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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Evidence.

Post by Shingle on Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:49 pm

The PJ sealed off the apartment and checked it thoroughly. They then deemed it clear and allowed the owners to rent it out to no less than 4 different families.

One of the things that the fat controller and others have always complained about, is that the apartment had been contaminated from day one.

Why then after 4 different families had used the apartment, did he see fit to, once more seal off the apartment, and then bring in sniffer dogs, not only that but British sniffer dogs.

Here was a man who having refused British help, suddenly wanted them on the scene.

Surely his own experts would have told him that it was too long after the event to use dogs with any reliability? They must have told him that the sniffer dogs should have been used early on in the investigation?

So why did he think the dogs would find anything after the apartment had been used so much and cleaned many times?

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Dogs video.

Post by Shingle on Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:03 am

If anyone has watched this video of the dogs alerting to the car, it is quite clear that the handler has to call the dog back several times before it alerts.

Why would he need to do this? It was not done to the other cars, and it is clear from the video that the dog is not interested in the Renault.

It is also well to remember that the last people to use this car were the police when they drove it to the garage.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Rosie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:50 am

In view that Goncalo Amaral has told a Spanish newspaper that he thinks that Gerry buried Madeleine on the beach and then returned 25 days later and udg her up and moved her in the hire car, leads me to ask a few questions;

IF Gerry did do this then why was the only scent of cadaver found on the seal of the front door of the hire car?

Why did the dog Eddie only indicate a scent on Kate's Tee shirt?

Why did the dog not indicate a cadaver scent on any of Gerry's clothes?

Why did the dog Eddie have to be taken back to the car in order for him to indicate?

Surely a 25 day old corpse would have left a lot more cadver odour than something apparently on the sela of the front door of the car?

Why did Eddie only indicate at a tiny spot inside the boot of the car?

Why would Gerry apparently dig his daughter up in full glare of publicity and then make things as hard for himself as possible by trying to get a body through the front of the car and not through the tailgate?

One other thing where did Gerry buy the two spades he would have needed from? And if it was only one spade, where did he hide it after he initially buried his daughter?

A 25 day corpse and Gerry carried her, why was the scent of cadeverine not in the 2nd apartment they had been staying in?

WANTED

Any Members Of The Media That Were Following The McCanns Everywhere
Who Saw Gerry McCann Purchase A Spade From a DIY Shop And Trot Off To The Beach And Dig His Daughter Up.

***Reward Given For Information***


What a complete and utter farce! Just how long are the Portuguese people going to put up with Goncalo Amaral making them look silly?


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:27 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)

_________________
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 christabel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:57 am

WANTED

Any Members Of The Media That Were Following The McCanns Everywhere
Who Saw Gerry McCann Purchase A Spade From a DIY Shop And Trot Off To The Beach And Dig His Daughter Up.

***Reward Given For Information***


Please look for a fridge too, that Gerry was supposed to have taken to the rubbish dump (Praia De Luz)
I think Alsaliar knows where this fridge is?
avatar
christabel
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1637
Age : 68
Location : OK
Registration date : 2008-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Rosie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:26 am

And don't forget the blue holdall, that Gerry *never* owned.

Strange isn't it that no one saw this man the father of the most recognisable missing girl in the world, trotting around with a holdall, or did they?

Oops but if they did, where does Goncalo Amaral's "Irish witness" statement come in?

Christabel, perhaps the blue holdall and the fridge are with the spades Gerry bought from the local DIY? (Along with all the cleaning fluids etc)


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:28 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)

_________________
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 Guest on Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:05 pm

Have you seen this video, it wasn't in Sun, it has been published in Correio da Manha. The Sun used edited version.



Martin Crimes had to call dog back several times, before it "succeeded" to find something from Madeleine's parents hire car.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:21 pm

Thank you Minnea for posting the full video on here. Shows a different perspective when you see the un-edited version. In fact the dog showed no interest in the car at all, and had to be called back several times. I also found the last comment by Martin Grimes very interesting indeed.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:49 pm

Mum21 wrote: In fact the dog showed no interest in the car at all, and had to be called back several times.

Yes, that's the point. They concentrated only to McCann's car and didn't give up, before dog "found something".

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Rosie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:42 pm

Just what is going on here?

Why did Grimes insist on bringing Eddie back to the car despite there being no sign?

Why did he do this several times?

Why did he say that because of where the "scent" was coming from, he had NO intention to put the dog (Eddie) in the car? He did say this? My ears not deceiving me?

The dog in the boot was Keela.

Eddie indicates by barking.
Keela indicates by freezing and tail wagging.

Who tried to set Gerry and Kate McCann up?

More to the point, WHY has someone tried to set Gerry and Kate up?

What is happening in Portugal? Just who is being protected here?

I hope to God that the McCanns investigators get to the bottom of this and not just for Madeleine's sake or the sake of her poor parents.

Praia da Luz is a fishing village, but it is not gone off fish that is stinking the place out down there, it is the overpowering stench of corruption.

In my opinion of course.

_________________
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 Rosie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:07 pm

Grimes *KNEW* this was the McCann hire car, it had Find Madeleine stickers all over it.

This whole spectacle with the dogs is odd, Keela did NOT want to know either, she jumped out of the car tail gate and had to be called back to the car and made to get in, the same way Eddie had to be called back to the car many times before he indicated a positive.

Why did Grimes say "using that information he did not intend to put the dog in the car?" Why? Was he scared that Eddie would not indicate when he went into the car? Or was he saying this is not really important, that it could be a false positive? I think he really needs to clarify his position because from where I am standing it is not looking very clear.

I would have thought that IF this scent was what Eddie was picking up, wouldn't that be all the more reason to put the dog inside the car? Bloody strange goings on here.

At one point the PJ had to ask Grimes to bring Eddie back to the car, the poor dog was too busy running around in circles in between the two cars and at one point he looked like he was going to indicate at the wrong car entirely!

What had been parked in the spot that Eddie was running around in circles in previous to the cars being driven up and parked there? A hearse?

Why was this supposed scientific test carried out in a public place where it is impossible to know what has been parked where prior to these cars being placed there?

At each car Eddie just wanted to sniff the tyres and rubber seals, seemed to like doing that.

Then after much ado and encouragement the dog indicates at a *RUBBER* seal, I would like to know if there could be a chemical in the rubber that confused this dog? One thing this video clip shows, is this dog Eddie is very confused. Unless of course Gerry sat with Madeleine's body on his lap as he drove along in the full glare of publicity with the worlds press and TV in tow, then this whole thing is a complete and utter farce and to make two people suspects on this piece of nonsense is an abomination and and a complete infringement of two people's human rights.

I also note that Grimes is the only one behaving in a responsible fashion and is suitably dressed for the occasion in the car park, yet when Grimes enters what could be a crime scene in the apartment, he is in normal dress, why?

The apartment, this is another complete farce. Where Amaral said the dog barked and indicated at the wardrobe, from what I can see it is unclear where he is indicating, the bed, the wardrobe or the space between them. There are so many different scents in that apartment, not least coming from the five families that Amaral allowed to use this apartment, between Madeleine vanishing and it being forensically examined and the sniffer dogs brought in.

It is known that the blood found in the apartment belongs to a Eastern European male, has Amaral and the PJ actually tracked this person down from the records of who hired this apartment? Has he been interviewed and ruled out?

Could Eddie be indicating at where the abductor had been?

Keela was said to have indicated finding blood in the same place Eddie indicated, this is odd in itself, dead bodies do not bleed. Or was Eddie simply confused, picking up loads of different scents from the many previous bare feet that must have trodden the floors in this apartment? Did Keela just find some blood that is many years old and has Eddie confused this scent too? Or is it simply they are indicating at nothing, the same way they indicated at the cardboard and coconut shell in Jersey?

Perhaps the task being asked of them was too great which is why we saw the very less than enthusiastic response from Grimes?

It is in the files that Grimes suggested the dogs be taken to the beach and to scrub-land where wells are located around the outskirts of PDL and Amaral declined this offer, why? If God forbid poor little Madeleine is around that area somewhere then the chances of Eddie actually locating her must be quite high, after all this is the *REAL* reason this particular dog was trained, to find people and human remains NOT scents where anything could have been.

All of this just makes Amaral look even more stupid and more desperate to frame two innocent people.

From this video there is many questions raised and the majority of the questions are questions that should be asked of EX (sacked) Police Chief Goncalo Amaral!

In my opinion.

_________________
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 Guest on Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:06 am

Did you also notice, Rosie...that the dog in the boot of the car was showing no interest. The handler had to keep coaxing it to certain spots by waving his fingers about just above the spot he wanted the dog to sniff.
I have watched that video several times now...and being a long term dog owner(working class dogs)...I can see nothing in it that points to a dog having found a postive scent.
The fact Grimes had to keep calling the dog back...is enough to convince me. If there is a scent present a dog is trained to detect....they don't budge from the spot.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Hi Mum

Post by Rosie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:47 am

Me too. I have a little dog who is very responsive to scents, will stick her snout up in the air then go straight to the spot and will not flaming budge, not for love or money, we can walk twice around the huge field and that dog will not budge if she thinks she has found something like a mouse, she is a good mouser and we have to be vigilant with her in the fields because of the dangers to field mice and we respect country laws, so we know our dog very well.

The dogs are being used out of their comfort zone and too much expected of them and also another top dog handler from Scotland yard has said that a month is way too long to get any accurate results from the Eddie.

What this is throwing up is some lethal questions that *MUST* be asked of Goncalo Amaral!

_________________
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

Recent documentary on Eddie the dog

Post by Mobira on Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:32 am

Did anyone see the Documentary some months ago (Eddie and Keela in La Garonne in Jersey) where it showed the dogs in action, working with the handler, Martin Grimes? In one of the sequences Grimes had planted some very old “material” in a cave on a beach for the dog to find as an excercise. The dog immediately and effortlessly found the spot; no coaxing, calling back or standing frozen to the ground near the object was required at all. So why was all that effort and insistence needed around the McCann's hire car? Clearly the dog already had shown that there was nothing of interest by just passing the car and ignoring it several times but then the dog handler just keeps on insisting ...... just doesn't look right to me at all.
avatar
Mobira
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 55
Location : Southern Spain
Registration date : 2008-07-26

Back to top Go down

Hi Mobira

Post by Rosie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:31 am

It does not look right to me either, i cannot think what Grimes was up to, doing this and he *knew* the car was the McCann hire car too as it had Find Madeleine stickers all over it and then he called the dog back at the request on the PJ who was standing near by.

I have listed out some questions in this thread below which I would not mind being answered, this sniffer dog video is starting to look very damning for the PJ and I have to say this, unless there is something we have not seen because it has been edited out, it does not look very good on Martin Grimes either. What was he thinking of insisting this dog come back to this car?

Mr O’Connor, with more than 30 years’ police experience, last night blasted the “ridiculous” Portuguese probe.

He said: “This clearly shows they were clutching at straws. It seems to me they have used the dogs to reinforce their own prejudices.

“As far as I am concerned they suspected Kate and Gerry or their party of being involved from day one.

“They made up their mind so, when the dogs detected the scent, as far as they were concerned that was it.

“But the dogs found nothing that could be used as evidence in a court of law. They are a tool to finding conclusive evidence, nothing more.”

Portugal needs to bring in Goncalo Amaral for questioning NOW. My question is we have viewed this and pieced together other news from the files, we can clearly see that Amaral should be formally questioned, why hasn't it been done?

We all know it looks like Amaral was made to jump before he was pushed, we all know he has a huge shadow hanging over him and a criminal trial coming up for his part in the Leonor Cipriano torture allegations, we all know a Portuguese judge has deemed he has a case to answer.

Fact is we all knew this well *BEFORE* any of this happened, so we all know that Amaral needs to be questioned NOW about Madeleine McCann, how long will it be before the Portuguese authorities get around to doing the right thing?

Madeleine McCann's life may still depend on this, it is about time that Portugal acted with impunity and not keep dragging their feet.

Every country has paedophiles and bent coppers, it is how those country's deal with these problems that sets them apart from others.


Last edited by Rosiepops on Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:53 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
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

Dog Evidence?

Post by Royal on Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:55 am

I have just watched the Video of the cadaver Dog for the fourth time and quite honestly I think that poor little dog was in a critical state of utter confusion. It was running around like a demented monkey trying to find a Banana tree in the middle of Piccadilly Circus. To be honest I do not think that excitable little pooch had any idea what it was supposed to be looking for and spent more time sniffing the air, walls and concrete pillars than it did the cars. I think Martin Crimes was actually frustrated by the dogs somewhat eratic antics, incompetence and total failure to pin point the car in question, but to be fair to the dog there was quite obviously nothing there for it to find in the first place! Only when it was practically ordered to concentrate on that particular vehicle did it show even the slightest margin of interest in the suspect car. Finally, in order to please Martin Crimes it sat in front of the passenger door and commenced barking, perhaps it was then hoping and waiting for its just reward, a juicy Dog bisquit perhaps? Having then obviously been let into the passenger side of the car it was then seen squeezing between the seats and into the boot where once again it showed little interest. It was then instructed (led or encouraged) to use its highly sensitive sniffing sensors to probe every tiny nook and cranny in the boot and shown no positive signs of success the Video was then terminated. Quite honestly I think the whole episode was a farce and a complete failure! Alroy.

Royal
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 858
Location : Manchester
Registration date : 2008-08-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:02 am

Thank you Minnea for posting the unedited version. Having watched the video in full I think it is absolutely farcical.

From watching this and from what Martin Grimes said, I assume the dog is suppose to run around with his nose in the air sensing the items he has been trained to find. Yep, makes sense. Then why was this practice only carried out and ample time given for it at the Scenic and not the other 2 cars ? and why did Martin Grimes, in his words, tie the dog down at the scenic. Is there a certain command that the trainer uses at "tie down" where the dog thinks it needs to find something!

I dont know if any other people were present, but it appears to me something is mumbled in the background and then Eddie is called back to the Scenic again. Anyone else hear this, it is about 2:05 on the video. I wonder if a member of the PJ indicated to Grimes where they wanted Eddie called back to!

I also thought I heard Eddie bark close to one of the other vehicles just prior to being called back to the scenic, did anyone else hear this, its around 2:45 on the video, or maybe it was an echo of Grimes shout.

Logic also tells me that if there was an indication of scent around the seal, then there would have been a lot more inside the vehicle. Why wasn't the dog put in the vehicle, surely the scent would have been much stronger from within.

I'd also like to know what Grimes was playing at, it is obvious Eddie wasnt interested in the scenic and I would also like to know, why The Sun only printed an edited version!
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by janeGT on Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:44 am

It simply looks staged and fixed

to me.

I too have watched this video many times and even the video is not genuine.

none of it is.

to me only imho. :(
avatar
janeGT
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 82
Location : UK
Registration date : 2008-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by janeGT on Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:50 am

ha ha Diane

even then the dogs (in their ridiculous farce of a 'finding') make far far more sense than amaral and his 4 henchmen the ''famous five''. Is it right the trial is being replanned? reviewed? I do not know the truth of this but am sure someone here will find it. It would not be allowed in other countries, but hey ho all go in Portugal. No wonder no tourists trust it now particularly if they have families.

yes indeed though,

the dogs make far far far more sense than the famous five ever could individually.
avatar
janeGT
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 82
Location : UK
Registration date : 2008-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Mobira on Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:39 am

After this video having been published, do we know if Martin Grimes have made any comments on the dog’s confusing behaviour? If not, it is high time that he gave some type of explanation or I am afraid that he is risking giving poor little Eddie a bad name. And we can’t have that now, can we?
avatar
Mobira
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 55
Location : Southern Spain
Registration date : 2008-07-26

Back to top Go down

doggie doo

Post by Marilyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:54 am

I have seen the infamous tape too .. the poor dog was almost pushed mutt first anywhere the handler wanted him to go .. These dogs are only as good as their trained handlers .. They cannot reason, they cannot question, they do as they are told. In the wrong hands, such dogs can be mis-used. And above all, for anyone who loves dogs .. as I do .. they really want to please; and this dog IMO was trying to please his handler.

:dog:

Marilyn
Master
Master

Number of posts : 428
Location : Geneva
Registration date : 2008-07-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:13 am

Mobira wrote:After this video having been published, do we know if Martin Grimes have made any comments on the dog’s confusing behaviour? If not, it is high time that he gave some type of explanation or I am afraid that he is risking giving poor little Eddie a bad name. And we can’t have that now, can we?

Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin


clapping clapping clapping clapping Brilliant

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Rosie on Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:17 am

I would truly like to know just what Martin Grimes was up to? I think we should call on him to come on national TV and explain himself because from where I am standing this looks muddled and confused and "staged". Perhaps we should make Grimes and Eddie stand trial in front of a jury of dog handlers (just not Portuguese GNR ones though)

What was all the harsh clapping coming from Grimes about and commanding Eddie come back to the hire car, when the dog was not one bit interested?

clapping clapping here Eddie, EDDIE HERE, clapping EDDIE HERE :dog: get here and smell this car Eddie, clapping clapping here Eddie, look boy here is a nice juicy steak for you, look boy :dog: Come on eddie good boy, come and sniff the nasty car, come on boy Here Eddie clapping look boy sausages, sausages :sausages:

Poor old Eddie still wasn't interested to and fro he ran, running around in circles his ears flapping in the breeze, just what the hell was it that Eddie was smelling in between those two cars? He look like he was going to indicate at nothing, round and round he went, paying more attention to the concrete pillars and to the car tyres of the little red car than anything else and on two occasions the dog ran complete off away from everything.

Grimes repeatedly calling him back and at one point you distinctly hear Martin Grimes say to the PJ detective, ""he's run off!" and he had, *right off*. Perhaps he was sniffing around Goncalo Amaral and his recently deceased dog?
Perhaps the PJ should have got forensics up to examine closer that gap between the two cars, someone may have been buried in the concrete there!

In the end that dog after running past and sniffing that same spot indicated a positive.

I would like Grimes to answer this question, in veiw of how much trouble poor little Eddie had indicating there, why the hell did he not put the dog in the car? Why did he say "he has indicated at the seal on the drivers side in view of that I do not intend to put the dog in the car?"
Surely because the dog had so much trouble indicating and the only positive was the drivers door, would have been the very reason why Eddie should have been put in the car, what was Grimes scared of? Eddie not indicating and jumping out showing no interest?

If that wasn't bad enough Grimes attempts to draw on the fact that the dog was running around in confused circles saying he is sniffing the items he is trained to find. Er Mr Grimes what items? Eddie did NOT find anything.

Keela was made to get in the boot, then she jumped out and was then made to get back in, we did not see her get into the car. How did she get into the car in the first place? the film was cut and comes back to show Keela already in the car, then Grimes is seen flickering his fingers to points where he was Keela to search, I thought the whole idea was the dog sniffed out any positives unaided by the handler.

Did Grimes expect the McCanns to be made suspects on such ridiculous flimsy almost wishful thinking?

IMO Grimes let Eddie down and I think we should now complain to whatever authority Grimes belongs to because something was not right with that search.
Also apparently this video is 2 and half hours long, I would love to see the whole footage, I would like to see just how long it takes them to get Eddie to indicate a positive!

_________________
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

Rosie

Post by dianeh on Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:48 am

I would also like to ask Mr Grimes if he would have taken so long, or even done the test if he knew that the McCanns would be made arguido on the basis of the dog's indications alone, because I suspect he would not have. Would he have done it the same way, if he knew what his findings would be used for, and without any corroborating evidence. He would have had no reason to suspect that the dog's indications would be taken in place of concrete forensic evidence.

In most cases it wouldnt matter if the dogs indicated a false positive, because if there is no forensics to back it up, it is just dismissed. it seems to be normal to get false positives when dealing with the cadaver dogs and no body.

I wonder if Mr Grimes felt under pressure to find something, anything, because he had been brought to Portugal at a large cost. And so overworked the dogs to find something. And that something would not normally have had any effect on a case without corroborating evidence.

Not excusing him, just saying that normally, no action would be taken until the dogs findings are confirmed. Maybe, the dogs are handled the same way in most other cases, that is a combination of the handler and the dogs to do the looking. And that is why corroborating evidence is needed. We have no idea exactly how long the dogs look in other cases, or how they are directed by their handlers. But I still feel that Mr Grimes may not have been so 'helpful' if he knew that it would result in unfounded accusations agains the McCanns.
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

Hi Diane

Post by Rosie on Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:33 pm

I agree with you, I am just finding it hard to accept Martin Grimes interaction with his dogs, I expected better. I would like an independent dog handler to assess the way Eddie appeared forced to indicate a positive, is this normally what is done? It would be good for Grimes to explain his actions because it looks like he was forcing Eddie to please the PJ by finding something. It does lead you to think that perhaps Grimes went in with preconceived ideas after some sort of briefing perhaps? If he did I would be hugely disappointed in him because this is not how I would expect a professional to behave.
I honestly believe that Eddie after running around in circles and back and forth and being repeatedly called back to that car for what has to have been a considerable amount of time, became confused about what his handler wanted him to do and indicated because he wanted to please his handler. Those of us who have dogs know that they love to please their owners, it is their whole lives, this would be especially so for Eddie. I love dogs, I have them myself, they are resilient, intelligent creatures, but they do not know reason and they do what they are trained to do, they are creatures of habit, they like to do things at set times and come to know when it is time to do something.

My little dog as I said before is a good mouser, we live in the country and she is always sniffing mice in the barns, if she finds one and it runs under something she will come in and either stand or sit, very alert just staring at him and he will get up and go with her and she will take him to the place she last saw the mouse and they will try to find it, she knows I will NOT do this, so she does not bother to indicate to me. She will not come away from that spot she sniffs the mouse, she will sit there staring at it for ages, hours if we let her, we have to really be firm with her and call her away. This is because the scent is so strong she is sure that mouse is still there, it in all reality has probably long gone.

My reasoning is this, if as Amaral claims Gerry dug Madeleine up from the beach (ridiculous I know) but if he did then the poor little mite would have been deceased for 25 days at the very least and a 25 day old body would have been rank, even if buried in sand and it is true sand does slow decomposition down, but it still would have had a very strong odour and believe me this odour is unmistakable and I firmly believe that little Eddie would have had no problem at all indicating at the car if Madeleine had been in there, he would not have had to be forced to indicate at the seal on the drivers side, he would have been at the tail gate going berserk, not running all over the car park showing more interest in an empty space and other cars while ignoring the McCann hire car.

That is another thing dogs cannot do, they cannot read, so unlike Grimes, Eddie would not have paid any attention to the Find Madeleine stickers all over the car and would not have realised that this was the car that everyone wanted him to pay attention to.

Grimes knew that this was the car, on the film we saw him indicating the Renault as if he did not know the significance of it, so why did he call it the Renault and pretend he did not know this was the McCann hire car? This I thought was duplicitous.

We see Grimes walk Eddie around the other cars and not particularly making him pay attention to it, however this all changed when he came across the hire car with its stickers all over it, we actually saw him insisting Eddie come back to the car repeatedly and the same when he put Keela in the car.

It is obvious to any thinking person that this should have been carried out differently and so the results could be above question. There should have been couple of other identical cars present of the same colour etc which were unrelated to the incident in any way and the stickers should have to be removed from the car. It was so important that in the case of a positive, the whole process be above reproach, after all the case of a missing child was being investigated. What we got was open to a great many questions, criticism and accusations of a mickey mouse operation and I am hoping that Grimes explains his part because at the moment he is causing me to raise my eyebrows.

I also wonder if something of Madeleine's was offered to the two dogs previously to alert them to her scent? This is a question I would want answered because it could have a strong bearing on what happened with these dogs. I would want to ask this question of Martin Grimes and Goncalo Amaral.

"Was something belonging to Madeleine McCann offered to these dogs prior to them carrying out this procedure?"

"Will Eddie and Keela ever indicate at personal effects where NO cadaverine scent has ever been present, if they have been offered the scent of the person before the search?"


Why was this carried out in a public car park where no one has a clue what was parked previously in the spaces, or what had happened in this car park prior to this test taking place. If this ever went to court, it would have been laughed out of it, totally ridiculous, how the hell did Amaral think that this was ever going to prove anything?

The whole operation took part months after Madeleine disappeared.
The dogs found nothing.

The dogs did not at first indicate a positive, yet there was an insistence that the dog be made to find something, it is almost as if someone knew something was there, maybe the dogs confusion was because he is good at detecting the real thing and this was not the real scent. Who knows what it was or how it got there? But I would be willing to bet my house that this was not the real scent that Eddie was indicating at. So questions are, what was it, where did it come from and how did it get there?

"Why did ex detective Goncalo Amaral who was sacked from the Madeleine McCann investigation *REFUSE* the offer of Martin Grimes to have the dogs walked around the beach and in the scrub-land surrounding Praia da Luz?"

If these dogs are as good as their handler says they are, I would have thought that Goncalo Amaral would have requested that the dogs be taken to these areas, maybe this is what Martin Grimes thought too, which was why when it wasn't forthcoming from the sacked detective, Grimes actually suggested it and offered it?

Why did Goncalo Amaral refuse this offer? The dogs were there present, willing and able, so why? If God forbid, Madeleine is there somewhere or was on the beach as Amaral has said she was and Gerry dug her up, the dogs, may find the spot and this could lead to further forensic tests. It is a mystery why this logical step was not taken. Something is very very wrong here, something is not adding up with the way that Goncalo Amaral conducted this investigation and especially this part of the investigation. In actual fact it is still not too late, certainly for the dogs to be taken to the scrub-land surrounding PDL, why hasn't the PJ asked for this? Why didn't Paulo Rebelo request this immediately after taking over from sacked detective Goncalo Amaral?

Did anyone notice the item of clothing that the dog picked up and threw? Was this supposed to have been Kate's? Because if it was, despite Kate being small, this looked more like a child's item of clothing than it did Kate's. Could this have been Madeleine's and the dog was simply responding to her scent having been familiarised with it before hand?

If Gerry was supposed to have dug Madeleine up from the beach and put her in the car, why wasn't his clothes covered in this scent? How did it get on to Kate's clothes only? If Gerry got rid of his clothes for some reason, then for the same reason why didn't they get rid of Kate's clothes? And where was all the sand? I asked this question about the sand 10 months ago and when the files were released I wondered if sand would be mentioned in the DNA findings but no nothing, why?

As so much rode on this scent being discovered and leading to two innocent people being placed under suspicion and their lives being made hell on earth for 10 months, these questions need to be asked and the answers found and the person/people responsible being investigated for their motives and necessary action taken.

I think it is time that Goncalo Amaral be brought in and formally questioned into the his farcical investigative techniques and more besides. In my opinion of course.

Portugal needs to do something and they need to do it fast!

_________________
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 May on Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:07 pm

Hi Rosiepops
Having watched the video, to me it seems that the dog detected nothing but had to be brought back and that is what the handler did, time after time. As far as Amaral I am still waiting to hear what was "explosive" in his book! It should repose under the fiction section in the library, the only fact in that book is that Madeleine is missing.
avatar
May
Master
Master

Number of posts : 498
Registration date : 2008-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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