Eddie and Keela in Jersey and PDL

I wonder why yesterday's programme did not mention the much acclaimed snout of Eddie's success in Jersey, turned out to be nothing but a lump of old cardboard, with absolutely no trace of anything on it?

Or perhaps it did and I missed it?

This dog as lovely as he is, is trained to find bodies, he is NOT trained to find where bodies have been.

So the people that keep on about this dog as has never given a false positive, yes he has, he did it in Jersey and he did it in Praia da Luz.

As no body has ever been found in PDL then how can anyone say that Eddie got it right? There are no 'Probables' in law, it has to be said that he did not find anything.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, it has been said by a Scotland Yard dog handler that there was simply too much time allowed to elapse between the time that Madeleine's was supposed to have been in the apartment and the hire car and these dogs being brought in!

With all due respect, how can anyone say with certainty what the dog detected? The fact is of course they cannot and this is the simple reason why this evidence is NOT admissible in a court neither here or in Portugal!

Also children fall over and they bleed and Madeleine McCann has such an accident on her way up the plane steps on the way to Portugal.

The official report also apparently says that there was only ever a very small chance of a connection between "eddies positive" reaction and Kate McCann and they admit that they made a mistake by not taking into consideration, Kate having come into contact with six deceased patients prior to her going on holiday. Of course this can be checked out and it no doubt has been checked out and it must be true as the PJ would have made much of it if it wasn't!

It also has to be mentioned that Kate McCann could very well have been menstruating when she was away on holiday, but no doubt this is another little fact that the barking mad conspiracy theorists really do not want mentioned, as it may spoil their insane and bizarre theories.

Kiwigirl (on another thread) Said.....

As for the PJ, making them suspects because of the possibility Kate had been in contact with a corpse, according to a dog?!! How ridiculous, how utterly ridiculous

That says it all!

Rosiepops wrote:I wonder why yesterday's programme did not mention the much acclaimed snout of Eddie's success in Jersey, turned out to be nothing but a lump of old cardboard, with absolutely no trace of anything on it?

Or perhaps it did and I missed it?

This dog as lovely as he is, is trained to find bodies, he is NOT trained to find where bodies have been.

So the people that keep on about this dog as has never given a false positive, yes he has, he did it in Jersey and he did it in Praia da Luz.

As no body has ever been found in PDL then how can anyone say that Eddie got it right? There are no 'Probables' in law, it has to be said that he did not find anything.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, it has been said by a Scotland Yard dog handler that there was simply too much time allowed to elapse between the time that Madeleine's was supposed to have been in the apartment and the hire car and these dogs being brought in!

With all due respect, how can anyone say with certainty what the dog detected? The fact is of course they cannot and this is the simple reason why this evidence is NOT admissible in a court neither here or in Portugal!

Also children fall over and they bleed and Madeleine McCann has such an accident on her way up the plane steps on the way to Portugal.

The official report also apparently says that there was only ever a very small chance of a connection between "eddies positive" reaction and Kate McCann and they admit that they made a mistake by not taking into consideration, Kate having come into contact with six deceased patients prior to her going on holiday. Of course this can be checked out and it no doubt has been checked out and it must be true as the PJ would have made much of it if it wasn't!

It also has to be mentioned that Kate McCann could very well have been menstruating when she was away on holiday, but no doubt this is another little fact that the barking mad conspiracy theorists really do not want mentioned, as it may spoil their insane and bizarre theories.

Good points :Nothingtoadd:

Where there is no body, the dogs are indicators at best. If the dogs indicate that a body may have been present, then further investigation needs to be done to ascertain if this is the case. If no forensic evdience is then found, then the dogs are considered to be incorrect, that is there is no evidence that a body has been there.

That is it, end of story.

But dont get me wrong, that indicator is very important, and if the humans helping the dog do their job properly, then if any supporting evidence exists, then it is found. But in this case, poor Eddie and Keela seemed to be going it alone.

Hello everybody,

This is the first time I am posting here. Just wanted to add that I remember reading that the dog handlers in Jersey had another problem due to that the TV program "Bergerac" had been filmed in that very same area and they had created a false grave yard with papier mache grave stones. The dog handlers were unaware of this and apparently the dogs reacted to the "graves". So, unless we suspect the makers of those programs actually buried real bodies, the dogs seem to react to quite a few things.

It was confirmed by the handlers of the cadavar dogs being use to find Caylee Anthony that dog handlers can sometimes mislead dogs to find evidence that is NOT there. Honest, it was on Nancy Grace - I would not make this up.

calcite51 wrote:It was confirmed by the handlers of the cadavar dogs being use to find Caylee Anthony that dog handlers can sometimes mislead dogs to find evidence that is NOT there. Honest, it was on Nancy Grace - I would not make this up.

I wonder if anybody remembers that soon after the dogs were used in Praia da luz, in one of my posts I mentioned that there had been a programme about these Cadaver dogs and the training methods used. An actual Cadavor dog trainer was discussing the success rate and falibility of these animals to the TV presenter and as an example a piece of steak was hidden in a car. The dogs are trained to find human remains and not animal meat but within minutes the dog was scratching away at the hiding place of the steak. Not very convincing was it? Alroy.

Yes indeed Royal. Without finding physical remains they only had a scent of which had to be qualified and valued by professional scientists. We all know the results of that.

So we dont have a complete 100% accuracy even with a physical find. I would think the accuracy deminishes the further away we get from physical evidence hence the FSS results proving inconclusive enough to send an Email to the PJ warning that the results proved nothing conclusive. Yet, I fear, in my opinion, that Amaral thought 15 out of 19 sounded like more than 50% so hedged his bets. However, the missing 4 markers may as well be a million miles apart for all we know. I'm still trying to learn more about these markers.

It has been argued that in some European countries fewer markers are requird as evidence to bring charges. I'll be looking into this as perhaps fewer markers are taken into account only when there is other coroborating evidence which is swayed by the DNA markers and therefore a 100% match was not required. I wonder if fewer markere are considered enough if they are the only evidence in these other countries.

ModNrodder wrote:Yes indeed Royal. Without finding physical remains they only had a scent of which had to be qualified and valued by professional scientists. We all know the results of that.

So we dont have a complete 100% accuracy even with a physical find. I would think the accuracy deminishes the further away we get from physical evidence hence the FSS results proving inconclusive enough to send an Email to the PJ warning that the results proved nothing conclusive. Yet, I fear, in my opinion, that Amaral thought 15 out of 19 sounded like more than 50% so hedged his bets. However, the missing 4 markers may as well be a million miles apart for all we know. I'm still trying to learn more about these markers.

It has been argued that in some European countries fewer markers are requird as evidence to bring charges. I'll be looking into this as perhaps fewer markers are taken into account only when there is other coroborating evidence which is swayed by the DNA markers and therefore a 100% match was not required. I wonder if fewer markere are considered enough if they are the only evidence in these other countries.

Modenrodder.
I would think that no jury would convict on such flimsy evidence no matter which country, except places like Iraq and some other Muslim countries where once you are accused you are guilty no matter what is said in your defence. Off with you hands or even your head is the norm! Alroy.

by Mobira on Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:52 am
Hello everybody,

This is the first time I am posting here. Just wanted to add that I remember reading that the dog handlers in Jersey had another problem due to that the TV program "Bergerac" had been filmed in that very same area and they had created a false grave yard with papier mache grave stones. The dog handlers were unaware of this and apparently the dogs reacted to the "graves". So, unless we suspect the makers of those programs actually buried real bodies, the dogs seem to react to quite a few things.

by calcite51 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:51 am

It was confirmed by the handlers of the cadaver dogs being use to find Caylee Anthony that dog handlers can sometimes mislead dogs to find evidence that is NOT there. Honest, it was on Nancy Grace - I would not make this up.

It is strange that you should say that Mobira because the famous lovely little 'Eddie' was the dog that indicated a positive in apartment 5a and was the same dog who indicated a positive while being used to search the children's home in Jersey. When the results of the tests came back which Eddie had indicated they were found to be nothing more than a lump of cardboard, so this actually seems to fall in place with your comments about the papier mache'. These are not the only cases where cadaver dogs have indicated where old paper or cardboard or paper products have been or been used.
I do wonder if in the manufacturing process of the paper that the chemicals used have a similar odour to two of the by-products of decomposition, 'putrescine and cadaverine'? Just a thought!
I also wonder how often behind the sofa and inside the wardrobe in these holiday apartments are actually cleaned? What better places for newspapers to fall and lay undetected than behind the sofa in a holiday let? Also what was the wardrobe lined with? Also when behind the sofa and inside the wardrobe was last cleaned, what was on the cleaner's mop and where had it been used previously? A dog's olfactory cells are 180 million times stronger than a humans so they are going to pick up the odours on mops etc.

"A human cadaver dog's detection skills depend greatly on its training, and the problem is that human remains are hard to come by. Trainers often use a combination of available "pseudoscents", and pigs"

On another occasion, one of these cadaver dogs were searching a house when the dog signalled. A cache of bones was found beneath the floorboards at the spot – but they were later identified as pig. Pig carcasses are used in training cadaver dogs.

A trained human cadaver dog will not signal a living person or an animal, except pigs.

(I wonder if this is why Eddie signalled a positive when he was near Amaral?)

Calcite, I am not at all surprised to learn this, especially when we know of the situation with the dogs when they were used in the line up of the hire car!

Another Amaral cock-up! A line of cars all the same and the dogs went past and did not indicate a positive, they come to the McCann's care and it is sitting there with yellow Find Madeleine' stickers all over it, yet still the dogs did NOT indicate a positive, so the handlers apparently pulled them back and walked them around the car until one of them did indicate a positive!

I think this without doubt is one of the dodgiest things I have heard concerning this whole investigation, this is absolutely deplorable, if the 'Find Madeleine' stickers were not on the vehicle and it looked the same as all the rest, then a positive would never have been signalled. This is an absolute damning indictment of Amaral and his shoddy work!

These dogs are not 100% and 2345 will need to deal with this!


Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month.

The dogs couldn't necessarily prove anything even if Madeleine's body had been in recent contact with her mother's clothes. Since they didn't turn up any actual remains, investigators had to rely on the "smell of death" itself, an odor that stems from the decomposition process. Without a body, they can't be certain that the animals didn't make a mistake. Cadaver dogs do mess up from time to time: The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time.



A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing. When a dog gives a signal, such as barking or sitting down, to indicate that it has smelled a corpse, a handler can only say something along the lines of, "My dog is giving an indication consistent with human blood." He can't say definitively that, yes, a body was present, without further confirmation—in the form of a blood stain, for example.

A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing. When a dog gives a signal, such as barking or sitting down, to indicate that it has smelled a corpse, a handler can only say something along the lines of, "My dog is giving an indication consistent with human blood." He can't say definitively that, yes, a body was present, without further confirmation—in the form of a blood stain, for example.

Considering this, which is widely accepted, we have:

1. Behind the sopha, there was a drop of blood that could not be linked to anyone in the McCann family. A positive for both dogs. Inconclusive evidence.

2. On the car, there were bodily fluids/hair where the DNA could be linked to the McCann family and the remaining half of the world population. A positive for both dogs. Inconclusive evidence.

3. Kate's jeans. No further analisys made, therefore inconclusive both for dogs and DNA.

4. Cuddle cat. No further analisys, therefore inconclusive both for dogs and DNA.

5. Car keys. No further analisys, therefore inconclusive both for dogs and DNA.

Small detail: only car keys were marked not the steering wheel or the 'gear stick'(can't remember the proper name). Which in my opinion reveals that the odour did not come from the hand of the driver and probably wasn't enough to contaminate this same hand.

We also have to consider that putrescine and cadaverine exist in the saliva of LIVING people. Considering 3., 4. and 5. couldn't it be possible that the twins left their own saliva on these objects? This is not that far fetched, is it? Why were they not analised?

This post should probably be on 'PJ blunders' thread...

I just think this whole thing about these scents the cadaver dogs were meant to have found is totally suspect.

• How come the Portuguese sniffer dogs failed to find anything at all in this apartment?
  
• In view if the fact that nothing suspect was found by these dogs, why did Amaral suddenly request that British dogs be brought in weeks after Madeleine disappeared?
  
• Considering the ego of this man and his flat refusal to accept any other outside help or advice, I just find this very odd!
  
• Remember Amaral requested these dogs be brought in after he allowed this apartment to be occupied by four other families.
  
• How did Amaral think he had evidence to make the parents arguidos after this ridiculous monumental blunder?

No wonder Amaral went on the offensive and got his story in first, he knew perfectly well and justifiably so, that he was going to be heavily criticized for his totally inept handling of this investigation. Personally in my opinion I think he was told he was going to be pushed, so he jumped first!

He has managed to hack off judges and prosecutors and his own superiors, he was told to stop flogging a dead horse with this investigation, he has single handed brought his country and its archaic laws into disrepute, so I will be looking with great interest at his forthcoming trial for his part in the alleged torture of Leonor Cipriano.

I find it startling that this man has conducted just two cases into the disappearance of two little girls believed abducted and he appears to have reached the same conclusions in the same way in each case. He has also managed to mire both these investigations deep into controversy.

Knowing how the first case ended and that he was in considerable difficulties with it at the time Madeleine disappeared, why was he allowed to continue heading this investigation? Why didn't someone step in immediately and prevent this happening?
Goncalo Amaral made the first monumental and catastrophic error right from the very start of this investigation when he FAILED to attend the scene, instead trying to co ordinate this over the telephone.
Why when it became immediately apparent that Goncalo Amaral was bungling this investigation at every level did not someone step in immediately and remove him from this case?

I wonder how long he actually spent on the telephone when he was first called?

Beats me bearing all this in mind that he can then turn around and complain about the crime scene and blame the parents for contaminating it, when he wasn't even there to oversee it. How could he say this anyway? According to him it wasn't a crime scene!

I would like to know who made the decision that this was a case of wandering off and then told the police to go home and come back the next day if required? When did he do this? How long after he had first been informed there was a problem did he give this instruction?

I do wonder if in the manufacturing process of the paper that the chemicals used have a similar odour to two of the by-products of decomposition, 'putrescine and cadaverine'? Just a thought!

I actually have a different theory. The dog also marked coconut shells.

My theory is that, legally or illegally, the dogs have been trained also in graveyards. And there they learned another association, an association that was not intended or planned: crosses equal cadaver, skulls equal cadaver. That's why they marked Bergerac's paper graveyard and probably Bergerac's coconut skulls. Which other associations could they have learned?

Although in the case of the car I certainly agree that the dog was forced onto it.

Im not disputing these dogs are good at what they do,i guess no one is.However taking a realistic look at the whole thing makes me laugh and to be honest if i was gonc i would be cringing with embarrassment.

The very fact that he had to invent a two part drama about the hiding of a body raises questions,how anyone can take his word is beyond me.He couldn't just say the child had an accident and died and her parents hid her body because he knew without a shadow of doubt they wouldn't have had time or the privacy in order to bury a body!!!

So he invents a two part story which starts with the hiding of her in a fridge freezer until 3 weeks down the line when they hired a car.That was the second part of his story....the mccanns then went back to her decomposing body,and somehow infront of the watchful eye of the worlds media they carried her to her final resting place??

then two of the worlds best dogs come to sniff out the body and fail.They do however smell a spot of blood(which could have belonged to anyone)its a spot which is invisible to the naked eye!!

They then smell some death scent on some items that belong to doctors(wow!!!!!) and they are encouraged to spend ages on a car that belongs to those doctors before they start barking which indicated a positive death scent again.Hmmmm that car had a 3 week old decomposing body in it and they had t be encouraged to find the scent??LOL come on gonc.......you dnt seriously expect people to buy that do you?Shame on him because he as hung drawn and quarterd the mccanns over the last 2 years or so.

Rosie you mention the cardboard that the dogs found in jersey.Was there also talk about a find which when dug up was an old corned beef tin?They were looking for a body or something and the dogs indicated that they found one...it was a tin of princess corned beef lol

Perhaps the smell of death they picked up on in the garage that day belonged to gonc.Hes making me sick, the amount of times i see him wearing the same deluded suit and baggy jeans that show his arss.I would imagine he doesnt smell to pleasant himself.

Those dogs might very well have found scent of a dead body that day,but it weren't Madeleine's,it was probably a rubbing of skin from a body from the morgue or something.If there was a 3 week old decomposing body about the dogs would have been going frantic and the scent of death would have been all over the place.

IF the scent was death my guess is was put there deliberately for them to find.