The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Forensics Revisited

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by worriedmum on 14.11.17 20:35

Verdi, just come on to the forum tonight and catching up on this topic.
Could you just cut to the chase and tell me if you are trying to rubbish, Eddie, Keela and Martin Grimes?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1841
Reputation : 439
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 14.11.17 20:55

Geeez, give me strength - now Martin Grime has been redesignated dog whisperer.  Don't you see how this is playing right into the hands of the McCanns and their supporters?  By blindly accepting every aspect of the dogs inspections without question, you are giving them the ammunition they need.

I don't know how this has developed into a three dimensional comparison to 9/ll, or any other major conspiracy theory, over the past few hours but if I can return to my original point without further ado.

An EVRD and/or CSI dog is not a pet, it's a working dog.  Martin Grime repeatedly explained what's expected from a trained specialist dog, in the case of Eddie the EVRD, he raises his head when a scent is detected, he barks when the source and/or location of the scent is located.  Eddie did not respond to cuddlecat either by raising his head nor by barking.

The subsequent trail ending in floor standing cupboards, to which Grimes purposely guided Eddie, still didn't provoke a reaction to scent.  After much coaxing, Eddie eventually went into the corner and after jumping up and sniffing around the top of the cupboard he barked.  Then a yard or so away from the corner Grimes opens the cupboard door, takes out cuddlecat which he then holds up for the benefit of the camera. 

This is not negotiable, it's a fact for all to see for themselves in the video.

Whatever private arrangement Martin Grime might or might not have with the dog on the QT, is totally irrelevant - fact remains, Eddie the EVRD did not signal cuddlecat.  End of! 

Twist and turn as much as you like to attain the desired result, it makes no difference to the fact recorded on video -  Eddie the EVRD did not signal nor alert to cuddlecat.  The whole scenario appears contrived - it's an open invitation for the McCanns and their support network to claim the evidence (smelly cuddlecat) was planted to incriminate them, or the scene was staged to suggest guilt.  Surely you can see that?

Considering cuddlecat never left Kate McCann's side when before the camera, I'm surprised it was left, strategically placed, on the villa floor when they knew the dogs were due to arrive.

The whole exercise was futile - it was doomed to fail.  As I said originally, why would the UK establishment willingly permit such a venture that could/would so easily incriminate the prime suspects - the very same suspects that were (and still are) so well protected by the establishment.

All is not as it seems.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 14.11.17 20:59

@BlueBag wrote:The blog said Eddie showed no interest in the toy.

I hope you don't agree with the blog on that?

It was a patent lie.
Semantics.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by worriedmum on 14.11.17 21:02

So , by your logic, if a detective walks by a clue, then goes back over the same ground and sees it, it is not a clue?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1841
Reputation : 439
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by worriedmum on 14.11.17 21:10

And do you realise that calling Martin Grime 'dog-whisperer' comes across as pejorative?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1841
Reputation : 439
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 14.11.17 21:11

Well, that’s well & truly closed that particular avenue, hasn’t it ? Another Portuguese cul-de-sac.
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 383
Reputation : 274
Join date : 2017-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Julie on 14.11.17 22:19

Must say I was very frustrated that Martin assumed the 'scent' around the kitchen cupboards was cuddlecat and didn't investigate further.

Julie

Posts : 43
Reputation : 51
Join date : 2016-04-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Phoebe on 14.11.17 22:43

@Verdi. By that logic there was no alert in the parent's bedroom in 5A! I have just reviewed that search video. Eddie passed closely by the open cupboard - no bark. Next he actually entered it and exited without barking and it was only after his second entry into the cupboard some time later that he sat outside and barked.
 Similarly, when he first encounters the blue sofa he jumps on it and snuffles deep in its cushions but leaves without a bark alert. The next time he is directed to the sofa he appears interested in the back of it but no bark. The sofa is moved slightly to allow him behind it and on his first pass of the area he still does not bark. It is only after he is directed to explore this area again that he alerts. The fact that blood was subsequently found proves this was indeed, a genuine alert (remembering that as a cadaver dog, Eddie will also alert to old blood traces)
 What then do we make of his first "pass by" without a bark, similar to the cuddlecat situation? If blood hadn't been recovered to prove him right would some be claiming that since he didn't bark on first encounter of the area that this was not a genuine alert? 
What strikes me from the videos is that Martin Grime does not expect his dogs to enter a place and freeze like a pointer. He seems to expect that the dogs will need to be given time to explore locations in the room several times before they decide "yes, something here" or "No, found nothing". 
I have the utmost faith in him and his dogs and do not believe they were working to any hidden agenda.  It is their findings which convince me of Madeleine's death. In truth, all we have without them is the conflicting testimony of some witnesses and the statistical unlikelihood of an abduction.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 547
Reputation : 616
Join date : 2017-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 15.11.17 7:11

The question is... how faint does the trace have to be for Eddie to positively detect.

Is there a question mark level for Eddie?

Faint traces are not omni-directional... they are chemical particles suspended in the air.

The fainter the less even the scattering. Then there is the question of air movement.

I don't know the answers to those questions but they are relevant.

I really don't believe that Martin Grime was part of an elaborate set-up for 10 years down the line.

Surely it would be simpler for a dog whisperer to find nothing.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4402
Reputation : 2219
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 15.11.17 7:12

@Verdi wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:The blog said Eddie showed no interest in the toy.

I hope you don't agree with the blog on that?

It was a patent lie.
Semantics.
Not at all.

Eddie showed interest in the toy. Fact.

Did he bite and throw anything else?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4402
Reputation : 2219
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 15.11.17 7:16

Do you see what's happening here ? There is little new to discuss (and there hasn't been much in the last 3 or 4 years) and so, what is in the domain, is being scrutinized to the nth degree and slowly unpicked.

IMO, we are going backwards.
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 383
Reputation : 274
Join date : 2017-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by skyrocket on 15.11.17 7:53

@polyenne - possibly, but I think what is going on here may be more subtle than that.

@Verdi - you are entitled to an opinion as are we all. Having read your post a couple of times it's clear that you believe Martin Grime is not to be trusted. It would have been simpler if you'd just stated that initially, as any further discussion regarding cuddlecat/Eddie is pointless.

I have watched the video several times and what I do see is Martin confident enough that his EVRD dog Eddie has marked cuddlecat. I'm not an expert but there is nothing I have seen regarding Martin Grime that suggests to me he would be involved in any sort of contrived set up. My feelings are the same for Martin/Eddie's work at Haute de la Garenne (Jersey).
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 609
Reputation : 598
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by plebgate on 15.11.17 8:04

I have asked the question before, why would Martin Grimes have the dogs recorded if there was any way his trustworthyness could be called into question?

The British police recommended the dogs be brought in and they did that for a reason.  Martin Grimes and the dogs' reputation and their 100per cent record.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
:roll:

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 15.11.17 11:55

@skyrocket wrote:...it's clear that you believe Martin Grime is not to be trusted. It would have been simpler if you'd just stated that initially ...

... possibly, but I think what is going on here may be more subtle than that.

1.  Please have the decency not to assume what I believe.

2.  Pray do tell what you think "is going on here" - I'm all ears and I could do with a little amusing diversion on this otherwise dreary day.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Julie on 15.11.17 13:11

@Verdi   It's difficult not to assume what you believe because you rarely say what you believe!

Julie

Posts : 43
Reputation : 51
Join date : 2016-04-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Phoebe on 15.11.17 13:36

@ Verdi. "Grimes then stands before the camera proudly displaying his prize cuddlecat, like something from a cheesy shopping channel."
 You also refer to Martin Grime being "Elevated to dog whisperer" and state "All is not as it seems"... "The whole scenario appears contrived "


    The only inference I can draw from these is that you do not believe Martin Grime was involved in a genuine investigation? 
  
 Translation
DVD Rogatory Letters 3rd volume
Martin Grime


Dated May 14 2008Translation
DVD Rogatory Letters 3rd volume
Martin Grime


Dated May 14 2008 - 
  '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."


Martin Grime clearly states that it is his opinion that Eddie alerted to cuddlecat. It is also stated that - "The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately" however this is referring to KEELA -she did not react when given cuddlecat, therefore, no blood scent on cuddlecat.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 547
Reputation : 616
Join date : 2017-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by kinell on 15.11.17 13:54

How did the PJ retain cuddlecat for future forensic analysis when Kate was carrying it around everywhere?

Did they retain it when she took it in for questioning sticking out of her bag?

Was she seen with it afterwards?

Or did the PJ give it back to her, just like they gave them back the stinky hire car that they were seen leaving PDL in? And the stinky cadaver trousers that Kate was wearing when they left PDL? Amelie was holding cuddlecat when they were seen coming off the plane when it got back to the UK.

So when were these future forensic analyses done?

Why were all these items given back to the McCanns?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1435221/Madeleine-McCann-how-the-story-unfolded.html

eta: In fact that quote by Martin Grime was dated 2008 and Amelie was holding cuddlecat coming off the plane in 2007.

____________________

avatar
kinell

Posts : 95
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2012-03-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 15.11.17 14:59

@Julie wrote:@Verdi   It's difficult not to assume what you believe because you rarely say what you believe!

If that's the impression you have @Julie, you only confirm what I repeatedly say - people do not read properly.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 15.11.17 15:43

@polyenne wrote:Do you see what's happening here ? There is little new to discuss (and there hasn't been much in the last 3 or 4 years) and so, what is in the domain, is being scrutinized to the nth degree and slowly unpicked.

IMO, we are going backwards.
@Phoebe wrote:The only inference I can draw from these is that you do not believe Martin Grime was involved in a genuine investigation?
If you refer back, you will see I've posted considerable officially documented information on the subject of Martin Grime, Eddie the EVRD and cuddlecat.  I don't need confirmation of what I've already referenced.
 
Over the years following this case, I've learned that nothing, nothing is cast iron - with the exception of a missing three year old child, Madeleine McCann.  That is a fact.  For this reason, when a specific subject that I consider to be questionable comes to my attention, I bring it back in the spotlight to re-kindle interest.  In this particular instance, as I say, I have highlighted Martin Grime and the dogs inspection of the villa occupied by the McCanns, including the video footage, with my commentary.  Why the commentary?  Because I see anomalies that I consider to be worthy of further scrutiny.

If you disagree, I've no problem with that - you have the option of ignoring my observations but please bear in mind, CMoMM is an investigative/research forum dedicated to uncovering the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  The issue of forensics I think, plays a very strong part in the conspiracy - the dog inspection included.  This is not intended to be a question mark over the dogs themselves, that's too ridiculous to even contemplate, the forensic trail however is an important factor.

@polyenne:  During your membership on CMoMM, I've noticed you like to get stuck in if there is any discord.  Apropos of you comment above, rather than wasting  precious time on sweet nothings, why not let us know how you think the forum can move forward - what subjects you think are worthy of further investigation in-line with the general purpose of the forum.  I for one would appreciate your input - anything to improve the forum and encourage member participation is always welcome.  You can start a new topic, or add to an existing thread that is of particular interest to you.

Edited.

Edit 2 for polyenne 8:42 pm

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 15.11.17 16:04

Verdi - I thought you’d barred personal attack ? Oh well, if it’s good for the goose.........

In my “comparatively short membership” (as if this is some sort of bragging right) it hasn’t escaped my notice that you appear to be a common denominator in any discord.
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 383
Reputation : 274
Join date : 2017-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 15.11.17 16:25

What do they say, Mr Verdi? The Devil is in the detail?
Quote: "Over the years following this case, I've learned that nothing, nothing is cast iron.." end quote.
It is inherently easy to accept facets of this case which fit in neatly with one's current theory. Not so obliging when details emerge that queer that theory's pitch. However frustrating, we must adhere to the pieces that fit, not those we want to hammer into place.
I have had to rip up some encouraging lines of inquiry when met with, what at first, seemed a trivial detail, yet turns out to be the fly in the ointment.
No aspect of this case, or person thought to be involved, is inviolable. 
It may just be, that some long accepted standing pillars of the case, crumble, revealing they had no substantial foundation after all, and have served to inadvertently deflect us from a more beneficial route of inquiry.
The waters remain very muddy, so we need continue to pan what we have unearthed with ever increasingly finer sieves and eschew the Fool's Gold.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 302
Reputation : 106
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 62
Location : Beverley

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by kaz on 15.11.17 17:44

@Verdi wrote:
@polyenne wrote:Do you see what's happening here ? There is little new to discuss (and there hasn't been much in the last 3 or 4 years) and so, what is in the domain, is being scrutinized to the nth degree and slowly unpicked.

IMO, we are going backwards.
@Phoebe wrote:The only inference I can draw from these is that you do not believe Martin Grime was involved in a genuine investigation?
If you refer back, you will see I've posted considerable officially documented information on the subject of Martin Grime, Eddie the EVRD and cuddlecat.  I don't need confirmation of what I've already referenced.
 
Over the years following this case, I've learned that nothing, nothing is cast iron - with the exception of a missing three year old child, Madeleine McCann.  That is a fact.  For this reason, when a specific subject that I consider to be questionable comes to my attention, I bring it back in the spotlight to re-kindle interest.  In this particular instance, as I say, I have highlighted Martin Grime and the dogs inspection of the villa occupied by the McCanns, including the video footage, with my commentary.  Why the commentary?  Because I see anomalies that I consider to be worthy of further scrutiny.

If you disagree, I've no problem with that - you have the option of ignoring my observations but please bear in mind, CMoMM is an investigative/research forum dedicated to uncovering the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  The issue of forensics I think, plays a very strong part in the conspiracy - the dog inspection included.  This is not intended to be a question mark over the dogs themselves, that's too ridiculous to even contemplate, the forensic trail however is an important factor.

@polyenne:  During your comparatively short membership on CMoMM, I've noticed you like to get stuck in if there is any discord.  Apropos of you comment above, rather than wasting  precious time on sweet nothings, why not let us know how you think the forum can move forward - what subjects you think are worthy of further investigation in-line with the general purpose of the forum.  I for one would appreciate your input - anything to improve the forum and encourage member participation is always welcome.  You can start a new topic, or add to an existing thread that is of particular interest to you.

Edited.
I have always thought it strange that Mark Harrison MBE , National Search Adviser, ( Ex Chief Inspector ) )  suggested the use of sniffer dogs to the PJ. Remember this was the man who allegedly told Amaral that he had a meeting with MI5.  According to the  PJ Files Harrison only speaks of murder and concealment  of the child not accidental death and abduction. Again according to the PJ Files  Harrison admitted that anything that the dogs alerted to could only be viewed as intelligence, not evidence. 
I don't think that any one is suggesting that Grimes or Eddie the dog were in any way faking their  findings but there would be a fairly simple way of getting the desired results without implicating the pair in any wrongdoing. Likewise the car which is such a confusing factor in this case.  It's certainly a gift for the McCanns' protestations of innocence. The 'intelligence' gained from the dogs would  certainly be a useful tool to manipulate and control the McCanns .  Was Gerry making veiled threats to certain parties that needed some sort of action to calm him down?
All speculation of course but there is surely far more to these findings than IS immediately apparent.

kaz

Posts : 433
Reputation : 369
Join date : 2014-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Keitei on 15.11.17 18:40

@kaz wrote:All speculation of course but there is surely far more to these findings than IS immediately apparent.

I recall the lady Portuguese Tweeter AdirenM telling us that we have not seen all the footage of the dogs at work in PDL.  The public is not entitled to view. She did say that the unseen footage can be requested by those with official credentials.  She gave no explanation as to why the footage was not in the public domain. She has seen the footage, she believes the dogs,

Whilst she offers no proof of her statement, I found it very interesting & as such say very little about the dogs work other than:  Grime knew his dogs well, he knows what the dogs alerted to.

____________________
Those who play games do not see as clearly as those who watch. 
avatar
Keitei
Moderator/Investigator

Posts : 918
Reputation : 260
Join date : 2015-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by plebgate on 15.11.17 19:28

@Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. "Grimes then stands before the camera proudly displaying his prize cuddlecat, like something from a cheesy shopping channel."
 You also refer to Martin Grime being "Elevated to dog whisperer" and state "All is not as it seems"... "The whole scenario appears contrived "


    The only inference I can draw from these is that you do not believe Martin Grime was involved in a genuine investigation? 
  
 Translation
DVD Rogatory Letters 3rd volume
Martin Grime


Dated May 14 2008Translation
DVD Rogatory Letters 3rd volume
Martin Grime


Dated May 14 2008 - 
  '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."


Martin Grime clearly states that it is his opinion that Eddie alerted to cuddlecat. It is also stated that - "The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately" however this is referring to KEELA -she did not react when given cuddlecat, therefore, no blood scent on cuddlecat.
Thanks for posting this phoebe.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
:roll:

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by worriedmum on 15.11.17 19:41

@worriedmum wrote:Verdi, just come on to the forum tonight and catching up on this topic.
Could you just cut to the chase and tell me if you are trying to rubbish, Eddie, Keela and Martin Grimes?
Verdi?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1841
Reputation : 439
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum