What does "did you call Sky News?" refer to anyway? Do they mean the night she went, at any other time, when the McCanns realised the Portuguese Police were having no success, when they were deciding to make them suspects, when the decided they needed to keep the story in the news to help the search based on others advice? It is just like asking why did Kate McCann refuse to answer the police questions on 07/09. It is an open question designed to cast aspersions and create suspicion. The answer why she did not is clear. Her interview that night so many months after Madeleine went was not for finding her, it was for the police to determine if they would charge Kate McCann with a crime relating to the disappearance.

That is the problem with those who have decided to pour hate on the McCanns for leaving the kids alone. Their hate has extended to everything else about the McCanns and clouded reasonable judgement. The cadaver dogs have to mean there was a death, despite that not being the case. A change of story being suspicious, whereas any study of stressed witnesses giving statements knows there is more to suspect if a story remains exactly the same with full details from the start. That is a planned and rehearsed story. Then going to Sky News is not put in context of when, since media attention has kept the investigation going and generates witnesses and information.

It would be easy for you to answer my question about leaving children unattended for periods of time. That is not a distraction as it is key to your dislike of the McCanns over blinded suspicion. You are a no smoke without fire type person, rather than a lets find out what is actually going on type person.

Barnfish wrote:
Both dogs marked one blood the other death, you don't know that there was not a death, that's the point exactly, you're assuming there was no death as you believe the McCann's .

The dogs are not prejudice, I'm not prejudice, the blood was there, the death was there, both dogs said woof woof yes yes.

barnfish I'm no longer engaging with this because no matter what evidence I point you towards you come back with some kind of '' McCann hater'' response, I have never said I hated the McCann's.

It's just that there are a number of professionals involved with the McCann case that have concluded that the evidence points away from 'abduction' and towards death (in situ), Dogs,blood, death scent, window, open window shut, refuse to answer questions to protect self.

self self self self self self self self self self self self.... Please let it sink in. it's pointless debating this further, the evidence there, the attitude is there, the selfish behaviour is there, and yes they would follow police advice and not phone 'sky news' if they were interested in finding their daughter rather than saving their own skins.

The very fact that the McCann's were protecting themselves against questioning shows guilt, surely they would want to answer the questions, clear their names and get the investigation moving, the Portuguese police don't hate the McCann's they have a job to do, and the McCann's were creating an obstacle in the investigation by not answering, I don't know why you would not want them to answer, I don't know why you 'know' they are innocent, I guess you don't, therefore you need to take account of the police investigations,the lack of McCaan cooperation,the dogs and the whole story from the police showing blood samples of M McC in the apartment and in the hire car, the dogs smelled blood and cadaver.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver

So we're to say the dogs are wrong, the Portuguese police questions were wrong, the in depth investigations that can be seen on the internet are all wrong, the books are wrong, everything is wrong, the only thing that is correct is that the McCann's are innocent, they were right to leave their children alone, they were right to refuse to answer police questions, they were right to change their stories, there was no blood in the apartment the dogs are useless the police are lying everyone hates the McCann's even though nobody can prove that they are innocent many 'believers' like yourself will ignore the evidence that has for some reason been 'shelved' not disproved, for the god bless the poor McCann's emotional story.

Investigative findings have taken a back seat in this case because of the heart felt feelings like your won towards the McCann's.

barnfish I guess you're going to comeback with some stuff about how every body hates the McCann's, that's not what it's about, its not about hatred it's about the evidence gathered by the police in Portugal and the evidence of the 'reliable dogs, vs the McCann's being non cooperative and changing their story, as do the others in their group.

Instead of wildly arguing pro McCann look at the facts.

Here.
www.mccannfiles.com/index.html

It's not based on hatred or McCann hunting, it's based on the evidence available.

You might think that you are taking a moral stand by defending the McCann's but that stand is immoral if it's taken despite the evidence.

I rather think a reasonable case has been made against the McCann's however without a body, charges are unlikely to be taken, and here we are. 'bodiless'.

You are wrong about the dogs. This is not true, "The dogs are not prejudice, I'm not prejudice, the blood was there, the death was there, both dogs said woof woof yes yes.". They are not a reliable, definite source of evidence.

www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon%20Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907380700134X

Both studies show that the best dogs are capable of being wrong about 10% to 15% of the time. The worst are very unreliable indeed

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482105/...er-dog-evidence.html

"The judge agreed with an analysis of the three dogs' track record by Zapata's defence team that found they were incorrect 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time."

This is an odd claim "self self self self " since they have spend a lot of time and money and campaigning to help find their daughter. If they did not want her found as they had accidentally killed her, why do that? It would be better to have the disappearance fad and no further enquiry take place. You have got this the wrong way round.

This shows scant regards for people's rights "The very fact that the McCann's were protecting themselves against questioning shows guilt," and is a complete lie.

I have already answered this "surely they would want to answer the questions, clear their names and get the investigation moving,". But in case you missed it, the answer again is that the questions had already been answered in the months running up to them being made suspects and Kate remained silent only during the questioning as a suspect. They have answered thousands of questions, often repeated questions and only did not answer the ones asked when advised to by a lawyer during an interview as a suspect. Or do you think the police and other investigators only ask a question once and then never ask it again?

I am not saying everything the Portuguese police and other investigators have done is wrong. Indeed, they have done little wrong. They were right to make the McCanns suspects as that is standard procedure during investigations were there is no positive lead. I have said the McCanns were wrong to leave their children as they did the night of the disappearance. I have looked at the evidence and from that concluded the most likely version of events is she was abducted.

Barnfish wrote:
So you would agree with Mr Amaral, then?

Barnfish wrote: These were the best dogs so we can bet 85 to 90 % that they were correct, so that means it's a 85/90% chance that M.McC was killed there, the figures are from your post .

or "The judge agreed with an analysis of the three dogs' track record by Zapata's defence team that found they were incorrect 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time."...

When the success rates of the dogs are combined the rates are raised by the combination/verification of the others.

85-90% would rank as beyond reasonable doubt and would be enough to get a conviction in a criminal court!

1. Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval. Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination). The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100). Reference: Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares. Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A. Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany. - See more at: dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dog...sthash.8m9OtOd9.dpuf

dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dog...-at-detecting-death/

PS I don't know why I even bothered posting this?

- Evening of 3 August, Portuguese and UK investigators begin at Ocean Club, Apt 5A

- Martin leads in Eddie and tells him to sit at the front door, so that he can remove the leash. Contrary to expectations of this wonder dog-detective, Eddie ignored the command and ran immediately to the interior of the apt, where he ran "devilishly" from the living room to the parent's bedroom. Grimes says worriedly that something has made Eddie nervous and he calls Eddie again so that he can give orders to indicate where to start searching. An investigator is video taping. Some minutes later, Eddie focuses on the floor of the couple's bedroom, next to the wardrobe and gives the alert for cadaver odor, in a strident bark

- Why here, in the couple's room? More goosebumps to follow: Eddie gives another strident bark next to the living room wall, behind the blue sofa, under the window.

- Apt 5A begins to give up its mystery.

- On that night, before 10pm, the investigators see Gerald McCann near the apartment, driving alone in the rented Renault with the face of one "who has few friends."

- If the cadaver (EVRD) dog alerts, then the blood (CSI) dog is brought in. They are trained to find ONLY human blood, even in areas thoroughly cleaned with chemicals or bleaches. Sometimes they find blood vestiges so small that they can't be collected, and the surrounding materials themselves have to be transported to the lab. This happened with Keela.

- Keela is brought in and she marks blood in the same place as Eddie marked the cadaver smell... she stopped, immobile, with her nose pointed at the precise location of the smell. The tiles on the floor.

- Outside, Eddie gives two more alerts of cadaver smell, on the varanda of the couple's bedroom and also in a garden situation directly below it. Here, the bark is weaker, like a "could be", with some doubt, like a human shrugging their shoulders.

- Going now to the other apts, the investigators are nervous. Who knows what will come next? But to the amazement of all, after very careful exams of all the other apts, Eddie exhibits complete disinterest. Martin decides to not use Keela, since Eddie found no cadaver smell.

- There are signs of death in Apartment 5A. It's necessary to confirm that, prior to 3 May, no one had died there. The OC has no records of anything like that, nor the fire department, nor the paramedics, nor the prior apt owners knew of any death in the apt.

- It is concluded, therefore, that the cadaver odor could only come from one person: Madeleine Beth McCann



Findings, as detailed in the PJ's 57-page report summary



1 - Apartment 5A, of the resort 'Ocean Club', place from where the child disappeared.

- cadaver odour dog:
*in the couple’s bedroom, in a corner, close to the wardrobe;
*in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the lateral window of the apartment;

- blood dog:
* in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the lateral window of the apartment (exactly as it was signalled by the cadaver odour dog);

2 – Area of the backyard, close to the apartment 5A:

- cadaver odour dog:
* in a flowerbed, the lightness of the scent detected was commented by the dog handler.

www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html

So they would need to be totally useless sniffer dogs to get all that wrong?

Verlander wrote:
Getting an investigation wrong is different from getting a conclusion wrong. At this moment in time I say no one has the answer and it is likely to remain that way till a body or Madeleine is found.

Barnfish wrote: But these 'best of' sniffer dogs say 'dead body/blood in the apartment by at least 85% accuracy 'each'.
Or were they both using their 15% of being wrong at the same time to suit the McCann's ?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
It is about reliability. You present the dogs as being reliable and others would apparently convict the McCanns on the strength of the dogs evidence alone. Here is the Summary from the dog handlers report

mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

"SUMMARY

The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."

Even the handler warns not to jump to conclusions as a result of their search.

eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/mar...-pj-mccann-case.html

Nobody is jumping to conclusions but the dogs are more reliable than unreliable.

They say death & blood. So that's what they say, and it's not 100% proof but it's very likely that they are not both wrong at the same time.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
The answer is we do not know if they got it right or wrong and the experts advice is do not conclude anything till there is corroboration. The dogs are used to search for bodies and to use them to sniff out a place where it is known there is no body is odd. Hence Eddie was used to search for remains in the former children's home in Jersey and the missing Shannon Matthews case. That is what dogs are good for, helping to find bodies, they are not good for evidencing cases.

According to the McCann's the dog handler is a cheat.

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘madeleine’, has comprehensively smeared top dog handler Martin Grime, who took his cadaver dogs out to Praia da Luz.





On pages 249-250 of ‘madeleine’, for example, she writes:


“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the conch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.


“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.


In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.


She writes:



“…we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.




“The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returned to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking…when researching the validity of sniffer dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler…this certainly seemed to be what was happening here…”





Dr Kate McCann is plainly suggesting, and has done so to hundreds of thousands of readers of her book, that Mr Grime is incompetent. Not only is this suggestion libellous, it is patently ludicrous. One must ask: would a person such as Mr Grime, whose professional livelihood depended on the 100% reliability of his dogs, proceed to suggest the past presence of a corpse at locations in the McCanns’ flat, and in their hired car, if Madeleine might still be alive somewhere?



She might have been found alive the next day



If so, Martin Grime’s professional credibility and his livelihood would have been ruined for ever.

whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.c...others-1-martin.html

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Would you charge the McCanns with Madeleine's death based on the evidence of the dogs alone? Would you, if you were the jury, find them guilty of her death on the evidence of the dogs alone? I would not. I would want more evidence than that.

Barnfish wrote:
They usually get it right, it's unlikely they would both get it wrong at the same time, and make the same error of location.

Barnfish wrote:
That's why they have not been charged, there is no body, however they appear in the frame of guilt. very much.

Barnfish wrote:
They find blood that is used as evidence. Try and keep up.

EVRD OPERATIONAL CASEWORK EXAMPLES

Northern Ireland, UK
A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The search of suspects 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victims' DNA. The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of the woman in a river bank deposition site. Further searches identified a location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offenders empty next door dwelling house. When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.

Wiltshire, UK
A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her ex-boy friend had taken her to his house. A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirtit level, and shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its original state.

Devon, UK
A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at the alert location revealed a small button off of the girls clothing in long grass. The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.

Cornwall, UK
A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspects house by the EVRD was conducted who indicated on the living room carpet. No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently a diary written by the suspect was alert indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts that the offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead, the diary had in fact been written by the suspect having handled the body. This was confirmed by the offender in interview.

New Mexico, U.S.A.
A witness reported having seen two men walk off into brush land carrying a spade and a corpse. The area was searched with the EVRD with no indications being forthcoming. Other assets were utilised and the body was found: buried at a depth of 8 feet, under the water table, 3 feet of cement and 5 feet of earth replaced on top the corpse that was wrapped in cling film. There being no scent available to the dog to receive there was no forthcoming


CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of blood on property up to thirty-six years old.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities. Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.

She is trained specifically using human blood obtained through the haematology department at Sheffield Northern General Hospital. The blood undergoes strict screening for disease and contamination prior to use. The samples are from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds and are from both male and female sources.

Keela's training and licensing is based around the level of 1 positive screening sample introduced into 200 control articles or 1 positive sample introduced during 6 hours searching in relation to crime scenes or vehicles.

eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/mar...-pj-mccann-case.html

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Considering Grime's own report summary and how he knows that the dogs are to search for bodies and not evidence gatherers, even if Madeleine had been found the next day, it would not have destroyed his credibility amongst professionals. Even the best dogs are wrong. Idiots in the press and others who do not understand investigations would have claimed he lacked credibility, but they would be wrong.

Kate McCann watched the dogs search as a scientist, not a crime investigator. That is why she referred to unblinded studies and commented about reliability. She and others do not seem to have got the fact that the dogs indicating something is of very limited evidential value and their only real value is searching for remains.