat. Now if someone had taken her from her bed dropped her, then picked her up and went straight out i can see that occurring. But if the mccanns were involved I cannot see cadaver scent being so localized. According to witnesses outside the tapas nine madeleine was alive at five thirty, and the mccanns were at dinner by eith thirty. Grimes also states that cadaver scent occurres immediately and can occur by transfer.

So the maximum time madeleine was there in the flat having died is three hours. yet during that time she was only in the one localized area, her parents just left her there until they took her out of the flat. they did not try to hide her in the flat whilst they came up with a plan, they did not move her trying to help her, etc. I mean if my child had suddenly died I would think i would move them so i could try CPR or something. Then there is the issue of transfer, if Grime is correct and cadaver odour can be transferred why was the scent not found in other places the mccanns had been like the tapas bar, or on more of their belongings.
Plus if we assume there was an actual cadaver in their car, where was it the rest of the time then? people have said cadaver scent was only found in 5a and the car, yet surely it would have to be found wherever she was hidden too, yet nothing was found. And for her to be hidden and then removed surely the scenht would have transferred to other things in doing so. Personally I think the alert to the car can be discounted because the evrd only alerted to the card fobb from the car which the CS also alerted to, and was found to contain material belonging to gerry mccann (assumed to be dried blood).

 

[brit1981]

n a idfferent note here is a statement from a woman who was babysitting at 5A a few months before madeleine disappeared. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm

basicily she says that whilst she was babysitting a child, she went outside and found a man hiding in the bushes just outside the flat 5A watching it. Yet from what she knew the police were never contacted after she told her bosses.

 

[Donjeta]

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what Grimes has said or meant to be honest.

So moving on. lets assume the alert was down to Madeleine having died there. It was only found in specific places in the living room in the flat. Now if someone had taken her from her bed dropped her, then picked her up and went straight out i can see that occurring. But if the mccanns were involved I cannot see cadaver scent being so localized. According to witnesses outside the tapas nine madeleine was alive at five thirty, and the mccanns were at dinner by eith thirty. Grimes also states that cadaver scent occurres immediately and can occur by transfer.

This is not from Grimes but another HRD dog handler:
http://noncuratlex.com/?p=895

A: The dog will alert when it finds the source. He will weave back and forth to check the negatives like a heat seeking missile. He will want to go to the house and will not alert until he finds the strongest scent.

If Grimes's dogs are anything like that (and I don't see why they wouldn't be since it makes sense to train the dogs to alert to the strongest scent, otherwise we would be getting alerts at a considerable radius from the original source and would have to dig a huge hole to find anything...) I don't think we can assume that there was no cadaver smell (or whichever smell it was the dog alerted to) in the rest of the apartment. The dog may have simply alerted at where he perceived the strongest source to be.

 

[Donjeta]

n a idfferent note here is a statement from a woman who was babysitting at 5A a few months before madeleine disappeared. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm

basicily she says that whilst she was babysitting a child, she went outside and found a man hiding in the bushes just outside the flat 5A watching it. Yet from what she knew the police were never contacted after she told her bosses.

A few months before? If the perp was scouting the apartment for months before the McCanns ever arrived in the country it shows dedication and planning. What makes 5A so special? It's not like the McCanns were there at the time. Is it the only apartment with bushes or are the windows lowest or is it just the place where every drunken tourist goes to pee in the bushes or what?

 

[brit1981]

About Grime and Eddie.
Grime states in his PJ statements that the dogs either alert or not, they do not just pick where it is strongest.
Here is an article about a police report which claimed the recovery dogs in the Uk were not trained consistently. http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work

As for Maragrets hall statement. She aid the man was hiding which make sit unlikely he was just there for a pee, especially as he was at the back of the flat where he had to go through two gates. I think the thing about the flat was that it was the most secluded and nearest the road so easy to get to and from. At the time of madeleine's disappearence the lights were not working either. I think that if someone had planned an abduction they might have thought about it for months if not longer, perhaps hanging around places with children, before finally putting their imaginings into actions.

 

[Donjeta]

How is the flat nearest the road the most secluded?

Is there a link to where Grimes said that his dogs don't know where the scent is the strongest? Because I do wonder if there is some misunderstanding there.

Say you've got a cadaver at point X. The scent is the strongest at X and gradually weakens so that the dog can still sense it at, say 20 metres from the source. If the winds and the shape of the area etc. allow it I presume the scent weakens in a roughly circular pattern. If the dog alerts everywhere in the 20 m radius he alerts in a circle with an area of 1257 square meters. That's a lot of digging to find the body.

 

[brit1981]

5A had a lot of shrubbery around it that would block a person from view, and at the time of madeleine's disappearence no working outsid elight. It was also the flat nearest the road, so by chosing that flat someone knew thta they would be secluded and closest to escape, and because they did not have to walk along paths or near flats that were lit up they had the leats opportunity of being seen. However an expert in child abductions gave an interview after travelling to PDL and he said he thought the choice to abduct madeleine was nothing to do with the flat, but felt she had been targeted by somone during the holiday and they woudl have abducted her which ever flat she was in. But i cannot help thinking that the seclusion of the flat, the fact that soemone was caught outside months vefore, the reports of soemone being seen watching the flat lends substance to the idea that madeleine was targeted because of the flat.

Here is what grimes says about the ability to detect strong and weak signals.

'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
But given the report that said sniffer dogs could hinder the report maybe this lack of specifity that can cause problems too. I mean looking at the case mentioned in the report where the dogs alerted because there was furniture in the home thta may have once been in the home of someone who died - that is going to be a pretty weak scent but the dogs still alerted.

 

[fabgod]

About Grime and Eddie.
Grime states in his PJ statements that the dogs either alert or not, they do not just pick where it is strongest.
Here is an article about a police report which claimed the recovery dogs in the Uk were not trained consistently. http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work

As for Maragrets hall statement. She aid the man was hiding which make sit unlikely he was just there for a pee, especially as he was at the back of the flat where he had to go through two gates. I think the thing about the flat was that it was the most secluded and nearest the road so easy to get to and from. At the time of madeleine's disappearence the lights were not working either. I think that if someone had planned an abduction they might have thought about it for months if not longer, perhaps hanging around places with children, before finally putting their imaginings into actions.

Margaret Hall states the back of the flat as being where the front door was, which in essence was the front of the flat.
Where are the two gates you state as having to go through at the front door of the apartment?

Which lights were not working where is that link please?

 

[fabgod]

The flat that is right on the main access road to the Ocean club entrance used by the Tapas friends and others to enter the restaurant area can in no way be stated as being secluded in my opinion.

The apartment had no bushes at all on the side that borders the road, the patio area is raised up above the bushes in front so any access to the patio doors is not obscured from view and there is a small wall in front of the main door, again not obscuring view of the windows or door

view from the patio which isnt where Margaret Hall saw the man

Front door area where Margaret Hall says she saw the Man 6 months earlier

photos taken from here
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

 

[brit1981]

Margaret Hall states the back of the flat as being where the front door was, which in essence was the front of the flat.
Where are the two gates you state as having to go through at the front door of the apartment?

Which lights were not working where is that link please?

Hall said this "She said that the front door was the main door to enter the apartment, situated at the back.", which i took to be the patio door. I wish people woudl say car park and patio door. By the patio door there were two gates leading down to the road.

quote from previosu tennant there a few days before "The apartment was also vulnerable for the fact that the entryway light (side of the street) was hanging and did not function. This made the entryway very dark." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JUNE-HUGHES.htm

 

[fabgod]

Its very difficult when people don't state the facts.

Incidentally you posted a link to a previous tenant Miss June Hughes, am I right in presuming that this is the same tenant in residence that you mention as someone having bled for 45 minutes?

Miss Hughes states "During our stay I do not remember having cut or hurt myself. It is possible that Carlo cut himself whilst shaving but I don't remember this."

Are these the same people?

 

[brit1981]

No different tennant If you read Hughes states that she does not believe either her or her husband bled there.

The tennant who bled said
"there was one occasion when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding, during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm

 

[Donjeta]

5A had a lot of shrubbery around it that would block a person from view, and at the time of madeleine's disappearence no working outsid elight. It was also the flat nearest the road, so by chosing that flat someone knew thta they would be secluded and closest to escape, and because they did not have to walk along paths or near flats that were lit up they had the leats opportunity of being seen. However an expert in child abductions gave an interview after travelling to PDL and he said he thought the choice to abduct madeleine was nothing to do with the flat, but felt she had been targeted by somone during the holiday and they woudl have abducted her which ever flat she was in. But i cannot help thinking that the seclusion of the flat, the fact that soemone was caught outside months vefore, the reports of soemone being seen watching the flat lends substance to the idea that madeleine was targeted because of the flat.

Here is what grimes says about the ability to detect strong and weak signals.

'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
But given the report that said sniffer dogs could hinder the report maybe this lack of specifity that can cause problems too. I mean looking at the case mentioned in the report where the dogs alerted because there was furniture in the home thta may have once been in the home of someone who died - that is going to be a pretty weak scent but the dogs still alerted.

OK, so this is what I quoted.

A: The dog will alert when it finds the source. He will weave back and forth to check the negatives like a heat seeking missile. He will want to go to the house and will not alert until he finds the strongest scent.

This is what you replied.

About Grime and Eddie.
Grime states in his PJ statements that the dogs either alert or not, they do not just pick where it is strongest.

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

Here is what grimes says about the ability to detect strong and weak signals.

'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

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.

'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary.

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

They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible.

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.

http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

 

[brit1981]

"During our stay I do not remember having cut or hurt myself. It is possible that Carlo cut himself whilst shaving but I don't remember this."

snipped from
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JUNE-HUGHES.htm

as posted in post 609 I am quoting from linked sources

This is what i said in my previous reply to you
"No different tennant If you read Hughes states that she does not believe either her or her husband bled there.

The tennant who bled said
"there was one occasion when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding, during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm "
So you can see I agreed that jane hughes did nto belive she or her husband bled in the flat, but that annother tennant (Paul Gordon) claimed to have bled in the flat for 45 mins and walked around the flat as he tried to stop the bleed. So why is it significant that jane hughes did not bleed there, whether she and her husband bled there or not does nto have any influence on whether Paul Gordon bled.

 

[Donjeta]

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