17 February 2010

Sniffer dog used in search for Madeleine McCann found missing Orkney man's body



A sniffer dog used in the search for missing Madeleine McCann found a man buried in sand dunes in Orkney, a court heard yesterday.

FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow he and his springer spaniels Eddie, Keela and Morse were called in by police in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on the island of Sanday last June.

Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies and was used in the McCann case and the Soham murders inquiry, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick on June 24.

Mr Grime said: "His normal reaction is to bark. On this occasion he started to dig."

The body of "Black Bob" Rose was later found at the spot.

The trial was also told one of the two men on trial for Bob's murder, Stephen Crummack, had indicated the area to police days before.

Detective Constable Neil Docherty said Crummack, 51, went on to blame his co-accused, John Campbell, 59, for killing Bob.

The pair deny murder and a string of related charges and the trial continues.


in: Daily Record, 17.02.2010

79 comments:

  1. The trial was also told one of the two men on trial for Bob's murder, Stephen Crummack, had indicated the area to police days before.

    it is once more a double edged sword...why is everything so pro McCann..or am I paranoid..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmm bet Mitchell wont be quick with a press conference for this snippet of info about Eddie

    I do hope the judge has been informed of Eddie's find

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wonder what the mccanns have to say over that article.

    The fact they did not enquire further about the dogs findings speak volume. Any innocent parents would want to know who died in the apt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon≠1 - if the man hadn't indicated the area how would they have known where to take Eddie to search? The search area is narrowed as much as possible, this is normal procedure. No double edged sword - the fact that Eddie could pinpoint exactly where to look is proof positive of his expertise.

    Interesting that the FB1 trust the ability of Martin Grimes' dogs, while the McCanns don't. Now who would be most likely to be correct in their assessment?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eddie in the McCann apartment picked up the scent of cadaver.There was no body. This time there was also a body, so I would assume even though this was strange to Martin, for Eddie it would be a natural part of his snout...He picked up the scent and started to dig.

    It was very cleverly arranged that of all the dogs Eddie and Keela were chosen to go to Jersey and have their reputation destroyed.

    This is good news on the eve of the verdict from the Judge. I hope that she is informed of this information.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous @1 don't get so paranoid, Stephen Crummack didn't tell the dogs, good old Eddie worked it out for himself....again. Bravo Eddie....not that you can read...!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Indicating an 'area' is a far cry from indicating the 'spot'. That's why Eddie was brought in!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sand dunes can cover a vast area.
    Even if the area had been indicated to the police days before, it still would have been a long and possibly impossible task for the police to locate the body.
    IMO - Eddie has once again proved that he has the best nose in the business.
    Bravo that dog!

    ReplyDelete
  9. To an1 .An area could be a large place. I don't think it's said at purpose to undermine the qualities of the dog. But to present it as the dog who was used in Madeleine case implies that he probably was right for that case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Quite impossible.
    I don't believe a word of it.
    The dogs are useless.
    The McCanns and Clarrie said so.
    So there !

    ReplyDelete
  11. anonymous 1 you are paranoid ha ha Seriously though, this just shows that these dogs are not as unreliable as Gerry McCann states. Now if only someone could indicate where Madeleine is, Kate McCann's dream perhaps ...

    ReplyDelete
  12. In another article on the same case Martin Grimes explains to the court that if someone, who had just been in contact with a dead body, then touched a piece of paper for a minute and the paper was buried Eddie would be able to locate that piece of paper.
    Not good news for the Mccanns.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think what they mean is Crummack indicated an area, probably quite a large area such as 'in those dunes over there' and the dogs were brought in to find the body.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I read it as though the Daily Record were having a dig at the McCanns in their dismissal of the dogs and that they were in fact saying "look these dogs are very clever and they don't get things wrong".

    I think you are being a tad paranoid, anon 1.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The dogs are totally unreliable, right, Kate and Gerry? Bollocks!

    The timing of this news article is very good, so close to the verdict in the Amaral court case. I hope there are more success stories of Eddie and Keela published in the press in the near future.

    Tying the dog's success in locating "Black Bob's" body to the McCann case is very helpful, too, and will give people something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  16. He may have indicated the area but the dog found the exact spot. This is great news and supports my beliefs that the dogs were right in the Maddy case.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I didn't get the double-edged nuance from that at all. Just that the dogs have been vindicated - again.

    ReplyDelete
  18. :)] A dog will only sniff something out if you bring it to the area. No point in holding it in Singapore say, for it to detect something that has happened in Praia da Luz (Portugal). You will have to bring the dog to the location and start sniffing from there...

    In this case (Orkney's murder) someone (trial) indicated the area to the police and once that was done the dog easy did it - very much like it happened in Praia da Luz. It does not depend on whether you are pro or anti-McCann. That is just one of the special gift of dogs.

    A dog will know when the owner is on her/his way home even if the owner is hundreds of miles away. Don't ask me how. I am not a dog but in case you doubt read the scientific work of Cambridge biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake:


    "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home:
    And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals: An Investigation"
    By Rupert Sheldrake

    ReplyDelete
  19. I wonder how deep in sand the body was and if washed over by the tide four times a day for months. Get Eddie back to PDL and give him some scuba gear.
    Anyone who doubts these dogs is a fool or pro McCann. Is there a difference?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't think they were wrong in Jersey where, although they did not find a body, they did find children's teeth.

    The body or bodies would have been removed elsewhere, just like in the McCann case.

    Those dogs are not wrong.

    They are brilliant animals. The McCanns make me sick trying to dismiss and ridicule them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's obvious Martin Grimes sat down with the dogs beforehand, they wrote a timeline between them as to when the body would be found. They had an indepth discussion and planned the " Discovery". These dog's skills are useless isn't that right Gerry?

    ReplyDelete
  22. There is an evidence that the Mccanns defemate these dogs!
    Eddie and Keela, let's sue the Mccanns!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I like Eddie and Grimes matching outfits! What a dog. The only way it will come to the Judges attention is if it is reported in the Portuguese papers.

    Woof Woof

    ReplyDelete
  24. =)) "Ask the dogs, Sandra."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Maybe someone should send this article to Dear Lorraine Kelly...
    and see what she might say?!!!

    These dogs are the best out there but not for Mr and Mrs M!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I look forward to the day when the dogs are able to search the property of the McCanns in Rothley, just as they did Murat's in PDL.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fantastic. Great dogs, just brilliant.

    Dogs 3 - mccanns 0

    (5A, Zapata, and now this)

    w_nicht

    ReplyDelete
  28. I wonder if Eddie and Keela would locate the exact same spots if taken back to PDL after all this time?

    ReplyDelete
  29. If the Mcs were in a building and a sniffer dog picked up the scent of explosives, would Gerry stay in the building and still maintain that dogs are notoriously unreliable or make for an exit fast... The latter me thinks.

    lindi

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just in case anyone here hasn't read the Attracta Harron case where Eddie alerted in the murderer's car AND found the body buried at a riverbank - the springer spaniel's name isn't given but it was definitely Eddie.

    http://www.martinharran.com/openstate.htm

    I'm just thinking of the way Gerry said after the last court hearing that they had a plane to catch. Now if someone had said to him 'Sorry, Gerry, but an explosive detection dog has just indicated there's a bomb on that plane' would he and Kate have got into it?

    Answers on a postcard, please!

    ReplyDelete
  31. The McCann's would claim Bob had pork for dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eddie is the best in the business that's why he was taken to PDL.
    For him to mark so many areas/items all belonging to the McCanns and them only and not anybody elses after extensive searching has a probability factor of being wrong in the trillions.

    Eddie does his job correctly and always has done and to say he is unreliable is an insult to Martin the FBI and any right minded persons intelligence.
    For him to consistantly false mark so many things one after the other would render him totally useless and he would have never had made the grade in the first place.

    TRUST THEM !

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shame it will not make a jot of difference.

    The McCanns will not lose their gagging order...they will have the book banned - pity its alreadfy been read by millions world wide and pity that it will be read by millions more if it gets banned!

    If they think this single case will make any difference (in fact, either way) then they are nuts (which of course they are anyway).

    The opinions of judges are jsut that - opinions. Look at the trouble they have with defining words like 'reckless' and 'intent' - even then they overturn each others views.

    SO, fear not the opinion of a judge - it can be overturned and bears little relation to reality!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think we all know that the McCanns shifted Madeleines body, its only weak minded 'personalities' in the press and media who love the McCanns - usually because they use their child care methods and cant see past that part of the story.

    I wonder too, if the dogs would alert where Gerry put Madeleine whilst he distracted Wilkins that night.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 28, Yes I beleive that would be totally possible Eddie has picked up scents that are many years old in the past.
    How interesting would it be for Martin to take the dogs back to pdl and have them mark the same spots over again.
    Now that would take some explaining would it not Gerry.

    If the case is re-opened it could be an ace card to play even if the forensics do not back it up it still say's someone died here at some point in time.
    So who would that be then?

    ReplyDelete
  36. This is the evidence that the Daily Record believes Amaral.
    Daily Record can not say it openly or they will be sued.
    It is saying it on an indirect way.



    From Russia with Love.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Perhaps somebody should send the article to Isabel Duarte and ask her to contact her brain.

    Didn't she also try to dismiss the dogs. If the McCanns told her to say night was day, presumably she would.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bob had been fishing and got eaten by a sea bass. Doh!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Further toi my letter of complaint to Lorraines rag, I sent this today...

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/02/17/sniffer-dog-used-in-search-for-madeleine-mccann-found-missing-orkney-man-s-body-86908-22048803/

    'Could you bring this article to Lorraine’s attention please?

    This is one of the dogs that ‘alerted’ only to the McCann’s possessions, Kate McCann’s clothes (she claimed she had been in contact with 6 cadavers in her part time GP role – but didn’t explain why she had been wearing her holiday clothes at work!) and their car.

    Before Lorraine pins her colours to the McCann’s, it might be worth her while to read the case files and take an objective view of the case.

    Best to remain unbiased, don’t you think?'

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gerry said that cadaver dogs were "Incredibly unreliable when tested scientifically".
    A ' google scholar' search reveals very few scientific studies at all. The only two I found (not chery picked )are as follows.


    'Cadaver dogs - A study on detection of contaminated carpet squares'
    http://www.pawsoflife.org/pdf/libraryarticles/carpetsquares.pdf

    Which concludes ' The results of this study indicate that the well trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-10) specificity (91-100)and having a positive predictive value (90-100)negative predictive value (90-100)as well as accuracy (92-100)



    www.searchdogs.org/articles/canineHR.pdf

    "Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern united states"

    From the abstract.
    " observations and videotape of the cadver dogs during field trails showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains"

    It seems most of the 'unreliability'was associated with false negatives due to either dog fatigue late in the day or the inability of the handler to recognise a signal from the dog that alerted to the remains but was different from the one it was trained to do.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Go Eddie!!! Show them what you can do !!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Spin! The UK media..the Daily Mail - spinning information and proving that the 'newspapers' should not be considered as the guardians of freedom of expression! To allow - no - to generate - such a biased and twisted view is criminal and a total abuse of their 'right to free expression' - it should be OUR RIGHT not theirs! Imagine what will be written if (as I expect) they are allowed by the judge in Portugal to crush Sr Amarals book.

    Read and despair! This extract is referring to the 'file' of sightings which were, we are told, not pursued by the Portuguese police. Yet Clarence has referred to the case files -which we all know are extensive and show a massive professional effort by the PJ.

    Clarence...'He said it had confirmed their worst fears about the investigation, saying: 'They were shocked when they went through the file and saw what was in it, and even worse what little had been done to follow any of it up.'

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1250419/Portuguese-police-ignored-hundreds-sightings-search-Madeleine-McCann.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0fnzeMBqS

    ReplyDelete
  43. Eddie and Keela will be witnesses in the Murat vs Jane Tanner process in Lagos Criminal Court.
    Woof woof

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well done Eddie, and well done Anon 39 for making the press aware of events.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I wish Eddie could read. Good dog!

    ReplyDelete
  46. What is it with McCann and the word 'incredible' - does the fool know what it means?

    Everything with him is 'incredible'!

    Another pet hate I have is the use of 'startlingly' - in the context of 'startlingly similar' to Madeleine whenever some little child who actually only looks like Madeleine in the way that one sheep looks like another, i.e. a young female child with mousey - not blonde (another pet hate - Madeleine wasnt blonde and I dont understand why they want her to be!) hair.

    I know I'm illogical, but why do they have to keep using the same irritating words!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Vanessa Allen, Daily Mail.
    Her News Editor, Keith Pool wrote asking for permission for her to look at the files, with the help of interpreter Gaynor de Jesus, in July 2008. There is no excuse for mis-reporting if she did read the files.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The McCanns keep repeating the dog's are unreliable over and over again, if they are innocent and these dogs had alerted a cadaver in the apartment, wouldn't any sane innocent person be mortified and want further investigations done by police and dogs. The McCanns give themselves away soooo much. Let's hope justice for Madeleine comes soon. Bless her and bless these wonderful dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oh dear, another setback for the mccanns. They can only go direction south from now. Serve them right for not taking small mercy granted to them last year by PJ and go away quietly. Imagine having the galls and insolemn to sue the PJ for having done their job, no wonder their dirty linen boomeranged on them.

    Finger crossed for a favourable ruling to Amaral. Otherwise they will not see the back of their dirty linen yet. Either way they've lost miserably all due to their own obnoxious attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This just goes to show that these dogs can and do provide invaluable intelligence to police investigations.

    I cannot bear to hear the McCanns belittle the ability of these dogs.

    When I heard how dogs similar to these were used in Haiti to return the dead to their loving families for a proper, decent burial, I felt such anger against those who reject their findings, simply because it does not fit with their "narrative".

    It is an insult to those who died and to their grieving families, who am I sure felt much gratitude to the dogs and their handlers.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Did Tanner visit Apartment C Aparthotel Solimar/Sol e Mar in Burgau on or before May 5th 2007?

    ReplyDelete
  52. ;)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT8QJL9nlaw

    Here is an interesting diversion from what we are discussing here. One that brings us back to the one proven crime (abandonment) the "Meccanos" are guilt of.

    The rest, let us face it, amounts to speculation based on witnesses' doctoring and contradictions, evasions (reconstruction)and "unsupported" (no matter how relevant) dog evidence - none of which, given the "Meccanos" influence and expert representations would stand up in a real trial. A trial would require evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    This one aspect might. What is puzzling is that it did not. There you are.

    The real issue now, least we forget, is Dr. Amaral freedom to express his own professional, personal views, particularly since all the evidence (albeit somewhat incomplete) points the way of expert opinion. To be or not to be free to express oneself, that is the question...

    ReplyDelete
  53. The dog evidence is damning as it can be proved the animals are the best and never been wrong.

    Besides this there is numerous circumstantial evidence, plus witness statements, which most cases are based on anyway, and all add up to help convict.

    We have only seen a small percentage of the Files, there is much more that is being kept under wraps, and at a trial the UK cops would speak out as well.

    If the dogs had indicated against Murat the way they have against the McCanns he would have been in prison by now, and you could put your money on that.

    How the McCanns have managed to escape any charge at all is hard to believe. You have got to hand it to them for the spin they have been pushing out.

    I hope their luck or whatever has been in their favour is now on the turn. It would not be before time.

    ReplyDelete
  54. If the Mc Canns deny the findings of the dogs then I wonder, why Kate gave an innocent explanation about the scent on her clothes?
    She did it, because she knew the dogs were right. How credible is it to assume, that the dogs would fail all the other times they alerted?
    Why were the Mc Canns not very upset about the findings of the sniffer dogs, when they knew exactly about the correct alert on Kates clothes?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Not only do clan Mccann destroy the lives and reputations of many people they even try to do the same to two beautiful, intelligent celebrity doggies. Perhaps they are envious of their notoriety - or even terrified of being out-witted by two superior beings!

    ReplyDelete
  56. A bit of topic, just wondering when I read 39.. The cadaver odor on Kate's clothes. Her being a Gp Maybe, but 6 of them?? Surely this could have been confirmed on denied by the Surgery where she was employed. It would have take 1 SNR docter there to be able to say yes she was in contact with six cadavers before holiday or no she wasnt. I mean how many GP's in a surgery deals with 1 cadaver a month what about 6 in one week. This potentially could answer that one question which could lead to either feel sorry for all the family who's memebers died in one week or if not Kate need to answer this?

    ReplyDelete
  57. 58 Cuddle cat was also alerted to by Eddie and I have read that she used to take that to work with her also! who the hell would take a childs to to visit dead bodies and who would wear the same clothes on holiday.
    It's pure bull and they know it is.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anon 58 - Agree with you about confirmation being easily obtained from the a senior doctor at the surgery, but its not known if the PJ asked the British police to investigate this and if they did, whether it was passed on to the PJ. Anyway I don`t think anything to do with the dogs` findings is enough evidence on its own - it would just prove KM lied yet again.

    Also remember that two doctors have to certify a death. Usually one does it at the time of death and another doctor goes to the undertaker to examine the corpse again for the second signature. In a big city that has lots of deaths, sometimes doctors visit the undertakers and do two or three at the same time, but KM`s practice was not in a big city and she only worked one and a half days a week.

    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  59. The best thing about these dogs on Madeleine case was that they went to several apartments but have only reacted in MacCann's apartment; they have a few cars in the garage to be checked but they just picked Mccann's car. And they market Kate clothes and Madeleine belongings.

    And blood and fluids were found in the apartment floor. Worse than that, in the rented car after the small girl was gone. The pieces were contaminated...see another coincidence or shall I say another whole..?

    I wish a could see Gordon Brown face when he knew about the police report on the dogs.

    Don't feel bad I used to believe too... but I've stopped a long time ago... to many coincidences and wholes in this case...

    ReplyDelete
  60. Spin on that, Gerry.

    Arf arf!

    love, Eddie :D

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'm a very mild mannered and laissez faire type of character, but this case really annoys me, so much so, I can't let it drop.

    When Gerry declares that there's "no evidence" (ad nauseum) that his daughter has come to any harm, and that, this lack of evidence now constitutes evidence in it's own right that she's been abducted, it makes me furious.
    So a lack of evidence, is evidence to the contrary but a powerful indication that someone came to harm (a euphemism for died) in the flat is not evidence at all!

    There is evidence that Madeleine has been harmed (died)! It may not be submissable in a court of law but a highly trained EVRD dog going bonkers in your flat, garden, hire car, hire car keys, cuddly toy and items of your wifes clothing, and nowhere else, along with the recovery of undefined DNA from the walls and floor of the appartment and hire car, that, at least partly, matches that of your daughter constitutes 'evidence' in a sane world.
    It's not conclusive evidence that would get you or anyone else convicted of a very serious crime but it is certainly evidence that your daughter has come to some sort of harm.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Can anyone tell me were the same dogs used in the investigation in Soham trial (Ian Huntley) and how they were used. I mean did they indicate corpse> at hes house or found the girls? The reason I am asking this is because if the dogs implicated Ian Huntley direct then I am atlost to the reason why justice is dragging its feet to make an arrest. Common sense reminds me time and time again that what we are told to be the truth is rubbish. Its like trying to convince someone Horsemanure is cornflakes and then invite one to breakfast. I know the truth will come out just a matter of time

    ReplyDelete
  63. @65

    This business about "no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm" from the McCann's enrages me. Death is not the only harm anyone can suffer is it? According to them, she was taken from her family. This ALWAYS results in trauma for a child regardless of personality, giving her "tuppence worth" or anything else. Now I don't believe they are telling the truth about Madeleine being abducted, but not to acknowledge that abductees come to any harm is pure crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Stephen Crummack and John Campbell obviously didn't realise that the best thing to do is to pay a secret visit to Martin's supervisor.

    ReplyDelete
  65. We asked Eddie Gerry ( see above ) and he is now awaiting your response.

    ReplyDelete
  66. ≠65 and ≠67, I agree, the whole 'come to no harm' declaration by the parents is totally sickening. If Madeleine truly had been abducted, they're declaring that child abduction is not harmful to the child - how could any sane person say such a thing?

    The fact that these two parents are doctors and can still say this is frightening; are we supposed to think that the medical profession in the UK considers that children abduction results in no harm to the child? That being grabbed by a mad or bad stranger, taken away from those you know and love, and kept in captivity - none of this results in serious harm to the child?

    There should IMO be someone in authority who could put a stop to this dangerous idea being repeated ad nauseum by the McCanns, before someone actually begins to believe it. If Madeleine was abducted, as her parents allege, then she has been seriously harmed - that is a fact, as abduction is considered by all experts to be a form of child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  67. IN DOG I TRUST! once again! :D

    btw, i don't buy the jersey "coconuts"...

    just as other posters said, wouldn't it be very interesting to bring eddie & keela to pdl again? i watched the dog videos over and over, and apart from their expertise (which is clear & obvious like the sunlight on pdl beach) i was impressed with martin grime's cool and professional demeanour, his explanation for every little sign the dogs gave etc. this man is not a liar, he has no agenda other than train his dogs the best he can.

    also, i watched the "ask the dogs" video many times, very closely, and it always jumped out at me (or is it "on me"? sry, no native speak) how shrill & awkward gerry sounds, let alone his body language... oh, he must hate dogs...

    of course, this is extremly, incredibly, ludicrously hurtful & unhelpful.................. =))

    hope for some common sense in court tomorrow.

    eric

    ReplyDelete
  68. The dogs didn't fail in jersey ,ask Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  69. The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow Uni
    Shit goes uphill, all it takes is willpower! George Laird 2009

    Wednesday, February 17, 2010
    Smug Gerald Patrick McCann tells reporter, 'ask the dogs, Sandra', dog replies dead body buried under sand here!




















    Dear All

    Do you remember the smug replies by Gerald Patrick and Kate McCann when asked by reporter Sandra Felgueiras to explain the findings of the forensic dogs, Eddie and Keela?

    Sandra;

    “But this is the first time that you give us a big interview not being arguidos, not being arguidos. Since then. erm. So now I feel free to ask you this directly. How can you explain the coincidence of the scent of cadaver found by british and not portuguese dogs?”

    Kate;

    “Sandra, maybe you should ask the judiciary because they have examined all evidence. I mean we are also Madeleine's mum and dad and we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people.”

    Sandra;“So you don't have an explanation for that?”

    Gerry;

    “Ask the dogs (smirk) Sandra.”

    Sandra;

    “Ask the dogs? No Gerry. Now I feel free to ask you, don't you feel free to answer me?”

    Gerry;

    “I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.”Sandra;“Unreliable?”

    Gerry;

    “Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they are tested scientifically.”

    So, the last laugh is on Eddie, a little dog who found the body of Bob Rose buried in sand dunes in Orkney.

    I wonder when Gerry Patrick McCann finds out will he still be smirking?

    He said, ‘ask the dogs, Sandra’, they have replied.

    Eddie replied,

    ‘is this corpse I discovered buried under sand good enough for you Gerald’?

    Eddie is the dog who alerted the world to the scent of death in apartment 5A of the Mccann’s holiday home in Praia da Luz.

    It seems that Eddie is a more credible source than highly educated Glasgow University medically trained Gerald Patrick McCann.

    And as far as I am aware Eddie the dog has never once lied during the search of Madeleine McCann.

    The Portuguese Police should reopen the Madeleine McCann case and treat the case as a murder inquiry.

    The track record of Eddie and Keela warrants such a conclusion.

    Gerald Patrick and Kate McCann should be arrested under an EU warrant and transported back to Portugal to answer questions they previously refused to answer.

    ‘Ask the dogs, Sandra’, no, we’re asking you McCann!

    Yours sincerely

    George Laird
    The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

    ReplyDelete
  70. I wish somebody would ask Kate and Gerry McCann to comment on the findings of the dogs in their holiday apartment and hire car, in front of a live UK TV audience.

    Would Gerry McCann then dare to be sarcastic about these dogs.

    If he tried to dismiss them like that there would be outrage.

    ReplyDelete
  71. the only incredibly unreliable ones are the tapas nine and their realatives and friends who lie for them to escape
    the very credible dog alerts to madeleine red tea shirt kate's bible apartment behind sofa in cupboard car keys and hirer car and smell corpse on Kate's clothes.Dogs smelt corrstly no other hirer cars no other apartments found the culprits sniffed them out good and proper ...well done you hero dogs you know who killed poor madeleine and that;s that.anon

    ReplyDelete
  72. If my calculating is correct, by the few scientific studies that have been carried out, these dogs accuracy translates to something like 92 - 95%

    Also, if my memory is correct, isn't it the case that, in the field, these dog's accuracy is essentially 100%?

    This is deemed unreliable?

    Let's consider reliabilty, shall we Mr.McCann. As a parent, what would you say you're percentage success rate of keeping your children safe is, hmm?

    Also, let's get onto your professional standing shall we? If you consider 92 - 100% success rate 'unreliable', then can I ask you, as a doctor, what is YOUR success rate in saving all your patients lives? Is it as high as this figure, or comparatively less so?

    I'm pretty sure I can guess the answer, but why dont you tell us 'scientifically' how reliable you are, when you cant even keep your own story...err sorry, statements to the police straight.

    At least when re-questioned, your wife was clever enough to keep her mouth shut. For 'Maddie's benefit, safety and recovery, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  73. As the dog handler said 'my dog cannot speak but he also cannot lie' unlike the McCanns - I rest my case!

    ReplyDelete
  74. eddie the dog barked at the alleged scent of cadavar in portugal and Jersey. In orkney where it was confirmed that there was a body did the dog bark? No it did not it started to dig. So where there is confirmed cadavar the dog does not bark!!!. This suggests that the barking indication may be unreliable. A false indication.?
    I also believe that any good search dog would investigate the smell of a dead body under sand especialy if the handler encourages it to investigate a particular area. infact most pet dogs would also try and dig it up. This does not prove the dog was correct in portugal or Jersey. It only raises more doubt in its ability. Had it barked at the body in Orkney (its handler stated that it indicates death by barking and is 100% accurate)it would have raised its credability. But it did not. not 100% then!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Well I'm late to this party, but good god, a rare sighting of Gerry! Keep trying to convince us that highly trained animals totally made up the discovery of cadaver evidence, you fabulous loon.

    ReplyDelete