Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

A poster called Sami pointed me back to the longer video of the Martin Grime dogs in PDL.

So this morning I watched it again in full.

A few things puzzle me about it.



At 1.30 we see Eddie approach a bin to the left of the window. He doesn't alert at the bin either by barking or by holding his head in the air. Instead he simply pulls the bin over and grabs the Cuddlecat toy which was in the bin.

He then drags the toy to the middle of the room without alerting.

After that he is taken by Grime to another room.

Eddie is then taken back into the room, has a good sniff round without alerting and leaves the room. He then, after sniffing some food on the top of the cupboards alerts by barking near the cupboards.

Following that Eddie is taken out of the room.

Grime then brings him back into the room and makes him sit.

At some point either before or after Eddie has sniffed at the cupboards and alerted, somebody (Harrison?) must pick up the toy (wearing protective gloves?) and put it in a cupboard on the other side of the room.

Grime then goes over to the cupboards, starts to open one cupboard but for some reason doesn't continue, then opens the second cupboard and without any surprise finds the toy which earlier had been dragged across the room by his dog.

All this takes place between 1.30 and 7.00 on the video.

************

I have three questions.

Who put the toy in the bin in the first place? I don't presume it was the McCanns. What was the point of Grime or someone else moving it and deliberately hiding it before the searches began?

Secondly why did Eddie not alert to it in any way till it was put in the cupboard under the food preparation area?

Thirdly why did Grime only look in the cupboard where the toy actually was, even though he went to open another cupboard first?

Can anyone help answer these please?

In answer to your questions:

I have no idea.

Now I have a question for you.

Are you hoping to in some way discredit the dogs or their handler?

As far as I am concerned the important thing is that the film is there for all to see. The film cannot show everything as there appears to be only one camera so we see only what it is pointing at. I think we have to trust the handler who seems good at his job and the police.

I don't think any inappropriate or exaggerated claims have been made by the handler in relation to alerts by the dogs.
We know that the dogs are good at what they do i.e. identifying particular smells

LG1968, I will say again, you are clearly showing what your agenda here is

How can anyone answer these questions. Only Mr Grime can. He trains the dogs, he know what to do and how they work. He has his methods, you and I don't know what they are. If Mr Grime and his dogs have been never been wrong in 200 cases, what makes you so sure he was in this one. From what you are saying it sound like you are implying he cued the dogs. Someone said that yesterday, and look what happend to them.....whoosh!



[quote]

I have three questions.

Who put the toy in the bin in the first place? Now who here is going to know that?? don't presume it was the McCanns. What was the point of Grime or someone else moving it and deliberately hiding it before the searches began? You will have to ask Mr Grime that

Secondly why did Eddie not alert to it in any way till it was put in the cupboard under the food preparation area?

Again, ask Mr Grime
Or Eddie


Thirdly why did Grime only look in the cupboard where the toy actually was, even though he went to open another cupboard first?

Only Mr Grime knows that



So you think the dog was being led do you. Strange isn't it these dogs cost more per day than the Chief Constable daily rate, the PJ had the best dogs in the world flown in for this case. They didn't even risk using their own in case of bias etc., The costs are there in the PJ files of how much it cost them. Are you saying a person, a Britain, an ex policeman, had some sort of agenda??? Or perhaps it is the dog that had the agenda, that is why he was the most sought after cadaver dog, which went on to work for the FBI. Oh dear!!

There are two cuddlecats, one in or near the bin that was knocked over and another in the bottom of the cupboard. I have watched the whole of this very long video three times. The cuddlecat alerted to was in the cupboard awaiting it's next airing imo by KM/KH.

These brilliant dogs are really worrying some people very much,i wonder why

[quote="candyfloss"]LG1968, I will say again, you are clearly showing what your agenda here is

How can anyone answer these questions. Only Mr Grime can. He trains the dogs, he know what to do and how they work. He has his methods, you and I don't know what they are. If Mr Grime and his dogs have been never been wrong in 200 cases, what makes you so sure he was in this one. From what you are saying it sound like you are implying he cued the dogs. Someone said that yesterday, and look what happend to them.....whoosh!

I have three questions.

Who put the toy in the bin in the first place? Now who here is going to know that?? don't presume it was the McCanns. What was the point of Grime or someone else moving it and deliberately hiding it before the searches began? You will have to ask Mr Grime that

Secondly why did Eddie not alert to it in any way till it was put in the cupboard under the food preparation area?

Again, ask Mr Grime
Or Eddie


Thirdly why did Grime only look in the cupboard where the toy actually was, even though he went to open another cupboard first?

Only Mr Grime knows that



So you think the dog was being led do you. Strange isn't it these dogs cost more per day than the Chief Constable daily rate, the PJ had the best dogs in the world flown in for this case. They didn't even risk using their own in case of bias etc., The costs are there in the PJ files of how much it cost them. Are you saying a person, a Britain, an ex policeman, had some sort of agenda??? Or perhaps it is the dog that had the agenda, that is why he was the most sought after cadaver dog, which went on to work for the FBI. Oh dear!!

Where did I say I thought the dog was being led? I didn't.

I am asking valid questions about aspects of the video which I find puzzling. I doubt that I am the only one who finds them puzzling.

But to simply answer by telling me to ask Mr Grime is a little bit strange.

The same can be said of any question asked on the forum

For example people are now asking why the McCanns resorted to excuses about the dogs?

Taking your view, the only possible comment would be, "How could we know that? You will have to ask the McCanns."

It is my opinion that there is something odd about the toy being found originally in a bin.

It is my opinion that there is something very odd about the dog not barking at the toy.

It is a puzzle to me why Grime starting to open one cupboard, suddenly chooses to open the other one where the toy happens to be.

I am accusing nobody of anything, just askinng questions to try to work out the truth of the matter.

Nina wrote:There are two cuddlecats, one in or near the bin that was knocked over and another in the bottom of the cupboard. I have watched the whole of this very long video three times. The cuddlecat alerted to was in the cupboard awaiting it's next airing imo by KM/KH.

Do we know there was a second cuddlecat or is that just a guess? Martin Grime certainly never mentions a second one.

tiny wrote:These brilliant dogs are really worrying some people very much,i wonder why

The dogs don't worry me at all.

I just want to know what their alerts really mean and what they really reveal about what happened in PDL.

tiny wrote:These brilliant dogs are really worrying some people very much,i wonder why

They certainly are tiny. This is exactly the same thing they are continually tweeting on twitter, doing absolutely everything to discredit these marvellous dogs. Well take note, it ain't going to work, you are wasting your breath,the dogs and brilliant at what they do. Not just cadaver dogs, but all dogs who do various tasks, they are extremely reliable, and any police officer will tell you. They are used all over the world, found countless victims, alive or dead depending on what sort of dog. They have save peoples lives from bombers, I could go on forever.......... You might need one of these dogs one day, or they might help save your life. How dare you diss them and and imply things about their owner.

I am getting rather fed up with these trolls (I hate that word but I'm afraid it's totally the word to use) My finger is hovering over the ban button.

Da Troof wrote:In answer to your questions:

I have no idea.

Now I have a question for you.

Are you hoping to in some way discredit the dogs or their handler?

As far as I am concerned the important thing is that the film is there for all to see. The film cannot show everything as there appears to be only one camera so we see only what it is pointing at. I think we have to trust the handler who seems good at his job and the police.

I don't think any inappropriate or exaggerated claims have been made by the handler in relation to alerts by the dogs.
We know that the dogs are good at what they do i.e. identifying particular smells

I agree...we can't possibly know the answers without asking Mr Grime himself. Silly to speculate on this one. I will base my ideas on what I see and what Mr Grime says, which is what I did in the other thread in trying to work out what exactly Eddie was alerting to. No intention on my part to discredit the dogs or their handler. Just looking for clarity.

FWIW...and that's probably not much seeing as I'm a newcomer myself, I don't think anyone on this thread is a troll...just trying to get at the truth in perhaps a bit of an abrasive/thoughtless manner?? I think its a shame that people with genuine questions are looked on suspiciously because the forum in the past has had so much disruption (from what I understand). I could be wrong, perhaps I'm naive being new to internet forums.

LG1968 wrote:

Nina wrote:There are two cuddlecats, one in or near the bin that was knocked over and another in the bottom of the cupboard. I have watched the whole of this very long video three times. The cuddlecat alerted to was in the cupboard awaiting it's next airing imo by KM/KH.

Do we know there was a second cuddlecat or is that just a guess? Martin Grime certainly never mentions a second one.

No he doesn't mention two cuddlecats in the same way he doesn't mention the piles of clothes all over or the sunflower toy on the coffee table. he is there with Eddie to see if there are any alerts to cadaver, and there was, on the cuddlecat in the cupboard.

A snip from a previous post of yours.....

At 1.30 we see Eddie approach a bin to the left of the window. He doesn't alert at the bin either by barking or by holding his head in the air. Instead he simply pulls the bin over and grabs the Cuddlecat toy which was in the bin.

He then drags the toy to the middle of the room without alerting.

After that he is taken by Grime to another room.

Eddie is then taken back into the room, has a good sniff round without alerting and leaves the room. He then, after sniffing some food on the top of the cupboards alerts by barking near the cupboards.

Following that Eddie is taken out of the room.

Grime then brings him back into the room and makes him sit.

At some point either before or after Eddie has sniffed at the cupboards and alerted, somebody (Harrison?) must pick up the toy (wearing protective gloves?) and put it in a cupboard on the other side of the room.

Grime then goes over to the cupboards, starts to open one cupboard but for some reason doesn't continue, then opens the second cupboard and without any surprise finds the toy which earlier had been dragged across the room by his dog.

All this takes place between 1.30 and 7.00 on the video.

************

I have three questions.

Who put the toy in the bin in the first place? I don't presume it was the McCanns. What was the point of Grime or someone else moving it and deliberately hiding it before the searches began?

Secondly why did Eddie not alert to it in any way till it was put in the cupboard under the food preparation area?

Thirdly why did Grime only look in the cupboard where the toy actually was, even though he went to open another cupboard first?

Can anyone help answer these please?

LG1968

Posts: 48
Join date: 2012-10-18


Are you accusing Martin Grime or his colleague of planting evidence?

Nina wrote:

LG1968 wrote:

Nina wrote:There are two cuddlecats, one in or near the bin that was knocked over and another in the bottom of the cupboard. I have watched the whole of this very long video three times. The cuddlecat alerted to was in the cupboard awaiting it's next airing imo by KM/KH.

Do we know there was a second cuddlecat or is that just a guess? Martin Grime certainly never mentions a second one.

No he doesn't mention two cuddlecats in the same way he doesn't mention the piles of clothes all over or the sunflower toy on the coffee table. he is there with Eddie to see if there are any alerts to cadaver, and there was, on the cuddlecat in the cupboard.

A snip from a previous post of yours.....

At 1.30 we see Eddie approach a bin to the left of the window. He doesn't alert at the bin either by barking or by holding his head in the air. Instead he simply pulls the bin over and grabs the Cuddlecat toy which was in the bin.

He then drags the toy to the middle of the room without alerting.

After that he is taken by Grime to another room.

Eddie is then taken back into the room, has a good sniff round without alerting and leaves the room. He then, after sniffing some food on the top of the cupboards alerts by barking near the cupboards.

Following that Eddie is taken out of the room.

Grime then brings him back into the room and makes him sit.

At some point either before or after Eddie has sniffed at the cupboards and alerted, somebody (Harrison?) must pick up the toy (wearing protective gloves?) and put it in a cupboard on the other side of the room.

Grime then goes over to the cupboards, starts to open one cupboard but for some reason doesn't continue, then opens the second cupboard and without any surprise finds the toy which earlier had been dragged across the room by his dog.

All this takes place between 1.30 and 7.00 on the video.

************

I have three questions.

Who put the toy in the bin in the first place? I don't presume it was the McCanns. What was the point of Grime or someone else moving it and deliberately hiding it before the searches began?

Secondly why did Eddie not alert to it in any way till it was put in the cupboard under the food preparation area?

Thirdly why did Grime only look in the cupboard where the toy actually was, even though he went to open another cupboard first?

Can anyone help answer these please?

LG1968

Posts: 48
Join date: 2012-10-18


Are you accusing Martin Grime or his colleague of planting evidence?

blimey nina,not another one whose planting evidence[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

IIRC - I read somewhere that cc was moved to the cupboard to see if Eddie alerted again. A double trial as it were. He was interested in the toy and selected it. Then it was later put amongst other items in a cupboard to see it he would select it again. Think of it as putting it amongst a lot of different scents. I think it was on McCann files. I also think that only one of the dogs alert by barking so Eddie not barking but only selecting is normal.

Allegedly Kate Healy gave twenty cuddlecats to Metodo3 with instructions to squeeze or rattle the damn things whenever they needed motivation - I'm not making this up!
My theory is that the cudllecat.co.uk enterprise was stopped by the pink one, one moneymaking website too far!
So yes, perhaps there is still a stock of cuddlecats waiting for a home - gosh, come to think of it, a friend of theirs was selling them on her website. (see please note the Fund is not a charity) - no reflection on the friend, but certainly a coincidence.

Here is part of the report: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

CANINE SEARCH OF MR MURAT'S PROPERTY

The property was subjected to a search for human remains or blood stained articles. The outside of property was stripped of vegetation and after the ground being probed was searched by the EVRD dog. The inside of the property was then searched by the dog. There were no alert indications and no human remains were located.

CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY

The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

For the rest: see above link.

candyfloss wrote:

tiny wrote:These brilliant dogs are really worrying some people very much,i wonder why

They certainly are tiny. This is exactly the same thing they are continually tweeting on twitter, doing absolutely everything to discredit these marvellous dogs. Well take note, it ain't going to work, you are wasting your breath,the dogs and brilliant at what they do. Not just cadaver dogs, but all dogs who do various tasks, they are extremely reliable, and any police officer will tell you. They are used all over the world, found countless victims, alive or dead depending on what sort of dog. They have save peoples lives from bombers, I could go on forever.......... You might need one of these dogs one day, or they might help save your life. How dare you diss them and and imply things about their owner.

I am getting rather fed up with these trolls (I hate that word but I'm afraid it's totally the word to use) My finger is hovering over the ban button.

I am not a troll. Asking questions is not trolling in any definition of the word.

As I said before it seems that it is valid to ask questions about certain subjects but not others.

Are you seriously saying it is not odd that the dog was in a bin for example?

This is a section of the forum for debate. It is not debate to call people trolls.

And banning people for asking questions about the McCann case is hardly what most people would call free speech is it?


I have never said that the dogs are not brilliant. I have never criticised Mr. Grime.

I have never said anything derogatory about either but I have asked questions about what I see on the video and what puzzles me.

If that is what you think deserves a ban then you have a different view of what debate is to mine.

As I said before our opinions will vary but the truth is what matters.

Nina wrote:

LG1968 wrote:

Nina wrote:There are two cuddlecats, one in or near the bin that was knocked over and another in the bottom of the cupboard. I have watched the whole of this very long video three times. The cuddlecat alerted to was in the cupboard awaiting it's next airing imo by KM/KH.

Do we know there was a second cuddlecat or is that just a guess? Martin Grime certainly never mentions a second one.

No he doesn't mention two cuddlecats in the same way he doesn't mention the piles of clothes all over or the sunflower toy on the coffee table. he is there with Eddie to see if there are any alerts to cadaver, and there was, on the cuddlecat in the cupboard.

A snip from a previous post of yours.....

At 1.30 we see Eddie approach a bin to the left of the window. He doesn't alert at the bin either by barking or by holding his head in the air. Instead he simply pulls the bin over and grabs the Cuddlecat toy which was in the bin.

He then drags the toy to the middle of the room without alerting.

After that he is taken by Grime to another room.

Eddie is then taken back into the room, has a good sniff round without alerting and leaves the room. He then, after sniffing some food on the top of the cupboards alerts by barking near the cupboards.

Following that Eddie is taken out of the room.

Grime then brings him back into the room and makes him sit.

At some point either before or after Eddie has sniffed at the cupboards and alerted, somebody (Harrison?) must pick up the toy (wearing protective gloves?) and put it in a cupboard on the other side of the room.

Grime then goes over to the cupboards, starts to open one cupboard but for some reason doesn't continue, then opens the second cupboard and without any surprise finds the toy which earlier had been dragged across the room by his dog.

All this takes place between 1.30 and 7.00 on the video.

************

I have three questions.

Who put the toy in the bin in the first place? I don't presume it was the McCanns. What was the point of Grime or someone else moving it and deliberately hiding it before the searches began?

Secondly why did Eddie not alert to it in any way till it was put in the cupboard under the food preparation area?

Thirdly why did Grime only look in the cupboard where the toy actually was, even though he went to open another cupboard first?

Can anyone help answer these please?

LG1968

Posts: 48
Join date: 2012-10-18


Are you accusing Martin Grime or his colleague of planting evidence?

Not at all. I am asking what happened.

Perhaps others have seen other videos, or something in the reports which describe the events in a different way.

I've just added to my post with references and a neat ref. re the search of Murat's property. On that subject (although slightly off topic but I don't want to touch the SB topic so anyone who likes to move it there is welcome) the ground of the property was probed and no alerts.

tigger wrote:IIRC - I read somewhere that cc was moved to the cupboard to see if Eddie alerted again. A double trial as it were. He was interested in the toy and selected it. Then it was later put amongst other items in a cupboard to see it he would select it again. Think of it as putting it amongst a lot of different scents. I think it was on McCann files. I also think that only one of the dogs alert by barking so Eddie not barking but only selecting is normal.

Allegedly Kate Healy gave twenty cuddlecats to Metodo3 with instructions to squeeze or rattle the damn things whenever they needed motivation - I'm not making this up!
My theory is that the cudllecat.co.uk enterprise was stopped by the pink one, one moneymaking website too far!
So yes, perhaps there is still a stock of cuddlecats waiting for a home - gosh, come to think of it, a friend of theirs was selling them on her website. (see please note the Fund is not a charity) - no reflection on the friend, but certainly a coincidence.

Here is part of the report: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

CANINE SEARCH OF MR MURAT'S PROPERTY

The property was subjected to a search for human remains or blood stained articles. The outside of property was stripped of vegetation and after the ground being probed was searched by the EVRD dog. The inside of the property was then searched by the dog. There were no alert indications and no human remains were located.

CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY

The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

For the rest: see above link.

The problem with that is that it is Eddie who barks as an alert. He neither put his head in the air nor barked when he saw the toy originally. He simply dragged it across the floor like a toy.

I'm not going to take the trouble to watch the video again, too long.
Obviously you think Martin Grime has been lying and so have the dogs - read the files is my advice.

tigger wrote:I'm not going to take the trouble to watch the video again, too long.
Obviously you think Martin Grime has been lying and so have the dogs - read the files is my advice.

I have already said the section of video regarding this is from 1.30 to 7.00 on the video I linked to. If you think that less than six minutes is too long, sorry.

At no point have I said Martin Grimes is lying or that the dogs are unreliable. What I am interested in is why certain people believe things that don't match the video and the reports.

Springers are FAB wrote:

Da Troof wrote:In answer to your questions:

I have no idea.

Now I have a question for you.

Are you hoping to in some way discredit the dogs or their handler?

As far as I am concerned the important thing is that the film is there for all to see. The film cannot show everything as there appears to be only one camera so we see only what it is pointing at. I think we have to trust the handler who seems good at his job and the police.

I don't think any inappropriate or exaggerated claims have been made by the handler in relation to alerts by the dogs.
We know that the dogs are good at what they do i.e. identifying particular smells

I agree...we can't possibly know the answers without asking Mr Grime himself. Silly to speculate on this one. I will base my ideas on what I see and what Mr Grime says, which is what I did in the other thread in trying to work out what exactly Eddie was alerting to. No intention on my part to discredit the dogs or their handler. Just looking for clarity.

As you say candyfloss, these new people suddenly arrive, fully cognisent, armed with details in depth, yet they have not posted before nor contributed to the collection of material which they so comprehensively understand.
But why the distraction and desire to diss the dogs' findings. Because the dogs are such a threat to some people.
The fact is, at no time has Mr. Grime, Dr. Amaral or any of the investigators said that the dogs are 'evidence', only an 'indication' to be further investigated.
The fact is that an unknown amount of VITAL information has been with-held.
The public have only seen, from all of the accumulated material in the investigatory files, what the public have been allowed to see.
Vital information, such as the blood/body/liquid tissues referred to by Dr. Amaral, found in the boot of the car, is still only alluded too, and we have no more details than that.
This troubles the McCs to the extent that they have tried to get information by force, firstly when the courts handed them just a few pages and refused the rest, then via this 'call me Dave' investigation where they still haven't got the full access to all of the withheld info that they want.
Goncalo Amaral knows things that we do not. The dogs are an indication.
Recent cases have shown the dogs to be far more useful and reliable than the McCs would wish the public to believe because they have spent their necks trying to get the dogs disbelieved.
As I said in a previous post, the McCs quoted a case where the dogs had 'failed', only to have it shown that the dogs had been absolutely correct, a McC own goal, and a seriously undermining shock to the McC's' dissing of the reliability of the dogs.
This is why there is a flurry of interest.
The Stephen Birch claim, Madeleine being buried on May 3rd, was to dispose of the dogs' later indications.
This particular forum, with its persistent in-depth analysis, risks upsetting the McC's carefully set out apple cart, and in any police investigations and searches, where the dogs show themselves continually, to be reliable indicators, it must set fear into the hearts of any perpetrators who may have thought their cases had gone nice and cold, and would not be 're-opened' at a later date.
Whether blood, cadaver or whatever tissue has been found, and whatever information has been withheld in the files that we have not seen, the apartment had been cleaned in such a way as to damage, remove or destroy the material for forensic analysis.
First forensic reports of samples found under the tiles were declared to be a close match to Madeleine's DNA.
Material was found moreover, in the boot of the car, of a thawed nature. The dogs did 'indicate' at the car but the details of the analysis have not been made public.
This must be very unsettling for certain people.

bobbin wrote:

Springers are FAB wrote:

Da Troof wrote:In answer to your questions:

I have no idea.

Now I have a question for you.

Are you hoping to in some way discredit the dogs or their handler?

As far as I am concerned the important thing is that the film is there for all to see. The film cannot show everything as there appears to be only one camera so we see only what it is pointing at. I think we have to trust the handler who seems good at his job and the police.

I don't think any inappropriate or exaggerated claims have been made by the handler in relation to alerts by the dogs.
We know that the dogs are good at what they do i.e. identifying particular smells

I agree...we can't possibly know the answers without asking Mr Grime himself. Silly to speculate on this one. I will base my ideas on what I see and what Mr Grime says, which is what I did in the other thread in trying to work out what exactly Eddie was alerting to. No intention on my part to discredit the dogs or their handler. Just looking for clarity.

As you say candyfloss, these new people suddenly arrive, fully cognisent, armed with details in depth, yet they have not posted before nor contributed to the collection of material which they so comprehensively understand.
But why the distraction and desire to diss the dogs' findings. Because the dogs are such a threat to some people.
The fact is, at no time has Mr. Grime, Dr. Amaral or any of the investigators said that the dogs are 'evidence', only an 'indication' to be further investigated.
The fact is that an unknown amount of VITAL information has been with-held.
The public have only seen, from all of the accumulated material in the investigatory files, what the public have been allowed to see.
Vital information, such as the blood/body/liquid tissues referred to by Dr. Amaral, found in the boot of the car, is still only alluded too, and we have no more details than that.
This troubles the McCs to the extent that they have tried to get information by force, firstly when the courts handed them just a few pages and refused the rest, then via this 'call me Dave' investigation where they still haven't got the full access to all of the withheld info that they want.
Goncalo Amaral knows things that we do not. The dogs are an indication.
Recent cases have shown the dogs to be far more useful and reliable than the McCs would wish the public to believe because they have spent their necks trying to get the dogs disbelieved.
As I said in a previous post, the McCs quoted a case where the dogs had 'failed', only to have it shown that the dogs had been absolutely correct, a McC own goal, and a seriously undermining shock to the McC's' dissing of the reliability of the dogs.
This is why there is a flurry of interest.
The Stephen Birch claim, Madeleine being buried on May 3rd, was to dispose of the dogs' later indications.
This particular forum, with its persistent in-depth analysis, risks upsetting the McC's carefully set out apple cart, and in any police investigations and searches, where the dogs show themselves continually, to be reliable indicators, it must set fear into the hearts of any perpetrators who may have thought their cases had gone nice and cold, and would not be 're-opened' at a later date.
Whether blood, cadaver or whatever tissue has been found, and whatever information has been withheld in the files that we have not seen, the apartment had been cleaned in such a way as to damage, remove or destroy the material for forensic analysis.
First forensic reports of samples found under the tiles were declared to be a close match to Madeleine's DNA.
Material was found moreover, in the boot of the car, of a thawed nature. The dogs did 'indicate' at the car but the details of the analysis have not been made public.
This must be very unsettling for certain people.

I actually agree with everything you have just said!!

bobbin wrote:

Springers are FAB wrote:

Da Troof wrote:In answer to your questions:

I have no idea.

Now I have a question for you.

Are you hoping to in some way discredit the dogs or their handler?

As far as I am concerned the important thing is that the film is there for all to see. The film cannot show everything as there appears to be only one camera so we see only what it is pointing at. I think we have to trust the handler who seems good at his job and the police.

I don't think any inappropriate or exaggerated claims have been made by the handler in relation to alerts by the dogs.
We know that the dogs are good at what they do i.e. identifying particular smells

I agree...we can't possibly know the answers without asking Mr Grime himself. Silly to speculate on this one. I will base my ideas on what I see and what Mr Grime says, which is what I did in the other thread in trying to work out what exactly Eddie was alerting to. No intention on my part to discredit the dogs or their handler. Just looking for clarity.

As you say candyfloss, these new people suddenly arrive, fully cognisent, armed with details in depth, yet they have not posted before nor contributed to the collection of material which they so comprehensively understand.
But why the distraction and desire to diss the dogs' findings. Because the dogs are such a threat to some people.
The fact is, at no time has Mr. Grime, Dr. Amaral or any of the investigators said that the dogs are 'evidence', only an 'indication' to be further investigated.
The fact is that an unknown amount of VITAL information has been with-held.
The public have only seen, from all of the accumulated material in the investigatory files, what the public have been allowed to see.
Vital information, such as the blood/body/liquid tissues referred to by Dr. Amaral, found in the boot of the car, is still only alluded too, and we have no more details than that.
This troubles the McCs to the extent that they have tried to get information by force, firstly when the courts handed them just a few pages and refused the rest, then via this 'call me Dave' investigation where they still haven't got the full access to all of the withheld info that they want.
Goncalo Amaral knows things that we do not. The dogs are an indication.
Recent cases have shown the dogs to be far more useful and reliable than the McCs would wish the public to believe because they have spent their necks trying to get the dogs disbelieved.
As I said in a previous post, the McCs quoted a case where the dogs had 'failed', only to have it shown that the dogs had been absolutely correct, a McC own goal, and a seriously undermining shock to the McC's' dissing of the reliability of the dogs.
This is why there is a flurry of interest.
The Stephen Birch claim, Madeleine being buried on May 3rd, was to dispose of the dogs' later indications.
This particular forum, with its persistent in-depth analysis, risks upsetting the McC's carefully set out apple cart, and in any police investigations and searches, where the dogs show themselves continually, to be reliable indicators, it must set fear into the hearts of any perpetrators who may have thought their cases had gone nice and cold, and would not be 're-opened' at a later date.
Whether blood, cadaver or whatever tissue has been found, and whatever information has been withheld in the files that we have not seen, the apartment had been cleaned in such a way as to damage, remove or destroy the material for forensic analysis.
First forensic reports of samples found under the tiles were declared to be a close match to Madeleine's DNA.
Material was found moreover, in the boot of the car, of a thawed nature. The dogs did 'indicate' at the car but the details of the analysis have not been made public.
This must be very unsettling for certain people.

Excellent post bobbin[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Im usually stay out of this debates, but I must say I think we should be able to ask question both ways without beeing treathened to be banned? We all see things with different eyes. And we must be allowed to ask question that maybe not everyone likes, without beeing banned ...Not everyone has followed the case for years, and gets bits and pieces of information and its not very easy to get the puzzle together. And ofcourse there will be questions along the way to get to the facts...

I also have wondered about the cuddle cat, was there two or only one, and why did he not react imediatly to cuddle cat IF it was the same one as in the cup board.? But I dont work with dogs like this, and I dont know how long they sniff around before they pick up sentence.

I 100 % believe the dogs, and I defently do not think anyone planted any evidence or made the dog bark. After all they did find blood where both dogs barked, and why mislead the dogs ( if that is even possible) when you know you need forensic evidence to back it up? Beeing sure of this, I still had questions to how they work, and tried to read and watch videoes to find out. I choose to believe the dogs and has therefor never asked questions about it. But if I did, I would found it mostly unfear to be marked as a troll and threatened to be banned ...

Even if the dogs where never brought in, I still would not have believed the abduction story as there is thousand other things beside the dogs pointing in the direction of her parents beeing involved in this scam !

All this IMHO ofcourse !

Moa wrote:Im usually stay out of this debates, but I must say I think we should be able to ask question both ways without beeing treathened to be banned? We all see things with different eyes. And we must be allowed to ask question that maybe not everyone likes, without beeing banned ...Not everyone has followed the case for years, and gets bits and pieces of information and its not very easy to get the puzzle together. And ofcourse there will be questions along the way to get to the facts...

I also have wondered about the cuddle cat, was there two or only one, and why did he not react imediatly to cuddle cat IF it was the same one as in the cup board.? But I dont work with dogs like this, and I dont know how long they sniff around before they pick up sentence.

I 100 % believe the dogs, and I defently do not think anyone planted any evidence or made the dog bark. After all they did find blood where both dogs barked, and why mislead the dogs ( if that is even possible) when you know you need forensic evidence to back it up? Beeing sure of this, I still had questions to how they work, and tried to read and watch videoes to find out. I choose to believe the dogs and has therefor never asked questions about it. But if I did, I would found it mostly unfear to be marked as a troll and threatened to be banned ...

Even if the dogs where never brought in, I still would not have believed the abduction story as there is thousand other things beside the dogs pointing in the direction of her parents beeing involved in this scam !

All this IMHO ofcourse !

I`ll second that.

We don`t know everything and should continue to question.