"Miracles do happen - why not for Maddie" - Daily Mail column

by Guest 27.04.12 10:15

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

This is a dreadful article - no surprises there - which will cause a shortage of sick buckets. Jan Moir is the lady whose article in 2009 on the deceased Boyzone singer Stephen Gately attracted unprecedented criticism and for which she was obliged to apologise.

She's certainly playing things safe now.

by tuom 27.04.12 10:23

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

This is a dreadful article - no surprises there - which will cause a shortage of sick buckets. Jan Moir is the lady whose article in 2009 on the deceased Boyzone singer Stephen Gately attracted unprecedented criticism and for which she was obliged to apologise.

She's certainly playing things safe now.

From the above quoted article :

Let us hope that the Portuguese authorities do the decent thing and follow up on every single lead that Scotland Yard now unearth.

The world would expect the British police to do the same if a Portuguese child went missing here — and you can bet your beat-pounding boots that our cops absolutely would.

I don’t think anyone could deny that from start to finish, the behaviour of the Portuguese police involved in investigating this case has been at the very least — infuriating. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

by Guest 27.04.12 15:46

And underneath the picture of Madeleine they have this, unbelievable that they can't even get this right................

Heartbreaking: It is nearly six years since the then three-year-old Madeleine McCann disappeared while she was on a family holiday in Portugal

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

duh

by Cheshire Cat 27.04.12 17:43

tuom wrote:
Jean wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is a dreadful article - no surprises there - which will cause a shortage of sick buckets. Jan Moir is the lady whose article in 2009 on the deceased Boyzone singer Stephen Gately attracted unprecedented criticism and for which she was obliged to apologise.

She's certainly playing things safe now.

From the above quoted article :

Let us hope that the Portuguese authorities do the decent thing and follow up on every single lead that Scotland Yard now unearth.

The world would expect the British police to do the same if a Portuguese child went missing here — and you can bet your beat-pounding boots that our cops absolutely would.

I don’t think anyone could deny that from start to finish, the behaviour of the Portuguese police involved in investigating this case has been at the very least — infuriating. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Read more: [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2135920/Miracles-happen--Maddie-Hope-McCanns-Scotland-Yard-detectives-review-case.html#ixzz1tE8u4316

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

If the Met have intelligence that provides clues to Maddies whereabouts then THEY should be looking for her now! If a British National is effectively being held somewhere against her will there should be a rescue attempt: use the Army, the Navy, the SAS to locate and retrieve her, it is not about solving a crime it is about taking action. Of course I am more inclined to believe the doggies rather than any UK politician or Scotland Yard.

by friedtomatoes 27.04.12 20:26

Jan Moir? Vacuous arrogant and ignorant, end of. Also pot kettle black LOL.

by Guest 28.04.12 12:30

It was hard to imagine anything more nauseating than Jan Moir's article but here's a strong contender from Tony Parsons, he of the sardine munching police fame.

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

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 16:05

It would be good if the reason the cadaver scent dog barked was found, i.e. to an old bed that someone had died on vis a vis the Shannon Matthews case. Apart from that one, I have never read that this dog has alerted to the last place a missing person was seen and that person subsequently turned up alive.

by Guest 28.04.12 16:11

friedtomatoes wrote:It would be good if the reason the cadaver scent dog barked was found, i.e. to an old bed that someone had died on vis a vis the Shannon Matthews case. Apart from that one, I have never read that this dog has alerted to the last place a missing person was seen and that person subsequently turned up alive.

Do you have a link for that friedtomatoes, I have never read that.

by Guest 28.04.12 16:33

candyfloss wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:It would be good if the reason the cadaver scent dog barked was found, i.e. to an old bed that someone had died on vis a vis the Shannon Matthews case. Apart from that one, I have never read that this dog has alerted to the last place a missing person was seen and that person subsequently turned up alive.

Do you have a link for that friedtomatoes, I have never read that.

It's ok found it, and it proves dogs do the job they were trained to do very well. The did find cadaver scent whilst looking for Shannon Matthews, which is what they do, they cannot distinguish who it is from though. If it was a second hand bed, and someone had died there, then they were right yet again, and as far as we know, no-one else died in that apartment, or flower bed or car...........
Excellent dogs, always right.

Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.

The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.

"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.

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

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 16:41

Candyfloss, no problem, the problem with the cadaver dog alerting only to the last place a missing person was is, according to the Mccann supporters, either just sheer bad luck or corruption. That statement is libellous at the very least and ridiculous when you research the dogs history. I wonder what Andy Redwood thinks of this. But I should not ask, he could turn out to be the Mccanns nemesis, IF they were involved.

by **PeterMac** 28.04.12 18:49

friedtomatoes wrote:Candyfloss, no problem, the problem with the cadaver dog alerting only to the last place a missing person was is, according to the Mccann supporters, either just sheer bad luck or corruption. That statement is libellous at the very least and ridiculous when you research the dogs history. I wonder what Andy Redwood thinks of this. But I should not ask, he could turn out to be the Mccanns nemesis, IF they were involved.

Andy Redwood will have the same view of the dogs as any other human being on the planet (bar two, of course)
Dogs are increasingly involved in the medical world detecting the difference between a benign mole and a malignant melanoma, and most recently the trials are being concluded on early stage detection of lung cancer, simply by smelling a person's breath. They can do this years before the tumour has developed to a point where any other diagnostic procedure can detect it.
They are remarkable. So much so that we humans still have no real idea how sensitive and discriminatory they can be.
(Apart from Keila and Eddie, of course, who are completely useless.)

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 19:14

PeterMac wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:Candyfloss, no problem, the problem with the cadaver dog alerting only to the last place a missing person was is, according to the Mccann supporters, either just sheer bad luck or corruption. That statement is libellous at the very least and ridiculous when you research the dogs history. I wonder what Andy Redwood thinks of this. But I should not ask, he could turn out to be the Mccanns nemesis, IF they were involved.
Andy Redwood will have the same view of the dogs as any other human being on the planet (bar two, of course)
Dogs are increasingly involved in the medical world detecting the difference between a benign mole and a malignant melanoma, and most recently the trials are being concluded on early stage detection of lung cancer, simply by smelling a person's breath. They can do this years before the tumour has developed to a point where any other diagnostic procedure can detect it.
They are remarkable. So much so that we humans still have no real idea how sensitive and discriminatory they can be.
(Apart from Keila and Eddie, of course, who are completely useless.)

Yes he MUST have the same idea as most normal rational people, including all LE, perhaps he hasnt yet read the part of the files that detail the alerts, I mean they are only a quarter of the way through
big grin

by russiandoll 28.04.12 19:30

dogs do not lie.... but despite all their training, just to please their trainers,sometimes alert to things that are not there [according to some]

I have posted on an oncologist's use of these dogs for detection of bladder cancer, dogs alerting to the presence of cancer cells by sniffing urine samples, alerting well before cancer detectable by usual methods, can't recall where that post is now...

by tuom 28.04.12 19:43

russiandoll wrote: dogs do not lie.... but despite all their training, just to please their trainers,sometimes alert to things that are not there [according to some]

I have posted on an oncologist's use of these dogs for detection of bladder cancer, dogs alerting to the presence of cancer cells by sniffing urine samples, alerting well before cancer detectable by usual methods, can't recall where that post is now...

I know that and you know that as does the dog handler , how can it be that the MC seems to have got the two dogs who (according to them) are unreliable so in fact are lying , gosh how unlucky can you get , child "abducted" and "unreliable " dogs [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 20:40

russiandoll wrote: dogs do not lie.... but despite all their training, just to please their trainers,sometimes alert to things that are not there [according to some]

I have posted on an oncologist's use of these dogs for detection of bladder cancer, dogs alerting to the presence of cancer cells by sniffing urine samples, alerting well before cancer detectable by usual methods, can't recall where that post is now...

So Eddie the cadaver dog alerted to 5a just to please the trainer? I find that hard to believe. That is saying the trainer/dog handler made him do so over and above all the other apartments. That is clearly libel. This is not the case. Eddie showed interest in 5a, as soon as he was in there, that is why the handler spent more time in there. He showed no interest in the other flats.

I have still to hear from anyone about cases where Eddie the cadaver dog has alerted to the last place a missing person was seen and that person turn up alive.

Staying on this subject, does anyone here know why Kate Mccann states in her book that the cadaver scent last no more than a month and what her source for this is as I find it hard to understand if this was the case why police would use cadaver dogs after a month.

by russiandoll 28.04.12 21:01

friedtomatoes wrote:
russiandoll wrote: dogs do not lie.... but despite all their training, just to please their trainers,sometimes alert to things that are not there [according to some]

I have posted on an oncologist's use of these dogs for detection of bladder cancer, dogs alerting to the presence of cancer cells by sniffing urine samples, alerting well before cancer detectable by usual methods, can't recall where that post is now...

So Eddie the cadaver dog alerted to 5a just to please the trainer? I find that hard to believe. That is saying the trainer/dog handler made him do so over and above all the other apartments. That is clearly libel. This is not the case. Eddie showed interest in 5a, as soon as he was in there, that is why the handler spent more time in there. He showed no interest in the other flats.

I have still to hear from anyone about cases where Eddie the cadaver dog has alerted to the last place a missing person was seen and that person turn up alive.

Staying on this subject, does anyone here know why Kate Mccann states in her book that the cadaver scent last no more than a month and what her source for this is as I find it hard to understand if this was the case why police would use cadaver dogs after a month.

The pair researched these dogs and learnt all about "cueing" and the little doggy woggies loving their master so much they would do something just to get a dog biscuit [ my sarcastic words not theirs ]
Kate relaxed watching the video...as it clearly was not what she would call an exact science. In stead of c****ing herself that the alert meant her dead or injured daughter had been removed from 5a. As you would...... relax.

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 21:04

Yes Russiandoll, any parent of a missing child would relax if a cadaver dog alerted in their bedroom!
thumbup

I guess they asked for them to be brought in, according to Gerry Mccann for that reason, to relax them
titter

by russiandoll 28.04.12 21:10

In one study involving four dogs and their handlers, Jacobi says the dogs were able to detect remains at all stages of decomposition. Performance varied between dogs, but some could locate skeletonised remains buried in an area of 300ft by 150ft. "The few single human vertebrae I used in the study were well over 25 years old, and dry bone," Jacobi says. "This made the discovery of one of these vertebrae, which we buried in dense woods 2ft deep, by a cadaver dog pretty remarkable."

cueing
With known problems, handlers can inadvertently cue their dogs and this can make dogs seem more reliable than they really are. (see Lit, Schweitzer and Oberbauer for a recent example). Single blind problems seem like the answer. But, they aren’t. The same subtle and non-conscious cuing between handler and dog that we all know about can also take place between handler and evaluator. A good trainer doesn’t give the problem away on purpose. She keeps her game face on. But the circle of people we train with is fairly limited and over the years, like a good poker player, we learn to read each other. You learn everyone’s “tells” even if you can’t describe them explicitly. You just have a feel for when you are getting warmer, and when you are cold and you are right often enough.

What applies between handlers and evaluators applies to dogs and evaluators as well. If dogs can predict seizures, it stands to reason that they can learn to detect whatever subtle changes in vital signs and body chemistry in evaluators and observers. Dogs read everyone’s ‘tells” or cues. And these cues may become reinforcers. Without saying a word, the evaluator may be shouting out,

“Yes, you are getting warmer. Be confident. Go ahead and do your trained indication.”

I think Grime was experienced enough and the dogs he used had got it right all the time....for this not to have been the case and these were not false alerts. Not enough without corroborating evidence though. o/t so will say adieu

by statsman 28.04.12 21:51

What I don't understand is why Martin Grime would subconsciously want his dogs to alert where they did.

It must have been in his mind that if Eddie alerted and subsequently Madeleine was found alive, then the reputation of his dogs would be ruined.

However, if Eddie did not alert and Madeleine was subsequently found dead, then all that would show was that she didn't die and remain long enough in the apartment for the dog to detect a cadaver scent.

So, in my opinion, if there was any subconscious feeling detected from him, it would be to refuse to give an alert.

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 21:55

statsman wrote:What I don't understand is why Martin Grime would subconsciously want his dogs to alert where they did.

It must have been in his mind that if Eddie alerted and subsequently Madeleine was found alive, then the reputation of his dogs would be ruined.

However, if Eddie did not alert and Madeleine was subsequently found dead, then all that would show was that she didn't die and remain long enough in the apartment for the dog to detect a cadaver scent.

So, in my opinion, if there was any subconscious feeling detected from him, it would be to refuse to give an alert.

mr grime has no reason to do anything untoward at all, his dogs are brill, its only criminals that try and trash them

by **PeterMac** 28.04.12 23:31

friedtomatoes wrote:
statsman wrote:What I don't understand is why Martin Grime would subconsciously want his dogs to alert where they did.
It must have been in his mind that if Eddie alerted and subsequently Madeleine was found alive, then the reputation of his dogs would be ruined.
However, if Eddie did not alert and Madeleine was subsequently found dead, then all that would show was that she didn't die and remain long enough in the apartment for the dog to detect a cadaver scent.
So, in my opinion, if there was any subconscious feeling detected from him, it would be to refuse to give an alert.
mr grime has no reason to do anything untoward at all, his dogs are brill, its only criminals that try and trash them

PRECISELY.
The dog handler has nothing to gain from a false alert and EVERYTHING to LOSE. Reputation of the dog, reputation of self as handler and trainer and so on.
If the dog does not find something he does not say "there is nothing" he merely reports that the dog did not alert.
If the dog does alert he does not report "there was definitely a body at this point", he merely reports the dog alerted here, and here.
It is then up to sentient human beings to make the connection, and to find the other evidence, whether that be physical signs or a confession.

by Woofer 29.04.12 0:39

friedtomatoes wrote:Yes Russiandoll, any parent of a missing child would relax if a cadaver dog alerted in their bedroom!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I guess they asked for them to be brought in, according to Gerry Mccann for that reason, to relax them
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

IIRC he could have asked for the tracker dogs to be brought in initially, which they were, and were given a communal towel of the family to use as the scent, but this didn`t lead far. The EVRD dogs, I believe, were not requested by TM.

Cadaver odour can be picked up by EVRD dogs decades later - in fact I have read (don`t ask me for the link cos I can`t remember) that it can even be 100 yrs or more depending on whether the location has allowed for dispersement or whether it has remained trapped and concentrated.

by Newintown 30.04.12 1:03

russiandoll wrote: dogs do not lie.... but despite all their training, just to please their trainers,sometimes alert to things that are not there [according to some]

I have posted on an oncologist's use of these dogs for detection of bladder cancer, dogs alerting to the presence of cancer cells by sniffing urine samples, alerting well before cancer detectable by usual methods, can't recall where that post is now...

There are also sniffer dogs for drugs, money and guns, used mostly at airports and in drug raids.

by Newintown 30.04.12 1:18

[quote="friedtomatoes"]

PeterMac wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:Candyfloss, no problem, the problem with the cadaver dog alerting only to the last place a missing person was is, according to the Mccann supporters, either just sheer bad luck or corruption. That statement is libellous at the very least and ridiculous when you research the dogs history. I wonder what Andy Redwood thinks of this. But I should not ask, he could turn out to be the Mccanns nemesis, IF they were involved.
Andy Redwood will have the same view of the dogs as any other human being on the planet (bar two, of course)
Dogs are increasingly involved in the medical world detecting the difference between a benign mole and a malignant melanoma, and most recently the trials are being concluded on early stage detection of lung cancer, simply by smelling a person's breath. They can do this years before the tumour has developed to a point where any other diagnostic procedure can detect it.
They are remarkable. So much so that we humans still have no real idea how sensitive and discriminatory they can be.
(Apart from Keila and Eddie, of course, who are completely useless.)

Yes he MUST have the same idea as most normal rational people, including all LE, perhaps he hasnt yet read the part of the files that detail the alerts, I mean they are only a quarter of the way through

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

I agree but whether he's read only part of the files or not I should imagine that he was well aware of the dogs alerting in apartment 5a. If he's had meetings with the PJ and the Porto police, they must have brought him up to date with their findings which are in the files and what they believe happened, handed over the files SY wanted and said "go throught that lot and see what you make of them".

by **PeterMac** 30.04.12 8:54

Newintown wrote:
There are also sniffer dogs for drugs, money and guns, used mostly at airports and in drug raids.

And explosives. Airports and Afhanistan

by nomendelta 30.04.12 9:26

It's quite simple - the dogs don't lie! And their track record speaks for itself.

Martin Grimes had nothing to gain from forcing false alerts - better for him that his dogs miss something there than alert to something not there!

If Maddie died accidentally or otherwise and the trace of blood and death scent came from her then her parents HAD to know (or even be involved) and therefore had some reason to lie.

To date the McCanns have come up with a satisfactory answer regarding the dogs - the best they can do is claim a "conspiracy" of sorts suggesting they responded to signals from their handler. Strangely enough exactly the same kind of desperate wooly thinking that they accuse WE who speculate of!

by **tigger** 30.04.12 9:29

PeterMac wrote:
Newintown wrote:
There are also sniffer dogs for drugs, money and guns, used mostly at airports and in drug raids.
And explosives. Airports and Afhanistan

Bill Bryson had a lovely story about - I think - Milwaukee airport. They decided to train some dogs to detect explosives. To test the dogs after a few weeks, they hid 2 packets of semtex in the airport.
The dogs - Basset hounds I seem to remember - were unable to find these. Unfortunately, so were the staff, who'd forgotten where they put them.
Undeterred, the dogs had some more training and an second trial was arranged with new explosives. Which the dogs also failed to find. The original packets of explosives were still not found by the time Bryson wrote his article.
Consequently, Milwaukee airport had become somewhat more dangerous than before these security measures.

I hasten to add that these were not well-trained dogs. The local sheriff thought it a good idea to try this out.

Chesterton wrote a poem about a dog:
- they haven't got no noses, the fallen sons of Eve, even the smell of roses is not what they supposes....

by **PeterMac** 30.04.12 10:33

tigger wrote:
Bill Bryson had a lovely story about - I think - Milwaukee airport. They decided to train some dogs to detect explosives. To test the dogs after a few weeks, they hid 2 packets of semtex in the airport.
The dogs - Basset hounds I seem to remember - were unable to find these. Unfortunately, so were the staff, who'd forgotten where they put them.
Undeterred, the dogs had some more training and an second trial was arranged with new explosives. Which the dogs also failed to find. The original packets of explosives were still not found by the time Bryson wrote his article.
Consequently, Milwaukee airport had become somewhat more dangerous than before these security measures.

I hasten to add that these were not well-trained dogs. The local sheriff thought it a good idea to try this out.

Lovely story.
Bill Bryson has a way with words, and a delightful way of shall we say "embellishing" a tale. Which is why he is so entertaining.
But don't be confused into thinking it is factually accurate to an evidential standard.

by **tigger** 30.04.12 10:41

PeterMac wrote:
tigger wrote:
Bill Bryson had a lovely story about - I think - Milwaukee airport. They decided to train some dogs to detect explosives. To test the dogs after a few weeks, they hid 2 packets of semtex in the airport.
The dogs - Basset hounds I seem to remember - were unable to find these. Unfortunately, so were the staff, who'd forgotten where they put them.
Undeterred, the dogs had some more training and an second trial was arranged with new explosives. Which the dogs also failed to find. The original packets of explosives were still not found by the time Bryson wrote his article.
Consequently, Milwaukee airport had become somewhat more dangerous than before these security measures.

I hasten to add that these were not well-trained dogs. The local sheriff thought it a good idea to try this out.
Lovely story.
Bill Bryson has a way with words, and a delightful way of shall we say "embellishing" a tale. Which is why he is so entertaining.
But don't be confused into thinking it is factually accurate to an evidential standard.

Absolutely. Bryson is a writer, not a reporter. He did have another story which I can easily believe - that the FBI were watching the Russian Embassy - saw a US civil servant paying frequent visits. Meanwhile the CIA were trying to work out who was passing info to the Russians. But FBI and CIA don't really talk to each other, don't like each other and it only came out by accident.
Thurber is another one, during WWI the US Navy and the US army had different codes which they would not exchange. The Germans actually got hold of the Navy codes and returned them to the US, with recommendations on how to improve on them.

I'll desist! I'm derailing the topic. Sorry. smilie

by aiyoyo 30.04.12 12:27

[quote="tuom"]

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

This is a dreadful article - no surprises there - which will cause a shortage of sick buckets. Jan Moir is the lady whose article in 2009 on the deceased Boyzone singer Stephen Gately attracted unprecedented criticism and for which she was obliged to apologise.

She's certainly playing things safe now.

From the above quoted article :

Let us hope that the Portuguese authorities do the decent thing and follow up on every single lead that Scotland Yard now unearth.

The world would expect the British police to do the same if a Portuguese child went missing here — and you can bet your beat-pounding boots that our cops absolutely would.

I don’t think anyone could deny that from start to finish, the behaviour of the Portuguese police involved in investigating this case has been at the very least — infuriating. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I wonder whether Jan Moir listens to herself. In equal measure because the cadaver dog marked a dead body in Mccannss Apt and Car, should the UK Police ignore that line of investigation or should they take that into also consideration?

I mean if the possibility is 50/50, how can anyone realistically expect a country's police force (no matter which country) to chase up leads just on another country's police force say so without so much as give concrete evidence where they think she can be found.

If Yard seriously think she is alive ,and has concrete evidence to prove that, they should provide detail where to rescue her from. Failing that, then they should deploy ASAP the UK RAF or whatever rescue team to rescue her themselves. I cant see how the country's population can object to expenditure to rescue its missing citizen from the clutches of her evil captor, rather that waste it on further review which should no longer be necessary if the Yard is so certain they've evidence she is alive. To quantify that as a statement they must support they saying. In a nutshell, they should put their money where their mouth is.

Otherwise, how can they expect another country's Police to go on a wild goose chase?

Jan Moir should hang her head in shame whipping up xenophobia sentiment.