Madeleine McCann

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

cnocbui wrote: »

The dogs didn't pick out the car blind - Grimes knew which car it was and in the video clearly indicates the vehicle he wants the dogs to show interest in - after they showed no interest in it and ran off sniffing at other cars. How do you explain the dogs reaction to the cars and no forensic evidence being found to explain the reactions?

If drawing attention to the dogs 100% false positive rate since retirement isn't putting it plainly, what would you suggest?

You can't base anything off those videos, they are not the full video and you don't know what has been done at other cars.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Boom_Bap wrote: »

You can't base anything off those videos, they are not the full video and you don't know what has been done at other cars.

First people who were citing the cadaver dogs videos as evidence that the McCanns were involved in the disappearance are now telling us we can't rely on the videos.

Which is it, you can't have it both way?

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

All I'm saying is that they are not full videos .So basing any of your own judgements off them should have that stipulated.

v638sg7k1a92bx

OwlsZat wrote: »

Quick question

1) Gerry carries dead Maddie to the beach (Smith sighting)
2) 25 days later the car is rented and she is put in the boot and brought to her final resting place.
* Must say I find the fact that both dogs alerted on the rental car key particularly interesting does certainly does add weight.

Anyway, now that we believe Gerry McCann brougnt Maddie straight down the road whatever he did with her. How does this escape the attention of all the sniffer dogs on the scene the very next day?

How does it escape the attention of the police and world media who were following them for those 3 weeks???

v638sg7k1a92bx

OwlsZat wrote: »

Also of the Smith sighting I think saying its 60-80% Gerry McCann smacks of I'm 50 50 on if it was him, but I'd love to tell you it was him.

When did this guy Martin Smith become the most reliable witness in history of witnesses, as if the entire case rests on something he may or may not have seen?

Lady Poepoe

Eddie and Keela while in the police force, had two trainers/handlers - John Ellis and Martin Grimes. They claim they had developed and used a special training regime for Keela. Their performance and the training methods were never independently assessed. This is a problem. Sky news made an FOI request for information concerning the use of sniffer and cadaver dogs. They got access to an unpublished report from the National Policing Improvement Agency which would seems to suggest that there are people in law enforcement who are not happy or comfortable with the use, training and claims made for such dogs:

https://news.sky.com/story/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work-10488976

The four cases in which Keela has alerted positively. ................the disappearance of Shannon Mathews - who was found alive[/QUOTE]

From that link you posted:
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.

The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.

"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.

"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."


So the dogs did have a positive for the alerting to a presence of death. Same with the jersey case. They did find bones but can't 100% date them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7267632.stm
"Police found 170 pieces of bone in the area of the main building and the grounds.

All but three were from animals, police said on 12 November. They said the others might be human, but dated from the 15th Century to 1950 at the latest."

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

How does it escape the attention of the police and world media who were following them for those 3 weeks???

If we knew that then we wouldn't be here ....

MonkieSocks

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

1611 to 1614 Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 10h45
Location: This Department
Name: Aoife Smith

The witness states:

— Being an English citizen, and not understanding Portuguese neither spoken nor written, she is accompanied by an interpreter.
— On 30 April 2007 she travelled to Portugal on holiday, specifically to the Algarve. She came with her parents Martin and Mary Smith and her two nieces, AC and EC.
— They stayed in the Estrela Da Luz complex in Praia da Luz where her parents have an apartment.
— When they arrived at the apartment they met her brother, Peter Smith, her sister-in-law, S.McD.Smith, her nephew (six years old), CO** and the son of her sister-in-law, TA*** (13 years old).
— They came on holiday for about 10 days, having returned to Ireland on 9 May 2007. (She is not absolutely certain of the day).
— Her days on holiday were spent in the swimming pool of the complex where they were lodged, on the beach of Luz and in the shopping centre. Normally, they were spent in Praia da Luz - Vila da Luz.
— Dinner was taken between 19h00 and 20h00, in the apartment or in the Restaurants "Dolphin", "Cavaleiro da Luz", "Chaplin" or the "Marujo", all situated in the Praia da Luz area.
' When they ate at home they would not normally go out. When they went to eat at the restaurants they stopped by Kelly's Bar, situated, she thinks, on Calheta Street in Praia da Luz.


— Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar.

When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar.

They stayed there for about 30 minutes.

— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar.

The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.

— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night.

There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland.







— Upon leaving the bar, they turned right and headed along the road for 40/50 metres.

At this point, they again turned to the right and ascended a small street with stairs that give access to Rua 25 de Abril.

As they were a large group (four adults and five children) they travelled apart from each other along the street with some more to the front and the others more behind.

She does not remember how they were divided [who was where].

— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. ( there is a street light on that spot )

He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.


— The deponent (Aoife) crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Prima in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.


— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.


— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her.


Asked, she said she was 60% certain.


— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.

— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:


— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height.


At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it.


She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face.



She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings.

She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.


— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.


— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.

— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.

— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run.

He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.

— (2) the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck.

The colour was fair/light brown.


— She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.


— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual.

She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck.

She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.

— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back.

— She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.

— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child.

She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light.

The fabric was the same as the trousers.


— Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not.

— Asked to tell the truth, she affirms that what she has finished declaring is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge.

— And nothing more was said. Reads and finds it inconformity, ratifies and signs together with her interpreter.

Madeleine McCann was described as wearing a short sleeved top

gozunda

Something Else

cnocbui wrote:

...What I do dispute is the ridiculous notion they are 100% reliable and that their reactions amount to actual evidence. 

I've not seen either of those held to be true whatsoever in the posts I have read on this thread tbh. Neither of those 'notions' are supported afaik .

However I have seen various claims that the dogs 'did not alert correctly' (sic). Which is evidently wrong. That has already been pointed out btw.

We are where we are - it's a bit pointless rehashing the same arguments for the sake of it tbh.

Phoebas

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

However I have seen various claims that the dogs 'did not alert correctly' (sic). Which is evidently wrong. That has already been pointed out btw.

What is that evidence?

Tomw86

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

1611 to 1614 Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 10h45
Location: This Department
Name: Aoife Smith

The witness states:




Madeleine McCann was described as wearing a short sleeved top

I'm not discrediting this, but 'described' by whom - I would assume the parents?

Creol1

Something Else

cnocbui wrote: »

I am aware of 4 cases the dogs have been used on since they and Grimes retired. In all four cases the dogs have alerted and in all four cases, no forensic evidence has been recovered as a result of their alerts. That is a 100% false positive rate.

The fact that no forensic evidence was found corroborating the alerts doesn't necessarily mean that they were false positives, so that's not a justifiable inference to draw.

This is particularly so in terms of a cadaver dog as the exact chemistry of what gives rise to a cadaver alert is not understood by humans. Accordingly, there is an intrinsic rather than merely heuristic evidential value to cadaver alerts.

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Phoebas wrote: »

What is that evidence?

I find it crazy how so many people don't understand the whole dog thing ,


There WAS dna in the spot's the dog alerted

There just was not enough elements to get a match on anyone,

Science does not understand how the dogs can smell so long after incident's because of this then you need to find evidence that can be tested which is obvious and fair enough as they can make mistake of course and not one person will deny that ..........

But what odd's would you get that the dogs alerted in the apartment, to cuddle cat ,to clothing of Maddie , to there McCann car, They are some serious serious high odds to high in my opinion to be a coincidence

Also if your kid is missing and your innocent surely you'd be interested in WHY the dog has indicated and trying to figure who DNA they are alerting to , But in this case the parents didn't want the dogs there and then tried to discredit them ,

No matter what happened to Maddie the McCanns are utterly bizarre people,

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I find it crazy how so many people don't understand the whole dog thing ,


There WAS dna in the spot's the dog alerted

There just was not enough elements to get a match on anyone,

Science does not understand how the dogs can smell so long after incident's because of this then you need to find evidence that can be tested which is obvious and fair enough as they can make mistake of course and not one person will deny that ..........

But what odd's would you get that the dogs alerted in the apartment, to cuddle cat ,to clothing of Maddie , to there McCann car, They are some serious serious high odds to high in my opinion to be a coincidence

Also if your kid is missing and your innocent surely you'd be interested in WHY the dog has indicated and trying to figure who DNA they are alerting to , But in this case the parents didn't want the dogs there and then tried to discredit them ,

No matter what happened to Maddie the McCanns are utterly bizarre people,

What would be utterly extraordinary is if the police didn't find any DNA in the car, with four humans using it for months. Humans shed 30,000 skin cells an hour.

Yeah, I find people not understanding the dog thing crazy too.

MonkieSocks

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Tomw86 wrote: »

I'm not discrediting this, but 'described' by whom - I would assume the parents?

I would imagine the Parents gave the description of the top.

But I believe Aoife was correct about the Long Sleeves, as Women (even little women) are notoriously accurate when they look at what people are wearing

Phoebas

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I find it crazy how so many people don't understand the whole dog thing ,


There WAS dna in the spot's the dog alerted

If its your contention that the dogs weren't trained to alert on either blood or cadavers, but they were in fact DNA sniffers then yeah .....

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

cnocbui wrote: »

What would be utterly extraordinary is if the police didn't find any DNA in the car, with four humans using it for months. Humans shed 30,000 skin cells an hour.

Yeah, I find people not understanding the dog thing crazy too.

But it was the cadavers dog who alerted the car , I'm not saying Maddie was in it but Cuddle cat (was) and her clothes may have been

Again there is no proof but the dogs certainly give good indications ,

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Phoebas wrote: »

If its your contention that the dogs weren't trained to alert on either blood or cadavers, but they were in fact DNA sniffers then yeah .....

The Cadaver dog I'm talking about , He alerted to something ,there WAS 100% something there , just not enough to get a DNA match ,

The McCann should be more concerned in working out what it was then discrediting the dogs ,


Again the are without doubt totally Bizarre people

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Creol1 wrote: »

The fact that no forensic evidence was found corroborating the alerts doesn't necessarily mean that they were false positives, so that's not a justifiable inference to draw.

This is particularly so in terms of a cadaver dog as the exact chemistry of what gives rise to a cadaver alert is not understood by humans. Accordingly, there is an intrinsic rather than merely heuristic evidential value to cadaver alerts.

People seem to have no problem inferring that the dogs alerting in the absence of any forensic evidence is a true positive.

If no forensic evidence is found where a dog alerts; legally and evidentially, it has to be considered as a false positive - it can literally not be considered as evidence, therefore it isn't. Even the dog's handler Grimes said that the dogs alerting means nothing, unless backed up by actual relevant forensic evidence.

So yes I can say they were false positives because that is exactly their legal status.

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

But it was the cadavers dog who alerted the car , I'm not saying Maddie was in it but Cuddle cat (was) and her clothes may have been

Again there is no proof but the dogs certainly give good indications ,

But, even if the cadaver dog barked, learned to talk and told someone that there was a cadaver in the car, it cannot confirm which cadaver.


It gives a point to start investigating, not evidence.

Phoebas

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The Cadaver dog I'm talking about ,

I don't get it - you understand that it was a cadaver dog, trained to pick up scents of human decomposition, yet you think they were alerting on the presence of DNA

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I find it crazy how so many people don't understand the whole dog thing ,

There WAS dna in the spot's the dog alerted

Tomw86

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

I would imagine the Parents gave the description of the top.

Fair enough - I think the arms could look full length with that color as it is close to skin tone.

Also though it could've been a completely different child.

Whichever theory you believe is the way you'll look at that!

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But, even if the cadaver dog barked, learned to talk and told someone that there was a cadaver in the car, it cannot confirm which cadaver.


It gives a point to start investigating, not evidence.

Yes totally agree with this , this is what my point is there WAS something there,

As a parent of a missing child you should be dying to find out what but McCann's just wanted to discredit it and didn't want the dogs there in the first place

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't get it - you understand that it was a cadaver dog, trained to pick up scents of human decomposition, yet you think they were alerting on the presence of DNA

No , I think its yourself who doesn't understand ,

The places the dogs alerted to (apartment, clothes,cuddle cat car) where tested to see if there was DNA left in these area's that they could match to someone ,

Cadaver dogs smells the scent, alerts , you test the area for DNA so you can say who was the dead person was in the area


There was DNA found on all alerted area's but not enough to match to a person ,

Phoebas

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Yes totally agree with this , this is what my point is there WAS something there,

Back up the truck a little. Here's the conversation you directly responded to.
The cadaver dog isn't trained to alert to just something; it is trained to respond to the smell of a human decomposition.

So, do you accept that it is not 'evidently wrong' that the dog 'did not alert correctly'?

gozunda wrote:

However I have seen various claims that the dogs 'did not alert correctly' (sic). Which is evidently wrong. That has already been pointed out btw.

Phoebas wrote: »

What is that evidence?

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I find it crazy how so many people don't understand the whole dog thing ,


There WAS dna in the spot's the dog alerted ...

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Phoebas wrote: »

Back up the truck a little. Here's the conversation you directly responded to.
The cadaver dog isn't trained to alert to just something; it is trained to respond to the smell of a human decomposition.

So, do you accept that it is not 'evidently wrong' that the dog 'did not alert correctly'?

Its trained to alert to the smell of human decomposition, but when it alerts that area must be tested for DNA ,

How else do you expect the police to find out who or what was there ?

So in this case it alerted to 4 area's, apartment, cuddle cat, clothes .car so they tested the area's and no full DNA was found,

There for the dog's can not be used in court but they indicate someone or something that was dead was in contact with these area's

chicorytip

Something Else

cnocbui wrote:

The dogs didn't pick out the car blind - Grimes knew which car it was and in the video clearly indicates the vehicle he wants the dogs to show interest in - after they showed no interest in it and ran off sniffing at other cars. How do you explain the dogs reaction to the cars and no forensic evidence being found to explain the reactions?

I watched that myself but my impression was different. They sniffed at each car in the line in turn rather than randomly and indicated at the silver Renault which was last in the line.

Phoebas

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Its trained to alert to the smell of human decomposition, [...]

So far so good. What is the evidence of human decomposition?

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Phoebas wrote: »

So far so good. What is the evidence of human decomposition?

There is no EVIDENCE of proof but I think everyone understands that,

Its adds to a case that can be put against the McCann's like loads of Evidence that is used in court cases,

Creol1

Something Else

cnocbui wrote: »

People seem to have no problem inferring that the dogs alerting in the absence of any forensic evidence is a true positive.

If no forensic evidence is found where a dog alerts; legally and evidentially, it has to be considered as a false positive -

You have not cited any Portuguese law to corroborate this.