Misinformation – Those Dogs …

Oeddie and keelane of the first posts written on this blog was about misinformation.. and the object of that post was misinformation and the problems it causes.. You know something that starts out as an untruth, can grow arms and legs and before you know it be classed as a fact.  Especially if one side of the argument wants to peddle as factual.

Well let us turn to a part of the post, where we discuss the dogs.. I will copy it below:

But no matter how much, every one cries the dogs, the dogs, the dogs, one important factor must be taken into consideration, and that is:

The dogs findings can only be proved correct if backed up with corroborating evidence.

Martin Grime in his report stated this as a 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.

And we also know from Martin Grime in the PJ Files (Vol. IX p. 2480) this:

‘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 cafe 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.

You see I can read two things in that, and they are:

  1. We know  the EVRD dog can detect cadaver as well as dried Human Blood from a living or deceased person and
  2. Unless a body is found during the searches you can only go on the results of the CSI dog namely Keela.

And the most crucial part of his summary is these words:

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.

Now you will read on Twitter especially the #McCann hash tag and on Facebook – namely the controversy group spill… that the dogs are right and Eddie DID detect a Cadaver..

Well let us look at what Martin Grime told The Sun back in September 2008 (screenshot)

The part of the article I am interested in is what Martin Grime says, especially the part in red:

Martin said his dogs Keela and Eddie would only give him an indication when they find what they are trained to detect.


He said: ‘Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn’t matter if it’s hundreds of years old.

‘Eddie smells for the scent of a decomposing human body. He can detect any part of a human body that is decomposing ‘ hair, bones, flesh, anything.

‘The smell of a decomposing body is very difficult to get rid of. It can easily be transferred to clothing and on to a person.’

So from Martin Grime’s own mouth he said it is easily transferred to clothing and on to a person and it can be from any part of the human body that is decomposing.. hair, bones, flesh, anything..

And we know from the testimony given in the Casey Anthony case, that cadaver dogs can alert to decomposing material from a living person.

And Martin Grime tells us in his Rogatory interview this about how Eddie was (God rest his doggie soul) was trained:

‘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.

So we know that Eddie will alert to teeth, bone, hair, anything, including bodily fluids that are decomposing.. So when people cry out that Eddie must have been alerted to cadaver odour from a deceased Madeleine, think about all the possible other reasons of why Eddie could have made those alerts, to name but a few:

  • Kids fighting and pulling each other’s hair and leaving trace elements.
  • Children falling over and grazing their skin and leaving residue skin cells
  • Children that are teething and losing baby teeth whilst on holiday and possible gum bleeds
  • People (tenants prior to the McCanns and after the McCanns but prior to the dogs arriving) discarding worn clothing whilst on holiday especially underwear contaminated with bodily fluids all over the place. Because we know that Eddie Alerts to Semen, which we know decomposes. (screenshot)

Oh there are many many examples if you set your mind to really thinking … but alas the anti-McCann’s want people to believe that a missing child is dead…   now why would any person want a missing child to be classed as dead, without solid evidence to prove otherwise?


3 comments on “Misinformation – Those Dogs …

  1. At some stage, I watched the full videos of these dogs. It also appeared to me that Mr. Grime commanded the dogs to return to certain places that they did not instinctively alert to first off. Above and beyond anything, a dog is a pack animal that wants to please its master. That’s why these dogs need to work with their trainer. It stands to reason that if the trainer keeps bringing the dog back to a place he/she has already left, that dog will eventually ‘alert’ to please the trainer.
    This happened in the apartment and in the car park, where Mr. Grime would have known which was the McCann’s car from the pictures of Madeleine, and he kept bringing the dogs back to it, even though they ran straight past it several times.

  2. There is one question I have about this: When they react to any human body parts decomposing, how are they useful at all? If they reacted to…let’s say…hair decomposing or the cells from a knee after someone fell over, wouldn’t they just freak out everywhere? I mean this would mean that if I let them into my house, they would find a dead body there for sure because my family and I lose body tissue all the time that would then decompose? I think the idea of the owner being desperate to find anything and thus making the dogs walk past places several times and the dogs thus reacting to very subtle things to please him would make more sense then them just reacting to anything under normal circumstances because then…they would be useless…Then this would be several unfortunate circumstances coming together that would lead to the outcome that we’ve had. Were real explanations, despite of “the dogs are just unreliable”, ever put out there? Because if the dogs are just seen as “unreliable” the police would not work with detector dogs as much as they do…So I am wondering if British police as well as the McCanns ever explained in detail why the dogs could’ve been wrong and why they assume that they were..Because let’s face it…people always forget that Madeleine dying in the appartment doesn’t HAVE to lead you to the conclusion that her parents got rid of the body. There could also be the possiblity that an intruder was surprised by her and she accidently died and this is why he/she took her with him/her to hide that? I’m not a specialist when it comes to this case, I’ve just seen a couple of documentaries on youtube, so bear with me if what I say makes no sense. 😉

    • Marion, I think the truth of the matter is the dogs are only an indicator for police. One analogy I can think for instance is this..

      Say a demolition person working on site has handled explosives for instance..and then rushed off to catch a plane without changing his clothes.. During that flight the plane is forced to land and dogs trained in detecting explosives is then taken onto the plane.

      The dog alerts.. to the seat where our man sat.

      It doesn;t mean to say that the dogs alerted to bomb.. it means they detected explosives, it is then down to the investigators and forensics to determine if it was a bomb or whether as in this case the alert was because a man sat in a seat and transferred the scent of explosives.

      People often come out in defence of these dogs.. and some say would you get on a plane where a dog has detected explosives. Well if it is proven that the alert was due to transference from clothing to a seat.. a plane can’t be grounded forever can it.

      The dog alerted the forensics didn’t back up the theory that there was a bomb on board.

      The dogs are indicators.. that is all.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: