the cadaver dog

[Clutchbag]

lease:

If there are no acceptable national standards and no accreditation that would ensure that the dog is competent why should we care if there is a licence or not? if the licence doesn't mean that the dog is properly trained to acceptable national standards (since there aren't any) it presumably just means that the handler paid a fee to get a certificate that misleadingly gives the impression that it's been properly trained.

The EVRD Eddie and Keela went with Mr Grime freelance in August 2007. He did not get his dogs licensed renewed as he didn't have to, as his methods of testing them were far more stringent than the UK standards of before.

the British and other countries police had no problems with this as they hired him post August 2007 to at least 2011 to help with their investigations. it's not an issue at all and all these forces have used eddies findings in the court cases which ended up with the charged convicted.

 

[Clutchbag]

What do you think are lies and misinformation?

A plethora of stuff in your own posts.

 

[Clutchbag]

the FACT of the matter is that these dogs have NEVER been questioned before or after the maddie case apart from the dodgy jersey case, with dodgy references and facts,never ever

that should make people think that they are being maligned because they actually found the remnant of death scent and we can't have that as the parents are innocent

and as I said previously much before and much after have been used by police forces all over with great results

the maddie case made them a problem, oh dear, perhaps they were a problem for them, logic and statistics suggest just that exactly

 

[brit1981]

lease:

The EVRD Eddie and Keela went with Mr Grime freelance in August 2007. He did not get his dogs licensed renewed as he didn't have to, as his methods of testing them were far more stringent than the UK standards of before.

the British and other countries police had no problems with this as they hired him post August 2007 to at least 2011 to help with their investigations. it's not an issue at all and all these forces have used eddies findings in the court cases which ended up with the charged convicted.

Not one independent source has claimed Grime's methods were more stringent than the official ones. the only perosn I have heard say that is grime when questioned about his failure to keep up with accreditation.

If you are going to accuse me of lying and putting up misinformation coudl ypu please state specifically which parts of my post are lies or information.

How exactly is the jersey case dodgy?

 

[brit1981]

The fact remains that the cadaver dogs were British dogs, brought in by the British police, who were the ones who first developed the evidence that the McCanns were involved in their daughters disappearance.

Continued rubbishing of the dogs and their work is by extention rubbishing the British Police and their work.

Mind you after seeing the hot mess they made of Tia Sharples and the Liverpool Stadium Collapse, perhaps they deserve to be ridiculed.[/QUOTE

As far as I am aware Grime was not working for the british police at the time. The british police only hlped arrange the use of FSS, and the dogs. That was the "evidnce" against the mccanns. The quote of the british police developing the evidence comes from a perosn who was not involved in thecase, but at any rate it does not cast any new light on what happened. Everyone knew the british police had assisted in arranging the dogs and help from FSS. However this "evidence" turned out to be nothing of the sort.

 

[SapphireSteel]

That depends who you talk to.

In my opinion the "evidence" is compelling enough to at least press charges of neglect and possible harm due to that neglect.

 

[brit1981]

But they did not commit neglect under Portuguese law.

The evidenc eof the dogs means diddly squat (false positives, alertig to bodily fluids, alerting to drie dblood etc), and the DNA analysis also means the same as it was a tiny amoutn of DNA that came from three to five people and had some of madeleine's elements, but given that her parents were there it would not have been unusual to find 100% of her elements. Plus as it was such a tiny amount it could have come from any of her belongings that were put in the car. A dog that alerts to dried blood alerting somewhere where someone previosuly bled, and DNA that could have been her parents is not exactly great evidence.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Well you know what they say about opinions...

Everyone's got one.

I believe this is yet another shameful episode in British "justice".

 

[brit1981]

Why British justice, madeleine disappeared in Portugal

 

[SapphireSteel]

Again, it was the British police who first steered the PJ away from the abduction theory, towards the theory that Maddie died that night in 5a.

To further investigate this theory, it was the British police who paid for and supervised the provision of Grimes and his dogs.

Entirely driven by British LE, not Portugese.

As Madeleine is a British citizen it would be perfectly acceptable for the coroner to hold an inquest and investigate fully and openly.

It is how they found Daniel Morcombe, down here in Australia.

 

[brit1981]

jjjjjjjj

Again, it was the British police who first steered the PJ away from the abduction theory, towards the theory that Maddie died that night in 5a.

Er there is o evidence of that. There was a cable from someone wo was not involved in the invstigation saying the british police developed the current evidence against the mccanns, but this was the dogs and the fss results. At no point has there been any evidence to suggest the British police suggested th eparents involvement although in UK cases the parents are looked at first. No FLO has ever stated they felt the parents behaviour was odd
To further investigate this theory, it was the British police who paid for and supervised the provision of Grimes and his dogs.

I have not seen any evidence of the payment Grime received, although after reading about his Jersey payments I woudl be quiete interested. Could you provide me with the link that states Grime was paid by the british police please.
Entirely driven by British LE, not Portugese.

Not really, they helped with the FSS and dogs, it was the PJ who thought this was evidence against the mccanns and acted on it.
As Madeleine is a British citizen it would be perfectly acceptable for the coroner to hold an inquest and investigate fully and openly.

I do not know who has told you this, but they are misleading you. In the UK it is illegal to hold an inquest for someone who has not ben declared dead. As both the PJ and scotland yard have stated there is no evidence to support that she is definitly dead it would be impossible to hold an inquest. In the UK public enquiries are not held for missing peopel or murder investigations - why would all the evidence in a case be released to the public including those responsible.

It is how they found Daniel Morcombe, down here in Australia.

 

[fabgod]

But they did not commit neglect under Portuguese law.

The evidenc eof the dogs means diddly squat (false positives, alertig to bodily fluids, alerting to drie dblood etc), and the DNA analysis also means the same as it was a tiny amoutn of DNA that came from three to five people and had some of madeleine's elements, but given that her parents were there it would not have been unusual to find 100% of her elements. Plus as it was such a tiny amount it could have come from any of her belongings that were put in the car. A dog that alerts to dried blood alerting somewhere where someone previosuly bled, and DNA that could have been her parents is not exactly great evidence.

Is there factual evidence of this claim in this case? , if so, please post it.

 

[fabgod]

I read somewhere that In Kate McCanns book she mentions the Eugene Zapata case as part of her reasoning for the Dogs being unreliable.
I personally haven't read the book that some claim reads like the "case for the defence, yet to be used in Court",
but if anyone has, could they please confirm that she did indeed use the Eugene Zapata case?

 

[brit1981]

Is there factual evidence of this claim in this case? , if so, please post it.

This report states the dog made a false positive in the jersey case

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocu...714 ILeM.pdf

Mark Harrison states (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html) that the EVRD will locate very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids, and bood.

Martin grimes states "'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Grimes also states that "They [the evrd] find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MA...S_RIGATORY.htm


I cannot quiete remember what Kate said about the Zapata case, but I do not think she referred to the case itself, but to a judges ruling during the case about the reliability and admissibility of recovery dogs.

 

[fabgod]

This report states the dog made a false positive in the jersey case

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocu...714 ILeM.pdf

Mark Harrison states (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html) that the EVRD will locate very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids, and bood.

Martin grimes states "'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Grimes also states that "They [the evrd] find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MA...S_RIGATORY.htm


I cannot quiete remember what Kate said about the Zapata case, but I do not think she referred to the case itself, but to a judges ruling during the case about the reliability and admissibility of recovery dogs.

Originally Posted by brit1981
But they did not commit neglect under Portuguese law.

The evidenc eof the dogs means diddly squat (false positives, alertig to bodily fluids, alerting to drie dblood etc),

Is there factual proof of these claims, in relation to the Madeleine McCann case?
also,
Quote Brit1981
"I cannot quiete remember what Kate said about the Zapata case, but I do not think she referred to the case itself, but to a judges ruling during the case about the reliability and admissibility of recovery do"

Thats the Eugene Zapata case reportedly used by Kate McCann in her book, the same Eugene Zapata who later confessed to the Murder?
So, the Dogs "false alerts" were again correct!

 

[brit1981]

my reply

Originally Posted by brit1981
But they did not commit neglect under Portuguese law.

The evidenc eof the dogs means diddly squat (false positives, alertig to bodily fluids, alerting to drie dblood etc),

Is there factual proof of these claims, in relation to the Madeleine McCann case?

Not sure what yopu mean, but in the mccann case we have proof that the dog used has made false positives, that the dog alerts to bodily fluids including blood from living people, so that is evidence that the dog alerts mean zilch - they could be alerting to dried blood from Gordon the previoustennent who bled there, there could be making false positives, no-one knows therefore they are not any use as evidence.
Quote Brit1981
"I cannot quiete remember what Kate said about the Zapata case, but I do not think she referred to the case itself, but to a judges ruling during the case about the reliability and admissibility of recovery do"

Thats the Eugene Zapata case reportedly used by Kate McCann in her book, the same Eugene Zapata who later confessed to the Murder?
She referred to the judges ruling about the reliability of the dogs not the actual case itself.
So, the Dogs "false alerts" were again correct!

No-one can say what the dogs were alerting to, they certainly did not find a body, and as far as I am aware the dog in question was not Eddie nor was the handler Grime so we do not know how this dog was trained.

 

[fabgod]

Originally Posted by brit1981
But they did not commit neglect under Portuguese law.

The evidenc eof the dogs means diddly squat (false positives, alertig to bodily fluids, alerting to drie dblood etc),

So there is no proof that there were any false positives or that they were alerting to bodily fluids in the Madeleine McCann case, as the only reference that is presented is from the "Jersey" case.

Brit1981"I cannot quiete remember what Kate said about the Zapata case, but I do not think she referred to the case itself, but to a judges ruling during the case about the reliability and admissibility of recovery do"

The Dogs alerted, there was no body, subsequently Zapata confessed and gave the details of the murder, the dogs were correct. (I will have to read the Kate McCann book and then quote the passage concerned!)


So, out of all the cases where Cadaver scent was found, the only cases that can be put up for question are the Jersey Haut de la Garenne case and the McCann case. Dogs alerted to the McCann apartment, clothing Hire car and Toy cat.
Despite searches of 7 residences, the Dogs only alerted in the McCann apartment
Despite searches of 10 vehicles the Dogs only alerted to the McCann Hire car.

No matter how that gets spun, the facts are there, the dogs according to the defenders of the McCanns have only got it wrong twice, Jersey (apparently) and countless times with the McCann case.

So the defence of the McCanns rests on the dogs suddenly getting it wrong after a working lifetime of success and a "corrupt" Detective, so corrupt that he was allowed to be involved in the case even though the allegations against him were from three years earlier, so corrupt that there were confessions from both parties that were jailed for more than 20 years.

In my opinion, there is a lot of effort being put into trying and failing to discredit Martin Grimes and again a lot of effort in trying to focus the attention of Goncalo Amaral, why such a focus, why such desperation?
Surely, innocent parents wouldnt have to try so hard to discredit everything that calls them into question, surely they would be better served putting their time and effort into finding Madeleine, which this in no way does?

 

[SapphireSteel]

At the end of the day the British government has a debt to its taxpayers and to Madeleine to have a formal, transparent public enquiry into the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance and the aftermath.

The political and judicial irregularities need explaining, as do the actual events of the night, and details of the investigation afterward.

Nothing less will be acceptable and its time the public demanded it.

 

[brit1981]

my replies in bold

Originally Posted by brit1981
But they did not commit neglect under Portuguese law.

The evidenc eof the dogs means diddly squat (false positives, alertig to bodily fluids, alerting to drie dblood etc),

So there is no proof that there were any false positives or that they were alerting to bodily fluids in the Madeleine McCann case, as the only reference that is presented is from the "Jersey" case.

Unless you have proof a body was there the dogs barking means nothing.
Brit1981"I cannot quiete remember what Kate said about the Zapata case, but I do not think she referred to the case itself, but to a judges ruling during the case about the reliability and admissibility of recovery do"

The Dogs alerted, there was no body, subsequently Zapata confessed and gave the details of the murder, the dogs were correct. (I will have to read the Kate McCann book and then quote the passage concerned!)


So, out of all the cases where Cadaver scent was found, the only cases that can be put up for question are the Jersey Haut de la Garenne case and the McCann case. Dogs alerted to the McCann apartment, clothing Hire car and Toy cat (actually if you watch the video the dog never once alerted to the cat)

Despite searches of 7 residences, the Dogs only alerted in the McCann apartment
Despite searches of 10 vehicles the Dogs only alerted to the McCann Hire car.

No matter how that gets spun, the facts are there, the dogs according to the defenders of the McCanns have only got it wrong twice, Jersey (apparently) and countless times with the McCann case.

Actually we have no idea of the success rate, Grime claims they have never given a false positive, but he does nto elaborate on whether he means the dog correctlty alerted to dried blood from a living person, so we have nothing to base any claims on whether the dogs barking always meant a body was there or had been there. If anyone here can find evidence of the two hundred cases Grime refers to I would be interested to see it.

So the defence of the McCanns rests on the dogs suddenly getting it wrong after a working lifetime of success and a "corrupt" Detective, so corrupt that he was allowed to be involved in the case even though the allegations against him were from three years earlier, so corrupt that there were confessions from both parties that were jailed for more than 20 years.

Amaral was made an aguido on the 4th may 2007. He was found guilty in a criminal court. the confessions thta jailed the parties were based on torture. the case is now being referred to the UN I hear.

In my opinion, there is a lot of effort being put into trying and failing to discredit Martin Grimes and again a lot of effort in trying to focus the attention of Goncalo Amaral, why such a focus, why such desperation?
Surely, innocent parents wouldnt have to try so hard to discredit everything that calls them into question, surely they would be better served putting their time and effort into finding Madeleine, which this in no way does?

Well it is not hard to discredit the dogs or Amaral. the dog alerts to dried blood from a living person as well as bodily fluids, the next case the dog worked one was a disaster. There are very few cases where eddie has worked that received such media attention so we have no idea about the other ones. We know in the Prout case the dog barked in the house and no body was found there, yet when eddie searched the area where the body was (outside nowhere near the house) he failed to alert. We know that when working for SYP he only ever found one body and had a lower success rate than the handler dog team he worked with.
As for Amaral, the fact he is a criminal with a conviction for fabricating evidence (as well as his other troubles discredits him.
If people are so certain the mccanns are guilty why are they relying on the word of a criminal who fabricated evidence in a previous case and who did nto even work on the case for that long, and the word of a dog who has got it wrong before and whose alerts do not even mean a body was there when he alerts correctly anyway? So far no evidence has been found thta implcate the parents or murat in any criminal activity.

 

[brit1981]

At the end of the day the British government has a debt to its taxpayers and to Madeleine to have a formal, transparent public enquiry into the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance and the aftermath.

The political and judicial irregularities need explaining, as do the actual events of the night, and details of the investigation afterward.

Nothing less will be acceptable and its time the public demanded it.

In the UK there are not public enquiries into ongoing missing people's cases, there are police investigations. Those who are claiming that the UK should have a public enquiry instead of a police investigation are misleading others who do not know about UK practices. The British and Portuguse are reviewing the cases, there is no legal grounds for having a public enquiry. Why grown adults want the police to stopping looking into a child's disappearence is beyond me. As it is, madeleine is still legally alive and as such has the same rights as every other British and EU citizen, therefore to hold a public enquiry into her disappearence and give away every single lead and piece of information in the case would harm the search for her and be an abuse of her rights.