Two top UK Dogs who alerted to blood and cadaver odour in McCanns’ apartment and hire car had never been wrong in 200 previous outings.

On the McCann-believer STM forum, a poster called 'tigerloaf' has responded (to a very limited extent) to 'admin's questions to members of that forum.

I am working on a full reply to tigerloaf's posting, but in the meantime, I am going to deal with what is in effect a challenge from tigerloaf to my assertion that Martin Grime is one of the top dog handlers in the world.

Martin Grime is now employed in the U.S.A. where the FBI and GSS International are making use of his undoubted talents as a dog handler. That in itself is an accolade. He was chosen for this role. Others were not.

The folk of STM lay the heaviest possible stress on Martin Grime's summary in his initial report to the Portuguese police. He wrote:

!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’s alert indications must be corroborated to establish their findings as evidence".

The STM folk lay great emphasis on that last sentence. But if you look at what they, and other McCann-believers say, you would think that Martin Grime is saying: "If you can't back up the dog's alerts with other forensic or corroborative evidence, these dogs' alerts are uterly worthless". But of course, that's not the case. Everybody except the McCann-believers know that when Martin Grime says: 'There has been a body here', either he is dead right, or, at the very minumum, this is EVIDENCE which must be followed up - and IS followed up by any police force. It is inconceivable that any police force, faced with an expert of Martin Grime's international stature pronouncing that his dogs have alerted to the scent of a human corpse in 11 locations connected with a couple, would not make every effort to establish whose corpse that was and who was responsible for the death. All that Martin Grime is talking about is evidence sufficient to put before a court of law.

Here then is a modest compendium of information about Martin Grime, who to my knowledge has seen his skills deployed in four countries:

UK (plus Jersey)

USA

Portugal

Ireland.

Please feel free to add to this compensium if you can:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

tigerloaf wrote:

Incidentally, you claim that Grime's dogs are among the most sought-after in the world: can you offer examples where they have been used other than the very small number of known US/UK cases in the last five years? Can you even give a list of ten cases to back up that claim? And would any be from other countries? Over 1500 days since August 2007 and only a tiny handful of cases that I know of. So please support your claim about the dogs with evidence.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

INFORMATION ABOUT MARTIN GRIME ON LINKEDIN


Martin Grime
at GSS International
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia

Industry: Law Enforcement

Current work: USA, GSS International, Forensic Canine Search Consultancy

Previous: British police, UK police

Edication: U.K.A.C.P.O. canine trainer

75 connections on LinkedIn

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

Contact Info

Summary

A professional law enforcement related canine Subject Matter Expert concentrating on the specialism of Forensic Canine applicatuon in relation to homicide and child abduction.

A retired law enforcement officer now contracted to the FBI in a consultancy role for the development of the Forensic Canine Program, Victim Recovery Team.

Specialties

Forensic canine application in homicide and child abduction
Canine system training design and delivery
Canine olfactory research

Experience

Currently employed by: Evidence Response Team, Forensic Canine Program, USA

November 2010 – Present (2 years 1 month) USA Washington DC, Virginia

Contract to provide Subject Matter Expert consultancy to the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Evidence Response Team in respect of the Forensic Canine Program, Victim Recovery Team.

To provide appropiate canine resources in support of critical case homicide and child abduction.

To design and facilitate training systems in relation to canine search and odor line up screening.

To provide consultancy and appropiate canine resources to the FBI Laboratory Division CFSRU in relation to research being conducted into the detection of human decomposition odor and human blood.

To provide expert witness opinion in relation to casework.

This position is associated with:

4 Projects

and Director, GSS International

June 2009 – Present (3 years 6 months) Romsey, Hampshire UK

Canine Director for an International company that provides specialist search services and training in the military and law enforcement environment.

Owner

FROM MARTIN GRIME’S REPORT TO THE PORTUGUESE POLICE

Personal Profile [August 2007]

I am a 'retired' police officer, formally a senior instructor at the South Yorkshire Police dog training establishment. I have 35 years experience in the training of dogs both within the police service and in the public sector. I specialise in the development and training of specialist search dogs, to include narcotics, explosives, currency, human remains, blood and semen.

I am the Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program. I am a U.K.A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers, England and Wales) accredited police dog training instructor. I am a Subject Matter Expert in forensic canine search and on the N.P.I.A. (National Policing Improvement Agency) Expert Advisers database. I advise Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the operational deployment of police dogs in the role of homicide investigation. I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and I facilitate training. I am regularly deployed to homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys and USA. I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs: '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 a human blood search dog (C.S.I. dog).

CADAVER AND HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOGS’ SEARCH ASSET PROFILES (found at Vol. IX p. 2478- in the PJ files}.

Licensing and Accreditation

In the UK, Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) licensed and accredited cadaver dogs are trained and licensed on the basis of the relevant section of the Police Dog Training and Care manual. This involves the training of G.P. (General Purpose) dogs to alert to the presence of surface deposition and sub-surface deposition to approximately 2 feet [60cm]. The dogs are deployed on long lines to search an area in large numbers.

The UK has also approximately six Police dog teams that have been trained
exclusively on decomposing pig remains not for human consumption, as specialist dogs to work off the leash to locate human remains in a wider variety of scenarios. Pig is used as it has been proven in training and operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human remains-detecting training for dogs.

The possession of human remains for the purpose of training dogs in the U.K. is not acceptable at this point in time. Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario-based, conducted over a period of a week, twice annually. It is conducted utilising independent ACPO-authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a daily basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario-based exercises.

Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if required. All operational deployments are video recorded including a control sample find when appropriate.

Training

The dog, a scavenger, uses its olfactory system to locate food sources, identify its young, other pack members, enemies and predators over large distances. It can track its prey identifying a direction of travel. This entails the dog being able to discriminate the time difference between footsteps using the sense of smell.

The reward of food and protection/close comfort provides the basis for a system to be adopted where the dog shows a willingness to respond, in response to the reward. We are thereby able to 'train' the dog using conditioned responses to stimuli. Repetition and reward then ensure efficiency. Positive and negative reinforcement then shapes the required behaviour in their role. Within their role, these dogs utilise basic survival instincts, but have undergone behaviour-shaping to alert the handler to their finding as opposed to consummation. Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.R.D. system of alert. He has been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead body scent'.

The presence of tangible material [i.e. a dead body or part of it] is not required to produce the response, merely the scent itself. Pseudo-scent is an artificially, chemically- produced product that its manufacturers claim to resemble 'dead body scent'. Although some cadaver dog trainers have had limited success with its use in training, when tested on my dogs, they showed no interest, and it is not used as a training aid for them.

In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department, I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver, not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.

False alerts

'False' positives are always a possibility. To date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat-based and, specifically, pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly, the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.

My experience as a trainer has shown that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in behaviour. This increases handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.

EVRD OPERATIONAL CASEWORK EXAMPLES

1. Northern Ireland, UK A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The search of suspects’ 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot-well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim’s DNA. The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of the woman in a river-bank deposition site. Further searches identified a location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offender’s empty next-door dwelling house. When interviewed, the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.

2. Wiltshire, England, U.K. A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her ex-boyfriend had taken her to his house. A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert-indicated, and forensically confirmed as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirit level, and a shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its original state.

3. Devon, England, U.K. A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at the alert location revealed a small button off from the girl’s clothing in long grass. The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.

4. Cornwall, England, U.K. A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspect’s house by the EVRD was conducted, and he indicated on the living room carpet. No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently, a diary written by the suspect was alert-indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts stating that the offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead. The diary had in fact been written by the suspect who had handled the body. This was confirmed by the offender in interview.

THE ROGATORY INTERVIEW OF MARTIN GRIME, DOG HANDLER, MAY 2008

NOTE: This was an interview carried out by Leicestershire Police Officers with Martin Grime on 14 May 2008.

I am a retired police officer, 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 PJ, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force. On 17 August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the PJ, which was submitted by Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The PJ 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 e-mail several written questions sent by the PJ, together with a request for a written statement. This witness statement was submitted by me, without my having seen or having had any knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analysing the evidence submitted in this case.

The Questions put to me and my Answers:

Q. 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).

Q. 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?

A. Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1). The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognise 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.

Q. 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?

A. 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.

Q. Based upon the dogs’ behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?

A. 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.

Q. 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?

A. The dogs were not taught any ‘tricks’. EVRD ‘signalled’ the toy, which at my request was retained by the PJ for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

Q. 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?

A. 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.

Q. The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?

A. The dog EVRD 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. What they find and give the alerts for is dried blood from a live human being.

Q. Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion?

A. The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

Q. How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?

A. Cross-contamination is immediate.

Q. Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?

A. 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.

Q. Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results?

A. I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparisons, 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.

Q. At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case?

A. I have 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 statement is by me and is true according to my understanding.

Martin Grime.

CASES WHERE EDDIE WAS USED

Bianca Jones case, U.S.

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

Haut de la Garenne, Jersey

Body of Bon Rose, island of Sanday, Scotland

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

Called in to search for Kate Prout

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

Working dog focus fast Eddie

][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Sunday Life, 15 May 2009)

Attracta Harron

QUOTE from above article:

“Elite police sniffer dog Eddie is a shining example to all working dogs. The specially-trained English springer spaniel found the body of murdered Sion Mills pensioner Attracta Harron in 2003.
He was also taken to Praia de Luz in Portugal to take part in the hunt for Madeleine McCann.

Eddie has also been called in to help police forces in the Republic of Ireland and in America and, with handler Martin Grime, who is attached to the South Yorkshire police force, has been given an award for Outstanding Achievement and Dedication to Duty.
The police sniffer dog, which is trained to locate minute traces of blood, has worked with the FBI.

His handler Martin Grime said: "Dogs like Eddie are very, very good at what they do and he has lots of operational experience.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTE:

BY CONTRAST with the above evidence of Martin Grime's experience and international reputation, this is the assessment of Dr Kate McCann in her book: 'madeleine':

This is on pages 249-250 of the book ‘madeleine’.

“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. From what I saw of the dogs’ responses, this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here…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. This was not what I would call an exact science”.

Madeleine McCann's parents look to US sniffer dog case

By Caroline Gammell in Praia da Luz 17 September 2007 • 00:01 am

Kate and Gerry McCann's legal team has contacted American lawyers over a case where key sniffer dog evidence was thrown out of court in the hope that it may help them fight any charges that they were involved in the killing of their daughter.

The couple fear that Portuguese police will rely on the behaviour of cadaver dogs who allegedly detected "the smell of death" on Mrs McCann's clothes.



Detectives in the Algarve are understood to be working on the theory that Mrs McCann accidentally killed four-year-old Madeleine and her husband helped her get rid of the body. The couple have dismissed this as "ludicrous".

The "smell of death" was not only allegedly detected on Mrs McCann's clothes but in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz and the Renault Scenic car hired 25 days after Madeleine disappeared, Portuguese sources claimed. A source close to the McCanns' solicitors said the smell on Mrs McCann could be explained by being in contact with corpses while working as a GP.

The couple, from Rothley, Leics, are already preparing their defence in case they are charged with their daughter's death.

Their UK lawyers consulted the legal team of Eugene Zapata, 68, who is accused of murdering his estranged wife Jeanette in 1976.

He was charged with murder last year after dogs indicated that they sniffed human remains in the basement of the former family home in Madison, Wisconsin.

But a judge ruled last month that the evidence was no more reliable than "the flip of a coin" and could not be put before a jury.

"The court papers, giving the legal submissions, are on their way to the McCann team for consideration," said the source close to the McCanns' solicitors.

"At the moment there is no formal allegation against which the McCann team can work.

"But given that we understand the central plank of what the police are alleging involves sniffer dogs, this is important and relevant, and will be raised with the police and brought to the judge's attention."

Senior Portuguese police sources admitted at the weekend that there was "nothing concrete" with which to charge the couple.

In the last 10 days they have been declared formal suspects, accused of fleeing Portugal and endured a number of slurs about their parenting but they began to fight back by launching a newspaper and poster campaign focused in Spain and Portugal to highlight Madeleine's disappearance.

The couple were also boosted by the public backing of Sir Richard Branson, the Virgin boss, who contributed £100,000 to kick start a fund to pay for their legal team.

He has taken a personal interest in the investigation and has spoken at length to Mr and Mrs McCann.

His spokesman said: "When the McCanns said under no circumstances would they touch the find-Madeleine fund and mentioned they would sell their house, he felt he had to do something."

The McCanns have appointed top lawyers in Portugal and Britain to clear "the cloud of suspicion" enveloping them.

A source close to them said: "Any so-called evidence can be explained. There are wholly innocent reasons for everything that the police may have found which gives them cause for suspicion."

In an unprecedented move, the investigating judge, Pedro Daniel dos Anjos Frias, is understood to want to speak publicly about the case.

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

Here is an older post from Tony Bennett

These three accounts speak for themselves, I've highlighted relevant passages in red:

WARNING: SOME OF THE CONTENT IS GRAPHIC

Times, September 17, 2007

Kate and Gerry McCann send to US for help against evidence of sniffer dogs

Steve Bird and David Brown in Praia da Luz

The parents of Madeleine McCann have contacted the lawyers of a man charged with murder who successfully challenged sniffer dog evidence. His lawyers claimed it was unreliable and persuaded a judge in the US to throw out prosecution claims that the dogs had detected the smell of a corpse.

Kate and Gerry McCann hope that the case could help them to prove their own innocence.

Two British sniffer dogs, one capable of detecting blood and human remains, were taken to Portugal in early August to help in the investigation. The dog picked up a “scent of death” on numerous items, including Mrs McCann’s clothes and her daughter’s favourite soft toy.

During police interviews the McCanns, both 39, were repeatedly shown a video of the animal “going crazy” when it approached their hired Renault Scenic car.

Mrs McCann could not explain it, but the scent of bodies remains detectable to the springer spaniel “cadaver dogs” for years and her legal team concluded that the scent could have come from her contact with corpses during her work as a doctor.

Portuguese police believe that the couple may have killed their child accidentally and then disposed of the body using a car they hired 25 days later. Although the McCanns do not know the full details of the Portuguese prosecutor’s case against them, they are concerned that it may rest on the dog’s reaction.

Now their lawyers have requested the case files from the ongoing murder trial of Eugene Zapata in Madison, Wisconsin. His estranged wife, Jeanette, a 37-year-old flight instructor, vanished in October 1976 after taking her children to school. Her body has never been found.

Detectives suspected that Mr Zapata killed her but did not have enough evidence to go to court. Mr Zapata, 68, was charged with murder last year after sniffer dogs were brought in. They allegedly detected the scent of human remains in a basement at the former family home. But Dane County Judge Patrick Fiedler ruled that the evidence was inadmissible, saying that the dogs were unreliable. He quoted analysis of the three dogs’ performance record which showed that they were, respectively, incorrect 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time.

The judge told the court: “The state has failed to convince me that it’s any more reliable than the flip of a coin.” The jury is considering its verdict.

A source close to the McCanns’ legal team said: “The court papers, giving the legal submissions, are on their way to the McCann team for consideration. At the moment there are no formal charges and therefore there is no formal allegation against which the McCann team can work. We are having to work a little bit in the dark.
“But given that we understand the central plank of what the police are alleging involves sniffer dogs – albeit British ones, which are said to be particularly good – this is important and relevant, and will be raised with the police and brought to the judge’s attention.”

British millionaires are being sought to fund the McCanns’ legal battle with the Portuguese authorities to clear their names. Sir Richard Branson has donated £100,000 to a fighting fund. A spokesman for the multi-billionaire said: “When the McCanns said under no circumstances would they touch the Find Madeleine Fund and mentioned they would sell their house, Richard felt he had to do something. He is a father and there is a missing child out there.”

Father Haynes Hubbard, the Anglican priest who became close friends with the McCanns when they stayed on in Praia da Luz, said yesterday: “That’s absolutely wonderful. If I had £100,000 I would give it to Kate and Gerry, too.”

Clarence Mitchell will be employed by one of the McCanns’ wealthy supporters to act as the couple’s spokesman. He will resign as head of the media monitoring unit of the Cabinet Office today and take up his new post tomorrow. A friend said he had kept in touch with the couple after handling the case while still working for the Government.

What could happen next

What action will the police take this week?

Portuguese detectives are due to arrive in Leicester to work with a British police team investigating Madeleine’s disappearance. It has been reported that Kate McCann could be interviewed again this week. A Portuguese judge must decide by Thursday whether to approve requests by Portuguese police to secure more evidence.

Who’s advising British police on the case?

Tony Connell, a member of the Crown Prosecution Service’s special casework unit, has been advising the “Gold Group” of senior detectives at Leicestershire Police, which is investigating the Madeleine case. Mr Connell led the review which led to the conviction of Damilola Taylor’s killers.

Could the McCanns be prosecuted in Britain?


It is possible to prosecute a British citizen for a murder or manslaughter abroad under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This was last done in 2005 when Christopher Newman was convicted at the Inner London Crown Court of murdering Georgina Eager in Dublin.

Can the public support Kate and Gerry McCann’s legal battle?

A fighting fund to help to pay their legal costs is expected to be announced within the next few days. A source close to the family told The Times: “It will be getting set up and formalised as a proper fund. It has to be meticulously thought through.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Zapata Enters Guilty Plea In Connection With Missing Wife's Death

The Eugene Zapata Case

Eugene Zapata’s wife, Jeanette Zapata was last seen on October 11th, 1976. Her body was never found. Police suspected that her husband had murdered her, but without sufficient evidence to arrest him, her disappearance became a cold case. It was reopened due to pressure from Mrs Zapata’s loved ones, and cadaver dogs were used to locate her remains. The link for this article is:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jeanette “Jean” Zapata sent her two teenage daughters and 6-year-old son to school shortly after 8 a.m. Oct. 11, 1976. They last saw her as she sat at the kitchen table in their East Side home near La Follette High School wearing blue corduroys and a striped top.

The 36-year-old flight instructor – who was divorcing her husband – was never heard from again.

Madison Police Capt. Tom Snyder said Thursday that the husband, Eugene J. Zapata, is their primary and only suspect. He lives in Nevada with his second wife.

According to a search warrant executed by police in August but kept sealed until Thursday morning, dogs trained to detect human remains reacted to two locations connected to Eugene Zapata – a crawl space in the couple’s former home and a storage locker in Sun Prairie.

Two days after Jeanette Zapata’s children saw her for the last time, Ivan Norton, an accountant at Frickleton School of Aeronautics, reported her missing because she hadn’t come to work.

“If she told you to make an appointment at a certain time, she was there ahead of schedule to make sure it all went right,” Norton, 69, said Thursday. “She was very nice and very prompt and that was the whole thing that was concerning us. She was like a time clock.”

Immediately after she disappeared, her purse and other belongings, including her new car, were found at the home, but a .30-06 rifle was missing.

Officers have questioned Eugene Zapata several times over the past 30 years and he sometimes provided contradictory statements.

Zapata told police he argued with his wife over visitation rights to their children a few days before she disappeared. The day she vanished, they met with the La Follette High School principal to discuss their oldest daughter. One time he told police he called the morning of Oct. 11 to cancel the meeting. On another occasion, he said he went to the house at 9 a.m. to pick her up.

Jean Zapata had obtained a court order that restricted his time with the children in the home to two hours on Saturday mornings.

His employment records at the state Department of Transportation indicate he worked from 7:45 to 8:45 a.m. the day she disappeared, was off work the following day, Oct. 12, and then came in to work at 12:30 p.m. Oct. 13.

He told police he took Oct. 12 off to care for his children at home, but investigators verified the children were at school.

Zapata did not respond to messages from the State Journal asking for an interview. In a 1987 State Journal article, he said he believed his former wife ran away.

“It may have been just the pressure of it because I filed for custody of the kids,” Zapata said then. “She was a very strong-willed person. If she made up her mind that she wanted to disappear, she could do it.”
Investigators suspected Zapata, but lacking leads they had shelved the case.

It was reactivated a year ago after one of Jean Zapata’s childhood friends called asking about its status, Snyder said.

New detection techniques, including “cadaver dogs” that can find faint odors of human remains, pushed the investigation forward.

According to court documents, dogs twice signaled that they had found the scent of human remains in an unused basement crawl space at the Zapatas’ former home on Indian Trace, and a human hair was excavated. Police will not say whether test results indicate that it belonged to Jean Zapata.

Eugene Zapata sold the house in 1997. In 2001, he moved to Nevada. He rented a storage facility in Sun Prairie that year and listed its contents as “boxes, mixture of son’s and parent’s stuff.”

On April 13, 2005, police left a message for Eugene Zapata with his wife in Nevada. The next day, the locker’s key was returned to U-Store Mini Storage in Sun Prairie. The empty locker remained locked until Aug. 10 and 11 when police opened it.

Dogs detected the scent of decomposing or decomposed human remains inside and around the locker, the search warrant indicates. That prompted a search of four acres in rural Juneau County owned by Zapata since 1978.

Nothing was found on the land, which was for sale.

Snyder stopped short Thursday of saying he believes Jean Zapata was murdered by her husband and could not predict if an arrest was imminent.

But he did say he believes she met with foul play and her husband is the only suspect.

The McCanns’ lawyers used the Zapata case to indicate an example of how a seemingly innocent man, can be incriminated by the cadaver dog evidence.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Former Madison Resident Plead To Reduced Charge of Homicide By Reckless Conduct

UPDATED: 7:18 am CST February 19, 2008

MADISON, Wis. -- Eugene Zapata entered a guilty plea on Monday to a reduced charge of homicide by reckless conduct in connection to his wife's disappearance 30 years ago and was sentenced to time behind bars.

Appearing in Dane County Circuit Court on Monday, Zapata was sentenced to five years in prison after entering the guilty plea. Zapata, 69, pleaded guilty as part of a deal with prosecutors. The sentence was the maximum sentence for the charge, WISC-TV reported

Old sentencing rules likely mean that Zapata will spend just more than three years in prison, but the judge and prosecutors supported the deal, saying that it would give family and friends closure and let them heal, WISC-TV reported.

Dane County Judge Patrick Fiedler, who sentenced Zapata, said that the important thing is everyone now knows what happened to Zapata's wife, Jeanette. Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard said that the plea deal gives closure to Jeanette Zapata's loved ones.

"Part of what happened after Madison police took over a cold case from nowhere to today is the ability now to have the family and friends of Jeanette Zapata know exactly what happened to her."

Eugene Zapata was to have faced a second trial late next month. A former Madison resident, he was tried last year for the disappearance and presumed death of his wife in 1976. Her body was never found.

He had faced first-degree murder charges. A jury deadlocked on a verdict, and a second trial was scheduled. If convicted on that charge, Zapata would have faced life in prison.

A second trial seemed less likely after reports surfaced earlier this month that a plea deal had been struck.
As part of the agreement with prosecutors, Zapata had to tell authorities how he killed his wife and where her body was hidden, WISC-TV reported.

During Monday's proceedings, Dane County chief prosecutor Bob Kaiser asked the court to accept an amended charge of homicide by reckless conduct. Kaiser earlier told the court that the deal with
Zapata includes a statement to police about why Zapata went to her house, how and why he killed her and what he did with her.

Kaiser said that Zapata confessed to police and that he believes Zapata's statement will be truthful and complete.

[THIS REPORT BECOMES GRAPHIC FROM HERE ON - T.B.]

Prosecutors said that Zapata told police that he went to his wife's house in 1976, had an argument and "snapped." He told them that he grabbed a metal draftman's tool and hit her in the head multiple times. He said that she then dropped to ground and he strangled her. He apparently told investigators that he "strangled Jeanette Zapata manually until his hands hurt." He also wrapped a cord around her neck.
Zapata said that he wrapped her body in a tent and drove it to an area near Highway 151 and Reiner Road, where he hid it in some underbrush. He transferred her remains a short time later to some Juneau County land that he owed. There, he buried her body -- which remained there for 24 years -- before moving her remains to a Sun Prairie storage locker, where it was eventually cut into pieces and later disposed of at a Mauston landfill. He moved the body from the Juneau County because he planned to sell the land.

Linda Zapata, the youngest of Eugene and Jeanette Zapata's three children, gave a statement in court. She said that she was torn over testifying against her father earlier, but she's glad that he agreed to the plea deal. She said his confession is "a gift."

"By confessing to Mom's murder, you have given me and others a precious gift, a chance to grieve, mourn and heal," she said. "Mom deserved no less than that Mom deserved the truth about what really happened that morning, and I thank you for finally giving her that."

She added that she still loves her father and forgives him, although she doesn't condone what he did.
Blanchard said because Jeanette Zapata's body was dumped in numerous Dumpsters at the landfill, there is no way to recover her remains.

Eugene Zapata declined comment in the court. He was later taken away in handcuffs after his sentence was imposed.

Kaiser said that he thinks the agreement is the best possible option for "truth and justice." Likewise, Blanchard called the resolution to this case a huge achievement for justice.

SURVEY

Do you think the sentence imposed on Eugene Zapata in connection with his wife's death is appropriate?  Yes No I'm on the fence. I don't know. I don't care.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not entirely sure that Eddie was signaling Cuddle Cat.

When I was watching the video, at around 3:40, I noticed that he only gave the alert after sniffing some items placed on top of the cupboard and he gave another alert after apparently sniffing the chair in that room (although he could have been signaling other things).

He also fails to signal the toy earlier on in the video. This is noted by the PJ in their report:

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time?

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

You're treading a mine field there Paulo Alexandre.

This issue has been discussed on the forum in the past, I was hanged drawn and quartered for making the same suggestion at the time.

Try as I might, I still can't see it!

For the record, I'm not casting doubts on the dogs' training or anything.

I'm merely pointing out that if indeed he is detecting cadaver scent, then it's not emanating from Cuddle Cat.

crusader wrote:I'm of the opinion Madeleine was never transported in the rental car.
I think the dogs were alerting to transference odour from Kates clothes, cuddle cat, and the car keys etc.
I think Kate and Gerry handled Madeleine after death and cadaver odour was transferred to them.
We know you can't wash away cadaver odour and the dog could detect it even if bleach or other cleaners are used.
So anything the McCann's touched after handling Madeleine, car keys, clothes, cuddle cat etc, would have cadaver odour on them.
The McCann's, being doctors, would know all about cadaver odour transference, is this why they wanted money for solicitors and the remark about "Any so- called evidence can be explained".

But how would there be fluids in the car three weeks later if the dogs were only alerting to transference odour?

Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator for the Polícia Judiciária: "Yes. The bodily fluid in the car shows that. If the body had been buried there would have been mummification. The fact that there were fluids points to refrigeration."

Paulo Alexandre wrote:For the record, I'm not casting doubts on the dogs' training or anything.

Neither was I but it was interpreted as such by the lynch mob!

Small point.  In Portugal, the driver's side is on the left.  The passenger is on the right. Opposite to UK cars.

Keela alerted on the RHS, the passenger side.

I agree about the gloves... Gerry wasn't wearing any.

Video jpeg/mp4  compression.

I said so years ago.

And CuddleCat is irrelevant in the great scheme of dog indication.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] said " the McCanns being doctors would know all about cadaver odour transference " 

Why would they , Gerry a cardiologist , Kate a G P , former anaesthetist , I doubt either of them since their training had any contact with a cadaver ( disregarding the comments from Kate's family about attending 6 deaths prior to the holidays which of course meant they were acknowledging the dogs were right ! Oops !) 
So why would they know anything about cadaver odour transference ? 
I attended several deaths and laid them out after being seen by a doctor on call , on several occasions we had  tell the doctor how  check and certify the death ! 
If a cadaver dog ever came  my house even though I've been retired seven years , I'm sure it would alert  to the wardrobe I kept my uniforms in , I'd never heard of cadaver odour transference until I started reading up on Madeleine and Grime and his dogs . 
I may be wrong but I doubt very much the McCanns knew anything about it either , of course Gerry is now an expert isn't he !

Silentscope wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Rear right hand side of the Boot. Exactly where the Dogs alerted to despite having loads of excuses, beaten and tossed the Carpets, wiped everything down, and left the Boot open to ‘Air’ day and night. 

Good Dogs.

You still don't get it do you.

The documented photographs were taken by the forensic team accompanying the specialist dog inspection - August 2007, not May 2007.

Or do you think a corpse was being carried around in the boot of the Renault Scenic for three months .... and what nappies?

You are confused.

As a matter of interest, how does this fit with your past theory that the German prisoner, Christian Brueckner, was/is in on it - chief body disposal agent?  Do you think he drove around the locality of Praia da Luz, in the car rented by the McCanns, for three months with a boot load of rotting matter?

Second thoughts, please don't answer that - you're seriously trying my patience

I'm sure your 'source' will wise you up so you can report back later .

Seriously, it's taken years to get where we are today here on CMOMM.

All it takes is one adventurer to trash all those years of hard slog.

Sorry but that just ain't going to happen - not on my watch!.

ShiningInLuz wrote:Small point.  In Portugal, the driver's side is on the left.  The passenger is on the right. Opposite to UK cars.

Keela alerted on the RHS, the passenger side.

No it didn't. It alerted to the driver's side.  The LEFT.

Can we try to stick to Facts. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Eddie, not Keela, alerted to the driver's side on the left - as we're sticking to facts.

Keela alerted in the boot on the right hand side.

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

I think when the dogs were brought in it just muddied the waters, has any evidence as vague as 'a scent' gathered by dog handlers been used in a court case? (I don't know but) my feeling is whenever a detection dog is used and positive indications are found, they can be discounted by saying it could be other things, somebody else's scent etc. So why use them? They are an enabler; for example a cadaver dog picking up a scent may lead you to a body, or other evidence clothing etc.
I'm happy to bear what happened with the dogs in mind but it did not produce any sound evidence and pursuing this line is just a distraction. Happy to discuss if anybody disagrees with me on this. (BTW I was kicked from an anti-McCann group for this suggestion without any real discussion).


edit: Interestingly the McCann's responses to the detection dogs results was more telling than the dogs findings.

8lade wrote:
edit: Interestingly the McCann's responses to the detection dogs results was more telling than the dogs findings.

Quite!

Rather than demand to know whose scent it was, they made excuses for it with dirty nappies, rotting meat etc.

They didn't deny the existence of the scent...

They also made excuses for the blood - mosquitoes flying into the wall (Phil McCann ), nosebleed etc. 

How can you have a nosebleed under a floor tile at the back of a sofa that splashed up the wall and on the hem of a curtain?