Capabilities of the Dogs

I'm sorry to keep nagging on about this, but I do think it could be a crucial sticking point. The dogs' evidence is so precious and important it's crucial to be completely clear.

Does Eddie bark in a different way when he alerts to cadaverine to when he alerts to blood? Mr Grime says he only barks when he smells something. But is that something blood or death? Is there a different bark for each scent?

So if there is ambiguity,  is this why - in this specific case - finding the body is important?

And why take Keela if Eddie does both? Could the answer to this be because if Eddie alerts to places Keela does not, then it's definitely cadaverine in those additional places? It would be much clearer if Eddie alerted to cadaverine solely.

This is important because if we are asking these questions as laymen, we can be sure any defence team will be raising the same points and any investigation will have to overcome the questions before before they have enough evidence to convict.

This was Mr Grime's conclusion following Eddie's alerts to the Renault:

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

So unless Eddie alerts to places Keela doesn't, how does Mr Grime know it's definitely death and not blood he's alerting to?

Perhaps this is why the dogs work together. But why not just train an EVRD to alert solely to death?

Don't be sorry Dee Coy, that last line makes me feel sick, about Eddie alerting to dried blood from a 'live' human being. This is really important to find out, it was the dogs alerts that has me strongly on GAs side (I still am though) but I have to find out more on this, and it has to be on Eddie. The thing that's good though is that no one else has questioned this so maybe there's something else somewhere that defines this more that I haven't read yet. If the mcs know of this, then we'd all know, so there must be something else somewhere!

So does that mean Eddie would only freeze if he finds any dried blood from a 'live' human being?
Please say yes!

dogs don't lie wrote:Don't be sorry Dee Coy, that last line makes me feel sick, about Eddie alerting to dried blood from a 'live' human being. This is really important to find out, it was the dogs alerts that has me strongly on GAs side (I still am though) but I have to find out more on this, and it has to be on Eddie. The thing that's good though is that no one else has questioned this so maybe there's something else somewhere that defines this more that I haven't read yet. If the mcs know of this, then we'd all know, so there must be something else somewhere!

Just to be clear, I am convinced Eddie detected death in the apartment, on the clothes and in the car. The corroborating evidence of Keela proves this to me. But I am anticipating how this could be used in favour of the parents and I would imagine a prosecution would have to have robust answers for these sorts of questions.

Candyfloss, Keela alerts to blood by freezing, but , from what I can find out, Eddie alerts to both cadaver and blood by barking. I can't find anything to say that Eddie has different alert signals to blood and cadaverine, it appears he barks to alert to both.

It would be invaluable and make things much simpler if anyone has a link to statements which show otherwise, but I've looked all last night.

caricature wrote:I hear what you are saying but to me the car is not so important as to what was alerted to in the apartment,the crime happened there,if it can be proved that Madeleine died there then the car is only part of the evidence in transporting a corpse if this is what it was used for to a final resting place,the car is all part of a conspiracy to hide a body,the real crime happened before,all IMO of course based on nothing.

I agree. Mainly because there were strong alerts from Eddie signifying cadaver odour in the wardrobe and behind the sofa plus a weak alert in the garden. Keela did not alert in the wardrobe or in the garden, so no blood traces there.

IMO the car alerts are too ambiguous, unless Grime can be more specific. The cadaver odour from the car could have come from a contaminated item or items. Experts seem to be quibbling over whether the blood could have been GMs. It`s all open to argument. Whereas I don`t believe the apartment is.

I'd like to keep it simple. They use the dogs in tandem for a good reason, IMO. If Keela does NOT react to an alert by Eddie, there's no blood so it must be cadaver.

seahorse wrote:

Mimi wrote:Bluddy nerve of GM travelling to Lisbon to meet with an official from GA`s political party (the PSD) to prevent GA standing for mayor of Olhao. What despicable people they are. They obviously had a campaign against GA. I hope the Judge is aware of this.

Indeed. So that's why Gerry flew to Faro (close to Olhao) instead of flying straight to Lisbon where his meetings were.

More here on GA's candidacy:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id131.html

And here about Gerry's 'surprise' two-day visit to Portugal on 13th January 2009:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id107.html

Whilst looking for info came across this.

The findings in the Church

The ambiance of tension around the area of the church increased after the British sniffer dogs specialised in detecting corpses odours marked, in the Summer of 2007, the exterior zone of the church as one of the places where supposedly the body of Maddie could have passed through. What happened after the investigators had strengthened the thesis of the death of the child in apartment 5A of the resort where the McCanns spent holidays in Praia da Luz.

Diário de Notícias - 7/1/2008
The priest of Luz wants distance from the McCanns

JOSÉ MANUEL OLIVEIRA

Kate's Christmas messages bothered the priest

After having provided "spiritual and moral support" for four months to the parents of Madeleine McCann, particularly with vigils of prayer, following the disappearance of the child in Praia da Luz (Lagos), May 3, 2007, the Catholic priest José Pacheco cannot hear talking now about case and the couple, even to the point of having been "troubled" with Christmas messages sent by mobile phone by Kate McCann, the mother of British child disappeared from the Ocean Club, discovered the DN.

"I want the greatest distance in relation to the McCanns," have said in a laconic way the priest to several friends. "The priest Pacheco can't even hear about Madeleine's case, he gets immediately irritated when someone or even his friends,talk about it and he seeks immediately to divert the course of the conversation," told to the DN popular of Praia da Luz. Because in the face of all the media that he was involved due to the disappearance of Maddie, namely with the controversial lending of the key of the Church of Our Lady of Light so the McCanns could pray in private, the priest is "very annoyed and quite saturated with the speculation on the matter and he believes that the family only brought problems to him. " But, according to the same sources, the priest "ensures he has never heard the girl's parents in confession." The priest "even stopped attending some locations, such as cafes, which were part of his daily routine, and he does not want to hear talking about journalists," added one of the popular, to whom José Pacheco is, above all, "an excellent priest and an excellent person. "

The findings in the Church

The ambiance of tension around the area of the church increased after the British sniffer dogs specialised in detecting corpses odours marked, in the Summer of 2007, the exterior zone of the church as one of the places where supposedly the body of Maddie could have passed through. What happened after the investigators had strengthened the thesis of the death of the child in apartment 5A of the resort where the McCanns spent holidays in Praia da Luz.

Last November, with the utmost discretion and only to try to dissipate doubts, the Judicial police decided to pass through the fine comb the nooks and the interior of the church as well as the surrounding areas, particularly the old cemetery now transformed into a garden area, in an attempt to follow clues related to a possible concealment of the body of Madeleine McCann.

Meanwhile, inspectors of Judicial police already heard informally at least twice, the priest José Pacheco, which ensures he does not know what happened to the most searched child in the world.
http://dn.sapo.pt/2008/01/07/s....._casa.html


http://msngroup.aimoo.com/madeleinemccann/newspapers.msnw-action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=295&LastModified=4675661811460353905.htm

I did find that Eddie alerted to cuddlecat whilst Keela didn't, so that to me means cadaver odour was found on cuddlecat but no blood.
IMO

Châtelaine wrote:I'd like to keep it simple. They use the dogs in tandem for a good reason, IMO. If Keela does NOT react to an alert by Eddie, there's no blood so it must be cadaver.

I agree, Chatelaine. The dogs are used in tandem. Cadaver cammot be concluded by Eddie alone. Obvious now I've understood all the facts.

I do think Eddie's dual capability has not been fully acknowledged by many, it certainly opened my eyes last night.

Those ' unreliable ' dogs Gerry lad.

What a numnuts.

Here is a few paragraphs from The Truth of the Lie about Eddie and Keela,

The heat is scorching on this thirtieth day of July 2007 when two Springer Spaniels, Eddie and Keela, get off the British Airways plane, accompanied by their trainer, Martin Grime. An air-conditioned vehicle is waiting to take them to their accommodation. A vet, who will be on hand during their stay, has been brought in to intervene in case of illness or if the dogs get bitten by a snake. Their mission: to find Madeleine’s body and expose those responsible.

Eddie has been involved in a great number of cases, helping the police to resolve a good many riddles, thanks to his sense of smell. Even if the body has been moved, objects the body has touched have been contaminated by its odour, especially porous materials, fabrics, the upholstery in cars, etc. And that odour, Eddie knows how to recognise out of a thousand.

Keela, a scenes of crime specialist, is capable of locating particles of blood even after a place has been cleaned with chemical products or bleach. Sometimes, the residues are so microscopic they are missed by the instruments of the forensic police, as sophicticated as they are, and it’s impossible to harvest them without taking all of what they are on.

Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it’s Keela’s turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place – blood and cavaver odours – is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it’s probably there that the death occurred.

The dogs’ CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI’s “Body Farm,” the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies.

Amongst the most media-covered cases, which they contributed to resolving, is that of the disappearance in Northern Ireland of Attracta Harron, who was last seen when she was returning home on foot, after having been to church. All searches carried out by the police were unsuccessful. The main suspect’s car having been totally burnt out in a mysterious fire, couldn’t be examined. They called in Eddie, who examined the charred remains of the vehicle and immediately picked out the characteristic odour. Human tissue was found amongst the debris, the DNA of which corresponded to the missing woman. Later, the dog indicated the place – close to a river – where the victim’s body had been abandoned. At the home of the suspect, where the police were searching for incriminating evidence, Eddie identified cadaver odour in one of the bedrooms. The man confessed to having killed the woman then moving her body to the banks of the river.

The case of Amanda Edwards, reported missing, is also very impressive. The police, who conducted a search of her ex-partner’s home, found small bloodstains there, but no trace of a body. The dog, who was brought in for the examination of the man”s vehicle, alerted to cadaver odour on the tools stored in the boot (a shovel, a level and a compactor). The police went to the building site where the suspect had worked a few days before and discovered the body, buried in a garage. The murderer had made efficient use of his tools to carry out his task.

It’s also thanks to the help of the dogs that the case of Charlotte Pinkley, a missing British woman, who had been imprisoned by her ex-partner, was resolved. The police requested the help of the specialist dog team to try to find the young woman’s body. Eddie picked out a place where the abductor had provisionally left his victim. In the surrounding area, the investigators found the button from a dress that had belonged to Charlotte. That clue exposed the murderer, who ended up showing the police the place where he had hidden the body.

More recently, it’s Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.

The achievements of the dog detectives are the result of a very long apprenticeship. It all starts with the selection of the best puppies when they are only a few months old. The most talented breed for this unusual “profession,” is the Springer Spaniel. The trainer, Martin Grime, and his pupils undergo aptitude tests every year in order to obtain certificates proving their capability. In Great Britain, the police have no hesitation in calling in the specialist dog teams to assist in certain criminal investigations. Their skills are nowadays recognised by journalists, police and courts all over the world
http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/chapter-16/

TY for this reminder Bampots.  It just shows you how ridiculous and stupid all the apologists are, with their nonsensical claims of "rotting meat" and "coconut dog" and so on.

Ive copied this piece from the above.

It’s also thanks to the help of the dogs that the case of Charlotte Pinkley, a missing British woman, who had been imprisoned by her ex-partner, was resolved. The police requested the help of the specialist dog team to try to find the young woman’s body. Eddie picked out a place where the abductor had provisionally left his victim. In the surrounding area, the investigators found the button from a dress that had belonged to Charlotte. That clue exposed the murderer, who ended up showing the police the place where he had hidden the body.

Slightly false.Unless there is a Pinkley.
.She was called Pinkney for a start.The convicted murderer has always denied he murdered her.There is even some suspicion of whether dogs were actually involved.

He also wanted to put many of the theories to bed: "The evidence against Nick was sound. Charlotte's blood was found inside his car, in the boot of his car and on the shoes he was wearing that night. We spent many hours and resources investigating various avenues that proved fruitless."

Read more: http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/grounds-Rose-murder-appeal/story-12159882-detail/story.html#ixzz3R9v9PcVI
Follow us: @NDJournal on Twitter | NDJournal on Facebook

Châtelaine wrote:I'd like to keep it simple. They use the dogs in tandem for a good reason, IMO. If Keela does NOT react to an alert by Eddie, there's no blood so it must be cadaver.

Yes they use the dogs together for a reason. Eddie alerted to cadaver scent - but just having cadaver scent is not going to help get evidence. The forensic evidence has to be collected for prosecutions etc. Therefore Keela was needed to collect evidence. Eddie is sent in first. Keela is then sent in independently.  If she alerts where Eddie alerted then you have a good chance of finding forensic evidence that can be used.
If Keela alerts in places where Eddie did not alert - then it still may be useful  - but generally you want to focus on the spots where they both alert as there will have been a dead body plus blood.  I dont understand where this stuff has come from regarding Eddie alerting to both cadaver and blood - that is nonsense.  Eddie was only trained for one scent. You would not train working 'scent' dogs to alert for totally different scents... it does not happen.

Has this rumour been started by Team Mc Cann?'

For the record. from the PJ files.



On this date I join to the case files the translations of the verbal reports made in English by the police sniffer dog trainer Martin Grime, referring to the sniffer dog inspections carried out with the cadaver odour detection dog Eddie and the human blood detection dog, Keela.


I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs:
'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an
Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD).



'Keela' is a three-year old English Springer spaniel bitch who
is trained as an Human blood search dog (C.S.I. dog).





CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate
exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen
motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human
blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have
been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several
washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of
blood on property up to thirty-six years old.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ.
Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities. Blood that is
subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to
drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.

She is trained specifically using human blood obtained through the
haematology department at Sheffield Northern General Hospital. The blood
undergoes strict screening for disease and contamination prior to use. The
samples are from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds and are from both male
and female sources.

Keela's training and licensing is based around the level of 1 positive screening
sample introduced into 200 control articles or 1 positive sample introduced
during 6 hours searching in relation to crime scenes or vehicles.



EVRD

'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.

The E.R.V.D. has successfully in training and in operational casework located
Human cadaders, whether in the whole or parts thereof, deposited surface or
sub-surface to a depth of approximately 1 metre shortly after death (though
precise times are not determinable) to the advanced stages of decomposition
and putrefaction through the skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if
large quantities of accelerant have been involved. The dog has successfully in
training and in operational casework located a human cadavers in water either
from the bank siade or when deployed in a boat.

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where
there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious
material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. This may be
achieved by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent
samples being taken by remote means on sterile gauze pads. The gauze
pads are then 'screened' in a line - up formation with the inclusion of a number
of control samples and blank sterile pads.

The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to
identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in
bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce
the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable
environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where
controls may be included to increase assurity.



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.

for the record, here are the rogatory responses from MG :

Martin Grimes
CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 21 to 25

Dated May 14 2008

I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The Judicial Police is in possession of the originals of the search reports and the videos showing all searches performed and the reaction of the dogs. In addition to the report, Sam Harkeness of the Progresso Nacional Police Agency sent me by email several written questions sent by the Judicial Police together with a request for a written deposition. This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.

Questions and Answers:

Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs bearing in mind the searches that were performed?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).

Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.

In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case?
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog?
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

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?
OR
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 EVRD dog also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?
The EVRD dog 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.

Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids?
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
Platelets
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.

Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion?
The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?
Cross-contamination is immediate.

How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog?
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odor, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results?
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
During training, the dogs are barely rewarded for positive alert signals regarding targets of known substances.

At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case?
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.

This deposition was made by me and is true according to my understanding.

What did Gerry say to Martin's boss...

The question is IMO WHY did he call his boss?

To talk a load of seabass.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ.

Does the above mean that when Keela alerted behind the sofa that the blood was there long enough to dry out? As in, oh no, my child has fell off the kitchen stool onto my tiled floor, but because I was there I was able to get a plaster on and clean the blood off the floor? If Keela sniffed my floor then she would not alert because it was cleaned quickly? in saying that though, a simple cut from a knee wouldn't take that long to dry out, but if it was a significant amount, it would take longer?
Imo

The amounts of forensic material in 5a seems really small in comparison to the people who claimed to be there( police,T7,people helping the search, the twins) samples for testing from Keela and Eddie were also ,while not always microscopic, small. The room also appeared to have been 'cleaned' on a professional level. A post on this by Textusa is here http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/06/clean-party-floor-phenomenon.html

  She spends a lot of posting on the forensics and its interpretation,this is particularly interesting-
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html and comes from the blogs Thematic Library  3/4 of the way down on the right hand side headed How Did Maddie Die (ongoing), and contains 8 post on the subject.

Isn't it a pity cadaver dogs can't detect the smell of death on, say, a humans hands. I wish they could.

I just found this very good analysis from hobs
which summs "it" up perfectly - worth a read - IMO
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5958p10-martin-grime-a-summary-of-his-experience-his-expertise-his-reputation-his-successes-plus-extracts-from-his-report-to-the-portuguese-police-and-his-rogatory-interview

If I´m not allowed to copy/paste - please delete!

Hobs on Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:21 pm
It is interesting and unexpected behavior from the mccann's in relation to the dogs alerting.
Why you may ask?
Let us, for the moment, assume they are innocent and have in fact told the truth about Madeleine being abducted.
Right, the parents are told dogs are being brought in to help the search, the parents are excited since the dogs could provide an indication as to how she left/where she went.
The parents are told that these are not live scent dogs due to the length of time rather they are blood and cadaver dogs, brought in purely to discount any physical harm befalling Madeleine before her removal and to validate they are looking for a live child who was abducted from the apartment.
Also this will help exclude the parents from the circle of suspects since in most cases of child abduction from a house it is a family member or someone known to the family who committed the crime.
The blood and cadaver dogs, if they don't react, will support the abduction claim and effectively clear the parents of suspicion since the child didn't die in the apartment and no blood was spilled which is the usual cause for a missing child.
The parents being innocent will welcome the dogs with open arms since everyone knows dogs have amazing scent skills and are used the world over in search and rescue as well as detecting drugs, explosives, pirated dvd's, cash and fruit and veg.
No reaction means there is a chance Madeleine could still be alive. bring them on.
OH NO! the dogs have reacted!!.
Innocent parents in such a scenario will be hysterical with fear.
Blood has been indicated does this mean madeleine was hurt by the abductor, she was injured in some way before she was removed and even now could be in pain. There concern is the wellbeing of Madeleine.
The cadaver dog now reacts as well.
This is even worse. Has someone ever died in this apartment since the day it was built that could cause a dog to react?
if the answer is no they are faced with the thought that Madeleine is dead (which would also fit in with the statistics)
At this point innocent parents would come clean if their checks weren't as frequent as claimed, as it takes a min 90 mins for sufficient cadaverine to be produced for a dog to check.
They would then be asking who would remove a dead child rather than leave them in situ and more importantly who had access to the children and what checks were actually done.
Oldfield would in fact be the prime suspect and they would be demanding he be questioned further as he checked the children.
This is the expected behavior of innocent parents.
Now.
Let us, assume for the moment, the parents are in fact guilty, if not directly of her death but of her disposal and subsequent cover up.
They have in fact, been deceptive.
Right, the parents have been told dogs are being brought in to help with the search.
They are told these aren't live search dogs due to the length of time rather blood and cadaver dogs so if they don't react the PJ know there is a possibility Madeleine is still alive as she was when she was removed from the apartment
The parents are worried.
They know dogs are highly trained and have amazing scent skills.
They are fully aware of dogs being used in search and rescue as well as detecting explosives, drugs, pirated dvd's cash and even fruit and veg (you gottas love australian border control)
Also being doctors they are aware of the process of decomposition and how many mins are needed before enough cadaverine is produced to e detected by a dog.
They can't refuse to let the dogs in as that would immediately raise suspicion what to do?
They have to hope they cleaned up enough so the dogs wouldn't react.
Oh No!! the dogs have reacted in the apartment!!
Guilty parents are struck with fear.
They ask if there is a chance anyone has ever died in the apartment since it was built, if so they can blame the other corpse and breathe a sigh of relief since the dog cannot identify a specific corpse.
Damn, no one has ever died in the apartment, now what?
Guilty parents now have to think of a reason as to why the dogs reacted.
Well she grazed her knee on the airplane steps and everyone knows kids are always picking their noses so that could explain the blood.
The cadaverine is a whole different ball game.
Gerry would rarely come across a dead body in his line of work which leaves kate as a part time locum gp to come up with a plausible excuse.
I know, let's say she had to sign off several dead bodies before our vacation and everyone knows cadaverine tends to hang around long after the body is gone ( this is why furniture. clothing etc that has come into contact with a dead body over 90 mins since death have that aroma)
It would also explain why the dog reacted to the pants, the t shirt and also cuddlecat, cross contamination.
The car is harder to explain away so maybe someone came into contact with a body and then hired the car, sea bass has a small similar to cadaverine , sweaty sandals and dirty diapers might cause a response from the dog.
Instead of the expected behavior of the dogs must be right oh woe oh waily woe, instead we see them demeanng and denigrating the skill of the dogs.
Rather than the expected affirmation of the skill of the dogs they actively searched for a case where the dogs had been shown to be wrong, hence the eugene zapata case was introduced.
The dogs reacted, no body was found therefore the dogs were wrong therefore by default these dogs are also wrong.
However, eugene zapata 30 years later confessed to killing his wife and the dogs had in fact been correct.
Cue deafening silence from the mccanns.
Innocent parents would be concerned for the wellbeing of their daughter as indicated from the reaction of the dogs.
Guilty parents are concerned for their own wellbeing, their reputation since it seems their daughter died in the apartment and was subsequently removed.
Since her parents were doctors as were several others in the group and the normal response if she were hurt would be to treat her and call 911 for help, the question arises as to why they didn't in fact call 911.
The obvious conclusion is they didn't call 911 because she was long dead by accident and questions would be asked resulting in neglect charges, jail time and loss oftheir licences to practice.
The other option is her death was non accidental and again charges would be filed after questions were asked, jail time would ensue and loss of their licence to practice.
The only way to protect themselves, keep their children and their medical licences is to file a false police report and swear everyone to silence. Call in favors and if all else fails threaten to sue anyone who disagees. say nothing, don't co-operate and hope for the best,.
if they needed ideas on what to say and do they could google child abductions such as Jonbenet Ramsey and use that as a template.
Innocent parents will always act a certain way, an expected way.
Guilty parents will always act a certain way, an unexpected way.
It is claimed there in no book on how to act when a child goes missing.
Maybe not, there is however, decades of experience in missing persons cases, enough that LE know what to look for in innocent parents/family members and anything that differs from the expected is a red flag and thus needs to be further investigated.
Kate said she would take a polygraph.
Media took her up on the offer whereupon we saw rapid backtracking.
She claimed it would not be admissible in a court of law ( it isn't in the states either but it gives LE a direction to look in if the subject passes or fails) It was not 100% infallible, granted it isn't however, if she gets a score of 80% or higher it pretty much clears her of involvement, even an inconclusive could be redone and the correct questions asked did you cause her death, do you know where she is, do you know who killed her and so on, any claim about nerves, not fit emotionally is taken into account as the questions are asked before hand so there are no surprises and her baseline is set.
Innocent people have no reason to fear a polygraph, they know they won't fail because they didn't do it.
Guilty people fear a polygraph they know they did the crime and know the polygraph will reveal it.
She backed away from the polygraph citing excuses because she knew she would fail and that leads to accusations, charges and jail.
Statement analysis has a far higher success rate than any polygraph, the principals stay the same regardless, we let the subject tell us what happened and thus we can discern the truth or the lie.
They may refuse to co-operate with police and anser those 48 questions, they have however given analysts plenty to work with and the truth will out.
by the way kate, writing a book was a seriously bad idea as it ties you into a specific story and order of events all of which can be compared to the rogs and all those interviews, for that i thank you

Charlotte Pinkney's body has never been found.

There is an article in todays Telegraph which not only mentions the dogs, but the Smith family too.