Re: Something very wrong here

by dianeh Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:06 am

Playing devil's advocate here, but the video could have been made just to help the police later on when looking at the evidence. That is it was done for internal purposes only. And was then edited for release, which is where the question of 'WHY???' was it edited the way it was, as it was no longer useful to the investigators.

by Peaceful1 Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:59 am

I only ever watched that video once and the first thing I noticed was that the car had moved position.
I also thought that the dog was not one bit interested in the car, more like Grimes himself was. IMHO it was he who stood at the car almost begging the dog to come back.
I have always thought this.
All I can say is Bennett and his muppets have a lot of backtracking and apologising to do.

by Peaceful1 Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:03 am

dianeh wrote:Playing devil's advocate here, but the video could have been made just to help the police later on when looking at the evidence. That is it was done for internal purposes only. And was then edited for release, which is where the question of 'WHY???' was it edited the way it was, as it was no longer useful to the investigators.

Dianeh IMO someone has set the McCanns up.
Who? Why? Dunno.
But someone has, and that someone will know who took Madeleine and where she is today IMO.
That same someone wanted the world to believe she is dead and to stop looking for her.
Sadly some prick by the name of TB and his sheepies all fell for the same lies and have hampered the investigation into finding Madeleine. For that I hope they pay and pay dearly.

by dianeh Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:27 pm

It seems we now have some explanation for one of the videos. It was done by Grimes as a promotional video, and was presented to Harper in Jersey (see todays article on the other thread). This may explain why the dogs appear to be led, posters disappeared etc etc.

But there is more than one edited version of the tape (possibly 2 different source tapes as I read on PFA2 that in one video you can see someone else filming), so this doesnt explain the different versions, and all versions appear a bit suspect. But like I said, the original videos may have been taken in good faith, and then later edited to serve a purpose, such as with the promotional video.

It is this later editing, and then the release of the videos (which were not part of the files were they???), that I find suspicious and outright appalling.

Peaceful1, I agree with you, someone has tried to set up the McCanns, and that someone knows what happened to her.

by maria Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:58 pm

It is an Amaral normal pratice to make videos of critical 'turning points' on his investigations. In Joana's case, a video was done where João, the uncle, in a very detailed way, explains how he dismembered his niece and put the different parts into garbage bags and in the freezer.

We know that THIS dismembering is false, and that the body hardly fitted in that frezzer, even João was astonished when this was pointed out to him.

The video was made to scare Leonor and lead her to confess.

Now, this confession is valid in court, as I said somewhere else ONLY if the accused repeats it in front of the court. The law is clear. Leonor did not repeat , actually did not speak at all, and there were NO other evidences. The prosecution tried, and succeeded, to show the video to the court. A VIDEO IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PROOF. But it certainly can influence a court jury, even a trained judge. And the public opinion, let's not forget it.

He made this video exactly with the same intention. Remember, he showed the video to Gerry, who was said to be 'gobsmacked'. Well, everyone would be gobsmacked by all the manipulation already identified here.

by Tinkerbell43 Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:12 am

Not sure how any of this works, but I would have thought Grimes was working under the directive of the PJ. Did you note when watching the video, Eddie is actually called back to the Scenic just after someone mumbles something. It sounded to me as if someone was giving Grimes an instruction.

Maybe they didn't like the fact that Eddie was more interested in the wall and the next car along. After all, Eddie actually barked at that point without being prompted!

I am also shocked that Grimes used this video as a promotional tool. Says it all!

by bluj1515 Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:02 am

Wow, Maria, I think you hit the nail on the head. That explains why there were two video cameras - one for the PJ and one for Grimes. And it explains how Levy got his hands on it.

Great to know - thanks. I am going to post the information on PFA2

by bluj1515 Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:05 am

How was the video admitted if it can't be used as evidence?

What was it admitted to show instead?

by maria Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:14 pm

Chris
Â
Leonor's process is full of 'how coulds', it is not only the physical torture. The prosecution was warned, but they showed it anyway. The judge then told the two jurors that they should ignore what they all had seen... And that was it. Also, the court admitted the written confessions without verbal confession, the looney Joana's face 'imprints' as proof that she was thrown against the wall 'that day', that the fact that NO residues of Joana's blood was proof that they were wiped out 'carefully', that the unidentified blood on the rear of the freezer drawer 'could be' human, etc. Oh yes, there are many many reasons why this judge should be brought to face justice along with Amaral and the prosecutor assigned to the case (and whose name I can't recall). If it only could be possible...

by vee8 Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:16 am

Someone on PFA has googled a lot of posts from the 3a's by a poster called 'Poacher.' They make for very intersting reading, and he wasn't much welcomed on there. I can copy them up here, if no one has any objections? There is a lot though.

by Catkins Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:39 am

Grimes gets more suss Vee...........I bloody object strongly to him using Madeleine as a promotional tool....... Something very wrong here - Page 2 356737

by Pedro Silva Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:06 am

I agree with you Catkins, I too object strongly to him using Madeleine as a promotional too.

by dianeh Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:56 am

bluj1515 wrote:How was the video admitted if it can't be used as evidence?

What was it admitted to show instead?

Bluj

I wondered the same thing myself. How could the video been shown in court, if it was not evidence? Even if this was for a judge only trial (as they have in Portugal), it would still have an influence. The mind boggles.

And Vee, I also read the Poacher thread, and i made for interesting reading. Please bring it over, but can it have its own thread. Caution needed though. Anyone can pretend to be anything they want on the internet. This Poacher makes certain claims that cannot be substantiated, although, it appears that nothing he/she said has been proven untrue yet.

by vee8 Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:05 am

dianeh wrote:
bluj1515 wrote:How was the video admitted if it can't be used as evidence?

What was it admitted to show instead?

Bluj

I wondered the same thing myself. How could the video been shown in court, if it was not evidence? Even if this was for a judge only trial (as they have in Portugal), it would still have an influence. The mind boggles.

And Vee, I also read the Poacher thread, and i made for interesting reading. Please bring it over, but can it have its own thread. Caution needed though. Anyone can pretend to be anything they want on the internet. This Poacher makes certain claims that cannot be substantiated, although, it appears that nothing he/she said has been proven untrue yet.

OK, I'll do it tomorrow.

by bluj1515 Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:52 pm

dianeh wrote:
bluj1515 wrote:How was the video admitted if it can't be used as evidence?

What was it admitted to show instead?

Bluj

I wondered the same thing myself. How could the video been shown in court, if it was not evidence? Even if this was for a judge only trial (as they have in Portugal), it would still have an influence. The mind boggles.

And Vee, I also read the Poacher thread, and i made for interesting reading. Please bring it over, but can it have its own thread. Caution needed though. Anyone can pretend to be anything they want on the internet. This Poacher makes certain claims that cannot be substantiated, although, it appears that nothing he/she said has been proven untrue yet.

It's clearly unfairly prejudicial...and it's a fake video, you know, made for that purpose, not a reconstruction or something.

by maria Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:18 pm

Blu

Sorry this post was indeed addressed at you...

Chris
Â
Leonor's process is full of 'how coulds', it is not only the physical torture.

by bluj1515 Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:08 am

maria wrote:Blu

Sorry this post was indeed addressed at you...

Chris
Â
Leonor's process is full of 'how coulds', it is not only the physical torture.

it's quite a shame.

by Cath Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 am

Right I've been watching the video on the telly, with real speakers in stead of the ones of the laptop.
When I looked at the video it seemed as if just before and while he barked I heard something that sounded as if someone said "yah" .
On second thoughts listening with real speakers I think it was the breathing/sniffing of the dog.

Still it's strange how that dog didn't respond to the boot of the car (supposed to be the place where a body was hidden) and did respond to the door (finally) with the key fob with GM's blood on it.

Seems Grime's commercial talents are may be even bigger as his talents as a trainer, because despite evidence that contradicts it, some people still think the dogs are infallable.

by Catkins Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:59 am

Cath wrote:Right I've been watching the video on the telly, with real speakers in stead of the ones of the laptop.
When I looked at the video it seemed as if just before and while he barked I heard something that sounded as if someone said "yah" .
On second thoughts listening with real speakers I think it was the breathing/sniffing of the dog.

Still it's strange how that dog didn't respond to the boot of the car (supposed to be the place where a body was hidden) and did respond to the door (finally) with the key fob with GM's blood on it.

Seems Grime's commercial talents are may be even bigger as his talents as a trainer, because despite evidence that contradicts it, some people still think the dogs are infallable.

He certainly seems to have pulled the wool over peoples eyes Cath..........

by Pedro Silva Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:42 am

This is a video full of lies.

by Rosie Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:18 am

I am bumping this up because Christabel uncovered something very wrong with this so-called sniffer dog "evidence"!
As we have all witnessed Goncalo Amaral failed in his appeal in court to get the ban on his book overturned and yet his claims in his book depend very heavily on the findings of these dogs and their handler Martin Grime, which can be absolutely torn to shreds by us, so goodness knows what a team of expert solicitors could do with it.

Since Chris made this discovery which as far as I am aware has not been made previously, on closer examination, we discover further discrepancies about this "evidence".

Experts in criminology and police and forensics experts will all state that in any investigation absolute clarity is the key, without this then the whole case could be thrown out of court judged as unreliable and unsafe, it has happened before (Jill Dando and Barry George and Rachel Nickell and Colin Stagg in the UK and to name one in Portugal/Spain the case of Hugo and Goncalo Amaral) and it will happen again. Those that mock the very serious flaws and cracks that have been clearly demonstrated in this so-called sniffer dog "evidence" in the case of missing Madeleine McCann, show at the very least their atrociously poor inability to grasp the logic and at best their complete ignorance about the law and evidence. This does not stop these people giving their often libellous and totally ill informed, uneducated opinions, which they then proceed to present as fact! Astonishing and prodigious as this is, they even count among their number, ex-solicitor Tony Bennett, (albeit a disgraced ex-solicitor,) reprimanded by the Law Society and fined heavily for impropriety and who has now lost the right to call himself a solicitor, or to practice as one. Bennett himself has demonstrated an execrable understanding of the law of libel and what can be constituted as evidence and what cannot, which is quite scandalous considering his former profession, but probably the reason why he only lasted five minutes before being unceremoniously shown the door over a "little local difficulty" concerning complaints about payments made by his former clients to the Law Society, which were of course upheld and Bennett was found guilty of bringing his profession into disrepute.

However, back to the subject, disgraced former PJ detective Goncalo Amaral crucially tried to prove in court his recent failed attempt to get the ban on his book overturned that this so-called dog "evidence" proved his "thesis" which appears in his book. Of course it doesn't, if it did then Amaral's "thesis" would be billed as fact and not merely as theory!

It was also telling that Amaral could not present in court, the handler of these dogs, Martin Grime, to give evidence in an attempt to back up what he claims and relies upon heavily in his book. It would have been very interesting indeed to see how how Martin Grime would have explained the wholly inadequate and unscientific way in which he allowed his dogs (Eddie and Keela), be used to attempt to help retrieve vital DNA evidence. It would have been very interesting to see a legal challenge take place in a court of law about these claims, on which the parents of missing Madeleine McCann were made suspects in her disappearance by the Portuguese police in September 2007. At that time Goncalo Amaral had two of his detectives one being *Ricardo Paiva* attempt to break down Gerry McCann, by informing him that the PJ had evidence that his wife Kate McCann had harmed their child. This evidence turned out to be none other than the so-called dog "evidence" which was wholly unsubstantiated and uncorroborated and of which Goncalo Amaral was well aware of, as it has later transpired that John Lowe of the Birmingham FSS had emailed Amaral specifically to tell him that the DNA tests came back as totally inconclusive and inconclusive in terms of DNA can mean light years away from being fact. In any case what these people that shout about this sniffer dog evidence and DNA fail to comprehensively grasp, that even DNA evidence MUST be corroborated and the presence of 15 markers of DNA is a million miles away from certainty. None the less, this is what Amaral presented to the Portuguese prosecutor and this is what Amaral persuaded him to make the McCanns arguidos on, of course this decision was later heavily criticised by the then head of the Portuguese judicial Police, Alipio Rebeiro as being far too hasty, in other words the McCanns should have NEVER been made suspects.
It would never have stood up to questioning in a court of law, personally I hope it comes up in the libel trial due to start soon, it needs to be refuted publicly and the truth told about how Goncalo Amaral, even then appeared to be attempting to pervert the course of justice, by *knowingly* presenting what he was calling evidence, which he knew perfectly well was NOT evidence, because he had been previously informed of this by the chief of forensic science in Birmingham!

Those that cannot see that all cars in a controlled forensic science test must be stripped of all identifying marks and stickers, really have not got the foggiest idea about what constitutes a controlled test.
Those that cannot see that half way through such a controlled experiment, suddenly the identifying stickers are removed from the car, AFTER Grime had exposed Eddie to the car and despite Grime stating for the tape that he did NOT know which car was which in the test, when he obviously did and so he openly lied on the tape which may have been called upon in a court of law as evidence, demonstrate they haven't the rudiments on which to base a viable opinion. This alone would have been enough to have this so-called "evidence" kicked out of court. Since when is it OK to have expert witnesses lying on video they have no idea which car was which when the car was covered in identifying stickers? And worse it was the only car there with these identifying marks on it.
Not only this, we see after Grime had so much trouble getting Eddie to bark at the clearly identifiable car, when the dog was more intent on identifying an invisible body half way up a wall, the markings (chevrons) on the floor of the car park, suddenly move, indicating that the car later identified as the McCanns car and which Eddie after a lot of confusion and coercing had indicated a positive, had been moved around in the middle of a controlled test, without any explanation as to why this was done!

Yet this was the "evidence" that was used against Kate and Gerry by Amaral, and also what Amaral has written in his book. Evidence that the PJ themselves later came to totally discredited in the official files.

Amaral knew all of this, yet proceeded to have the McCanns made arguidos, this looks to me like he is again misrepresenting what he knew to be fact and so he was attempting to pervert the course of justice.

I hope that Martin Grime is called during the libel trial!

by Rosie Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:18 am

On the subject of the dogs and the so-called "evidence", a little while ago I discovered this little gem from Martin Grime, perhaps if Grime is called to give evidence at the McCanns libel trial against Goncalo Amaral, he can explain this? Suddenly we start to fully understand why the dog was running around in circles completely confused? How does a dog differentiate about what they are detecting? Sort answer to that is they cannot and this is why their evidence cannot be used in a court of law in the UK or Portugal!

Martin Grime said.... Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

“Eddie smells for the scent of a decomposing human body. He can detect any part of a human body that is decomposing — hair, bones, flesh, anything.

https://justice4mccannfam.forumotion.com/sniffer-dogs-no-evidence-at-all-f33/dog-evidence-only-an-indication-experts-t575.htm

by Cath Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:14 am

Yes, most people seem to think he only alerts to human cadaver scent.
And don't forget he's trained with decomposing pigs.

by Rosie Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:19 am

Correct Cath, did you know that Grime refuses to confirm or deny that his dogs were trained by using pig meat? But someone dug up where he Grime once quoted this in a story for a newspaper unconnected with Madeleine McCann, as usual, I saved it but now cannot find it! (

by vee8 Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:37 am

Isn't there a story of one of the dogs reacting in a diferent case, and when they dug they found pig bones from the second world war?

by Sponsored content