"Does Eddie play tricks, Mr Grimes?"

I kid you not. This was a question seriously put to Martin Grimes during the Leicestershire interviews. Or was it seriously put? Beyond doubt it was put. Here it is:

Question�Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog?�


Grimes' Response: The dogs were not taught any �tricks�. EVRD �signalled� the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

It's worth pondering that. Whoever formulated the question will have known far in advance of it ever being put to Grimes what his answer would be. Grimes' credibility, and that of his dog, would have been down the pan in an instant, and both would have been a laughing stock, had he replied: Quite possibly. My dogs do play tricks.

Surely we can discount that this 'question' had anything to do with a serious attempt to elicit information. So what could the intention of putting it have been? Perhaps to communicate something in coded or cryptic form? Something like, there were tricks, Mr Grimes, but we believe your dog was the victim of them.

Just a thought.

I am sorry, every dog plays tricks, no need to teach them. Pick up 'things' to play with is a very common 'activity' among dogs. And didn't Eddie pick up a t-shirt in the car park just to play with it? Playing tricks is the expression of happiness of any dog.

Well, maybe I'll expand my thoughts a bit. As you some of you will know, this whole business of Eddie picking things up in his mouth has never struck me as right.

Yes, though not a dog owner, I'm sure you're right, Maria, that dogs do play tricks, but not highly trained dogs, and especially not when working. How odd, then, that Eddie should have devoted his attention to the toy, but without barking. How odd that, when perusing the assembly of cars, he should have galloped up and down as we all witnessed him doing on the video without taking the slightest interest in any other car, but a slight interest (detected by Grimes from the dog's body language) in the Renault Scenic, to which he eventually alerted.

As Grimes himself says, Eddie detects a scent he recognises and is trained to alert to and alerts, or he doesn't. But in Priais da Luz, Eddie didn't -- and Eddie even picked things up in his mouth.

Now, a word about pseudo-scents. From a link I've read elsewhere, it says that dogs trained on actual cadaver scents (as Eddie has been) will not respond to pseudoscents. Apparently, the cadaver 'scent' actually has a spectrum of variants in type of scent, and isn't a single, unique, smell. The problem with pseudo scents is that it is too fixed and invariable to replecate to the olfactory senses of a dog used to the 'real thing' to prompt a response. As we saw, Eddie didn't react to 'cuddle cat' until it was hidden. But he certainly paid attention to it before then. Was he confused?

The question I'd have liked to put Mr Grimes is whether, in his experience, he had ever seen Eddie react as he did at PdL (and especially in picking up items in his mouth) on any other active investigation.

Pedro

there is no evidence that Madeleine's DNA was in the car at all, not even by transferrence. The FSS report said that it could not be determined.

Remember that there are two types of DNA tested.

1. Mitochondrial - which is passed from the mother and all children of the mother have the same MDNA. So as Kate and Sean and Amelie were in the car, then clearly the MDNA would be there. This MDNA while matching Madeleine also matches the other three who are known to have been in the car, as well as all their possessions. So common sense says it is their MDNA not Madeleine's.

2. Nuclear DNA, which is the one that identifies individuals and is unique. The only sample taken was a combination of 3 different people's DNA to which Madeleine's DNA had a 80%(forgive me if I have that wrong because this is from memory). Now while you might think that indicates something, it doesnt. This is where statistics comes into play. It isnt possible to separate the 3 different DNA profiles, which means that there are markers that are represented by multiple people, meaning that statistically it is likely that chance match will occur. In fact the FSS said that half the staff at the FSS had a similar match to Madeleine, including the author of the report. It could be that there was a 100% match with one of the DNA profiles, and few matches with the others, OR a 50% match with all 3, which resulted in the overall 80%. Now once again common sense comes into play, concerning the time since assumed death and the level of decomposition which would have left considerable DNA residue, the likelihood of the child's body being inthe car being that there is no other evidence of her still being around, and the statistical commonness of the matching for the sample. It is extremely unlikely that there is even a match to Madeleine at all. There is also the possibiity that one of her parents DNA is included in the mixed DNA profile, or perhaps both, which would make the 80% match even more understandable, and this cannot be identified. Madeleine's body (if a body even exists) was never in that car.

3. Transferrence would only be a reasonable option if in fact there was any proof that Madeleine's DNA was even in the car. As it stands, the forensics is unable to determine that she was, so there is no need to even mention transferrence of DNA.

Cheers

Pedro

I think it is important to recognise that it is most likely that Madeleine's DNA was never in the car at all. Talking of transferrence indicates the Madeleine's DNA was in the car, but there is no evidence AT ALL that it was. No offence was intended to you, as I know that you have read all the threads on this and previously commented.

The dogs indications are not backed by any forensics at all. And as has been previously discussed there are many different reasons why this could be the case, including the dog having a bit of fun, and confusion as it seeks to please its master

HB makes a good point here. Why was that question asked? IMO it was because the interviewer already had done his/her research and was aware that the dogs will 'play tricks' or have fun might be a better description, if there is nothing there to find. I doubt very much that a dog will play tricks in the presence of cadaverine, as their training would take over. But if there is nothing there, then surely the dog's natural instincts including to play will take over. The interviewer was IMO indicating to Grimes that Eddie playing with Cuddle Cat was a sign of the fallibility of the dog.

And Grimes, he should have answered truthfully. I would have more respect for him if he admitted that in the absence of anything for the dog to indicate to, they are just dogs. His job was to find evidence of Madeleine's death, IF IT EXISTED, not to ensure that evidence was found. After all, when Madeleine is found alive, he is going to look like a wally.

Pedro, just saw your last post. While I dont know if Madeleine is still alive (I feel that she is but of course have nothing but my hope and gut feelings to go by), I would bet my last dollar that she didnt die in the apartment, or anywhere close by, and that she was never in the car. Therefore the so called indications of the dogs are just false positives. So like you, I am content to follow the McCanns in the belief that Madeleine is still alive.