If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

by worriedmum 03.01.16 17:42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EHJjpXii9o

This video shows the British trained police dogs Eddie and Keela reacting to the scent of blood and cadaver odour. The fact that the dogs reacted to items and places connected to the McCanns contributed to the Portuguese police's decision to make the McCanns arguidos. For reasons unknown , the British police do not appear to have acted on this information in their current investigation .

My question is, if Eddie and Keela's findings have been DISMISSED by the British police, then how many other convictions made on the basis of their findings have since been challenged? And if not, WHY NOT?

by **Jill Havern** 03.01.16 17:45

Were their names McCann?

by **sharonl** 03.01.16 19:48

What we must remember here is that:

Operation Grange was (reluctantly) set up at the request of Rebekah Brooks who "persuaded" David Cameron to do so (or in truth, blackmailed David Cameron and Theresa May with a series of front page news reports exposing them for whatever information she had on them if they failed to do so).

Was set up to assist the McCanns and to help the family (according to Cameron)

Was to be run as if the "ABDUCTION" had taken place in the UK

David Cameron, in a letter to the Madeleine Foundation, finished with - "we hope that Madeleine is found soon"

The Met claim that this is a Portuguese case and that they are only assisting the Portuguese Police

The only people to have benefitted from this over expensive review are the news papers who have sold the most ridiculous stories and the McCanns who have managed to keep the "Madeleine disappeared from her bed on May 3rd 2007 whilst her parents ate at the local tapas bar" story.

Whatever this review is, it seems that the evidence and the truth are completely irrelevant.

by **Jill Havern** 03.01.16 19:50

Order the Home Office to publish a report on the Madeleine McCann inquiry

Enquiries by British (and Portuguese) police forces have cost around £15 million in 8 years. The public is now entitled to a full report on how that has been spent. The report should cover the role of the government, the security services & UK police forces.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562 yes

by PLL 25.08.18 22:23

You make a very good question. The dogs reacted, so why that's not used as evidence.

Imagine you're a judge and you're on trial for a murder.

Investigators tell you they used a dog to find the cadaver. The judge will feel more than happy that a dog helped them find a cadaver, critical evidence. He won't even ask many details about the dog, except for curiosity. His evidence is the cadaver.

Now investigators tell you their cadaver dog spotted a location, but there's no cadaver because it was removed from there, and they couldn't find it. But at least they can prove there's a cadaver.

Here, you'll feel a lot insecure with evidence present. Do the dog really means there was a cadaver there? You see the dog barking and barking, but what do you do now?

Of course I trust the policemen who brought the dogs and believe their interpretation. So there was a cadaver in their apartment, who could be but Maddie.

This can change the whole investigation to searching of evidence of a death instead of abduction. So the dogs act as an indication, whether a cadaver is found or not.

But if you don't find further evidence, it's hard to arrest someone under charge of concealing a cadaver. No judge will take that as ultimate evidence. And even if they do, that's easily challenged beyond any reasonable doubt.

by **sharonl** 26.08.18 12:09

It seems like a good time to give this older article an airing:

One of the key lines of evidence Goncalo Amaral refers to in his book is the work of two internationally-acclaimed British police sniffer dogs, namely the two springer spaniels, Eddie and Keela, who have been trained and used by British dog handler Martin Grime. These dogs, who hitherto had a 100% track record in 200 or more cases of successfully locating where corpses had lain (Eddie) or of detecting human blood (Keela), found the scent of a human corpse in the following locations:

1.The living room of the McCanns’ apartment (5A) in Praia da Luz, on the floor next to the outside wall, behind the sofa

2.In or near the wardrobe in the McCanns’ apartment bedroom

3.On the veranda of the McCanns’ apartment veranda

4.Amongst the flowerbeds outside the apartment

5.On two of Dr Kate McCann’s clothes

6.On a red T-shirt belonging either to Madeleine or to her younger brother Sean

7.On the pink soft toy often produced by Dr Kate McCann for media photographs, ‘Cuddle Cat’

8.On the floor of the Renault Scenic, the hired car used by the McCanns, near the driver’s seat

9.On the car keys of the Renault Scenic

The presence of human cadaverine in these locations or on these items indicates that a corpse which has been dead for at least 90 minutes, usually at least two hours, has been in direct contact with these locations/items. The dogs did not find the scent of a human corpse anywhere else in Praia da Luz. Eddie was reported never to have given a ‘false positive’, i.e. a false alert, to the scent of a human corpse. His reactions to the above ten locations (he alerted to two separate items of Dr Kate McCann’s clothing) can therefore be trusted. The probability is that the only corpse that could have been in contact with those 10 locations – though it is sad to spell this out in black and white – is that of Madeleine McCann.

by queenstaceface 21.03.19 7:37

Hi there, new to this forum so hopefully I'm posting this in an appropriate spot. After reading many threads on the reliability of dogs, what I am wondering is HOW does such evidence just get dismissed? I 100% have always supported the work of dogs and don't doubt their reliability, but in so many cases with similar findings to this it has been enough to convict suspects- even if, unlike here it is all the proof they have- and yet in this case it simply means nothing?! Not why so much as how... If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct? 172348

If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct? 172348

by **Jill Havern** 21.03.19 8:26

Yes, it's curious isn't it?

I could understand it if it was just one dog and it could be explained as an error of some sort - but, in this case, two dogs alerted in the same places: behind the sofa and in the hire car.

Maybe the authorities just don't want to prosecute the perpetrators for some reason, a political cover-up perhaps? thinking

by the way.

by queenstaceface 21.03.19 10:51

Thank you! Yes so so weird and I'm sure most of us feel the same way... very frustrated that nothing came of the evidence. We just want justice for little Maddie, and with the cadaver alerts, it's not going to come in the way of finding her alive. banghead

If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Re: If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Re: If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Re: If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Re: If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Re: If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Re: If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Re: If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Re: If Eddie and Keela's findings aren't used as evidence, does that mean they aren't correct?

Log in for more topics