Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #22

[Nikolai_ff]

Just to say, I get quite agitated (aka enraged!) at the attempts on here and elsewhere to try and dismiss the Eddie and Keela's findings. Two amazing, highly trained, highly rated, highly specalised, cadaver and CSI dogs.

The suggestion that they were somehow confused or giddily influenced by their trainer (in the hope of what, a doggy treat?!), while carrying out their professional MM-related searches, is seriously insulting to both Grime's professionalism and his nurtured dog 'smell' skills.

Whoever may else have lied, the dogs absolutely did not.

Why this hysterical attitude? Makes you sound nutty. We’re not talking about your guru or prophet. These are just dogs, however good. Professionals make honest mistakes. The fact that they alerted to the car, which 99.9% did not have a cadaver in it, proves that something else can be at work here.

Early DNA supporters foamed at the mouth that it was impossible to fake a DNA sample “DNA doesn’t lie!” But nowadays we are careful with that statement because of possibilities of touch transfer and our ability to detect too minute a sample. Like in Johnbenet Ramsey case and her undies having an non-identified “Hispanic” man DNA (almost certainly from the manufacturing process.)

 

[Dlk79]

HCW has said he knows how MM died and elements were similar to TB and MP murders.

Where has he said that elements were similar to how MM died in regard to those other two cases? Can you post a link please?

 

[Ausgrlz]

Where has he said that elements were similar to how MM died in regard to those other two cases? Can you post a link please?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-probed-over-22199231.amp

For those asking again regarding properties owned by CB there is a lot of information on this further back in the threads, but he owned the old box factory where the Winnebago was stored and the dogs buried over the sd cards. I believe the search was allowed due to an environmental pollution complaint.

 

[Okapi]

IMO it's vital to remember that cadaver dogs aren't person-specific &, in the case of UK-trained dogs, human specific either. The wardrobe wasn't dismantled to ascertain if there were any corroborating forensic samples behind or underneath the wooden carcass.
There are several possible explanations for the cadaver alerts, some innocent, some less so, without them having to be representative of a human death in 5A. Unfortunately for the possible victim, the accused & police investigators the dogs cannot be proven wrong during a live deployment as there wasn't & isn't any forensic test to corroborate the presence of remnant cadaver odour. I would hate to see CB or anyone else convicted of murder using only these alerts & circumstantial evidence. IMO Madeleine was not killed in 5A by CB then swiftly removed & I don't think we should be trying to prove he did simply to validate dog alerts.

Genuinely asking - for what other reasons would the dogs alert? Innocent or otherwise.

 

[Chiatos]

I still think it's a possibility and one that 'might' explain the alerts.

Found another interesting article on the development of cadaver scent.

"The foul odour of decomposition may simply read as putrid to humans, but to our animal friends, a wealth of information can be determined by the scent of a corpse. The process of decomposition starts 4 minutes after death, but it usually takes several hours before it becomes noticeable to humans. Research conducted in forensic entomology (the study of insects and other arthropods for criminal matters) determined that scent, or the detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), is a significant factor in drawing insects, like blowflies, to a corpse. They can detect the scent of death in the air in a matter of minutes."

Emerging Research on the Scent of Death

DBM


Four minutes.
TY dlk79.
HCW would be 100% aware of this IMO, as he has access to the expertise of multiple BKA Leichnspürhunde handlers.

The way I read it: female blowflies are able to detect remains in 4 minutes.
Humans would take hours and the time span for dogs is not mentioned in this article.

Of course dogs have been tested too and have been found capable of detecting remains of "fresh corpses".
"Fresh" being several hours deceased (search internet). (Obviously it's somewhat difficult to test dogs with corpses of a couple of minutes old.)

We shouldn't forget that HCW said that he does not know the day MM died. He has been hinting at her death after abduction and at another location than in the apartment.

 

[Lilly b]

I admit to having wondered the same. And remember the car accident which disabled his father, far fetched but still....

I am not sure why there is so much discussion around a ‘accidental’ death when it has been conclusively stated to be a murder investigation?

HCW has said he knows how MM died and elements were similar to TB and MP murders. It doesn’t matter in this investigation whether CB carried these out or not, it is the information around the manner of the murder that is important which I was trying to highlight. IMO this would automatically rule out events occurring in 5a due to the amount of contamination to the scene which would have physical evidence remaining rather than a few alerts from specialised dogs.

I also had that strange thought that about his dad

 

[mrjitty]

I get what you are saying but we need to remember that these dogs (and all professional CSI dogs) do make mistakes. Their accuracy is not 100% and as far as i've understood they cannot be used as evidence in court unless corroborated with other evidence.

BIB

I am not sure why this claim keeps getting posted unsubstantiated? Where does it come from because I have seen it so many times down the years.

Dog evidence is simply another piece of circumstantial evidence. e.g in the Suzanne Pilley case, the dogs were critical evidence to indicate where the murder had occurred, and how the body was transported by car to where it was hidden - and sadly never found. No corroborating forensics were recovered from the car boot - likely due to cleaning.

On 23 February 2012, the advocate depute led evidence from a Lothian and Borders Police constable who told the court that they had enlisted the help of specially trained cadaver dogs from South Yorkshire Police to search the offices where David Gilroy and Suzanne Pilley worked. The dogs were specially trained to smell for blood and human remains. The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra.[12]

Usually the purpose of the dogs is to direct the investigation - e.g. that missing persons is in fact death - and to find clues to where the body is hidden. This is precisely what happened in the case of Helen Bailey where the dog located the murder scene, so the police knew what they were dealing with - but in that case the body of the victim was later discovered.

The MM case is similar in terms of dogs directing the investigation to find other potential circumstantial evidence. The dogs indications led to the recovery of forensics but these ended up being inconclusive.

tldr; there is every reason to think the dog evidence will presented at trial - either by HCW or the defence.

 

[mrjitty]

The dog alerts have always been the single most persuasive argument pointing to the parents' guilt. I think it's difficult for many armchair sleuths to correlate CB or anyone else swiftly removing from 5A either a living child or a child only dead for moments with the cadaver dog alerts. HCW did say it was only his opinion Madeleine died in Portugal (Sexta9) which was as non-specific as the officer could be.

There is of course another explanation - that CB didn't remove the body. He left it there.

I know that seems wild - but it does explain all the known evidence.

Or the dogs were mistaken.

 

[mrjitty]

Re the dogs, The below is from Grime himself - Volume IX pages 2473 - 2477 August 2007

Martin Grime
UK NPIA Registered Subject Matter Expert
FBI Forensic Canine Program Specialist Adviser

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

IMO this means there is no certainty whatsoever about a death in 5a based on the canine detection.

BIB

This is essentially true of any single piece of circumstantial evidence.

However if HCW has other evidence that CB murdered MM, the dog evidence could support his theory of the case.

I've always suspected that what HCW renders 5A irrelevant, so we may never know the answer to this puzzle.

 

[mrjitty]

I would hate to see CB or anyone else convicted of murder using only these alerts & circumstantial evidence.

RSBM

Many murderers are found guilty based only on circumstantial evidence - unless there is a witness, its usually forensics that gets them.

 

[Trivento]

'Human bone' at centre of Jersey children's home inquiry is actually a

This article refers to Eddie..
I guess the dogs may well have indicated something significant...but there’s always the chance they didn’t...

 

[mrjitty]

'Human bone' at centre of Jersey children's home inquiry is actually a

This article refers to Eddie..
I guess the dogs may well have indicated something significant...but there’s always the chance they didn’t...

Imagine if PJ had botched an investigation that bad

 

[Trivento]

Imagine if PJ had botched an investigation that bad

Well hopefully the present PJ can help redeem some things...

 

[C.greek]

Well hopefully the present PJ can help redeem some things...

ETA I quoted your previous post! And who tells us they haven't botched this one?

 

[C.greek]

BIB

I am not sure why this claim keeps getting posted unsubstantiated? Where does it come from because I have seen it so many times down the years.

Dog evidence is simply another piece of circumstantial evidence. e.g in the Suzanne Pilley case, the dogs were critical evidence to indicate where the murder had occurred, and how the body was transported by car to where it was hidden - and sadly never found. No corroborating forensics were recovered from the car boot - likely due to cleaning.



Usually the purpose of the dogs is to direct the investigation - e.g. that missing persons is in fact death - and to find clues to where the body is hidden. This is precisely what happened in the case of Helen Bailey where the dog located the murder scene, so the police knew what they were dealing with - but in that case the body of the victim was later discovered.

The MM case is similar in terms of dogs directing the investigation to find other potential circumstantial evidence. The dogs indications led to the recovery of forensics but these ended up being inconclusive.

tldr; there is every reason to think the dog evidence will presented at trial - either by HCW or the defence.

The dogs provide intelligence not evidence.

 

[Lilly b]

Eddie and keela was there in August, and many many people had been in the apartment, so make of it what you will
Now when this year they was searching his previous addresses and the under ground area, with the allotments, aparantly the dogs barked, but we have not had any info from those digs yet, whether they found anything or not

 

[tedtink]

BIB

I am not sure why this claim keeps getting posted unsubstantiated? Where does it come from because I have seen it so many times down the years.

Dog evidence is simply another piece of circumstantial evidence. e.g in the Suzanne Pilley case, the dogs were critical evidence to indicate where the murder had occurred, and how the body was transported by car to where it was hidden - and sadly never found. No corroborating forensics were recovered from the car boot - likely due to cleaning.



Usually the purpose of the dogs is to direct the investigation - e.g. that missing persons is in fact death - and to find clues to where the body is hidden. This is precisely what happened in the case of Helen Bailey where the dog located the murder scene, so the police knew what they were dealing with - but in that case the body of the victim was later discovered.

The MM case is similar in terms of dogs directing the investigation to find other potential circumstantial evidence. The dogs indications led to the recovery of forensics but these ended up being inconclusive.

tldr; there is every reason to think the dog evidence will presented at trial - either by HCW or the defence.

A really interesting read thank you for the link.
Really nice example of how circumstantial evidence (including cadaver dog evidence) can lead to a murder conviction.

 

[Dave55]

BIB

I am not sure why this claim keeps getting posted unsubstantiated? Where does it come from because I have seen it so many times down the years.

Dog evidence is simply another piece of circumstantial evidence. e.g in the Suzanne Pilley case, the dogs were critical evidence to indicate where the murder had occurred, and how the body was transported by car to where it was hidden - and sadly never found. No corroborating forensics were recovered from the car boot - likely due to cleaning.



Usually the purpose of the dogs is to direct the investigation - e.g. that missing persons is in fact death - and to find clues to where the body is hidden. This is precisely what happened in the case of Helen Bailey where the dog located the murder scene, so the police knew what they were dealing with - but in that case the body of the victim was later discovered.

The MM case is similar in terms of dogs directing the investigation to find other potential circumstantial evidence. The dogs indications led to the recovery of forensics but these ended up being inconclusive.

tldr; there is every reason to think the dog evidence will presented at trial - either by HCW or the defence.

How can they be presented as evidence when grime days they have no evidential reliability

 

[Dlk79]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-probed-over-22199231.amp

For those asking again regarding properties owned by CB there is a lot of information on this further back in the threads, but he owned the old box factory where the Winnebago was stored and the dogs buried over the sd cards. I believe the search was allowed due to an environmental pollution complaint.

Thanks for the link but HCW makes no statement here about either of those cases. A different Prosescutor who is working the TB case (and probably doesn't know all the evidence of the MM case) just says:

Chief Prosecutor Noah Kruger told German daily newspaper Bild: “We are checking whether there are any connections between the two cases. In itself, however, this is not unusual, but routine. The sequence of events and the E-fit from the Tristan case could be similar.”

You are making quite a big jump to say this is proof that they must think MM died in a similar manner to TB. Sequence of events could mean anything (TB was abused and strangled for example, which could still fit with a death in 5A secnario) and the use of the word 'could' might mean they are just postulating if there are any similarities rather than an assertion that there actually are.

 

[Lilly b]

I've just seen this, and has CB been excluded from investigation on this or not, and how old have we said the motor home was?

A naval investigator who was investigating the death of the 16-year-old German girl Carola Titze, got a hunch when he watched a broadcast on France 2 about Marc Dutroux. The man recognized in the images about the excavations at Dutroux a mobile home of the murderer, which strongly resembles a mobile home that he saw in De Haan at the time.

ghouben
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM
The body of Carola Titze, badly damaged and in a distant state of decomposition, was found in De Haan on 11 July 1996. Her killer was never arrested, the motive is still guesswork. During the Dutroux report, the man recognized a mobile home.

"It was the same vehicle. A large American one, in brown and beige. But I can no longer say whether it is the same mobile home as the one I saw in the Dutroux broadcast," says the anonymous investigator in La Dernière Heure today.

An and Eefje
"I have always wondered why they did not try to make a connection at the time between the disappearance of An and Eefje and the murder of Carola," the man continues. "I still remember the mobile home in De Haan very well. Not the kind of mobile home that you find on every corner of the street."
Was from GVA app