Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?

[fabgod]

Blue bag?
Incidentally is this one of the areas that the dogs alerted?

 

[rpgman]

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib...res/10VOLUMEXaPage2563.jpg&target=tlx_picutwn

Blue bag?
Incidentally is this one of the areas that the dogs alerted?

Yes

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

there´s other photo of a blue sports bag:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/03/maddie-case-goncalo-amaral-returns-to.html

http://www.google.de/imgres?um=1&hl...w=103&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:76

 

[brit1981]

Are there actually any records of a missing blue bag in the PJ files, as so far the only mention of it has come from anti-mccann sites like joana morais.
there is no record of a missing blue bag in the PJ files.
No one is denying that the mccanns owned bags, this woudl be normal. But there is no record of any bags going missing.
No the dogs never alerted in the cupboard shown in the picture

 

[fabgod]

OH?




following excerpt snipped from here
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug11


Date: 31 July 2007 - 20h00:

Report: Inspection of the apartments

Participants:

PJ: Tavares A. & Ricardo P. Inspectors
UK: Mark Harrison, Martin Grime (UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert),
Eddie & Keela (English Springers)
Silvia B. Manager of the Ocean Club complex.

On that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:

5A (Gerry/Kate McCann):

From 20h00 to 21h20, the dogs go through.

20h20: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.

20h22: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.

 

[brit1981]

Well the PJ are at odds with grimes then because he does not state the recovery dog alerted in the wardrobe in his official report (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12), so either he or the PJ are incorrect.
There is also no record of a bag going missing.

 

[fabgod]

Well the PJ are at odds with grimes then because he does not state the recovery dog alerted in the wardrobe in his official report (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12), so either he or the PJ are incorrect.
There is also no record of a bag going missing.

Oh dear!

 

[brit1981]

oh dear exactly, the Pj report of the search does not match the report that Grimes made. One xplanation is that Grimes wrote his report in English, bu the report by the Pj was written in Portuguese and the translation linked to above was not done professionally. No idea if this is the case or not, but it is better than the PJ or Grimes making a mistake. Their reports on the searches should tally, but in the link above they do not. Grimes certainly makes no claim that the dog alerted in the wardrobe.
It is also interesting that the Pj report linked to above refers to the use of a cadaver dog, yet as far as I am aware no cadaver dog was used. The report states that eddie and keela were the dogs present and neither of those were actually cadaver dogs (unless one reads the chav rags). keela was a csi dog traine dot alert to blood, eddie was a evrd trained to alert to bodies and bodily fluids including dried blood from living donors. This mistake makes me think the above translations were not done professionally as I would be surprised if the PJ made such a big mistake. It is certainly worrying if the PJ thought eddie was a cadaver dog, especially given that grimes report does clarify what eddie is and what he alerts to so there is no excuse for this mistake.

and once again there is no mention of a bag going missing in the PJ files.

 

[Robin Hood]

Madeleine Mccann - Eddie & Keela dogs - YouTube

 

[brit1981]

the issue is robin that the translation of the PJ report does not match Grime's original english report on the searches, so either the PJ or Grimes made a mistake, or someone has made a mistake in the translations. Grimes makes a list of the places in 5A where the dogs alert, and does not mention the wardrobe. If it is correct that the dog alerted in the wardrobe why does he not mention this when he makes the list of laert sites? Surely as he is the handler, the person trained to interpret the dogs actions we shoudl go by his report unless it completely contradicts the video, but then we should question why there is a contradiction and if there are other mistakes.
Grimes does also state that eddie is a victim reovery dog and alerts to bodily fluids that have come from living people so if the dogs alert and no body is found it is not exactly incriminating.

 

[Donjeta]

What kind of bodily fluids are we talking about? I can't imagine how a dog that alerts to sweat or urine residue would be useful in victim recovery since they couldn't stop alerting anywhere that humans have been. They'd alert in every single residence in which anybody ever stored dirty laundry, got a little hot or went to the bathroom, so basically everywhere and on a hot day it would alert on the handler everywhere they go.

 

[fabgod]

Its all a play on words to try and discredit the dogs.
We have been here so many times.
Even K9snoop (who is a dog handler) advised that the dogs do not alert to urine vomit sweat Soiled nappies or anything that the dogs can be proofed off.
The EVRD dog does alert to blood that has dried, so in effect is dead, the animal will not alert to live blood.

The dogs alert to bodily fluids that are decomposed not living, now if they are proofed off of any fluids that can be trained on, it will only leave cadaver fluids or dead fluids.

Again, the Dogs dont get it wrong, (oh except when the McCanns are brought into question)

 

[fabgod]

Snipped from here
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

The following, are some of the questions that Martin Grimes was asked to reply to, please see the highlighted question

CR 2 page 114 to 115
CR 2 114 to
115 LINK

Questions for Martin Grime from the Letter of Request:
IX - Interviews to MARK HARRISON and MARTIN GRIME, who were in charge of the searches undertaken by the specialist dogs, and who shall be notified by the Requested Authority.

MARTIN GRIME should be asked the following questions :

* Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs in the scope of the undertaken searches ?

* Could you provide a thorough description of the dogs' skill and orientation, as well as an interpretation of the dogs' indications in the specific cases ?

* Aiming at determining the reliability of the canine performance, in what concerns the alerts given to blood scent and to dead body scent, how reliable are those indications in this particular case ?

* From the behaviour of the dogs, is it possible to distinguish between a strong alert and a soft alert ?

* Can you say whether the indication given to the cuddly toy corresponds to a concrete alert to dead body scent or to a mere dog playing trick ?

* In what concerns the cadaver scent on KATE's clothing, could it be undoubtedly stated that those clothes had been in contact with a dead body ? Or could the alert have been given even if those clothes had been in contact with other pieces of clothing, surfaces or items which could have had previously touched a dead body, thus allowing for secent transfer ?

* Does the EVRD dog ( dead body scent dog) also alert to blood traces coming from a living person or from a dead body ?

* In what concerns the indications given by the CSI dog ( human blood detecting dog), can this dog alert to other biological fluids ? Isn't there a chance, even a tiny one, of some confusion ?

From the question you can see that Martin Grimes is responding to a query on the "Blood" dog, but people are taking his report as being the EVRD dog,

It is false to take this report as being what is stated as fact on other posts regarding the dog alerting to bodily fluids it is not fact!

Mr Grimes states in his report that the EVRD dog is NOT trained to alert to live human odours.

 

[brit1981]

What kind of bodily fluids are we talking about? I can't imagine how a dog that alerts to sweat or urine residue would be useful in victim recovery since they couldn't stop alerting anywhere that humans have been. They'd alert in every single residence in which anybody ever stored dirty laundry, got a little hot or went to the bathroom, so basically everywhere and on a hot day it would alert on the handler everywhere they go.

these are links and quotes from Harrison and grime's reports.

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.htmHere is a fuller copy of the answers from the questions someone posted above
'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'

The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.[/B]

'Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids''
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
Platelets
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.

'Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion'
The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

So one can see that unless Grimes has given false information in his report (which I cannot see him doing) eddie, the recovery dog alerts to bodily fluids which include blood from a living donor. Once a human bodily fluid decomposes it is decomposing and no longer a "live" odour regardless of whether the donor was alive or not. If you get cut and bleed the spilt blood is not going to decompose differently depending on whether or not you survive the cut. A dog handler in the casey anthony case stated her dog would alert to nail and hair that had come from a living person, but a poster on here who is a dog handler states her dg woudl not do this, so I assume it really does depend on the individuel dog.

As for how useful this makes the recovery dogs we have to remember that they are just that recovery dogs, not dogs intended to be used to identify where a body was. So it does not matter if they also alert to bodily fluids so long as they alert to the actual body. It is only a problem when people start claiming the alerts mean a body was there even if no body was found, this is when the fact they alert to bodily fluids becomes an issue.

 

[Donjeta]

I just think that nobody would go to the trouble and expense of training dogs that are no good for anything because they can't distinguish dead people odors from scents that are everywhere.

Finding blood residues could be useful since not every victim is already dead when they started bleeding so it might indicate a trail.

 

[fabgod]

these are links and quotes from harrison and grime's reports.

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.htmhere is a fuller copy of the answers from the questions someone posted above
'the dog evrd also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'

the dog evrd is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. And decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. they find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.[/b]

'taking into account the signals of csi, could the dog alert to other biological fluids''
the dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
white cells
platelets
dna can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for dna tests.

'is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion'
the dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

so one can see that unless grimes has given false information in his report (which i cannot see him doing) eddie, the recovery dog alerts to bodily fluids which include blood from a living donor. Once a human bodily fluid decomposes it is decomposing and no longer a "live" odour regardless of whether the donor was alive or not. If you get cut and bleed the spilt blood is not going to decompose differently depending on whether or not you survive the cut. A dog handler in the casey anthony case stated her dog would alert to nail and hair that had come from a living person, but a poster on here who is a dog handler states her dg woudl not do this, so i assume it really does depend on the individuel dog.

As for how useful this makes the recovery dogs we have to remember that they are just that recovery dogs, not dogs intended to be used to identify where a body was. So it does not matter if they also alert to bodily fluids so long as they alert to the actual body. It is only a problem when people start claiming the alerts mean a body was there even if no body was found, this is when the fact they alert to bodily fluids becomes an issue.

it says the csi dog!

 

[brit1981]

Donjeta,
Grimes and harrson both state that the EVRD (eddie) alerts to bodily fluids including blood from a living person. Do you think Grimes and harrison made a mistake when they wrote this in their reports?

You could also say the same for the CSI dog. Grime states that she is so accurate that she had previously alerted to microscopic blood from the early 1960's that had been cleaned away. Now I am fairly certain there are going to be few homes wher ein forty years there had been no blood - no nose bleeds, no accidental cuts, no stubbing of toes, no shaving cuts etc, so if Grime sis correct then surely the CSI dog would alert wherever she was taken.

 

[brit1981]

it says the csi dog!

Grime and Harrison both write EVRD - enhanced victim recovery dog which was Eddie. I think you are getting confused with keela who was the CSI dog.

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


the [B]evrd is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. And decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. they find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.[/b]

 

[Donjeta]

The thing is, human beings are pretty much made of scents of traces of bodily fluids. If the dogs alert indiscriminately to all kinds of bodily fluids in minimal amounts they are going to alert everywhere humans have been. They don't.

Logically that means that either the dog alerts at random or at something the humans haven't figured out, or the particular dog's training has made some distinctions between bodily fluids and taught it to alert to some odors but not others,

I am no dog handler and I can't testify to how Grimes' or anybody else's dogs were trained but if they alert to everything including the lunch bag of the CSI technician's daughter and the shoes of their boss and every passer by at the street someone is going to catch on.

 

[brit1981]

Well we can only go on what Grimes and harrsion state about the dogs and they both say the recovery dog alerts to bodily fluids so I do not think we can say Grimes is wrong about this.
remember the dogs are recovery dogs they were never intended to be used to identify places where bodies had been, they were meant just to find the body. So it did not matter if the dog alerted to a bodily fluid so long as he also alerted to the body undr the floor boards. They were just meant to help the police in their search, nothing more.

But there was a police report (it has been linked to in the cadaver dog thread) issued in the Uk which was not very flattering of recovery dogs and said that they often hindered the police because of false alerts (the jersey case and the shannon mathews case were two well publicized cases). In the shannon mathews case the alerts were blamed on the fact some of the furniture in her home was second hand and may therefore have come into contact with a body. Grimes also states this is his report that the scent may be due to transfer. Now in the UK it is unlikely that a house over thirty years old is not going to have had someone die in it, and many people have second hand belongings that could easily have been in a house where someone died. So the possiility of transferance also causes problems if grime and the mathews theory are correct.