Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

by lj 08.03.12 19:37

It is so typical that what is called exact science is the science that people can perform, analyse and understand. Of course only the close minded scientist will state that inability of backing up a dog finding with forensics means the dog is wrong. Real scientist will immediately realize that more likely it is caused by deficient human testing possibilities.

Mr. Grime btw was put a knife on the throat to say that the evidence from the dogs cannot be used. He nowhere states the dogs were wrong.

Last but not least you give yourself away with the "The dogs are also susceptible to 'cueing' by the handler", which is absolute untrue. The only way a dog will give a positive signal on a cue from his/her handler iso a real finding, is when that was taught them as a separate trick. I hope you don't suggest Mr Grime has been doing that because that would suggest a malicious deceptiveness that in this case only has been shown by your heroes.

by lj 08.03.12 19:41

Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

Exactly Gillispot, I was just going to post that the dog alert and the shell are separate things.

But how to explain that all positive dog alerts were related to Kate and the kids, and none with any of the other families, or random selected items?

by Merrymo 08.03.12 22:20

Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

by Merrymo 08.03.12 23:50

lj wrote:It is so typical that what is called exact science is the science that people can perform, analyse and understand. Of course only the close minded scientist will state that inability of backing up a dog finding with forensics means the dog is wrong. Real scientist will immediately realize that more likely it is caused by deficient human testing possibilities.

Mr. Grime btw was put a knife on the throat to say that the evidence from the dogs cannot be used. He nowhere states the dogs were wrong.

Last but not least you give yourself away with the "The dogs are also susceptible to 'cueing' by the handler", which is absolute untrue.

I've recently read a couple of studies which conclude that the 'beliefs' of the handlers of sniffer dogs affect the alert rates. Handlers may cue subconsciously, but the results of the studies/tests proved that their own person beliefs made a difference to how the dogs alerted.

The only way a dog will give a positive signal on a cue from his/her handler iso a real finding, is when that was taught them as a separate trick. I hope you don't suggest Mr Grime has been doing that because that would suggest a malicious deceptiveness that in this case only has been shown by your heroes.

I don't have any heroes , I am only interested in the case itself and have no particular feelings either way for the McCanns.

by Me 09.03.12 11:39

Merrymo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

Before you disappear off at another tangent can we have your acceptance that based on the information given the dogs didn't alert to coconut.

Please can you do this as soon as possible so we can put that myth to bed and continue on with the discussion on the basis that Eddie wasn't wrong in Jersey.

Thanks in advance.

by Me 09.03.12 11:45

Merrymo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

Once you've answered my point above please can you answer this question.

If your analogy is correct why would death scent only be found on Kate's clothes and not Gerry's, or even the T7, seeing as they were in constant contact with Kate?

If you're going down the route of scent by contamination that would only stand up if it affected everyone who came into contact with Kate and their apartment.

by Merrymo 09.03.12 12:17

Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

Before you disappear off at another tangent can we have your acceptance that based on the information given the dogs didn't alert to coconut.

Please can you do this as soon as possible so we can put that myth to bed and continue on with the discussion on the basis that Eddie wasn't wrong in Jersey.

Thanks in advance.

Can I firstly revise a word in my last sentence to read

''This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog ALERTED to ''a death scent.''

Regarding your post:

Of course I can't give my 'acceptance' as you request, unless I totally disregard Martin Grimes' own statement and the evidence shown in studies that sniffer dogs can be influenced by the personal beliefs of the handler - which can result in 'cueing' - be it intentional or subsconscious.

As I am sure you know- dogs do not just have brilliant olfactory skills they are also exceptionally clever at picking up on body language.

It may be that Martin Grimes in his comment ' that we are all human and make mistakes' (not verbatim) was referring to 'cueing' - as I am sure as an expert in that field he will know of this phenomena - and the studies that accompany it.

by Merrymo 09.03.12 12:28

Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

Once you've answered my point above please can you answer this question.

If your analogy is correct why would death scent only be found on Kate's clothes and not Gerry's, or even the T7, seeing as they were in constant contact with Kate?

If you're going down the route of scent by contamination that would only stand up if it affected everyone who came into contact with Kate and their apartment.

Why indeed? Knowing what we do about cross-contamination, it simply doesn't add up. Which begs the question that if the clothing (and car) had been tested by the dogs insitu and not after being removed elsewhere overnight - then would a death scent have been found at all?

This is why I think it was a grave error to remove them. Because instead of having a situation where cross-contamination by outside forces could not possibly happen - a situation was created where it could.

by Me 09.03.12 13:13

Merrymo wrote:
Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

Before you disappear off at another tangent can we have your acceptance that based on the information given the dogs didn't alert to coconut.

Please can you do this as soon as possible so we can put that myth to bed and continue on with the discussion on the basis that Eddie wasn't wrong in Jersey.

Thanks in advance.

Can I firstly revise a word in my last sentence to read

''This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog ALERTED to ''a death scent.''

Regarding your post:

Of course I can't give my 'acceptance' as you request, unless I totally disregard Martin Grimes' own statement and the evidence shown in studies that sniffer dogs can be influenced by the personal beliefs of the handler - which can result in 'cueing' - be it intentional or subsconscious.

As I am sure you know- dogs do not just have brilliant olfactory skills they are also exceptionally clever at picking up on body language.

It may be that Martin Grimes in his comment ' that we are all human and make mistakes' (not verbatim) was referring to 'cueing' - as I am sure as an expert in that field he will know of this phenomena - and the studies that accompany it.

Thanks for finally replying to one of my posts. I have been responding to your posts and noted that so far on the other threads we've been involved in you have never come back to me.

On your first point sure, i accept that. It is an "indication", and needs supporting evidence to convict. However he got it in this case with both blood and other forensic materials being found in the apartment at the spot where the dogs alerted to. There is clearly conjecture about the nature of the results given by the FSS but the samples found initially matched 15 of Maddie's 19 markers if i recall correctly.

So alerts were produced and supported by evidence. How could that happen if Mr Grimes was "cueing"? Because what would be the chances of him cueing in exactly the same spot genetic material was found at?

You are getting confused. Martin Grimes comments referred to the fact that human's arent always right but dogs are. Dogs have no agenda or bias and his comments which you have mangled up to fit your point of view relates perfectly to the situation in Jersey. Humans were quick to pick up on the fact that the dog MUST have been wrong to alert to "coconut".

However what Grimes was saying, as my posts in the Proust thread shows, and apllies here in the Maddie case, is that humans aren't always right in determining the evidence his dogs find.

He was not saying that his dogs were wrong or that he was cueing them. Why would he undermine his professinalism, and put himself out of work, by admitting that?

What you have done is misinterpret his words to fit your agenda.

Are you also seriously suggesting that Mr Grimes is so unprofessional he is looking to get his dogs to produce alerts on the basis of his "cueing"? Why would he do that and for what purpose? He's soon be found out, out of work and quite possibly in jail.

You are seriously questioning both the man's professionalism and ethics and that's a heavy accusation to throw around with no evidence to support that claim.

You and those other like minded souls on JAYTK are quick to ask for Tony Bennett to be sent to prison for making what you believe to be unfounded accusations about the McCann's yet you and your motley crew procede to do exactly the same to Martin Grime on a regular basis.

We know of people in this case who would and have sued for lesser accusations than this.

I am not an expert in the field of dog behaviour in specially trained dogs. So i am unable to accept your suggestions that these types of dogs are incredibly good at picking up signals.

Are you an expert with these kinds of specialist dogs? If not how do you know this facet of a dog's personality is not countered in their training? Do you not think this is something that a dog handler would be aware of and counter within their training so as not to give false readings if it was such an issue?

Can you also produce any evidence that Eddie or Keela have given false readings in previous cases? Do they have a noticeable history of cueing which would lead them to give false readings? Do you have any evidence to support that?

In relation to these "studies". Which "studes" (note: more than one) are these? There was a study produced some time ago that suggested there was some evidence of cueing in the cases (but not with Grimes and his dog specifically) which are then offset by countless other studies where these dogs have shown to be infalliable.

Please produce details of more than one study which shows these dogs are prone to queing. Let's see them, who they relate to, which dogs, what the circumstances were and then we can discuss them.

Why can't you give your acceptance to the idea the dogs didn't alert to coconut, as you stated they did? Can you produce your evidence to support your assertion that the found fragment was cocount which counters the evindence i have provided? If so please provide it to us.

Can you counter the claims i have evidenced that both bone and teeth were found in Jersey as well? Once again, as i have done, provide evidence and sources please and we can then discuss it.

Because if you can't counter or rebutt then you have to accept what others are able to state and produce evidence to support. So without evidence to back up your claim it was coconut you have to agree it wasn't, don't you?

Unless of course you are unable to accept anything which doesn't fit your pre conceived ideas and beliefs.

by Me 09.03.12 13:15

Merrymo wrote:
Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

Once you've answered my point above please can you answer this question.

If your analogy is correct why would death scent only be found on Kate's clothes and not Gerry's, or even the T7, seeing as they were in constant contact with Kate?

If you're going down the route of scent by contamination that would only stand up if it affected everyone who came into contact with Kate and their apartment.

Why indeed? Knowing what we do about cross-contamination, it simply doesn't add up. Which begs the question that if the clothing (and car) had been tested by the dogs insitu and not after being removed elsewhere overnight - then would a death scent have been found at all?

This is why I think it was a grave error to remove them. Because instead of having a situation where cross-contamination by outside forces could not possibly happen - a situation was created where it could.

Sorry for sounding like a stuck record but where's your evidence about the cross contamination of death scent?

You are skirting dangerously close to ludicrous conspiracy theory. Are you suggesting only Kate's clothes were mvoed somewhere to produce a death scent?

by Me 09.03.12 13:21

Are you able to accept that the reason that odour was found on Kate McCann's clothes was because Kate Mccann, and no one, else came into contact with a dead body?

If not, what are your reasons for not accepting that?

by Merrymo 09.03.12 14:21

Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

Once you've answered my point above please can you answer this question.

If your analogy is correct why would death scent only be found on Kate's clothes and not Gerry's, or even the T7, seeing as they were in constant contact with Kate?

If you're going down the route of scent by contamination that would only stand up if it affected everyone who came into contact with Kate and their apartment.

Why indeed? Knowing what we do about cross-contamination, it simply doesn't add up. Which begs the question that if the clothing (and car) had been tested by the dogs insitu and not after being removed elsewhere overnight - then would a death scent have been found at all?

This is why I think it was a grave error to remove them. Because instead of having a situation where cross-contamination by outside forces could not possibly happen - a situation was created where it could.

Sorry for sounding like a stuck record but where's your evidence about the cross contamination of death scent?

You are skirting dangerously close to ludicrous conspiracy theory. Are you suggesting only Kate's clothes were mvoed somewhere to produce a death scent?

-------

Considering this case is bursting at the seams with conspiracy theories, I think your comment is rather ironic. It would seem that any conspiracy theory providing it is against the McCanns is given serious consideration at great length, but the suggestion that anyone could be involved in one from the 'other side' results in screams of 'Foul!!'. .. Considering Amaral was subsequently found guilty for his part in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in his previous missing child case, I find that incredibly bizarre.

I also think you are in danger of shooting the messenger. I'm not giving my opinion - I'm quoting Martin Grimes words and the results of independent scientific studies into sniffer dogs. Anyone can read up on them if they want verification. Just a few googles will get you there.

by Me 09.03.12 14:35

Merrymo wrote:
Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Failing that. Here is an analogy. You cook smoked kippers in your kitchen in which there is a bowl of apples . Eat them wash up the plate & throw the bones away. Does your kitchen still smell of kippers for hours even after the source has gone and would you blame the apples for the scent because they were still there? This is a vastly simplified version of what the cadaver dogs smell but I hope it makes it clear that the original source of the cadaver scent doesn't have to be still there.

I take your point Gillyspot. Here is another analogy.

A patient dies in hospital. Staff collect the body to take to the mortuary. At this point the death scent is at its most potent. They have to handle the body and therefore have a strong death scent on their hands and their clothing. As they go through their day everything and everyone they touch or brush against can also then be 'contaminated'. By the end of the day several people could have the death scent of that patient transferred onto them or their clothing -without having even seen the cadaver, let alone touch it. If one of those people gets into a car - the death scent can then be transferred into that vehicle.

Therefore theoretically we could have a person with the death scent on them who may never have even seen a dead body in their lives - driving a car with the death scent in that - but which had also never had a dead body in it However, if they were both sniffed by a cadaver dog, - even weeks later it would alert.

This illustrates why Martin Grimes made his statement which basically says that without corroberating evidence the 'alerts' made by the dog prove nothing except that the dog detected ''a death scent.''

Once you've answered my point above please can you answer this question.

If your analogy is correct why would death scent only be found on Kate's clothes and not Gerry's, or even the T7, seeing as they were in constant contact with Kate?

If you're going down the route of scent by contamination that would only stand up if it affected everyone who came into contact with Kate and their apartment.

Why indeed? Knowing what we do about cross-contamination, it simply doesn't add up. Which begs the question that if the clothing (and car) had been tested by the dogs insitu and not after being removed elsewhere overnight - then would a death scent have been found at all?

This is why I think it was a grave error to remove them. Because instead of having a situation where cross-contamination by outside forces could not possibly happen - a situation was created where it could.

Sorry for sounding like a stuck record but where's your evidence about the cross contamination of death scent?

You are skirting dangerously close to ludicrous conspiracy theory. Are you suggesting only Kate's clothes were mvoed somewhere to produce a death scent?

-------

Considering this case is bursting at the seams with conspiracy theories, I think your comment is rather ironic. It would seem that any conspiracy theory providing it is against the McCanns is given serious consideration at great length, but the suggestion that anyone could be involved in one from the 'other side' results in screams of 'Foul!!'. .. Considering Amaral was subsequently found guilty for his part in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in his previous missing child case, I find that incredibly bizarre.

I also think you are in danger of shooting the messenger. I'm not giving my opinion - I'm quoting Martin Grimes words and the results of independent scientific studies into sniffer dogs. Anyone can read up on them if they want verification. Just a few googles will get you there.

My point was ironic!

If you look at the pro forums (and i'm sure you do) you'll note the disparaging remarks about "conspiracy theorist loonies" on the anti side quoting government cover ups and protection for the Team and their cronies.

Agree?

So by the same token i am highlighting in your post the idea that these loony conspiracy theories, the ones you Mcann believers laugh so heartily about on the anti side, actually and ironically runs right through the very heart of the pro camp and their theories!

And you proved my point.

At no point will you ever find me having agreed with or subscribed to any conspiracy theories regaridng this case, so i'm afraid you can't tar me with that particular brush.

Therefore you cannot claim to me it is ironic when i have never supported such theories.

I am pointing out that what you have suggested is verging on conspiracy theory nonesense and i stand by that, and by the same token, suggest you cannot support your view on the contamination on the one hand whilst laughing at any theories suggesting governement cover up on the other.

Agree?

Sorry won't do on Grimes. Shooting the messenger??? Ok then quote him. Quote the words he has said which draws you to the conclusion you have reached.

Similarly quote these reports. Show us them in detail.

Don't use the cop out of "look for yourself". That's the standard defence for those without evidence to support their pre conceived ideas and opinions.

I have brought my evidence to you now it's your turn.

I'll be waiting.

by worriedmum 09.03.12 15:05

Merrymo,

I think maybe you are interpreting 'corroborating evidence' as being only the presence of a body.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the dogs both alerted behind the sofa? That the blood stains were unrelated?

When you talk about the transference of 'cadaver odour' where do you think this originated from?

If it is so easily transferable, why didn't everyone have it everywhere, including the people who went in and out of the apartment when Madeleine was first reported missing.?The whole
point is that the dogs can't speak and have no agenda. If
they alerted to a piece of coconut shell, it was because it was
contaminated with the smell of death. And surely that argument of
contamination is the point you were yourself making? Things can be
contaminated-but the point is, WHAT IS THE SOURCE?

by Merrymo 09.03.12 15:34

[quote="Me"]Thanks for finally replying to one of my posts. I have been responding to your posts and noted that so far on the other threads we've been involved in you have never come back to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------

[color=blue]Sorry Me , I can assure you it's not intentional. I'm new to this forum and am still finding my way around - and still struggling a bit. It also appears that ''I am the only gay in the village'' as it were. Not literally of course - but there doesn't seem to be anyone else around who shares my views - which have been responded to by more than a couple of people. I can only apologise for not replying to them all.

On your first point sure, i accept that. It is an "indication", and needs supporting evidence to convict. However he got it in this case with both blood and other forensic materials being found in the apartment at the spot where the dogs alerted to. There is clearly conjecture about the nature of the results given by the FSS but the samples found initially matched 15 of Maddie's 19 markers if i recall correctly.

Maddies DNA was not found in any of the blood samples collected from the apartment. The FSS conclusion did point out that the DNA from the boot was possibly from 5 different people, but the markers that would apply to Maddie also applied to others in her family - as you know each child inherits 50% DNA from a parent. And the pointerswere also so common they could apply to other people - even the staff at the FSS.

I don't know Maddie's blood group, but let's say it was 'O' - which I believe is the most common. For obvious reasons no-one would conclude that if a sample of blood tested as type O by the FSS - then that was conclusive evidence that it was Maddies blood. .IMO the the DNA test results can be viewed similarly. The DNA could have belonged to any number of people. I'm no expert but that's how I see it anyway.

So alerts were produced and supported by evidence. How could that happen if Mr Grimes was "cueing"? Because what would be the chances of him cueing in exactly the same spot genetic material was found at?

You are getting confused. Martin Grimes comments referred to the fact that human's arent always right but dogs are. Dogs have no agenda or bias and his comments which you have mangled up to fit your point of view relates perfectly to the situation in Jersey. Humans were quick to pick up on the fact that the dog MUST have been wrong to alert to "coconut".

However what Grimes was saying, as my posts in the Proust thread shows, and apllies here in the Maddie case, is that humans aren't always right in determining the evidence his dogs find.

He was not saying that his dogs were wrong or that he was cueing them. Why would he undermine his professinalism, and put himself out of work, by admitting that?

What you have done is misinterpret his words to fit your agenda.

Are you also seriously suggesting that Mr Grimes is so unprofessional he is looking to get his dogs to produce alerts on the basis of his "cueing"? Why would he do that and for what purpose? He's soon be found out, out of work and quite possibly in jail.

You are seriously questioning both the man's professionalism and ethics and that's a heavy accusation to throw around with no evidence to support that claim.

Please don't put words in my mouth - I haven't thrown any accusations around - merely suggested various possibilities. Isn't that what happens in debate?

Below is a quote which I think may be the quickest way for you to see where I'm coming from. It does not refer to Cadaver dogs, but as all Sniffer dogs use the same Olfactory skills then it is pertinent IMO.

QUOTE

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Sacramento, CA: The performance of drug-sniffing dogs is significantly influenced by whether or not their handlers believe illicit substances are present, according to a study published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition.

Investigators at the University of California at Davis assessed the accuracy of 18 drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams in a four-room church. No drugs or target scents were present in any of the rooms, but handlers were falsely told that contraband was present in two of the rooms, each marked by a piece of red construction paper.

Authors reported 225 incorrect responses overall, but found that dogs were more likely to provide false alerts in rooms where their handlers believed that illicit substances were present.

"Handlers' beliefs that scent was present potentiated handler identification of detection dog alerts," investigators concluded. "This confirms that handler beliefs affect outcomes of scent detection dog deployments."

The study's authors speculated that the high rate of false alerts is because the dogs respond to subtle visual cues from their handlers.

"Dogs are exceptionally keen at interpreting subtle cues, so handlers need to be cognizant of that to optimize the overall team performance," co-author Anita Oberbauer stated in a press release.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Caballes that an alert from a police dog during a traffic stop provides a constitutional basis for law enforcement to search the interior of the vehicle.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director or Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel, at: (202) 483-5500. Full text of the study, "Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes," is available online at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

END QUOTE

I have no idea how to put a link on here but if you search

''HANDLER BELIEFS AFFECT SCENT DETECTION DOG OUTCOMES.'' That will take you to an extensive study on the subject.

You and those other like minded souls on JAYTK are quick to ask for Tony Bennett to be sent to prison for making what you believe to be unfounded accusations about the McCann's yet you and your motley crew procede to do exactly the same to Martin Grime on a regular basis.

I'm afraid I have not followed Tony Bennetts involvement in this case at all - so don't have an opinion on it. (I have no idea what JAYTK is)

I am fascinated by the case itself - and by all the various theories put forward - but I have no axe to grind with anyone.

I'm afraid this will be my last post for a couple of weeks. I look forward to continuing the debate when I get back.

Bye for now.

by rainbow-fairy 09.03.12 16:16

Oh Me, Me, Me I fear you could be waiting a long time...
Maybe, when Merrymo gets back, I will finally get the link I requested days ago. Pat Brown, according to Merrymo, 'doesn't believe that' ('that' being the McCanns couldn't POSSIBLY hide a body and go eat). The response I got was 'I can't offhand but if I find it I'll post it' - hmm. Yeh. Ok. I've read all Pat's blogs and I certainly don't recall it.

Just a quick response re 'cadaver scent transfer' - it isn't as fleeting and quick as that. There has to be a certain period of time of contact, and its NOT seconds...

by lj 09.03.12 19:15

Merrymo wrote:
lj wrote:It is so typical that what is called exact science is the science that people can perform, analyse and understand. Of course only the close minded scientist will state that inability of backing up a dog finding with forensics means the dog is wrong. Real scientist will immediately realize that more likely it is caused by deficient human testing possibilities.

Mr. Grime btw was put a knife on the throat to say that the evidence from the dogs cannot be used. He nowhere states the dogs were wrong.

Last but not least you give yourself away with the "The dogs are also susceptible to 'cueing' by the handler", which is absolute untrue.

I've recently read a couple of studies which conclude that the 'beliefs' of the handlers of sniffer dogs affect the alert rates. Handlers may cue subconsciously, but the results of the studies/tests proved that their own person beliefs made a difference to how the dogs alerted.

The only way a dog will give a positive signal on a cue from his/her handler iso a real finding, is when that was taught them as a separate trick. I hope you don't suggest Mr Grime has been doing that because that would suggest a malicious deceptiveness that in this case only has been shown by your heroes.

I don't have any heroes , I am only interested in the case itself and have no particular feelings either way for the McCanns.

I would love to see the studies quoted here so we all can see if that is "exact" science.

As far as the McCanns go: so no admiration, finding Kate couragous, feeling their pain, unerstanding that they need to keep the search going?

I'll keep that in mind.

by lj 09.03.12 19:41

BTW I object to the smear that Dr. Amaral was found guilty in a conspiracy. Read the original reporting on that.

by lj 09.03.12 19:47

On the Sacramento study: this is typical a summary that give not a single clue on the most important questions. What dogs, what handlers, which training, how long a team, what kind of alert, have the alerts been independently verified.

If anywhere in the world is a serious bias it is with scientist that feel the need to publish.

by Ribisl 09.03.12 20:51

I believe these dogs are extremely reliable but their findings can never be treated as evidence in court because for start they cannot tell you whose cadaver odour they are detecting. It is a piece of crucial intelligence to be considered when examining the whole picture.

by lj 10.03.12 14:51

They have been used in at least 3 cases in the US that I know of, where in all 3 they were instrumental in the conviction. As all circumstantial evidence, that is often stonger than for example eyewitness testimony.

by lj 10.03.12 14:59

I had to cut my previous post about the sacramento study short, but more objections: do we know what these rooms were used for before? What statistics have been used? What does "more likely" mean in this study (fyi "more likely" is often used when statistics fail to show a significant difference.

225 false positives seem extremely high for 18 teams, so I have serious doubts about the validity of this research.

by Guest 10.03.12 15:06

Ribisl wrote:I believe these dogs are extremely reliable but their findings can never be treated as evidence in court because for start they cannot tell you whose cadaver odour they are detecting. It is a piece of crucial intelligence to be considered when examining the whole picture.

Hold on a minute.

How many people reportedly died in 5a = 0

How many people reportedly missing from 5a = 1

The very fact that there is only one person missing from 5a and on the exact same spot where the cadaver dog indicated, they found blood under tiles. Which all 4 markers they managed to recover, all matched to Madeleine McCann. Not one marker found did not match to Madeleine, that says something.

All of this would be very compelling in court.

by rainbow-fairy 10.03.12 15:25

lj, can I just say its good to have you back! I've missed your posts...
Regarding the Sacramento study, IIRC the conclusion of Lit was that 'further research was needed', it was inconclusive.
Another thing, these were church buildings, and by that token public. It would be impossible IMO to say what had and had not been present in that area beforehand (and we know dogs can detect odours for years after contamination!) There would, I'm certain, be NO WAY of 'de-odourising' the building, so I would say this was, at best a flawed study and at worst, utterly worthless.

by lj 10.03.12 15:52

I needed some time to find the post back of Merrimo until I realized it was attached to the worthless study. It shows how deceptive this team works. The deceptiveness is so strong that it only can be because profound stupidity or extreme lying.

What does our keyboard monkey post:
quote

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Caballes[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that an alert from a police dog during a traffic stop provides a constitutional basis for law enforcement to search the interior of the vehicle.

unquote.

Now read a summary of the case:

[size=25]
ILLINOIS v. CABALLES
[/size]
Case Basics
Docket No. 03-923
Petitioner Illinois
Respondent Roy I. Caballes
Decided By Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)/courts/rehnquist/rehn6
Opinion 543 U.S. 405 (2005)[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Granted
Monday, April 5, 2004/case_calendar/2004-04-05
Argued
Wednesday, November 10, 2004/case_calendar/2004-11-10
Decided
Monday, January 24, 2005/case_calendar/2005-01-24 Advocates
Ralph E. Meczyk/advocates/m/r/ralph_e_meczyk
(argued the cause for Respondent)
Lisa Madigan/advocates/m/l/lisa_madigan
(argued the cause for Petitioner)
Christopher A. Wray/advocates/w/c/christopher_a_wray
(argued the cause for Petitioner, on behalf of the the United States, as amicus curiae)
Term:

2000-2009

2004/cases/2004
Facts of the Case
During a routine traffic stop, a drug-detection dog alerted police to marijuana in Roy Caballes' car trunk. An Illinois court convicted Caballes of cannabis trafficking. Caballes appealed and argued the search violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and ruled police performed the canine sniff without specific and articulable facts to support its use, "unjustifiably enlarging the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation."
Question
Does the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure clause require a reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct a canine sniff during a routine traffic stop?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Illinois, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the Court's 7-2 opinion that Caballes' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Constitution did not require police to have reasonable suspicion to use a drug-detection dog on a car during a legal traffic stop. No legitimate privacy was at risk, the Court argued, because the dog only alerted to an illegal drug.

So first of all it was not the US supreme court, but the Illinois supreme court that overturned the conviction, not because the dogs are unreliable, but because their so much more refined sense would constitute "unreasonable" search. Then the US Supreme Court overturned the Illinois SC's decision.The US Supreme Court argued that no legitimate privacy was at risk, because the dog only alerted to an illegal drug.
I can assure you that everywhere in the US sniffer dogs are being used, traffic stops, border crossing, accidents, you name it.
Liar, liar pants on fire.
[/size][/size]