madeleine mccann, for argument's sake!

madeleine mccann, for argument's sake!

i always like to read and hear other opinions, and there is in my opinion even a need to do that. we all come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences, that is always of influence in how your mind gets wired. it also is very hard to leave that out, not only in the armchair branches, but in real time criminal investigations too.

training can help a lot, because you get used to put some more checks in everything. things as emotions or prejudices are never of much help. the way i learned it, and i do like that still, is not see people as persons at all, it are just names for the origin and sources of information.
and all you need is information.

all so all people are first just people, humans with a commonly known reach in abilities and actions. backgrounds, or education does not chance that raw format. for me it is always helpful to keep in mind my lector once said to us, if one human being ever was able to do something, it means there can be taken for granted there are others who can do exactly the same. also all we as humans have by that a line that is to take with margins between a minimum and maximum, and the ability is somewhere in between.

margins are the best instrument to keep focus on bigger lines and not just smaller aspects. and you need them from the start, and yes, even an official investigation start from a point nothing is known. after that it will be very carefully and with the use of such margins filter and select the information. an investigation is only the first part of each case. everything will constantly be checked and see if it does have a meaning in that case.

there are very different levels in the quality of information. most is from sources that you can not check much in. there can be also facts, facts itself do never change. only their meaning or place in a case or even outside it can be different. but the fact itself will stay the same.
something as a given address can be a fact. everything others can simply take a look at and make a picture off will be facts too. like a car parked in front of a house, that is still standing there when the police arrived and can be seen and noted or taken a picture of or video is a fact.

the address can change in meaning. like when investigations find out the crime did not happen there but in another place. that address lose its status as being a fact in the crime, but in itself it still will be an address.

a car seen by a witness, or even multiple but that is no longer there is not a fact, the car itself does not change most likely, but no one can check what car it exactly was.

information that is registered without usually having a role in the crime itself can be a fact too. like a phone ping, the ping would be made anyway, only because we do know there are sometimes mistakes possible in the registration of a phone ping to a specific mast, it would not be seen as a solid fact, more investigation can sometimes change it.

besides facts information can be used from circumstances, like from the weather, daylight or not. being on a street, it was busy. it are things that are around and of influence on places. information about how easy a place can be to get at. a tree that obscured an entrance.

facts and circumstances are it seems have little understanding in the overall public. still they are the go back to in all criminal investigations for all who do work them, they are a mantra in it. all you can think out from information, must be covered by the facts and circumstances, it are the two sources that keep an investigation in line with what could have happened or not.

what is more popular is the use of the term evidence, there is evidence of this, there is no evidence of that. it is the most abused term in the world of crime.
evidence is always the result of facts and circumstances, but evidence in itself is not a kind of conclusion reached during an investigation, there it never can get a status over possible evidence at all. that will only be possible in a court of law and with hindsight.

like when you do find someone's dna on a possible crime scene. that is not in itself earning a status of evidence at all. when the person that dna belongs too was at the time the crime most likely happened with his head visible on live tv. it is just dna what was found but of no meaning in the crime under investigation. you always do hope such things are found out before a case goes to a court, but very often it only becomes clear during court.

the problem how it got as it did in the public minds is easy, many police officers do talk about evidence, having it, or having it not, but they themselves know, often no longer have to think with it, to keep the margins in with it. so if a police officer says, we have this and that as evidence of this crime, you have to read it as we have possible evidence in agreement with the known facts and circumstances at this moment of the investigation that could be of later use as possible evidence in a court of law.

as that would sound utterly boring to the public, not only in articles or on screen when the police informs the public, but even worse when it would be used in the popular works of fiction in tv series, movies and books.

evidence itself is usually something you can actually show itself, it can be hold up in a court, but still in itself it means not so much. it still needs the facts and circumstances to make it part of that criminal event. a knife is simply a knife, so it needs quite a lot of information before it gets a meaning.

so and with this i want to take a look to some lines i read this morning somewhere else, it was a discussion about the madeleine case on reddit that was used to disagree with the topic about a theory of no abduction.

the poster used it to tell why it believed it was an abduction, and called it evidence of an abduction took place in the madeleine mccann case.

the motivation was;
child missing from her room.
door left unlocked in said room.
smithman sighting. who came never forward.
only there is very little evidence in the motivation.

child missing from her room.

being missing as a person is in itself an action you can not fill in, it is a unknown action, in itself it can hardly be presented as a hard fact even.
you can only get it as a fact, by understanding missing to the world. we cannot get from it if she was missing for everyone, or only with exception of one or more people.

missing itself has no legal status in a crime too. it is a pretty fluid status. it also has no information in it too.

also the choice for from her room. most likely chosen because the last witness statement of someone, her own father is made known. so is that in itself a fact, no it is not. no one can check the words of this father. there is nothing else beside his words.

his words can not be facts at all, even when there are witnesses around that moment, like being seen leaving the table by others, are not about him in unit 5a or near the room, or near madeleine at all. even been in and be seen in conversation outside unit 5a has no information he indeed was in unit 5a.

so besides words there is nothing to be sure she was in her room that evening, or she was in her room when her father states she was.

her father is not an independent witness at all. there was no one there too to get the words to a higher level of certainty at all.

so is taking for granted that she was in that room the way forward. no, if you was a police officer doing your job, taking for granted would make you a lazy and stupid one.

we do not know what took place, we do not know if this child was in her bed beyond words, words by two people who in different circumstances would have easy access if something criminal took place. when the same time spend in a place can be filled with a diversity of actions, you cannot pick one and take that for granted ever.

missing does not tell if the child was alive or not, and if you do not have that information, you cannot simply pick or choose a more favorite one. the goal is always what can be known, not what you guessed. and building a case on sheer guesswork is the same as building sandcastles near the sea on low tides, it would not hold for long on high tides. it can look great for a time, but it would not keep.

not easily taking words for granted has nothing to do with emotions or thinking bad about people, or only looking into the worst possible outcome you can think off. it is simply keeping all lines open until they are filled with information that gives it much more meaning and understanding.
as soon as you pick and choose, and forget to keep emotions, feeling or preferences out, your mind will be locked in to that version only.

and starting with a child missing for her room is something that have hardly information in it to be used as an argument. it does not have information to guide you in what happened at all, and it has not even information that what you use was ever true.

and in this specific case, take a look for yourself at the forensic pictures during the night following the evening she was noticed to the police as being missing.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_15.jpg

the pictures are part of the full report; https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm

and even there we have to start with only the words that this child was that evening in a bed, and that this was the bed she was left in.
it can be hardly called that this bed guides us into being sure that must be the explanation for the state this bed is in. it simply is in a state that cannot include or exclude her been in it. so it delivers no information by its state to call it a bed slept in by this specific child.

investigations do not pick favorites, they look into all possible explanations for what can be noted. when that comes together with other information it can start to tell what possibility needs preference over another.

a step further could be looking for signs and information this specific child was at least at an earlier moment in this bed. the existing rules of law made most in that impossible, without clear signs, indications or information a named crime could have happened, you are not free to do all you can in an investigation.

also it would not tell very much, you cannot put a date or time on dna traces, and the bedding was not by habit changed between different guests. so that makes the beds no longer a unique part too. as it happens very often in tourist accommodations that bedding or other goods are not changed fully, that was not unexpected.

it would have less consequences for the nuclear dna, but it means mt-dna would not only have to reflect on the parties stayed in 5a at that moment, but over a much longer unknown period of time. this means not only findings on the bedding, but also all over unit 5a was not to accept as must have been left by a member of this family in the female lines.

it was not only the bed, and the overall hygiene that made decisions in what to handle or not hard, the lack of any sign of a crime meant that based on only being a missing person, there would be no legal ground to use that many tools of investigation at all.

-door left unlocked in said room.

i think that is not correctly written, the room the children slept in only had a internal door, the door that was said to be left unlocked was the patio door on the pool side of unit 5a.
still this was not something that could be called a fact, there are no independent witnesses that had knowledge about this, or have noticed this at all. only the parents, and the father lied about it in his first statement of may 4, 2007;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

so we have even different statements to work from. and only from not independent parties.
it was not a state the arriving officers could check upon arrival. they very early on phoned for advice and assistance to the pj. none of the first responding officers could find a sign of a break in, or a sign a crime had taken place.

no sign of a crime means simply no legal ground to start a criminal investigation. it all comes to the initiative in thinking with a lot of fantasy to get something at least, as the police exactly did in this case.
this aspect got simply much to little attention from the start. still this is of major importance for the rest of the investigation. it is also a major conflict in most missing people cases.
it has nothing to do with not wanting to, police officers do understand you would like it better if you could handle all complaints in this section that could still be handled in the ‘murder case’ opportunities, but the law is setting heavy boundaries in that.

they made well use of the parents favorite theory of what they told happened; a stranger abduction, they used it to start up the criminal investigation, even when it was done with multiple question marks behind it. and it is very easy when the facts and circumstances explain another named crime has more potential to simply change the lines of investigation and the remit with that. usually you get around 24 hours to define a crime to base a criminal investigation on, and often it is grabbing what you can and deal with it later.

besides the story favorite by the parents, the tannerman sighting assisted in the first remit of a stranger abduction for this case. you do never know how likely true words are until investigated.

the searches are a different matter, they could go on, because they could be handled under the second police task, that has no relation to crimes at all, that of offering help and assistance to those who have a need for that.

the third part is the smithman sighting, with as extra motivation because no one came forward to claim the identity.

the smithman sighting was never fully investigated, it was underway to happen, when the lead officer was changed and the new bloke did not see it through.

also the attention on smith man was never as high as tannerman got in the media. the by7 the private detectives of the parents assisted production of the two e-fits for the same man did not made it to the public eyes early on, only in 2013 with the start of investigations by operation grange they got public attention.

only the publicity campaign from operation grange was only dedicated to the uk, and the irish public lifted on with that, the german and dutch public. there never was such a presentation broadcasted in portuguese tv.

the pj files in translation brought the statements in the public from around 2009 and later on. kate her book came out in 2011.

so how realistic is it, for someone to remember doing something on the night of most likely thursday may 3, 2007. the e-fits only are made in the beginning of 2008.

so you ask others to remember if they actually met up a large irish family on a street. i made my vision on smith man and the smith family as witnesses, because that sighting can have still some points that need to be cleared up much better, more checked before they are fit to make use of in this case.

you cannot simply deduce in these circumstances someone understands he was this male with child. long hair does not even is a telling of must be a girl per se.
this person could have reasons that have not even a relation to this case for not coming forward, walking with your own child or one you care for is not a crime at all. there is no obligation by law for a witness to come forward.
the media attention that framed robert murat could have been of influence too, because of the massive media attention and defamation of character in that, could make innocent people simply think twice before coming forward.

but not making known it was you, can never be ground to declare such a person guilty of the crime of abductor in this case.

even the family mccann was not putting out that much attention on this male at all.

if you do not have information, facts and other circumstances to work from, it is very little to put this male out as a criminal. the scales of justice are on even stand for it, so it is only our own mind that amend that, but not on the most solid grounds.

also all who found an interest in following this specific case, live in the false understanding how much attention it gets from all people, we have fallen in the hands of the cookies monster, that learned we follow it, so it offers us a selected part of all things happening around us. if you would take the first train that enters a station in the area you live in, and you would ask the first 10 people seated about this case, you expect all have heard of it, but the reality can be more near, that you are arrested for disturbing the peace, or taken of that train because they think you are a lunatic. in a over 17 years of time, for most people it is not upfront in their minds anymore. for many people it never even reached into their brain at all.

so it could be as simple as just a guy who never made the connection he was maybe smith man at all. the meeting was not really a big event, that you always would remember.

or a guy who took his daughter with him, but had promised to stay in that evening to his wife, and would not make it known to her.

so to include smith man as a sure criminal into this story is not a given.

and do not forget, the portuguese people had still a pretty fresh memory of what oppression by the government, and that includes the police and army, usually means.
so they uphold the law a bit more in the modern guidelines.

and it was in itself not even suspicious to the smith family members, only 4 made statements of it, there was nothing in the actions of this guy that could be called criminal at all.

so without more information it still is a empty hand.

so to call these 3 arguments into evidence of the crime abduction by a third party is pretty weak, hardly usable as much of an argument, not on their own, not all 3 together.

madeleine mccann, polygraph testing.

this ended most likely into the stories around this case through commenters who live in the usa, and it can be hard for the to understand, sometimes things are handled different in europe.

and different is not equal to doing things wrong, it means just different. and taking a lie detector test or polygraph as it also can be named is simply something that never made irt really into european law enforcement. the reason is quite simple, it never was usable enough.

and it is not the same as buy a lie detector device from amazon, like a crockpot or a stapler, read the manual and give it a try. and money was always the big decider if something would make it. in this it was a lack of sound enough results and a quite high investment for often a low number of cases you could make use of it. so you do not spend a lot of training and usually simply one is never enough, at least two, but 3 means you could always have one who is not of duty when you need it.

so it is not easy to find someone in a european police force who actually can do such tests, at best you find a commercial buro that sells tests for job interviews, where it is also less helpful, but it sounds great.and i remember vague something where it was using in a tv show.

and like in the usa the results cannot be used in courts of law, and it is simply not even possible to do such tests in most european police investigations, because the stuff and the know-how is not available.

it is not that it is not given a chance, from personal experiences i know there was a group of students doing research into a working version that could be used as a lie detector, and they made one mistake, they asked if they could use police officers and some other officers of the law for testing it. most studies use simply other students, but officers of the law proven that day they can be excellent liars too. our great grumpy desk sergeant would serve as overseer of who must be the liar and who must be a very honest person, each of us had one role in the morning, the other in the afternoon. we had a lot of fun, the group of students not so much. the work ended up somewhere on a shelf in the deep corner of not worked out things.

we simply made a run with it, but it would be a mistake to think that guilty people would not make that same run. and they are in most continental european law systems even allowed to lie their hearts out.
where fully innocent people fear do say just the wrong things, sad people give other result than people in a more neutral disposition. and most of the devices use things that not the most stable and constant parameters in our bodies and brain.

but even when kate and gerry mccann have wanted to do an lie detector test handled by a law enforcement agency , that would be impossible. there would be not a device, nor a trained and experienced operator for it.
and the results could never have much meaning, they are simply not specific enough to be used to exclude them from anything.

during the time they still had a status as witnesses there would be no ground in law to let them do such things to be handled as if they meant something at all.

witnesses are simply ordinary people with all their rights and duties in order, so if you want to ask questions that could even have the slightest effect of to be called accusing, you would have the duty of care to stop, make them suspects before you can go further.

and you do not arrange such tests risking the witness says, no comment, i will not answer that question, you cannot even keep them where they are. you cannot ask a witness; did you kill your daughter. every possible answer has the risk that this witness will incriminate itself, and that is not in the duties of anyone in any role, a suspect has even legally the freedom to not incriminate itself, or assist in any way or manner in its own conviction.

so no, legally in portugal too, there would not be a usable format to let them take a lie detector test. and expect a meaningful result about their true role in the disappearance of their own daughter.

the use of such stunts are simply public relations tricks. they make the public enthusiastic. and in most cases it is very easily forgotten.

the finger prints itself, being kate mccann denied having handled that window in that way. the fingerprints are after that indications something in the testimony of kate mccann was not truthful. it never was fully investigated and reached into a consensus, so one of the many points that are still an unanswered question.

for all who play harry handy the detective, using gloves indeed makes it difficult to find fingerprints itself, still you would find with the same method you look for fingerprints also smudges of gloves, or other things that were used to cover hands and fingers. sleeves, a piece of cloth, the hem of a shirt, plastic bags they all still leave traces behind on a lot of surfaces, it is only much harder to,often even impossible to identify the person who made them. so there is often no need to also find fingerprints to see if something was handled or not. even cleaning up after something is handled often leaves traces of that behind.

no fingerprints and they are easily damaged is not equal to no traces. so all things you have to touch still have traces of handling it.

touch dna is a separate matter, that was not even ready to use during investigations in 2007, but also resulted in a very small window of opportunity to make use off in criminal investigations. people are very sloppy in transferring dna and it loses in that most of its usefulness, dna left is never equal to that dna is always from an offender.

dna is very easy to left behind, but it is also possible to be transported by others and objects, also finding dna, still need a story about when, why and how it ended up where you found it, like fingerprints too and these are usually bound to being left by some fingers, traces still need a lot of explanations. both do not tell you the are part of a possible crime scene.

dna in special was something we believed to be the holy grail in criminal investigations, experience in real life conditions tells that is not very realistic. we assumed too much over knowing how it works. for some specific types of cases it still can be great stuff, for others just junk that can get it into stories that never happened.

there is still a video on youtube of the tv program dispatches, where 5 experienced outsides look into also that window. it is one of the best programs made about this case, very early on, with lots of coverage equal to the area looked on may 3, 2007. not all witnesses are to be endorsed. it does explain how experienced minds do look at cases, fortraces and indications that can tell what likely took place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khP0dEsZaug

it is only a recommended video, no endorsement of others available by links or in comments with it on the account that still has it available.

madeleine mccann and a long history of a window and shutters.

well over 17 years ago this cases started with a tale about jemmied shutters and broken open windows, something that even when it was very quickly expelled as being part of this case history by the investigation, it always kept its place in many discussions. last week it made even a full come back when one convict talked about talking other convicts in other cases and en mass the media dived back on a window.

so it can have a need to go back in time.

the exact time the media was taken into this case is never answered fully, but coming morning of may 4, 2007 they were there. one even got john hill a manager early to comment n the not really broken shutters or window. during that time the forensic have still been ongoing, and a lady of the portuguese police was trying to get fingerprints found on the outside of the shutters in question.
what always so much better in daylight, outside you otherwise have too much influence of all kinds of so called false lightning from all sides, and fingerprints and smears from touching are delicate stuff.

no traces of making use of these shutters and window been found, in this nature was quite helpful, as the shutters and window were on the north side of the property, what we usually call that of the wooden front door with the parking in front of it, what means hardly direct sunlight and there is a organism that loves that, lichen, a bit special because it is a joint lifeform of an algae and a mould working together.
it had found hold on the windowsill of that window and was still intact. most of us would not even recognise a lichen in this state as living matter, but would call it dirt or dust. it is delicate almost powdery stuff and if a window is build in a wall as it was here, with about 90 cm to the space in the wall itself where the window is placed en on the outside at least an equal height is present, it means even quite large humans could not easily step through the opened window without touching that thin layer of lichen and leave markings in that.

in this case it was not only a person, it would been a mistake to put a gender on that person, i know we are so just to call abductors male, but that is noy something we can really know, but that person had also to take a child out if it was used to exit unit 5a.

so first find was no traffic through that window and the fingerprints and dragon blood did not show much activity of handling the outside of the shutters and window too. one set of unusable thumbprints been found, that could been better explained by a grip on it from the inside of unit 5a, instead of from the outside.

the inside only gave surprisingly a full handprint and fingertips in a position that can be explained in the as usual ‘most likely’ grip a person would make in opening such windows. still the window was closed when the gnr arrived. the set of prints are identified of belonging to kate mccann.

not finding fingerprints is not equal too must have used gloves, because most material would still leave smudges, they get not that much attention because you can not easily identify the user of anything that can cover a hand.

the material the shutters and the window frame both been made from material that leaves easily markings when manipulated when there was tried to open them up from the outside. nothing that could indicate that was found to exist.

breaking in to get inside was certainly possible, but what comes down by the findings is, it did never happened here. no traces at all that could guide anyone into the idea this set of shutters and that window had been used to get access into unit 5a.

could it be used as the route of exit. the window exists of 2 panels, opening was by sliding the right panel to the left side. this window had a manual hand grip handle to open en close the mechanism. when fully closed we could say the window would be locked. the handle was placed in the middle and vertical with a button you had to push in to unlock or lock it, most of these locking mechanisms would also lock of when a window was closed fully on its own.

it always stayed unknown of this mechanism could also lock the window in a chosen position without being fully locked in its framework. there are many different kinds of such locking mechanisms on the market, and they get easily broken.
most could also easily become sliding into locking themselves by not using the handle but by push on the side of the frame of the window part that was open. even putting a flat hand to the glass pane itself worked. no traces been found to understand such things happened here too.

the shutters could only be handled from the inside, it was possible to push them partly up but they would come down again as soon as you leave them be. again theoretically it would be possible to use something to keep the shutter up for a bit and break open a window, wiggle yourself through the opening you make and use the webband mechanism of the shutters to pull them up. only doing that without leaving traces is impossible.

it was only by words of kate mccann that told about a window fully open and a set of shutters fully open too. the only other witness that was timewise present to confirm that was gerry mccann. he supposedly closed the window shortly after seeing it open.
no traces been found of that.

he also stated he went to the outside and tried to manipulate the shutters up, no traces that indicate that are found. diane webster also told she tried some shutters, unknown if it were these shutters too, if she did she left no traces of that.

the other stories of the rest of the window dressing is maybe just that. open, closed, found behind a bed and other furniture and still blowing when a door was opened again, cannot be understood from the first pictures made on the scene.

and now that same window from a story that was told in a german court makes its come back.

not only as point of entry but exit with a almost 4 year old child to carry too. where the suspect of choice made himself worried if he could have left traces, because he needed his hand on the windowsill

so now we have to believe a about 1.80m. big not fat male person, was able to get in an already open window, but get out too with manipulation a nearly 4 years old girl that was asleep or at least not in her usual giving a strangers her twopence worth with one hand to manage that and also his other on the windowsill without leaving any traces behind of that acrobatic event.

about the shutters there can be already a bit of a misunderstanding, some tell about shutters being fully closed, gerry mccann opts for maybe with some slats open, what could mean he talks about the day light position, many people will set these shutters during day time to have some light getting in.

no traces been found of keeping ears to the shutters to listen if all was quiet inside too. matt oldfield had still enough hair to make contact with the shutters too while holding an ear to them.
the dragon blood powder did not make that visible at all.

but we are back again at a pair of magic shutters and window, and a ghost or 2, or 3 or even many more to explain why no disturbances were found on them.

the ones who so eagerly try to change the bedroom windows at the front for the supposed left open patio doors, it gets a bit complicated to walk out of them with a nearly 4 years old child in one arm, and putting your other hand on a windowsill while doing that. so for that option this hearsay story can never fit well.

of course it would not be the first later on carrying the portuguese status of being arguido who brought us multiple ways to enter unit 5a.

One of the most interesting aspects of the shutter and window saga is the fact Kate McCann was still peddling the same story during an interview shown on the BBC Crimewatch 2013 production..

And at that point the curtains, that I say were closed, just went whoosh. And then I could see that the window had been pushed completely open. The shutters were up. So I knew then that Madeleine had been taken.
Kate McCann

The window in question was ground level..



Would a proficient cat burglar, whether looking for valuables or a child to abduct, enter by forcing open a low window (in view of anyone in the vicinity) and it's shutter rather than an entrance door which would be so less conspicuous to passers by - particularly as the latest 'main suspect' had a bunch of passkeys - apparently, at least so said one of the ex-convicts years down the line.  Then leave by the same window, carrying a 3-4 year old child (sleeping or lifeless?) rather than using the front door or patio door that could be so easily opened from the inside - or it was already unlocked!





Leaving an apartment through a door, whilst carrying a child, wouldn't attract the attention of anyone in the vicinity but leaving by way of a window carrying a child (?) might just arouse suspicion.

You couldn't make it up could you .... oh but wait a minute!


Christian Brueckner awaits court verdict [circa.2064]

A closer look..





They were sliding windows, thus only half the aperture could be open to gusting winds and a man sized body coming and going, carrying a 3-4 year old child on the way out.  Without being on location it's not feasible to say an impossible task, it can however be said to be very unlikely.  Particularly. as already pointed out, when there were 2 entrance/exit doors to choose from, the apartment was only small, it wouldn't be that difficult to find a door - even in the dark!

try to step through it without touching anything with hands, a petty thief would not mind leaving small traces of gloves or clothing used. but there was nothing at all.

i have no experience with ground floor level windows, we used to sneak out at night often from the 1 up, and even when a window itself is small, the wall it is in usually is not, it is not like stepping over a garden gate, it is a wall, so the idea you can make use of it without leaving traces of touching anywhere is simply none existent.

it is also called climbing through a window, very different from walking through the door (opened of course). in itself it is easy enough to climb in, and out, that is was to have happened without any trace is what makes it a fantasy.

there are more versions of the window and curtains affaire in statements to the police and interviews by the media, all about the same time. most even by the same person. what is quite lucky every ex jail joining idiot with the german can take a lucky guess.

most people have simply no talent for the criminal stuff, a bit like some parents.

a dogs work effort.

reading what is written is a hard task, at least going by how it ends up as a translation in many heads and minds.

so let’s look at the original text.

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

more in special; https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2481.jpg

it was already original written in english, so no difficulties with the lost in translation spook.

there is often a lot of dispute about eddy having worked 200 cases. well it seems that was not from martin grime his mouth at all.

Vol IX p. 2481

FALSE ALERTS

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.

this is the bit that goes wrong in many heads and minds;

In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never…

wait what does it say, does it really say 200 criminal cases, or 200 searches in criminal cases. it is of course the last, there are never much things you do only once during a criminal investigation, so why would a search dog only work once.

the usual not much liked task in criminal investigations are making reports of everything, and it is very often the local habit to use numbers in the classical way, like after 1 follows a 2 and after the two follows the 3. so by that it can be very easy to see how many times you already have done a certain task.

and it is each task on its own merit that needs reporting. so it is perfectly normal that you do not say i worked the case, when you in reality did a lot of tasks, and all need to be covered with their own paperwork. for searches that works the same as with hearing a witness, instead of the personal facts of a witness, it will get times, place and address, who was in your company for that search.

so if we look at the video’s of the searches the dogs handled, that was not one single search in this case, but multiple searches during one deployment.

OPERATION TASK CANINE DEPLOYMENTS 1-8 AUGUST 2007

this is for this case the title for all work done. during this case and the report it is about both dogs and their handler as teams.

what searches did they;

Five apartments at a complex in Praia Da Luz.
Mr. Murat's property at Pria Da Luz.
Mr. McCann's Villa at Pria Da Luz ( Present occupancy).
Articles of clothing from Mr. McCann's residence.
Western beach Pria da Luz.
Eastern Beach Pria Da Luz.
10 Vehicles screened at Portimao.

so that are in this case 7 different searches, actually more, but it seems grime is used to count the searches as one and the same task when they are on the same address.

so over 200 searches is not that many but it does not give the number of cases they were part of, nor the results in finding a human cadaver. it is used to illustrate that this dog never has reacted to matter other than human cadaver, that is not advertisement, but just something that belongs there.

maybe because many things are in a very different form in the heads of the public. results are not only restricted to a find of a human cadaver when these dogs do a search. nothing is also a result. the effort is done, the results are simply the start of an answer. no one takes dogs as the holy grail, they usually are best tool in the box when a body is hidden somewhere, or was kept on multiple places. these dogs can often tell you a bit about what could possibly have taken place, what exactly is not in the dogs remit.

so no alerts in murats place is also a result, it could not find the scent of death on that property. so a negative result, not negative as in a bad result, bud negative as in nothing here to smell.

so working one case is not the same as doing one search, i searched myself many times for all kinds of things during the same case. i had to write reports about them all. they would be noted on a deployment report, like this too, but i also would keep stock of all addresses itself. that would also become a report in its own right.

i have done many more fruitless searches than ones with findings that could help a case forward, but sometimes not finding something can do that too, but no matter what i did each of these searches, i all had to keep reports of them.
grime did the same for himself and his dogs.

so he never told or wrote eddy his dog used to search for the scent of death was successful in finding 200 bodies in all cases he had done at all.

he used the number to give an estimate of the ability the dog was already hired for. eddy did not before react to other scents and grime can know what was around during these searches too. so in all searches before, what amounts to over 200 searches -not 200 separate cases!- where this dog did not give an alert on anything else as he was trained too. there is not said 200 alerts on the scent of death in 200 cases proven by the lab work that it was there, which still is impossible for humans to work out by the way, we are in that part not very much better as in 2007.

and in 6 years of service over 200 different searches is not even that much, we do not know how many actual different cases these were part of.

you simply do not need all tools in each case that is worked, many have a pretty small spectrum even, you would not ask grime to join in with his dog when looking for a still living person. or when signs on a possible crime scene alone are already telling enough.

so there also was a so called foi letter, that simply asked the wrong question, they did not asked on how many cases this dog was used, they asked common questions and ended up with common answers. and there are not often records kept for how many times a dog is used, just like we do not take stock of how many times a microscope is used in the lab to look at specific material. the lab books know, technicians can know, but outside that it is not of much interest for case related work itself. when they are used the are of importance, but it is always each case on its own.

i think it is perfectly reasonable if a handler knows they have done over 200 searches in all kinds of settings, where a scent of death could be around or was a body of parts thereof could still be out there, as a team they had been confronted with animal bones, some leftover dishes with meat, roadkill, or dead animals, and this dog never made an alert on that.

there always are results, but not always the ones you like or need to get, eddy seems not the kind of dog to waste your time. grime never shied away from putting his dogs to the test during lab settings too. what are besides training settings are the only ones you have full control of what a dog is reacting too or not, during training the handler can still be the weakest link, not a given but something that would have to be looked on, in the lab setting it were others, and often with a different goal than proven these working dogs right or wrong. both dogs used by grime in the madeleine case must have given many scientists quite a headache.

the bigger problem is not in these dogs, it is always the humane factor. we are still the weakest link in the results after an alert of these dogs is given.
also how we often make use of them, they do not come cheap, but still they are used most times in a last chance effort to solve a case.

there is done an enormous amount of studies in this part of forensics after 2007, but nothing that can tell this dog was wrong, we cannot translate not wrong into must be right then, there are usually much more grounds to cover before you can reform a right into a wrong or the other way around.

the majority of the alerts of both dogs in this case have at least a positive result for the matter these dogs are trained to find, that the results are not always the ones we like best is a very common factor you have to learn to deal with often during all investigations, still in this case both dogs are not the weakest links at all.

and yes i am quite having some bias with working dogs, but that only affects from seeing them at work, not only during criminal investigations, their training, but also in farm work and during hunting. i have that for a lot of other animals too, their willingness to do work, we hardly can handle ourselves, in such a quick and easy way. yes that results in lots of respect for them, and admiration too. i do know also a lot of dog trainers, and the ones with the dogs that deliver what they are hired for are usually not out there because their trainers and handlers believe in them, but because they know what their dogs actually can do.

the difficulty with the dog and the scent of death alerts in unit 5a is not in the dog, by all science we have this dog was capable of finding such a scent, again the weakest link are we, we still have no way to say this dog was wrong, or could be wrong.

sadly we often translate our own insecure feeling of that into that dog must be wrong, or ask the impossible, as telling this scent of death was from the body of a missing girl called madeleine, and we have no way to prove or disprove that in itself either.

and please do not become a uneducated wannabe dog trainer and handler and get your mind full and your fingers overactive about how a dog team of dog and handler work. work you hardly have studied, at least that is often to purport from the words.
it is a great and very interesting part of the forensic field, where so much more aspects are of importance. many things with difficult to understand physics, chemistry and biology.
even the race of dog has influences.
guiding the search grid is something fully different from guiding to giving an alert. also this is a working team, the handler is as much a part of that team as the dog.

and you cannot train the spaniel out of a dog.

people also easily forget there is very little during criminal investigation to make use of what is statically perfect. so the handle with care must become second nature, and all together can tell a story, never just one single thing that decides all. in this case the dogs are still part of that. and the story they tell is so much more as the alerts itself. there is no ground to expel their work at all.

i can understand you are not well known with this part of the forensic sciences, i can understand you do not like dogs, i can understand different opinions, but making a mess of something that is clearly written down in pretty basically sound english i can’t.