'Poacher's' view on Grime and the dogs.

I mentioned in an earlier thread about a former 3a's poster called 'Poacher' who wrote many interesting posts about Grime and the dogs. These were Googled by a PFA member a few days ago, and posted up on that forum. I am going to copy them up here. I know little of Poacher other than, despite admitting being an anti, he was not popular on 3a's for daring to question the dog's god-like status. I cannot verify personally anything that was written by Poacher, I will leave it to you all to form your own opinions. There is quite a lot, so bear with me.

Everything that follows are Poacher's own words.

Post subject: Re: 23 Reasons why Eddie didn't alert to Madeleine’s corpsePosted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:17 pm

New In Town

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:27 pm
Posts: 22 For the record, as some of you will have worked out, I have worked with Martin Grime and his dogs and that includes setting licensing tests for them. I have also myself worked and trained police dogs though not in this field, and worked and trained with other cadaver dog handlers. I don't have links to these points because they are made from personal experience or are accounts relayed to me by reliable cadaver handlers.

Keela is not a cadaver dog in that she was trained primarily to indicate where blood depositions have been left. They would use Eddie or Frankie to conduct primary searches and brig Keela in to accurately point out areas of deposition. The dog indicated the presence of one spot of blood deposited on a wall, subsequently washed off and left for six weeks. It also indicated the mop and bucket used to wash the walls that had themselves been washed in disinfectant and left for six weeks. As such the sensitivity of the dog's nose is such that innocent depositions can never be ruled out unless you have a controlled environment which the apartment and the hire car aren't.

Also for the record, I do not subscribe to the theory that the McCanns are innocent of involvement. There is a lot of ambiguity surrounding the use of dogs in this case. My point is that the dog's indications cannot and will not be used to ascertain guilt. They merely highlight areas of interest for further examination by forensic scientists.

Cherry - you miss the point. He wanted to stay on, but wasn't given the opportunity. As for doing as he was told - that was one of the reasons why he wasn't kept on. Loose cannon is the term I would use.

Cherry - Yes they are routinely kept on when they are licensed instructors. It saves money. And, no I never wanted a cadaver dog.

Newperson -I suspect that Mark Harrison's statistics came from Martin Grime and cannot be verified.

Think on, the dogs have been operational for around five years. That is forty successful cases a year or nearly one a week to get to 200. In the early days they conducted around one search a month, many of them negative. Yes, negative! I would estimate that Eddie and Keela have conducted no more than 80 searches and I doubt if they have been involved in 20 prosecutions.

Martin Grime's involvement with the FBI amounted to a short trip around 2005. The report submitted by the Americans did not mention any new methods or skills introduced by Martin Grime. In fact it was politely underwhelming in its assessment of him and the dog.

The problem with some of these 'facts' is that they are realms of fantasy and some of you shouldhave worked out by now where they originate from.

In the report, Mark Harrison says that it us very unlikely that the body was buried in the sand. The English policeman defends that a launch into the sea is the most likely scenario, while the body should also be searched for within an area of cliffs and dense bushes that lies east of Praia da Luz.

The two English dogs were presented as an indispensable help to the investigation, after their abilities and the manner in which they are trained were explained in detail, as well as the fact that they both react to blood traces and cadaver odours, without a single episode of “false positives†in the investigations.

In his report, Mark Harrison listed cases of success that offered a guarantee of reliability. And he asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie’s death, then it would be a fact.

Details

High costs - Mark Harrison stressed the high costs of the dogs. Their daily rate amounted to one thousand euros; the cost of the trip for them and their handlers was of 2750. There was also the cost of the passport for the animals (450 euros), adding to the lodging, the food and the transportation of the vehicles that were necessary for the animals.

Poacher wrote:
Let’s just examine some of the myths surrounding Martin Grime and his wonder dogs.

“Is he an expert or conman?”

Both in my opinion! Let me explain. Martin is a Home Office Registered police dog trainer in General Purpose (Find & Bite dogs) and Drugs & Firearms Detection dogs. His qualifications are for life. In that respect he can be regarded as an expert.

His claims about his cadaver dogs can be taken with a pinch of salt. Keela is not the only or the best cadaver detection dog in the world. Other forces use cadaver dogs successfully and they are used extensively abroad. To my knowledge there has never been any trials or side by side tests of cadaver dogs to establish a ranking structure. The reason why Eddie and Keela are used so much is purely down to Martin prostituting himself and making himself available for searches. There are other cadaver search teams, however their employers tended not to hire them out to other forces as a matter of course.

Keela was trained by Martin and presented to the force as a ready made article. The only differences in her and other cadaver dogs is that she was trained specifically on blood and to point rather than bark. The secrecy element is something that has caused significant embarrassment for his previous employer in the police dog world as we all know how the dog was trained. Martin is no better than any other police dog trainer. In many of his colleague’s opinions he was not very highly regarded.

Most cadaver dogs are trained to search wide areas, often out of sight of the handler and to indicate a find by barking. This is the same principle used by general purpose dogs to search for hidden persons and discarded property. It is designed for efficiency in covering large areas. Keela was trained in the same manner as explosive detection dogs. That is to be guided around an area where contamination was anticipated and to indicate a find in a manner that would not destroy or contaminate evidence. There are hundreds of people in this country who could train a dog to do this in a few weeks.


Do cadaver dogs indicate things other than human body parts?

Yes! There are issues surrounding the training of cadaver dogs in the UK. For example there is no legitimate way that human body parts can be obtained for police dog training. Human blood can be obtained in the form of smears from empty bags used in transfusions. Most cadaver dogs are therefore trained on pork and human blood. Keela was supposedly trained purely on blood. In licensing trials Keela was found to indicate human blood, but discount pork products whilst Eddie indicated both substances.

If Keela has been trained on human body parts then Martin Grime and anyone who has assisted in procuring those samples could face serious consequences including prosecution. As human body parts could not be legally obtained Keela was only tested for licensing purposes on pork and human blood.

All cadaver dogs trained on pork will indicate pork-related substances – pork scratchings, fat deposits on kitchen walls. All cadaver dogs trained on human blood will indicate such substances whether it relates to the case in hand or previously deposited blood or blood cells not related to the case. Cadaver dogs are likely to indicate faeces as the stools carry human cells and other substances that would trigger a response from the dog.

Following this logic then you can see that it is impossible to conduct controlled experiments on whether cadaver dogs are reliable in indicating human depositions other than blood. Therefore a cadaver dog can only be judged on its reliability on detecting pork products and human blood depositions. It could follow that the dog would indicate body parts from the blood contained in them. However, in the UK we can never test this.


Are cadaver dogs infallible?

We simply do not know. In licensing tests the dogs were accurate. However, we will never know how many times they have missed potential finds in live searches. Similarly, in cases where the dog indicates and no corroborating find is made by forensic scientists we do not know whether the dog is wrong or the science is not capable of matching the dog’s sensitivity. The dogs are tested in realistic, controlled searches annually and licensed accordingly.


How accurate are cadaver dogs?

We simply do not know. Dogs are far more sensitive than scientific tests. In practical, measured tests dogs have indicated minute smears deposited several weeks previously. They have indicated deposition sites many years old. We also know that dogs in other disciplines such as drugs and explosives can detect the tiniest deposits of scent that has been transferred from one person to another via clothing or other cross contamination. Dogs can be trained to recognise by scent whether a patient has cancer or whether they are about to have a fit.

As such it would be entirely possible for a cadaver dog to indicate clothing or other objects that had previously been in contact with human cadavers even after washing. If that clothing had itself come into contact with other items then cross-contamination would have occurred.

Could Dr. McCann’s clothing have caused sufficient cross-contamination for a cadaver dog to indicate the child’s teddy bear? In my opinion, yes.

Could Dr. McCann’s clothing have caused sufficient cross-contamination for a cadaver dog to indicate the hire car boot? In my opinion, yes.

Could Dr. McCann’s clothing have caused sufficient cross-contamination for a cadaver dog to indicate items or areas in the apartment? In my opinion, yes.

Also, let us not forget that the apartment and hire car are unknown quantities. Who can say whether any previous contamination by blood or had occurred? Children are prone to cuts and grazes. Women menstruate. Men cut themselves shaving. There is a good chance that innocent depositions had previously occurred at some stage.

There is documented evidence backed up by subsequent admissions that a dog positively indicated the scene of a murder twenty years after the event. The scene had been thoroughly cleaned and as such discounted by investigating officers at the time. It is entirely possible that such innocent depositions in the apartment or hire car would cause an indication. This would also explain why forensic scientists found no evidence linking samples to the McCanns.


Do cadaver dogs solve murders?

No! Cadaver dogs merely indicate areas worthy of further examination. Forensic scientists than harvest the evidence and present a case where necessary.

The dog’s indication is merely a sign that there may be evidence to discover. Sometimes a dog will indicate so positively a blind man can see it. Sometimes a dog will give more subtle signs that the handler picks up on and interprets according to circumstances.

On that basis a dog’s indication would never be used as evidence unless backed up by positive forensic evidence.



What is the ‘Scent of Death’?

All ‘sniffer’ dogs work on scent. Scent is reliant on moisture. No moisture – no scent. Scent is compiled by many different elements in a unique cocktail. Trained dogs can identify minute amounts of a particular scent contained within a greater environment of other scents.

The base scent is often modified by bacteria. This occurs when vegetation is crushed by a person walking over grass for example. A tracker dog will associate the smell of bacteria acting on decaying vegetation with the track even if there is no human scent present. In animals and humans a particular bacterial activity takes place after death that would not occur in life. This could be detected by a dog in the same way that a dog can detect the onset of a fit in a person by hormonal changes.

Bacterial activity is dependent on heat, humidity and light. It has been proven in the US that a body succumbs to bacterial activity within a few minutes after death has occurred. There is no reason why a trained dog would not indicate a cadaver within a few minutes of death having occurred. Read ‘The Body Farm’ for further details.



The FBI element.

Martin Grime has never worked for the FBI. A few years ago he arranged a junket in order to show off Keela to the Americans. I have seen the report of the trip. It was less then enthusiastic about their abilities and the value of the trial. The Americans are way ahead of our abilities because of their more relaxed attitudes to body parts being available for research. As a result of the trip and other matters (see below) Martin was not offered an extension to his contract when he reached the end of his service.


The Chief Constable’s pay matter.

At no time did Martin Grime and / or his dogs earn more than the Chief Constable. In fact, when the matter of outside payments was properly examined it actually cost his employers to let him go out on searches for other forces. The income was eroded by expenditure. This is simply another myth that came about by Martin running off at the mouth without knowing the implications of his statements. If the dog had been earning four times the handler's salary Martin Grime would have been retained purely on that basis.


Why is Martin Grime freelance?

Normally police dog instructors can look forward to being retained either on the 30 plus scheme or as a civilian in police dog training. It makes economic sense for a force to retain expertise especially when civilian staff receive substantially less pay for essentially the same job. Martin Grime wanted to stay on but was not offered an extension following his retirement date. He had become somewhat of an embarrassment to his employers and was unpopular with both his peers and his students. His continual and relentless prostitution of his services as a cadaver search handler to all and sundry meant that his position in the dog training department had to be filled by his colleagues and in some cases he neglected to honour his obligations to courses. This caused some of his students considerable distress and resulted in some of his courses having to be rescued by other instructors. This, other irregularities and the American trip resulted in a management decision being made not to offer him an extension to his contract. He was allowed to keep the dogs that were actually his employer’s property. These dogs are now, I understand licensed at his own expense.

Quote:
well you are suggesting that martin grime made them up does a professional do that? without being challenged?


Poacher wrote:
where are the challenges?

Martin Grime has made a lot of claims for the dogs that cannot be substantiated. And he was challenged. He still is being challenged. If he has indeed got 200 detected cases let him list them. I will pledge £2 to charity for every case that he can prove if he pledges £1 to charity for the shortfall under 200.

Poacher wrote:
'Cherry - You are correct. I do know Martin Grime and I do not have much time for him. Rather then envy him, I actually pity him. He is a 'Walter Mitty' character. I have no reason to envy him. His reputation for what it is, only holds with those who do not know about dog training and swallow statements as facts without challenging or questioning them. He knows my opinion of him.
My main concern in this forum is to clarify some of the ambiguities. It doesn't matter whether the dogs indicated or not. If the forensic guys can't find anything there is no case. You cannot prove guilt on a dog's indication and I have listed reasons why the courts will never appropriate significant weight to an indication without supporting forensic evidence.

Poacher wrote:
When I was supposed to be online I was out walking the dog. I'm not going to answer all the questions, just some. That is because some of you do not want to hear anything that reduces even slightly the chances of the McCanns hanging. In the UK cadaver dogs are not trained using human tissue, body parts or other human substances except blood. There is no legal way to obtain human remains other than blood for this purpose. Pork is used as a near substitute. If you do not believe me ask your local police dog training school. If a dog indicates a find then forensic experts take over the examination. They provide the crucial evidence not the dog handler. Often the dog handler is not called to court. If a dog fails to find a deposition then how does the handler know? He doesn't. That is why we can never claim 100% accuracy. Similarly, a dog can indicate a find that subsequently turns out to be unrelated. I know of several instances where cadaver dogs indicated badger sets. Badgers have a smell similar to pigs and bring carrion back to their setts. If a dog indicates such a find does it count towards his success or not? The 100% record is a myth. What the dogs indicated in Portugal means little in a court of law. Without supporting forensic evidence it could not be used. There are too many cases where potential cross-contamination has resulted in successful defences. No forensic - no evidence. Simple as that. Yes, I think the McCanns are hiding something. No, I am not trying to defend them or cloud the issue. Why do I not post in my real name? Come on! How many of you do? The web is full of pseudonyms. Does the choice of name weaken an argument or point of view? Finally, newperson:- If the dogs indicated in the apartment then it is possible that there was something that they detected that forensic examination failed to find. It might be that the McCanns are guilty. There is enough in my posts to show that this is entirely possible. If you want me to say that the dog's indication proves beyond all doubt that they are guilty then I cannot. There is the slight chance that cross-contamination or other depositions caused one or more of the indications. As previously and repeatedly been said - forensic proves the case not the dogs.

Sprite wrote:
Poacher, so I ask again...what is your motivation for posting here if the dogs don't matter?


Poacher wrote:
Of course the dogs matter. You would call in a dog when you could not find evidence, but you suspected it was there. If you believed that there were Bronze Age remnants in a field would you dig it all up or first scan with a metal detector and concentrate your search where it indicated metal?Same with cadaver dogs. Eddie and Frankie cover a lot of ground and indicate areas that require further investigation. Keela runs round a room and indicates where blood is or has been so that forensic swabs can be taken. The dogs save money by concentrating the investigation where appropriate or indicating that there is nothing to examine. However, because of the training methods, the absence of human cadaver in training and the fact that we have no other way of checking, we have no way of guaranteeing or estimating the success rate. We know that they are a fantastic resource. What we don't know is how good or what they miss. Sprite - we will never know. The dogs could be indicating cadaver scent or something else. That is the whole point - without corroborating evidence we will never know.

poacher wrote:
The point is that the dogs are so sensitive that any one of the above could apply. That is why their indications would be discounted in court. It doesn't matter what you or I think any reasonably good defence barrister could bring sufficient doubt into a jury's mind. Just for the record one of the dogs indicated a buried tea towel that had been used to wrap a piglet for around 12 hours and subsequently buried 12 down in soil, covered loosely with bricks then left for six weeks. That is recorded in its licensing report. If the dog can indicate that would a jury convict on a dog's indication without supporting forensic evidence and given the explanation about Kate McCann being in recent contact with corpses? What we think is irrelevant. The jury would never convict.

In reference to Grimes rogatory:

Poacher wrote:
Sorry, but I have seen this before. Some of it is bo**ocks to put it mildly. Even if he did take Eddie, which I am 90% sure that he didn't, he was only there for a few days. Hardly exclusively. I repeat, he never liaised with the FBI officially other than his trip abroad. What he did in his own time on his own computer is anybody's business. Mark Harrison is quoting Grime. Ask him to prove the point. The report I saw said nothing of the sort. Proving the McCann's guilt will not bring Maddie back. My comments on juries are relevant to why they haven't been charged. The dogs have had good successes. Sometimes however, their indications do not lead to prosecutions. It doesn't stop people trying though. Right, that's me done for tonight

Poacher wrote:
I'll never be able to understand some people Let's look at the facts, not what Martin Grime claims.

1. He was never involved with the FBI in any official capacity whilst working for SYP other than arranging a short trip to the States. The circumstances of that trip were subsequently called into question and were partly responsible for the decision not to renew his contract.

2. No UK cadaver dog trains exclusively on human remains. There is no legal way that human remains can be obtained for this research/training. I do not know of any situation where human remains have been used in dog training in the UK. And that includes Eddie and Keela.

3. If a dog can distinguish between one person's scent and another as hundreds of police and Schutzhundt dogs do routinely, then it beggars belief that dogs cannot differentiate between pork and human flesh. I suggest that an inexperienced cadaver dog will indicate a corpse because it can pick up the scent of the blood contained in it. As the dog gains experience in live searches it will then associate the other scents of a cadaver with receiving a reward and indicate accordingly. The only reasons why we cannot train dogs to distinguish between pig and human is that we haven't got access to human samples for training purposes.

4. Most of the statement issues by Martin Grime could be called into question. His claimed involvement in the USA whilst working for SYP cannot be evidenced. I am sure that his claims that he is a special advisor to other police forces and agencies would not stand up to robust questioning. If he was challenged in court about these claims I would think that he would be severely compromised.

5. Why is he able to make such claims? Because the press and yourselves are too lazy or ignorant to look for the truth when it is staring at you in the face. Still don't believe me? Let's look at the famous quote about Keela earning more than the Chief Constable; How much was the Chief earning? Over £120,000. How much were we supposedly charging for Keela's services? £200 per day. £200 multiplied by 365 gives £73,000. So, even if Keela worked every day possible she is still fifty grand short. The facts are there and always have been. You just can't be bothered to look for them.

6. I don't know how Martin Grime ended up in Portugal. I was out of the loop at that time. What I do know is that while working for SYP he trawled through every news channel available daily and personally volunteered his services to the senior officer asking them to contact him on his personal mobile phone. This short-circuited the normal channels whereby a senior investigating officer would approach Mark Harrison who would then request one of the several cadaver dog handlers available in the UK. This was another reason why his contract was not extended. Going back to the apartment & car: Only those involved in the situation will have any clear idea why the dogs indicated where they did. The McCanns have been clever enough( or victims of a strange set of coincidences) to bring sufficiently plausible reasons why a dog might indicate. Without corroborating evidence from a witness or forensic, or an admission no one outside those involved in the situation can form any clear opinion. As has been said many times previously; advancements in forensic science and or a change of witness evidence could unlock the puzzle. From a dog handler's point of view all he could say is that the dogs have indicated certain areas that warrant further examination. That is all.

Quote:
Properdad, I don't understand what you mean by how he ended up in Portugal. I was not privvy to the arrangements. What I can say is that at the time of the deployment he was on leave pending his retirement date. His last working day was five days before the deployment so how he came to be working during that leave period is beyond my understanding. Normally an officer has an official retirement date and their last working day is the number of days leave owing before that date.

I don't know whether they let him go early and he was effectively freelance or whether his employers received payment for his services while he was still on leave, but effectively employed by them. I wasn't privy to the arrangements and I had no reason to ask. Enhanced cadever dogs? Don't make me laugh again.

A search dog is licensed every year and HAS to undergo at least ten training sessions per year in addition to that licensing test. That means that Martin Grime would have to transport his dog to a country where human cadaver could be obtained for training purposes. I have seen Eddie indicate pork and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so. Another myth I suspect. Try Googling a bit and you will find that the Yanks had thirty years start in cadaver dogs, and have the facility of human cadaver research for body recovery purposes including search dogs. They are light years ahead of any UK handler. I don't know why some of you think I'm undermining the case against the McCanns on the dog front. From what I understand the dogs have done their business, cast suspicions, the forensic has been harvested, proved inconclusive and we await further developments. This forum will not change anything.

vee8 thanks so much for posting that (I know it was a long time ago but I am pretty new to this place and haven't had much time to read up)

The dogs have always been a sticking point for me - on DS I was convinced eventually that the Jersey alert was not false, very old bone fragments were found along with the coconut shell (sorry I am unable to provide a link, the topic was removed)

But this stuff from Poacher - it has a strong ring of truth, especially the stuff about why Grimes was not kept on after retirement. I was a copper many many years ago and this stuff just feels right. Can I ask what the PFA forum referred to is?

Thanks.

ProFenceAnti, though it's about 99% Pro. Some good people there, as here. Some of us are on both, and there is a fair bit of cross-feeding between the two.

http://www.pfa2.com/forum/

Thanks vee8, will have a look when I have familiarised myself more with this place