Dr. Roberts - Brought to Book

by bristow 17.12.13 23:06

Exclusive to McCann Files
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

By Dr Martin Roberts
17 December 2013

BROUGHT TO BOOK

As regards the question of whether the McCanns did or did not see fit to promote the Smith sighting to a wider public all those years ago, it has recently been claimed that Kate McCann has since devoted half a dozen pages (of her book madeleine) to the 'Smith sighting'.

Did she by Jove?

Instances of the name 'Smith' contained within the book sum to zero. It does not even feature in the Index.

There is however an entry which reads: Irish family, see man carrying child on Rua da Escola Primária 98, 328–9, 365.

That appears to be four pages where the topic is mentioned (not 'devoted to'), not six, and the last reference is an error in any case (the Smith sighting per se is not referred to). The total coverage amounts to little more than a page.

Well what else should one expect from the semi-literate? Mind you, some of what is said on those very pages is, without question, extraordinary.

"Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts." (p. 328)

Which parts might they be – Adult male carrying young girl? What about the man's short versus long hair, travelling West versus East, or holding a seemingly dormant child wearing a long-sleeved top vertically, as opposed to cradling one in short-sleeves horizontally? Do such details not matter then?

Heaven protect all NHS surgical patients from the anaesthetist capable of confusing Oxygen with Nitrous Oxide, both gases
being administered from canisters almost identical in parts (size, shape, valves and metal – colour and labelling don't count).

"Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don't think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically?" (p. 328-9)

How right you are. Assumptions really are the most dangerous of things. Had you but waited a further two years this very question could have been avoided altogether, as we now know that a father has come forward to identify himself and his daughter – We have been told so by none other than DCI Redwood of the Metropolitan Police.

No less extraordinary than these confused observations are equally confused observations occurring elsewhere within the same tome.
"The most critical question relating to the use of the dog alerts as evidence is how likely is the dog's alert to be correct. In this regard, the only testing of these handler and dog teams recorded an abysmal performance. Here 'the basis' for the possible past presence of human remains is that there is a 20 or 40 per cent chance that a dog's 'alert' was correct. In other words, with respect to residual odour, the dog-handler teams performed significantly worse than if the handlers had simply flipped a coin to speculate as to the presence of residual odour at each location.

State of Wisconsin v. Zapata, 2006 CF 1996 – defendant supplemental memorandum

"These tests, it should be noted, were performed within twelve hours of body parts being removed from the testing area. Just imagine much how worse the results would be after three months.

"Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals given by them to lead a dog where the handler suspects evidence to be located. We are mindful that less than scrupulously neutral procedures which create at least the possibility of unconscious 'cueing' may well jeopardize the reliability of dog sniffs."

United States v. Trayer, 898 F. 2d 805.809 (CADC 1990)

Sounds impressive, but let's take a closer look.

"The most critical question relating to the use of the dog alerts as evidence is how likely is the dog's alert to be correct".

Agreed, but….

"In this regard, the only testing of these handler and dog teams recorded an abysmal performance".

I'm sorry, which handler and dog teams were these?

"...with respect to residual odour, the dog-handler teams performed significantly worse than if the handlers had simply flipped a coin to speculate as to the presence of residual odour at each location".

Oh, I see. The dog-handler teams trained, managed and tested in the U.S.A. Not the British dogs employed by Martin Grime then.

Isn't that rather like saying the fuel consumption figures announced for your small diesel engine car cannot be considered valid, on account of the neighbours' 2-litre Mercedes (another car) not meeting them?

"These tests, it should be noted, were performed within twelve hours of body parts being removed from the testing area. Just imagine much how worse the results would be after three months".

Why should we imagine that results for odour detection, in relation to residues proven to be detectable after weeks if not months, even in the USA, be worse in this instance? This is unjustified special pleading. Never mind. Another quote from American case law should straighten things out.

"Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals given by them to lead a dog where the handler suspects evidence to be located. We are mindful that less than scrupulously neutral procedures which create at least the possibility of unconscious 'cueing' may well jeopardize the reliability of dog sniffs."

Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. Errare humanum est then. Dogs rule, o.k9.

"A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals".

In exceptional circumstances 'a false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals'. It can only be in exceptional circumstances, since it has just been determined that almost all errors are attributable to misinterpretation by the handler(s). That something can occur is no guarantee that it will, making the incidence of misdirection in this context even more unlikely. But this explanatory context still cannot be taken to subsume Mr Grime's Spaniels, as they were not among the subjects tested, nor even referred to.

One very basic piece of advice, given to exam candidates since the dawn of the GCE 'O' level, is to 'answer the question on the page, not the one that springs to mind'. How on earth Kate McCann ever qualified as a doctor is, on this basis, rather hard to imagine.

by ultimaThule 18.12.13 0:39

One very basic piece of advice, given to exam candidates since the dawn of the GCE 'O' level, is to 'answer the question on the page, not the one that springs to mind'. How on earth Kate McCann ever qualified as a doctor is, on this basis, rather hard to imagine.

This may go some way to explaining why, after leaving med school, KM failed to achieve any additional qualifications in either her first choice of gynaecology or her subsequent studies in anethestiology.

by watendlath 18.12.13 8:48

"Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don't think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically?" (madeleine p. 328-9)

You would not expect an abductor to behave normally and logically in the way that ordinary people do.
Nevertheless, you would expect his behaviour to be normal and logical for an abductor.
Abducting a child and then keeping her in the vicinity of where he abducted her from for nearly an hour is not normal, logical behaviour for an abductor...taking her to a nearby parked car and driving out of town is.

Also, I wonder if Kate would have made the same effort to discredit the dogs had they alerted in Robert Murat's house rather than in 5a.

by **PeterMac** 18.12.13 8:50

He has also, sadly totally missed the opportunity to make the observation - that the Zapata quote was defence submission at first instance.
It is NOT therefore case law, just a highly biased bit of reporting that Zapata's lawyer was trying to get the court to accept.
The FACT is that Zapata changed his plea before the second trial to GUILTY,
AND confirmed that the dogs had been correct in identifying every place where he had hidden his wife's body over the previous 29 YEARS.
every one was absolutely accurate.

by SchrodingersBody 18.12.13 9:27

bristow wrote:

"Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don't think I need to.

I know everybody is different, but to say you don't think you need answers to something which "could" be fundamental to the return of your daughter is not right. Obviously there comes a point where you stop trying to account for the movements of people, but these are the 2 closest leads in terms of time and location. And she doesn't feel like she has to resolve them somehow, It suggests either you don't care about Madeleine, you've given up the fight to find her, or that you know thinking about these answers is actually a waste of time, but you cant say that can you, so you come up with some half cocked "I don't think I need to" excuse so you don't have to portray a caring image anymore. You're resetting expectation of what your behaviour should be, then you can behave more normally and hope people forget.

Personally if I was clever enough to become a Doctor, i'd fancy my chances of being clever enough to have been a policeman as well, so I would be trying to crack the case for them, after all as the parent of the missing child, you should have more motivation than most to solve it. Also taking action to try and get her back would help absolve the guilt of leaving her alone.The only help they give police seems to be when it helps them.

I chose my username because technically that is exactly what we have, until we find Madeleine and are able to observe her, we don't know whether she is alive or dead, as with schrodingers cat, she's both states at once. Whilst we can't look inside the Madeleine box to resolve the situation, as with many boxes this time of year, it's been rattled shaken and such like. It's made no noise, and of course it's a little smelly.

In other words, with respect to residual odour, the dog-handler teams performed significantly worse than if the handlers had simply flipped a coin to speculate as to the presence of residual odour at each location.

Significantly worse than a coin flip is not an appropriate measure, it all depends on how you test the dog. Though of course you need to think about it to realise this, and like most things they say, they are plausible enough at first glance to pass straight into most casual observers thoughts as the truth.

by Hopespringseternal 18.12.13 9:43

I've not had experience of cadaver or blood detection dogs, but I have with drugs dogs. Folk would mock if the dogs indicated but nothing was found until we pointed out that the dog could indicate if drugs HAD BEEN there AND if they were CURRENTLY present. It then dawned on them that the jacket the dog was indicating on was the one they'd been wearing when using/in the presence of drug users (and not just from that day or the day before).
I have the utmost trust in detector dogs and their ability and love watching a good team in action. Those who decry them tend to have never seen their training, fail to understand that they are VERY highly trained and tested, or are in denial because of something they have been involved in which has been identified by a cold wet nose!

by SchrodingersBody 18.12.13 10:02

The senstive area in a humans nose is about the size of a postage stamp, a dogs is the size of a tea towel. The dogs are what for many, indicates the irrefutable evidence that the parents know more than they are saying.

by jeanmonroe 18.12.13 10:12

Read it and weep.
http://news.sky.com/story/1090310/police-missed-tia-sharps-body-twice-in-loft

Later, a search dog was brought to the house in New Addington, south London, and indicated that there was something above one of the bedrooms, but the animal was too large to take into the loft.

On August 10 a detective noticed the smell of decomposition in the house, which Ms Sharp mistakenly thought was cat faeces.

Another dog also indicated that something might be in the loft of the house and Tia's body was then found, wrapped in a sheet and bin bags and sealed with Sellotape.
............................................................................................................

How 'unreliable' are these dogs., Gerry?

BOTH dogs 'indicated'

HUMAN coppers 'ignored'

Looks, to me, like it is the human 'noses' that are the only ones that are 'unreliable'!

by whatliesbehindthesofa 18.12.13 10:16

Thankyou Dr Roberts, I can't help but notice the similarity in what you have written and a post I wrote about a week ago on this very forum. Granted, you have gone into much more detail than I big grin

by Bishop Brennan 18.12.13 12:12

Hello. Does nobody else find it highly unusual / suspicious for Kate to talk about the dogs and their "reliability" at all ? If you are innocent, then there is not the slightest need to try and discredit a sniffer dog. Far less to go and do detailed research and quote specific court transcripts.

If you are innocent, then you may be confused at what the dogs are finding. But you know for 100% certainty that it doesn't matter. It cannot under any circumstances be anything to worry about. You most certainly wouldn't try and diss the dogs...!!! They are DOGS...!!!! You might express confusion. You might express real concern that it wasn't your daughter they had sniffed.

But as with all the McCann reactions, there is something not quite right. So many of their reactions could "on one reading of the evidence" point to a deep inner guilt that unconsciously leaks into all their responses and writing.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 18.12.13 12:21

Bishop Brennan wrote:Hello. Does nobody else find it highly unusual / suspicious for Kate to talk about the dogs and their "reliability" at all ? If you are innocent, then there is not the slightest need to try and discredit a sniffer dog. Far less to go and do detailed research and quote specific court transcripts.

If you are innocent, then you may be confused at what the dogs are finding. But you know for 100% certainty that it doesn't matter. It cannot under any circumstances be anything to worry about. You most certainly wouldn't try and diss the dogs...!!! They are DOGS...!!!! You might express confusion. You might express real concern that it wasn't your daughter they had sniffed.

But as with all the McCann reactions, there is something not quite right. So many of their reactions could "on one reading of the evidence" point to a deep inner guilt that unconsciously leaks into all their responses and writing.

Quite right, this goes back all the way to the arguido statements when Gerry had the attitude 'You've got nothing!'. Kate says in her book she was relieved when she saw the dogs video because it 'wasn't what you would call an exact science'. I find it very surprising that she revealed these feelings. Why was she relieved? What kind of 'exact science' was she expecting, so that she felt relief when it was something else? They strongly indicate guilt. An innocent person would likely be bereft at the thought that the 'abductor' might have killed their daughter and then removed her. An innocent person has no reason to 'diss' the dogs :) An innocent person would have no fear of an 'exact science', because an 'exact science' can only reveal the truth.

by jeanmonroe 18.12.13 12:24

Bishop Brennan wrote:

"You might express confusion. You might express real concern that it wasn't your daughter they had sniffed."
..............................................................................................................

You'd definitely express concern if a cadavar dog 'alerted' in you apartment where your child went missing from!

You'd do all the 'research' possible to find out who it was that actually met their demise in your apartment!

Wouldn't you?

by Mirage 18.12.13 12:40

jeanmonroe wrote:Bishop Brennan wrote:

"You might express confusion. You might express real concern that it wasn't your daughter they had sniffed."
..............................................................................................................

You'd definitely express concern if a cadavar dog 'alerted' in you apartment where your child went missing from!

You'd do all the 'research' possible to find out who it was that actually met their demise in your apartment!

Wouldn't you?

Damned right. Anybody would do it. If it were me and my child, I would pick up the phone and speak to the owner of that apartment pronto and ask her directly if she knew of a death. If she didn't, I would ask for the name and contact details of previous owners and work my way through. It would be a compulsion and neither hell nor high water would stop me. I certainly wouldn't be sitting in a Spanish TV studio having a hissy fit about the findings of two dogs and ripping off my microphone. And I keep asking the question, why did Justine McGuinness try to calm GM down that day by telling him: "Just stick to the official line, Gerry."

I would like to know from Justine McGuinness just what she meant by "stick to the official line". What line would that be I wonder, in the case of a missing child on holiday in a common or garden holiday resort?

Is there an official line when people fall off balconies abroad, for instance. Do prime ministers routinely place personal calls to relatives; do ambassadors roll up and lambast police when someone gets drunk and negligent and meets with an accident or disappears in the sea?

by Bishop Brennan 18.12.13 12:43

jeanmonroe wrote:Bishop Brennan wrote:

"You might express confusion. You might express real concern that it wasn't your daughter they had sniffed."
..............................................................................................................

You'd definitely express concern if a cadavar dog 'alerted' in you apartment where your child went missing from!
You'd do all the 'research' possible to find out who it was that actually met their demise in your apartment!
Wouldn't you?

Who can know for sure. But I suspect you would simply (and correctly) assume it must have been something that happened in the past and therefore was not the least bit relevant to the disappearance of your daughter.

You might even ask if there had been an incident in the past. But you would most certainly not start researching court cases to try and find evidence for a dog's unreliability!!

by Guest 18.12.13 13:00

I'd like to see details of the report, with which the defense tried to ditch the dogs in the Zapata-case. No-one is infallable; dogs do get it wrong sometimes too. But then, when you look at statistics of professionally conducted tests, you'll see that those wrongs tend to be 'false NEGATIVES". A thoroughly trained and tested dog does NOT do "false POSITIVES".

by **PeterMac** 18.12.13 13:08

Academic Papers

16 Cadaver dogs– a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.
Abstract
Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI<3h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).
RESULTS:
The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).
"Cadaver dogs– a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares." Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.
Forensic Sci Int. 2008 Jan 15;174(1):35-9

17 Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern United States
Abstract
The detection of human remains that have been deliberately buried to escape detection is a problem for law enforcement. Sometimes the cadaver dog and handler teams are successful, while other times law enforcement and cadaver dog teams are frustrated in their search. Five field trials tested the ability of four cadaver dog and handler teams to detect buried human remains. Human and animal remains were buried in various forested areas during the summer months near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The remains ranged in decomposition from fresh to skeletonized. Cadaver dogs detected with varying success: buried human remains at different stages of decomposition, buried human remains at different depths, and buried decomposed human and animal remains. The results from these trials showed that some cadaver dogs were able to locate skeletonized remains buried at a significant depth. Fresh and skeletonized remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains.
Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern United States.
Lasseter AE, Jacobi KP, Farley R, Hensel L.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487- 0210, USA.
J Forensic Sci. 2003 May;48(3):617-21.

18 The use of cadaver dogs in locating scattered, scavenged human remains: preliminary field test results.
Abstract
Specially trained air scent detection canines (Canis familiaris) are commonly used by law enforcement to detect narcotics, explosives or contraband, and by fire investigators to detect the presence of accelerants. Dogs are also used by police, military, and civilian groups to locate lost or missing persons, as well as victims of natural or mass disasters. A further subspecialty is "cadaver" searching, or the use of canines to locate buried or concealed human remains. Recent forensic investigations in central Alberta demonstrated that the use of cadaver dogs could be expanded to include locating partial, scattered human remains dispersed by repeated animal scavenging. Eight dog-and-handler teams participated in a two-month training program using human and animal remains in various stages of decay as scent sources. Ten blind field tests were then conducted which simulated actual search conditions. Recovery rates ranged between 57% and 100%, indicating that properly trained cadaver dogs can make significant contributions in the location and recovery of scattered human remains.
The use of cadaver dogs in locating scattered, scavenged human remains: preliminary field test results.
Komar D.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
J Forensic Sci. 1999 Mar;44(2):405-8.

All on the internet, along with much more.

Trolls to take note.
DOGS
DOGS
DOGS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LJo9fGXQMI
Interview with Sandra Felgueiras,
recorded 3 Nov. 2009, broadcast 5 Nov. 2009

5:39 GM “I can tell you that we’ve also looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they’re incredibly unreliable”.
SF “Unreliable ?
GM: “Cadaver dogs, Yes”

That puts the matter straight, then !

by jeanmonroe 18.12.13 13:09

Bishop Brennan: wrote

"Who can know for sure. But I suspect you would simply (and correctly) assume it must have been something that happened in the past and therefore was not the least bit relevant to the disappearance of your daughter".
..............................................................

Surely you mean't

"But I suspect you would NOT simply (~~and correctly~~) assume it must have been something that happened in the past and therefore was not the least bit relevant to the disappearance of your daughter"

If a cadavar dog 'alerted' in the apartment my child 'disappeared' from i would be screaming 'NO,NO,NO not her, please God NOT her'!

I would not screaming 'DISS THE DOGS'!

by Bishop Brennan 18.12.13 13:13

jeanmonroe wrote:

If a cadavar dog 'alerted' in the apartment my child 'disappeared' from i would be screaming 'NO,NO,NO not her, please God NOT her'!

I would not screaming 'DISS THE DOGS'!

I am certain that would be my (and everyone's) first reaction also.

by jeanmonroe 18.12.13 13:43

Bishop Brennan wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:

If a cadavar dog 'alerted' in the apartment my child 'disappeared' from i would be screaming 'NO,NO,NO not her, please God NOT her'!

I would not screaming 'DISS THE DOGS'!

I am certain that would be my (and everyone's) first reaction also.

But NOT if you are a 'doctor' apparently!
.............................................................................................................................
Assistant Chief Constable for Leicestershire police: “While one or both of the McCanns may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”....

by aiyoyo 18.12.13 14:48

ultimaThule wrote:One very basic piece of advice, given to exam candidates since the dawn of the GCE 'O' level, is to 'answer the question on the page, not the one that springs to mind'. How on earth Kate McCann ever qualified as a doctor is, on this basis, rather hard to imagine.

This may go some way to explaining why, after leaving med school, KM failed to achieve any additional qualifications in either her first choice of gynaecology or her subsequent studies in anethestiology.

Achieve additional qualifications???
She didn't even dare put her qualification to practical use!
She was a part-time GP who examined corpses for issuance of death certificate purpose.

She must have got lucky with MCQ questions when she passed her exam.

by aiyoyo 18.12.13 14:57

PeterMac wrote:He has also, sadly totally missed the opportunity to make the observation - that the Zapata quote was defence submission at first instance.
It is NOT therefore case law, just a highly biased bit of reporting that Zapata's lawyer was trying to get the court to accept.
The FACT is that Zapata changed his plea before the second trial to GUILTY,
AND confirmed that the dogs had been correct in identifying every place where he had hidden his wife's body over the previous 29 YEARS.
every one was absolutely accurate.

Making it even more ludicrous that Kate had included Zapata case in her bewk.

Was she unaware Zapata confessed the dogs were correct, or was she so brazen believing readers are just a bunch of stupid idiots who would take her words at face value?

by jeanmonroe 18.12.13 15:10

aiyoyo wrote:

"..........or was she so brazen believing readers are just a bunch of stupid idiots who would take her words at face value"?
...........................................................................................................

Well, she obviously believes that SY/Met, politicians, the complete UK press and madia, are STOOPID idiots to take her words at face value!

She's the only one to shout 'abduction'

THEY all 'believe' her, NO questions asked!

by russiandoll 18.12.13 15:47

jean I think some believe her and others just act as if they believe her.

by Beanie 18.12.13 21:32

Bishop Brennan wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:

If a cadavar dog 'alerted' in the apartment my child 'disappeared' from i would be screaming 'NO,NO,NO not her, please God NOT her'!

I would not screaming 'DISS THE DOGS'!

I am certain that would be my (and everyone's) first reaction also.

Absolutely 100% yes

by lj 19.12.13 16:11

jeanmonroe wrote:aiyoyo wrote:

"..........or was she so brazen believing readers are just a bunch of stupid idiots who would take her words at face value"?
...........................................................................................................

Well, she obviously believes that SY/Met, politicians, the complete UK press and madia, are STOOPID idiots to take her words at face value!

She's the only one to shout 'abduction'

THEY all 'believe' her, NO questions asked!

Brazen?

delusional I would say.

look at Gerry's comment:

GM “I can tell you that we’ve also looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they’re incredibly unreliable”.

As if his opinion is worth anything. But they believe it is, and so do their followers.
Sick the whole bunch.