Something very wrong here

Does anyone else see what I see in this video? Watch from 3.40 onwards, very very carefully.

I have no idea what I am suppposed to be looking for. Sorry. Was it the fact that the dog was licking at something?

The posters in the rear side windows have gone?

vee8 wrote:The posters in the rear side windows have gone?

Correct Vee,

Now why would this be tampered with during filming? I thought it might have been doctored but I have watched 6 video's and all show the same.

Also stop the video at 2.17 and note where the white line on the floor area is, it is running parallel between the A and the 2 on the number plate, stop the video again at 2.20 you will see that the tyre of car is NOT touching the line, stop the video again at 2.21 and you will see that the car has been moved and now the tyre of the car looks to be parked almost touching it and note that the white line is now running parallel clear of the letter on the number plate, indicating that somewhere between 2.17 and 2.21, the car has been moved!

This is HIGHLY significant as this is when Eddie is supposed to be indicating a positive!

What were these people doing moving the car around and making it look like Eddie had indicated a positive? Bearing in mind all the trouble they had making Eddie indicate in the beginning, we all thought it was minutes longer than the other cars, it now looks like so much more time was given to this car and that when Eddie FAILED to indicate at it, the video was stopped, the car moved and filming restarted and then Eddie indicates a positive.

Perhaps Amaral AND Martin Grime would like to explain why the car was moved and exactly how much time was spent forcing Eddie to indicate at this car?

You do realise that the timing on the video has been doctored to make it look like the video has been running without a break?

This is very serious, it is in fact *FALSIFYING* evidence!


I also wonder if the McCanns investigation team has noticed this? If not they soon will!

I want to say, that any tampering with the video tape is a no win situation. There is just no need for it. As it doesnt matter if someone drew Grimes a map of where to search or if Grimes held Eddie's nose against the spot, because without forensic backing, the dog indications, and by default this video, mean absolutely nothing.

So it makes me very suspicious as to why the video would be doctored. It can only be for some sort of public relations campaign because it is definitely not evidence, or court presentation etc.

Just saw Rosie post below. And I have to re-iterate, that doctoring the tape is not done for evidential purposes. Because without forensic evidence, the dog indications are meaningless. And can NEVER be used in court. So WHY WHY WHY was the tape doctored?

What I also want to know is why did Martin Grimes stay by the McCanns car when previously he had followed the dog quite closely when it was running around the first few cars... It was as though he wanted the dog to return to the Renault!!!! He also seemed to make more of that particular car than the rest.

jean wrote:What I also want to know is why did Martin Grimes stay by the McCanns car when previously he had followed the dog quite closely when it was running around the first few cars... It was as though he wanted the dog to return to the Renault!!!! He also seemed to make more of that particular car than the rest.

Jean, I would like to know this too! I would also like to know why Martin grime draws specific attention to the car by saying he did not know which car was which!

Someone should ask Grime and his company that hire out this dog service, just how long it took for Eddie to react to the car and why was the car moved around and was that time that the video was stopped noted on the official report?

Looking at this video, it has been stopped cut and spliced and the timing fiddled with all over it!

I always wondered why Martin Grime said that because Eddie picked the scent up from the seal of the car, because of that he did NOT intend to put the dog inside the car - why? This always struck me as odd, but now in view of all this timing discrepancies, it makes me wonder even more why Grime did NOT put Eddie inside the car!

Remember also that this dog thing is what the halfwit Bennett bases a lot of his crackpot meanderings on, that and on what the convicted criminal liar former PJ inspector Goncalo Amaral, wrote in the book of his lies!

As I said, it doesnt matter if Grimes knew which car was the McCanns (although why he would deny this I dont know), or if he spent most of the time on that car. BEcause without forensics, it means nothing. And I mean NOTHING.

I believe that the video doctoring etc was done to try to gain a confession, by implying guilt. Add this to the falsely presented DNA evidence (you know where there was a match, but it was out of a mix of at least 3 DNA profiles, so is no match at all), hours of quetsioning, leaks and smears in the media and we see a pattern of trying to push the McCanns towards a confession. Of course, this may not have been the strategy, but on the face of it, that is how it appears.

Of course, where the whole thing falls down, that without torture (as in the case of Leonore), innocent people are not going to confess to something they didnt do.

Rosie

You are right. That fat wally wacker has based most of his ridiculous accusations on the dog evidence. When in reality there is no evidence. And the doctoring of the tape, and the dodgy practices (ie not putting Eddie in the car) mean that no conclusion, or even some sort of theory can be gleaned from the dogs indications. Only forensic evidence resulting from the dogs would mean anything. But he has either forgotten that or is ignoring it.

Grime also said that when KEELA who is the dog trained to scent blood gives an indication there is always blood there, well this is incorrect, as Keela also gave a positive in the boot of the Renault scenic and NO blood was found in there!

The forensic technician dusting for finger prints on the windo and shutters, was not wearing a hair cover and the wind was blowing her hair all up the wall, this could have left what is called DNA dust, (skin cells etc) and it could have also shed her hair all over the place, she was also only wearing a glove on her LEFT hand, while her ungloved RIGHT hand was dusting for prints!

Rosie

I get a bit sick of the claims that the dogs are never wrong, when they have been proved wrong in Jersey. With forensic evidence, the negative results as well as the positive ones are presented to the defence for use in their case, and are therefore admissable in court. If the dogs were to be taken seriously as evidence, then they would also have to stand the scrutiny of their misses, or negatives. THerefore in this case, each indication which resulted in no material being retrieved would be considered a negative result. When this is brough in, I wonder just how 'accurate' the dogs are.

While the dogs 'evidence' is not admissable, they are not subject to this scrutiny. But I would suggest that if a certain person tried to bring the dog 'evidence' into play in the libel case, that the dogs would come under this scrutiny, and their negative results (as well as from other dogs) would be included. This then means that the doctored video tape would probably not be allowed, because it has been doctored. It would need to be in its original state, to allow it to be scrutinised by both sides.

This would indicate that the tape was not doctored for presentation to court, but for other reasons.

But the people operating the video camera clearly do!

The person/people who planted the odour (probably pork) do!

Time for Amaral to be arrested, made a formal witness and be forced to tell the truth.

There is something very wrong here and it looks like it concerns and implicates Goncalo Amaral, this along with all this man's other bizarre behaviour and glaring inconsistencies needs to be investigated.

Goncalo Amaral is NOT above the law and Portugal must clearly demonstrate this, if they are ever to solve this.

I would also like to hear what martin grime has to say about this.

I believe this is serious, very very serious, it is pointing towards corruption by one or more persons!

I'm not sure if I'm seeing everything you all mentioned:

- the posters on the rear side are definetely gone AFTER the dog has marked the drivers door AND the car has been moved foward. These two aspects are visible ONLY after Grimes explanation. This means that the car WAS moved between two bits of filming, not necessarily doctoring after filming

- the dog looking for blood was ALREADY in the boot of the car when Grimes opened it to show her working. Also, at 4:34 it is visible that the boot carpet has been removed, the dog is 'working' on the metalic boot bottom. Which means that the car was 'manipulated' WITHOUT this manipulation being filmed.

And I can't see much more, but IMHO this would be absolutely enough to eliminate the admissibilty of the 'proof'. Not to mention Diane's observation, there is NO forensic evidence to corroborate any dog's 'findings'.

Oh sorry, I don't know if this is the official video, remember it was spread by Correio da Manhã. But somehow I believe this two things, removing the posters and moving the car in the middle of the exam would not be filmed anyway, I don't see them thinking about the need for that. Yes I know, they have very good reasons NOT to record these moments, I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate here...

"This would indicate that the tape was not doctored for presentation to court, but for other reasons".

Hi Diane, I think you hit the nail on the head here!

IMO, it was a complete and utter "Mock up" to sway public opinion!

In between Eddie's search and the deployment of Keela in the car, the forensics investigated the car. Think that's when (and why) they removed the posters.
Yet I've never seen them (the forensics) on any of the video's I've watched.

Tinkerbell43 wrote:"This would indicate that the tape was not doctored for presentation to court, but for other reasons".

Hi Diane, I think you hit the nail on the head here!

IMO, it was a complete and utter "Mock up" to sway public opinion!

I speak as someone who has never read anything or seen anything about the dogs other than what I have read on the forums. And to me after 2 or 3 runs of this video, especially in the light of what had been noticed here, I would have no hesitation in saying Yes, it is quite obviously a "repeat mock up" performance, but for whose benefit I have no idea. The dog was most definitely not interested in the car door until he was "instructed" to by Grimes. Something had been put there to attract the dog in the intervening time lapse IMO. Curiouser and curiouser.

rosemary wrote:


I speak as someone who has never read anything or seen anything about the dogs other than what I have read on the forums. And to me after 2 or 3 runs of this video, especially in the light of what had been noticed here, I would have no hesitation in saying Yes, it is quite obviously a "repeat mock up" performance, but for whose benefit I have no idea. The dog was most definitely not interested in the car door until he was "instructed" to by Grimes. Something had been put there to attract the dog in the intervening time lapse IMO. Curiouser and curiouser.

Me too Rosemary, I have never really said anything about the dogs before. Funny what you notice when sorting files out and look again.
Something else that video shows is about 8 or more people including GNR and PJ hanging around and walking all over the forensic area, they are not wearing protective clothing and walking around the McCanns car. There is a reflection in the car windows of another couple of people in protective suits. Who were they? On another video I saw one of these people I think could be Robert Murat who steps out from behind a pillar at around 5.17 just after the yellow van comes into view. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html

Why did Grimes keep fetching the dog away from other cars and not pointing to area's on the cars like he did on the McCanns car?

After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.

4. In this particular case, based on the information and on your experience, what is the possibility that a cadaver was occulted?
To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment.

Maria, I know it was done by Correio da Manhã crap, and the other by Levy, but there are other video's with exactly the same shown.

Can I ask you all to put the speakers of your computer high (loud?) and listen to what happens, what do you hear just before the dog barks?
It's at about 3:00.

Hi Cath, my sound does not come out too loud even when the volume is up high, but is it the sound of another dog barking ?

I've just watched this video again. What an absolute farce!! No judge in his right mind would accept this as evidence from the reaction of these dogs. As I have said before, Grimes walked behind the dog as it went around the cars before the McCanns, but as soon as it went passed the McCanns Renault and seemed to ignore it, Grimes stayed with the car and enticed the dog to come back to it. He then was so obviously leading the dog to make some sort of reaction, which it did. If this can be regarded as substantial evidence then I'm a Dutchman (sorry Cath, this is an English saying).

Glad to see that we are all in agreement. This video was not done for a court (not even a libel one), as it raises many questions about the handling of the dogs. Please note, that I will say again, that it shouldnt matter how Grimes handled the dogs because without forensic backing, the dog alerts mean nothing, so Grimes doesnt have to be 100% scientific, and he knows this. It is Amaral that has taken an unscientific search by the dogs, their alerts that have no evidential value and tried to use this to prove that Madeleine is dead and was in the apartment and the car.

And bearing in mind that if the dogs were tried to be introduced as evidence in a court case, that their negative results would also need to be admitted, as part of the disclosure requirements to be provided to the defense (at least that is the law in the US, Australia, Britain and most of Europe), it is safe to say that the dogs alerts were never going to be introduced to court.

At best the video would have been used to show a chain of evidence gathering had there been any forensics found. That is its only use in the legal process.

But the video also has what I consider 2 darker purposes.

1. To try to scare Kate or Gerry into confessing to something they didnt do
2. To be used as a public relation tool to convince the public that Madeleine is dead. And this worked, just look at Bennett and his cohorts, who all fell for it.

Unfortunately for Amaral, this has backfired badly. None of the dog's evidence (alerts, video etc) will be allowed into the libel court, because it is just NOT relevant, it is no PROOF of anything except incompetence. Yet, all of the 'cultists' think it means something, and so further calls of conspiracy will arise.