The McCanns’ libelling of others: 1. Martin Grime

by **sharonl** 18.03.12 20:38

The McCanns’ libelling of others:
1. Martin Grime

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccanns-libelling-of-others-1-martin.html

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘madeleine’, has comprehensively smeared top dog handler Martin Grime, who took his cadaver dogs out to Praia da Luz.

On pages 249-250 of ‘madeleine’, for example, she writes:

“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the conch 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 a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.

In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.

She writes:

“…we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.

“The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returned to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking…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…this certainly seemed to be what was happening here…”

Dr Kate McCann is plainly suggesting, and has done so to hundreds of thousands of readers of her book, that Mr Grime is incompetent. Not only is this suggestion libellous, it is patently ludicrous. One must ask: would a person such as Mr Grime, whose professional livelihood depended on the 100% reliability of his dogs, proceed to suggest the past presence of a corpse at locations in the McCanns’ flat, and in their hired car, if Madeleine might still be alive somewhere?

She might have been found alive the next day

If so, Martin Grime’s professional credibility and his livelihood would have been ruined for ever.

Published by The Madeline McCann Research Group, March 2012

by Gillyspot 18.03.12 21:01

This is clearly libellous in my opinion. Martin Grime and his dogs Eddie & Keela were all professionals.

Indeed an FOI request to South Yorkshire Police reveals this.

"(PC GRIMES) has deployed police dog 'Eddie' to train on human remains in the US. This training has been valuable as it is not possible to utilise human remains in the UK. A full report from the F.B.I. to document his training and operational deployments whilst in America remains pending"
"Deployments have been on a national scale and a recent visit to the F.B.I. in America has created some income generation potential in terms of training."

www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disclosurelog/20110186

So Eddie isn't just your average EVRD dog he has actually trained on human cadavers and that makes him a very special tool for any police force.

by puzzled 18.03.12 21:25

sharonl wrote:
In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.

It's ridiculous isn't it? Basically, she's suggesting that he tried to set them up. What earthly motive could he have for wanting to do that?

by statsman 18.03.12 21:31

Well, they have to say something when the odds are so much against them.

Here's an extract from a post I originally wrote for Joana Morais' blog:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think it’s time to put some objective probabilities into the frame.

Take Gerry’s “incredibly unreliable” sniffer dogs. Both Eddie and Keela signalled in the McCann’s apartment and not in the other nine locations.

And both signalled in the McCann’s car and not in the other nine cars.

Now for one dog to signal like this randomly would be a 1 in a million chance. For both dogs to separately signal this same result is a 1 in a million million chance.

Of course this is assuming a flip of the coin chance factor but even if they only were trained to signal 1 out of 10 times, it is still almost a 1 in 500,000 chance.

Not only that, but Eddie, the cadaver dog, signalled in exactly the same location in the McCann’s apartment as Keela. And, sure enough, blood was found under the tile when it was dug up.

Finally, Eddie also signalled on Kate McCann’s clothing which she subsequently revealed she had been wearing when visiting dead bodies the week before. So there can be little doubt that the other cadaver scents detected by Eddie were also of a cadaver, but not those on the clothing. (Presumably she didn’t rub her clothes into the tiles or in
the boot of the car.)
So it seems that these two dogs can be asked to give probabilities and, instead of being incredibly unreliable, are actually incredibly reliable. Moreover, we have Kate McCann’s testimony to back them up!

(For the mathematically inclined, two to the power of 10 is 1,048,576 and detecting the single correct choice out of 10 is a 1 in 25.8 chance. Doing this correctly four times in succession is a 1 in 443,884 chance.)
"

by justme3 18.03.12 22:15

If the McCann's and friends turn out to be guilty of covering up Madeleine McCann's death, then how are they going to justify these points:

Setting up the fund

Discrediting Tony Bennett,G Amaral, PC Grimes and Eddie and Keela

Meeting the Pope

Going to the Whitehouse

Paying private detectives to find a child who they know isn't going to be found

Suing newspapers

If anyone has anyone else to add to the above, then please do so.

I am feeling rather hopeful, that this time, justice WILL be done.

by **PeterMac** 18.03.12 22:27

Martin Grimes is a Police officer, now perhaps retired from the service, but still, as am I, bound by his oath, and paid by the Crown.
We do not sue for libel. If anyone calls us a liar, then we accept that this is the normal course of events, both out on the streets and in the courts.
The defence are being paid money to defend their clients.
They therefore HAVE to say we are mistaken, or incompetent, or have made it up, or are lying. They are paid to do this, and have no other way of presenting their defence.
They certainly cannot "clarrify" why their client was found in the early hours of the morning, dressed only in his underwear, carrying a grandfather clock and 30 grams of herion, armed with a small sub-maching gun, down a dark alleyway ......
That is not their role.
Their role is to challenge, with the aim of acquittal, and if they have nothing else to challenge they will select the officer in the case.
They are paid in pieces of silver.

As a lovely Private Eye cartoon had it -

If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If the law is against you, argue the facts.
If the facts and the law are against you, argue that the case hinges on Human Rights.

Or in this case
Sue.

by Newintown 18.03.12 22:35

Regardng sniffer dogs, I was watching a TV programme this afternoon on the Border patrols between the USA and Mexico and a drug detection sniffer dog alerted at a window of a car, the window was open and the dog was practically in the car through the window. The police officer made the 2 men get out of the car and the dog alerted to the compartment between the 2 front seats. When the officer opened the lid there was ONE SEED of cannabis in it. Of course the driver denied using drugs and said it was a hired car (well he would wouldn't he), but they were let off and went on their way.

by womandotcom 18.03.12 23:11

puzzled wrote:
sharonl wrote:
In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.

It's ridiculous isn't it? Basically, she's suggesting that he tried to set them up. What earthly motive could he have for wanting to do that?

I wonder if the McCanns or any of their friends and helpers, would get on a plane if the explosives dogs had alerted on it? Eddie and Keela are trained to the same high standards

by aiyoyo 14.04.12 13:41

“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.

If that is lifted from her bewk, then I think it is yet another phrase that should go into the Forensic Linguistic Thread.
Why did kate start to feel relax when the dogs alerted. It does not make sense. An alert means a dead body had been in the car (no matter whose).

More importantly when she said "I felt myself staring to relax a little"- it suggests she was very tensed about the operation? It's a dead give-away she feared what the dogs might find.
Otherwise why should she be tensed? What is there to be nervous about if you're innocent and know without a shadow of doubt there's no way the dogs will find anything in the car.

But hey, this woman was relieved because she alleged the dogs alerted due to cueing. But she conveniently forgot that no matter what, the handler cant force the dogs to bark or to mark.

It's as if kate believes an owner can get a dog to bark each time it smells a stranger walks past a high fencing or closed door, in the same manner they can get they pet bull dog to bite if they dont like to hear what people are saying.

by **PeterMac** 14.04.12 13:54

The whole "alleged cueing" thing is interesting, and misunderstood
If you ever get the chance to watch a drugs dog in action, take it. They do give demonstrations at schools and places like that.
The handler releases the dog into the appointed area, but does not then stand silent and still.
The handler encourages, verbally, and sometimes physically, and keeps up a constant momentum of action and activity.
The dog keeps looking round at the handler, and really goes at its task.
Only when there has either been a positive find, or the handler is certain that every place has been searched, with negative result,
will he stop 'leaping around' and allow the dog to calm down and come back for its reward.
The dog is rewarded for a negative result exactly as for a positive one. It is in fact rewarded for doing the search, not for the result.
Which is why there are no false positives !

Whether forensic science can then detect what the dog has indicated is a different matter. Tests have shown that dogs can detect far beyond
the capabilities of modern laboratories.
They are used to smell the difference between benign moles and malignant melanomas at an early stage, and they are now being trained to detect lung cancer on a person's breath, long before any X-ray could pick it up.
They are remarkable creatures, and should not be maligned. Not even by the McCanns.

by russiandoll 14.04.12 14:49

I wonder what the two doctors would make of the following :

Re : dogs' sense of smell

"Their world is a very complex, olfactory world. They are surrounded by a vast array of different things that we are really hardly aware of. It's full of colors. It's full of brightnesses, which are smells."

Broom and fellow researcher Barbara Somerville have set out to prove that the value of that sense of smell may be far greater than anyone realizes. They believe that dogs, with their extraordinary noses, can smell cancer. And they're not alone.

In September, a leading medical journal in Britain, the BMI, gave its blessing. The journal published the results of the first ever meticulously controlled, double blind, peer-reviewed study on the subject, stating, "The results are unambiguous. Dogs can be trained to recognize and flag bladder cancer."

Bee is one of the dogs used in the study. She's a working cocker spaniel trained to smell the odor of the chemical that's in cancer, in this case, bladder cancer. But can she really?

60 Minutes asked dog trainer Andy Cook, who assisted in the BMI study, to run a test for us. There were six urine samples belonging to patients who are either healthy or suffer from some other disease, and one sample belonging to a patient who actually has bladder cancer. The test was conducted at a hearing-aid dog center near Amersham, England, where the original study took place.

Bee's challenge was to find the cancerous sample.

"It's very much free expression. We let her do what she wants. We don't push her into an indication," says Cook. "We don't try and direct her. We don't try to push her into a decision. She's thinking about them."

Bee's been trained to lie down next to the cancerous sample. And she found it. We asked her to do it again, just to make sure. And once again, she nailed it.

In the actual scientific study, six dogs, including Bee, had to distinguish the cancerous sample from the six non-cancerous samples. Dr. Carolyn Willis, a research dermatologist who assisted in the study, says that neither the researchers nor the dogs had any way of knowing in advance which sample was cancerous.

"All the way along, it was blinded so that I would code the samples. And then they would be taken to a completely different building, and those coded samples would be put in a certain position along the line-up," says Willis. "Nobody at any one time knew which was the bladder cancer sample."

Not until after the dogs made their choices. One dog failed completely, but two picked out the cancerous sample 60 percent of the time. The overall average was 41 percent success. That percentage may seem small, but Willis says it amounts to a major success for the dogs.

"The 41 percent, as far as I'm concerned, was a remarkable result," says Willis. "And it was highly statistically significant."

It was significant because it meant that the dogs actually smelled the cancer, and were not merely guessing. And there was an even more startling success story, when one of the non-cancerous control samples caught the interest of the dogs.

As demonstrated in 60 Minutes' recreation of the study, the dogs kept identifying a sample that medical staff had assured the trainers was cancer free. The trainers were dismayed by the dogs' performance and thought the test a total failure.
The trainers just couldn't train the dogs past this particular sample at all. And they were really getting quite desperate that, in fact, they wouldn't, that this wasn't going to work," says Willis. "Because they consistently went for this sample, we went back and conferred with a specialist."

"The hospital had seen our dogs' work and had got confidence in our dogs, sent it off for further tests," says Cook. "And they were completely blown away when it came back that this patient not only had cancer on his kidney but it was bladder cancer."

Those results impressed the British medical community, and made headlines in England and the United States. But they came as no surprise to Somerville and Broom, who are working now on their own study.

"We've got 16 cases of cancer picked up by a pet dog. And in every case, the dog has shown signs of being anxious and upset," says Somerville. "Now what's going on in the dog's mind, I don't know. But there is some change, which it clearly thinks is threatening its owner."

Somerville says that, in at least one case, a dog detected cancer that had been missed by a doctor. "One of the three breast cancers, which we've had picked up by dogs, turned out to be a very, very small focus of malignancy, undetectable unless screened. And this was removed, and the dog immediately lost interest," says Somerville. "But three months later, it began sniffing, snuffling and becoming agitated again when sitting on her lap. So, she shot back to the hospital, and lo and behold, they had missed a tiny bit of cancer."

Just because your dog is sniffing you, it doesn't necessarily mean she's detecting cancer. Safer's elderly dog, Dora, is constantly checking out him, as well as perfect strangers. It's probably just old-fashioned curiosity, Safer says, but for a handful of pet owners in this country and England, there is no question that their animals have a special gift.

Gill Lacey is one of them. Trudi, his Dalmatian, smelled trouble 25 years ago.

"One particular day, I noticed when she walked past me, she came towards me, sniffing at my leg. And I thought I'd just spilled something," recalls Lacey. "But when I looked, she was sniffing at a tiny mole on my leg."
That mole turned out to be a malignant melanoma, a deadly form of cancer, if not discovered early. Doctors removed the mole and a mass of tissue around it, and when Lacey left the hospital a month later, Trudi confirmed that the cancer was gone.

"Although they'd already said to me that it was clear, I felt reassured that it really was," says Lacey, who believes Trudi saved his life. "I'm convinced of that."

There are an increasing number of similar stories. Time and again, dog owners in England and the United States report much the same behavior. But until very recently, the medical establishments in both countries mostly ignored or dismissed such anecdotes.

Before her involvement in the study, Willis, a research dermatologist, was one of the skeptics. "Anecdotal reports on their own really don't prove very much at all," she says. "They are quite useful indicators of perhaps something to look at. But on their own, they don't provide any sort of proof of any particular phenomenon."

But she became convinced, in large part, because of a simple medical fact -- diseases do give off odors, and dogs, at least theoretically, can smell them.

"Back in the sixth century, I think Hippocrates was describing fruity smells associated with people with diabetes. And musty smells associated with liver disease," says Willis.

If dogs can recognize such odors, the implications for medicine could be enormous. Those noses might provide early detection that science cannot yet achieve. For a disease like prostate cancer, for instance, current detection through blood tests can be notoriously inaccurate.

No one has been more obsessed with the possibilities than Dr. John Church, the driving force behind the British medical journal study. A retired orthopedic surgeon, he believed for a decade that dogs could detect cancer.

He says that there was an element of skepticism, but the patients who were recruited were all "tickled to death because this was something brand new."
But now, in the wake of his study, he feels vindicated. "This is a first step in the right direction. I would say it is a great breakthrough in the sense that this is the first such presentation of a rigorous study of this type," says Church. "We regard this as a great breakthrough."

And there are more studies on the way. In California, there's a test of dogs' ability to detect lung cancer, and back in England, with the help of a cancer researcher at Cambridge, Broom and Somerville are finishing up their own study on prostate cancer.

Final results are expected this year, but early tests show very high success rates. Meanwhile, the Amersham team is planning to move ahead on further research -- with their handpicked roster of specialists, of course. The team includes Biddie and Tangle, Oak and Dill, Bee, and a couple of pre-med rookies, Briar and Daisy.

"I personally see a day when you could use dogs to detect disease," says Church. "You've got a marvelous asset. You've got a wonderful tool."

by **tigger** 14.04.12 14:54

aiyoyo wrote:
“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.

If that is lifted from her bewk, then I think it is yet another phrase that should go into the Forensic Linguistic Thread.
Why did kate start to feel relax when the dogs alerted. It does not make sense. An alert means a dead body had been in the car (no matter whose).

More importantly when she said "I felt myself staring to relax a little"- it suggests she was very tensed about the operation? It's a dead give-away she feared what the dogs might find.
Otherwise why should she be tensed? What is there to be nervous about if you're innocent and know without a shadow of doubt there's no way the dogs will find anything in the car.

What I'm trying to recall from the video, wasn't Cuddlecat found in the sink cupboard? Or am I wrong about that.

But hey, this woman was relieved because she alleged the dogs alerted due to cueing. But she conveniently forgot that no matter what, the handler cant force the dogs to bark or to mark.

It's as if kate believes an owner can get a dog to bark each time it smells a stranger walks past a high fencing or closed door, in the same manner they can get they pet bull dog to bite if they dont like to hear what people are saying.

I'll copy and paste it Aiyoyo.
It's a part of the bewk that really annoys me. She comes out with something like 'It' not what we in scientific terms call it a blind study' . Which is irrelevant.

She also intimated that both the dogs and the handler knew which car to target because it was plastered with Maddie posters.
These were only on the back which was against the wall. The dogs certainly could't have seen the posters from their low angle of view and even if they could, dogs can't read or recognize faces from photographs. Smell is everything to a dog.

'Felt yourself beginning to relax' hey? So why should an innocent woman be tense? About a car rented weeks after your child died/disappeared?

M. Grimes called the dogs back to the other cars as well - he might have been able to seen some paper stuck to the rear window, but not what was on them. The video is clear enough imo.

by aiyoyo 14.04.12 15:13

Kate wrote in her bewk "It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias."

I wonder why she thinks Martin Grime, expert in his field and best in the land, would risk his credibility and integrity by doing something as stupid as "take the bait" in case the stickers in the car was just that? Another way of looking at "unblinded" study is to "take the bait" and no credible police officer will fall into that trap.

It speaks volume about Kate's desperation for readers to believe there was no bodily fluid or Maddie's DNA in their hired car; which leaves people wondering what the Birmingham FSS was testing if not that? It's one thing to say that the forensic testing didn't match Maddie, but to say it wasn't human bodily fluid that the FSS lab tested is quite something else.

by tuom 20.04.12 23:16

aiyoyo wrote:
“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.

If that is lifted from her bewk, then I think it is yet another phrase that should go into the Forensic Linguistic Thread.
Why did kate start to feel relax when the dogs alerted. It does not make sense. An alert means a dead body had been in the car (no matter whose).

More importantly when she said "I felt myself staring to relax a little"- it suggests she was very tensed about the operation? It's a dead give-away she feared what the dogs might find.
Otherwise why should she be tensed? What is there to be nervous about if you're innocent and know without a shadow of doubt there's no way the dogs will find anything in the car.

But hey, this woman was relieved because she alleged the dogs alerted due to cueing. But she conveniently forgot that no matter what, the handler cant force the dogs to bark or to mark.

It's as if kate believes an owner can get a dog to bark each time it smells a stranger walks past a high fencing or closed door, in the same manner they can get they pet bull dog to bite if they dont like to hear what people are saying.

The "I felt myself relax a little" is like something out of a thriller or documentary of someone's thoughts , not really something you would say out loud or certainly not in a book..... The McCanns’ libelling of others: 1. Martin Grime 1307929409

The McCanns’ libelling of others: 1. Martin Grime 1307929409

by friedtomatoes 24.04.12 20:22

The police would not use these dogs if they were very unreliable as stated by Gerry Mccann. They would also not use them months and years after the event if the scent of death lasted only a month, which IIRC is what Kate Mccann said on TV or wrote in her book Madeleine. I do think their going over the top in their efforts to discredit them raises a red flag.

by Guest 24.04.12 20:26

friedtomatoes wrote:The police would not use these dogs if they were very unreliable as stated by Gerry Mccann. They would also not use them months and years after the event if the scent of death lasted only a month, which IIRC is what Kate Mccann said on TV or wrote in her book Madeleine. I do think their going over the top in their efforts to discredit them raises a red flag.

And the FBI would certainly not have Martin Grime and his dogs under contract if they were useless would they.

by friedtomatoes 24.04.12 20:39

candyfloss wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:The police would not use these dogs if they were very unreliable as stated by Gerry Mccann. They would also not use them months and years after the event if the scent of death lasted only a month, which IIRC is what Kate Mccann said on TV or wrote in her book Madeleine. I do think their going over the top in their efforts to discredit them raises a red flag.

And the FBI would certainly not have Martin Grime and his dogs under contract if they were useless would they.

Quite!

But you should know there are people around who state that Mr Grime is a liar, has never trained his dog in the USA on human cadavers, and has never worked with the FBI, but has simply doctored his CV. For anyone to spread that message raises another red flag on top of the existing ones. It is thoroughly confusing.

2. Creche staff? IIRC Kate Mccann says in her book that she believes Madeleine could have been drugged during the Thursday.

by **tigger** 24.04.12 20:56

And only an anesthetist would have noticed this and done something about it - no doubt!
Wouldn't a drugged child have symptoms such as enlarged pupils, slow reflexes. Or did Kate miss that lecture?

by Guest 24.04.12 21:16

tigger wrote:And only an anesthetist would have noticed this and done something about it - no doubt!
Wouldn't a drugged child have symptoms such as enlarged pupils, slow reflexes. Or did Kate miss that lecture?

The McCanns’ libelling of others: 1. Martin Grime Whose_10

Would a drugged Gerry have enlarged pupils too?

by Nina 24.04.12 21:19

admin wrote:
tigger wrote:And only an anesthetist would have noticed this and done something about it - no doubt!
Wouldn't a drugged child have symptoms such as enlarged pupils, slow reflexes. Or did Kate miss that lecture?

Would a drugged Gerry have enlarged pupils too?

In such a well lit room his pupils should be tiny. I should see a doctor Gerry titter

by tuom 24.04.12 21:32

PeterMac wrote:The whole "alleged cueing" thing is interesting, and misunderstood
If you ever get the chance to watch a drugs dog in action, take it. They do give demonstrations at schools and places like that.
The handler releases the dog into the appointed area, but does not then stand silent and still.
The handler encourages, verbally, and sometimes physically, and keeps up a constant momentum of action and activity.
The dog keeps looking round at the handler, and really goes at its task.
Only when there has either been a positive find, or the handler is certain that every place has been searched, with negative result,
will he stop 'leaping around' and allow the dog to calm down and come back for its reward.
The dog is rewarded for a negative result exactly as for a positive one. It is in fact rewarded for doing the search, not for the result.
Which is why there are no false positives !

Whether forensic science can then detect what the dog has indicated is a different matter. Tests have shown that dogs can detect far beyond
the capabilities of modern laboratories.
They are used to smell the difference between benign moles and malignant melanomas at an early stage, and they are now being trained to detect lung cancer on a person's breath, long before any X-ray could pick it up.
They are remarkable creatures, and should not be maligned. Not even by the McCanns.

I saw this a few years ago at Tampa Airport , security was tight and there were a few stages to it , a dog handler was as you say "leaping around" up and down the queue of passengers , I found it quite alarming as he seemed to pause at my elderly mother , be it only for a second or two . The handler then stood at the top of the queue and the dog calmed . was rewarded and off they went , and no my mother did not have any contraband

by Zozo 25.04.12 3:21

sharonl wrote:The McCanns’ libelling of others:
1. Martin Grime

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccanns-libelling-of-others-1-martin.html

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘madeleine’, has comprehensively smeared top dog handler Martin Grime, who took his cadaver dogs out to Praia da Luz.

On pages 249-250 of ‘madeleine’, for example, she writes:

“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the conch 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 a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.

In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.

She writes:

“…we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.

“The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returned to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking…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…this certainly seemed to be what was happening here…”

Dr Kate McCann is plainly suggesting, and has done so to hundreds of thousands of readers of her book, that Mr Grime is incompetent. Not only is this suggestion libellous, it is patently ludicrous. One must ask: would a person such as Mr Grime, whose professional livelihood depended on the 100% reliability of his dogs, proceed to suggest the past presence of a corpse at locations in the McCanns’ flat, and in their hired car, if Madeleine might still be alive somewhere?

She might have been found alive the next day

If so, Martin Grime’s professional credibility and his livelihood would have been ruined for ever.

Published by The Madeline McCann Research Group, March 2012

I dont get it! can anyone explain to me. She talking like some of or all those police dogs works were done while they are present, a few metres away. Is that true or i'm mistaken?

How can it be possible their presence in police investigation work time like that one? Especially that time their were already highly suspected. Ofcourse even if their may not be suspects, i dont think the investigators will allow anyone else apart from their colleagues to come assist or surpervise while they are at work.

Or she's just making up stories using "We were.." to try to convince her readers she was present therefore she is talking from facts(of course fictional ones).

Unbelievable woman!!!!
The McCanns’ libelling of others: 1. Martin Grime 899715

The McCanns’ libelling of others: 1. Martin Grime 899715

by Angelique 25.04.12 4:15

Artistic license - Kate and Gerry do it all the time. Gerry insists he called in the dogs but doesn't qualify this by stating which ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license

Artistic license (also known as dramatic license, historical license, poetic license, narrative license, licentia poetica, or simply license) is a colloquial term, sometimes euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art.

by russiandoll 25.04.12 8:50

I think police showed Kate a video of the dogs at work

by worriedmum 25.04.12 9:03

and if I remember correctly, they went to great lengths to make sure that the scene where the examination by the dogs took place was as uncontaminated as possible. Didn't they use somewhere that hadn't opened before? Didn't they reject the first choice of venue because the PJ wanted the results to be as uncontaminated as possible?