The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm 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 your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

EVRD and CSI Dogs

View previous topic View next topic Go down

EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by beejay on 29.06.11 17:58

Just been reading up on the cadaver & blood dogs and came across this thread.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2043-evrd-and-csi-dogs

I didn't know that the sniffer dogs on the days after Madeleine went missing both tracked her to a car park close by, where the scent went cold. Obviously that could mean the "abducter" escaped by car but it also suggests that if the McCanns killed her, they moved the body by car rather than hiding her somewhere else eg on the beach. They did not have access to a car at this point however? I did wonder if the fridge in 5J may have been a potential hiding place for a few days but I guess it would have to be a freezer.

Another point I have not been able to confirm - is it right that the forensic screen over the apartment did not show up a single trace of DNA for Madeleine? If so, when did this screening take place and did the DNA of the twins, Gerry & Kate all show up?

Thanks in anticipation.

Moved from reference library which should not be used for discussion.

beejay

Posts : 36
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-12
Location : Liverpool

Back to top Go down

EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by tellusanother1 on 29.06.11 23:37

This is new information to me as well.

Good question Beejay.

It would imply several things. That the McCanns never stayed in that apartment to begin with or that madeleine was never there. How does one have a holiday as long as they did and not have a trace of DNA show up (if there wasn't any of course!)? Makes me think of those movies on the telee where a "cleaning" team comes in and wipes the place of all evidence.

Thanks for the insight regarding the dogs. Smart wonderful creatures.

avatar
tellusanother1

Posts : 58
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-13

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Guest on 30.06.11 9:55

Hi beejay.

It is important to remember that on the night, it was the GNR Portuguese tracker dogs who were used to try and find Madeleine.

That it was not until 3 months later when Martin Grime's dogs Eddie the EVRD dog and Keela the CSI dog, searched the apartments and cars and only those belonging to the McCann's were identified.

I hope this helps to distinguish the dogs activities?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by PeterMac on 30.06.11 10:02

Also important to remember is that Gerry stated that the dogs were "Notoriously unreliable".
Which is obviously why Police forces across the world use them, along with Fire and Emergency Search and Rescue teams, Avalanche rescue, Mountain rescue, Earthquake disaster relief, Guide dogs for the blind, and so on.
All that money spend on notoriously unreliable animals !

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 171
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by pauline on 30.06.11 10:59

PeterMac wrote:Also important to remember is that Gerry stated that the dogs were "Notoriously unreliable".
Which is obviously why Police forces across the world use them, along with Fire and Emergency Search and Rescue teams, Avalanche rescue, Mountain rescue, Earthquake disaster relief, Guide dogs for the blind, and so on.
All that money spend on notoriously unreliable animals !

PeterMac - you are misunderstanding poor Gerry. He did not mean dogs are unreliable in all scenarios - he merely meant that when dogs are brought in to cases involving middle class truthful doctors then dogs are 'notoriously unreliable.'
avatar
pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by beejay on 30.06.11 11:10

Stella wrote:Hi beejay.

It is important to remember that on the night, it was the GNR Portuguese tracker dogs who were used to try and find Madeleine.

That it was not until 3 months later when Martin Grime's dogs Eddie the EVRD dog and Keela the CSI dog, searched the apartments and cars and only those belonging to the McCann's were identified.

I hope this helps to distinguish the dogs activities?

Hi Stella,

I did know the distinction, it was simply that I was researching Eddie & Keela and came across the information about the sniffer dogs who both tracked Madeleine's last movements to the car park. I was not aware of this before and thought it was significant.

Can you help me with my other question? Is it right that a day or two after Madeleine went missing, a police forensics team carried out a screen of the apartment and could not find a single trace of Madeleine's DNA?

beejay

Posts : 36
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-12
Location : Liverpool

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Guest on 30.06.11 11:48

Hi Beejay

Yes, from the Portuguese forensic collection that took place the following day on the 4th May, it was confirmed that no DNA was recovered belonging to Madeleine from apartment 5a. None of her hairs were found either. You can read the report in full in our library, or on this direct link here. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2791-portuguese-forensic-test-results-from-may-4th-2007

Another important factor many have not considered is, that the fingerprint testing of the patio doors in the lounge, did not state that any children's fingerprints were seen on the lower panes of glass. Only one set found of a PJ officer. Now that is interesting don't you think, with 3 children supposedly staying in there that week.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by nomendelta on 30.06.11 11:55

As I understand it, the dogs brought in shortly after the disappearance would have been trained to search for the scent of a living person (and let's face it, we don't know for sure that they would have been given an honest scent of Madeleine). All the results mean is that at some point a living Madeleine would have somehow gone along that particular route. Overall I don't think the results are really conclusive.

The EVRD dogs are highly specialised and were looking for traces of death and blood. Totally different scenario.

nomendelta

Posts : 330
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2011-05-20

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by pauline on 30.06.11 12:01

Stella wrote:Hi Beejay

Yes, from the Portuguese forensic collection that took place the following day on the 4th May, it was confirmed that no DNA was recovered belonging to Madeleine from apartment 5a. None of her hairs were found either. You can read the report in full in our library, or on this direct link here. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2791-portuguese-forensic-test-results-from-may-4th-2007

Another important factor many have not considered is, that the fingerprint testing of the patio doors in the lounge, did not state that any children's fingerprints were seen on the lower panes of glass. Only one set found of a PJ officer. Now that is interesting don't you think, with 3 children supposedly staying in there that week.

If there was daily cleaning, the patio doors could have been properly cleaned the day of the 'disappearance' - the children would have been out most of the day and then got into the pyjamas ready for bed early so there would havebeen little chance of them fingering the lower panes.

but its unbelievable that there was no DNA evidence of madeleine the next day - this must have made the portuguese police suspicious from day 1.
avatar
pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Guest on 30.06.11 12:02

I agree nomendelta.

1. We cannot prove that the GNR dogs had been given anything of Madeleine's.

2. Why were they given a bath towel and not clothes or shoes she had worn all day?

3. If, as some suspect, Madeleine died on the 28th or in the early hours of the 29th, would there have been any scent left 5 days later?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Guest on 30.06.11 12:06

pauline wrote:
If there was daily cleaning, the patio doors could have been properly cleaned the day of the 'disappearance' - the children would have been out most of the day and then got into the pyjamas ready for bed early so there would havebeen little chance of them fingering the lower panes.

but its unbelievable that there was no DNA evidence of madeleine the next day - this must have made the portuguese police suspicious from day 1.

The last time a cleaner went in was on Wednesday morning. The following is a list of times when the children probably touched the window after that.

Wednesday lunchtime
Wednesday evening
Thursday breakfast
Thursday lunchtime
Thursday evening

So you see Pauline, there were 5 seperate occasions, when 3 very lively children must have been all over that door.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by AskTheDogsSandra on 30.06.11 12:08

I thought I'd read somewhere that dogs could track scent from a living person for up to 30 days.
avatar
AskTheDogsSandra

Posts : 132
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by beejay on 30.06.11 12:21

Stella wrote:Hi Beejay

Yes, from the Portuguese forensic collection that took place the following day on the 4th May, confirmed that no DNA was recovered belonging to Madeleine from apartment 5a. None of her hairs were found either. You can read the report in full in our library, or on this direct link here. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2791-portuguese-forensic-test-results-from-may-4th-2007

Another important factor many have not considered is, that the fingerprint testing of the patio doors in the lounge, did no state that any children's fingerprints were seen on the lower panes. Only one set found of a PJ officer. Now that is interesting don't you think, with 3 children supposedly staying in there that week.

Thanks Stella - I found that link and have been through all the files but they are a bit baffling!

So far as I can tell, no DNA for the twins was found either although maybe that was because no attempt was made to match their profile.

With no DNA found for Madeleine, that suggests :

1. The PJ were incompetent and the tests were not carried out properly
2. Madeleine did not stay in the apartment
3. The apartment was cleaned top to bottom to remove all traces

It beggars belief that a little girl left sleeping in a bed would not leave a few hairs or saliva.

beejay

Posts : 36
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-12
Location : Liverpool

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Guest on 30.06.11 12:45

I agree Beejay.

What somebody needs to do is to produce a list of all the people who claim to have been in apartment 5a when the alarm was raised. Then compare this list to the hairs and DNA recovered by forensics.

As far as I can remember, all of the tapas men's hair was recovered from there. None of the tapas females was apart from Kate. But according to Fiona, she was in there for some time consoling Kate, so I would have expected to have seen hers. Did all the tapas men go in there, or did they go off to search?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by pauline on 30.06.11 13:10

Stella wrote:
pauline wrote:
If there was daily cleaning, the patio doors could have been properly cleaned the day of the 'disappearance' - the children would have been out most of the day and then got into the pyjamas ready for bed early so there would havebeen little chance of them fingering the lower panes.

but its unbelievable that there was no DNA evidence of madeleine the next day - this must have made the portuguese police suspicious from day 1.

The last time a cleaner went in was on Wednesday morning. The following is a list of times when the children probably touched the window after that.

Wednesday lunchtime
Wednesday evening
Thursday breakfast
Thursday lunchtime
Thursday evening

So you see Pauline, there were 5 seperate occasions, when 3 very lively children must have been all over that door.

I think I read somewhere that the tapas group + kids lunched in the largest apartment among the group/. And as i said it seems the kids were got into the creche asap for the day and then when that closed into bed ASAP tho I agree that there was opportunity for fingerprints on the patio doors.

Now we know kate is into cleaning (curtains, cuddlecat etc) so she may have decided to wipe the patio door glass at every opportunity.
avatar
pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Guest on 30.06.11 13:22

pauline wrote:
I think I read somewhere that the tapas group + kids lunched in the largest apartment among the group/. And as i said it seems the kids were got into the creche asap for the day and then when that closed into bed ASAP tho I agree that there was opportunity for fingerprints on the patio doors.

Now we know kate is into cleaning (curtains, cuddlecat etc) so she may have decided to wipe the patio door glass at every opportunity.


Everyone except the McCann's had lunch in the Payne's apartment.

From Kate's 6th May statement:
At 12.30pm, the parents would collect their children and have lunch in their apartment since they have provisions.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Guest on 30.06.11 13:30

Gerry on the other hand mentions one day of having lunch at Dave's, but another Kate makes lunch. I seem to remember that the McCann's kept themselves to themselves, as the week went on.

The tennis class finished at llH15, he stayed in the pool area talking with his wife and other persons, whom he does not remember. At 12H00, together with KATE, as he recalls it, she made lunch and he went to get MADELEINE. He thinks that it was KATE who took the twins home. Since it was he who went to collect MADELEINE, he is sure he used the short-cut.
----- At 12h30 they started lunch, the meal having lasted an hour until 13h30. After that time they made their way to the resort play area, the deponent left by the front door and the rest of the family by the rear door that, once again, he shut and locked from the inside. As to the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.


After putting the children in their creches they went to the supermarket where they bought [things] for lunch and breakfast.
----- At 12H30, the deponent and KATE first went to pick up MADELEINE and then the twins, going to the apartment. On this day, Sunday, they lunched on the veranda of DP's apartment with the whole group, including children, except for MATHEW
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Me on 02.07.11 11:10

Whilst we have a topic regarding the dogs on here, i have just posted a couple of posts over on the Missing Madeleine forum regarding Martin Grime and the dogs.

I feel it's relevant to post them here to address the issues the Pro McCann's use to discredit the dogs in relation to the Jersey Care Home Scandal.

Here's my first post from over there in reply to a post casting aspersions on Grime :

isar wrote:on second thoughts docmac-I shan't

Grime allegedly primed those 'finds' in Jersey..check out the Times coverage

he bagsied 97k for Jersey..Lord knows how much he trousered for Luz

follow the money.....ALWAYS

this might upset you

but this is real life

The McCann's might be sh.ts....but they aren't the only sh.ts in this circus

Ah, that old chestnut ( or should it be coconut). The report in the Times goes like this:

Harper has since been challenged that the supposed claims of dead or disappeared children came from unreliable witnesses and should not have been given credibility. Many of the victims told me that they have been trying for years to get someone to take their claims seriously. They had never felt listened to or believed until Harper came along. I don’t imagine, however, that Harper was driven by sentimental regard for the victims. As he told me in March 2008, and is still saying now, he could not ignore the information, but did not at first believe it warranted a full-scale dig. Hence the recce. The dog was brought in. The cadaver dog that alerts to human remains, the same dog that nearly did for Kate and Gerry McCann after it alerted at the boot of their car. Unlike the Portuguese police, apparently, Harper’s team understood that the dog’s alerts were not evidence of a crime being committed, merely an indicator of something to be explored. I have heard that Harper’s replacements have spoken cynically about the dog, implying that its handler, Martin Grime, fixes the dog’s demonstrations by priming it in advance with his own scent. But Harper gave convincing accounts of how the dog would pick up the merest trace of human remains and ignore animal remains, and how it would not be tricked into making errors. They decided to dig where the dog alerted and where radar equipment picked up anomalies in the ground. One of those locations was the stairwell where the builders had found bones in 2003, and also where the “skull” fragment was found by the LGC anthropologist Julie Roberts on February 23. The item was labelled JAR/6. She described it as “degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child”.

So a journalist has "heard" and "implied" Grimes primes the dogs!! It's misinformation designed to discredit the find of that skull.

Let's have a look at JAR/6:

Taken form Voice For Children:

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2010/03/jar6.html

09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”

Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”. This would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.

“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”


So on the 9th of April 2008 Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the above entry.

Right, now David Rose in his article reproduced by Rooney says

On February 24, a day after Mr Harper made Haut de la Garenne an international byword for infamy by announcing his team had found the 'partial remains of a child' who might have been murdered, forensic scientists warned him that the so-called remains - allegedly a fragment of a child's skull - were so old as to be 'beyond the parameters of the investigation'


So we have email evidence to counter the above

Now there is this email exchange that could answer the question

On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”



SO NOW FOR THE COCNUT

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

So has a Whole historic Child Abuse investigation been trashed because "The Technician said it looked liked a COCONUT HUSK" just crazy

I would like to say a very big thanks to Spartacus & Rooney for bringing this up. I never new where the term came from now im SHOCKED

This is from Lenny Harper


The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.



Now for Mick Gradwell he says

Now, a bluff, straightforward and extremely experienced Lancashire detective, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who had taken over the investigation after Mr Harper retired in August, was telling them that most of what they had been told about Haut de la Garenne and Mr Harper's £4.5million inquiry was nonsense.
'There are no credible allegations of murder, there are no suspects for murder,' Mr Gradwell said, and neither was there a scrap of evidence that there had ever been any victims.


So if the Mccann's ever try to use Jersey as an example of the fallibility of the dogs they must be asked the question how a coconut husk can contain 1.6% collagen which is only produced by mammals.

The problem for Grime is that by working on high profile cases like the Mccann & Jersey Care Home cases he is a victim of his own success becuase he instantly creates enemies seeking to discredit him who don't like the results his dogs achieve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my second follow up post:

Also for the purpose of clarity here's the Operation rectangle Summary Report into Eddie & Keela's activities:

The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) ‘Eddie’was deployed in a wide area screening capacity within the outer boundaries of the HDLG with no alert indications or behaviour changes evident. The search was recorded via GPS data logging equipment attached to the dog’s collar to ensure complete area coverage.


Geophysical anomalies identified by other assets, were probed and subjected to EVRD screening. No alert indications were forthcoming.


A large amount of animal bone historically deposited in the grounds of HDLG as garbage was ignored.


The EVRD was deployed tactically within the ground floor of the premises where a continuing alert indication of varying strength was given in the western aspect. The weakest being in the south-western corridor, the strongest and most significant being in the north-western stairwell.


The reactions of the dog are explained as scent travelling through ‘chimneys’ such as conduit, electric cable ducting, which transects from the north west stairwell along the western corridor in a southerly direction.


Anecdotal witness evidence was suggestive of juvenile human bones being recovered from the area of the north-western stairwell during recent building renovations in 2003.


Human remains deposited within the ground in that area would contaminate the ground, and any porous material within it. The dog’s reactions were therefore consistent with this scenario. The area was therefore subjected to intrusive archaeological excavation.


A fragment of what the forensic anthropologist describes as being possibly human juvenile skull was recovered from within a Victorian context of the excavation. The fragment was shipped to the U.K. for confirmation of substance, species, carbon dating and DNA testing. The laboratory conducting the analysis reported confused and conflicting findings therefore no conclusion is available at this time. Other burnt bone fragments were also recovered from the context within this area. The dating of the context is Victorian, outside the time spectrum of a homicide enquiry at this time. Therefore further testing will be the subject of a forensic submission review later in the enquiry.


The EVRD gave a number of alert indications in the eastern wing of the building. Holes were drilled through the 3 inch thick wooden / insulated clad flooring to allow the dog scent access to the voids below. He identified areas of interest which supported anecdotal witness evidence. This prompted the complete removal of the flooring in 2/3 of the east wing.

Removal of the flooring revealed the original ground floor of the building including a large brick and rendered bath, original sinks and toilet area, play rooms etc. Renovations had enclosed the areas which then resembled ‘cellars’.


The EVRD was again deployed in a detailed search of these areas. Alert indications were forthcoming which, where appropriate, were confirmed using the human blood search dog.


The EVRD alert indications were confirmed by intrusive archaeological excavation and sieving. A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human. The remains are at the present time undergoing forensic testing including carbon dating procedures.


Predominantly the human remains have been recovered from cellars 3, 4 and 5 which historically were one large classroom.


Control testing of the EVRD would suggest that although the dog alerted to specific areas where human remains were situated the entire top two inches of soil within this area is contaminated with human cadaver odour. Enquiries at this time are suggestive that the human remains were deposited in this area and covered with top soil in a deliberate act of concealment. The deposition could only have taken place during a period of time when the floor had been removed. Research into the historical renovation of the property suggests that the floor above cellars 3, 4 &5 was taken up in the late 60’s early 70’s.


Three indications by the human blood search dog were given in cellar one which, when subjected to presumptive testing, proved positive.


Two indications by the human blood search dog were given in the cellar entrance hall which when subjected to presumptive testing proved positive.


The EVRD provided alert indications in support of the human blood search dog.


Forensic samples were recovered and conveyed to the UK for further testing.


Other deployments of the EVRD were based upon the blind screening of soil samples and other areas from which suggestive intelligence is supported:


The EVRD was deployed to screen soil samples from certain contexts of archaeological excavation. A positive reaction was forthcoming from a context where it is reported human remains were uncovered and removed by builders in the area of the main electric feed in the north-western wing. There is some witness evidence to suggest that these remains were also human juvenile. Although the remains were examined by a pathologist they were not positively identified. In fact the pathologists report lists at least one bone that was ‘UNIDENTIFIED’. Measurements of the bones would tend to suggest that they may well have been juvenile human.


Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.


Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the

waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.


Having considered options to support the theory a series of scent sample screening tests was completed using the EVRD These tests were yes or no answers to the presence of human remains decomposition scent. It does not rely on change in behaviour or handler judgement and is therefore more accurate.


The series of tests involved the use of samples of soot and debris from the chimney situated in the plant room that was in use at the time the solid fuel furnace was in operation. The tests were completed in such a way as to isolate the samples from containers, human ‘live’ scent and other distracters.


The tests clearly indicated the presence of human remains decomposition scent.


A forensic review team may be in a position to assist with further testing procedures to corroborate the dogs presumptive testing.


It is important to note that a substantial weight of animal bone has been recovered from the site as a whole. The EVRD has ignored all such material whilst alerting to confirmed human remains. This tends supports the scenario above.


Both the EVRD and Human blood search dog are presumptive screening assets. Any alert indications given MUST be forensically corroborated to be conclusive.


The entire building and grounds have now been screened and detail searched by the canine assets attached to the enquiry. Preparations are now underway to prepare for phase two at Victoria Tower.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by Guest on 02.07.11 12:33

Me wrote:
Now for Mick Gradwell he says

Now, a bluff, straightforward and extremely experienced Lancashire detective, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who had taken over the investigation after Mr Harper retired in August, was telling them that most of what they had been told about Haut de la Garenne and Mr Harper's £4.5million inquiry was nonsense.
'There are no credible allegations of murder, there are no suspects for murder,' Mr Gradwell said, and neither was there a scrap of evidence that there had ever been any victims.

That is simply not true. When the Jersey case first broke news, Sky had a woman on a report who had stayed out there who said she was systematically drugged and abused on numerous occasions in the basement. She said that through a tiny window she frequently saw many strange visitors arriving, who were also involved in the abuse. More importantly she said that there were other people staying there just like her, who she would be talking to one day and the next day they had gone. Without so much as a goodbye, or any knowledge of leaving. Surely if someone was leaving or being transferred they would know about it in advance and would have mentioned it to the other children.

Both Lenny Harper and Eddie's integrity were trashed in that operation. £4.5M to cover that one up. Maybe this is why Cameron is pledging £3.4M for Madeleine ?? I hope not.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: EVRD and CSI Dogs

Post by PeterMac on 02.07.11 16:46

pauline wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Also important to remember is that Gerry stated that the dogs were "Notoriously unreliable".
Which is obviously why Police forces across the world use them, along with Fire and Emergency Search and Rescue teams, Avalanche rescue, Mountain rescue, Earthquake disaster relief, Guide dogs for the blind, and so on.
All that money spend on notoriously unreliable animals !

PeterMac - you are misunderstanding poor Gerry. He did not mean dogs are unreliable in all scenarios - he merely meant that when dogs are brought in to cases involving middle class truthful doctors then dogs are 'notoriously unreliable.'
And of course spaniels are being used in the medical world by onchologists to detect malignant melanomas. I wonder if they too are notoriously unreliable ?

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 171
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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