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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:49 am

Rosiepops wrote:Hi there, I did reply to you yesterday but due to the forum propblems experienced we seem to have lost about 10 posts!

Basically you said you were a bit confused about which dog was in the boot of the Renault?

I believe the Dog was Keela because of the following (sorry for the rushed post, feel free to yell at me if I forget something)

  • If you look at little Eddie, you will see his markings are on the top of his back.
  • Keela's are on the top of her back and travel down her flanks.
  • Look at the dog in the boot, you will clearly see this is Keela because of her distinctive markings.
  • If you listen carefully, you will also actually hear Grimes refer to the dog in the boot as 'Keela'
  • Eddie barks when indicating a positive
  • Keela sort of freezes and wags her little stumpy tail, the dog in the boot indicated like this.
  • When Eddie has finished running around the cars listen to what Grimes says
  • Grimes actually explains that the scent is coming through the seal, so he does NOT intend to put the dog (Eddie) inside the car.


You were having some difficulty viewing the Sun video? Have a look at this one it is the longer version of the video from the Correo de Maure (Portuguese newspaper)

Hope this helps. highfive


It does help, thank you Rosie. I think the markings of the two dogs clinches it, pretty decisively. Not surprised that The Sun got it wrong. As you say, Eddie needed a lot of encouragement to finally react to something in the Renault. I'm sure he reacted to something he recognised; but I also think it legitimate to question the provenance of the scent.

The sequence of Eddie sniffing the clothing and alighting on the tee-shirt wasn't shown in that footage. But I made the point in my previous post that it seems, somehow, unprofessional that Eddie should actually have picked it up and tossed it into the air. It won't have made a difference in this intance because the search was some three months after Madeleine vanished and absolutely anything could have happened in the intervening period. But that won't always be so, and in a Daily Mail article I read, the point was explicitly made that Keela is trained to indicate without touching. I can't think why the same wouldn't be true for Eddie.

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 Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:15 am

honestbroker wrote:
Rosiepops wrote:Hi there, I did reply to you yesterday but due to the forum propblems experienced we seem to have lost about 10 posts!

Basically you said you were a bit confused about which dog was in the boot of the Renault?

I believe the Dog was Keela because of the following (sorry for the rushed post, feel free to yell at me if I forget something)

  • If you look at little Eddie, you will see his markings are on the top of his back.
  • Keela's are on the top of her back and travel down her flanks.
  • Look at the dog in the boot, you will clearly see this is Keela because of her distinctive markings.
  • If you listen carefully, you will also actually hear Grimes refer to the dog in the boot as 'Keela'
  • Eddie barks when indicating a positive
  • Keela sort of freezes and wags her little stumpy tail, the dog in the boot indicated like this.
  • When Eddie has finished running around the cars listen to what Grimes says
  • Grimes actually explains that the scent is coming through the seal, so he does NOT intend to put the dog (Eddie) inside the car.


You were having some difficulty viewing the Sun video? Have a look at this one it is the longer version of the video from the Correo de Maure (Portuguese newspaper)

Hope this helps. highfive


It does help, thank you Rosie. I think the markings of the two dogs clinches it, pretty decisively. Not surprised that The Sun got it wrong. As you say, Eddie needed a lot of encouragement to finally react to something in the Renault. I'm sure he reacted to something he recognised; but I also think it legitimate to question the provenance of the scent.

The sequence of Eddie sniffing the clothing and alighting on the tee-shirt wasn't shown in that footage. But I made the point in my previous post that it seems, somehow, unprofessional that Eddie should actually have picked it up and tossed it into the air. It won't have made a difference in this intance because the search was some three months after Madeleine vanished and absolutely anything could have happened in the intervening period. But that won't always be so, and in a Daily Mail article I read, the point was explicitly made that Keela is trained to indicate without touching. I can't think why the same wouldn't be true for Eddie.

LOL Laughing I think little Eddie has got far more of his OWN mind about what he will do and not do then perhaps Mr Grimes leads us to think!
He seemed to be having a fair old game enjoying running around the car park! :sausages:

I think you can find the clothes video link further down this thread, it was attached to this one, although these come from so-called anti sites and they simply edit out the bits they do not like. they think this proves their point but really in doing this the only ones they are fooling is themselves!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Extended videos.

Post by Shingle on Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:34 am

Here is one the antis might like to answer.

In this video of Eddie, we see the dog screening the apartment. At 01.50 minutes into the video, Eddie knocks a bag over and out falls a pink cuddly toy. He seems to knock it across the room a little more.

Take note of the cameraman, he seems fixated by this toy.

Now go forward to about 4.23 minutes and you will see Eddie alerting, it seems Martin Grimes is unsure where he appears to be alerting so he moves Eddie around the table again. This time Eddie alerts in the far corner of the cupboards.

Please note the exact place Eddie is alerting.

Now at 5.45 minutes into the video, Eddie is stayed and Martin Grimes goes to the place where Eddie alerted, but the cupboard he opens is furthest away from where he alerted, and lo and behold what is in the cupboard…..the same toy that was on the floor in the middle of a different room.

Can someone provide a plausible explanation for this?


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

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

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

Back to top Go down

Shingle

Post by dianeh on Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:08 am

It is questions like yours that never get answered by the anti's. Always just ignored or they try to divert attention by saying how good the wonderdogs are. After all, why address specifics when one can continue to make slurs against the McCanns without any proof or worse, without even making any sense (dogs can present evidence in court, well WOOF WOOF I say).

Noone questions the value of the dogs. But like you, we all question the integrity of the dogs findings due to the directions given by the handler, in this case (after all we havent seen video evidence of any other cases have we). And even in the short version of the video, it is obvious that the dog is directed toward the cupboard where CC was found. And now I hear that CC was ignored earlier (I havent watched the whole video) but was alerted to later, then I too have serious doubts as to just who was doing the alerting.

Cheers
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 Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:19 am

Why thank you Shingle and well done for your excellent observation.

Only on looking at your link and viewing same with your comments, did I notice that anomaly.

Very well spotted.

flower

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:32 pm

Dianeh and Chinadoll,

I asked the same question in the sun forum, where there are many antis....I still await a reply. People have been willing to bet all the gold in Fort Knox on this Doggie (pronounced Dojjy) evidence, yet when you watch the way they seem to have been manipulated, there is no reaction from the antis.

🐶 There is a wiff of something surrounding this evidence.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

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

Back to top Go down

This is Proposterous! Grimes What Are You Up To?

Post by Rosie on Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:03 pm

Shingle wrote:Here is one the antis might like to answer.

In this video of Eddie, we see the dog screening the apartment. At 01.50 minutes into the video, Eddie knocks a bag over and out falls a pink cuddly toy. He seems to knock it across the room a little more.

Take note of the cameraman, he seems fixated by this toy.

Now go forward to about 4.23 minutes and you will see Eddie alerting, it seems Martin Grimes is unsure where he appears to be alerting so he moves Eddie around the table again. This time Eddie alerts in the far corner of the cupboards.

Please note the exact place Eddie is alerting.

Now at 5.45 minutes into the video, Eddie is stayed and Martin Grimes goes to the place where Eddie alerted, but the cupboard he opens is furthest away from where he alerted, and lo and behold what is in the cupboard…..the same toy that was on the floor in the middle of a different room.

Can someone provide a plausible explanation for this?


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

Just watched this video, something smells to high heaven here and it is NOT I suspect cadaverine!

There are so many inconsistencies it is hard to point them all out. Well spotted shingle, I had not seen this video. I would like to know what Grimes is up to. Questions need to be asked about him and the handling of the dogs, it is as if he went into this situation with a closed mind, that the McCanns were guilty and he was going to try and prove it with these dogs. Now all he has done is discredit the dogs, shame on him!
No wonder the Portuguese prosecution did not take this further, they could not, they would have been privy to the whole videos and evidence and would have realised only too well the GLARING inconsistencies and the over all shiftiness of the PJ and the non evidence! If this went to court any half decent legal team would have got this case thrown out in five minutes!

Which apartment was this? It surely cannot be the apartment at the holiday complex, because the McCanns had long gone from there when this video was made with the dogs and there is far too much of the McCanns belongings all around. But the cupboards looks suspiciously familiar to the cupboards by the bed in apartment 5a?!
If this was the the McCanns apartment/Villa where they were staying after they moved, how come Eddie is indicating? It was mentioned in the report that the dogs did NOT indicate in the villa, only in apartment 5a and the hire car.

This is ridiculous, this is obviously appears to be set up, something is very wrong here. Why are our police not investigating this, something needs to be done and done NOW. they must have seen all this too!

My question is who done this? Who has apparently been attempting to falsify evidence, making things look like something they are not? This surely must constitute and attempt to pervert the course of justice and to falsely implicate others in a crime?

Something MUST be done about this.

Goncalo Amaral MUST be taken in for official questioning into this whole sad and sorry affair. There are questions 'serious' questions for him to answer!

As well as that picked up by Shingle I have noticed another anomaly concerning the medication.


Where was the 'Calpol, Amaral more or less accused the McCanns of overdosing their children on? Did NOT see that in this video!

REGARDING CALPOL

Calpol does NOT kill suddenly, it kills over a matter of weeks if overdosing is taking place and for that to happen, it must have been given consistently well withing the allotted time lapse between doses, or at least a couple of bottles would have to have been given at one single time.
It is just liquid paracetamol and if the dose is adhered to, then the body metabolises a dose within 4 hours, probably less as this 4 hours is a guideline! Even if there was an overdose and the whole bottle was ingested, this would still not kill suddenly and provided medical treatment was given within the allotted time frame, she would have made a complete recovery, if her liver was healthy. Calpol does NOT have any sedative properties.
The only way this works and kiddies sleep is that it reduces fever and pain and discomfort and often a fractious tired ill child, responds to this by sleeping. It is the reduction of symptoms that provides the sedative affect NOT the medicine!

The photographs of Madeleine taken on this holiday and prior to this holiday do not indicate to me a child that is being given medication. Certain factors are just not present, from as much as I can see from the close up photographs.

_________________
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 Shingle on Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:37 pm

Rosiepops,

This is a video taken of the screening of the second appartment.

If you look at Martin Grimes, when he opens the cupboard, he starts to open the first one. He can see down into them and must have seen cuddlecat....did he know the significance of it? He then shuts the first door and opens the second one.

Add to this the screening of the car. Grimes says that when Eddie alerts at the car, he will not put him in but will use Keela to locate the source. Why when Eddie alerted here, was Keela not brought in?

Why weren't the contents of the cupboard laid out to see what Eddie was supposedly alerting to? It is almost as if they needed it to be CC.

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 Shingle on Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:53 pm

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?

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 Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:43 am

I still wold like to know, how CC got from the spilled basket and into the cupboard? Why were so many people touching a highly important piece of evidence? Who else touched it and what were they touching before this?
Why didn't Grimes go the cupboard immediately and take out CC to show what eddie alerted to? It was not until later that he did this.

  • Eddie knocked over the basket where cuddle cat was in the living area - FAILED TO INDICATE
  • Cuddle cat then mysteriously got from by the bin to the middle of the floor - Still Eddie FAILED TO INDICATE
  • Then eddie starts looking around the cupboards - FAILED TO INDICATE
  • He sniffs the tops of them FAILED TO INDICATE
  • He is then taken away and comes and then Indicates by the second cupboard.
  • He then goes away comes back and indicates by the 1st cupboard (Both he showed no previous interest in.
  • Then Grimes returns to the cupboard and somehow CC has walked from one room to another and jumped into the cupboard!
  • Also why did Grimes pick that pink item up in the 2nd wardrobe?


Am I right when I say that the report said that the dogs only alerted in apartment 5a and the hire car? If so why did they not say that Eddie had alerted inside this apartment/villa?

i find this whole thing highly suspicious and as someone said on STs tonight, if Gonc was involved in the alleged torture and subsequent cover up and perverting the course of justice in the Leonor Cipriano case, it is not hard to imagine that something could be seriously amiss here.

keep saying this. Goncalo Amaral needs to be brought in for official question into this and fast!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Rosie, Shingle

Post by dianeh on Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:42 am

Completely agree.

And just on CC. The test and resulting indications are just pathetic. But even prior to that. It must be established that no one had ever touched CC that may have had any contact with a corpse, or an area where a corpse has been. And if washing CC didnt remove the cadaverine (which according to experts it probably would have), then any scent placed on it during the initial forensic analysis would still be there. Therefore CC could easily have been contaminated during the initial forensic examination. And lets not rule out old blood from Kate or the twins, or even from meat Kate cut up for tea one night.

I cannot beleive just how unscientific this whole thing is. No wonder the dogs evidence is not admissable as evidence, only as part of a chain of evidence. Without the scientific proof, the dogs findings are totally useless.

I state my opinion again, that it is Grimes, not the dog that is indicating.

Rosie, you said once before that we have not seen these type of tests before, and quite frankly if this ridiculously unprofessional testing was made public, the dogs would never be used at all in criminal cases, and only ever used for body retrieval. I wonder who set up the tests, Grimes, or the PJ. And just how much pressure was Grimes under to find evidence? Or is it as you have suggested, that Grimes assumed the McCanns to be guilty, and so 'expected' to find evidence of a body, thereby influencing the dogs, probably subconciously, as there is nothing to be achieved for it to be fabricated on purpose. And I dont believe that Grimes deliberately would have influenced the outcome. But I do beleive that with such an unprofessional approach and pressure being brough to bear, that he may have subconsciously influenced the results.
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 Shingle on Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:41 pm

You know, if Grimes had of spent as much time with the other vehicles and appartments, that he spent on the McCanns, then this evidence may have had some credibility.

If he had stood by all of the cars for the same three minutes he spent on the Renault, if he had repeatedly called Eddie back and had repeatedly touched and tapped various parts of the other cars....if there were several Renaults, identicle, with stickers too...then this would have been a controlled screening.

As it is, the PJ and Grimes between them, have called into question, this type of evidence. I don't think for one minute that Grimes set out to fabricate the evidence, I do believe however, that the PJ would have made known to Grimes, the significance of certain items.

Grimes has utter faith in those dogs, and so would have felt compelled to get results.

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 Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:34 am

That is exactly right Diane, I believe that Grimes subconsciously influenced Eddie to indicate. I know dogs, anyone that has kept dogs know how much they want to please and Eddie is a trained dog and I believe he was so confused with being repeatedly called back to the car and parts of the apartments, that he thought he was not pleasing his master and in the end knew what it took to please him and indicated.

As Shingle has said, if Grimes had taken exactly the same trouble with all the other cars in the test then perhaps it would have carried more weight but he did not. I have also repeatedly pointed out how there should have been other identical cars in this experiment, if there were and Eddie had shown NO interest in the hire car as he did on the test, it is for certain that the McCann hire car would NEVER have been indicated.

Grimes should never have known this was the car.

I believe he and the Portuguese police have managed to bring this kind of evidence into disrepute and as Vile doesn't appear to know if this dog evidence is admissible in a UK court of law I will tell her, it is NOT and neither is it admissible in a Portuguese court. It can only ever be admissible if something is actually found and the DNA tests prove that NOTHING was found.

_________________
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

Bull

Post by christabel on Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:52 am

Where did all those cuddle cats come from smellarat and a LardyBoy

There were more there than Tesco sold originally.
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 Shingle on Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:52 pm

Rosiepops,

To his credit, Grimes did make it clear to the PJ that physical evidence was required to substanciate the dogs finding, to the PJ's credit, they stayed true to form and completely ignored this advice.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

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

Back to top Go down

FILMING OF DOG TEST.

Post by Royal on Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:00 pm

I carefully watched the the filming of the dog search several times and what struck me was why the dog which after a considerable amount of running around sniffing at just about everything there was to sniff finally (and probably out of sheer desperation) signalled to Grimes by barking at the "front" nearside door of the car and then when actually allowed into the vehicle was seen to promptly squeeze itself between the seats and head for the boot where Grimes and the cameraman where obviously indicating for it to do the searching. The point is that if the dog was capable of 'smelling' something suspicious (body fluids) from the 'outside' of the car it should surely have then headed immediately to the 'outside' boot of the car in the first place and not outside the 'front' passenger door. Quite honestly I think the whole excercise was a total farce, a joke even!
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 Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:27 pm

I have never seen these dogs in action before and I dont doubt they do a very good job in victim recovery, but to be honest, this footage of them working on the case of Madeleine McCann has done nothing for their credibility and I can understand fully why any indication they may give cannot be taken seriously without the support of corroberating evidence.

Its disgraceful The McCanns were made Arguidos on what we have witnessed here. When is someone going to answer for this because someone has to surely :bounce:
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Hi Shingle

Post by Rosie on Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:48 am

Shingle wrote:Rosiepops,

To his credit, Grimes did make it clear to the PJ that physical evidence was required to substantiate the dogs finding, to the PJ's credit, they stayed true to form and completely ignored this advice.

I do feel the way he instructed the dogs wasn't exactly very professional, also he must have known that the car line up was suspect, after all he was a policeman and now acts as an 'Independent' advisor. Why did he not advise the PJ that the way they were attempting to harvest information and evidence was plain wrong and would never be allowed? I just cannot get over the dreadful way they carried out this investigation. If the McCanns or anyone else were guilty, because of the way this information was gathered they could have walked free, through sheer and utter dreadfully unprofessional policing.

Do people actually know that Martin Grimes is retired from the police and now works as an independent consultant?

Apparently he does not discuss how these dogs are trained or what their training involves but it's a lot more than putting bits of meat on the ground. I sincerely hope that it is, but the way he has said this makes me think that part of these dogs training actually involves using meat!

I think this sheds a completely new light on this, when Eddie was running around in circles between the two cars in the car park, he was probably scenting a tasty aroma from the local kebab take away!

mmmmmm yes please woof wooof sausages. :sausages:
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 Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:57 am

Royal wrote:I carefully watched the the filming of the dog search several times and what struck me was why the dog which after a considerable amount of running around sniffing at just about everything there was to sniff finally (and probably out of sheer desperation) signalled to Grimes by barking at the "front" nearside door of the car and then when actually allowed into the vehicle was seen to promptly squeeze itself between the seats and head for the boot where Grimes and the cameraman where obviously indicating for it to do the searching. The point is that if the dog was capable of 'smelling' something suspicious (body fluids) from the 'outside' of the car it should surely have then headed immediately to the 'outside' boot of the car in the first place and not outside the 'front' passenger door. Quite honestly I think the whole excercise was a total farce, a joke even!
Alroy.

Hi Alroy, Eddie was the dog outside the car and Grimes said because Eddie indicated at the seal he did not intend putting the dog in the car.

The next dog we see being made to get inside the car was Keela. If you look at Eddies markings they are on top of his back, but if you look at keela's when she is in the boot her markings come down her flanks.

What i do not understand is why Grimes did not put Eddie inside the car, seeing as he had great difficulty getting him to indicate outside it, I would have thought the most logical thing to do would be to put Eddie inside the car.

I bet if Eddie was placed inside that car, then he would NOT have indicated and I bet Grimes suspected this too.

I am not at all sure about Grimes anymore. I think he acted unprofessionally and coupled with that video footage in the 2nd apartment, no wonder the Portuguese prosecutor did not proceed and released the McCanns from their suspect status.

They should never ever have been made suspects on this evidence and I bet Grimes knows this too. I want to know why the police are using him.

_________________
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 maria on Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:11 pm

One thing that puzzled me from the beginning has been: why weren't the dogs taken to the places somehow pointed and previously checked on the scrubland around Luz? Why only in houses and gardens surrounding them, and cars? Why only 'circling' the parents, friends, eventually other arguidos and their 'friends'? Afterall, with these two extraordinary helpers, it would be extremely useful to make a second check, wouldn't it? In the Manchester case, only during the second search where the two young girls' bodies discovered.
avatar
maria
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 1128
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-07-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Mobira on Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:06 am

Exactly what I have been wondering as well - especially since Amaral has since stated that he is convinced that Madeleine was buried on the beach - does this mean that he is actually admitting that he never ordered that dogs be used to search the beach at all?

maria wrote:One thing that puzzled me from the beginning has been: why weren't the dogs taken to the places somehow pointed and previously checked on the scrubland around Luz? Why only in houses and gardens surrounding them, and cars? Why only 'circling' the parents, friends, eventually other arguidos and their 'friends'? Afterall, with these two extraordinary helpers, it would be extremely useful to make a second check, wouldn't it? In the Manchester case, only during the second search where the two young girls' bodies discovered.
avatar
Mobira
Rookie
Rookie

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:23 am

Blooming good question.....You have exclusive use of what have been billed as the best sniffer dogs in the business.

You have a 100% correct theory, that Madeleine was buried on the beach.....just where is the one place you WOULD use these dogs.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

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

Back to top Go down

Hi Maria

Post by Rosie on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:07 am

maria wrote:One thing that puzzled me from the beginning has been: why weren't the dogs taken to the places somehow pointed and previously checked on the scrubland around Luz? Why only in houses and gardens surrounding them, and cars? Why only 'circling' the parents, friends, eventually other arguidos and their 'friends'? Afterall, with these two extraordinary helpers, it would be extremely useful to make a second check, wouldn't it? In the Manchester case, only during the second search where the two young girls' bodies discovered.

This is exactly what I have been asking for ages now. Apparently Grimes suggested that the dogs were taken to the beach and to the scrub-land outside Praia da Luz, but Amaral decline this, why?

Also Mobira an excellent point regarding the beach, very strange, if as Amaral has stated recently that he believes Madeleine was buried on the beach, why did he refuse Grimes's offer to search the beach with the dogs? You would have thought as these dogs were supposed to be able to detect the smell of cadaverine through concrete after many years, then they would have been able to pick it up on the beach!

Also did you know that Grimes is retired and now hires these dogs out via his own consultancy company? So they are not officially attached to any police force in the UK?

keep saying this, Amaral himself needs to be taken in for official questioning, something is wrong. Been saying this about this man for over a year now.

_________________
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 Shingle on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:08 pm

Rosie,

Are you certain that Grimes offered to search the beach.

Just been looking back and was reading about Krugel.....remember him the body finder. But looking back, it was him who led Portuguese police to bring in Eddie and Keela.

The police were led to a section of the beach where he was convinced that Madeleine’s body had been buried….they even taped it off….but it was never searched.

Shortly after this, the dogs were brought in. And they were not used on this area the cops had deemed so important, that they had sealed it off…….the plot thickens.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

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

Back to top Go down

Hi Shingle

Post by Rosie on Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:39 pm

I read this somewhere that Grimes offered to search both the beach and the scrub-land after the dogs had been in the apartment, I can't remember where I read this but I know it wasn't on a blog or forum, it may have been in a newspaper, or it may have come from the official papers, unsure. Perhaps someone else may remember? Of course me remembering reading it somewhere does not make it right. I will have a look in my saved stuff and see if I have it filed away somewhere (don't hold your breath though, my filing system would not win any awards lol)

Is this Krugel person you mention the psychic?

Whatever the outcome, I suppose the fact is that the beach wasn't searched using the dogs, the scrub-land wasn't searched using the dogs and it the simple fact is, that of course without a shadow of a doubt, it should have been and I say this without the latter knowledge of what Goncalo Amaral now claims about that poor little child having been buried on the beach at some time.

Just as a lay person, if I were in a position to ask Goncalo Amaral just one single question (out of the hundreds that should be asked of him, which he most definitely should be made to answer), I would ask this,"why did you not have the dogs search the scrub-land surrounding Praia da Luz and the beach?" I think the 'true' answer to this question, could be pivotal to the whole case and he as a supposed detective with years of experience, failed to have these two places searched in a properly coordinated search, is an absolutely astonishing failure, in fact, I would put it in the strongest terms possible, it was a complete dereliction of his duty.

Later when Amaral had these supposed world class dogs at his disposal and yet again, he failed to have the dogs anywhere near these two places, the question has to be asked of him, why?

Did you know that Grimes is not officially attached to any police service in the UK? Do people realise that he was in Portugal operating out of his own consultant agency? In short he and his dogs are sort of private investigators.

I have some questions I would like to put to Martin Grimes also, because let me say that the way he behaved in that car park and that apartment was not up to the standards I would have expected from the UK police and I said this 'BEFORE' I realised that he was there privately carrying out this work!

Who was it that pointed out that Grimes took approximately 35/45 seconds and took virtually no real notice of any car there, until he came to the Renault, which he could not fail to notice was the McCanns hire car, as,

  1. It was still adorned with 'Find Madeleine' stickers.
  2. It was the only silver Renault there.
  3. Grimes already knew it was the car in question.


He then took almost two minutes over this car, repeatedly calling Eddie back, actually insisting that Eddie came back to it, when it was plainly obvious that Eddie wanted to be anywhere else other than at that car!

If this test had been done correctly in a properly coordinated environment, it would NOT have been carried out in a car park where any old smell could attract the dogs attention, after all at the end of the day, as lovely and as clever as Eddie is, he is just a dog and dogs love scents and aromas and something was definitely attracting him 'INBETWEEN' the two cars and no one thought to discover just why this was?! In a controlled experiment this would have been thoroughly investigated.
The first thing that I would want to know would have been, what was parked there immediately prior to this test taking place?
There would have been several silver Renaults of the same spec, NONE of them would have had Find Madeleine stickers all over them, one would have been as insignificant as the other.
Just to be absolutely certain, Grimes would NOT and should NEVER have been aware, which car was which.

If these test conditions had been applied, from looking at the video it is doubtful that Eddie would have indicated at any car. Eddie went straight past the Renault several times showing no interest in at all, if Grimes had not known this was the car he would not have insisted Eddie came back to it and if Eddie was only allowed the 35/45 secs he was allowed all the other vehicles, then he would NOT have indicated.

I would alos like to know why it was when Eddie was showing an increased interest in the little car parked nearest to the Renault, why Grimes failed to bring Eddie back to that car and insist he went around it? I would like to know whose car it was and I would certainly have insisted that both dogs be put inside it.

Why wasn't this done? Who did that car belong to? Was Goncalo Amaral present at this test? Had he sat in the Renault prior to this test? Had he touched the keys? Who drove the Renault to the car park? Why did this policeman not wear scene of crime overalls? Where had he been prior to driving this car? What clothes was Goncalo Amaral wearing when his dog died?

I am not a solicitor but I can see if this ever went to court not only would this evidence have been totally and utterly discredited. If there was any real evidence and people were really guilty, because of the way these tests were carried out, they would have got away with it! Martin Grimes would have undergone a scathing attack too. What the hell was he thinking? He must know better than this, Grimes must have attended many crime scenes, he in his heart of hearts would have known this was not right. The whole thing looked like some kind of sick "Keystone Kop" joke.

I just wonder if this video has been cut and edited down to make Grimes look foolish? To make him take the flak for it, because let's face it, it was supposedly on this "evidence" that Kate and Gerry were made suspects, so someone had to take the flak for it and we all know that the real person that should be charged with it, is away writing books and taking part in films making money out of his own appalling failures! Sod the mayhem he has caused!

Goncalo Amaral, should be brought in for official questioning over his conduct and his failures and the dereliction of his duty in this case. The reason why he behaved in this way needs to be discovered. the reason why he charged two people on no evidence what-so-ever, needs to be thoroughly investigated.

To this very day this man Goncalo Amaral is still bringing shame down upon the good people of Portugal and is still a huge threat to their tourist industry and if Portugal wants this matter to be closed, then they MUST hold a full and open public inquiry and those at fault must be punished. it is simply not good enough to turn around and blame distraught parents because of the lead detective's inability to do his job properly. If inability was in fact what it truly was, I have other concerns.

_________________
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 Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 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