Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #22

[C.greek]

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.

Indeed but there is a difference here. There is no jury in Germany.

 

[C.greek]

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

I think the big american mobile home of CB was purchased after MM's disappearance

 

[mrjitty]

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

He doesn't say that. He is saying their evidence must be used as part of a web of circumstantial evidence. It can't stand alone in other words.

But that is obvious. The dogs give you one piece of evidence suggesting the presence of a dead body. But they don't tell you who did the murder for example.

 

[mrjitty]

The dogs provide intelligence not evidence.

Do you have a link for this evidential rule?

Because I have just linked you a case where dog evidence was specifically presented, despite no supporting forensic evidence being discovered.

 

[Lilly b]

I think the big american mobile home of CB was purchased after MM's disappearance

I was thinking that, however it doesn't mean he didn't have access to it, say if a friend owned it, and I'm sure he used it before mm disappearance, think NF dad seen him with it before
Have you looked into the actual person I mentioned, convicted paedophile, due for release this year in May, but it's not happened, bit of a public outcry, check it out, I can't believe what I have read about him

 

[Lilly b]

I was thinking that, however it doesn't mean he didn't have access to it, say if a friend owned it, and I'm sure he used it before mm disappearance, think NF dad seen him with it before
Have you looked into the actual person I mentioned, convicted paedophile, due for release this year in May, but it's not happened, bit of a public outcry, check it out, I can't believe what I have read about him

And the guy mentions a motor home, was in the area were the girl went missing, he hadn't been convicted of this murder, but it's been reopened, and they are looking if CB could of done it, so really, what we need to no is where and when CB took ownership of it, and did he have access to it before, you get me? It was in De Haan.
Again with this other fella if you read, paedo rings, possible involvement with high up people, child trafficking, the list go's on and on,

 

[Dlk79]

And the guy mentions a motor home, was in the area were the girl went missing, he hadn't been convicted of this murder, but it's been reopened, and they are looking if CB could of done it, so really, what we need to no is where and when CB took ownership of it, and did he have access to it before, you get me? It was in De Haan.
Again with this other fella if you read, paedo rings, possible involvement with high up people, child trafficking, the list go's on and on,

The CT murder in De Haan happened in 1996. 11 years before MM.

 

[Lilly b]

The CT murder in De Haan happened in 1996. 11 years before MM.

I know, so CB would of been 20, and that's why I've mentioned the motor home, he could of bought it of someone he new, and was able to use it before that??, and her case has been re opened in June this year I think
The motor home is what, 30 years old??

 

[C.greek]

He doesn't say that. He is saying their evidence must be used as part of a web of circumstantial evidence. It can't stand alone in other words.

But that is obvious. The dogs give you one piece of evidence suggesting the presence of a dead body. But they don't tell you who did the murder for example.

Or cross contamination. This is what Grime says in what I quoted above.

 

[Ardoch]

I was thinking that, however it doesn't mean he didn't have access to it, say if a friend owned it, and I'm sure he used it before mm disappearance, think NF dad seen him with it before
Have you looked into the actual person I mentioned, convicted paedophile, due for release this year in May, but it's not happened, bit of a public outcry, check it out, I can't believe what I have read about him

His name came up before - back in the Threads and I couldn't believe what I read about him.
Due to be released in May!

 

[C.greek]

Do you have a link for this evidential rule?

Because I have just linked you a case where dog evidence was specifically presented, despite no supporting forensic evidence being discovered.

There is no rule. In the case that you linked the dogs were indeed used as intelligence. They followed the trail of the death scent. In our case, there is absolutely no evidence of a dead body ever been in 5a, because the dogs' alerts were 'soft' and their handler said so himself that these could have been cross-contaminated. How do we know whether for example one of the police officers did not carry with them a bag that was placed previously onto a dead body and accidentally carried the death scent and cross contaminated 5a. The dogs were brought in very late and many people who could have indeed carried on them the cadaver scent (i.e. police people) were in and out of 5a. I am not disregarding the dogs- it's their handler who says himself that 5a could have been cross contaminated and hence the cadaver scent. When they brought in the first dogs they could trace MM s scent up to a lampost 250 yards from the apartment. Would they be able to retrieve her scent if she was dead already? Everything was done too late in the original investigation unfortunately.

 

[mrjitty]

Or cross contamination. This is what Grime says in what I quoted above.

Well yeah

But that is simply the nature of proving murder using circumstantial evidence

You need multiple pieces of the jigsaw to show, based on the preponderance of evidence, that the prosecution interpretation of the facts is the only reasonable interpretation.

The dogs are merely indicative of a body - they don't even tell you if there was a murder for example.

It's always possible to hen peck individual pieces of circumstantial evidence to come up with other explanations. But that is why Courts do not allow that. Rather we ask what has been established, and look at the totality of circumstantial evidence.

The dogs would be assessed in that light, if indeed they are important to HCWs case.

 

[C.greek]

Do you have a link for this evidential rule?

Because I have just linked you a case where dog evidence was specifically presented, despite no supporting forensic evidence being discovered.

I found it. By Grime himself. He says they provide investigative intelligence.
It's a pdf, google

Forensic Canine White Papers
A proof of concept foundational guide to the application of Forensic
Canines within law enforcement investigations, research and
training development.
Martin Grime
Honorary Research Fellow (Burial Research Group, Forensic Canine Research and Development
Group) School of Law, Policing and Forensics Staffordshire University
Honorary Research Fellow, School of Science and Technology Nottingham Trent University

 

[mrjitty]

There is no rule. In the case that you linked the dogs were indeed used as intelligence.

That is not correct. The dog evidence was produced in Court, to help prove how the killer disposed of the body. The other evidence was the unexplained mileage on his odometer for a trip out to a forested area where he no doubt hid the body. Thus the jury was led to the inference that Pilley disappeared via that method - there being no other reasonable explanation.

They followed the trail of the death scent. In our case, there is absolutely no evidence of a dead body ever been in 5a, because the dogs' alerts were 'soft' and their handler said so himself that these could have been cross-contaminated.

This is not "no evidence". It is evidence, but it is not corroborated, other than by the fact the child is missing.

How do we know whether for example one of the police officers did not carry with them a bag that was placed previously onto a dead body and accidentally carried the death scent and cross contaminated 5a. The dogs were brought in very late and many people who could have indeed carried on them the cadaver scent (i.e. police people) were in and out of 5a. I am not disregarding the dogs- it's their handler who says himself that 5a could have been cross contaminated and hence the cadaver scent. When they brought in the first dogs they could trace MM s scent up to a lampost 250 yards from the apartment. Would they be able to retrieve her scent if she was dead already? Everything was done too late in the original investigation unfortunately.

BIB

There are important rules of evidential procedure meaning that the defence cannot simply speculate away each individual piece of circumstantial evidence. A court would instead look at what has been established - i.e the alerts and ask what natural and obvious inferences can be drawn.

The problem is, the dog indications by themselves are merely suggestive of a body - but don't prove it, IMO.

However if HCW has some other evidence, like an informant who says he called CB that night to tip him off on a burglary of 5a, and then another witness who says CB told him how he killed MM in the apartment - then suddenly that dog evidence could be enough to close the deal!

 

[Dave55]

What were the issues with the dogs in Laci Peterson & Dylan Redwine cases?

He doesn't say that. He is saying their evidence must be used as part of a web of circumstantial evidence. It can't stand alone in other words.

But that is obvious. The dogs give you one piece of evidence suggesting the presence of a dead body. But they don't tell you who did the murder for example.

He actually days exactly no evidential reliability...Harrison says no evidential value. It's in the PJ files. He says they must be corroborated with physical evidence...have you not read what he says

 

[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.

the Pillay case is about the only time they have been used in the UK courts.
The case was reviewed by the SCRRC who dated .. according to his family...the dog evidence should not have been admitted. Grimes superior at Staffs university...prof Cassella said the same in a podcast.
Grime and Harrison were clear...no evidential reliability in r value unless corroborated with physical evidence

 

[Dave55]

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.

If the dogs alerted to MM then CB is innocent...there was no time for cadaver scent to form

 

[C.greek]

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-truth-behind-crime-scene-canines-835047.html

Interesting read. The cadaver trained dogs cannot differentiate easily between pigs and human cadavers.

Another interesting thing is the mess that Eddie produced with the coconut.

All in all, the argument that dogs do not lie but people do which has been said many times before does not say anything at all. The dogs alerted to scent that could have been cross contaminated, as per their handler, also their alerts were 'soft', dogs do make mistakes(as with the coconut) and their alerts are providing investigative intelligence so that they can be followed up. In MM's case, the clothes and cuddly cat were given back to the MCs. So the alerts were either not followed up or did not produce anything forensically useful or significant. I think the dogs' alerts are not at the focus of the investigation and IMO they do not constitute not even circumstantial evidence.

 

[tedtink]

Operation Grange - Redwood had a duty to cover all bases, including death in apartment.
He stated that MM possibly may not have been alive "before" she left the apartment.
IMO there is nothing else, other than the dog alerts, that would make him even think about suggesting she was not alive before she left 5a.
Therefore IMO the dog alerts have not been completely dismissed regarding an intruder causing DIA.

"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007."

Madeleine McCann police seek intruder who attacked girls at holiday homes

 

[C.greek]

Operation Grange - Redwood had a duty to cover all bases, including death in apartment.
He stated that MM possibly may not have been alive "before" she left the apartment.
IMO there is nothing else, other than the dog alerts, that would make him even think about suggesting she was not alive before she left 5a.
Therefore IMO the dog alerts have not been completely dismissed regarding an intruder causing DIA.

"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007."

Madeleine McCann police seek intruder who attacked girls at holiday homes

This was 2014 when they did not have the information about CB that BKA has. If HCW brings CB to court we don't know what will happen with the dog alerts. I however doubt it since from what HCW has been saying, that we don't know the exact day that MM was killed(IMO this means either late on the 3rd or early on the 4th of May) I don't think they are moving to the direction of death in the apartment.