Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #22

[redplanet]

Given alerts to a number of now seperated objects - if one can establish that at a certain historical time all those objects were co-situated within a common small volume of space, it can be useful.

 

[Victoria Chambers]

IMO you have misunderstood the text. It is completely clear IMO that the dog was not in the car when he went to PdL the next morning. Please read the words in your post "when I get back, I discuss it ..." and examine it with chronological care from there.

I have not misunderstood it at all. There are other sites, not quoted from the book, where GA says he put the dog in the trunk before he went to work. Discarding of it later. He also says right there that his wife had found the dog deceased in the morning time and phoned him to save the children seeing it, who are all in bed because it is 2am! She must have waited 15hrs before phoning him then! So we know the dog body was already deteriorated to some extent. Perhaps GA did not not drive the dog out in search of a bin, it may of been under the cover of darkness when he snook to the apartment area. Either way, in the trunk, or very recently removed, was a dead dog. And now you have the cop making his way to the scene.. He would have put his dog on top of a blanket or something that he could easily place in the bushes for a moment should he feel the need to. The point is, there is absolutely the possibility of cross contamination occurring. And it was absurd of him to act in that way! There was reports of K&G being 'framed' by the PJ at one time. So seriously, who did murder the dog with a blow to the head?? It's sick!

 

[redplanet]

I have not misunderstood it at all. There are other sites, not quoted from the book, where GA says he put the dog in the trunk before he went to work. Discarding of it later. He also says right there that his wife had found the dog deceased in the morning time and phoned him to save the children seeing it, who are all in bed because it is 2am! She must have waited 15hrs before phoning him then! So we know the dog body was already deteriorated to some extent. Perhaps GA did not not drive the dog out in search of a bin, it may of been under the cover of darkness when he snook to the apartment area. Either way, in the trunk, or very recently removed, was a dead dog. And now you have the cop making his way to the scene.. He would have put his dog on top of a blanket or something that he could easily place in the bushes for a moment should he feel the need to. The point is, there is absolutely the possibility of cross contamination occurring. And it was absurd of him to act in that way! There was reports of K&G being 'framed' by the PJ at one time. So seriously, who did murder the dog with a blow to the head?? It's sick!

Do you have a source link please for what you have just posted?
ETA for example you allege "he could easily place in the bushes for a moment should he feel the need to" please where is your credible source link?

 

[mrjitty]

But notice which type of specialist dogs OG imported from Wales to search multiple sites in PdL.

IIRC there have been media hits where the Met have admitted it is essentially a murder investigation

However until now, there has been no evidence of an actual murder - this is why PJ also archived it as missing persons.

It is unclear what crime, if any, has been committed.

HCW is the first one to go all in on murder saying he has material evidence on that. But clearly the Met were going in the same direction in 2014.

 

[mrjitty]

Do you have a source link please for what you have just posted?
ETA for example you allege "he could easily place in the bushes for a moment should he feel the need to" please where is your credible source link?

I agree - this makes no sense at all.

According to GA the dog was disposed on the morning of 10 May. The dogs do not arrive until August. So he supposedly contaminated the scene with dead dog scent, then waits several months?

 

[Ardoch]

Here's some information I hadn't seen before, which adds weight to the theory Madeleine's abduction was not a one-man crime. The original Bild article about AB is behind a paywall so I can't check the accuracy.

Maddie case: Investigators follow new trail - Christian B. is not extradited
*snipped*
Missing Maddie: Investigators had been tracking Christian B. for years
Update of June 5, 6:10 p.m .: Christian B., the suspect in the Maddie McCann case , has been under investigation for several years. The police are said to have searched the apartment of a former roommate, Alexander B., in 2018.

Two years ago, Alexander B., with whom Christian B. lived after Maddie's disappearance, was first questioned about a capital crime by the suspect


The flatmate said he knew nothing of Christian B.'s crimes , reports Bild . He only told him about a diesel theft in Portugal. The suspect had boasted of his actions before (update from 3:00 p.m.).

A year later, the investigators then spoke to the acquaintance directly about Maddie . He was informed that he would be investigated if Christian B. was kidnapped and murdered.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also (wrongly) believed CB & AB only became acquainted when the Jag was re-registered but it seems they had known each other for several months. (Sorry if the following article has been posted here previously way back in June)
Fall Madeleine McCann: Das sagt der Mitbewohner von Christian B. über den Maddie-Verdächtigen

Thanks for that.
I was under the impression that CB knew AB for a number of years. What dates from? I'm not sure, maybe someone else has seen newspaper reports on it taking into account their validity.

 

[mrjitty]

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

I am not seeing how what Grimes and Harrison say disproves my original query

There is no special rule of evidence that dog evidence cannot be used. They are just a piece of circumstantial evidence like any other.

But because the reliability is less trusted than say DNA evidence, the overall web of circumstantial evidence will be key. So in Pilley, the unexplained journey plus the dog evidence proved where she was murdered and how the killer disposed of the body.

What this is about is not whether you can introduce the dog evidence at all, but whether you have enough circumstantial evidence to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

A dog hit alone cannot show that. Which is why PJ could not ultimately charge anyone. Especially they could not show what crime had been committed (if any).

 

[mrjitty]

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

Thanks for this.

ETA - i read it. I don't think it says anything different.

He specifically says a positive indication can be put to the jury as part of the overall circumstantial web of evidence - that is exactly what happened in Pilley

Ideally one wants to use the dog to recover forensics - but as Grime states, it is not necessary to do so. The supporting circumstantial evidence might be other kinds - e.g an odometer reading.

Of course no prosecutor is going to trial with only a dog indication - that would not be capable of proving murder for starters.

 

[altojack]

My post referred to when OG sent dogs to PDL in 2014 - Not Eddie and Keela in 2007

Madeleine McCann police dig scrubland near holiday apartment in Praia da Luz
The four dogs have helped police search for April Jones and Madeleine McCann

Thanks @tedtink. I had second thoughts after reading that perhaps I'd missed something. In truth I didn't know that 4 dogs were sent to PDL in 2014. Thanks again.

 

[Lilly b]

Would I be correct to say CB sold his vw camper van in 2015, and that the police have it?

And remember earlier this year, in July a retired teacher claims she saw mm in a supermarket around 3 to 4 years ago, she also claimed to see the vw there to.
She has done interview, but remained anonymous, and would just give her name as Maria, now I could be totally incorrect, but his ex girlfriend was called Maria, we don't know for definite her nationality, we know she was older, but could it be? Could she be trying to help him?

 

[mrjitty]

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.

One last post on this - i appreciate it gets esoteric but as a former lawyer for my sins, handling of circumstantial evidence is one of my favourite trial topics.

IMO it is key that we separate questions of admissibility, weight and inference.

Given the quality & track record of the expert team, the dog evidence is highly likely to be admissible IMO (though the other side can oppose on the basis of reliability).

Grimes himself can give expert evidence as to what the indications mean. But it is for the Court or jury properly directed, to decide what facts have been established, and how to weigh the evidence.

Especially a jury may not henpeck or speculate away individual evidence points one by one. Rather inferences are drawn by looking at all the facts established, and asking what logical and obvious conclusions can be made.

It is at this stage of the inquiry that the Judge or Jury might determine nothing can be inferred from the dogs - i completely agree with that - whereas in Pilley there were 2 or 3 established facts which pointed towards the body being in the boot just like the dogs said.

But we are not using the corroborating evidence to prove the dogs right. I think that is a subtle point that might be getting missed here.

We are saying based on 2 or 3 factors, including the dogs, the body was in the boot.

In the current case, Grimes/PJ was missing the extra factor to show the body was in 5A because the forensics were inconclusive

But for example, if CB told someone he murdered MM in 5A - then suddenly you have corroboration.

What I see as being interesting, is if HCW's case is that CB murdered MM somewhere other than 5A - then defence might call Grimes as a witness.

And where that could play is that the defence need only raise reasonable doubt, so that the dogs plus inconclusive forensics might be enough mud to throw on the wall so to speak.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks @tedtink. I had second thoughts after reading that perhaps I'd missed something. In truth I didn't know that 4 dogs were sent to PDL in 2014. Thanks again.

I'd still love to know what that dog and pony show was all about.

 

[Dave55]

Thanks for this.

ETA - i read it. I don't think it says anything different.

He specifically says a positive indication can be put to the jury as part of the overall circumstantial web of evidence - that is exactly what happened in Pilley

Ideally one wants to use the dog to recover forensics - but as Grime states, it is not necessary to do so. The supporting circumstantial evidence might be other kinds - e.g an odometer reading.

Of course no prosecutor is going to trial with only a dog indication - that would not be capable of proving murder for starters.

In Luz Grime said the alerts needed to be supported with physical evidence..it's in the files.
He has now changed his mind and says they can be supported with anecdotal evidence. How can the alerts be admissible when Grime has said they have no evidential reliability.

The alerts have only been used once in UK courts..the Pillay case. When the case was referred to the Scottish criminal case review committee their view ... according to a newspaper report..was that the alerts should not have been admitted but there was sufficient evidence without them.
In s podcast Prof John Cassella who wrote the intro to Grimes white paper also criticised the admission of the alerts

 

[tedtink]

In Luz Grime said the alerts needed to be supported with physical evidence..it's in the files.
He has now changed his mind and says they can be supported with anecdotal evidence. How can the alerts be admissible when Grime has said they have no evidential reliability.

The alerts have only been used once in UK courts..the Pillay case. When the case was referred to the Scottish criminal case review committee their view ... according to a newspaper report..was that the alerts should not have been admitted but there was sufficient evidence without them.
In s podcast Prof John Cassella who wrote the intro to Grimes white paper also criticised the admission of the alerts

My bold............

"The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence."

"Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog (KEELA BLOOD DOG)
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis"
***********************
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's (EDDIE -CADAVER) 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."

P.J. POLICE FILES: EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIME REPORT

The way I interpret this is........... Keela's alerts MAY become corroborated depending on lab results of the samples found.

Separately.......Eddies alerts could be confirmed with corroborating evidence. ie circumstantial.

 

[C.greek]

One last post on this - i appreciate it gets esoteric but as a former lawyer for my sins, handling of circumstantial evidence is one of my favourite trial topics.

IMO it is key that we separate questions of admissibility, weight and inference.

Given the quality & track record of the expert team, the dog evidence is highly likely to be admissible IMO (though the other side can oppose on the basis of reliability).

Grimes himself can give expert evidence as to what the indications mean. But it is for the Court or jury properly directed, to decide what facts have been established, and how to weigh the evidence.

Especially a jury may not henpeck or speculate away individual evidence points one by one. Rather inferences are drawn by looking at all the facts established, and asking what logical and obvious conclusions can be made.

It is at this stage of the inquiry that the Judge or Jury might determine nothing can be inferred from the dogs - i completely agree with that - whereas in Pilley there were 2 or 3 established facts which pointed towards the body being in the boot just like the dogs said.

But we are not using the corroborating evidence to prove the dogs right. I think that is a subtle point that might be getting missed here.

We are saying based on 2 or 3 factors, including the dogs, the body was in the boot.

In the current case, Grimes/PJ was missing the extra factor to show the body was in 5A because the forensics were inconclusive

But for example, if CB told someone he murdered MM in 5A - then suddenly you have corroboration.

What I see as being interesting, is if HCW's case is that CB murdered MM somewhere other than 5A - then defence might call Grimes as a witness.

And where that could play is that the defence need only raise reasonable doubt, so that the dogs plus inconclusive forensics might be enough mud to throw on the wall so to speak.

In our case I believe we need to see what the German legal system is and take it from there. There is no reason discussing the dogs if for example in the German legal system they cannot play any role. Or we need to consider that there is no jury.
IMO Dog alerts without any other piece of evidence to prove death occurred in 5a by someone else than CB can hardly constitute even circumstancial evidence. This BARD is something I do not quite understand to be honest so I would gladly hear your opinion. Especially from the moment that HCW has stated that they have material evidence CB killed MM. Unless this occurred in 5a, which IMO did not, this would make the dog alerts which as their handler already said were soft and could be due to cross contamination, mute. How would the dog alerts which could have been due to a variety of reasons throw the case that HCW has against CB out?

 

[C.greek]

I agree - this makes no sense at all.

According to GA the dog was disposed on the morning of 10 May. The dogs do not arrive until August. So he supposedly contaminated the scene with dead dog scent, then waits several months?

I was under the impression that it was the British who insisted on bringing dogs and not the other way round?

 

[tedtink]

In our case I believe we need to see what the German legal system is and take it from there. There is no reason discussing the dogs if for example in the German legal system they cannot play any role. Or we need to consider that there is no jury.
IMO Dog alerts without any other piece of evidence to prove death occurred in 5a by someone else than CB can hardly constitute even circumstancial evidence. This BARD is something I do not quite understand to be honest so I would gladly hear your opinion. Especially from the moment that HCW has stated that they have material evidence CB killed MM. Unless this occurred in 5a, which IMO did not, this would make the dog alerts which as their handler already said were soft and could be due to cross contamination, mute. How would the dog alerts which could have been due to a variety of reasons throw the case that HCW has against CB out?

I think the PJ 'ruled out' cross contamination, they did check all previous owners guests with MW and nobody had apparently died in that apartment.
Other cross contamination could be 2nd hand furniture etc, like in the Shannon Matthews case, where the dog alerted to furniture previously owned by someone who had died.
Just wonder if there's a report in PJ files to determine where all items of furniture in 5a came from.

 

[C.greek]

My bold............

"The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence."

"Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog (KEELA BLOOD DOG)
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis"
***********************
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's (EDDIE -CADAVER) 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."

P.J. POLICE FILES: EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIME REPORT

The way I interpret this is........... Keela's alerts MAY become corroborated depending on lab results of the samples found.

Separately.......Eddies alerts could be confirmed with corroborating evidence. ie circumstantial.

I agree that this is what is meant. Still Keela's alerts did not provide any corroborated evidence and Eddie's alerts could be due to a variety of scenarios... but he does mention that he thinks these are from cross contamination. So back to square 1 re the dogs.

 

[tedtink]

I agree - this makes no sense at all.

According to GA the dog was disposed on the morning of 10 May. The dogs do not arrive until August. So he supposedly contaminated the scene with dead dog scent, then waits several months?

Agree.
GA hardly went into 5a whilst the MC's were still residing there wafting his limp and lifeless miniature schnauzer around.
No pun intended.

 

[C.greek]

I think the PJ ruled out cross contamination, they did check all previous owners guests with MW and nobody had apparently died in that apartment.
Other cross contamination could be 2nd hand furniture etc, like in the Shannon Matthews case, where the dog alerted to furniture previously owned by people who had died.
Just wonder if there's a report in PJ files to determine where all items of furniture in 5a came from.

I doubt this was ever done... but I might be wrong. But cross contamination could have even occurred as I said before by a police person's bag...