Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article1651462.ece

'It's crazy to rely on animals'

EXPERTS say sniffer dogs can play a vital role in fighting crime — but warn it is “madness” to rely on their findings.
The animals are used to lead police to evidence, but do not provide evidence themselves.

One expert told The Sun: “The dogs can identify traces of blood, but it’s crazy to draw major conclusions just from what they find.

“Any evidence they find should be used as a starting point. It’s madness just to rely on the findings of the sniffer dogs.”

Handler Martin Grimes, who worked with his dogs on the Maddie case, admitted the animals offered no more than “a guide”.

He said: “They can identify traces of blood and detect the smell of a decomposing body, but that is as far as they go.”

Martin said his dogs Keela and Eddie would only give him an indication when they find what they are trained to detect.

Unreliable
He said: “Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn’t matter if it’s hundreds of years old.

“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.

“The smell of a decomposing body is very difficult to get rid of. It can easily be transferred to clothing and on to a person.”

A spokesman for the McCanns said: “Dog alerts can be unreliable. The handler himself makes it clear in the police report that such alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence. There was no such evidence.

“Gerry and Kate are not interested in dwelling on mistakes that were made. They and their investigation team wish to focus entirely on finding Maddie.”

Good article for all those who believe that Keela and Eddie can talk and should be presenting evidence in the High Court.

While the currently visible 3A site was getting very excited about this news coming out last night?. I wondered what they were fussing about. What would this report tell us that is new?Afterall Portuguese and the FSS have confirmed the findings are worthless what possibly could this video prove?

Then I realised!! The dogs can be seen and heard barking. Now certain anti's will be able to tell us what they were barking word for word.

The following is from the Sun also. I could have written it myself!! :D

Ruff justice

SO now we know.


Portuguese police built their pathetic “case” against the McCanns on the say-so of two animals.


Sniffer dogs should be used to back up an already solid case, not as the foundations of one.


But the bungling sleuths were so prejudiced against Madeleine’s parents — and so devoid of any actual clues — that they gave absurd weight to every bark and sniff.


The only surprise is they didn’t take the spaniels’ statements and put them on the witness stand.

You can bet the dogs statements will be put on the witness stand in the virtual world of blogs and forums.

Dianeh & Modnrodder, you are both absolutely right of course regarding these dogs. I have on more than one occasion mentioned a televsion programme about the training of these dogs. To prove the fallibility of these animals a piece of meat was hidden in a car and the dog in question excitedly and with tail wagging located the animal flesh almost instantly. I believe the PJ having failed miserably to find little Maddie then started looking for easy scape goats. Murat was first in line having inadvertenly and somewhat unwisely stuck his neck into the lions Den by offering the PJ his services as a self- important nosy-parker translater. Having nothing on Murat they then turned their attentions to Maddies parents who were not only easy prey but were also very conveniently available . The results from the Sniffer dogs gave them the oppertunity they badly needed both to hide their acute embarrassment and pathetic inefficiency. Alroy.

“Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn’t matter if it’s hundreds of years old.

So there you go..hundreds of years old...and invisible to the naked eye.Basically these dogs aren't really that reliable are they??I mean how many people bleed.It doesn't have to be immense amounts of blood either.Just a tiny speck thats invisible to the naked eye.Basically everyone who as ever stayed in that apartment would probably have left some sort of trace behind.They could have scratched a foot in the pool...had a nose bleed. Bit a lip....a child picking a scab of a knee...it happens and we cant always see the whats left behind by others...its invisible to the naked eye!!And no doubt we all leave traces behind. The dogs are only there to aid the investigation....cops should confirm their apparent findings....not assume them and come to a conclusion from them.

Right, I've watched the video, but something doesn't seem right. I could be wrong, and I don't know how to explain this, so bear with me here. The whole video looks like a documentary, or training video? Is it normal for a policeman to give a running commentary to the cameraman, such as 'I have worked with this dog for some time, I understand his body language, this is what it means' and so on. In fact is it even normal to film such a search like this in any case? Granted there was a lot of media interest, but why film it unless it was for media consumption? And if it was so intended, what about the secrecy laws?

And some of it doesn't match the descriptions of the video we have read about earlier, e.g. the car was parked in a line of cars, and the dog originally ignored it, and had to be brought back several times before reacting. But in the video it was parked on it's own in a corner. And the clothes. Laid out in a line on a car park floor??

I guess what I am trying to say is, can we be sure this is the car, or the flat? It all looks more like some sort of reconstruction to me, with some original footage of the dog being led up to the flat.

Yes, I could be wrong, but my radar is going off like crazy at the moment, I don't trust this video at all. The only thing about the article I agree with is that the muppets should never have put so much faith in this so called 'evidence.'

vee8 wrote:Right, I've watched the video, but something doesn't seem right. I could be wrong, and I don't know how to explain this, so bear with me here. The whole video looks like a documentary, or training video? Is it normal for a policeman to give a running commentary to the cameraman, such as 'I have worked with this dog for some time, I understand his body language, this is what it means' and so on. In fact is it even normal to film such a search like this in any case? Granted there was a lot of media interest, but why film it unless it was for media consumption? And if it was so intended, what about the secrecy laws?

And some of it doesn't match the descriptions of the video we have read about earlier, e.g. the car was parked in a line of cars, and the dog originally ignored it, and had to be brought back several times before reacting. But in the video it was parked on it's own in a corner. And the clothes. Laid out in a line on a car park floor??

I guess what I am trying to say is, can we be sure this is the car, or the flat? It all looks more like some sort of reconstruction to me, with some original footage of the dog being led up to the flat.

Yes, I could be wrong, but my radar is going off like crazy at the moment, I don't trust this video at all. The only thing about the article I agree with is that the muppets should never have put so much faith in this so called 'evidence.'

Hi there Vee8,

Do you have a link to watch the video please?

Many thanks, Chinadoll :D :D :D

It's on the Sun newspaper site,

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article1651651.ece

And the Sky news site.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madeleine-McCann-Footage-Released-Of-Praia-Da-Luz-Sniffer-Dog-Search-In-Algarve-Apartment/Article/200809115093618?lpos=World%2BNews_0&lid=ARTICLE_15093618_Madeleine%2BMcCann%253A%2BFootage%2BReleased%2BOf%2BPraia%2BDa%2BLuz%2BSniffer%2BDog%2BSearch%2BIn%2BAlgarve%2BApartment

I have watched the video and agree that it appears to be a training video rather than the real thing. The scene in the car park showed the dog running around the car and off he went only to be brought back by his handler. I saw no police presence anywhere, save for one other person in Apt 5A. Has the original film been retained by the PJ and then video this was re-enacted for release to the public? The other thing that worries me is that if Madeleine had been bathed and dressed in her pyjamas that evening, why was cadaver scent found and picked out by the dog on her little Tshirt?

Hello May, that is very observant of you. The T shirt was used to ???? Doesn't bear thinking about. I hope not.

Mod
I have already posted this on Skyblogs
I am May - Katzer - Eileen........do try to keep up! Hehehehehe

Lol, Eileen, I did wonder that but was being polite leaving you to introduce yourelf as Eileen.

I'm very glad to see you on here and welcome your balanced input!!

LOL, I thought you knew, Claire and Sian do!

This has nothing to do with Eddie and Keela, but PJ declined to let world best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann on May 2007, when it was still possible to find her. These dogs were able follow a scent for miles even one up to 28 days old.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/multimedia/pa/article230278.ece

It still makes me so angry, little 3-year old child is missing and PJ refused to let worlds best sniffer dogs to find her.

I've always suspected that Amaral wanted a quick resolution to the case which he got in a previous case that is highly suspect. Having convicted a similar suspect of death without a body, perhaps he was confident he could do the same and close another case as successful for himself, adding another notch to his belt? He also has friends who maintain blogs which are as high profile as 3A's used to be. Using these blogs to spread propaganda on his behalf. A book of Fiction being pedalled as a book of fact and convenient leaks from a particular press outlet all lead me to wonder.............

I'm sorry for this sweet dog too.. This same apartment was hired for several people before these dogs came to smell anything, it was so absurd to start investigate apartment after months and several customers.

And on the other forum one writer noticed there is big mistake in PJ's logic.

From Sun article:

Martin and the spaniels are then taken round the apartment hired by the McCanns after Maddie vanished. No evidence is uncovered there...The scent in the car convinced them the couple had hidden her body and later disposed of it, despite the world’s media watching their every movement.

This "scent" should have been especially in second apartment not in first, because they hired this car after three weeks and when there was "scent" in car it means too, they had to move "corpse" ( I hate to write these words) then and so their second apartment (where they lived) should have been covered all kind of "scents" and evidences, but there was nothing.

This "scent" should have been especially in second apartment not in first, because they hired this car after three weeks and when there was "scent" in car it means too, they had to move "corpse" ( I hate to write these words) then and so their second apartment (where they lived) should have been covered all kind of "scents" and evidences, but there was nothing.


Good point!

vee8 wrote:This "scent" should have been especially in second apartment not in first, because they hired this car after three weeks and when there was "scent" in car it means too, they had to move "corpse" ( I hate to write these words) then and so their second apartment (where they lived) should have been covered all kind of "scents" and evidences, but there was nothing.


Good point!

It was Katie Smith, who noticed it on this other forum. She is very clever.

Hi Eileen!

It causes me some hitching to think that members of MY judiciary police could go so low. Although it wouldn't have been the first time, I know. The last I know of is 'discovering' drug in a pack transported by Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, a pack that the lawyer KNEW was going to be opened and verified by police at the prision door.

I watched the video, smashing little dogs, love them.

If mMadeleine was in that flat deceased, there would be scent all over the place on door hadles, light switches, walls, all the places we inadvertantly touch. Why would it be in just small place behind the couch and was it in the wardrobe or near it? That part wasn't clear. Also why did the dog indicate on just one tee shirt? Why didn't the dog indicate on any of Gerry's clothes? Why would the dog indicate on one part of the hire car on one door only? It does not make sense, presumably if Madeleine had died and the PJ said they had put her in this hire car from whereever they had hidden her for five weeks, the scent would have been so strong that dog would be indicating all over the car, not at one door and why that door? Surely they would not have put her in through the front door, they would have put her in through the back and then why did they find only minimal DNA on one tiny bit of carpet in the boot?

There are several reasons why this scent could have been there. Dogs seem to get this scent mixed up with old newspapers and cardboard, these are all places that these could have been stored over the years of this apartment being hired out.
Kate was in contact with several deceased before she went out to PDL, apparently these dogs detect through washing. I think this has been checked and found correct.
This if true would account for the scent being on her clothes and not Gerry's, however what I do not understand, if this scent was on Kate's clothes, especailly from Madeleine, it would have transferred on to Gerry's, it would have transferred on to everything, the sofa, the beds, everywhere and it would have been present in the villa too.

I think something stinks and it is NOT cadaverine from dear little Madeleine.

Maria
This is not having a dig at the Portuguese judiciary alone. This has happened to all justice systems throughtout the world and is still happening today. It is only a possibility but one that cannot be discounted because we love our country. It is no reflection of one's country, just on those who have been given the power to govern.

What I found interesting was comparing the video of Eddie in action with this extract from the English Language translation of Amaral's book:

Precisely, Eddie alerts to:

---- the lower part of the driver's door
---- in the boot, where the dog was biting and barking, indicating the odour was coming from inside the car

Nope! Eddie never alerted in the boot.

Oh, and I hope I don't upset Maria (who I know to be Portuguese and who I respect greatly) by pointing out that so called 'pseudoscents', manfactured specifically for the purpose of training cadaver dogs are easily and readily available.

Maria, criticising the Amaral team is not criticising the Portuguese people. These things happen in every country and we must criticise it wherever it is found.

Ambivalence of this piece of news disturbs me very much. In piece of news they want to explain how dogs reactions proves nothing and how dog can smell very old blood traces too, but same time they show this video, where people can see how this dog really "finds blood" from Madeleine's apartment and from Madeleine's parents hire car. We here are able to call question this "proof", because we all have followed this case very carefully and know what there is on background, but ordinary people don't, they just see how this dog finds blood.

It try to be supportive for Madeleine parent's but it is much stronger against them. Pure dogs reaction was never any kind of proof, because dog can't tell and analyze what it exactly finds (blood yes, but what blood and whose blood?) and they should have told it a year ago. Dogs reaction can't proves nothing without findings. And there was no sense to bring scent dogs three months after disappearance to the apartment, what was hired several times after disappearance. (It should be asked more why PJ wanted scent dogs three months after disappearance but refused to let world best trace/sniffer dogs soon after disappearance to help in hunt of Madeleine)

But they never told, now they tell it with video, what proves opposite, scent dog finds blood from Madeleine's parents apartment and from their car.

Manipulating of opinions once again.

Yes, good point Minnea

Oh, and I hope I don't upset Maria (who I know to be Portuguese and who I respect greatly) by pointing out that so called 'pseudoscents', manfactured specifically for the purpose of training cadaver dogs are easily and readily available.

That's ok about nationalities. I feel some guilt complex, that's all.

The'pseudoscents' information actually is from Rosie. Thanks, Rosie, your info has become quite useful.