The McCanns’ libelling of others: Martin Grime

The McCanns’ libelling of others: 

1. Martin Grime

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccanns-libelling-of-others-1-martin.html

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘madeleine’, has comprehensively smeared top dog handler Martin Grime, who took his cadaver dogs out to Praia da Luz.

On pages 249-250 of ‘madeleine’, for example, she writes:

“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the conch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.

“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.        

In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.

She writes:

    “…we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.

“The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returned to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking…when researching the validity of sniffer dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler…this certainly seemed to be what was happening here…”        

Dr Kate McCann is plainly suggesting, and has done so to hundreds of thousands of readers of her book, that Mr Grime is incompetent. Not only is this suggestion libellous, it is patently ludicrous. One must ask: would a person such as Mr Grime, whose professional livelihood depended on the 100% reliability of his dogs, proceed to suggest the past presence of a corpse at locations in the McCanns’ flat, and in their hired car, if Madeleine might still be alive somewhere?

She might have been found alive the next day

If so, Martin Grime’s professional credibility and his livelihood would have been ruined for ever.


Published by The Madeline McCann Research Group, March 2012

Go-get-um-goncalo,
I haven't read the article from the newspaper, but if Kate disagrees she must be right,Right?
On that assumption then doe's Kate offer an explanation to the Dogs detecting Cadaver scent on her clothes or did the PJ plant the evidence!!!?
Come on people wake up and smell the Coffee, not the BS from MSM and wonderful Clarence,I'm up to my eyes in it **it!!

MARK HARRISON BRINGS IN MARTIN GRIME


MARTIN GRIMES ROGATORY STATEMENT - 1st August 2007


Martin Grime
CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 21 to 25

Dated May 14 2008

I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The Judicial Police is in possession of the originals of the search reports and the videos showing all searches performed and the reaction of the dogs. In addition to the report, Sam Harkeness of the Progresso Nacional Police Agency sent me by email several written questions sent by the Judicial Police together with a request for a written deposition. This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.

Questions and Answers:

Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs bearing in mind the searches that were performed?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).

Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.

In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case?
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog?
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver?
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred?
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

The EVRD dog also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?
The EVRD dog is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids?
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
Platelets
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.

Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion?
The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?
Cross-contamination is immediate.

How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog?
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odor, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results?
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
During training, the dogs are barely rewarded for positive alert signals regarding targets of known substances.

At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case?
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.

This deposition was made by me and is true according to my understanding.




Questions for Martin Grime from the Letter of Request:

IX - Interviews to MARK HARRISON and MARTIN GRIME, who were in charge of the searches undertaken by the specialist dogs, and who shall be notified by the Requested Authority.

MARTIN GRIME should be asked the following questions :

* Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs in the scope of the undertaken searches ?

* Could you provide a thorough description of the dogs' skill and orientation, as well as an interpretation of the dogs' indications in the specific cases ?

* Aiming at determining the reliability of the canine performance, in what concerns the alerts given to blood scent and to dead body scent, how reliable are those indications in this particular case ?

* From the behaviour of the dogs, is it possible to distinguish between a strong alert and a soft alert ?

* Can you say whether the indication given to the cuddly toy corresponds to a concrete alert to dead body scent or to a mere dog playing trick ?

* In what concerns the cadaver scent on KATE's clothing, could it be undoubtedly stated that those clothes had been in contact with a dead body ? Or could the alert have been given even if those clothes had been in contact with other pieces of clothing, surfaces or items which could have had previously touched a dead body, thus allowing for secent transfer ?

* Does the EVRD dog ( dead body scent dog) also alert to blood traces coming from a living person or from a dead body ?

* In what concerns the indications given by the CSI dog ( human blood detecting dog), can this dog alert to other biological fluids ? Isn't there a chance, even a tiny one, of some confusion ?


* How long does a cadaver need to be in contact with a surface or an item, so that the scent can be indicated ?

* How farther can a blood trace date back in time, so that the CSI dog gives an indication ?

* Can the dogs mix up scents from human and non-human traces ?

* From your experience as a dog Handler, can you specify whether the dog's positive indications have always been corroborated by positive scientific results ?

* Did Gerald McCann ask you, at any time, in Portugal, or in the United Kingdom, any questions about the performance of the dogs in this case ?

* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.

MARK HARRISON CONSULTED BY THE PJ - 20th July 2007


On Friday 20 July 2007 a request was made by the Portuguese Judicial Police to the NPIA for search advisory assistance. As a result, Mark Harrison arrived in Portugal and produced the following two reports.

It was in Mark Harrison's first report that he suggested the use of EVRD & CSI dogs in the McCanns' apartment and other locations - a suggestion that was to dramatically change the course of the investigation.



Mark Harrison: Rogatory interview, 02 May 2008


Questions for Mark Harrison in the Letter or Request:

IX - Interviews to MARK HARRISON and MARTIN GRIME, who were in charge of the searches undertaken by the specialist dogs, and who shall be notified by the Requested Authority.

MARK HARRISON should be asked the following questions:

* What criteria led to the selection of the places to be searched?

* How were the searches carried out?

* Considering the geological conditions of Praia da Luz, where would it be more likely to conceal a dead body?

* In this particular case, based on the known information and in your experience, what is the probability for a body concealment to have occurred?

* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.


WITNESS TESTIMONY OF MARK HARRISON

LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE SQUAD
Occupation: Police Agent

Cartas Rogarorias 3, pages 19-20

This statement, consisting of two pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have willfully states in it anything I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Date: 2 May 2008
Signature:

I am an official with the British Police at the service of the UK National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and work there as a special advising investigator. I was asked to respond to four questions by the Policia Judiciaria in a document sent by them. The questions appear in this statement in italics.

On 20.07.2007 I was sent by NPIA to Portugal with the goal of helping the Leicestershire police and the Policia Judiciaria relative to the disappearance of a child, Madeleine McCann, missing since 03.05.07 from Praia da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.

The terms of assistance we agreed to provide were directed by the PJ Regional Director, Guilhermino ENCARNACO after consultation with DI Neil HOLDEN of the Leicestershire Police and myself, the details of which are on page two of the document I authored, titled 'Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann' dated 23.07.2007 and presented as evidence MH4.

1. What criteria was used in the selection of local searches?

2. Considering the geographic location of Praia da Luz, where would a corpse be hidden?

In accordance to the referenced terms, the charge given to me by Guilhermino ENCARNACO was to comment on prior search activity by the PJ and the GNR in Praia da Luz and to offer a new scenario for the searches with the consideration of the hiding of a corpse and human remains. Assisted by Professor Oscar Ferreira and Alverinho Dias of the University of the Algarve, we conducted an assessment of the terrain of the immediate excavation areas relative to the viability of a superficial burial of human remains and also considering the possibility of a human cadaver having been thrown into the ocean in Praia da Luz. This assessment and the respective conclusions are detailed in the evidence MH4 and in 'Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann - Praia da Luz & Marina' dated 23.07.2007, presented as evidence MH5.

The documents were submitted to the Leicestershire Police and the Policia Judiciaria and are detailed as to the areas of consideration in additional searches using GNR, and using canines and geophysical elements. My rational was based in the proximity of the location where Madeleine McCann went missing and the scenario of concealment of human remains. The prior search activities in these zones were concentrated on a scenario of a missing child, hurt or maintained captive.

After the submission of two documents, I attended two meetings in the Portimao Police headquarters on the 23/07.2007 with DI NEIL HOLDEN of the Leicestershire Police and the other on 30.07.2007 with DI ALAN ORCHARD of the Leicestershire Police. At both meetings, PJ agents were present and they were presided over by the Regional Director of the PJ Guilhermino ENCARNCAO who selected and established the priorities for the search areas.

3. How did the searches evolve?

Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches which took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps.

After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.

4. In this particular case, based on the information and on your experience, what is the possibility that a cadaver was concealed?

To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment.

On 10.08.2007 I concluded my posting and returned to the United Kingdom.

This statement was made by me and is truthful and in accordance with my knowledge.



British police piling into Portugal in the early days
* British police influence on Jane Tanner in the run-up to her 'adamant' identification of Murat on 13 May 2007, especially the role of Bob Small
* British police (LP) taking Gaspar statements approx 19 May 2007
* British police (LP) making sure Dr G McCann got a sample of Madeleine's DNA from Leicester, as there was none in Praia da Luz - May 2007
* British police (LP) showing Dr G McCann round the incident room in Leicestershire Police HQ in Enderby, May 2007
* British police (LP) bringing tround cardboard boxes of material to 5 The Crescent - summer 2007
* British police inviting Dr G McCann to a police bash in London - July 2007
* Mark Harrison consulted by PJ
* Mark Harrison brings in Martin Grime
* Reliability of Grimes' dogs
* Gordon Brown visit to Enderby Police HQ September 2007
* British police (LP) pass Gaspar statements to PJ after Amaral removed from enquiry
* Britsh police (LP) advertise McCanns' fund with a link to LP website despite many objections
* British police (LP) co-operate with McCann Team to promote sightings (please see our article www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk re Robert Murat where we look at how Stuart Prior liaised with the McCann Team re 'George Harrison man'/'monster man'
* Stuart Prior e-mails - 'Hi Stu' etc. - re the proposed reconstruction
* British police carry our gentle Rogatory interviews in Tapas 9 April/May 2008

Get'emGonçalo wrote:MARK HARRISON BRINGS IN MARTIN GRIME


MARTIN GRIMES ROGATORY STATEMENT - 1st August 2007


Martin Grime
CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 21 to 25

Dated May 14 2008

I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The Judicial Police is in possession of the originals of the search reports and the videos showing all searches performed and the reaction of the dogs. In addition to the report, Sam Harkeness of the Progresso Nacional Police Agency sent me by email several written questions sent by the Judicial Police together with a request for a written deposition. This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.

Questions and Answers:

Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs bearing in mind the searches that were performed?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).

Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.

In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case?
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog?
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver?
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred?
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

The EVRD dog also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?
The EVRD dog is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids?
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
Platelets
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.

Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion?
The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?
Cross-contamination is immediate.

How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog?
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odor, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results?
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
During training, the dogs are barely rewarded for positive alert signals regarding targets of known substances.

At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case?
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.

This deposition was made by me and is true according to my understanding.




Questions for Martin Grime from the Letter of Request:

IX - Interviews to MARK HARRISON and MARTIN GRIME, who were in charge of the searches undertaken by the specialist dogs, and who shall be notified by the Requested Authority.

MARTIN GRIME should be asked the following questions :

* Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs in the scope of the undertaken searches ?

* Could you provide a thorough description of the dogs' skill and orientation, as well as an interpretation of the dogs' indications in the specific cases ?

* Aiming at determining the reliability of the canine performance, in what concerns the alerts given to blood scent and to dead body scent, how reliable are those indications in this particular case ?

* From the behaviour of the dogs, is it possible to distinguish between a strong alert and a soft alert ?

* Can you say whether the indication given to the cuddly toy corresponds to a concrete alert to dead body scent or to a mere dog playing trick ?

* In what concerns the cadaver scent on KATE's clothing, could it be undoubtedly stated that those clothes had been in contact with a dead body ? Or could the alert have been given even if those clothes had been in contact with other pieces of clothing, surfaces or items which could have had previously touched a dead body, thus allowing for secent transfer ?

* Does the EVRD dog ( dead body scent dog) also alert to blood traces coming from a living person or from a dead body ?

* In what concerns the indications given by the CSI dog ( human blood detecting dog), can this dog alert to other biological fluids ? Isn't there a chance, even a tiny one, of some confusion ?


* How long does a cadaver need to be in contact with a surface or an item, so that the scent can be indicated ?

* How farther can a blood trace date back in time, so that the CSI dog gives an indication ?

* Can the dogs mix up scents from human and non-human traces ?

* From your experience as a dog Handler, can you specify whether the dog's positive indications have always been corroborated by positive scientific results ?

* Did Gerald McCann ask you, at any time, in Portugal, or in the United Kingdom, any questions about the performance of the dogs in this case ?

* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.

Thanks for posting up this information. It's dynamite (as is the post on Mark Harrison).

quote''
Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.''  unquote


Would they alert then to shrimp and spilled steak blood?

Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

The mandate for Police registered scent dogs is that when they alert, the police have stop and search powers in the case of drugs, have area clearing responsiblity in the case of explosives and search capability in the case of cadavers. They key thing here is that the dogs are trained to a single scent prior to issuing an alert. Dogs do not lie, they cannot be wrong. Now as a ridiculous sideshow we have GM saying that his 2 year old son has developed an addiction to the taste of sea bass? If it were not daft enough on its own who in their right mind buys a fresh fish such as a sea bass then takes it home and stores it in the bedroom wardrobe? Absolutley nonsensical and why nobody in this country has challenged him publically on the matter is beyond me. Thay cannot all fear Carter Ruck with a nameless dread.

@Get'emGoncalo


The McCanns’ libelling of others: 

1. Martin Grime

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccanns-libelling-of-others-1-martin.html

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘madeleine’, has comprehensively smeared top dog handler Martin Grime, who took his cadaver dogs out to Praia da Luz.

On pages 249-250 of ‘madeleine’, for example, she writes:

“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the conch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.

“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.



When I first read KM's reaction to the EVRD and CSI dogs (Eddie & Keela respectively) her comment about Eddie above, in particular, bothered me. 

Martin Grime has stated that he uses Eddie first and then follows up with Keela to specifically isolate human blood (Keela) from Eddie's general human cadaver response.    

Prior to Martin Grime and the dogs being brought in at Mark Harrison's suggestion, as I understand it (but please correct me here if I've misunderstood), no physical evidence of any suspicious body fluids had been found in 5A behind the sofa. There also can't have been any prior knowledge of the cadaver odour in the specific areas marked by Eddie.

KM's comments: “At one point the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.
The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”.

But, we know that Martin Grime wasn't doing this - he comes across as a complete professional and he had no prior knowledge when working initially only with Eddie. KM's comment has always sounded as if it were made inadvertently by someone who did have prior knowledge and who is mirroring something they themselves know onto someone else who doesn't, without realising it. Is it possible that for a moment she has forgotten that everyone else doesn't know what she knows and that she lets it slip in her enthusiasm to downplay the dogs alerts?

There is no way that Martin Grime could have caused the 'alert' behind the sofa with Eddie - only Eddie  knew there was anything there to alert to. KM might get away with that argument in the garage with the cars and the posters (although we know that is also rubbish) but not in 5A. There was no big arrow on the wall saying 'look here Martin'. How can KM be thinking that Martin Grime 'directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site'? She could only know/say that that is what he had done if she knew that there was a particular site behind the couch, close to the curtain that was 'hot'.


All IMO, but as I say it has bothered me since I first read KM's comments.

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

Yes, Aquila, my understanding is that in this context they are tool to narrow a search area to find forensic evidence.  The alerts themselves are meaningless - it is the forensic evidence that is important.

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

Yes, Aquila, my understanding is that in this context they are tool to narrow a search area to find forensic evidence.  The alerts themselves are meaningless - it is the forensic evidence that is important.

Given that Leicester Police, the PJ and other bodies were involved in the introduction of these dogs, do you consider it to be a fair and accurate part of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to introduce blood and cadaver dogs which alerted without prejudice?

That's very interesting, Skyrocket.

I wonder what Hobbs would make of the term 'spot behind the sofa'?

If you think of it logically, the apartment is just one whole conjoined mass of 'spots'. This term 'spot' is used here retrospectively-is it qualifying what the dogs alerted to only?

In actual fact the dogs were 'directed'  over the whole apartment. Surely 'spots' were only created once they had been alerted to.

I still find it perplexing that the mother of a missing three year old finds herself 'relaxing a little' when the dogs give their positive alerts...

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

Yes, Aquila, my understanding is that in this context they are tool to narrow a search area to find forensic evidence.  The alerts themselves are meaningless - it is the forensic evidence that is important.

Given that Leicester Police, the PJ and other bodies were involved in the introduction of these dogs, do you consider it to be a fair and accurate part of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to introduce blood and cadaver dogs which alerted without prejudice?

Forensic science is a normal part of modern policing, and use of dogs to narrow the search area is a sensible use of resources.  So I cannot see any problem there.  Their job is to alert in places where forensic material MAY be found.

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

Yes, Aquila, my understanding is that in this context they are tool to narrow a search area to find forensic evidence.  The alerts themselves are meaningless - it is the forensic evidence that is important.

Given that Leicester Police, the PJ and other bodies were involved in the introduction of these dogs, do you consider it to be a fair and accurate part of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to introduce blood and cadaver dogs which alerted without prejudice?

Forensic science is a normal part of modern policing, and use of dogs to narrow the search area is a sensible use of resources.  So I cannot see any problem there.  Their job is to alert in places where forensic material MAY be found.

What is your opinion on the finding of the blood/cadaver dogs in the case of Madeleine McCann?

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

Yes, Aquila, my understanding is that in this context they are tool to narrow a search area to find forensic evidence.  The alerts themselves are meaningless - it is the forensic evidence that is important.

Given that Leicester Police, the PJ and other bodies were involved in the introduction of these dogs, do you consider it to be a fair and accurate part of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to introduce blood and cadaver dogs which alerted without prejudice?

Forensic science is a normal part of modern policing, and use of dogs to narrow the search area is a sensible use of resources.  So I cannot see any problem there.  Their job is to alert in places where forensic material MAY be found.

What is your opinion on the finding of the blood/cadaver dogs in the case of Madeleine McCann?

That is straying somewhat off topic, but if you are ok with that.  My understanding is that the dogs alerted in various places and some forensic material was found, which was tested by the FSS.  According to the reports, nothing of evidential value was found.

Some great threads/info,thank you.No housework today methinks 

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

Yes, Aquila, my understanding is that in this context they are tool to narrow a search area to find forensic evidence.  The alerts themselves are meaningless - it is the forensic evidence that is important.

Given that Leicester Police, the PJ and other bodies were involved in the introduction of these dogs, do you consider it to be a fair and accurate part of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to introduce blood and cadaver dogs which alerted without prejudice?

Forensic science is a normal part of modern policing, and use of dogs to narrow the search area is a sensible use of resources.  So I cannot see any problem there.  Their job is to alert in places where forensic material MAY be found.

What is your opinion on the finding of the blood/cadaver dogs in the case of Madeleine McCann?

That is straying somewhat off topic, but if you are ok with that.  My understanding is that the dogs alerted in various places and some forensic material was found, which was tested by the FSS.  According to the reports, nothing of evidential value was found.

The FSS was closed down. It was always my understanding that the FSS was the leading forensic science service and yet it closed. When you say nothing of evidential value was found what evidence in UK is there to back this? The FSS closed. Where was this evidence passed onto? Which 'authority' holds evidence now?

I ask in earnest.

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

Yes, Aquila, my understanding is that in this context they are tool to narrow a search area to find forensic evidence.  The alerts themselves are meaningless - it is the forensic evidence that is important.

Given that Leicester Police, the PJ and other bodies were involved in the introduction of these dogs, do you consider it to be a fair and accurate part of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to introduce blood and cadaver dogs which alerted without prejudice?

Forensic science is a normal part of modern policing, and use of dogs to narrow the search area is a sensible use of resources.  So I cannot see any problem there.  Their job is to alert in places where forensic material MAY be found.

What is your opinion on the finding of the blood/cadaver dogs in the case of Madeleine McCann?

That is straying somewhat off topic, but if you are ok with that.  My understanding is that the dogs alerted in various places and some forensic material was found, which was tested by the FSS.  According to the reports, nothing of evidential value was found.

The FSS was closed down. It was always my understanding that the FSS was the leading forensic science service and yet it closed. When you say nothing of evidential value was found what evidence in UK is there to back this? The FSS closed. Where was this evidence passed onto? Which 'authority' holds evidence now?

I ask in earnest.

Yes the FSS was a government owned company which closed in 2012, and forensic services contracted out to the private sector.  It was a victim of government cuts to public services across the board, in a bid to "save" money. Dont get me started on this.......  (Put it in the box marked PFI, legal aid, hospital cleaning services, security (Group 4 anyone?)). 

I gather samples are retained in safe storage but no idea where.

I assume you have read the reports provided by the FSS and are therefore aware of what was actually found, tested and reported on, so that may answer your question.

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Interesting question "did Kate McCann libel Martin Grime in her book and could he bring a legal action"?  This gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. 

The first question relates to the capacity in which Martin Grime was acting.  Was he on secondment from SYP, or was he a private contractor employed by the PJ?

The second question is one of jurisdiction - Portugal or the UK

The third question is one of damage - has Martin Grime suffered any damage to his reputation, standing or financial position as a result of her words?

The fourth is one that may be more contentious on this forum - was it fair comment?  The two thoughts that occur to me are:

(a) Did Martin Grime know that the vehicle was the McCanns? (I believe he claimed he did not know)

(b) Did he in fact treat the car any differently to that of any other vehicle in the underground car park?

(the usual caution over the provenance of the video - I believe the ones available are (c) Duarte Levy)

From my basic (and it is very basic) understanding of the reasons to invite the dogs is that there was an agreed and controlled environment. These dogs weren't roaming around to have a sniff at any old thing they were directed to check out specifics and they did indeed alert.

Yes, Aquila, my understanding is that in this context they are tool to narrow a search area to find forensic evidence.  The alerts themselves are meaningless - it is the forensic evidence that is important.

Given that Leicester Police, the PJ and other bodies were involved in the introduction of these dogs, do you consider it to be a fair and accurate part of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to introduce blood and cadaver dogs which alerted without prejudice?

Forensic science is a normal part of modern policing, and use of dogs to narrow the search area is a sensible use of resources.  So I cannot see any problem there.  Their job is to alert in places where forensic material MAY be found.

What is your opinion on the finding of the blood/cadaver dogs in the case of Madeleine McCann?

That is straying somewhat off topic, but if you are ok with that.  My understanding is that the dogs alerted in various places and some forensic material was found, which was tested by the FSS.  According to the reports, nothing of evidential value was found.

The FSS was closed down. It was always my understanding that the FSS was the leading forensic science service and yet it closed. When you say nothing of evidential value was found what evidence in UK is there to back this? The FSS closed. Where was this evidence passed onto? Which 'authority' holds evidence now?

I ask in earnest.

Yes the FSS was a government owned company which closed in 2012, and forensic services contracted out to the private sector.  It was a victim of government cuts to public services across the board, in a bid to "save" money. Dont get me started on this.......  (Put it in the box marked PFI, legal aid, hospital cleaning services, security (Group 4 anyone?)). 

I gather samples are retained in safe storage but no idea where.

I assume you have read the reports provided by the FSS and are therefore aware of what was actually found, tested and reported on, so that may answer your question.

How can you gather samples are retained in safe storage but now idea where? You say the FSS was a government owned company? Really?

Aquila, You and I have been around these forums for long enough to conversant with the facts. 

To summarise for those who may not be up to speed, it was an executive agency of the home office (1st April1991).  Highlights include forming the worlds first DNA database, and pionering LCN DNA analysis (which was used in the McCann case)

It became a government owned company in December 2005 (possibly, and I am guessing here, with the aim of floating it off in due course).  It finally closed on 31st March 2012. 

The FSS archives - a collection of case files and retained casework samples such as microscope slides, fibre samples and DNA samples - has been retained to allow review of old cases. Forensic work is now contracted out to the private sector or carried out in-house.

Sorry - I have no idea of the location of the archive of casework samples. Maybe a FOI request would elicit an answer.

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Aquila, You and I have been around these forums for long enough to conversant with the facts. 

To summarise for those who may not be up to speed, it was an executive agency of the home office (1st April1991).  Highlights include forming the worlds first DNA database, and pionering LCN DNA analysis (which was used in the McCann case)

It became a government owned company in December 2005 (possibly, and I am guessing here, with the aim of floating it off in due course).  It finally closed on 31st March 2012. 

The FSS archives - a collection of case files and retained casework samples such as microscope slides, fibre samples and DNA samples - has been retained to allow review of old cases. Forensic work is now contracted out to the private sector or carried out in-house.

Sorry - I have no idea of the location of the archive of casework samples. Maybe a FOI request would elicit an answer.

That's the problem with wikipedia isn't it - they tend to miss out the most important details.

I'm not quite sure who or what this 'it' is to which you refer - could it be the now disbanded Forensic Science Service?  If so I think technically you are incorrect as the FSS by name wasn't established until December 2005 and subsequently abandoned in March 2012 (short lived considering the claimed expertise wouldn't you agree?), following a string of unfortunate mishaps.  Also the FSS was closed down because it was running at a tremendous financial loss which I think amounts to a whole lot more than government cut-backs.

Probably totally unconnected but nonetheless interesting to note that the UK pioneer of genetic fingerprinting, Sir Alec Jeffreys, happens to be based at Leicester University the very same location that Dr Gerald McCann is housed.  I believe Sir Jeffreys also spent time at the University of Amsterdam.  No doubt just coincidence but strange coincident isn't it?

onehand wrote:There is already a foi about the archiving of forensic case material in the uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/archiving-of-forensic-case-material



for the dna there is a national dna database, those only keep the actual profiles, that is just the 'paperwork'. 

In the uk the responsible authority  for the dna profiles database is  the home office:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-policing/2010-to-2015-government-policy-policing

Leaving aside the technicalities about who/what/where, I'm more interested to know how come out of all the samples relative to the case of Madeleine McCann, submitted to the FSS for analysis, not one produced a meaningful result.  In the words of the world renowned FSS, the all encompassing scientific experts in the field - "this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation".

Extraordinary!

if you google lcn dna, i do think you find a lot of answers about that.

there is a lot of information missing from the pj files to be sure, what techniques the fss exactly used. 

the ffs had their own practice to handle lcn dna, that made it into a controversial item later on , in 2007, at that time lcn dna testing was only used in forensics in the uk, new zealand and the netherlands, the rest of the world found it not trustworthy enough for use in forensics at all. 

a lot of the news about the problems with lcn dna testing in the uk is still to read on the mccannfiles.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id190.html

there must have been a better report from the fss, normally you would get something that looks like a very big science article, and is every step taken, covered. all what i have seen is a translation for the investigation, you would call that a translation for dummies. 

lcn dna is still mostly a shot in the dark, a last hope of results, but there is a large field for errors, mostly in the copy by pcr. it looks very much the same as with the older copy machines, in the early days, when you was making copy from a copy and do that 30 tot 34 times, sometimes you could not read the text, because any noise on one copy wouldf be taken to the next, that also happens in pcr testing with dna. 

to complex could be, because the sample was dirty to begin with,that could happen before the sample was taken or when taken, there could be contamination in the lab, but also a lot could go wrong with duplicating pcr techniques, parts of dna could be relicts of contamination, but not all the parts of dna will copy in the same way, so there could be lost, or even extra parts that brings out a useless result.

it is all together , you need a good quality sample, even you talk about samples from spots that are usually far to small to see with the naked eye. you need dedicated and highly trained officers or assistance to get the samples. you need the best lab and labworkers, but the result always ends with the interpretation. 

so the man from the fss would not take the stands with most of the results they get. but without the full report there is no way to know what went wrong exactly and where.

lcn dna is still controversial before the courts and between scientists, there is still no uniformed way to get to the results and the fault margins are still big. 

the other think is, those samples used are often so very small, that it is very hard to bind a possible suspect to the place you found it, samples of these sizes are easily brought on from contamination. 
in this case the more prominent question is not even about a possible suspect, but the possible remains of the victim. even if the samples from 5a came out as a match for madeleine, that could not be used as evidence that madeleine was dead in situ behind the sofa or on other places in 5a. 
those very small samples are pretty normal if someone was staying for a amount of days in a room.

the samples from the renault would have be more convincing, but on their own still not full proof. dna does not proof being dead or alive, so there was still a lot to work on, before the investigation would come to that. 

dna and certainly lcn dna is not the holy grail of forensics and investigation work, everything has to come together for a full proof result. it always comes down to facts and circumstances. 

it was very stupid to try to discredit the dogs and their handler, if they had been smart they had that energy out to the lcn testing.