Summers and Swan, Jim Gamble & The Dogs

by Stillthinking 22.10.14 13:24

Somebody posted a recent Twitter exchange where Jim Gamble had directed a fellow tweeter to the Summers & Swan book, re "the dogs". Does anybody know what Summers & Swan say in their book that he thinks explains away the dogs' alerts?

TIA

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.14 13:52

Stillthinking wrote:Somebody posted a recent Twitter exchange where Jim Gamble had directed a fellow tweeter to the Summers & Swan book, re "the dogs". Does anybody know what Summers & Swan say in their book that he thinks explains away the dogs' alerts?

TIA

There is quite a long section on the dogs in the book, in Chapters 11 and 12, pp. 142-156.

The dogs' results are given in some detail, plus an account of how Martin Grime was appointed and how he went about the process of using his dogs in Praia da Luz.

When we get to page 150, Summers and Swan write this:

"Referring to the dog's [Eddie's] reactions to both Cuddle Cat and the clothing, the handler cautioned: "No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made...unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence'. In his 2008 book, Amaral drew a far more definite conclusion..."

To sum up what follows, Summers and Swan claim that the DNA results did not corroborate the dogs' alerts, and there was 'no forensic or circumstantial evidence' which did so either.

Chapter 12 (p. 156) ends with the following:

"The Correio da Manha had one of its sources saying the work with the dogs 'helped confirm the worst suspicions from the PJ: Maddie was actually killed inside the apartment'.

"'Now', an inspector told the paper, 'there is no going back'. The PJ was 'close to the key to this crime'.

The Portuguese Police were leaking details to the press of an incomplete investigation - long before knowing the findings of the Forensic Science Service on material sent to the UK for analysis".

Chapter 13 then deals with the evidence from the blood, body fluid and hair samples etc. and concludes that the dogs' 'findings' were 'not corroborated'.

by Nina 22.10.14 13:54

Stillthinking wrote:Somebody posted a recent Twitter exchange where Jim Gamble had directed a fellow tweeter to the Summers & Swan book, re "the dogs". Does anybody know what Summers & Swan say in their book that he thinks explains away the dogs' alerts?

TIA

I know that PeterMac bought the book for research purposes so maybe he will be able to answer us.

by Stillthinking 22.10.14 14:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Somebody posted a recent Twitter exchange where Jim Gamble had directed a fellow tweeter to the Summers & Swan book, re "the dogs". Does anybody know what Summers & Swan say in their book that he thinks explains away the dogs' alerts?

TIA
To sum up what follows, Summers and Swan claim that the DNA results did not corroborate the dogs' alerts, and there was 'no forensic or circumstantial evidence' which did so either.

Many thanks for that. So basically nothing that we didn't already know really .

by MRNOODLES 22.10.14 20:09

Jimmy boy has also directed tweeters to the SS book as the definitive account (which they claimed in the first place) so what he's actually getting out of it is anybody's guess.

by Stillthinking 23.10.14 13:51

MRNOODLES wrote:Jimmy boy has also directed tweeters to the SS book as the definitive account (which they claimed in the first place) so what he's actually getting out of it is anybody's guess.

It's a strange one isn't it. And it surely must be the only case where people are called conspiracy theorists and trolls for coming to a logical conclusion based on facts from the investigation itself

Taking away even the name McCann and Madeleine...

... imagine any missing person case, where dogs trained to find blood and dead bodies had alerted to clothing and places connected to one person and that that person, when made a person of interest to the case, had refused to answer questions, except one that was agreeing that they understood their refusal could harm the search for the missing person, and then left the country soon after.

The logical conclusion is that that person should be a person investigators should focus on.

by Brian Griffin 23.10.14 17:49

Logic? This one's a "Through the Looking Glass".

In my opinion.

by **PeterMac** 22.11.14 15:26

Summers and Swan, Jim Gamble & The Dogs <a href=

Summers and Swan, Jim Gamble & The Dogs Dogs_j10

" />

Nicked from Twitter - with thanks !

by sallypelt 22.11.14 15:34

PeterMac wrote:" />

Nicked from Twitter - with thanks !

Quick, Peter. You are missing the elephant in the room spin

by Bishop Brennan 04.12.14 2:38

MRNOODLES wrote:Jimmy boy has also directed tweeters to the SS book as the definitive account (which they claimed in the first place) so what he's actually getting out of it is anybody's guess.

My suspicion is that because of his CEOP background he sees "paedos" everywhere. Every table, every chair. And in Maddie's case, he can see nothing else. He doesn't buy the 3-burglars, he doesn't buy the accident and parents hid the body. For him it was - and always has been - a sex-offender (either alone or working as part of a 'gang').

From minute 1, he has successfully used this high-profile case to boost his own standing, profile and career - appearing on TV regularly and always ready to provide the media with a quote or an interview.

It's a high-risk strategy of course because if it turns out that it was the parents after all, he's going to look like a complete idiot with very bad judgement. His own credibility will be shot and many will be laughing at him (behind his back as I suspect he could turn quite nasty). So for now he has to back the parents to the hilt. His reputation depends on them not being found guilty of anything. That's why he took on the role of unpaid shill for the Summers' book.

by nomendelta 04.12.14 8:37

Bishop Brennan wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Jimmy boy has also directed tweeters to the SS book as the definitive account (which they claimed in the first place) so what he's actually getting out of it is anybody's guess.

My suspicion is that because of his CEOP background he sees "paedos" everywhere. Every table, every chair. And in Maddie's case, he can see nothing else. He doesn't buy the 3-burglars, he doesn't buy the accident and parents hid the body. For him it was - and always has been - a sex-offender (either alone or working as part of a 'gang').

From minute 1, he has successfully used this high-profile case to boost his own standing, profile and career - appearing on TV regularly and always ready to provide the media with a quote or an interview.

It's a high-risk strategy of course because if it turns out that it was the parents after all, he's going to look like a complete idiot with very bad judgement. His own credibility will be shot and many will be laughing at him (behind his back as I suspect he could turn quite nasty). So for now he has to back the parents to the hilt. His reputation depends on them not being found guilty of anything. That's why he took on the role of unpaid shill for the Summers' book.

BIB. Except when he looks at the parents and their friends, apparently.

by Bishop Brennan 04.12.14 8:55

nomendelta wrote:
BIB. Except when he looks at the parents and their friends, apparently.

Absolutely. Can you imagine how he (and the McCanns and the media) would have leaped upon the Gaspar statements if they had referred to Murat or indeed ANYONE except one of the T9...?!? Instead it's as though those 2 statements had never been made, submitted and entered into the public record. Treated in the same way as all the rest of the inconvenient evidence.

by pennylane 04.12.14 10:20

Bishop Brennan wrote:
nomendelta wrote:
BIB. Except when he looks at the parents and their friends, apparently.

Absolutely. Can you imagine how he (and the McCanns and the media) would have leaped upon the Gaspar statements if they had referred to Murat or indeed ANYONE except one of the T9...?!? Instead it's as though those 2 statements had never been made, submitted and entered into the public record. Treated in the same way as all the rest of the inconvenient evidence.

I agree the Gaspar statements would have been all over the news in that case!

Gamble was put on the spot in an Australian interview re the parents' potential culpability. His reply was words to the effect that.... He saw nothing to indicate it, and would be 'shocked' if they were involved, but he 'wasn't infallible.' So even creepy Gamble pulled back from the precipice when confronted directly.

Methinks Gamble and Mitchell would jump ship in tandem the second McCann doomsday looms!

by **PeterMac** 04.12.14 11:12

pennylane wrote:
Methinks Gamble and Mitchell would jump ship in tandem the second McCann doomsday looms!

I think Gamble probably still could.
Mitchell is another thing altogether.
He has not said that he "believes X Y Z," he has not ever said that he is speaking "for" the McCanns, and that they have asked him, or authorised him to say . . .
On the contrary he speaks as if he has personal first hand knowledge of the facts.
Even when he has to change the Version, as he had to with the shutters / window, and then again with the watches / mobile phones
He is in this whole thing very deeply.
His sudden appearance in PdL on 22nd, the sending of the Last Photo to the APF on 23rd and its release on 24th, with the first of the series of 'spin' statements about the time /day / date
is clear evidence that he is heavily involved, and NOT just as a disinterested commentator.

By the way there is a new BS today, which is worth a read. (Sensible one on duty again !)

by mysterion 04.12.14 13:50

I sometimes wonder if my thinking about this case centering around the McCanns is wrong and that the mystery will not be solved until the focus shifts to teasing out any political, commercial and criminal influences.

So maybe SY have approached this case correctly with the McCanns as part of the picture, not the centre. I shall wait and see.

by pennylane 04.12.14 14:07

PeterMac wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Methinks Gamble and Mitchell would jump ship in tandem the second McCann doomsday looms!

I think Gamble probably still could.
Mitchell is another thing altogether.
He has not said that he "believes X Y Z," he has not ever said that he is speaking "for" the McCanns, and that they have asked him, or authorised him to say . . .
On the contrary he speaks as if he has personal first hand knowledge of the facts.
Even when he has to change the Version, as he had to with the shutters / window, and then again with the watches / mobile phones
He is in this whole thing very deeply.
His sudden appearance in PdL on 22nd, the sending of the Last Photo to the APF on 23rd and its release on 24th, with the first of the series of 'spin' statements about the time /day / date
is clear evidence that he is heavily involved, and NOT just as a disinterested commentator.

By the way there is a new BS today, which is worth a read. (Sensible one on duty again !)

Without a doubt Mitchell is in deep, and will have questions to answer, but I don't believe he will go down with the ship, although his career will take a heavy blow. These govt appointed crooks never truly get their comeuppance (imo).

I have read BS's latest offerings, and hope he's on the right track! thumbup

by ShuBob 21.01.15 14:13

Bishop Brennan wrote:
nomendelta wrote:
BIB. Except when he looks at the parents and their friends, apparently.

Absolutely. Can you imagine how he (and the McCanns and the media) would have leaped upon the Gaspar statements if they had referred to Murat or indeed ANYONE except one of the T9...?!? Instead it's as though those 2 statements had never been made, submitted and entered into the public record. Treated in the same way as all the rest of the inconvenient evidence.

The reaction doesn't bear thinking!

Lest we forget, it was Gamble who sent his men to PdL within days of Maddie being reported missing. Their task? To profile Murat. They concluded he matched the profile of Maddie's alleged raptor with a high degree of probability.