Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?

[fabgod]

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]

The EVRD will not alert to live bodily fluids, Mr Grimes states that he (Eddie) will have been proofed off bodily fluids, so in other words he is trained to tell the difference between live and cadaver, therefore will not alert to live.
Once blood or bodily fluids are decomposing they are no longer live, so therefore the (live)bodily fluids the dogs are trained on (and proofed off) are eliminated from its alert condition.

 

[brit1981]

if a bodily fluid came from a livng person the dog will alert as once the fluid has left the perosn as it were the fluid begins to decompose. hence Grimes states that the evrd wll alert to blood from a lvng person. therefore t s ncorrect to say the evrd alerts mean a dead body was there. they can just as easly mean a bodly fluid is there i.e salva on a tssue would be no longer lve and cause an alert.

 

[fabgod]

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.

<modsnip>
Martin Grimes Dogs are amongst the best in the world, he trains the FBI, His Dogs dont get it wrong, they simply do the job they are trained for, they dont make anything up.

Its easy to twist words but at the end of the day the truth comes out, no matter what lol!

 

[fabgod]

if a bodily fluid came from a livng person the dog will alert as once the fluid has left the perosn as it were the fluid begins to decompose. hence Grimes states that the evrd wll alert to blood from a lvng person. therefore t s ncorrect to say the evrd alerts mean a dead body was there. they can just as easly mean a bodly fluid is there i.e salva on a tssue would be no longer lve and cause an alert.

totally wrong, the dog doesnt alert to anything that he can be trained off,
that means he can be trained to saliva, vomit, semen, sweat, dirty nappies,
that in turn means he will not alert to it - simple!

You have answered your own question, the saliva is decomposing its not alive, but the dog can be trained to not alert to it, so what is left for it to alert to if all other bodily fluids have been eliminated?

The blood dog alerts to blood only, so if that dog doesnt alert, we know it isnt blood from either a live or a dead person, therefore the EVRD alerting to something alone and not supported by an alert from the blood dog is alerting to what?

not blood! not bodily fluids! it must be something else
and that something else was only in the McCann apartment, outside the McCann apartment, on the McCann clothes, on the Cuddly toy, in the McCann Hire car, no wonder it is so vital to discredit the dogs

 

[Clutchbag]

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.

He said the dog alerted in the area near the wardrobe, qualifying it with that the scent could have accumulated there due to various possible conditions, but emanated from elsewhere in the room, but that it was there.

 

[brit1981]

totally wrong, the dog doesnt alert to anything that he can be trained off,
that means he can be trained to saliva, vomit, semen, sweat, dirty nappies,
that in turn means he will not alert to it - simple!

You have answered your own question, the saliva is decomposing its not alive, but the dog can be trained to not alert to it, so what is left for it to alert to if all other bodily fluids have been eliminated?

The blood dog alerts to blood only, so if that dog doesnt alert, we know it isnt blood from either a live or a dead person, therefore the EVRD alerting to something alone and not supported by an alert from the blood dog is alerting to what?

not blood! not bodily fluids! it must be something else
and that something else was only in the McCann apartment, outside the McCann apartment, on the McCann clothes, on the Cuddly toy, in the McCann Hire car, no wonder it is so vital to discredit the dogs

Grime clearly sates the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids including blood from a live donor. At no point does Grimes state the dog only alerts to blood and bodies, he specifically states bodily fluids cause alerts. This was thought to be what cause the alerts in jersey - bodily fluids left on tissues at the scene.
It is the CSI dog which Grime claimed would not alert to bodily fluids other than blood i.e she would not alert to vomit etc. BUT at no point does he state the EVRD has been trained not to alert to other bodily fluids, he clearly states that the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids including blood.

 

[Donjeta]

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.

It's just that recovery dogs can't help to find a body if they alert to odors that are everywhere because it would give the police far too many places to dig before they ever got to the floor boards.

In an ideal world the most useful and accurate dogs would have some way to indicate the strength and the age of the odor. An ancient trace transfer would elicit a different reaction than the presence of a fresh cadaver.

Gerry and Kate are doctors, it is conceivable that they may have come into contact with dead people on many occasions.

I have been in contact with dead people. It would be interesting to see if they would alert to me...

 

[Clutchbag]

totally wrong, the dog doesnt alert to anything that he can be trained off,
that means he can be trained to saliva, vomit, semen, sweat, dirty nappies,
that in turn means he will not alert to it - simple!

You have answered your own question, the saliva is decomposing its not alive, but the dog can be trained to not alert to it, so what is left for it to alert to if all other bodily fluids have been eliminated?

The blood dog alerts to blood only, so if that dog doesnt alert, we know it isnt blood from either a live or a dead person, therefore the EVRD alerting to something alone and not supported by an alert from the blood dog is alerting to what?

not blood! not bodily fluids! it must be something else
and that something else was only in the McCann apartment, outside the McCann apartment, on the McCann clothes, on the Cuddly toy, in the McCann Hire car, no wonder it is so vital to discredit the dogs

This is how I understand it too. if Eddie alerted to blood only there would be NO NEED for Keela the blood dog. The reason Keela is deployed is to find forensic evidence after Eddie alerts to a death scent. It's as simple as that in the main.

 

[fabgod]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lt-American-lawyers-cadaver-dog-evidence.html

snipped by me
"They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin."



then,
"THE FORMER MADISON MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO THE 1976 MURDER.
19 February 2008
The Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal
ED TRELEVEN
...
On Oct. 11, 1976, Eugene Zapata hit his wife on the head with a rectangular paperweight, then strangled her until his hands hurt. He wrapped her body in a tent and buried it.

For more than 30 years, he maintained that Jeanette Zapata just disappeared. He kept the secret until earlier this month, when he confessed to Madison police.

Zapata's confession came Feb. 5. He gave a detailed account, as required under a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors to avoid another trial.

On Monday, Zapata, 69, pleaded guilty to homicide by reckless conduct and was sentenced to the maximum five years in prison, though it's likely he will serve less than that. Zapata's statement to police was described in court Monday by Assistant District Attorney Robert Kaiser."

"Jan. 12, 2005: Madison police use cadaver dogs to check the basement of Zapata's former home on Indian Trace in Madison. Other cadaver dog searches of that property and other locations take place throughout 2005 and into 2006. The dogs alert to the scent of human remains, but none are found."

I think this is a good example of the Dogs capabilities and the attempts to discredit the work they do.

 

[fabgod]

Grime clearly sates the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids including blood from a live donor. At no point does Grimes state the dog only alerts to blood and bodies, he specifically states bodily fluids cause alerts. This was thought to be what cause the alerts in jersey - bodily fluids left on tissues at the scene.
It is the CSI dog which Grime claimed would not alert to bodily fluids other than blood i.e she would not alert to vomit etc. BUT at no point does he state the EVRD has been trained not to alert to other bodily fluids, he clearly states that the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids including blood.

Yes he states clearly that the dog will not alert to live odours.
You said yourself that once blood leaves the body it is decomposing, same goes for other bodily fluids, the fact is that the dog is trained NOT to alert to the fluids that he can be trained not to alert to.

'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.

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

I don't really know what else can be stated

 

[brit1981]

The point is Fab, that when Eddie alerts it does not mean a cadaver was there. It could mean there was a bodily fluid from a living person there. So if someone accidently got a bit of blood somewhere then the dog would. hence the EVRD and CSI dog both alerted to the card fobb even though the material on it belonged to gerry mccan who is alive. The same is true of other material if Grimes is correct, if another bodily fluid was there that was not blood then the dog would alert to it regardless of whether the perosn who t came from was alive.
Unless a body s found the dog alerts are pretty meaningless

 

[Clutchbag]

please provide a link to mr grime saying Eddie alerts to bodily fluids apart from blood from an ALIVE person

 

[brit1981]

It's just that recovery dogs can't help to find a body if they alert to odors that are everywhere because it would give the police far too many places to dig before they ever got to the floor boards.

In an ideal world the most useful and accurate dogs would have some way to indicate the strength and the age of the odor. An ancient trace transfer would elicit a different reaction than the presence of a fresh cadaver.

Gerry and Kate are doctors, it is conceivable that they may have come into contact with dead people on many occasions.

I have been in contact with dead people. It would be interesting to see if they would alert to me...

Well that is what happened n jersey accoring to a report, they just dug where the dog barked and then it turne dout the dog may have alerted to bodly fluids on tissues (it was an area used by couples - nice). I have wondered when grimes has said that the dogs are so ncredibly accurate that they react to even tiny and hstorc scent if that coudl cause problems, and it appears it does.

I also wonder how many alerts I may have cause din the past. I have spent a lot of time in morturies or anatomy labs and contrary to what some peole think I have never worn much protective gear, no-one really did normally. Sometimes if I could be bothered I wore a basic lab coat, but I also wore this when I would go to the canteen, carry it in my bag on the bus etc and it certianly did not cover all of my clothing. I would have transferred the scent everywhere I went, and onto everything and everyone I came into contact with. Its not something I ever thought about to be honest. But if dogs alert to historic scent, then they woudl alert to wherever I have been!

 

[brit1981]

please provide a link to mr grime saying Eddie alerts to bodily fluids apart from blood from an ALIVE person

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 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'. [COLOR="DarkRed"]they find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.[/[/COLOR]b]

That is why the alerts are meaningless without a body, the dog could be alerting to some washed away dried blood (previous occupants of 5a state they bled there shortly before the mccanns were there) from a living person, or saliva from a living person (the saliva would decompose even if the person was still alive). once outside the body bodily fluids decompose in exactly the same way regardless of whether the donor was living or dead. Just because an odour is not live it does not mean that the donor is not alive, it just refers to the status of the fluid itself (hence old saliva is not a live odour).

If you look up the jersey case it was belived the alerts were due to seman on tissues.

 

[Donjeta]

Well that is what happened n jersey accoring to a report, they just dug where the dog barked and then it turne dout the dog may have alerted to bodly fluids on tissues (it was an area used by couples - nice). I have wondered when grimes has said that the dogs are so ncredibly accurate that they react to even tiny and hstorc scent if that coudl cause problems, and it appears it does.

I also wonder how many alerts I may have cause din the past. I have spent a lot of time in morturies or anatomy labs and contrary to what some peole think I have never worn much protective gear, no-one really did normally. Sometimes if I could be bothered I wore a basic lab coat, but I also wore this when I would go to the canteen, carry it in my bag on the bus etc and it certianly did not cover all of my clothing. I would have transferred the scent everywhere I went, and onto everything and everyone I came into contact with. Its not something I ever thought about to be honest. But if dogs alert to historic scent, then they woudl alert to wherever I have been!

Yeah, but then they would anyway, if they can't distinguish between cadaver scent and sweat, saliva, sperm, vomit, dead cells, urine, feces, bloood... It's a safe bet that you, me, and everybody else have at least some of these scents in smaller or bigger amounts on us at all times and leave a scent trail. These dogs would go crazy all the time.

 

[brit1981]

Well that is why the british police report said the dogs hindered work, they do not seem to be discerning enough.
I wonder how keela can be useful if she alerts to tiny drops of blood that have been cleaned away and are nearly fifty years old - how many places have no blood in nearly half a century. fair enough if she was trained to alert to larger amounts, but according to grimes she alerts to microscopic amounts.

 

[Donjeta]

Does she have a history to alerting to anybody who ever stubbed their toe?

 

[fabgod]

Well that is why the british police report said the dogs hindered work, they do not seem to be discerning enough.
I wonder how keela can be useful if she alerts to tiny drops of blood that have been cleaned away and are nearly fifty years old - how many places have no blood in nearly half a century. fair enough if she was trained to alert to larger amounts, but according to grimes she alerts to microscopic amounts.

Would it be possible for you to post some proof of your claims
the most recent high profile murder case in the UK would be Tia Sharp and dogs were involved in that as recently as July 2012

I read that certain people have tried to claim that the dogs got that wrong, yet oddly the statements coming form the UK police that used the dogs that are apparently hindering the work, stated the error in finding Tia
was down to HUMAN error.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Yes the UK police are just covering themselves in glory aren't they?

Detective Andy Redmond announcing that Madeleine was either

A. alive or

B. dead

was a perfect example of the level of intelligence and professionalism of Scotland Yard.

 

[badhorsie]

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 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'. [COLOR="DarkRed"]they find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.[/[/COLOR]b]

That is why the alerts are meaningless without a body, the dog could be alerting to some washed away dried blood (previous occupants of 5a state they bled there shortly before the mccanns were there) from a living person, or saliva from a living person (the saliva would decompose even if the person was still alive). once outside the body bodily fluids decompose in exactly the same way regardless of whether the donor was living or dead. Just because an odour is not live it does not mean that the donor is not alive, it just refers to the status of the fluid itself (hence old saliva is not a live odour).

If you look up the jersey case it was belived the alerts were due to seman on tissues.

Enlarged and coloured by me. Also why did he only alert to the McCann's possessions?

Also I have never read that about the tissues in the Jersey case