CADAVER DOGS BACK IN THE NEWS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17142957

Cadaver dogs used in Suzanne Pilley murder probe


The Suzanne Pilley murder trial in Edinburgh has heard how police used dogs which had been specially trained to find evidence of dead bodies.

The cadaver dogs searched the offices where she worked with David Gilroy, who denies her murder.

The springer spaniels identified three areas of interest in the office's basement garage, and two areas in Mr Gilroy's car boot.

Ms Pilley's body has never been found. The trial is adjourned until Friday.

Defence lawyers said the large number of forensic tests which had been carried out had failed to find any substantial evidence linked to the accused.

David Gilroy, 49, denies seven charges including murder. He is accused of killing Ms Pilley either in Thistle Street or elsewhere in Scotland.

On Wednesday the jury retraced the last known movements of the missing Edinburgh woman.

It followed the route the 38-year-old took to her city centre office on the morning she disappeared on Tuesday 4 May, 2010.

The jury members were accompanied by Mr Gilroy, her former lover and work colleague.

Now why do we keep wasting our time with these dogs?

Dogs making headlines must cause mccanns and friends untold frights, that I wonder whether they sit on their hands when see that.

aquila wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Dogs making headlines must cause mccanns and friends untold frights, that I wonder whether they sit on their hands when see that.

saying to each other "they are notoriously unreliable"

I was just checking some Jes Wilkins statements and came across an article by Donal Mcintyre - who apparently is a colleague/friend of JW.
In this early article he discounted the evidence of the dogs. It's quite long, I'll post it by itself.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id260.html

A Whiff Of Scandal, 13 August 2009

A week is a long time in Politics and, in our fast-moving information age, in the case of missing Madeleine McCann. Matters discussed, statements made, arguments hither and yon, are all too easily obscured in the mists of time. A modicum of clarification from time to time can be beneficial therefore.

One issue in particular remains controversial, largely due to a lack of clarity on the part of certain commentators. And all the while confusion reigns there are others only too pleased to hide behind the resultant smoke-screen. The time is perhaps ripe then to re-visit the topic of canine involvement. I say re-visit, since it was a factor previously addressed in an earlier article of mine ('Goldilocks', originally published in Ripperana, No. 66, October 2008).

One can deduce, from what the McCanns and others have said, that Madeleine was not constrained to sleeping in her own bed. On the basis of Locard's Principle (Every contact leaves a trace - the fundamental premise of forensics, and one to which Madeleine McCann was no exception), we may reason that residual evidence of Madeleine's existence will have been deposited on items with which she had come into contact, i.e. clothing, bedding, even her favourite soft toy; a deduction consistent with Kate's sniffing of 'cuddle cat' at press conferences throughout Europe.

If we are expected to believe that it was the scent of Maddie Kate craved (at least until she decided to wash the toy), then Maddie scent, if you will, is a sufficient common denominator of contact with the child, and thus ties 'cuddle cat' together with the parents' bedroom in apartment 5a, the verandah, various items of Kate's clothing and, crucially, the Renault Scenic hire car. All of these items were 'marked' by the same dog.

Two factors jointly make this connection of loci an ominous one: The fact that the dog was not offered something of Madeleine's to sniff beforehand, and the nature of the scent it was trained to detect, before ever it arrived in Portugal.

Immediately, in the eyes of some, one runs up against the question of reliability.

I, for one, do not profess expertise in the training or handling of dogs, any more than others who are quick to contradict what they appear to tell us. I do however have extensive experience of homo sapiens, and it is among this species that one should look for evidence of error.

First things first. The dog(s) under consideration are 'first division' animals from the outset. Any candidate trainees that show signs of being fickle, lazy, or otherwise unsuited to the task are simply screened out. Not every dog will have the X factor. That said, one must now address the altogether inconsistent attitude, not of the dogs, but their self-appointed adjudicators.

It is revealing how society applauds the deployment of specialist sniffer dogs when seeking to rescue those buried under avalanches of snow (or concrete, in the wake of an earthquake) as well as others differently attuned to the detection of plastic explosives, drugs, etc. These are all patently 'positive' applications that work in the defence of those under threat, i,e, the general public. Ipso facto the dog's capability is accepted as superior to that of the human. However, as soon as a dog is employed in a mode which might be said to be incriminatory, anthropomorphism kicks in, and immediately the genuine experts in the field are faced with having to defend themselves and their canine charges against accusations, veiled or otherwise, of unreliability, errors and incompetence.

Judges are on record as stating unequivocally that they would not accept a dog's evidence in preference to that of a human. Others have suggested verification by electro-mechanical or other means. The most blatant, ill-informed 'knee-jerk' reaction however, comes from those who simply 'cry foul', suggesting that the dog must have been mistaken. It is almost bewildering quite how many logical knots people are prepared to tie themselves into in order to defend a cherished position, and at the same time almost arrogantly seek to erase any concession of animal superiority.

We should be perfectly clear as to the requirement for consistency in this regard. One cannot acknowledge superiority, even animal superiority, on the one hand, then look immediately to qualify it at the first sign of inconvenience.

In terms of specialist dogs detecting specific scents, there can be no argument. The scent is either present or it is not. The dog will neither equivocate nor mislead, as conclusively demonstrated by experiments conducted by Police in Rotterdam (to which we shall return later). In the case of an EVRD dog such as the Spaniel 'Eddie', trained to pinpoint sources (not origins necessarily) of human cadaverine, a reaction signals a presence in the immediate vicinity, historically or currently, of human remains. The dog cannot be expected to identify the corpse in question.

The following statements form the body of a personal communication from the BBC, and reveal exactly the class of misconception to which people are prepared to appeal in order to justify manning the barricades.

"The programme [Donal MacIntyre on BBC Radio 5 Live]... was also an examination of the reliability of sniffer dogs generally. The programme also spoke with a handler who admitted that his dogs did get things wrong on occasion.

"It was specifically pointed out that Eddie is trained to find remains, and Keela to find blood; there were references to other types of sniffer dogs because ultimately, no matter what a dog is trained to detect, there is reliance on the training they have received - it’s a variable.

"It's thought that the piece of 'bone' found by Eddie on Jersey is not actually a bone, which would indicate that there is some room for debate about his reliability. It was however pointed out that Martin Grime believes that even if the 'bone' isn't real, Eddie could have detected the scent of remains in the area.

"Senior management at BBC News have been made aware of his concerns..."

Should it surprise us that Martin Grime himself has expressed concerns at this wayward interpretation? I think not.

The first paragraph announces that the concern was with sniffer dogs 'generally' and that one handler has admitted that his dogs get things wrong on occasion. The writer then goes on to say: "...no matter what a dog is trained to detect, there is reliance on the training they have received - it's a variable." Indeed it is, which is why, if scrutinising the performance of a particular animal, it simply does not do to compare it with another from a different school. Beware again the arrogance of species. If errors are made, they are far more likely to be errors of interpretation (human) than errors of detection (canine).

Nor is it true that Eddie is trained to 'find remains' and Keela to 'find blood'. Each is trained to react to a particular scent. Nothing more, nothing less. They have no knowledge of the implicit target of their endeavours. That Martin Grime may be heard to direct his dogs with 'find, find' from time to time does not contradict this fact. Neither Eddie nor Keela speaks English, as far as I am aware.

"It's thought that the piece of 'bone' found by Eddie on Jersey is not actually a bone, which would indicate that there is some room for debate about his reliability."

Well, of course it indicates no such thing. Eddie did not 'find' bone, coconut, or any other solid material. Had investigators excavated a car tyre, no one would have suggested that Eddie had discovered a car! Just as kitchen odours are no respecters of the household furniture they envelop, so the erroneous attribution of a traceable scent is a mistake to be laid at the door to the office, not the kennel.

The following extract is taken from the comprehensive overview of Forensics by Dr Zakaria Erzinclioglu (Forensics - True Crime Scene Investigations: Carlton/ Sevenoaks, 2004) and illustrates perfectly clearly how those with a professional concern for the appropriate deployment of dogs in law enforcement, have a rather clearer understanding of experimental verification and how to garner evidence than do their amateur critics. And in that category I do not hesitate to include members of the Judiciary.

"Cloths are handed to each of the people involved in the experiment; they handle them and then place them in special jars, with each cloth in a separate jar. The jars are placed in a row in the experiment room and the dog and handler come in. The dog sniffs each jar in turn and then identifies correctly the jar with the right cloth... the jars are moved around in the absence of the dog, who returns with his handler and correctly identifies the cloth.

"These results are very impressive, but, to my mind, the results of the next experiment are the most impressive of all. The jar with the 'right' cloth is removed completely, leaving all the other jars, plus another to keep the number constant. What will the dog do now?

"As with the other experiments, the dog is led by its handler into the room. The dog sniffs each jar in turn. It is puzzled. It starts again, sniffing each jar diligently. It stops and looks up at its handler and then looks back at the jars, It then starts to whine to its owner and walks away from the jar; no doubt it feels it has failed in its task.

"But it has not; it has succeeded brilliantly, for the dog has not chosen a second best, a nearest odour to the one it was seeking. The smell was either present in one of the jars or it was not. It is as simple as that. The dog would not identify a false jar even to please its handler; it would rather fail than do that."

This author goes on to say, "I believe that the use of dog evidence in British courts would be a great step forward in the fight against crime." He concludes the chapter thus:

"Attempts have been made to produce a machine - an electronic nose - that can do what a dog does. These devices have been very successful in determining whether a food product, such as wine or cheese, is fresh and in a fit condition to be consumed. However, their application to criminal investigation has not yet been demonstrated. A dog is still the more reliable tool."

There are those today who would bombastically denounce the admission of dog evidence in a court of law as verging on the scandalous. The fact of the matter as regards the McCann case however, is that they are rather more afraid of the dogs exposing a scandal than creating one.

Hi Tigger

The article is by the excellent Dr Martin Roberts (who does mention Donal & the McCanns unfair dismissing of the dogs) did you mean another article?

Donal Macintyre on twitter on 18th February 2012 "I will say it again - dogs not reliable -"

This is an extremely interesting case. Issuing challenges about finding a body and proving who killed her might not be such a clever thing to do. This isn't the first time murder charges have been brought in a case in which sniffer dogs' reactions are taken as a serious indication to complete a raft of circumstantial evidence and no doubt it will not be the last.

Gillyspot wrote:Hi Tigger

The article is by the excellent Dr Martin Roberts (who does mention Donal & the McCanns unfair dismissing of the dogs) did you mean another article?

Donal Macintyre on twitter on 18th February 2012 "I will say it again - dogs not reliable -"

Yes, sorry, forgot the ref. Late night!

thanks for posting this info redrag, I was going to update the thread I started, so am glad someone else is on the case

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4419-edinburgh-man-on-trial-for-murder-without-the-body-being-foundinteresting

Incidentally, I did a google search on suzanne pilley murder trial again once I started the thread and immediately got the link to jillhavern's site, which can only be a good thing since the site is mostly dedicated to Madeleine McCann case. I do hope this spurs on many local people to read up about the Madeleine McCann if they happened upon it by accident - the more eyes the better!

Upsy Daisy wrote:thanks for posting this info redrag, I was going to update the thread I started, so am glad someone else is on the case

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4419-edinburgh-man-on-trial-for-murder-without-the-body-being-foundinteresting

Incidentally, I did a google search on suzanne pilley murder trial again once I started the thread and immediately got the link to jillhavern's site, which can only be a good thing since the site is mostly dedicated to Madeleine McCann case. I do hope this spurs on many local people to read up about the Madeleine McCann if they happened upon it by accident - the more eyes the better!

That's good news! Getting linked to this site may make people think.

T4two wrote:This is an extremely interesting case. Issuing challenges about finding a body and proving who killed her might not be such a clever thing to do. This isn't the first time murder charges have been brought in a case in which sniffer dogs' reactions are taken as a serious indication to complete a raft of circumstantial evidence and no doubt it will not be the last.

confused here.....you seem to be referring to the Madeleine case, given the references to challenges issued. You then state something about murder charges.....no such charges have been brought in this case.

From Daily Telegraph 6/5/12.

A dog's sense of smell is not only many times better than a humans's: it outperforms even the best odour-detecting machines.
The best such machine can detect one part per billion. A dog can scent out one part per quadrillion.

Dogs are basically walking noses and can be trained to find anything by smell: explosives, drugs, smuggled animals, plants and food, land mines, drowned bodies.
They can even smell cancer. Doctors in California have found that Labradors and Portuguese water dogs can detect lung and breast cancer with greater accuracy than equipment such as mammograms and CAT scans.
The dogs identified 99% of lung cancer sufferers and 88 % of breast cancer patients simply by smelling their breath.
Unquote.

For me, the evidence of Keela and Eddie is set in stone.

I agree, tigger. And, I know we have different views on this, but to me the most likely scenario has always been that Gerry using the bathroom after his check on the night of the 3rd woke Maddie who then, hearing his voice outside in the street talking to Jez, climbed on to the sofa in the living room to see and fell behind it, where Keela later detected cadaver scent.

Ribisl wrote:I agree, tigger. And, I know we have different views on this, but to me the most likely scenario has always been that Gerry using the bathroom after his check on the night of the 3rd woke Maddie who then, hearing his voice outside in the street talking to Jez, climbed on to the sofa in the living room to see and fell behind it, where Keela later detected cadaver scent.

That is one of the most believable theories I have ever heard! Whilst I have always believed there was no abduction, always suspected that the parents knew more than they say and always known in my heart that MBM died on that fateful trip, I have never been able to find a theory that sat comfortably with my belief of what is practicably possible.

With regards to the cadaver dogs, I have every faith that if those dogs were as highly trained as e.g. guide dogs for the blind (who manage to cross busy roads) and airport drugs dogs (who the government trust with protecting our country from drug trafficking), that they were right. And that is proof enough for me! Why the police choose to discredit this information and ignore the glaringly obvious facts I will never know!

OpenMind wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree, tigger. And, I know we have different views on this, but to me the most likely scenario has always been that Gerry using the bathroom after his check on the night of the 3rd woke Maddie who then, hearing his voice outside in the street talking to Jez, climbed on to the sofa in the living room to see and fell behind it, where Keela later detected cadaver scent.

That is one of the most believable theories I have ever heard! Whilst I have always believed there was no abduction, always suspected that the parents knew more than they say and always known in my heart that MBM died on that fateful trip, I have never been able to find a theory that sat comfortably with my belief of what is practicably possible.

With regards to the cadaver dogs, I have every faith that if those dogs were as highly trained as e.g. guide dogs for the blind (who manage to cross busy roads) and airport drugs dogs (who the government trust with protecting our country from drug trafficking), that they were right. And that is proof enough for me! Why the police choose to discredit this information and ignore the glaringly obvious facts I will never know!

But you are overlooking the problem of the cadaver odour. This would need at least an hour to develop, the whole circus that took place that night - the deletion of their phone calls, the timeline. The development of a fake abduction theory with JT seeing the abductor - the list is endless.
The 3rd does not allow for this to have happened in that time frame.
The cleaning of the apartment ... and so on. The GNR dogs would certainly have alerted in the apartment after such a short time span.
Even moving the 'accident' to around 5-6 p.m. does not allow for such an elaborate plan to develop. Besides, would your first thought be to hide the body of your beloved daughter? If it was an accident, it was a surprise and the grief and unbelief that goes with a sudden death.

I've really tried to make it simple - most cases are in the end. But one can allow for exceptions and these two are exceptional people.
Don't forget that 99% of the red herrings and contradictory evidence are all post 3/5.
The 1% that counts concerns the entire week. The role that Murat played, the protection and the xenophobic lies about the Portuguese police. All right from the start, why? Everything goes back to one person, GM who 'activated' the whole protection/celebrity circus.

Besides: if you had set up a fake abduction, would you go for maximum publicity or would you go for discrete protection (which would have been much more efficient) who could have kept most of it out of the papers - facilitated with the PJ and the whole thing would have died a natural death.

Better still. With the strings you could obviously pull left, right and centre, the accident could have been glossed over, you could simply say you were there when it happened. Or just for a minute next door, whatever. The same protection that is still keeping you covered now, could simply have fudged the whole thing, changed the post mortem (if the FSS report can be changed that would have been even simpler) and you'd have been home and dry.

So what would have been different if they had chosen either of those two options? Bless me! No money, no celebrity, no A list lifestyle.

The McCanns are reaping what they have intentionally sown: celebrity/money/publicity in equal parts. Crime doesn't pay.

I started thinking this was a case of a massive hoax for money until I heard about the dogs..that did it for me.
GA concluded the climbing on the sofa when she heard her Dad outside, and much as I won't pit myself against an experienced detective and am aware we do not have access to all the info, it struck me as too bizarre for an accident at 9pm. Too much happened that seemed controlled. Early evening or earlier that day, maybe but the normal behaviour so soon after a dreadful and shocking event as some horrific accident.is not credible imo.
The creche and phone records alongside Murat's arrival are suspicious, but involve more people outside the group and so are risky. Murat is involved I am convinced but has had nothing to do with harming Maddie.


btw I have a feeling that the truth of this matter is to be found hidden in the early statements before all the real smoke and mirrors stuff got into its stride.
I also have a gut instinct that the Paynes hold the key to what went on.

Imo Amaral went with what would stick. Without a body he'd never prove anything else and this was an efficient and logical solution.
His investigation was obstructed from the start. Otherwise I'm sure he would have found the body.

Tigger, it appears to me that so far none of us have come up with a perfect hypothesis. The McCanns may not be the brightest pair you meet but they certainly managed to muddy the track with help from some seasoned experts.

I don't believe in their timeline, and as far as I can see, there is no reliable sighting of Madeleine after 17.30 or thereabout by Catriona Baker on the 3rd. So there was plenty of time for the accident to have occurred that day and her body to have left cadaver odour behind the sofa then be removed to a temporary hiding place. Perhaps I was too hasty/careless to include GM/JW chat as the possible reason for Madeleine to want to climb on the sofa. But I cannot see how else the cadaver odour could have been left behind the sofa unless she did climb and fell. I remain however open-minded.

Ribisl wrote:Tigger, it appears to me that so far none of us have come up with a perfect hypothesis. The McCanns may not be the brightest pair you meet but they certainly managed to muddy the track with help from some seasoned experts.

I don't believe in their timeline, and as far as I can see, there is no reliable sighting of Madeleine after 17.30 or thereabout by Catriona Baker on the 3rd. So there was plenty of time for the accident to have occurred that day and her body to have left cadaver odour behind the sofa then be removed to a temporary hiding place. Perhaps I was too hasty/careless to include GM/JW chat as the possible reason for Madeleine to want to climb on the sofa. But I cannot see how else the cadaver odour could have been left behind the sofa unless she did climb and fell. I remain however open-minded.

That leaves 5 hours of decision making, finding the photograph most likely to appeal, least likely to find Maddie - dreaming up the coloboma as a marketing ploy, pasting it into the photograph - where, how? Photoshop isn't standard on computers, v. expensive. (Leaving aside the doubtful printer and available paper). Pre-alerting various helpers in the UK?
Finding a hiding place for the body, how? where? They would not know if the GNR dogs would come that night. There is the Smiths' sighting.
Cleaning the apartment, devoid of Maddie's DNA, wash the curtains. Deleting calls on their mobiles - lying about it the next day. Why? If it was an accident what would have been incriminating about those calls?
Really, it's completely out for me at any rate.

tigger wrote:

OpenMind wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree, tigger. And, I know we have different views on this, but to me the most likely scenario has always been that Gerry using the bathroom after his check on the night of the 3rd woke Maddie who then, hearing his voice outside in the street talking to Jez, climbed on to the sofa in the living room to see and fell behind it, where Keela later detected cadaver scent.

That is one of the most believable theories I have ever heard! Whilst I have always believed there was no abduction, always suspected that the parents knew more than they say and always known in my heart that MBM died on that fateful trip, I have never been able to find a theory that sat comfortably with my belief of what is practicably possible.

With regards to the cadaver dogs, I have every faith that if those dogs were as highly trained as e.g. guide dogs for the blind (who manage to cross busy roads) and airport drugs dogs (who the government trust with protecting our country from drug trafficking), that they were right. And that is proof enough for me! Why the police choose to discredit this information and ignore the glaringly obvious facts I will never know!

But you are overlooking the problem of the cadaver odour. This would need at least an hour to develop, the whole circus that took place that night - the deletion of their phone calls, the timeline. The development of a fake abduction theory with JT seeing the abductor - the list is endless.
The 3rd does not allow for this to have happened in that time frame.
The cleaning of the apartment ... and so on. The GNR dogs would certainly have alerted in the apartment after such a short time span.
Even moving the 'accident' to around 5-6 p.m. does not allow for such an elaborate plan to develop. Besides, would your first thought be to hide the body of your beloved daughter? If it was an accident, it was a surprise and the grief and unbelief that goes with a sudden death.

I've really tried to make it simple - most cases are in the end. But one can allow for exceptions and these two are exceptional people.
Don't forget that 99% of the red herrings and contradictory evidence are all post 3/5.
The 1% that counts concerns the entire week. The role that Murat played, the protection and the xenophobic lies about the Portuguese police. All right from the start, why? Everything goes back to one person, GM who 'activated' the whole protection/celebrity circus.

Besides: if you had set up a fake abduction, would you go for maximum publicity or would you go for discrete protection (which would have been much more efficient) who could have kept most of it out of the papers - facilitated with the PJ and the whole thing would have died a natural death.

Better still. With the strings you could obviously pull left, right and centre, the accident could have been glossed over, you could simply say you were there when it happened. Or just for a minute next door, whatever. The same protection that is still keeping you covered now, could simply have fudged the whole thing, changed the post mortem (if the FSS report can be changed that would have been even simpler) and you'd have been home and dry.

So what would have been different if they had chosen either of those two options? Bless me! No money, no celebrity, no A list lifestyle.

The McCanns are reaping what they have intentionally sown: celebrity/money/publicity in equal parts. Crime doesn't pay.

I am some way with all of you on some things, however IMO I do believe it was a tragic accident, I believe it happened earlier or even a day or so before , I find the statement of Mrs. Fenn RIP may have been the starting point to it , the pattern for the parents was set , 8.30 ish at the Tapas , on the night Mrs Fenn heard a child crying from 10.30 to 11.45 there were no checks obviously .

Now from 8.30 ish to 11.45 is a lot of time , I am not saying anyone was drunk but certainly not sober . I reckon panic may have set in and in a split second the wrong decision was made .

If we look at this imaginary scene "A family are all dining at the a cafe as their children play happily in the play area , one of the children tragically slipped and hit their head , the child seems ok but within a short period of time , the child slipped into a coma losing its fight for life. It is what it is a tragic accident.

Accidents happen but for the most part parents are on hand to help immediately , which in this case they were not end of .

Now if only I could make sense of everything else IMO Jane Tanner did not see anyone , however I believe the Smith Family saw something but the timing does not fit in with anything , if it was GMC why ? was he not at the Tapas table at this time ? Having said that I still need to study the creche sheets for the two days ...................................... just my thoughts !

It really is difficult to make any kind of assessment of the situation when there is so much information and so much of it is conflicting.
I also know that there are things I believe and things that I definitely don't. I do believe that MBM died, I do believe that KM and GM have behaved in a shameful way that disrespects the memory of their daughter (regardless of their involvement)and I do believe that the cadaver dogs provided vital information that was ignored. I do not believe that as many people were "in on it" as has been suggested, as surely someone would have slipped up or broken down before now. I just hope that a conclusion is reached in my lifetime that I can believe and that those responsible for the death and those who covered it up see some reasonable justice.

After my earlier hastily written post and reading tigger's comments in reply, I have been reflecting once again on how this whole affair remains a mystery to us all only because the main protagonists want it to remain that way, in order to avoid prosecution and for their own financial gains. The truth, however bizarre, must follow a simple chronology of events. Easier said.

For the time being, I still find it more plausible that Madeleine died on the 3rd. (https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4683-who-saw-madeleine-on-the-3rd-of-may?highlight=who+saw+madeleine+on+the+3rd) That she had to be carried back to the apartment from the Tapas area after tea may or may not be a significant pointer to what might have followed. But I simply cannot find a logical explanation for the cadaver odour behind the sofa unless she fell and died there. And why so much blood, and blood on the wall and the curtains too?

Map of corpse scent from the Beach to the McCanns Apartment

[img][/img]

In the meantime, I found this on JM's blog site
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/02/sniffer-dogs-used-to-seek-madeleine.html
but cannot find any other reference to it. I always thought Eddie and Keela only found traces inside the MCs' apartment and in their car. Can anybody explain what this is about?

I have seen it mentioned that the curtains had been washed but where was the proof of this?