Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, OT, but I wouldn't take much stock with anything regarding the Jersey investigation because of allegations of there being a cover-up. Which tends to happen with regards to care home abuses. I think even some police officers involved have stated that this might be the case too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mmy-Savile-He-was-the-tip-of-the-iceberg.html

Also, I don't know why some people are completely ignoring the fact that the cadaver dog sniffs out dried blood too. How do they think it's possible that the McCanns could have been toting a body around in such a manner, with the full glare of publicity that this case entailed? I also thought that a body had to have been there for a certain length of time before a dog caught the scent and it was even more difficult if the victim was a child? I personally think that if Amaral and his chums didn't contaminate the area then it is more likely that it was dry blood that the dog was reacting too, particularly with regards to the car that was hired some weeks after.
 
JMO milk teeth should count as human remains as far as a dog's nose is concerned. They're not proof of murder and abuse but they contain decaying human fleshy bits. The dogs are not trained to distinguish evidence of horrific abuse and murder from bits of human that came off naturally imo. It is the job of the police to find out if there was a crime involved, not the dog's. If the dog alerted on a tooth it did its job correctly.

The Daily Mail link says they also found some ancient bones that might be human.


According to Grimes his dog was trained on teeth.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

Thank-you - it sorts of makes my point about how important it is then that all alerts must have corroboration . If milk teeth or ancient bones dating back to the 1400's can illicit an alert from a cadaver dog then the LE must be careful . That is why it is so dangerous to rely on this evidence alone and why statements like - " the dogs have told us that madeleine was in the car etc " can be very misleading
 
:seeya:

For anyone who is actually interested :
MARTIN GRIMES

" I am an U.K.A.C.P.O. accredited police dog training instructor in post at the Operational Support Services. I am a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor.
I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training.

I am a Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
I am regularly deployed to assist in high profile homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

____________________________________

Martin Grime Rogatory Statement

CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3,

"I am a retired police officer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police......."

Full statement

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12
If this dog.....an aide to the US in some compactly...was so spot on, why wasn't he finding hundreds of thousands of the missing and or deceased in the US?
 
Thank-you - it sorts of makes my point about how important it is then that all alerts must have corroboration . If milk teeth or ancient bones dating back to the 1400's can illicit an alert from a cadaver dog then the LE must be careful . That is why it is so dangerous to rely on this evidence alone and why statements like - " the dogs have told us that madeleine was in the car etc " can be very misleading

Certainly. The dogs indicate where you should go looking for more evidence but if you find nothing conclusive the alert alone doesn't get you very far.

It is probably unlikely that ancient human bones were ever in the Scenic or the apartment but you can find some teeth in my house right now.
 
If this dog.....an aide to the US in some compactly...was so spot on, why wasn't he finding hundreds of thousands of the missing and or deceased in the US?


I don't think this is fair to the dog. If you ask them to do the impossible to prove their worth, of course they won't.
He was never claimed to be a search and rescue dog, trained to track for a specific missing person's scent.

If the dogs are looking for a missing, presumed deceased person you need to have somewhere to make them start looking. Otherwise they might direct you to the local cemetery or the morgue. It is my understanding that they can't tell the difference between Fred's cadaver scent and Tom's cadaver scent and you can't give them the scent of a living person and tell them to go track and find that person's body. What they are able to do is to search the place that the police takes them to and indicate if they find a suspicious scent there but they do not have a compass that points them to a specific body that is some distance away from where the police knows to start searching.

And considering the average life span of a dog and the time it takes to train the young dog, it's probably a very long time if they're in active service for ten years. If you wanted to find a hundred thousand dead people in ten years you would have to find more than one dead person per hour, every hour, every day, including the holidays. Three or four bodies per hour if you just wanted to work 8 hours per day. There's just no time. Even if the dog could do it the handlers couldn't.

Please let's be fair to the dogs and don't give them credit for something they never claimed to be able to do and not blame them for not being able to do something they never claimed to be able to.
 
Yes a mystery indeed but fact nonetheless that the dogs did detect blood and cadaver odour in the rental car and apartment.

Out of 12 cars, they alerted the McCanns car. What are the odds of that?



-----------

Late July: British sniffer dogs flown out to Portugal. Keela, who can detect minute quantities of blood, and Eddie, who is trained to detect bodies, work in the apartment and several cars, including the hire car the McCanns had rented 25 days after Madeleine disappeared.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13386785

These are the cars the dogs checked everyone of interest in the case.

How on earth would the dog know which one was the McCanns car...they re not that clever.

Also didnt a cadaver dog indicate in the Casey Anthony death and oh yeh it was right there was a dead child carried in the boot?

I have only decided to ignore the dogs findings for now as its POINTLESS in accepting their findings as the PJ and SY are looking at other scenarios, but I always believe WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND, and I think their evidence will one day proof they were right.

Vehicle 1: Blue Opel Corsa*- hire car (James Gorrod)

X

Vehicle 2: Fiat Punto (Ralph Eveleigh – Murat's uncle)

X

Vehicle 3: Peugot 205 (Robert Murat)

X

Vehicle 4: Renault Scenic - hire car (The McCanns)

Cadaver odour/
Blood traces


Vehicle 5: Skoda Fabia (Michaela Walczuch)

X

Vehicle 6: Volkswagen Transporter (Jenny Murat)

X

Vehicle 7: Nissan Patrol (Luís António)

X

Vehicle 8: Volkswagen Passat (Luís António)

X

Vehicle 9: Audi A4 (Segei Malinka)

X

Vehicle 10: Renault Kangoo (Luís António)

Notes:

*The Opel Corsa was rented from SIXT rental car agency by James Gorrod, a friend of Russell O’Brien, between the 28th of April and the 6th of May, 2007.

X
 
It was obvious it was the mccanns car. So the handler could have helped them alert. I can not take that out of the equation.


You are assuming of course the handler KNEW it was the McCanns car. I would expect that the handler was not privvy to who's car it was for the very fact he might be impartial, although at the time they had no idea what they would find or on who's car......
 
I'm not an expert on how to manage a sniffer dog, so I can't really comment on whether what Grime did was usual - but I assume that by making the video public he wasn't concerned about any lack of professionalism, and I haven't seen any negative criticism from others in the industry. (Please feel free to correct me here - I have not been studying this case long).

I would have assumed that his technique would have drawn heavy criticism from within the industry if he had done anything usual.

Isnt he working with the FBI since after the McCann case? I believe he has had some success over there training and also working with his dogs.

I think there is information about him on my signature.

This guy did nothing wrong, his only crime was to be involved with the McCann case the same as Amaral simples.........

ITS pointless IMHO to even discuss the dogs or their findings.

Like i said one day, WHAT COMES AROUND WILL GO AROUND it usually does.

The dogs dont lie, they do their job and move on to another one. They have helped solved many cases over 200 I believe.

What are the odds they are wrong?......but like i said no point...
 
I think the confusion is what these dogs are trained to do. We know one was used for detection of blood. The other was for cadaver. IIRC both dogs alerted to the McCanns car and other places inside the apartment The DNA was interpreted a certain way resulting to an inconclusive report.

If someone can explain why a cadaver dog would alert to the McCanns
"Belongings" and not any others perhaps it would help some of us understand.

I don't think ham or prosciutto or dirty nappies would result in a false positive. Add to that Kate's comment that it may have came from her clothing working with dead bodies.

I agree that the likelihood that they kept maddie in the hire car for 21 days is impossible. However one can assume they may have transferred her possible death scent to the car in some way. Cuddle cat?
 
Isnt he working with the FBI since after the McCann case? I believe he has had some success over there training and also working with his dogs.

I think there is information about him on my signature.

This guy did nothing wrong, his only crime was to be involved with the McCann case the same as Amaral simples.........

ITS pointless IMHO to even discuss the dogs or their findings.

Like i said one day, WHAT COMES AROUND WILL GO AROUND it usually does.

The dogs dont lie, they do their job and move on to another one. They have helped solved many cases over 200 I believe.

What are the odds they are wrong?......but like i said no point...

question for you as you seem to be very passionate about the dogs .

Do you think the alerting evidence is enough and all the police need to arrest and go to trial ??

Now I am not being facetious but we cant put the dogs on the witness stand - so their evidence would be just that - alerts in the places they alerted .

would that be enough for you - Just interested
 
These are the cars the dogs checked everyone of interest in the case.

How on earth would the dog know which one was the McCanns car...they re not that clever.

Also didnt a cadaver dog indicate in the Casey Anthony death and oh yeh it was right there was a dead child carried in the boot?

I have only decided to ignore the dogs findings for now as its POINTLESS in accepting their findings as the PJ and SY are looking at other scenarios, but I always believe WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND, and I think their evidence will one day proof they were right.

Vehicle 1: Blue Opel Corsa*- hire car (James Gorrod)

X

Vehicle 2: Fiat Punto (Ralph Eveleigh – Murat's uncle)

X

Vehicle 3: Peugot 205 (Robert Murat)

X

Vehicle 4: Renault Scenic - hire car (The McCanns)

Cadaver odour/
Blood traces


Vehicle 5: Skoda Fabia (Michaela Walczuch)

X

Vehicle 6: Volkswagen Transporter (Jenny Murat)

X

Vehicle 7: Nissan Patrol (Luís António)

X

Vehicle 8: Volkswagen Passat (Luís António)

X

Vehicle 9: Audi A4 (Segei Malinka)

X

Vehicle 10: Renault Kangoo (Luís António)

Notes:

*The Opel Corsa was rented from SIXT rental car agency by James Gorrod, a friend of Russell O’Brien, between the 28th of April and the 6th of May, 2007.

X



So the cars they searched were all cars of interest? For one reason or another? (Who is Luis Antonio again?)


In that case I think it's probably less likely that the handler unintentionally cued the dogs to alert on the McCann car. If he knew it was just the McCann car among random decoy cars he would probably have been more interested in it if he recognized it but if he knew that all the cars belonged to possible suspects or relatives and friends of possible suspects there would have been more handler interest in the other cars as well and the handler's interest in the family car wouldn't have stood out that much.
 
question for you as you seem to be very passionate about the dogs .

Do you think the alerting evidence is enough and all the police need to arrest and go to trial ??

Now I am not being facetious but we cant put the dogs on the witness stand - so their evidence would be just that - alerts in the places they alerted .

would that be enough for you - Just interested

I know this wasn't addressed to me but it would become part of circumstantial evidence at trial. Then of course we would have forensic experts from both sides battling it out in court on their findings. It would be up to the jury to decide who and what makes sense.

The dog evidence alone is not enough to go to trial.


ETA. I'm not sure if dog evidence is allowed at trial in the UK or Portugal
 
So the cars they searched were all cars of interest? For one reason or another? (Who is Luis Antonio again?)


In that case I think it's probably less likely that the handler unintentionally cued the dogs to alert on the McCann car. If he knew it was just the McCann car among random decoy cars he would probably have been more interested in it if he recognized it but if he knew that all the cars belonged to possible suspects or relatives and friends of possible suspects there would have been more handler interest in the other cars as well and the handler's interest in the family car wouldn't have stood out that much.

Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have questioned the estranged husband of suspect Robert Murat’s girlfriend for a second time, it has been claimed.
Luis Antonio, who still shares an apartment with Michaela Walczuch although they are separated, was interviewed again by detectives in the hope that new leads may be found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578759/Madeleine-McCann-Luis-Antonio-questioned.html
 
I have decided as there is not much going on with the case at the moment until the next Efit comes out to look at the odds of stranger abduction.

I was quite surprised at how rare it really is. As a lot of you are from the states I am using information from there.

FACT 1.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice statistics on violent crimes (1973 - 2002), the rate of kidnappings perpetrated by strangers is 0.0017 percent for every 1,000 children. In real-world numbers, this means that out of every 1,000 children who get kidnapped, only 1 or 2 of them are taken by strangers.

FACT 2

According to another study done by the U.S. Dept. of Justice, of the roughly 69,000 kidnappings that occurred in 1999 only 115 of them were abductions by strangers.

FACT 3

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in the year 2000, the following occurred:

• 255 children died of the flu or pnuemonia
• 452 children died from heart disease
• 1,921 children committed suicide
• 11,560 children died from accidental injuries

• Children are twice as likely to die of the flu than be kidnapped by a stranger
• Children are 4 times more likely to die of heart disease than be kidnapped by a stranger
• Children are 17 times more likely to commit suicide than be kidnapped by a stranger
• Children are 100 times more likely to die because of an accidental death than be kidnapped by a stranger

FACT 4

Of those 69,000 abductions that occurred in 1999, about 82 percent of them were perpetrated by family members and 11.3 percent by friends of the family (or other adults that the child knew well).

FACT 5

According to yet another report from the Dept. of Justice, of the sexual offenses committed against children in 2000, 34.2% of the perpetrators were family members and 58.7% were friends of the family (or other adults the children knew well). In the age range for sex-related crime victims of 6 to 11 year olds, only 4.7% of their molesters were strangers and in the age range of 0 to 5 years of age, only 3.1% of the perpetrators were strangers.

FACT 6

In a report compiled by Child Help USA it was discovered that the leading types of child abuse in the United States for the year 2001 were neglect (which makes up about 59% of child abuse) and physical abuse. The most disgusting thing that can be learned from this report has to be the fact that 81% of abusers were the child's parents! That's EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT!

59% of all child abusers for that year were female.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-Vanessa-George-Ill-be-out-in-two-years.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-Vanessa-George-Ill-be-out-in-two-years.html

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Not good odds for kids is it.

These are the young children missing in the South of Portugal nearto where the McCann child went missing...

The list of kidnappings in the South of Portugal includes the following:

- Rene Hasee, a boy age 6 and citizen of Germany, abducted in June 1996 while on the Amoreiras beach near-by the Atlantic Coast. Its felt the child could have drowned, been taken by his real father, OR disappeared into a quick sand type hole as he disappeared within seconds OF his mother seeing him.

- Joanna Cipriano, a girl age 7, abducted in 2004 in Figueira, located 7 miles from Praia da Luz. Her mother and uncle are doing time for her murder.

- Carolina Santos, a girl age 3, attempted abduction in Silves during 2006. See below.

- Madeleine McCann, a girl age 3, British citizen, abducted on May 3, 2007 in Praia da Luz.

Carolina Santos.

This has been defunked........

Diário de Notícias of May 25, 2007

A 30 years old man, from Morocco, threatened to kidnap the three year old daughter of a woman who rents a coffee-shop at Fonte de Luzeiros, between Silves and São Bartolomes de Messines." and that the "kidnap threat was made, last Tuesday".

See how there was no actual attempt at kidnapping Carolina Santos, only a threat, and that it all happened after Madeleine was snatched, not four months beforehand.

The Diário de Notícias goes on to say that the woman "filed a complaint with GNR from Silves the next day, and was contacted yesterday by investigators from Polícia Judiciária, to whom she told what happened." The newspaper then said that after "Talking with local residents" they "found that the man in question is a street seller and a well known trouble maker."

So far from "never being questioned" the family was questioned by both the GNR and the PJ, and what's more everyone knows who was responsible for causing the trouble in the first place just a drunk Moroccan street vendor who got into argument with a local cafe owner.

..........................................................

So what do we really have, in 11 years upto 2007 x 2 possible cases of abduction...Rene Hasee, and M. McCann....although i have done a lot of reading of the Rene Hasee case, and it does look as though this could have been a tragic accident, the currents in the sea were he was were really fierce and also it is possible for someone to simply be swallowed up its happened before. The fact there were a few footprints and nothing else...

.........................................................

Oh in north of portugal.....

Jorge Sepulveda, a boy age 10, abducted in April 1991 in the Massareles area near Oporto. No news.

- Claudia Alexandra Silva de Sousa, a girl age 7, abducted in May 1994 in the Vila Verde area around Oporto. Believed to have been taken by two men and forced to get inside a car.

- Rui Pedro, a boy age 12, abducted in March 1998 in the Lousada area near Oporto. Afonso Dias is in prison for his kidnapping he knew him, the boy is presumed dead or taken to europe in a pedo ring.

- Rui Pereira, a boy age 12, abducted in February 1999 in Nova Vila da Famalicao, around the Oporto area. Believed to be seen in Switzerland with 2 Italian men but no other sighting.


There are several teenagers missing presumed run away, altogher I belive there are 13 cases from 1991, most are highlighted above.
 
question for you as you seem to be very passionate about the dogs .

Do you think the alerting evidence is enough and all the police need to arrest and go to trial ??

Now I am not being facetious but we cant put the dogs on the witness stand - so their evidence would be just that - alerts in the places they alerted .

would that be enough for you - Just interested

To reiterate.

The dogs are TRAINED to do a job.

The training of these dogs is very complex. ANY dog that alerts to something OTHER then what they are trained to alert to, are SACKED.

The dogs under go constant training any mistakes they are out.

So for example shall we say Caylee Anthony. They used a cadaver dog didnt they, and it alerted to the scent of cadaver..It didnt turn around and say to its handler well that is the scent of Caylee Anthony NO it sniffed and told its handler I can detect cadaver......but i havent got a clue who it belongs to or where the body is, but something dead was in that boot. END OF. Oh and it was right wasnt it.

Now one would expect if you are looking for a missing child ANY alert by a cadaver dog should surely be taken seriously?

OK can I ask you a question. So all the times these dogs not just Eddie and Keela have indicated cadaver and have been instrumental in finding the body and putting some nasty perbs away for life, are you saying it was just a load of rubbish and pure coincidence?

What are you actually saying?

I dont understand truly perhaps I am dense.

A child is missing M.McCann. The dogs were bought in and indicated in several places, cadaver and blood. They never indicated on any other person only the McCanns.....

Not in one place BUT SEVERAL.

So what makes their findings with this case so different then say Caylee Anthonys case? I believe that the public wanted her death the mother that is for the simplist of evidence, BAYING for her blood actually from what I read at the time.

What is different with the McCanns, please tell me. Is it because they are professional people? Doctors, Surgeon, etc?

Would people dismiss the dogs findings so cavalierly for example if the parents were chavs who lived in a council house and went out drinking at home all the time, and were living on government benefits?

No I am confused.

The dogs did their job. They cannot say who the cadaver belongs to or the blood, they do their job, and the rest is up to the humans to find out what exactly they have found, and there has to be cooberating evidence to go alongside it.

SOMETHING happened to SOMEONE. Who I have no idea.

Did the McCanns harm their daughter, I have no idea. I am open to ideas and sitting on the fence, BUT someone DIED at some point.

Maybe one day will find out who it was.

Until then like i have said on several posts, I am discounting the dogs findings for now because until their is cooberating evidence it is pointless in bringing them up all the time.
 
I know this wasn't addressed to me but it would become part of circumstantial evidence at trial. Then of course we would have forensic experts from both sides battling it out in court on their findings. It would be up to the jury to decide who and what makes sense.

The dog evidence alone is not enough to go to trial.


ETA. I'm not sure if dog evidence is allowed at trial in the UK or Portugal

All legal systems are different , in the UK the police make a case and sent it to the CPS - who then decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial - not sure exactly how it works in Portugal.

You are right in saying that dogs evidence alone would not be enough in UK .

another question as you answered the first

Apart from the dogs alerting what hard evidence is there that points at the parents either murdering or disposing of Madeleine - take dogs alerts out of it -

I don't really see anything hard - apart from of course they are the last people to see her and should be investigated - but maube I have missed something
 
I have decided as there is not much going on with the case at the moment until the next Efit comes out to look at the odds of stranger abduction.

I was quite surprised at how rare it really is. As a lot of you are from the states I am using information from there.




FACT 1.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice statistics on violent crimes (1973 - 2002), the rate of kidnappings perpetrated by strangers is 0.0017 percent for every 1,000 children. In real-world numbers, this means that out of every 1,000 children who get kidnapped, only 1 or 2 of them are taken by strangers.



Is there a link for these facts?

On a quick google I could only find this quote on a few blog sources and I would like to see the statistics to see what it really stated . If the rate of stranger abduction is 0.000017 per 1000 children in the general population we can't extrapolate from this the percentage of stranger abductions in the population of abducted children without knowing how many children out of 1000 are abducted by anyone overall. Just wondering because 0.0017 per cent per thousand seems like a strange way of expressing the numbers. If it's a percentage you don't have to add "for every thousand children" since percentages are calculated the same no matter what size the population is. If it's for every thousand children it seems like we should be expecting a ratio and not a percentage.

FACT 2

According to another study done by the U.S. Dept. of Justice, of the roughly 69,000 kidnappings that occurred in 1999 only 115 of them were abductions by strangers.

This appears to be a slight oversimplification imo.
e
I think that quote refers to the study discussed here
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf

and what it says that there were 115 stereotypical kidnappings, defined as abductions by a stranger or a slight acquaintance involving a child that was transported over 50 miles, detained overnight, held for ransom or with the intent to keep the child permanently or a child that was killed.

It is indeed rare but there were many more abductions by strangers that do not fulfil the above criteria for a stereotypical kidnapping.

Of course Madeleine would have been detained for six years now...
 
All legal systems are different , in the UK the police make a case and sent it to the CPS - who then decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial - not sure exactly how it works in Portugal.

You are right in saying that dogs evidence alone would not be enough in UK .

another question as you answered the first

Apart from the dogs alerting what hard evidence is there that points at the parents either murdering or disposing of Madeleine - take dogs alerts out of it -

I don't really see anything hard - apart from of course they are the last people to see her and should be investigated - but maube I have missed something

No hard evidence. All circumstantial. The contradicting statements. The refusal to answer questions. Refusal to take lie detector test. The insistent that she was abducted rather than wandering off. The staged window. Deleted phone records. Kate washing cuddle cat. The happy photo shoots with the twins when madeleine was missing.

Just off the top of my head.

Also nobody has come forward to claim the reward. I don't recall the amount right now.


Without a body you can't get hard evidence. If people think that every crime should be based on a videotape of the perp committing the crime in order to convict there would be a heck of a lot of free murderers roaming the streets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
3,770
Total visitors
3,995

Forum statistics

Threads
591,816
Messages
17,959,460
Members
228,615
Latest member
JR Rainwater
Back
Top