Grime-watch ....

[honestbroker1]

And this:

The forensic review carried out by X of the NPIA
questioned the presence of Martin GRIME on site for such a long
time. X , was informed that Martin GRIME had been
acting as a Deputy Crime Scene Manager to Forensic Service
Manager X , at the request of DCO HARPER. The forensic
review noted Martin GRIME’s lack of formal training or qualifications
to perform the role of Deputy Forensic Service Manager and that to
utilise him in this role ‘cannot be recognised as good practice’. The
review also noted that ‘there was concern from some persons
interviewed that too much reliance had been placed on the dogs’. It is
accepted that dogs are ‘presumptive screening assets’ only and that
any alerts or indications they give must be forensically corroborated.
In addition, it is a fact that there were no concise terms of reference
for the deployment of Martin GRIME and his EVRD or his subsequent
use as a search advisor, apparently with the support of
DCO HARPER.
3.10.13 CO POWER himself states ‘the search dog seemed to play a
significant role in determining whether a specific location needed to
be examined further. I am not an expert on dogs or what they do’.
3.10.14 Again, there is a distinct lack of documentary evidence to show any
intrusive supervision of the SIO with regard to the continued search.
This Inquiry concludes that the actions of DCO HARPER and
Martin GRIME went unsupervised for some considerable time. To
Page 116 of 383


Supervision Highly Confidential – Personal Information
CO POWER’s credit, there is an e-mail exchange between him and
DCO HARPER dated 10 May 2008 in which CO POWER raises the
question of the continued use of Martin GRIME and his EVRD. He
says ‘Lenny, it has struck me for some time that he [Mr GRIME] is an
expensive resource who has more than his fair shared of down time’.
DCO HARPER replied in the same e-mail string ‘to be fair to him
though, he hasn’t got much down time as he is also the NPIA search
coordinator and is fully employed’. CO POWER replies ‘Thanks.
Better understood now’. CO POWER does not appear to pursue the
matter further.
3.10.15 However, DCO HARPER’s reply was not factually accurate.
Martin GRIME was neither an NPIA search advisor nor fully
employed. In his statement, Martin GRIME states that ‘I am a Subject
Matter Expert registered with the UK National Policing Improvement
Agency and specialist homicide canine search advisor… I advise
Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the
operational deployment of police dogs in the role of homicide
investigation. I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable
evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training’. His expertise lay
purely in the use of dogs in searching, not as a 'search co-ordinator'.
3.10.16 OFFICER X notes that during conversation with X, CO POWER
accepted that ‘the dog was ‘probably unreliable’ and that the dog
handler, GRIME, had too much influence over the enquiry, again,
Mr POWER didn’t say how he managed or dealt with that issue’. This
Inquiry has been unable to establish whether CO POWER made any
further attempts to supervise the SIO in this key part of the
investigation.
3.10.17 OFFICER X concludes ‘decisions should be made based on
professional policing judgement and evidence. When you look at the
facts, the excavation and searching of Haut De La Garenne… was
not justified’.

[honestbroker1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSD2VfDRWIE

1 minute 40 seconds in: Grime describes "Victim Recovery dogs", which is what Eddie was.

[honestbroker1]

Mark Harrison's report:

Costs.

Currently only costs for the EVRD and CSI are available.
The daily rate for this dog team is 1000 Euros. Flight travel costs for handler and dogs could be 2750 Euros. Veterinary costs: U.K. and Portugal to comply with Pet Passports scheme 450 Euros. Accommodation, subsistence and vehicle transportation would incur extra charge.
Costs for a VRD dog team to conduct the open area search are not available at the time of writing. Such a team could be sourced from several countries within Europe or USA that have this capability including the UK. However the UK is limited to those teams whose dogs have "pet passports" due to UK quarantine restrictions.

Costs for a geophysical search team to conduct the search of Murat's house and garden are not available at the time of writing. These could be sourced from a commercial surveying company, a university or military within Portugal. Alternatively enquires could be made within the UK.

So the Portuguese authorities paid 1000 euros a day for the mythical, non-existent, "Enhanced" Victim Recovery dog, and Harrison was unable to source costs for other dogs of identical training and capability to Eddie that, no doubt, would, at the very least likely, to have been competently deployed.

And if Grime was free-lance in Praia da Luz (to be clear, he was), into whose pocket did this 1000 euros a day for the services of this mythical, non-existent, "enhanced" victim recovery dog go?

[honestbroker1]

Here we are:

Key points to note from the video below:

The dog is trained to react in both of two ways:

1. To give a (single!) bark

2. To indicate the location of the area of the bark by sitting, without destroying the evidence.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ca ... ORM=VRDGAR

And the age-old question of how Grime 'desensitised' Morse to blood answered!

Grime didn't.

Cast the question another way.

How did Grime 'desensitise' Keela to all scents of decomposing human remains except human blood?

Again, Grime didn't.

What a dog reacts to is determined by training.

If you want a dog to react to the scent of explosives, you must introduce the dog to explosives, as a discrete scent, and reward the dog for reacting.

Then the dog will.

If you want a dog to react to the scent of drugs, you must introduce the dog to the scent of drugs, as a discrete scent, then the dog will.

If you want a dog to react to the scent of money, you must introduce the dog to the scent of money, as a discrete scent, then the dog will.

And so on.

All dogs, innately and without training, detect all the above scents.

But only dogs trained to react to any of them individually will do so.

Grime trained Keela to react to human blood, but nothing else.

So that's all Keela would react to.

Grime trained Morse to react all scents of decomposing human remains except human blood.

So Morse wouldn't (react to human blood).

[Carana]

Where does the idea that Morse was desensitised to blood come from? (Not sure what he has to do with the McCann case.)

My understanding from reading Grime's blurbs is still that:
- Keela was trained to react *only" to the *physical* presence of blood.
- According to Grime, Eddie would react to airborne scent, whether there was a physical trace still present or not (although I find some of the anecdotes to support that a bit iffy).

Ergo, the oft-repeated myth that Keela + Eddie react = blood; Eddie alone reacts = cadaver doesn't make sense to me.

A bit like saying the moon is round. So is a coin. The moon is therefore a coin.

[honestbroker1]

Where does the idea that Morse was desensitised to blood come from? (Not sure what he has to do with the McCann case.)

My understanding from reading Grime's blurbs is still that:
- Keela was trained to react *only" to the *physical* presence of blood.
- According to Grime, Eddie would react to airborne scent, whether there was a physical trace still present or not (although I find some of the anecdotes to support that a bit iffy).

Ergo, the oft-repeated myth that Keela + Eddie react = blood; Eddie alone reacts = cadaver doesn't make sense to me.

A bit like saying the moon is round. So is a coin. The moon is therefore a coin.

I think it was mainly Urcrazy, who insisted that you couldn't 'desensitise' a dog to the scent of blood; or, wanted to know how, if you could, you did it.

It makes perfect sense (to me) to start from the premise that all dogs detect all scents, all the time, and that what a dog reacts to is determined by training.

[honestbroker1]

Where does the idea that Morse was desensitised to blood come from? (Not sure what he has to do with the McCann case.)

My understanding from reading Grime's blurbs is still that:
- Keela was trained to react *only" to the *physical* presence of blood.
- According to Grime, Eddie would react to airborne scent, whether there was a physical trace still present or not (although I find some of the anecdotes to support that a bit iffy).

Ergo, the oft-repeated myth that Keela + Eddie react = blood; Eddie alone reacts = cadaver doesn't make sense to me.

A bit like saying the moon is round. So is a coin. The moon is therefore a coin.

With the Eddie-and-Keela combination, quite possibly.

Because both dogs were trained to react to the scent of blood.

But with the Keela-and-Morse combination, it does make sense, because Morse was, not so much 'de-sensitised' to blood, as just not trained to react to it.

[Carana]

Where does the idea that Morse was desensitised to blood come from? (Not sure what he has to do with the McCann case.)

My understanding from reading Grime's blurbs is still that:
- Keela was trained to react *only" to the *physical* presence of blood.
- According to Grime, Eddie would react to airborne scent, whether there was a physical trace still present or not (although I find some of the anecdotes to support that a bit iffy).

Ergo, the oft-repeated myth that Keela + Eddie react = blood; Eddie alone reacts = cadaver doesn't make sense to me.

A bit like saying the moon is round. So is a coin. The moon is therefore a coin.

I think it was mainly Urcrazy, who insisted that you couldn't 'desensitise' a dog to the scent of blood; or, wanted to know how, if you could, you did it.

It makes perfect sense (to me) to start from the premise that all dogs detect all scents, all the time, and that what a dog reacts to is determined by training.

I'm confused, HB. Or you are, or we both are.

Ok, let's assume that dogs detect all scents (in theory).

Then, you can train them, via a reward, to react to a particular scent (which may combine several components).

I don't see how one could desensitise a dog already trained to react to a larger scent range to a much narrower onee without confusing the poor pup.

I have no problem with the idea that a dog can be trained to detect solely the physical presence of blood (Keela).

Blood is part and parcel of most remains, I would have thought, barring exceptional circumstances.

Has there been any serious quibble that one could desensitise an all-round cadaver dog to react only to human remains that had no trace of blood? What would the point of that be?

[Carana]

Where does the idea that Morse was desensitised to blood come from? (Not sure what he has to do with the McCann case.)

My understanding from reading Grime's blurbs is still that:
- Keela was trained to react *only" to the *physical* presence of blood.
- According to Grime, Eddie would react to airborne scent, whether there was a physical trace still present or not (although I find some of the anecdotes to support that a bit iffy).

Ergo, the oft-repeated myth that Keela + Eddie react = blood; Eddie alone reacts = cadaver doesn't make sense to me.

A bit like saying the moon is round. So is a coin. The moon is therefore a coin.

With the Eddie-and-Keela combination, quite possibly.

Because both dogs were trained to react to the scent of blood.

But with the Keela-and-Morse combination, it does make sense, because Morse was, not so much 'de-sensitised' to blood, as just not trained to react to it.

I haven't looked closely at Morse's training, as he had nothing to do with sniffing out PdL.

[Carana]

I really haven't followed Morse. What was he trained to react to?

[honestbroker1]

I really haven't followed Morse. What was he trained to react to?

All scents of decomposing human remains except human blood.

That is why, in the Bianca Jones investigation, Morse's (uncorroborated) alerts were accepted as stand-alone evidence of murder.

Grime could not, legally, have operated Keela and Morse in combination in England, at least without a change in English law, because, by English law, uncorroborated cadaver-dog alerts are inadmissible as evidence in court.

And an alert to a cadaver scent can be corroborated, alone, by a cadaver or a body-part/

Otherwise, there is nothing tangible to retrieve from a cadaver alert.

[honestbroker1]

Where does the idea that Morse was desensitised to blood come from? (Not sure what he has to do with the McCann case.)

My understanding from reading Grime's blurbs is still that:
- Keela was trained to react *only" to the *physical* presence of blood.
- According to Grime, Eddie would react to airborne scent, whether there was a physical trace still present or not (although I find some of the anecdotes to support that a bit iffy).

Ergo, the oft-repeated myth that Keela + Eddie react = blood; Eddie alone reacts = cadaver doesn't make sense to me.

A bit like saying the moon is round. So is a coin. The moon is therefore a coin.

I think it was mainly Urcrazy, who insisted that you couldn't 'desensitise' a dog to the scent of blood; or, wanted to know how, if you could, you did it.

It makes perfect sense (to me) to start from the premise that all dogs detect all scents, all the time, and that what a dog reacts to is determined by training.

I'm confused, HB. Or you are, or we both are.

Ok, let's assume that dogs detect all scents (in theory).

Then, you can train them, via a reward, to react to a particular scent (which may combine several components).

I don't see how one could desensitise a dog already trained to react to a larger scent range to a much narrower onee without confusing the poor pup.

I have no problem with the idea that a dog can be trained to detect solely the physical presence of blood (Keela).

Blood is part and parcel of most remains, I would have thought, barring exceptional circumstances.

Has there been any serious quibble that one could desensitise an all-round cadaver dog to react only to human remains that had no trace of blood? What would the point of that be?

You overlook (I think) that dogs have an ability, not only to detect scents to a much higher level of acuity than humans, but also to differentiate between them to a much higher level of acuity.

At least to a dog, the scent of decomposing human blood is quite separate, quite distinct and quite different from (other) scents of decomposing human remains; and the dog will innately (and easily) differentiate, distinguish between and separate each of those separate and unique scents.

Getting the dog to alert to them is another matter.

That is all down to training.

From the court citation of the D'Andre Lane trial:

According to Grime, on December 4, 2011, he took his dogs to an enclosed warehouse that contained 31 vehicles. Grime was told that Bianca was in one of the vehicles at the time of the carjacking, but was not told which vehicle was involved. Morse alerted Grime to the presence of the odor of decomposition in the back seat and trunk of a silver Grand Marquis. Keela later screened the car and did not alert Grime to the presence of human blood.

https://cases.justia.com/michigan/court ... 1415970138

[Carana]

I know that HB, but Keela was only ever trained to alert to the *physical presence* of blood. Nothing else, according to Grime.

I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing about. Nor even if we're disagreeing.

[honestbroker1]

I know that HB, but Keela was only ever trained to alert to the *physical presence* of blood. Nothing else, according to Grime.

I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing about. Nor even if we're disagreeing.

You asked how you 'desensitise' a dog to a scent.

You don't

You sensitise a dog to the scent (or scents) you want the dog to react to.

[honestbroker1]

Inspector Dias knew what he was talking about:

It should be noted the report made by the trainer /owner of these dogs. On this report it's mentioned the methodology of training:

Trainer/owner (as well as handler)

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTR ... OLUMES.htm

[honestbroker1]

Good grief.

7 pages on UK injustice of (largely) dross illuminated by (just the occasional) germane or relevant comment:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... 427282#new

With good reason, throughout the whole of his three reports, Mark Harrison (whose job it was to draw up the strategy and schedule of searches) made not one, single, reference to clothing.

That is because, in part, he knew Grime did not have dogs trained to conduct such searches; in part, because, 3 months after the crime, there was never, even in theory, the slightest chance of anything coming of such 'inspections' that would be one scintilla of use to the investigation.

Uncorroborated cadaver dog alerts are inadmissible as evidence in English courts. Grime and Harrison both say so.

And finding minute traces of Madeleine's blood on any clothing of Kate's or Gerry's (had any been found; none was!) would not be remotely incriminating, with all manner of innocent explanations of how it might have got there.

So why inspect clothing?

At all?

Let alone the same clothing twice in two different spots?

With good reason, Grime was questioned in his rogatory interview about principles of cross-contamination of a death scent.

Grime heedlessly disregarded those principles in the whole fiasco (that was 'inspection' of clothing).

[honestbroker1]

Good grief:

Responding to this (germane!) post from Benice:

If the 'precaution' of ensuring that all of the 'areas' tested were given the same amount of time and attention as that given to everything McCann related - then IMO other alerts would have occurred. This clearly did not happen. AFAIK none of the clothes owned by anyone else other than the McCanns were tested.

My addition: correct! And none sent to the FSS.

I cannot believe that not a single drop of blood had ever been spilled in any of the other apartments or cars during several preceding decades. I do believe M. Grime's claim that his dogs could detect the minutest residues of blood even if it had been deposited many years previously. Therefore, there can only be one reason for the lack of alerts IMO - and that is because the dogs were not required to give the same amount of time and attention to 'areas' that were not McCann-related.

According to the experts it is a FACT that an alert by Eddie is not proof of the previous presence of a cadaver - because the scent could be present for a variety of different reasons - not just one. While that FACT remains to be the case - there can be no grounds for an arrest IMO.
AIMHO

G-Unit says:

As I understand it no-one was looking for 'a single drop of blood.....spilled in any of the other apartments or cars during several preceding decades'. They were looking first and foremost for cadaver odour. Only if Eddie alerted was Keela deployed in the same area.

Which, of course, fully explains why, in the pseudo-'inspection' in the gym, Keela was deployed first.

Let's see.

Even if Keela had alerted (Keela didn't, and hence no clothing was ever sent to the FSS!) minute traces of Madeleine's blood on either Kate's or Gerry's clothing would not have been remotely incriminating, with all manner of innocent explanations of how it might have got there.

But, Keela having been deployed (first!) without alerting, Eddie, with a method of training and an alert manifestly unsuited for that type of inspection, was deployed anyway.

Eddie barked and picked stuff up in his mouth (second time of asking, in the gym) after ignoring the exact-same clothing in the villa.

And the clothes were taken from villa to gym in bog-standard cardboard boxes in disregard of principles of cross-contamination (not that that mattered, given that this was clothing in common circulation as clothing is for fully 3 months following the crime).

Farce upon farce.

Small wonder Mark Harrison dismissed both exercises (at villa and Gym) as 'PJ exercises'.

And it is a matter of regret that Harrison, although he did distance himself from Grime's worst excesses, didn't do so more overtly.

Had Harrison been more forthright in his critique of the antics of the dog-handler Kate and Gerry might never have been made arguidos.

[honestbroker1]

Bless Angelo on UK Injustice.

He has just posted this:

Evidence already been posted on this forum. The charges could include attempting to pervert the course of justice and conspiracy. There is also the old chestnut of interference in an official police investigation.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/an+old+chestnut

old chestnut
A topic, saying, or joke that has been repeated so much that it has become boring or irksome. Whether there's truth in it or not, I can't stand that old chestnut "follow your heart."

What more is there to say?

[honestbroker1]

Deceit upon deceit.

From Grime's profile we read:

The E.V.R.D. will locate cadaver, whether in the whole or parts thereof; deposited

surface or sub-surface to a depth of approximately 3-4 feet shortly after death to the advanced stages of deposition and putrefaction through to skeletal.

There are dogs thus trained:

https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/0 ... er-corpses

The (late) Eddie (RIP) was never one ....

From the article:

Globally, there are some 100,000 deaths annual from drowning — including accidents and suicides. Some countries, such as the USA, are ahead of the UK in using dogs to detect the submerged bodies.

Thus wrote the author of the article I link to in 2015, some 8 years after Grime wrote his PDL profile.

[honestbroker1]

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human

blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic

science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.

She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing

and examine crime scenes for minute human blood deposits. She will accurately

locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or

having been subjected to severa1 washing machine cycles.

In training she has accurately located minute samples of blood on property up to

thirty-six years old.

(More in an edit).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-18/m ... od/8821050

Impressively, the canines which were mostly trained on fresh blood could locate blood confidently up to six months old, and had the ability to locate blood even as old as 24 months.

24 months or two years as against 36 years.

Hmmmmmmmmmm!

http://theconversation.com/for-sniffing ... dogs-82213

[Carana]

I don't see the problem.

So in our first studies we compared the odour of fresh and degraded blood, chemically profiled over a two-year study and presented to cadaver-detection and blood-detection dogs in training.

[honestbroker1]

You never have been able to see the problem with Grime.

Which has long mystified me.

[Carana]

You never have been able to see the problem with Grime.

Which has long mystified me.

I have several problems with how Grime went about things, and I've often said so.

[honestbroker1]

You never have been able to see the problem with Grime.

Which has long mystified me.

I have several problems with how Grime went about things, and I've often said so.

For me, the key points are these:

What was supposed to have been the relationship between Grime and Harrison was simple:

Harrison would draw up a schedule of searches and Grime would carry out those searches in accordance with Harrison's schedule.

Harrison did his bit.

He drew up a sensible and logical schedule of searches.

Harrison then lapses into second-person-speak to outline a schedule, extended from those Harrison (originally) recommended, that had/have no logic whatever: places Madeleine never lived in or went near, the villa, the Renault scenic and so on. Harrison knew in a way Grime seemingly didn't that Grime did not have dogs with the right training for the sort of inspections Grime attempted with them.

That is why Harrison (retrospectively) dismissed both inspections at villa and gym as pj exercises.

Harrison understood in a way, I suspect, Grime did to, that Grime did not have dogs with the right training for the sorts of 'inspections' Grime attempted with them.

Harrison (unwittingly) unleashed in Grime a sort of 'Frankenstein monster' that, as is the way of it with these monsters, he then struggled, with considerable skill, but only partial success, to control.

Meanwhile, the net losers in this mess are Madeleine, Kate, Gerry and Madeleine's extended family.

[honestbroker1]

The man is utterly unconscionable.

I have just come across this:

Jersey: Martin Grime was told to play down the dogs findings in the McCann case SO what does that tell you about a childs partial skull found in Jersey which turned into a coconut ?
Just to elucidate the Martin Grime aspect and the Specialist dogs, Eddie & Keela. When the PJ files were first published and issued to some Journalists in 2008, Grimes was interviewed, "off the record" by a small number of journo's including a good friend and colleague of mine who was , at the time, a sub-editor of a National Sunday newspaper.

Grimes made it very clear that he was unhappy with what he referred to as his "treatment" by authorities unknown, (although he did say they were British), who had coerced him, he says, to "play down" the significance of the dogs' findings. Grimes let it be known that Eddies and Keelas 'scentings' were irrefutable, in his mind, having worked with the dogs successfully on very many cases for the many of the Constabularies in the UK on high profile cases.

Grimes stated that he was "instructed" to ensure that in his subsequently produced report, he was to emphasise that the dog's findings were inadmissable as evidence, (which is of course, true, but he had NEVER been instructed on any other case to point this out), and that they were effectively inconsequential without further corroborative evidence.

Birmingham FSS initially suggested in their reports that recovered material, as indicated in spots by the dogs, DID appear to have significant 'markers', consistent with Madeleine's profile. Of course, that initial report, (like so many initial reports in this case), was subsequently CHANGED!

But that's ANOTHER story for another day....... http://tl.gd/cd92rb · Reply
Report post (?)

Let's see.

What was "irrefutable" about Eddie playing with cuddle-cat (but not alerting)?

Then (by Grime's own words) "alerting" but only after the toy was hidden in a cupboard?

What was "irrefutable" about Eddie alerting to clothing in the gym the same dog steadfastly ignored (the exact-same clothing) in the villa?

What was "irrefutable" about Grime's wholesale disregard of principles of cross-contamination in the way clothing was transported from villa to gym?

What was "irrefutable" about both dogs interfering with potential evidence (by trampling all over it) and one dog interfering with it by picking it up in his mouth?

What was "irrefutable" about Grime's, even hypothetical, supposition that Madeleine's blood might be found on the ignition-key of a vehicle hired 3 weeks after she was abducted?

What was "irrefutable" about Grime wearing a haz-mat suit, alone, of all inspections at Praia Luz, for the inspection of vehicles, then using the exact-same video (of that inspection!) to promote himself when he applied for the gig at Haut de la Garenne?

[/quote]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mbles.html

'Grime made a presentation, showing him [Harper] a video of the dog finding the "scent of death" in Kate and Gerry McCann's car,' the detective said.

'They were still formal suspects and the case had got worldwide publicity. It seemed to get Lenny very excited. I think Grime kind of bewitched him.'