Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Page 7 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:13 pm

"Dreamin"Honestbroker, I've just read your previous posts where you say you were banned and i would say I'm gobsmacked... but I'm not! The only thing that I'm gobsmacked at is that sans_souci is still there!

I thought they were excellent questions that he brought up and you've also answered them excellently too, I get a little lost when talking about the dogs to be honest but what you say makes perfect sense. Out of curiousity what did the results of the controlled tests show? 100% reliability? Although like you say they had something to measure against and no unknown quantities, in real life that is never going to happen and therefore could never be infallible. The fact that Martin Grimes has never come out and said that there was definitely a corpse in apartment 5A or in the scenic speaks volumes to me anyway. The same applies to the FSS, no one (other than Amaral) will actually commit themselves to any statement like that, and they are the professionals! Therefore if they are not 100% certain then how on earth can anyone else claim to be?

Thanks for that anyway :)

Firstly, I'd second what Vee says above, no offence taken at all, Pedro. Your heart is definitely in the right place, and that's what counts. Equally, I would second what Tinkerbell says that if we can keep our comments focussed on facts, then others who visit these boards and read our posts might be persuaded of a different point of view.

In the files, there is a report which says: we must assume Madeleine died in the apartment, but it was written by a PJ officer. Bennett has it that Mark Harrison averred that point. He did not! And neither did anyone else from the British side.

To answer your question about the study, its intention was to give a gauge of how quickly a cadaver scent dissipates. Repeated trials were run over a period of about 6 weeks on the premise that if the cadaver scent faded, the dogs' accuracy would fall away with time. However, this turned out not to be so, with accuracy rates consistently high from to first to last. But, not merely were false readings given. There were even false 'positives' (granted very few) of dogs indicating a 'cadaver scent' to squares of carpet actually impregnated with the scents of living humans. So if cadaver dogs can give false readings to living scents, what other spurious triggers (consiously excluded from that experiment) might prompt similar false positives?
Further, the study itself noted its most obvious limitation: it simply cannot reproduce every actual crime scene and every environmental influence that might affect the rate of dissipation or cross-contamination of a death scent.

Most crucially, the study itself concluded that cadaver dog evidence alone should never be regarded as sufficient to convict.

Edited to add: here is a summary of the results of the study.

NB: positive predictive value = detecting a scent when there is a scent to detect

negative predictive value =accurately not reacting when there is no (death) scent to detect

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S037907380700134X

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

This Video Is Very Interesting!

Post by Rosie on Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:53 pm

This is a video that shows a dog like Eddie (this dog is NOT Eddie) being trained to scent cadavers. Just watch the when the dog scents the planted evidence and compare that to how 'Eddie' was almost forced into giving a positive indication. The more I see and read about this the more I am convinced that Eddie was trying to please his master and get his treat!



Last edited by Rosiepops on Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by clairesy on Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:32 am

Ive always thought the dogs er almost forced..not so much forced...but encouraged soomuch that in the end they were maybe even confused.

At first it was said the dogs sniffed around the car of the mccanns and then retreated away after finding nothing.Nut they were encouraged back to the car.Now these dogs are trained in what they do to high standards.Why was their work ignored???Why were they brought back to the car.

The car of mr murats was the same........the dogs sniffed around the vehicle and then retreated away. BUT.......Cops allowed them to move on to the next vehicle/item. It was only when they were at the mccanns car that they were brought back. Almost as if the dogs were being told that they had to find something................HAD TO.

How do they know the poor bleeding things weren't barking with frustration...............they are dogs after all.They already gave their results to cops once..............there was nothing there.............Just like murats car.
avatar
clairesy
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 2698
Age : 32
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:14 am

Thanks for the video Rosie, extremely interesting, the big difference between this dog and Eddie is, there was no doubt whatsoever that this dog was indicating.

The handler did not appear to influence the dog in anyway, he allowed the dog to do his job, and I'm sorry but the same just cannot be said for Grimes. Grimes imo appeared desperate that Eddie should be seen to perform and eventually a confused Eddie did just what he thought his master wanted.
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Rosie, Tinks, Clairesy

Post by dianeh on Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:57 am

I have said it before but it is worth repeating. In this case, the dog's were influenced by the handler. Whether this was deliberate, or subconcious (as in he felt pressure to find evidence), we dont know. But the thing is,a false indication shouldnt matter because without further forensic evidence, the false indication is just that - false. Grimes wouldnt have known that the questionable indications would be used the way it was, as this wouldnt happen in Britain (perhaps but then look at Jersey and the clearly false indications that occurred and the resulting media frenzy, all over incorrect indications). I think Grimes was wrong, but I do not for one minute think that he acted in malice, or was attempting to fabricate results.

I had no doubt from the first time I saw the video of Eddie with the McCann's car that he was confused and in the end reacted to his handler, wanting to please him.
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:55 pm

There is another fascinating debate over on the 3As (begun by another poster I respect, Gestalt) about the dog evidence. This subject (and related subjects of forensic evidence) is very much his speciality.

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Lionheart and the Murat debate....

Post by Claire from Canada on Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:40 am

Guys, I'm curious, is this Lionheart site reputable? It has some incredibly interesting discussion with regard to the evidence that allegedly exists against RM.
The more I think about this, how the hell is it possible that 9 witnesses swear under oath that they saw him there in the area, and all of their accounts have been ignored?

I have never given much credit to the media reports that crucified him without evidence. At the very least, it warrants further investigation. Surely to God Madeleine is worth more than this?

I do recall a conversation I had with my brother in law on the 5th of May, and he said...'mark my words, the guy who did this was sitting right there, watching the whole damn investigation unfold'. Odly enough, I have always believed that the guy who did this or was involved in the plan was very central to the whole thing.

Any thoughts?


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)

Claire from Canada
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 26
Registration date : 2008-06-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:05 am

Hello Claire. Thoughts, yes!

I don't know anything about the Lionheart site you refer to. The first point is that there are an uncannily large number of Murat lookalikes, one of whom was, I think, known to be on the Mark Warner complex on night of May 3.

My second thought is that you need far more evidence than, simply, that he might have been out and about that night. Murat, as a permanent citizen of Portugal, will probably be aware of how heavy-handed the Portuguese police can be so, even if he fibbed about spending the evening with his mother, that can be explained on that count alone. It needn't necessarily mean that he is 'guilty' of anything more than fibbing to the police as to his whereabouts on the night. It certainly needn't mean that he is, in any way, connected with Madeleine's disappearance.


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by vee8 on Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:27 am

I have said before, I think Murat was out and about that night. Being seen outside on the night of the biggest kidnapping story the world has ever seen could be very counter-productive to whatever that someone was up to that night. I don't think Murat was involved in Madeleine's disapearance, but I do think he possibly has reasons for an 'Alabi' if you know what I mean.


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:55 am

HB I like Gesthalt too. Gestalt is also elswhere that I go.

Claire, where is the Lionheart site?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:01 am

I googled Lionheart and found the site. My first reaction has put me off it. A bit too political, racist feeling, and religion used to back up comments. Finally a familiar poster on the Madeleine thread, Minnea.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:22 am

ModNrodder wrote:HB I like Gesthalt too. Gestalt is also elswhere that I go.

Claire, where is the Lionheart site?

Mod, I'm very interested. Could you give me the link to that site Gestalt and you both go to, please?

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:42 am

HB, you got mail.

PM'd because this is in public area.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Sans_souci was right ...

Post by honestbroker on Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:08 am

On another site, Sans opined from a comment of Eddie's handler Martin Grimes, taken from the files, that Eddie reacts to cadaverine scent or blood. Even though the comment Sans referred to did, indeed, appear to say that, I was sceptical. But I've found something else from the files (again quoting Martin Grimes) which is very explicit. It also confirms Sans' impression. Read to the very last sentence:


“With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate’s clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver?
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred?”
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

“The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?


[Grimes] 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.


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:25 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by vee8 on Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:16 am

So even if the dog alerted to blood that WAS Madeleine's, it could easily have come from the scrape we know she gave herself stumbling up the steps to the plane on the way out? Interesting.
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:48 am

vee8 wrote:So even if the dog alerted to blood that WAS Madeleine's, it could easily have come from the scrape we know she gave herself stumbling up the steps to the plane on the way out? Interesting.

What makes me really angry, Vee, is that two books peddle, actually, a number of myths: one in particular, that there was a consensus among the Portuguese contingent and the British contingent of the investigation team that Madeleine died in the apartment.

When you read Grimes' comments, you see that he does not hold, period, that dogs incriminate. He is very explicit and very plain. Dogs find evidence. In fact, not even that is true! Keela finds evidence. Eddie indicates. It's worth remembering that Keela is much the younger of the two dogs, and Eddie has spent a large proportion of his career working independently of her. Before Keela, Eddie would have signalled and human eneavour (alone) would have looked for evidence of what Eddie had alerted to. Now Keela does that, much more efficently.

Grimes would say, simply, that Keela finds evidence where Eddie indicates; then it's the job of the boffins in the laboratries to examine the evidence Keela finds and determine questions of what tends to incriminate, or even, what exonerates. Grimes would have no truck with any suggestion that he was a part of a consensus view that Madeleine died in the apartment.

And when you read the (very long) report of Mark Harrison, the same is true. I guess Bennett could plead slipshod research as his excuse. Heaven only knows what excuse Amaral could plead.

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Rosie on Sat May 30, 2009 10:35 am

Shingle wrote:Something else to ponder.....

At 3.00 minutes into the video, Eddie is inspecting a wardrobe, Grimes seems to be paying particular attention to this one. When Eddie is finished, Grimes bends down and picks something pink up, he inspects it....not CC though. He puts it back into the wardrobe and shuts it....the only one he does shut.

Was he expecting the pink whatever it was to be cuddlecat?


Yes I did notices this and I also noticed the way Grimes was almost insistent on Eddie going to the cupboard where someone had deliberately placed cuddle cat AFTER Eddie had totally ignored in in the lounge area.

http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/archive/2008/09/14/video-eddie-keela-dans-le-deuxieme-appartement-des-mccann.html

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by clairesy on Sun May 31, 2009 6:36 am

Yer so to eddie he is probably indicating the familiar object,rather than a new find. An object that has Madeleine's scent on it seems to have followed him around the flat and therefore the dog feels he as to indicate this rather than indicate anything new,such as cavadar scent etc.
avatar
clairesy
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 2698
Age : 32
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum