Forensics Revisited

Doesn’t answer Verdi's question of why the FSS were used (did the UK team volunteer them?), but I found the FSS stuff in the Stephen Lawrence case very interesting.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
(P305)
 
Although Driscoll was talking about 1993, so much earlier, the forensic examination appeared to be very much on a ‘jobsworth’ basis, which is why he took it away from them in 2006. Whether this was down to being government funded and therefore having to justify every expense, rather than a private company just getting on with it and charging for the time spent, is of course down to conjecture.
 
He doesn’t say so, but logically must have had other poor experiences from them to take such action and from the evidence handed over, the new private forensics company managed to find the needed evidence.
 
Although the FSS initially tried to resist handing over the Lawrence exhibits, which had been held since 1993, there was no talk of any evidence having been destroyed because of biological reasons, so what was different about the MM case? Most ‘cold case’ reviews have been based on technical and scientific advances, so surely the policy should have been ‘keep everything just in case’.
 
A couple of years ago we heard (officially?) that the PJ were sending more evidence for forensic analysis, but since then, nothing. I’ll have to have another look at what was said at the time and by whom.

The Truth of the Lie - Goncalo Amaral

PRELIMINARY RESULTS
PREPARATION FOR THE INTERROGATIONS

Analyses of the residues collected following the visit by the dogs is entrusted to the English Forensic Science Service laboratory. To avoid any leaks of information, Stuart Prior, a senior officer with Leicestershire police, is responsible for liaison between the laboratory and José Freitas of Scotland Yard. The latter, who is with us, in Portimão, is passing on any relevant reports.

We confidently wait for the evaluation reports from FSS. A few days after the samples are sent, we are informed that the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns’ car shows a significant match – 50% – with Gerald’s, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. We telephone the public minister to pass on this initial result and wait for the follow-up to the analyses and definite conclusions But the laboratory takes its time.

At the beginning of September, shortly before the McCann couple are placed under investigation, Superintendent Stuart Prior travels to Portimão to present the first of the two preliminary reports from the laboratory and to discuss the progress of the investigation.

At a meeting in our office, with the Portuguese and the English investigation team, Stuart expresses his disappointment over the test results. This is where the saga of the FSS reports begins. We read the part of the report dealing with the traces of blood lifted from the floor of apartment 5A, from behind the sofa and in the boot of the McCanns’ car and we don’t agree with  Stuart’s disappointment.   We talk about blood traces because the CSI dog is trained to find only that bodily fluid. The reports that support that decision are clear: the CSI dog was used to detect human blood. Low Copy Number, the technique used to determine the DNA of the samples, does not identify the nature of the bodily fluid they are derived from. But we know it’s definitely traces of blood and not other bodily fluids since the CSI dog is trained to detect only human blood.

In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!.

As for the second case, after an explanation about the DNA components in Madeleine’s genetic profile, it concludes that 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine’s profile are present in the sample examined. Only 4 short of 100% reliability. The FSS specialists qualify the results as, “complex,” and state that these 15 markers are not enough to conclude with certainty that it’s definitely Madeleine’s DNA profile, especially as Low Copy Number picked out a total of 37 in the sample. That means that at least three individuals contributed to this result.

But there was more in this first preliminary report. In the same report, the scientist went further and explained that in the profiles of many of the lab experts, elements from the DNA profile of Madeleine are present. This means that a major part of the DNA profile of any given person can be built by three donors. That is understandable. Two questions arose immediately. The first one: what good is a DNA profile in terms of criminal evidence, if it can be the combination of three or more donors? Another question was simple: why did the DNA profile from those three donors contribute to Madeleine’s DNA profile and not to that of any other person, like the scientist who carried out the test? But the surprises from the preliminary reports were not to end there.

On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine’s DNA profile.

As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed.

Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue:either this LCN technique is not reliable or it’s simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine’s DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance.

At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: “With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England.” I look at my colleagues and see that they are as stupified as I am. In fact, in Portugal, it’s not so easy to arrest someone. We explain to Stuart that the McCanns interrogations would not result in detention. According to Portuguese law, the crimes of concealment of a corpse and simulating an abduction are not liable to remanding in custody.

The Truth of the Lie - Goncalo amaral

HARVESTING OF THE SAMPLES DERIVED FROM THE SPECIALIST DOGS’ INSPECTIONS

So that the items of evidence might constitute admissible proof, the harvesting and packing must conform to the rules avoiding all risk of deterioration and contamination. It is experts from our police forensic laboratory who carry out the harvesting. The minuscule traces cannot be gathered in situ, so the tiling is gently lifted out before being transferred to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Birmingham. Photos bear witness to every stage of the operation. For added security, it is the expert responsible for the collection who takes them to FSS on the morning of August 7th. The choice of this laboratory is not insignificant. Apart from their use of cutting-edge technologies – LCN (Low Copy Number) a DNA identification test, used particularly when only microscopic samples are available -, the results, whatever they might be will not be able to be contested by the British since it’s one of their most reliable laboratories. All other items of evidence gathered – the keys to the McCanns’ car, hair and traces of blood found in the boot – are also sent to England.

It's important here to bear in mind the source of the 'clean' DNA reference sample used - the pillow case said to be used by Madeleine, allegedly collected from the McCanns Rothley home, during one of Gerald McCann's early visits to the UK in May 2007, for the purpose of a DNA profile  Particularly how it was packaged for transportation between the Rothley home and the forensic laboratories.  The chain of passage between May and September 2007 would be very interesting to learn, as would the choice of article for a 'clean' reference sample.

I would have thought an item of clothing, under garments for example, that had been in direct contact with Madeleine's skin would be more appropriate.  Not a pillowcase that could have been compromised by any number of contaminants.

I think Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior has got some explaining to do.

This all leaves me to believe that the UK authorities, i.e. the police, were responsible for the decision for the forensic reference samples to be analyzed by the UK's Forensic Science Service.

BlueBag wrote:I don't think there is any doubt that Eddie was a cadaver dog.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Eddie isn't a cadaver dog - at least not on CMoMM.

Verdi wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I don't think there is any doubt that Eddie was a cadaver dog.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Eddie isn't a cadaver dog - at least not on CMoMM.

I was just worried that people saw that he alerted to blood as a get-out.

The context of Grimes Report is clear.

BlueBag wrote:

Verdi wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I don't think there is any doubt that Eddie was a cadaver dog.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Eddie isn't a cadaver dog - at least not on CMoMM.

I was just worried that people saw that he alerted to blood as a get-out.

The context of Grimes Report is clear.

I take you point, it could well have looked that way to a casual observer who is not familiar with the consensus of opinion of CMoMM as regards the dog alerts.

A storm was whipped-up by a hysterical reaction.  If, as I asked in the first place, the words were read in context this temporary distraction could have been avoided.  Still, hopefully that's in the past.

The point is of course, Eddie the EVRD dog alerted to the scent of cadavar and Keela the CSI dog alerted to the scent of blood in apartment 5a - logical conclusion under the circumstances that the evidence was connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  More importantly, as I've before questioned and am again trying to establish - why were the forensic samples alerted by the dogs from apartment 5a and the hired Renault Scenic, sent to the UK's FSS for analysis.  Why with all their alleged advanced technology in the field of forensic analysis were they unable to produce one single meaningful result - as recorded in John Lowe's final report!?!

I recall it being said there were numerous laboratories across Europe, more local to Portugal, with similar expertise.  I believe it was Snr Amaral.  I was trying to find the quote last night, hence the deluge of random reports I found along the way.  All of which relate to John Lowe and the FSS.

Is it plausible that the PJ decided to use a UK lab because if the results had returned positive and helped to gain a conviction, the British public would be more inclined to believe a British lab?

Snipped from Verdi above,

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her.
----------


Which photograph?  Forensic science at it's finest?


I understand the comment, it would have been interesting to see which photo they compared the hair length to. But 1/8th of an inch is clipper length, I've not seen a photo of Madeleine with a crew cut. The 1 3/4 inch length is also a lot shorter than any published photo.


With regard to another point you made Verdi, about Madeleine's clothes being a good source of DNA, why were they not used?

Its shocking how badly this aspect of the case was handled by the British police. The media does nothing but hound the PJ, but why is it never publicised that one of the supposedly best police forces in the world was unable or more likely unwilling to provide a simple DNA sample from Madeleine to match it with that obtained from the apartment? So there was nothing at all in the McCanns property which belonged exclusively to Madeleine? Hairbrush, clothing, toys, toothbrush, sponge, anything?
Coupled with the fact that they refused to provide ant credit card details for either parent or medical records for Madeleine. They look like the shoddy outfit to me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:-
"So there was nothing at all in the McCanns property which belonged exclusively to Madeleine? Hairbrush, clothing, toys, toothbrush, sponge, anything"

Madeleine's underwear, socks etc was available but wasn't it the British Ambassador who said the PJ weren't to remove the McCanns' laundry in case the press thought the McCanns were under suspicion? And lo and behold the next day all their laundry was sent to Mark Warner laundry. In itself a damning episode because Kate and Gerry would then have nothing with the scent of their missing daughter on it to hold and sniff and keep.
So why did they get rid of it so early, what was the rush I wonder?

I can half accept that there was no guarantee that one of the twins hadn't accidentally used Madeleine's toothbrush or that it could have been cross-contaminated by touching other toothbrushes and therefore it might have been awkward to get a clean D.N.A. sample from this source. (Did Kate really claim all the children shared a toothbrush or is that a myth?) Ditto for a hairbrush. However, one would have expected her pillow-case in Luz to have yielded results. After all, it was a pillow case from home which eventually provided a sample. Odd that this didn't happen, even allowing for a change of bed-linen on Wednesday morning. As Verdi points out her clothing, particularly under-garments should have provided easy access. There almost seems to have been a deliberate delaying tactic in securing a sample of Madeleine's D.N.A for comparison.

Surely as well, if it was acceptable for the pillowcase to come from Rothley then why not something that definitely belonged to her? I seem to recall Kate said Madeleine didn't have a toothbrush of her own on holiday?? (which should have raised a massive red flag in itself). However surely there was something which definitively belonged to Madeleine in the Rothley home? What about her shoes with the lights on? Surely there's no way the twins wore those. Either way ample opportunities to secure her DNA I would have thought.

Casey5 wrote:Madeleine's underwear, socks etc was available but wasn't it the British Ambassador who said the PJ weren't to remove the McCanns' laundry in case the press thought the McCanns were under suspicion?

QUALMS ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE McCANNS; THE THEORY OF ABDUCTION GAINS GROUND.

Someone puts forward the hypothesis according to which Madeleine would have died in her apartment, and that a member of the group would have removed her. It’s a possibility, but nothing so far, no evidence, happens to support that theory.

The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine’s clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins. Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation.

The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.

– I’m sure this check is necessary.

– The clothes? Are you mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take clothes to have them analysed?

– Yes. What’s the problem? It’s a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this.

– Of course, but with this media hype…I don’t think I have ever in my life seen so many journalists….And I didn’t come down in the last shower.

The Truth of the Lie by Dr Goncalo Amaral - Chapter 3

Snipped and bumped from previous post as leader to a Telegraph report back in September 2007 (that date again!), which could be the vital clue..

"One thing relative to the subject however is open to discussion .... why was Leicestershire Constabulary, John Lowe and the UK's prestigious Forensic Science Service involved with a Portuguese investigation?  Why did every sample submitted to the FSS for analysis produce a negative result?"


Madeleine McCann parents' new DNA hope

Madeleine McCann 

By Caroline Gammell
7:19AM BST 13 Sep 2007

The world's leading expert in DNA cast doubt on a key facet of the alleged forensic evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann last night as he offered to act as an expert witness for the couple.

Sir Alec Jeffreys, who invented DNA fingerprinting, said a match did not necessarily demonstrate a person's guilt or innocence.

It follows claims that DNA samples matched to Madeleine had been found in her parents' hire car and holiday apartment. Sources said the traces were being treated by Portuguese detectives as strong evidence that Madeleine's body was placed in the car.

However, Sir Alec told BBC's Newsnight programme: "There are no genetic characters in Madeleine that are not found in at least one other member of the family.

"So then you have an incomplete DNA profile that could raise a potential problem in assigning a profile to Madeleine given that all other members of that family would have been in that car."

Sir Alec, 57, added: "DNA testing seeks to establish whether DNA sample A from a crime scene came or did not come from individual B.

"So if you get a match there's very strong evidence that it did come from B. It is then up to investigators, the courts and all the rest of it to work out whether that connection is relevant or not.

"So DNA doesn't have the words innocence or guilt in it - that is a legal concept. What it seeks to establish is connections and identifications."

Off-camera, Sir Alec said he was prepared to act as a witness for the McCanns.


His caution came as a leading genetics expert also called into question the value of DNA evidence in its own right. Dr Paul Debenham, a member of the advisory body the Human Genetics Commission, said there could be legitimate reasons as to how DNA from Madeleine found its way into the hire car.

Prosecutors would need to establish that it got there as part of a criminal process and not through chance contact, he said.
Dr Debenham said: "With the current highly sensitive DNA methodologies we can deposit DNA as a trace amount just from contact with a fabric. And that fabric can touch another surface where the DNA is passed on.

"So there is a situation where there is a legitimate or a possible explanation as to how the DNA got on the back seat despite the individual not being there, but through some legitimate transfer of garments, clothes or soft toy.
"It questions the value of that particular evidence in interpreting what happened."

The development came as it emerged that Portuguese prosecutors have applied for Gerry McCann’s laptop and his wife’s personal diary to be handed over to the authorities investigating their daughter’s disappearance.

Detectives in the Algarve are particularly keen to track emails sent by Mr McCann, a cardiologist, from the computer he used while in Portugal to keep an almost daily blog on the campaign to find Madeleine.

An urgent application for access to the personal artefacts was made by public prosecutor Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses to a judge in Portimao yesterday.

Philomena McCann, Mr McCann's sister, said she advised her sister-in-law to keep the diary to show Madeleine how much they loved her.

She told The Sun: " I said to Kate that it would be a good idea if someone wrote down, for Madeleine, notes on everything that was happening, because we have to prove to Madeleine how much we looked for her and how much we love her.

"That wee girl will be thinking, 'They're not looking for me. My mummy, daddy and my aunties - they don't love me because they can't find me'.

"I was just thinking about how insecure Madeleine would be, so Kate has been keeping that journal faithfully every day.

"She's been writing down everything that we've been doing so we can prove to Madeleine that we have worked so hard to try and find her, that we've put our lives on hold to search for her and show our love for her is unending."

Gerry's brother John McCann said last night that his brother believed the Portuguese police had "gone up a cul-de-sac".

He told BBC's The One Show: "Gerry keeps telling me that they have gone up a cul-de-sac and have lost track of what they should really be doing."

Asked whether the fact the case was being dealt with at such a high level in Portugal gave him confidence, he said: "It does and it doesn't. There is data out there, there's all these leaks.

"There is so much speculation going on as to what the actual information the Portuguese police have.

"If they have got something that suggests Madeleine really is dead then for goodness sake tell the family who have the strongest feeling for this."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Just another uncanny coincidence in this prolonged saga, Sir Alec Jeffreys is a professor of genetics at Leicester University, the same place that houses Professor Gerald McCann.  Bet they've shared a pint or two at the bar!



 
 

"Sir Alec Jeffreys, who invented DNA fingerprinting" sounds an impressive man to have on board, but when he says the DNA found on the back seat of a hire car, doesn't he mean DNA found in the boot of the car?
When he explains transfer could have happened from one item of clothing touching another before transferring to the vehicle, I thought the samples were taken from body fluids.


Wasn't there 15 markers out of 19?


I understand people share DNA with parents and siblings etc, but 15 out of 19 is considered a match isn't it?.

So who was leaking body fluids in the boot of a hire car, if not Madeleine, who was it?


Surely not sea bass and nappies 

Martin Grimes Report Eddie and Keela - August 2007


Quote Martin Grimes: [i] "I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs:[/i]


[i]'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an
Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD).

'Keela' is a three-year old English Springer spaniel bitch who is trained as an
Human blood search dog (C.S.I. dog)."

OPERATION TASK CANINE DEPLOYMENTS 1-8 AUGUST 2007

All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications
were at apartment 5a, the reported scene.

The EVRD alerted in the:
Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by
the door.
Living room, behind sofa.
Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
Garden area directly under veranda.

My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's
behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment.
He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search.
On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above
average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent'
and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to
identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.

I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so
alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge.

The dog's behaviour for these alerts led me to the following opinions:

MINISTERIO PUBLICO DE PORTIMAO

The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.

The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog
was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas
on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was
in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely
presence of human blood.

The forensic science support officers were then deployed to recover items for
laboratory analysis.

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.

BOXES OF CLOTHING 1 PROPERTY FORM MR McCANN'S RESIDENCE.

At a suitable venue numerous boxes of clothing 1 property taken from the
McCann present residence were screened using both the EVRD and the CSI
dog. The venue was screened by both dogs prior to introducing clothing /
property. Neither gave an alert indication. The screening then took place with
the contents of each box being placed around the room in turn. The process
was recorded by video and written records were taken by PJ officers.

The only alert indication was by the EVRD on clothing from one of the boxes. I
am not in possession of the details as these were recorded by the PJ
officers present.

MINISTERIO PUBLICO DE PORTIMAO

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

MINISTERIO PUBLICO DE PORTIMAO

SUMMARY

The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


[/i]

All is not as it seems with cuddlecat - I fear he played a duplicious part in the summer of 2007.

In the words of Martin Grimes..

"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."

If y ou watch the video recording of the dogs search, this interest in cuddlecat is not apparent.

At 01:38 it looks to me as though Eddie stuck his snout in a bag on the floor, which fell over and cuddlecat rolled out - Eddie didn;t take any more notice.

At 04:10 Eddie barks after sniffing the top of cupboards with closed doors.

At 05:45 minutes Grimes takes cuddlecat from one of said cupboards but Eddie shows no interest.

 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I have to strongly disagree with you re: this clip and Eddie's reaction to cuddlecat.

Eddie moves around the sitting room and seems to be sensing something. He ignores the flower toy on the table and everything else in the room and homes in on the basket/bag next to the chair. He returns to the bag area 3 times and on the third time he picks cuddlecat out of the bag with his mouth before dropping it almost straight away when the bag is pulled over, seemingly startling him momentarily. Eddie then picks cuddlecat up again before dropping it in the centre of the room.
Martin Grime then appears to have moved cuddlecat to the closed cupboard (one assumes to concentrate any odour coming from it). Eddie shows a lot of interest around the cupboard and then indicates strongly by barking. He returns to the cupboard and barks for a second time. Martin gives Eddie the lie down command and then he opens the cupboard door and takes out cuddlecat to show the camera. Eddie remains under command and Martin walks past with cuddlecat.
 
Nothing I have seen during any of Martin Grime's video indicates that Eddie ever continues to show interest in an object or an area once he has positively marked and Martin has acknowledged - Eddie always immediately moves on to wherever Martin guides him. He is a well-trained working dog.
 
Hope that helps.

According to Martin Grimes, an EVRD dog will raise it's head when only residue cadavar scent is present and will bark only when the source of cadavar scent is located.  The tour with Eddie the EVRD of the villa occupied the McCanns, captured on video, show neither.

Eddie the EVRD was not moving around the sitting room seeming to be sensing something.  He was doing what he was trained to do, investigating any given area for the scent of cadavar or body fluids.  Carefully guided by his trainer/handler, he enters the living room, sniffs around every nook and crannie, hoovers around the lower curtain area, moves to the side where he sticks his snout in what looks like a bag of some sort on the floor, bag topples and out falls cuddlecat.  Eddie briefly picks up cuddlecat and immediately drops it in the middle of the floor - end of that episode.

Moving to another room, Eddie again hoovers around guided by Grimes and encouraged to linger around some floor standing cupboards.  He jumps up to the cupboard surface, drops back down and continues sniffing around - again without raising his head to indicate scent or barking to indicate the source of cadavar, at least not immediately.  When he does bark he's in the corner of the room, this is when a yard or so away Grimes bends down and takes a cuddlecat from the cupboard - no further reaction from Eddie.  Eddie can't talk humanoid, he can only do what he's trained to do. Grimes then stands before the camera proudly displaying his prize cuddlecat, like something from a cheesy shopping channel.

Question  ... what was cuddlecat doing on the top of a bag on the floor of the villa living room and secondly, what was cuddlecat doing cowering in a floor standing cupboard?

Whatever, if cuddlecat did whiff of cadavar it could only have been by contamination - if you follow the paw prints you will know cuddlecat was most assuredly not with Madeleine when she was 'abducted'. 

Cuddlecat has a tale to tell all of it's own - what a pity, like Eddie and Keela, he couldn't talk.

Think from another angle.  The UK establishment intervention was apparent from the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 and continues to this very day.  Logically thinking - is it really likely that the UK authorities would agree to sending over two highly respected trained specialist dogs, three months later,  to uncover something that might implicate the prime suspects without a contingency plan to cover all eventualities?

Whatever, despite doing what they do best, Eddie and Keela's visit to Praia Da Luz in August 2007 was a total waste of time, effort and money - it would appear.

Makes you think don't it?

Probably best the pink cat can't talk Verdi, as I feel it very possibly witnessed more than one horror.

skyrocket wrote:  
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I have to strongly disagree with you re: this clip and Eddie's reaction to cuddlecat.

Eddie moves around the sitting room and seems to be sensing something. He ignores the flower toy on the table and everything else in the room and homes in on the basket/bag next to the chair. He returns to the bag area 3 times and on the third time he picks cuddlecat out of the bag with his mouth before dropping it almost straight away when the bag is pulled over, seemingly startling him momentarily. Eddie then picks cuddlecat up again before dropping it in the centre of the room.
Martin Grime then appears to have moved cuddlecat to the closed cupboard (one assumes to concentrate any odour coming from it). Eddie shows a lot of interest around the cupboard and then indicates strongly by barking. He returns to the cupboard and barks for a second time. Martin gives Eddie the lie down command and then he opens the cupboard door and takes out cuddlecat to show the camera. Eddie remains under command and Martin walks past with cuddlecat.
 
Nothing I have seen during any of Martin Grime's video indicates that Eddie ever continues to show interest in an object or an area once he has positively marked and Martin has acknowledged - Eddie always immediately moves on to wherever Martin guides him. He is a well-trained working dog.
 
Hope that helps.

I have to agree.

Martin Grimes was verifying the toy by hiding it somewhere else. I think the bag falling over confused the issue although it seemed Eddie showed some interest.

Does Martin Grimes make a throat chopping motion to the cameraman after finding it in the cupboard?

"Cut", he probably wants to say something.

Anyway, it seems Eddie thinks cuddlecat smells of cadaverine.

Isn't Eddie trained to bark if he smells cadaverine?