Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

What 'circumstantial evidence' is there to support your assertion Madeleine died in the apartment?

If it's in the files, you can post it.
Telling us you've been gagged didn't stop you saying :

So, he sniffs the scent of a corpse which was being emitted from, and I quote directly from the source: "The inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door".
So, just where Eddie has sniffed the corpse, Keela confirms the location more precisely as, and again I quote from the source: "The rear driver's side of the boot area".

Whereas Mr Grime said :
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent.

Hi Murat-fan

In your last post you mention that Mr Bennet did not pass a solicitors exam. He may actually still be a lawyer though having perhaps gone a different route than a solicitor would. I haven't a clue what he is tbh - never managed to work it out.

Just a thought without meaning to be offensive.

Take care

No thats fine, except he claims he passed them.

Amazing how the dogs get the rampant pros so wound up. Could it be because they are very reliable and obviously indicated that someone had died in 5A? THIS is circumstantial evidence and it so worried the Mccanns that they invented barmy and quite ridiculous excuses for that evidence. If eddie had been alerting to blood then Keela would have alerted to that place also and she didn't at every location that Eddie alerted. You can say what you want to defend your puppetmasters but the dogs indications are very relevant. As to the silly coconut waffle, just because there was coconut where Eddie alerted, quite clearly unless you are a moron, it's simple to ascertain that there was cadaver there at some point and the coconut or anything else happened to be there.
Why did Eddie not alert in any other apartment? I'd love you to give a reason. If the dogs are so useless why did they only alert in 5A. Why?

Nothing to do with the dogs winding people up, it's out and out lying and misrepresenting of what they do that gets people with an interest for fact, truth and justice, wound up.

A fairly big distinction, I'm sure you would agree.

The real question is why does Mr Bennett (and for that matter Mr Amaral) want people to believe Madeleine is dead, in the absence of any evidence? the only individual that benefits, obviously, from people not looking for her anymore, is the individual involved in her disappearance.

Curious.

I hardly think that stating that Eddie alerts to cadaver scent and Keela to blood is out and out lying and misrepresentation but a fact. Only in 5A. Only the one apartment where a child went missing. Parents who invent pathetic excuses for the alerts. Mmmm, it's not rocket science is it?

eddie reacts to blood too.

why is this always missed out, what are you scared of?

grimes points out that the reaction means nothing without corroborating forensic evidence and he's the trainer, he should know, yet this is always missed out by those with an agenda to convince people that Madeleine is dead.

Maybe you can answer, perhaps not on behalf of everyone who does this but on behalf of yourself at least. Why do you only pick the half of the story you like and then miss out the ever so important caveats?

Why spin it, why are the facts not acceptable to you, why twist it?

marigold wrote:Amazing how the dogs get the rampant pros so wound up. Could it be because they are very reliable and obviously indicated that someone had died in 5A? THIS is circumstantial evidence and it so worried the Mccanns that they invented barmy and quite ridiculous excuses for that evidence. If eddie had been alerting to blood then Keela would have alerted to that place also and she didn't at every location that Eddie alerted. You can say what you want to defend your puppetmasters but the dogs indications are very relevant. As to the silly coconut waffle, just because there was coconut where Eddie alerted, quite clearly unless you are a moron, it's simple to ascertain that there was cadaver there at some point and the coconut or anything else happened to be there.
Why did Eddie not alert in any other apartment? I'd love you to give a reason. If the dogs are so useless why did they only alert in 5A. Why?

The dogs handler said that even though the dogs barking may alert to cadavar scent and/or blood, there need to be evidence to back it up.
The dogs do not determone whose blood or cadavar scent it is. There is no evidence it was Madeleines at all and Bennett, Amaral knows this.

marigold wrote:I hardly think that stating that Eddie alerts to cadaver scent and Keela to blood is out and out lying and misrepresentation but a fact. Only in 5A. Only the one apartment where a child went missing. Parents who invent pathetic excuses for the alerts. Mmmm, it's not rocket science is it?

It is beyond rocket science actually - keela can detect blood in such small quantities that forensic science can not identify.

of course blood was found, Gerry's and some other blood in the apartment, none of which matched Madeleine but I guess that's just a pathetic excuse of some sort?

tyra wrote:eddie reacts to blood too.

why is this always missed out, what are you scared of?

grimes points out that the reaction means nothing without corroborating forensic evidence and he's the trainer, he should know, yet this is always missed out by those with an agenda to convince people that Madeleine is dead.

Maybe you can answer, perhaps not on behalf of everyone who does this but on behalf of yourself at least. Why do you only pick the half of the story you like and then miss out the ever so important caveats?

Why spin it, why are the facts not acceptable to you, why twist it?

Of course the reaction means nothing without evidence for a court of law that is. If the police are looking for a body, and the dog smells the cadaver odour, and they then find a body - that is the evidence. If however, the dog smells cadaver scent, this proves there was a body, or items to wrap a body etc., but would be not classed as evidence in a court of law. It does not make the dogs wrong though.

Canydfloss

it proves no such thing


What does Mr Rebelo think about the dogs and what did he see that Amaral didn't?

That would make sense if it was 100% that the dog even smelled cadaver odour in the first place. Something that cannot be known. the dog presumeably reacted to something, no-one knows what it was. In the same way as a forensically trained officer can locate fingerprints but until the print is recovered and examined there is no way of saying it is anything other than a print that may or may not be usable, that may or may not be identifiable, that may or may not be relevant. It's like asserting that X happened because a print was found, too assumptive, too many variable, no evidentiary value yet.

the problem is that both dogs react to blood and blood was found and nothing relating to a cadaver was. There was also no time to enable odour to develop even if Madeleine had been dead and in the apartment, there are so many strikes against it being Madeleine and none for it. The circumstantial evidence, such as it is, is even against it being Madeleine.

Hi

If in the McCanns' position I wonder how alarmed I would have been that these dogs did give alerts that can indicate a body may have been in the apartment.

I think it would have concerned me that somebody might have harmed my daughter and then removed her body but they do not appear to have thought it a possibility in the slightest as they dismissed the dogs alerting quite strongly which does seem a bit odd.

On the other hand I would not wish anybody to be convicted of anything just on the sniff of a dog - you need the further evidence to support it and in this case, without a body or something more substantial, that may never happen.

Take care

What makes you think they didnt think it a possibility in the slightest?

tyra wrote:eddie reacts to blood too.

why is this always missed out, what are you scared of?

grimes points out that the reaction means nothing without corroborating forensic evidence and he's the trainer, he should know, yet this is always missed out by those with an agenda to convince people that Madeleine is dead.

Maybe you can answer, perhaps not on behalf of everyone who does this but on behalf of yourself at least. Why do you only pick the half of the story you like and then miss out the ever so important caveats?

Why spin it, why are the facts not acceptable to you, why twist it?

With the greatest of respect, tyra, it is you and your friends who latch on to the 'Eddie also locates blood' straw in order to avoid the obvious conclusion from what Martin Grime says that the likelihood is that Eddie was alerting to a corpse, not blood.

To see how it is you that spin this, not us, I am going to reproduce now a significant extract from Martin Grime's official report to the PJ.

I would ask you and everyone else visiting this thread to pay especialy attention to the parts highlighted in red.

Don't be in a hurry in future to falsely claim that I don't quote from official sources:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CADAVER AND HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOGS’ SEARCH ASSET PROFILES (found at Vol. IX p. 2478- in the PJ files}.

Licensing and Accreditation

In the UK, Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) licensed and accredited cadaver dogs are trained and licensed on the basis of the relevant section of the Police Dog Training and Care manual. This involves the training of G.P. (General Purpose) dogs to alert to the presence of surface deposition and sub-surface deposition to
approximately 2 feet [60cm]. The dogs are deployed on long lines to search an area
in large numbers.

The UK has also approximately six Police dog teams that have been trained
exclusively on decomposing pig remains not for human consumption, as specialist dogs to work off the leash to locate human remains in a wider variety of scenarios. Pig is used as it has been proven in training and operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human remains-detecting training for dogs.

The possession of human remains for the purpose of training dogs in the U.K. is not acceptable at this point in time. Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario-based, conducted over a period of a week, twice annually. It is conducted utilising independent ACPO-authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a daily basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario-based exercises.

Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if required. All operational deployments are video recorded including a control sample find when appropriate.

Training

The dog, a scavenger, uses its olfactory system to locate food sources, identify its young, other pack members, enemies and predators over large distances. It can track its prey identifying a direction of travel. This entails the dog being able to discriminate the time difference between footsteps using the sense of smell.

The reward of food and protection/close comfort provides the basis for a system to be adopted where the dog shows a willingness to respond in response to the reward. We are thereby able to 'train' the dog using conditioned responses to stimuli. Repetition and reward then ensure efficiency. Positive and negative reinforcement then shape the required behaviour in their role. Within the role of these dogs they are utilising basic survival instinct, but have undergone behaviour-shaping to alert the handler to their finding as opposed to consummation. Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.R.D. system of alert. He has been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead body scent'.

The presence of tangible material [i.e. a dead body or part of it] is not required to produce the response, merely the scent itself. Pseudo-scent is an artificially chemically produced product that its manufacturers claim to resemble 'dead body scent'. Although some cadaver dog trainers have had limited success with its use in training, when tested on my dogs they showed no interest and it is not used as a training aid for them.

In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department, I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100% of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.

Cadaver scent

The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.

Cadaver scent cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces. The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.

EVRD

'Eddie', the Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.), will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and still-born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scent of a decomposing body not foodstuff.

This ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odour from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject.

This method is comparable to the simulation of cross-contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic material.

The E.R.V.D. has successfully in training and in operational casework located human cadavers, whether in the whole or parts thereof, deposited surface or sub-surface to a depth of approximately 1 metre [3 feet] shortly after death (though precise times are not determinable) to the advanced stages of decomposition and putrefaction through the skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if large quantities of accelerant have been involved. The dog has successfully in training and in operational casework located a human cadavers in water either from river bank-sides or when deployed in a boat.

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to previous material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. This may be achieved by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent samples being taken by remote means on sterile gauze pads. The gauze pads are then 'screened' in a line - up formation with the inclusion of a number of control samples and blank sterile pads.

The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce the size of the search area. The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where controls may be included to increase confidence in the dog’s findings.

+++++++++++++++++

Comments:

1. The emphasis throughout is on Eddie alerting to corpses, whilst Keela comes in to find the blood

2. Keela only found blood at some of the 10 places where Eddie scented a human corpse, which is what his lifetime's training has equipped him to do. How come that in several places [e.g. the McCanns' bedroom by the wardrobe, the clothes of Dr kate McCann and one of the children, and Cuddle Cat], Eddie smelt and alerted to a human corpse, but Keela did not find blood?

JACK OF ALL TRADES, MASTER OF NONE.

I'm glad you have finally learned to read Grimes caveats which are not just there for a laugh, they are there for important legal and practical reasons.

I think you'll find that prior to being banned from various fora many people have posted this at you to try and force some acknowledgement of the numerous 'errors' you have made in your leafets regarding the dogs, their abilities and their limitations.

Better late than never.

tyra wrote:I'm glad you have finally learned to read Grimes caveats which are not just there for a laugh, they are there for important legal and practical reasons.

Yes and Eddie and Keela came to Praia da Luz for important practical reasons - to alert to cadaver scent. All the legal caveats in the world don't prevent us seeing him barking on YouTube alerting to the scent of a corpse. The main question is: whose corpse was it?

Tony Bennett wrote:

tyra wrote:I'm glad you have finally learned to read Grimes caveats which are not just there for a laugh, they are there for important legal and practical reasons.

Yes and Eddie and Keela came to Praia da Luz for important practical reasons - to alert to cadaver scent. All the legal caveats in the world don't prevent us seeing him barking on YouTube alerting to the scent of a corpse. The main question is: whose corpse was it?

What corpse, I didn't see any corpse on any youtube, there was no evidence of a corpse, are you confusing this with a different case mr bennett? Are you fantasising about corpses that are not there mr bennett?

Did copy and pasting some actual facts about the case instead of the usual fluff give you a spinny head, maybe you need a break?

tyra wrote:What makes you think they didnt think it a possibility in the slightest?

Hi Tyra

Some of the things said by the McCanns and their family and supporters make me think this. His recent interview with the Portugese lady reporter for instance. Didn't he say "ask the dogs" or some other flippant like comment?

Madeleine has vanished and tbh even after all this time I do not feel that there is any real sound concrete evidence that she has been abducted, murdered by her parents (deliberately or accidently) and none clear enough to prove that she even wandered out of the apartment and had an accident somehow.

In trying to walk a mile in Mr and Mrs McCanns' shoes and with no absoloute proof of how she vanished I do not believe that I would be making such smug comments about the dogs findings. I would like to think that if it was my child and under the circumstances that they find themselves in, I would be keeping an open mind about any possibility so that all avenues would be explored.

Afterall, isn't that why they are so cross with Mr Amaral and Mr Bennett? People will stop looking for her if they think she is dead! They don't want that avenue closed off, and quite rightly too, but by his comment in that recent interview he appeared to be doing the same thing with regards to a possibility that the dogs might have been alerting to.

I just think this and respect that others may think differently.

Take care

Oh right, from the way you posted I thought you were saying something else, so you think that because they cling to hope in the absence of hard evidence that the worst might have happened this is somehow unusual? or narrow minded of them? What would you do in the situation, I mean it's not like they are denying evidence (in a way that loving parents might understandably try and do in depserattion and hope), there is none for them to deny!

At what point do you think they should, in the absence of proof shrug their shoulders and think oh well she's probably dead.

I'm interested in the fact that you mentally try to walk in their shoes but don't take into account the context in which they find themselves, factually there is no evidence their daughter is dead, no forensic evidence, no circumstantial evidence, just simply the fact that they have not set eyes on her in two and a half painful years but someone is asserting for money that in fact there is evidence she is dead, dogs barking is evidence she is dead, contrary to every judicial system in the world and contrary to familial hope and contrary to even the dog handler himself.

This would not hurt you, upset yo, frustrate you, you would remain objective and calm and reasoned at all times even knowing that every. single. time. that evil, cruel, stupid, greedy, incompetent, lying man opens his mouth people listen and that might cause more harm to your child. Your child who even today might be alive but suffering only that's too hard to think about so to get through each day you have to convince yourself that she is with someone who is caring for her because the alternative is too raw. you have to try and convince yourself that it is you that is carrying the lions share of the suffering and she is somehow magically going to be ok because she is your flesh and blood and my god if someone is hurting her...

Then I bow to your fortitude.

Hi Tyra

This is where we don't actually know the poster to whom we respond isn't it.

If I am totally honest in answering your question and honest about the way I am when faced with daunting situations, Iwould have to say the dogs would have done it for me. My daughter in my eyes would have been murdered or at the best badly injured and stolen to face something awful at the hands of who knows who. I tend to think worst possible scenario so that anything better is a bonus. So no great fortitude coming from me I am afraid.

There is nothing I would like more for the McCann family, especially Madeleine, than for her to be found living comfortably with some misguided people who wanted a child and had stolen her and treated her well. There is no evidence of that like there is no factual evidence of anything happening to her other than her disappearing.

I find their behaviour at times quite odd although I do think beating them with a big stick for their neglect is becoming quite pointless as they must be doing that to themselves every moment of everyday. This, in my opinion only, is one of the occasions of odd behaviour because it strikes me as a do as I say and not as I do thing. And if she is dead? Isn't finding that out important so that she can be properly mourned? Having said that I hope she isn't but in reality it is a possibility.

There is no undisputed evidence of an abductor either - no evidence of an abductor that could withstand questioning so that it is undesputable. Until there is evidence of how she vanished we will all base our opinions upon our individual interpretations of what we see and hear and let's not forget, they are only that, opinions and assumptions, yours included.



Take care

Tony Bennett wrote:

aliberte wrote:Tony Can you Explain to this Non-Brit Why those Particular Dogs are so Well Known? We have Cadaver Dogs but I don't Know of any of the Teams or their Handlers by name.

I just googled 'Martin' 'Grime' 'Eddie' 'Keela' and this is what came up on the first page:

martin grime eddie keela
Showing results containing:

dogsKeelaMadeleineMadeleine McCannGrimecadaverodourapartment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Search Refiners1,140 results for
martin grime eddie k…:Show All
Youtube
BBC News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Video Sites.search resultsP.J. POLICE FILE TRANSLATIONS -EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIMES REPORT
Many Thanks Pamalam. EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIMES REPORT. pamalam@hotmail.co.uk ... Eddie & Keela Martin Grimes Report. August 2007.

OPERATION TASK CANINE SEARCH REPORT ...
www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm - 64k - Cached

P.J. POLICE FILE TRANSLATIONS -EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIMES
( To Martin Grime's Profile Report) ... When 'Keela' was nine months old she was tasked to search an ... MARTIN GRIMES RIGATORY. MARTIN GRIMES EDDIE ...
www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm - 57k - Cached

YouTube - New Cadaver Dogs VideoNew images of the work of the Cadaver dogs Eddie and Keela, released by Spanish TV Antena 3. 10th September 2008When trainer Martin Grime approached house 5A...
www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=AhgaJVARWz0 - 136k - Cached.Play

Video.YouTube - Madeleine McCann - Sniffer Dogs Eddie and KeelaA video showing Eddie and Keela (two forensic dogs) and their handler ex PC Martin Grime at work in Portugal on the case of Madeleine McCann. The dogs clearl...
www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=8lrrMoUr3OA - 145k - Cached.Play Video.BBC

NEWS | UK | Magazine | How can a dog sniff through concrete?
... which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, ... While rare, Eddie and partner Keela are not the only enhanced victim ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7263355.stm - 61k - Cached

JUSTICE FOR MADDIE AND THE TWINS: "WHERE A MURDER PROBABLY ...
Eddie & Keela (English Springers) Silvia B. Manager of the ... Martin Grime and Eddie. ... after reading the Eddie and Keela report there is no doubt ...
justiceformaddie.blogspot.com/2008/12/... - 225k - Cached

Martin Grimes, Eddie et Keela dans le "local du crime" : SOS ...- Translate
Click To Play Voici la vidéo complète du travail des deux chiens pisteurs dans l'appartement 5A. Le traiteur d'Eddie et de Keela, Martin...
sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/archive/2008/09/18/... - 117k

The Eddie and Keela Extended Videos
Martin Grime: 'What we should understand with this dog (Eddie) is that he only ... this is because, as Martin Grime explains, Eddie does not need to indicate ...
www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html - 124k - Cached

The dogs' work as described by their own handler - Jornal de ...
A heavily edited version of Martin Grimes report on Eddie & Keela's findings. PJ (not FBI! ... Eddie found odour and Keela found specimens in places and objects ...
joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/08/dogs-work-as-described-... - 205k - Cached

The Eddie and Keela Searches/Videos
Martin Grime's official report from the PJ case files. Eddie and Keela short videos ... sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela, arrive with their handler, Martin Grime. ...
www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html - 487k - Cached

++++++++++++++++++

Martin Grime, Eddie and Keela have been used in a number of countries, successfully, and Martin Grime has helped the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in the U.S.

P.S. Thanks once again DCB1 for raising this vital subject and reminding us all just how strong the dogs' evidence is

Evidently not strong enough to charge the McCanns or prevent them from being de-arguido'd.