EVRD and CSI Dogs

PeterMac wrote:Also important to remember is that Gerry stated that the dogs were "Notoriously unreliable".
Which is obviously why Police forces across the world use them, along with Fire and Emergency Search and Rescue teams, Avalanche rescue, Mountain rescue, Earthquake disaster relief, Guide dogs for the blind, and so on.
All that money spend on notoriously unreliable animals !

Stella wrote:Hi beejay.

It is important to remember that on the night, it was the GNR Portuguese tracker dogs who were used to try and find Madeleine.

That it was not until 3 months later when Martin Grime's dogs Eddie the EVRD dog and Keela the CSI dog, searched the apartments and cars and only those belonging to the McCann's were identified.

I hope this helps to distinguish the dogs activities?

Stella wrote:Hi Beejay

Yes, from the Portuguese forensic collection that took place the following day on the 4th May, it was confirmed that no DNA was recovered belonging to Madeleine from apartment 5a. None of her hairs were found either. You can read the report in full in our library, or on this direct link here. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2791-portuguese-forensic-test-results-from-may-4th-2007

Another important factor many have not considered is, that the fingerprint testing of the patio doors in the lounge, did not state that any children's fingerprints were seen on the lower panes of glass. Only one set found of a PJ officer. Now that is interesting don't you think, with 3 children supposedly staying in there that week.

pauline wrote:
If there was daily cleaning, the patio doors could have been properly cleaned the day of the 'disappearance' - the children would have been out most of the day and then got into the pyjamas ready for bed early so there would havebeen little chance of them fingering the lower panes.

but its unbelievable that there was no DNA evidence of madeleine the next day - this must have made the portuguese police suspicious from day 1.

Stella wrote:Hi Beejay

Yes, from the Portuguese forensic collection that took place the following day on the 4th May, confirmed that no DNA was recovered belonging to Madeleine from apartment 5a. None of her hairs were found either. You can read the report in full in our library, or on this direct link here. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2791-portuguese-forensic-test-results-from-may-4th-2007

Another important factor many have not considered is, that the fingerprint testing of the patio doors in the lounge, did no state that any children's fingerprints were seen on the lower panes. Only one set found of a PJ officer. Now that is interesting don't you think, with 3 children supposedly staying in there that week.

Stella wrote:

pauline wrote:
If there was daily cleaning, the patio doors could have been properly cleaned the day of the 'disappearance' - the children would have been out most of the day and then got into the pyjamas ready for bed early so there would havebeen little chance of them fingering the lower panes.

but its unbelievable that there was no DNA evidence of madeleine the next day - this must have made the portuguese police suspicious from day 1.

The last time a cleaner went in was on Wednesday morning. The following is a list of times when the children probably touched the window after that.

Wednesday lunchtime
Wednesday evening
Thursday breakfast
Thursday lunchtime
Thursday evening

So you see Pauline, there were 5 seperate occasions, when 3 very lively children must have been all over that door.

pauline wrote:
I think I read somewhere that the tapas group + kids lunched in the largest apartment among the group/. And as i said it seems the kids were got into the creche asap for the day and then when that closed into bed ASAP tho I agree that there was opportunity for fingerprints on the patio doors.

Now we know kate is into cleaning (curtains, cuddlecat etc) so she may have decided to wipe the patio door glass at every opportunity.

isar wrote:on second thoughts docmac-I shan't

Grime allegedly primed those 'finds' in Jersey..check out the Times coverage

he bagsied 97k for Jersey..Lord knows how much he trousered for Luz

follow the money.....ALWAYS

this might upset you

but this is real life

The McCann's might be sh.ts....but they aren't the only sh.ts in this circus

Harper has since been challenged that the supposed claims of dead or disappeared children came from unreliable witnesses and should not have been given credibility. Many of the victims told me that they have been trying for years to get someone to take their claims seriously. They had never felt listened to or believed until Harper came along. I don’t imagine, however, that Harper was driven by sentimental regard for the victims. As he told me in March 2008, and is still saying now, he could not ignore the information, but did not at first believe it warranted a full-scale dig. Hence the recce. The dog was brought in. The cadaver dog that alerts to human remains, the same dog that nearly did for Kate and Gerry McCann after it alerted at the boot of their car. Unlike the Portuguese police, apparently, Harper’s team understood that the dog’s alerts were not evidence of a crime being committed, merely an indicator of something to be explored. I have heard that Harper’s replacements have spoken cynically about the dog, implying that its handler, Martin Grime, fixes the dog’s demonstrations by priming it in advance with his own scent. But Harper gave convincing accounts of how the dog would pick up the merest trace of human remains and ignore animal remains, and how it would not be tricked into making errors. They decided to dig where the dog alerted and where radar equipment picked up anomalies in the ground. One of those locations was the stairwell where the builders had found bones in 2003, and also where the “skull” fragment was found by the LGC anthropologist Julie Roberts on February 23. The item was labelled JAR/6. She described it as “degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child”.

09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”

Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”. This would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.

“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”


So on the 9th of April 2008 Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the above entry.

Right, now David Rose in his article reproduced by Rooney says

On February 24, a day after Mr Harper made Haut de la Garenne an international byword for infamy by announcing his team had found the 'partial remains of a child' who might have been murdered, forensic scientists warned him that the so-called remains - allegedly a fragment of a child's skull - were so old as to be 'beyond the parameters of the investigation'


So we have email evidence to counter the above

Now there is this email exchange that could answer the question

On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”



SO NOW FOR THE COCNUT

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

So has a Whole historic Child Abuse investigation been trashed because "The Technician said it looked liked a COCONUT HUSK" just crazy

I would like to say a very big thanks to Spartacus & Rooney for bringing this up. I never new where the term came from now im SHOCKED

This is from Lenny Harper


The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.



Now for Mick Gradwell he says

Now, a bluff, straightforward and extremely experienced Lancashire detective, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who had taken over the investigation after Mr Harper retired in August, was telling them that most of what they had been told about Haut de la Garenne and Mr Harper's £4.5million inquiry was nonsense.
'There are no credible allegations of murder, there are no suspects for murder,' Mr Gradwell said, and neither was there a scrap of evidence that there had ever been any victims.

The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) ‘Eddie’was deployed in a wide area screening capacity within the outer boundaries of the HDLG with no alert indications or behaviour changes evident. The search was recorded via GPS data logging equipment attached to the dog’s collar to ensure complete area coverage.


Geophysical anomalies identified by other assets, were probed and subjected to EVRD screening. No alert indications were forthcoming.


A large amount of animal bone historically deposited in the grounds of HDLG as garbage was ignored.


The EVRD was deployed tactically within the ground floor of the premises where a continuing alert indication of varying strength was given in the western aspect. The weakest being in the south-western corridor, the strongest and most significant being in the north-western stairwell.


The reactions of the dog are explained as scent travelling through ‘chimneys’ such as conduit, electric cable ducting, which transects from the north west stairwell along the western corridor in a southerly direction.


Anecdotal witness evidence was suggestive of juvenile human bones being recovered from the area of the north-western stairwell during recent building renovations in 2003.


Human remains deposited within the ground in that area would contaminate the ground, and any porous material within it. The dog’s reactions were therefore consistent with this scenario. The area was therefore subjected to intrusive archaeological excavation.


A fragment of what the forensic anthropologist describes as being possibly human juvenile skull was recovered from within a Victorian context of the excavation. The fragment was shipped to the U.K. for confirmation of substance, species, carbon dating and DNA testing. The laboratory conducting the analysis reported confused and conflicting findings therefore no conclusion is available at this time. Other burnt bone fragments were also recovered from the context within this area. The dating of the context is Victorian, outside the time spectrum of a homicide enquiry at this time. Therefore further testing will be the subject of a forensic submission review later in the enquiry.


The EVRD gave a number of alert indications in the eastern wing of the building. Holes were drilled through the 3 inch thick wooden / insulated clad flooring to allow the dog scent access to the voids below. He identified areas of interest which supported anecdotal witness evidence. This prompted the complete removal of the flooring in 2/3 of the east wing.

Removal of the flooring revealed the original ground floor of the building including a large brick and rendered bath, original sinks and toilet area, play rooms etc. Renovations had enclosed the areas which then resembled ‘cellars’.


The EVRD was again deployed in a detailed search of these areas. Alert indications were forthcoming which, where appropriate, were confirmed using the human blood search dog.


The EVRD alert indications were confirmed by intrusive archaeological excavation and sieving. A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human. The remains are at the present time undergoing forensic testing including carbon dating procedures.


Predominantly the human remains have been recovered from cellars 3, 4 and 5 which historically were one large classroom.


Control testing of the EVRD would suggest that although the dog alerted to specific areas where human remains were situated the entire top two inches of soil within this area is contaminated with human cadaver odour. Enquiries at this time are suggestive that the human remains were deposited in this area and covered with top soil in a deliberate act of concealment. The deposition could only have taken place during a period of time when the floor had been removed. Research into the historical renovation of the property suggests that the floor above cellars 3, 4 &5 was taken up in the late 60’s early 70’s.


Three indications by the human blood search dog were given in cellar one which, when subjected to presumptive testing, proved positive.


Two indications by the human blood search dog were given in the cellar entrance hall which when subjected to presumptive testing proved positive.


The EVRD provided alert indications in support of the human blood search dog.


Forensic samples were recovered and conveyed to the UK for further testing.


Other deployments of the EVRD were based upon the blind screening of soil samples and other areas from which suggestive intelligence is supported:


The EVRD was deployed to screen soil samples from certain contexts of archaeological excavation. A positive reaction was forthcoming from a context where it is reported human remains were uncovered and removed by builders in the area of the main electric feed in the north-western wing. There is some witness evidence to suggest that these remains were also human juvenile. Although the remains were examined by a pathologist they were not positively identified. In fact the pathologists report lists at least one bone that was ‘UNIDENTIFIED’. Measurements of the bones would tend to suggest that they may well have been juvenile human.


Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.


Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the

waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.


Having considered options to support the theory a series of scent sample screening tests was completed using the EVRD These tests were yes or no answers to the presence of human remains decomposition scent. It does not rely on change in behaviour or handler judgement and is therefore more accurate.


The series of tests involved the use of samples of soot and debris from the chimney situated in the plant room that was in use at the time the solid fuel furnace was in operation. The tests were completed in such a way as to isolate the samples from containers, human ‘live’ scent and other distracters.


The tests clearly indicated the presence of human remains decomposition scent.


A forensic review team may be in a position to assist with further testing procedures to corroborate the dogs presumptive testing.


It is important to note that a substantial weight of animal bone has been recovered from the site as a whole. The EVRD has ignored all such material whilst alerting to confirmed human remains. This tends supports the scenario above.


Both the EVRD and Human blood search dog are presumptive screening assets. Any alert indications given MUST be forensically corroborated to be conclusive.


The entire building and grounds have now been screened and detail searched by the canine assets attached to the enquiry. Preparations are now underway to prepare for phase two at Victoria Tower.

Me wrote:
Now for Mick Gradwell he says

Now, a bluff, straightforward and extremely experienced Lancashire detective, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who had taken over the investigation after Mr Harper retired in August, was telling them that most of what they had been told about Haut de la Garenne and Mr Harper's £4.5million inquiry was nonsense.
'There are no credible allegations of murder, there are no suspects for murder,' Mr Gradwell said, and neither was there a scrap of evidence that there had ever been any victims.

pauline wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Also important to remember is that Gerry stated that the dogs were "Notoriously unreliable".
Which is obviously why Police forces across the world use them, along with Fire and Emergency Search and Rescue teams, Avalanche rescue, Mountain rescue, Earthquake disaster relief, Guide dogs for the blind, and so on.
All that money spend on notoriously unreliable animals !

PeterMac - you are misunderstanding poor Gerry. He did not mean dogs are unreliable in all scenarios - he merely meant that when dogs are brought in to cases involving middle class truthful doctors then dogs are 'notoriously unreliable.'