Confusion About Cadaver Odour

Da Troof wrote:

tiny wrote:As i have said before,WHY the need for dirty nappies and rotting meat if the mccanns thought the dogs soooo unreliable.

only Mr Grimes knows how his dogs work,but unfortunatly Mr Grimes is not allowed to talk about it(so i read somewhere,so dont quote me on that)

Tiny, in a way you answer your own question! If the dogs are "unreliable" they will alert to rotting meat or dirty nappies. I think it is possible the McC's were truly surprised that the dogs alerted to the car. I also think it is possible that they "knew" the alerts had to be "false" because they "knew" Maddie had never been in the car so they tried to come up with alternative explanations.....not very bright.

Interestingly.....................IF they did "know" that Maddie had never been in that car, HOW did they "know" this? My first thought when hearing this news back in summer 2007 was ....who hired the car before them? There must be a link to the abductor/killer. How amazing that the McC's would end up hiring the same car! BUT this thought doesn't appear to have occurred to them ...perhaps because they ALREADY "knew" that Maddie couldn't have been in the car!

tiny wrote:

Da Troof wrote:

tiny wrote:As i have said before,WHY the need for dirty nappies and rotting meat if the mccanns thought the dogs soooo unreliable.

only Mr Grimes knows how his dogs work,but unfortunatly Mr Grimes is not allowed to talk about it(so i read somewhere,so dont quote me on that)

Tiny, in a way you answer your own question! If the dogs are "unreliable" they will alert to rotting meat or dirty nappies. I think it is possible the McC's were truly surprised that the dogs alerted to the car. I also think it is possible that they "knew" the alerts had to be "false" because they "knew" Maddie had never been in the car so they tried to come up with alternative explanations.....not very bright.

Interestingly.....................IF they did "know" that Maddie had never been in that car, HOW did they "know" this? My first thought when hearing this news back in summer 2007 was ....who hired the car before them? There must be a link to the abductor/killer. How amazing that the McC's would end up hiring the same car! BUT this thought doesn't appear to have occurred to them ...perhaps because they ALREADY "knew" that Maddie couldn't have been in the car!

.

that was the mccanns excuse for the dogs findings,so why would they say this if the dogs were wrong

PeterMac wrote:

"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert." means that it doesn't prove a thing and could never be used by any police anywhere in any court.

How interesting then that they immediately started coming up with excuses for each of the alerts, - 6 corpses, nose bleed, mosquito splatted on wall, rotting meat, sea bass, dirty nappies and so on ad nauseam, instead of saying they were false positives.
They can't have it both ways. Well actually they can. For the moment.
"Ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse"
"Wer sich entschuldigt, sich beschuldigt"

Woofer wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert." means that it doesn't prove a thing and could never be used by any police anywhere in any court.

How interesting then that they immediately started coming up with excuses for each of the alerts, - 6 corpses, nose bleed, mosquito splatted on wall, rotting meat, sea bass, dirty nappies and so on ad nauseam, instead of saying they were false positives.
They can't have it both ways. Well actually they can. For the moment.
"Ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse"
"Wer sich entschuldigt, sich beschuldigt"

IMO we can conclude from all the aforementioned that a dead body had not necessairly been transported in the car, but that materials that had been in contact with a dead body were transported in the car.

The Mcs would still have come up with the above excuses if they knew it was just material because that`s equally damning.

statsman wrote:I think what musn't be forgotten is that the odds of these dogs alerting to the McCann's apartment and car and to nowhere else that they were tested on is around half a million to one.

So there has to be something related to the McCanns to explain this and I can't see it being rotten meat, sea bass or dirty nappies.[/quote

Yes, I thought that... ok, you can say "There's a first time for everything", but to be wrong in both the apartment, and the hire car????]

tiny wrote:

Da Troof wrote:

tiny wrote:As i have said before,WHY the need for dirty nappies and rotting meat if the mccanns thought the dogs soooo unreliable.

only Mr Grimes knows how his dogs work,but unfortunatly Mr Grimes is not allowed to talk about it(so i read somewhere,so dont quote me on that)

Tiny, in a way you answer your own question! If the dogs are "unreliable" they will alert to rotting meat or dirty nappies. I think it is possible the McC's were truly surprised that the dogs alerted to the car. I also think it is possible that they "knew" the alerts had to be "false" because they "knew" Maddie had never been in the car so they tried to come up with alternative explanations.....not very bright.

Interestingly.....................IF they did "know" that Maddie had never been in that car, HOW did they "know" this? My first thought when hearing this news back in summer 2007 was ....who hired the car before them? There must be a link to the abductor/killer. How amazing that the McC's would end up hiring the same car! BUT this thought doesn't appear to have occurred to them ...perhaps because they ALREADY "knew" that Maddie couldn't have been in the car!

.

that was the mccanns excuse for the dogs findings,so why would they say this if the dogs were wrong

LG1968 wrote:

Woofer wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert." means that it doesn't prove a thing and could never be used by any police anywhere in any court.

How interesting then that they immediately started coming up with excuses for each of the alerts, - 6 corpses, nose bleed, mosquito splatted on wall, rotting meat, sea bass, dirty nappies and so on ad nauseam, instead of saying they were false positives.
They can't have it both ways. Well actually they can. For the moment.
"Ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse"
"Wer sich entschuldigt, sich beschuldigt"

IMO we can conclude from all the aforementioned that a dead body had not necessairly been transported in the car, but that materials that had been in contact with a dead body were transported in the car.

The Mcs would still have come up with the above excuses if they knew it was just material because that`s equally damning.

But what evidence is there of any materials which had been in contact with a dead body in the car.

Keela alerted to blood at the very spot where Eddie alerted. So probably both alerted to blood there.

And Keela alerted to blood/body fluids in boot of car. No mention of any dead body at all there.

How do you arrive at your conclusion?

Woofer wrote:

LG1968 wrote:

Woofer wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert." means that it doesn't prove a thing and could never be used by any police anywhere in any court.

How interesting then that they immediately started coming up with excuses for each of the alerts, - 6 corpses, nose bleed, mosquito splatted on wall, rotting meat, sea bass, dirty nappies and so on ad nauseam, instead of saying they were false positives.
They can't have it both ways. Well actually they can. For the moment.
"Ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse"
"Wer sich entschuldigt, sich beschuldigt"

IMO we can conclude from all the aforementioned that a dead body had not necessairly been transported in the car, but that materials that had been in contact with a dead body were transported in the car.

The Mcs would still have come up with the above excuses if they knew it was just material because that`s equally damning.

That's a very good point I think.

But what evidence is there of any materials which had been in contact with a dead body in the car.

Keela alerted to blood at the very spot where Eddie alerted. So probably both alerted to blood there.

And Keela alerted to blood/body fluids in boot of car. No mention of any dead body at all there.

How do you arrive at your conclusion?

I am playing devil`s advocate to encourage ideas about a possible conclusion. I can see where you`re coming from and agree to a certain point, but I`m taking into consideration other things like where the dogs alerted to before in and around the flat and the fact they found nothing similar in any of the other flats where there would have been dirty nappies, blood spatterings and maybe even rotting meat. And even some of the other cars stood a high chance of having remnants of human blood and rubbish but they didn`t alert to those.

Da Troof wrote:

tiny wrote:

Da Troof wrote:

tiny wrote:As i have said before,WHY the need for dirty nappies and rotting meat if the mccanns thought the dogs soooo unreliable.

only Mr Grimes knows how his dogs work,but unfortunatly Mr Grimes is not allowed to talk about it(so i read somewhere,so dont quote me on that)

Tiny, in a way you answer your own question! If the dogs are "unreliable" they will alert to rotting meat or dirty nappies. I think it is possible the McC's were truly surprised that the dogs alerted to the car. I also think it is possible that they "knew" the alerts had to be "false" because they "knew" Maddie had never been in the car so they tried to come up with alternative explanations.....not very bright.

Interestingly.....................IF they did "know" that Maddie had never been in that car, HOW did they "know" this? My first thought when hearing this news back in summer 2007 was ....who hired the car before them? There must be a link to the abductor/killer. How amazing that the McC's would end up hiring the same car! BUT this thought doesn't appear to have occurred to them ...perhaps because they ALREADY "knew" that Maddie couldn't have been in the car!

.

that was the mccanns excuse for the dogs findings,so why would they say this if the dogs were wrong

Perhaps they were saying the dogs were wrong BECAUSE they had alerted to other things that had been in the car ...e.g. rotting meat or

dirty nappies.

ShuBob wrote:Is it a coincidence that there's renewed interest in the dogs' abilities since TB posted that the McCanns' case against him may go to full trial with the dogs' evidence allowed to be cross-examined in court?

candyfloss wrote:It is also why the Zapata case was sited by the McCanns, turned out the dogs were right though.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1474-mccanns-zapata-and-cadaver-dogs-revisited

Swizzlestick wrote:

statsman wrote:I think what musn't be forgotten is that the odds of these dogs alerting to the McCann's apartment and car and to nowhere else that they were tested on is around half a million to one.

So there has to be something related to the McCanns to explain this and I can't see it being rotten meat, sea bass or dirty nappies.[/quote

Yes, I thought that... ok, you can say "There's a first time for everything", but to be wrong in both the apartment, and the hire car????]

I haven't said the dogs were wrong anywhere. Just that to interpret the result in the car as cadaver odour is wrong as there is no actual evidence of the alert having been to that, just the possibility that Grime refers to.

It is not the dogs I am worried about but how people are interpreting the reports about the dogs.

bobbin wrote:

candyfloss wrote:It is also why the Zapata case was sited by the McCanns, turned out the dogs were right though.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1474-mccanns-zapata-and-cadaver-dogs-revisited

Thank you candyfloss, this is the one I call the "Gerry McCann home goal". I couldn't remember which investigation case it was.

candyfloss wrote:Google is your friend Swizzlestick, have a look plenty out there, also on here if you put in Eddie, Keela or dogs in search at top of page. They have been discussed here many times.

candyfloss wrote:I think Eddie is mainly used to detect cadavers, but as a back up alerts to blood as well, This way Mr Grime is able to get more out of his dog. But the difference is Eddie is the cadaver dog, and Keela the blood dog. I would presume that if keela freezes at blood then so would Eddie. Eddie has a different alert for cadaver scent barking. I found this in MG's profile

P Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.RD. system of alert. He has

been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead

body scent'. The presence of tangible material is not required to produce the

response.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm



Note he does not say blood.


I would expect, that if Eddie, went out on a case purely to find blood, then he would act the same way as Keela, i.e. sniff, nose down, and freeze in one spot. If both dogs used then I expect the police are looking for cadaver scent and blood. One barks one freezes.

Otherwise what would be the point. Why would you train one dog one way to find blood, and another dog the other way. That is how I would think the investigation came to the conclusion it was cadaver scent.

Doh, I know what I mean anyway

candyfloss wrote:I think Eddie is mainly used to detect cadavers, but as a back up alerts to blood as well, This way Mr Grime is able to get more out of his dog. But the difference is Eddie is the cadaver dog, and Keela the blood dog. I would presume that if keela freezes at blood then so would Eddie. Eddie has a different alert for cadaver scent barking. I found this in MG's profile

P Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.RD. system of alert. He has

been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead

body scent'. The presence of tangible material is not required to produce the

response.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm



Note he does not say blood.


I would expect, that if Eddie, went out on a case purely to find blood, then he would act the same way as Keela, i.e. sniff, nose down, and freeze in one spot. If both dogs used then I expect the police are looking for cadaver scent and blood. One barks one freezes.

Otherwise what would be the point. Why would you train one dog one way to find blood, and another dog the other way. That is how I would think the investigation came to the conclusion it was cadaver scent.

Doh, I know what I mean anyway

candyfloss wrote:I think Eddie is mainly used to detect cadavers, but as a back up alerts to blood as well, This way Mr Grime is able to get more out of his dog. But the difference is Eddie is the cadaver dog, and Keela the blood dog. I would presume that if keela freezes at blood then so would Eddie. Eddie has a different alert for cadaver scent barking. I found this in MG's profile

P Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.RD. system of alert. He has

been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead

body scent'. The presence of tangible material is not required to produce the

response.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm



Note he does not say blood.


I would expect, that if Eddie, went out on a case purely to find blood, then he would act the same way as Keela, i.e. sniff, nose down, and freeze in one spot. If both dogs used then I expect the police are looking for cadaver scent and blood. One barks one freezes.

Otherwise what would be the point. Why would you train one dog one way to find blood, and another dog the other way. That is how I would think the investigation came to the conclusion it was cadaver scent.

Doh, I know what I mean anyway

bobbin wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I think Eddie is mainly used to detect cadavers, but as a back up alerts to blood as well, This way Mr Grime is able to get more out of his dog. But the difference is Eddie is the cadaver dog, and Keela the blood dog. I would presume that if keela freezes at blood then so would Eddie. Eddie has a different alert for cadaver scent barking. I found this in MG's profile

P Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.RD. system of alert. He has

been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead

body scent'. The presence of tangible material is not required to produce the

response.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm



Note he does not say blood.


I would expect, that if Eddie, went out on a case purely to find blood, then he would act the same way as Keela, i.e. sniff, nose down, and freeze in one spot. If both dogs used then I expect the police are looking for cadaver scent and blood. One barks one freezes.

Otherwise what would be the point. Why would you train one dog one way to find blood, and another dog the other way. That is how I would think the investigation came to the conclusion it was cadaver scent.

Doh, I know what I mean anyway

snipped "He has been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead

body scent'. The presence of tangible material is not required to produce the response." snipped.

That is very interesting indeed.
He 'barks' if he finds cadaver smell. Fascinating.
Perhaps this is why Martin Grime and the police came out with the idea that they should search for signs of cadaver in the boot of the hired car.
Now another thought I have been chewing over.
I had been wondering why the dogs seem to go backwards and forwards, time after time, before settling or barking.
Initially it looks as though they are uncertain, but then I thought, the dog has some ? 2,000 olfactory nerve cells? (please can someone correct me) and can smell masses and masses of different smells, compared with us humans and our limited human cells.
Now I think I understand, if dogs have that many smells to identify and sort out, no wonder they would need to keep going back and forth, to be sure that they had really sifted out the one they are searching for.

bobbin wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I think Eddie is mainly used to detect cadavers, but as a back up alerts to blood as well, This way Mr Grime is able to get more out of his dog. But the difference is Eddie is the cadaver dog, and Keela the blood dog. I would presume that if keela freezes at blood then so would Eddie. Eddie has a different alert for cadaver scent barking. I found this in MG's profile

P Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.RD. system of alert. He has

been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead

body scent'. The presence of tangible material is not required to produce the

response.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm



Note he does not say blood.


I would expect, that if Eddie, went out on a case purely to find blood, then he would act the same way as Keela, i.e. sniff, nose down, and freeze in one spot. If both dogs used then I expect the police are looking for cadaver scent and blood. One barks one freezes.

Otherwise what would be the point. Why would you train one dog one way to find blood, and another dog the other way. That is how I would think the investigation came to the conclusion it was cadaver scent.

Doh, I know what I mean anyway

snipped "He has been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead

body scent'. The presence of tangible material is not required to produce the response." snipped.

That is very interesting indeed.
He 'barks' if he finds cadaver smell. Fascinating.
Perhaps this is why Martin Grime and the police came out with the idea that they should search for signs of cadaver in the boot of the hired car.
Now another thought I have been chewing over.
I had been wondering why the dogs seem to go backwards and forwards, time after time, before settling or barking.
Initially it looks as though they are uncertain, but then I thought, the dog has some ? 2,000 olfactory nerve cells? (please can someone correct me) and can smell masses and masses of different smells, compared with us humans and our limited human cells.
Now I think I understand, if dogs have that many smells to identify and sort out, no wonder they would need to keep going back and forth, to be sure that they had really sifted out the one they are searching for.