THE DOGS, YET AGAIN

Amazing to see this rubbish is STILL being spouted:

Lilemor1 Vitzliputzli
I thik: The elite dog who smelled human cadaver + alerted in #McCann apartment was trained to IGNORE blood. Keela wouldn´t have make sense.

--------------------

Lilemor1 Vitzliputzli
For a top police dog blood has many odourants.I bet that the #McCann dog was trained 2 ignore blood. He did not react on blood but death.


For the millionth time:

EDDIE REACTS TO BLOOD AS WELL

http://www.u.tv/News/Attracta-Harron-case-latest/0c618edf-84ee-48ba-9f7c-f9933a8f86e2

He [Grime] revealed that in February 2004, during a search of Hamilton`s mother`s burnt out car, "Eddie", allegedly uncovered traces of blood which the prosecution claim came from Mrs Harron.

Blood samples recovered from a mat in the red Hyundai Lantra car when tested for DNA, showed there was a billion to one chance it had not come from the pensioner.

Constable Ellis also claimed that his dog, "Frankie" also uncovered something in the rear of the car.

He said that unlike "Eddie", for some reason his dog did
not stay in the back of the car, but jumped from the vehicle and "alerted me with the dog looking back into the car".


And as the corpse of the unfortunate victim smelled so bad the humans could smell it, it was no great feat to find it.

Quite, HB. From what I can see, Eddie is just another police dog - an invaluable tool, in many cases, but not infallible.

And as I've said before, his exciteability should be a warning sign; time after time, Eddie has forgotten what he is supposed to be doing and played with 'evidence', jumped in streams, or tried to dig up corpses.

Which simply should not happen.

I admire the patience of you, and others, in still trying to reason with these idiots; it is glaringly obvious they haven't read the files, and base most of their pitchforking on Gonc's rubbish.

Then when people point out that they are indeed talking rubbish, they burst into tears and start moaning because 'pros' won't debate nicely with them.

I saw one of them, on one hate site this week, stating as fact that there was blood on the walls of 5A.

NO, THERE WASN'T - AS THEY WOULD KNOW IF THEY EVER BOTHERED TO READ THE FORENSIC REPORTS.

The only blood found was UNDER the tiles, doubtless left by some Portuguese tiler who had a minor mishap.

I suspect they can't actually face reading the forensic reports and seeing for themselves that there was no blood on walls, no 'bodily fluid', defrosting or otherwise, in the car, because that would mean they would have to admit that there is nothing - NOTHING - to suggest that Madeleine McCann was not very much alive when she was taken from 5A.

They also need to face the fact that (sorry for being gruesome) if a defrosting, months-old corpse had been anywhere near the Renault, there would have been no need for dogs to sniff it.

Sadly, I don't think any of the remaining haters are ever going to face reality, because that would also mean facing just how sick in the head they themselves are.

WHEN IS AN ALERT NOT AN ALERT?

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html

There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however
see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat
foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response.

So why, pray tell, was Eddie bin-raking? He simply should not have had any interest in the bins...

Apartment 5 D

We’ve put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found.

I see.

Apartment H5

We searched this apartment and the dog hasn’t shown any interest in this particular apartment, apart from around the table, where there was a tennis ball which is how we reward the dog for finding things, as soon as we removed the tennis ball the interest was gone. And so it was a negative search.

Rather like Eddie playing with Cuddlecat then?

This is totally illogical. Eddie should not be alerting to ANY diversions. That is the whole point of the exercise....

I think most of them know, Bonny. But it would spoil their fun, so they have to keep on churning out lies to get a reaction. Now that is really sick.

If Grime had spent as much time boring Eddie half to death in the other appartments as he did in 5A, then I expect that the dogs would have found something, anything even. So best get out quick, which is what he did.

But that would have suggested that the body was used as pass the parcel among the Tapas 7, and nobody would have fallen for that. Well, some of them might have done, like Gonc for instance.

honestbroker wrote:Is it not standard procedure, before a canine search, for humans to look for, and remove, anything obvious that might be a distraction to the dog such as food remains?

I shouldn't think so, HB. A supposed Crime Scene is just that. You can't go around removing stuff. Otherwise it isn't the same Crime Scene.

Sadly, Eddie was over enhanced by Grime, although from the Casey Anthony Case, I now see even more clearly that these dogs, or any dog will react to the most prominent scent, even if it is only a pork chop. The American Dog Handler in the Casey Anthony Case said this in Court. She said that if there is no cadaver scent then the dog will pick up what ever else interests him or her the most.

if there is no cadaver scent then the dog will pick up what ever else interests him or her the most.

That makes perfect sense, for once, of anything involving dogs.

It's all very well chanting Dogs Don't Lie, but it helps to know what they are actually saying.

They aren't saying, Them Evil McCanns DONE IT, Gonc's got them bang to rights.

They are saying, This smells interesting, if I stick my head in the air and woof, someone will give me a treat.

The stupid hater remark that always makes me laugh is the one about, Would you get on a plane if an explosives dog alerted?

Well yes, if the human specialists then went through the plane and found nothing/dealt with any possible problem.

Or do these idiots think that any plane a dog has woofed at is then taken out of service forever and turned into tinfoil?

A couple of interesting points from Tony:

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=bd7d5ff2f7285e1a

with regard to the posters in the McCanns' car, and Grime claiming he didn't know which was their car;

Now this is where it gets interesting, hands up all those who saw the posters being removed; anyone, no?
Which means, the recording was stopped and restarted by some duffer who forgot to edit out the first part of the film when the search was finished, thereby leaving poor old Martin to look like a liar in his deposition

The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details

Tut tut!

and

Madeleine's soft toy was given to the dog to play with and; I confess, I sat watching that with my chin resting on my knees. The dog was given the toy to play with and then the toy was hidden; followed by the animal being sent off to seek it out. Hey, guess what, it found it.

No wonder one of the senior PJ officers who reviewed all this said:

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

That's from the PJ review the haters try to pretend doesn't exist:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic1170.html

Don't let us forget Adrian Prout, HB:

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/justice4adrian/

He is in jail largely because a certain 'cadaver dog' woofed at his carpet. It doesn't even seem to have bothered anyone that said cadaver dog failed to woof anywhere else, despite the alleged corpse of the allegedly murdered Mrs Prout having allegedly been hidden on the farm.

This is a summary of the TV documentary that first got me interested in the Prout case:

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Cadaver-dog-sniffed-death-Prout-home/story-11860269-detail/story.html

After a massive search of the farm and surrounding countryside Gloucestershire Constabulary found no evidence of Kate, 55, inside or outside the property.

There were no traces of blood, or signs of a struggle, but the cadaver dog indicated to police that a dead body had been in the living room.

Gloucestershire Constabulary drew together a mass of circumstantial evidence that pointed to Prout having strangled his wife with his bare hands and burying her body.

A jury of 11 men and women found him guilty by a majority of 10 to one and he was sentenced to life in prison. He must serve a minimum of 18 years.

So, what happened? Did the deceased then levitate off the living room carpet without leaving a trace? It's ridiculous, police work by dog-woof and 'gut instinct'.

Mr Prout's only consolation is that there is no death penalty in the UK and he will no doubt get massive compensation when the verdict is overturned.

Oh my God. A man convicted on a dog woof. But at least they haven't executed him. Isn't he lucky.

bb1 wrote:This is a summary of the TV documentary that first got me interested in the Prout case:

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Cadaver-dog-sniffed-death-Prout-home/story-11860269-detail/story.html

After a massive search of the farm and surrounding countryside Gloucestershire Constabulary found no evidence of Kate, 55, inside or outside the property.

There were no traces of blood, or signs of a struggle, but the cadaver dog indicated to police that a dead body had been in the living room.

Gloucestershire Constabulary drew together a mass of circumstantial evidence that pointed to Prout having strangled his wife with his bare hands and burying her body.

A jury of 11 men and women found him guilty by a majority of 10 to one and he was sentenced to life in prison. He must serve a minimum of 18 years.

So, what happened? Did the deceased then levitate off the living room carpet without leaving a trace? It's ridiculous, police work by dog-woof and 'gut instinct'.

Mr Prout's only consolation is that there is no death penalty in the UK and he will no doubt get massive compensation when the verdict is overturned.

10 to one? Why wasn't a mistrial called?

Juries don't have to reach an unanimous verdict in England and Wales, Tony:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial

In the past a unanimous verdict was required. This has been changed so that, if the jury fails to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10-2 majority. This was designed to make it more difficult for jury tampering to succeed.

and

In Scots law the jury system has some similarities with England but some important differences, in particular there are juries of 15 in criminal trials, with verdicts by simple majority.

I've been wading through the court reports, HB, and you're right, I cannot find any record of the carpet-woofing in the actual trial, just references to Eddie the Wonderdog not finding any traces of Mrs Prout outside.

However - this happened just after his starring role at PDL; I would be very surprised indeed if the investigating police had not been influenced by the carpet-woofing.

My apologies, cross purposes . One for sans, I think - can a trial proceed if one juror drops out for any reason?

bb1 wrote:My apologies, cross purposes . One for sans, I think - can a trial proceed if one juror drops out for any reason?

Don't your courts have standby jurors?

Types of juryThe "petit jury" (or "trial jury") hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be a majority or supermajority. A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury. The size of the jury varies; in criminal cases there are usually 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15. A number of countries that are not in the English common law tradition have quasi-juries on which lay judges or jurors and professional judges deliberate together regarding criminal cases.

In civil cases many trials require only six. Juries are almost never used in civil cases outside the United States and Canada. Other states with a common law tradition sometimes use them in defamation cases, in cases involving a governmental eminent domain power, and in cases involving alleged wrongful conviction. Civil law countries generally do not use civil juries. Civil juries are available in theory in the United States and Canada in almost all cases where the only remedy sought is money damages, although in practice they are sought only in large dollar cases.

Don't your courts have standby jurors?

Sorry, Tony, I just don't know.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:My apologies, cross purposes . One for sans, I think - can a trial proceed if one juror drops out for any reason?

Don't your courts have standby jurors?

It would appear not. If a juror drops out due to ill health or something, then they carry on without him.
A Stand By Juror in England means to stand by and wait to be called to sit on a case.

Off Topic

Sabot can you let BB1 know that a Jury can proceed if one drops out.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23#reference-c85757

Section 16 states that the jury can continue provided there is a minimum number of jurors which is 9.

Link to comment

Thank you, Sabot..it gets very confusing, with so many different legal systems in the UK and Eire, plus the Channel Isles and Isle of Man...before we even start on the difference between the UK and US law.

It was Bren who passed that information. I wasn't sure.

Sabot wrote:
Off Topic

Sabot can you let BB1 know that a Jury can proceed if one drops out.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23#reference-c85757

Section 16 states that the jury can continue provided there is a minimum number of jurors which is 9.

Link to comment

Wow!

I had no idea a jury in England could go as low as that either, Tony - you begin to understand why good lawyers are so expensive, the law is such a minefield.

We can now have trials without a jury as well

muratfan wrote:We can now have trials without a jury as well

Wasn't that because a Jury got nobbled more than once in the same Case?