Back to the dogs


Oh yes we are back to the dogs.  I am asked many times why I changed my mind?  Why did I start to doubt the dogs?  Well to be perfectly honest, I started questioning the dogs the moment those videos appeared, albeit in private.

But when I started to open my mind to the fact that the dogs are only indicators to potential evidence and not evidence itself, then I started to see things in the files, that started to make me question a whole lot of things. Which, of course,  left me with the firm opinion that the McCanns played NO PART in what happened to their daughter.

A little while ago on twitter someone asked me if I had the video of where Eddie, the cadaver dog, tossed cuddle cat, that is Madeleine’s favourite toy,  in the air.  I knew I had seen the video or read about it, but for the life of me I couldn’t find it.  But by luck today, a fellow forum poster from StopTheMyths, posted up the part from the Official PJ Files that reported this action by Eddie.

In a written report dated February 2008, Inspector Dias says:

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’

The anti McCanns on twitter permanently deny this happened, but again myth busted becasue the official confirmation of this event comes from the Police Files.  It did happen and Inspector Dias raises a valid point.

He previously states in the report, the following:

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’

A clear example of this is the car searches, I have uploaded the relevant part when Martin Grime along with Eddie sniff the cars including the McCann’s hired car.

Here is the relevant clip:

My observation points are these:

  • The time spent by Eddie sniffing the cars prior to the McCann hired car.  It is evident that Eddie spent more time sniffing the McCann car than the previous cars in the search.
  • The times that Martin Grime had to call Eddie back and point to where he had to search the McCann car.  In the previous cars he just let the dog do his work.
  • The McCann hired car still had the stickers of Madeleine McCann in the windows, so it was evident that this car was related to the McCanns.
  • Eddie we are told, only barks when he alerts to something, so please tell me why Eddie barked whilst between the  McCann hired car and the next car he was due to examine?
  • Why was Eddie more interested in the wall between the McCann hired car and the green car?

And yes those posters are clearly shown in the McCann hired car, as shown below, by a screen capture from the dogs videos.

So the truth is, it isn’t just the people who support the McCanns questioning the dogs, an Inspector from the Polícia Judiciária was doing exactly the same.

Edited to Add

Whilst searching for something else I stumbled across this from the transcript of the video in which Martin Grime says:

What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won’t bark at any other times. He won’t bark at other dogs, he won’t bark at strangers, he won’t bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that. The only times I’ve ever known him bark since I’ve got him as a small puppy a) for his dinner and that’s just excitement and that’s one of the training methods we use to teach to bark when we want him to and when he actually finds something, he won’t bark at other dogs, he won’t bark at strangers, he won’t bark when somebody knocks on the door or something like that, so again I would say that’s a positive indication.

So again I ask what was Eddie alerting to when he barked in between the McCanns hired car and the other car he was due to inspect?


30 comments on “Back to the dogs

  1. The original video of the villa search has been edited to remove the bit where the dog tosses the toy in the air, steps over it, and walks away. Damn good job that we have Inspector Dias’ perceptive observations about the dog’s behaviour because some people have tried to remove evidence from public view – quite incredible. Even worse, some of them pose as ‘jounalists’ and ‘truthful bloggers’.

    • Hi Guest, yes thank god it is in the original files… But why do this?  Why remove something?  It doesn’t make it go away when you remove it and to be honest I suspect the McCanns and their lawyers have the original footage, which shows this.

  2. “The McCann hired car still had the stickers of Madeleine McCann in the
    windows, so it was evident that this car was related to the McCanns.”

    The dog doesn’t know that though does it.

    • Yes but the handler probably would have guessed which car belonged to the McCanns, due to the stickers.

      Martin Grime states:


      Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details,  were parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle placement video recording and management of the process was conducted by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog’s behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door. 

      But, if you go on the behaviour of Eddie and the previous cars, when he went to the Scenic his behaviour was the same initially.  In fact he was more interested in the wall between the McCann car and the other car..  Martin Grime repeatedly called him back until eventually Eddie barked.  

      Perhaps you would care to explain why Eddie barked at the wall between the McCanns hired car and the other car?

      It doesn’t take much to work out that the car with the stickers on it, asking have you seen Madeleine is either belonging to the McCanns or someone close to them. 

      A junior defence lawyer would rip this to bits in a court of law and have it classed as inadmissible.   There was no bodily fluids belonging to Madeleine in the hired car.  God even when they searched the Villa there was no lawyer representing the McCanns there to see if things were carried out professionally and within a certain code of conduct.

      Now if you watch the video clearly the McCanns hired car was basically in the corner of the garage, along the wall that was the rear of the McCanns car you can see industrial fans.  Eddie is clearly interested in that wall initially and then he alerts to the McCanns car, so 

      a) what did those extraction fans lead from?  

      b) could the there have been a scent coming from those fans and it the scent intensified as the scenic was close to the corner where the McCanns hired was parked?


      c) Why weren’t the stickers removed from the McCanns hired car?  

      Maybe Martin Grimes wasn’t told which car was the McCanns but it didn’t take a lot of working out did it?

      •  No, I’m sure he knew that was their car. But these questions are questioning his integrity and I’ve no reason to do that. He makes it clear his findings with the dogs are just a guide to where additional forensic evidence may be found.

        I watched the videos and the reaction of the dogs in 5a is pretty clear to me, unfortunately.

      • But you question the McCanns integrity based on these dogs.  

        In a court of law, the questions I have raised would also be raised by a defence lawyer… 

        These are my observations and these are the questions that would be asked.  It is not about integrity it is about finding if there is another reason why the dogs gave an alert.  A reason that does not include Madeleine McCann being deceased.

  3. Eddie tossing the toy into the air is in the video I watched yesterday, the one on your site.

    I think a lot of your questions are answered by Mr Grime knowing his dogs so well he knows they’ve detected hints of what they’re trained to detect in the general area where they later alert – Mr Grimes just gets them to concentrate on those areas once he’s detected their initial interest. He knows the dogs so well he’s detecting changes in their behaviour that aren’t obvious to us.

    • Oh please, Eddie was trained under Martin Grime’s own training programme…, which is why these dogs are now being questioned by authorities.  There is no standard, across the board, for training and accrediting these dogs.

      You logic says, I could train my dog to do something under my own accredited scheme and then expect people to accept, because I know my dog is not lying and he has found what he was supposed to alert for.

      Martin Grime repeats that the dogs are only indicators, they are NOT evidence.  

      Your comment is putting words into what Martin Grime actually said and making excuses for the dogs. You are trying to say that even though we don’t see things Martin Grime knows exactly what his dogs detected… the truth is he doesn’t know if his alerts are correct, until it is backed up by forensic evidence or human remains are found.

      This is where the problem has been with cadaver dogs, they also detect decomposing bodily fluids coming from a live person.  

      They also have found that the dogs will alert to things and upon further investigation it has been found the scent came from furniture.  Perhaps chairs, beds that a person has died in, which have subsequently been sold as second-hand.  Or even second hand clothing

  4. I question the McCanns on their own statements and explanation of what happened that night (for the reasons we discussed yesterday, and for other reasons – including pretty much everything Mitchell has ever done. The ‘suspects’ press conferences particularly)

    I was questioning them before we ever heard about the dogs (as were many others as you know)

    I don’t know what happened in that apartment (nobody does), I just know I don’t believe the story the parents and their friends told.

    • Why would people who did not know the McCanns well (as some of the Tapas 9 were not that well nown to them, and one was even the mother of some of these not so good friends who they had never met before), lie for them about the death of a child and help to hide her body? I think it is much more likely the dogs made false alerts as they have done since, then at least nine people with no criminal record whatsoever decided to conspire to cover up a child’s death.

  5. Is it Grime who is detecting changes in the dogs behaviour or is it a matter of the dogs detecting changes in Grime’s behaviour?

    Grime called Eddie back when he started barking at that wall in the garage. Why?

  6. That was after it had already barked at the side of the Renault Cath. It leaves the Renault and then barks just once more as it’s running away.

    Grime does talk about air circulation in the apartment search video, and says they can alert where the air flow has led to concentrations of what they’re trained to detect (or words to that effect I think)

  7. I have watched the video many times and Martin Grime is calling Eddie back several times way before he barked at the scenic.. My god he was even signalling to Eddie where to sniff on the Scenic.

  8. I know he called the dog back and he does point to the tyres on the right of the car. He doesn’t point to the door on the left though.

    Have you any reason to doubt his integrity? Why would he want to influence his dog to make a false alert in a case that had probably attracted the largest media exposure in the world Bren?

    • When questioned about the Haut de la Garenne case Martin Grime said this:

      Asked about the ‘human remains’ found by Eddie that turned out to be coconut, Grime said bizarrely: ‘People aren’t right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn’t be human.’

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz1z2ZJEOQE

      And the interpretation of that is that people get things wrong, so do the dogs.  Now is it not feasible that Eddie could have been mistaken with regards to the Scenic?

      • Of course it’s possible, and I don’t think Mr Grimes himself would deny that. It’s not an exact science he agrees.

        It’s harder to dismiss the apartment search where both dogs alert in the same place though isn’t it?

        I’ve seen that DM article before. We should know after 2007 never to trust the spin of journalists 🙂 (but I don’t know much about that case I’ll admit)

      • It’s harder to dismiss the apartment search where both dogs alert in the same place though isn’t it?

        Actually if both dogs alerted in the same place that proves that it is blood that they have scented and not cadaver scent.

        The second dog that we’ve seen work today is the crime scene dog Keela. She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that’s she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that’s historically very old and she will find anybody’s blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows.


  9. Hi guest, Martin Grime was asked questions in his Rogatory interview, here are the questions and answers to what the dogs do alert to.

    ‘With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate’s clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver’ 


    Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred”

    There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

    ‘The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver’ 

    The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for ‘live’ human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of ‘fresh blood’. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

  10. “Actually if both dogs alerted in the same place that proves that it is blood that they have scented and not cadaver scent.”

    Eddie only alerts to cadaver odour, not to blood (otherwise why have two dogs?)

    At least that’s what I’ve always understood.

    The 2nd question and answer in the rogatory interview seems to be confusing the blood dogs and cadaver dogs to me (I’ve no explanation why, assuming it’s been translated correctly – but the two dogs are trained to do different things surely? The EVRD dog – Eddie – doesn’t alert to blood)

  11. You said:

    Eddie only alerts to cadaver odour, not to blood (otherwise why have two dogs?)

    Martin Grime says:


    ‘Eddie’ The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
    locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This ensures that the dog disregards the ‘bacon sandwich’ and ‘kebab’ etc that is ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of ‘cadaver scent’ odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a ‘pure’ scent sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic material.

    So I am afraid to say you are wrong, this is a myth that is spun day in and day out on twitter and other sites that Eddie only alerts to cadaver, he doesn’t he also alerts to bodily fluids, which includes blood.

    Cadaver dogs alert to decomposing bodily fluids from a living person as well as the scent left from human remains.

    JillyCL on twitter is renowned for promoting what you say, she is wrong… she just doesn’t want people to understand that if Keela alerts to the same spot that Eddie did, then it is NOT human remains it is blood.

    • So why have two dogs?

      I’m investigating… I’m going to change my name to Morse.

      • Because one is a cadaver dog and the other is CSI dog.  If Keela does not detect the same areas that the EVRD dog alerted to then the handler knows that there could be decomposing bodily fluids from a dead or living person or human remains.

      • Decomposing bodily fluids from a living person? I don’t think the dogs are trained to detect any material like this or they would be alerting everywhere. Mr Grimes clearly states in his rogatory interview “He is not trained for ‘live’ human odours”

        I think the problem here is one of translating what the dogs can do into language we understand, and it isn’t easy. Particularly with regard to the blood that EVRD dogs detect. Clearly it’s not blood that may remain in a house from a live person having a nosebleed or accident because every house will have traces of blood like that and the dogs would never stop alerting.

        It’s a very complex area, Bren. I never really looked into it in 2007 (I trusted the professionals instead, and I’ve  no reason at all not to trust Mr Grimes and Mr Harrison, so I still trust them and the work they did in 2007)

        I’m reading up on court cases in the USA. It’s fascinating!

      • I think you’ll find that “cadaver scent” is a bit confusing in this case. It could indicate that something in contact with a corpse had been there, or simply that a scent related to decomposing substances of a human (or porcine) nature had been detected.

  12. I also seem to remember cadaver dogs alerted in the home of shannon mathews after she went missing. She later turned up safe and well, and the fact the dogs alerted was blamed on the fact they had second hand furniture which might have been in the house of someone who died. (if transfer is that easy, how does the fact the handler and the police may have come into contact with a body, or something that had been in contact with a body, and then tramp around a crime scene work)

    I also think Eddie alerts to blood as well as cadaver scent, and I think that the forensic science service confirmed that blood which did not belong to anyone in the mccann family was there.  I am not certain of this though.

    I have read a news report that said the police thought sniffer dogs in these situations did more harm than good as it is all very well if they alert and a body is found, but if they alert and no body is found it misleads the investiagation (as in the shanonn mathews case). Grimes said that they could detect blood even if they had been there for years – what good is that really when you think about it? Most houses, will at some point have had someone bleed in them. madeleine McCann is seen on video tripping as she gets on the ‘plane to Portugal and bleeding, it is not unfeasible that she got a small drop of blood on cuddle cat is it? So even if Eddie did alert to the cat it means nothing.
    To be honest looking at the vidoes and the dog’s record, I think the evidence from the dogs would be laughed out of court.

  13. I do not get why if Grimes had no idea the car covered in findmadeleine stickers had anything to do with her parents, then why does he stand by it after the dog has passed it by without notice. With the other cars he keeps walking , following the dog, but for this car he stops and stays there and keeps calling the dog back time and again, until the dog finally barks. Also the dog bars quite near another car, did they ever search that?

  14. Little old lady there is not translating errors here, the report was written in English and then translated to Portuguese.  You can read Martin Grime’s report as he wrote it.  

    Cadaver dogs do not alert to ‘live’ odours but they do alert to decomposing bodily fluids.

    Read here 




  15. I really wouldn’t be relying on the evidence of a witness in a trial.

    Brewer agreed a dog might alert to a fingernail from a live person? In another case I read a statement from somebody who claimed they might also alert to dead skin cells from a live person. That’s absurd, the dogs would never stop alerting if that were the case and no police force would use the dogs. But police do use them we know.

    They wouldn’t use them if the dogs are as unreliable as Brewer is suggesting – investigators would simply be wasting too much time if alerts were at all likely to be made from detection of fingernails or skin cells (of which any house is going to contain many millions)

    What everyone agrees on is that dogs can’t lie. Humans can though. We need scientific facts, not words from trials.

    • So evidence given under oath by a dog handler you are going to dismiss, am I correct?

      – Baez also hammered home, obtaining Brewer’s concession, that cadaver dogs can alert to bodily fluids from a live person that begin to decompose after leaving the body. Brewer said that assertion was accurate due to cadaver dogs being “trained to find the strongest source, whatever it might be.” –

      And may I ask why you are going to dismiss evidence given under oath by a cadaver dog handler in a trial?

      Could it be that it totally destroys the fact that the anti-McCanns rely on so heavily in promoting this child as dead… the dogs?

      Personally I prefer to believe a dog handler under oath as the truth is, if  they found out to be lying then they have technically committed perjury.

    • Unfortunately no matter what evidence I bring to this thread that proves that Eddie can alert to ‘dried blood’ and decomposing bodily fluids from a living person, you are intent on disputing it.  

      We are going around in circles here, without you accepting that you could be wrong.  So I can’t see the point in discussing it any further and therefore I won’t be replying to anymore of your comments on what Eddie can and cannot alert to.

      Many myths are circulating relating to the findings of these dogs.  And these myths I used to believe in, until I did my research and read that Grime’s report and evidence would be ripped to shreds in a Court of Law.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: