Dogs - lots of useful information

- including a bit from Missing Madeleine forum: I am afraid I don't have the exact reference but I've left the avatar of the poster in the text.

Tigger:
3/5 07
23.40 Gerry calls Trish Cameron (11.13 minutes)
"It was my younger brother Gerry distraught on the phone, breaking his heart. He said: 'Madeleine is abducted, she's been abducted'. 'They kept going back to check the kids every half hour. The restaurant was only 40 yards away. He went back at 9 o’clock to check the children. They were all sound asleep, windows shut, shutters shut'.
Kate then went over to the two-bedroom ground-floor apartment and 'came out screaming', said Mrs. Cameron. 'The door was lying open, the window in the bedroom and the shutters had been jimmied open'. "They think someone must have come in the window and gone out of the front door with Madeleine." (timesonline 6 may)
Sandy Cameron statement: “On the night of Thursday, May 3, 2007, Patricia received a telephone call from Gerry informing us of the disappearance of Madeleine. Gerry manifested all those emotions one expects from a father who has lost a child in the circumstances. He was distraught and spoke at the same time he cried. He seemed frustrated with the slowness of the searches in Portugal, with the fact that the borders had not been closed, and with the fact that sniffer dogs were not being used. Patricia and I contacted the British Embassy to try and help in this regard.”
unquote
Certainly, by 23.40 a mere hour after the GNR had been contacted, the story was full grown and in place. Shame about those shutters - and the dogs of course.

mossman wrote:
I think the dogs Gerry asked for were the live scent dogs, not the EVRD. The dogs who were given a towel to track Madeleine. I bet he knows their effectiveness is short lived, live scent does not stay in the air for a long period of time. He asked for them, knowing they would find nothing. He did not bet on Eddie and Keela arriving later.

It is all very contrived, like something from a tv script, imo. Your daughter disappears and then suddenly you start looking for the FBI, heat seeking helicopters, closing borders etc etc. All of these things are what you think should happen, if you have time to sit down and go through a list of what would happen when someone disappears. It is on the tv. They are not however what would immediately spring to mind when you are in the middle of a crisis, you would run around like a headless chicken, searching, yelling at everybody to look, find, search. Who would think of the FBI for god's sake, in a sleepy holiday village on the other side of the world, in the middle of the worst time of your life ? Only Gerry McCann.

Mossman: Though they are sometimes called ' live scent dogs ' the scent they locate or detect is located as result of the human body shedding skin cells, we loose aprox. 4000 microscopic cells every minute. Here's where it gets interesting ~ “All humans, alive or dead, constantly emit microscopic particles bearing human scent” ~ research from the United States Search & Rescue Task Force.
Both the GNR & Human Search & rescue dogs were deployed on 4 separate days following Madeleine's disappearance, different dogs at different times and given different items in which to locate the scent, a towel, blanket and clothing for the search, again on different days.

All set off from apt. 5a and all followed the same route.


The reason I am dubious about the live scent dogs is the fact that they will obviously only work from the item of clothing they are given. We only have the McCanns word for it that the towel, blanket and clothing etc were in fact Madeleines. I remember reading, almost certainly in Amarals book, that the dogs tracked the scent to the Baptista supermarket where it stopped. Now my question is why did these dogs never go the creche ? That is where Madeleine was, all day every day. Surely, they would have followed the scent there, if she was in fact in the creche or indeed if in fact the items used were hers. I have never seen mention of them going to the creche.

Just to note I am not dubious about the dogs capabilities and work, I fully support the dogs, I would be dubious about their findings in this instance as it is based on direct input from the McCanns. On the other hand, the EVRD work from nothing and do not identify a specific person so Gerry McCann could not interfere with their work.

The dogs NOT going to the creche is a big red flag, that was the path that Madeleine was said to have taken every day of her holiday.


So if these items were supposed to be from contact with Madeleine, and the dogs didn't follow the route to the creche she was supposed to have followed four times a day who was it signed in as her at the creche and where was Madeleine?

 
___________________

Processo Volume III
 
Pages 762 to 765
 
Witness Statement
 
Antonio Freitas Silva
 
Date: 2007.05.09
 
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz
 
The deponent states that:
 
• He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
 
• He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23h00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
 
• That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.
 
• When carrying out this operation with the second dog, he followed the same rout, took the same direction and headed toward the light post in the parking lot mentioned above. He sniffed the area and at that point appeared to have lost the scent. The only difference was that this dog did not head toward the entrance of the restaurant or the pool area.
 
• None of the dogs used in this search, after having been given the towel supposedly used by the child, entered into block 5 but went immediately to the street between the apartment and the leisure area. It should be taken into account that the second sniffer dog may have been conditioned by the first sniffer dog. That is to say that in the case of doubt, the second dog may have followed the second of the first.
 
• Taking into account the aforementioned results, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. This situation can be explained by the nature of the terrain, that is, it is a small space enclosed by walls and as such lingering scents would take longer to dissipate.
 
• Yesterday (08/05/2007) around 23h45, this search action was repeated but this time the dogs were sent into blocks 5 and 4 of the 'Ocean Club' resort. During this operation, and given the time that had passed combined with the heat, the results that were achieved are very relative given that the dog will confirm all the odours it scents, certainly alerting to those that are most active, namely due to the fact that the apartment was occupied. It is also noted that the dog’s perception in the interior may be affected by noise.
 
• The initial diligence carried out with first sniffer dog, after having sniffed the towel used in the previous operation, began searching and showing interest in some doors leading to other apartments. He did not show any interest or even approach other apartments. In none of these actions did the dog give the signal to his trainer, Soldado Fernandes. It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed.
 
• He states that after the search inside block 5, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route on 04/05/07, being the existent road of that apartment and the leisure area (pools and restaurant) and then went to the same parking area. At that point, the scent was lost. This situation may be related to the fact that the biggest concentration of odours are in that area and due to the fact that odours are better preserved near walls and away from major winds. It is certain that upon reaching the main road and turning right is where the biggest concentration of odours exist. This is where the dog lost interest.
 
• The second dog was taken through the same operation and also showed interest at the door of apartment 5J. This same dog jumped on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head as though in search of an odour. As related above, this interest could have been the result of various factors but it is certain that in this area the scent was intense. In the exterior, the sniffer dog immediately headed to the parking area next to block 6 and there apparently lost the scent.
 
• I would like to clarify that a search in a bad area, where a more intense odour perceived by the sniffer dog, such as in an urban area due to the large concentration of external odours, make it possible to confuse the dog. In this situation, search activity is very difficult as is the case when some time has passed since the event in question.
 
• Because he is asked, he states that in relation to this, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the sniffer dog. It is clear that some conditions involved in this action augment the degree of uncertainty. The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for.
 
And nothing more was said. Reads, ratifies and signs.


Processo Volume III
 
Pages 785 to 788
 
Witness Statement
 
Pedro Miguel Esteves Fernandes
 
Date: 2007/05/09
 
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: GNR Officer
Location: GNR-Ajuda
 
That he comes to the process as witness and states:
 
• That he is part of the Dog Search Team. In this capacity he serves as a scientific trainer and works with two sniffer dogs. He was asked to bring his team to the Luz zone (Lagos) related to the disappearance of the minor from the Ocean Club.
 
• On the 4th of May of the current year, around 22h30, he was asked to use the dogs in conjunction with a search that attempted to retrace the steps taken by the missing minor. His role was to use the dogs' skills by allowing them to sniff a towel which had supposedly been used by the minor in question.
 
• That after the dogs were given this scent from the towel and near apartment 5A of block 5, the first sniffer dog headed to the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he turned to block 5, using a circumvented route to block 5, and came to the road between this block and the leisure area of the resort (pools, restaurant, etc), and turned to the left, or around the referred to apartment and headed to the main road. Having reached there, he crossed the road and next to a wall of block 6, crossed the road again, turned right and headed to the parking zone of the resort. More specifically, the dog went next to the light post and began smelling that location. After searching that zone, he again crossed the road and headed toward the entrance to the pool and restaurant area, and smelled the door which was closed at that hour. He turned again to the parking zone and stopped or lost the scent at this point.
 
• When he effected the same operation with the second dog, in general, this dog took the same route and headed to the light post and showed interest there and ended by losing the scent at this point. It should be stated that the one difference is that this second dog did not head toward the entrance to the restaurant and pool zone. But he does state that the dogs followed a 'scent trail', a signal for the animal who was working. He is certain that they were not conditioned in any direction.
 
• None of the dogs used in this search action, after having smelled the towel, went into block 5 but headed to the zone which gives access to the road between the apartment and the leisure area. He states it should be noted that the second dog may have been conditioned by the original path taken by the first sniffer dog as he may have smelled the first dog's path taken.
 
• Taking into account the aforementioned result, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing minor passed that location, on the day of the events or before that date. This situation can be explained by the configuration/layout of the area. That space is reduced and flanked by walls. This helps to conserve scents that may otherwise be affected by winds, etc. He would like to clarify that these sniffer dogs are more used to effecting this type of work in rural settings where there is not such a great concentration of odours.
 
• Yesterday (08/05/07) around 23h45, this search action was repeated but was centred on the dogs inside blocks 5 and 4 of the resort. He adds that in this type of operation, given the time that had lapsed, and with the heat that could already be felt, the results obtained may be highly relative given that the dog will confirm all the scents it comes across. It is certain the dog will react to more active scents, namely because the apartment is occupied. Also, any noise perceived by the dog in the apartment may make the dog loose interest.
 
• Initiating the diligence, the first sniffer dog, after having smelled the towel used in the previous operation, began searching, it being certain that next to the doors of some apartment he demonstrated major interest whilst he did not even approach others. In none of these actions did the dog give him a signal that he had caught the scent of the missing child. It is certain however, that near apartment 5J, 5H and 4G, that the dog showed major interest in smelling the doors and the immediate areas. He states that next to 5H, there were two bags of rubbish which may condition the dog. Just outside apartment 4G was a tray with plates, cutlery and cloth napkins, apparently used. It is certain that this apartment is the one where the missing child's parents were lodged (at the time). In relation to the dog's interest at doorway 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people inside the apartment.
 
• After completing the search in the interior of block 5, verandas and apartment access, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route he had taken on 04/05/07, being the road between that apartment and the leisure area - pool sand restaurant, and headed toward the same parking area. There he lost the scent of the search. This situation may be explained by the fact that the biggest concentration of odours in that location have been preserved and protected from the winds due to the adjoining walls. When this dog got to the main road, he turned right where a large dispersion of odours existed. Here the dog lost the scent.
 
• The second dog was submitted to the same operation. He too showed interest in the door of apartment 5J. Here he got up on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head in such a way as to catch the odour. As mentioned previously, this interest may be due to various factors but it is certain that at this location the dog scented an intense odour. In the exterior, the sniffer-dog immediately took the first road, heading toward the parking area next to block 6, and there lost the scent.
 
• He clarifies that a search in a rural area, where a scent is much more intense is immediately noted by the sniffer dog but in an urban area, the great concentration of external odours make it possible to confuse the dog, This makes searching difficult as does the time passed between the event and the search.
 
• When questioned, he states that in relation to an action of this nature, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the dogs, even though he is well aware what these dogs are capable of. The conditions that surrounded this search made the degree of uncertainty that much greater. The dogs may have signified or confirmed intense odours in that zone, however, they may have also merely have given a confirmation of a scent. They did not demonstrate that they had detected the odour in question.
 
And nothing more was said, finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs.


Subject: Report of Searches Related to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
 
Annex B – Report on the Sniffer Dog Search and Rescue Team
 
I. Methods used
 
The sniffer dog search and rescue team of the GNR was sent to Vila da Luz in the attempt of locating Madeleine McCann, aged four, of British nationality, who disappeared on the night of 3rd May, from apartment 5 A, Block 5 of the OC resort, the team was composed as follows:
 
Sargeant Silva – Dog: Timmy
Cabo (Officer) Cortez – Dog: Sacha
Cabo (Officer) Sousa – Dog: Kolly/Cookie
Cabo (Officer) Rosa – Dog: Oscar
Sold. (Soldier) Martins – Dog: Fusco
Sold. (Soldier) Fernandes – Dog: Rex/ Zarus
 
II Description of action
 
After the first three members of the team arrived at the scene, the officers gathered some information from the girl's parents about the places they tended to frequent with the children during their stay in Praia da Luz up until now, the parents replied that the only areas that their daughter would frequent since their arrival, was Praia da Luz beach, always accompanied by babysitters and resort pool area, where there was also a playground.
 
After this, at about 08h00 the three search and rescue sniffer dog teams (Silva with Timmy, Cortez with Sacha and Sousa with Kolly and Cookie) who had arrived at the site, began searching, leaving the resort in the direction of the beach.
 
During the entire morning, searches were made of the beach and rocks, from Rocha Negra to the area of Ponta da Gaviota (an approximate area of 2 km). During the morning searches were also made of the areas surrounding Praia da Luz, with a radius of about 300 metres, as well as some abandoned houses, wells and plots of land inside Praia da Luz.
 
After an evaluation of the situation in the field, it was decided to request two more search and rescue sniffer dogs from the GNR Queluz station, given the extent of the terrain to be searched, whilst the hypothesis that the girl could have left the apartment on foot was not discarded.
 
During the afternoon of 4th May, more searches were carried out around Vila da Luz and were extended to a radius of approximately 600 metres, including the surroundings of the EN125 in the stretch closed to Praia da Luz.
 
At about 23h00 the extra teams that had been requested for reinforcement arrived (Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco, both from the search and rescue unit and Officer Fernandes with Rex and Zarus from the tracking team).
 
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
 
Beginning to follow the track using Rex, from the door of apartment 5 A (the place where the girl had been sleeping) he would always head in the direction of Block 4, leaving block 5 the dog would turn to the left, pass by a metal access door to a path existing between the apartments blocks to the leisure area (restaurant, pool and playground). Immediately another attempt at reconstruction was made using the dog Zarus, who, in general terms, ended up following the same route as Rex and having the same behaviour.
 
It is important to state that this tracking work was carried out in an urban area and more than 24 hours after the girl's disappearance and numerous persons had passed along the path the dogs were tracking. It should also be stated that the path the dogs followed within the resort was practically totally surrounded by walls and the concentration of odours was stronger as they were protected from the wind. The searches finished at about 01h30.
 
On 5th May at about 08h00 after a briefing, two teams consisting of 3 dogs each accompanied by officers from Portimao, again carried out searches in the whole of the Vila da Luz area, with an approximate radius of 2 kilometres, paying special attention to the rocky areas, abandoned houses, wells, drains, road verges etc..including plots of land within Praia da Luz.
 
During part of the afternoon, searches were carried out in the Turiscampo camping site situated next to Espiche on the EN125 and in the Orbitur camping site next to Vila da Luz. This search operation had the objective of checking all the bungalows whose occupants had left on the day of the disappearance or on the following day as well as the adjacent areas.
 
During the day the searches were extended using the method of searching in file, accompanied by officers from Portimao, from the Praia da Luz area following the rocks up to Ponta da Cama da Vaca, taking in all of the northern zone to the EN125 as well as the village of Almadena, the Vale Verde zone and Quatro Estradas, some of the areas had already been searched more than once.
 
At about 22h00 all the vehicles parked in Vila da Luz parking spaced were checked.
 
On 6th May at about 08h00 and after another briefing from the Operational Command Post, it was decided that on that day they would again search all the plots of land with thick undergrowth within Praia da Luz, but that this time the search sections were divided amongst the teams. For this purpose the same teams of three dogs together with officers from Portimao who had been selected to help using the method of searching in file, carried out searches in all abandoned buildings, wells, rocks, verges of the EN125 and land surrounding Praia da Luz, in some cases reaching distances of 2 km.
 
On 7th May the same searches were continued, being extended to to the entire northern part of Almadena to the site of Espojeiro and the verges of the EN125 until the Boi valley.
 
At about 19h00 the undersigned officer, accompanied by the Commander, Officer Silva, took part in a meetings with the PJ Directorate, being asked by the PJ about the viability of giving the girl’s clothes to the dogs for the dogs to sniff again, and if by means of the odour inhaled, they would be able to mark an identical odour in one of the resort’s apartments even though its door was closed.
 
With regard to this task, Officer Silva referred to the fact that the time that had passed would be a crucial condition for the dogs' work in obtaining results and that the entirety of the human odours existing in the apartments and access paths could make the dogs' searches very difficult. However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.
 
In this concrete situation, the objective would be for the dogs to carry out a discontinuous search, in other words, to sniff the girl’s clothes and immediately search near to the apartments, checking to see if there was any change in the behaviour of the dogs.
 
At about 23h00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
 
It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behaviour described above was registered. It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odour from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odour of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been.
 
On 8th May during the morning four teams returned to search all the areas around Vila, following some indications from local people who had frequently gone to the GNR Command post saying they had seen something suspicious related to the disappearance but no sign of her presence was ever found.
 
During the afternoon searches along the verges of the EN125 were continued from Boi valley to Figueira and the whole northern part of Budens.
 
On the following days the strategy adopted was to continue to extend the perimeter of the searches to the villages of Barao de S Miguel and Burgau, Barao de S Joao, Bensafrim and Salema. Searches were carried out in all of these locations, as well as adjacent land, vegetation, abandoned houses, wells and main roads.
 
On 10th May at about 20h10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.
 
All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
 
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.
 
During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs.
 
On 11th May in the morning, the team went to Odiaxere to visit a forest near the Boavista golf course. The whole forest was searched using the in file method, including some abandoned houses, wells and rail track.
 
After lunch the team was told that the searches were concluded but that their presence in Praia da Luz would continue to be necessary according to the requirements of the PJ for any other situations that might occur.
 
On 15th May three search and rescue dogs returned to Lisbon (Officer Cortes with Sacha, Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco) considering that there was no longer any need for them.
 
The other dogs and their handlers remained on site until 18th May when at about 19h00 they returned to Cino/EPG as their presence was no longer require in Praia da Luz, although it was determined that if their use were required in the future, they would return.
 
Signed
 
30 November 2007
 
Operation Commander
 
Major Sequeira

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)

All the inspections were recorded in sound and image and were directed by our British colleagues that accompanied the dogs.

Among the great number of objects and locales inspected, the dogs marked the following places:

1. Apartment 5 A, Ocean Club resort, the place from where the child disappeared

1.1. Cadaver odour
* Master bedroom, in a corner, by the wardrobe
* Living room, behind the sofa, by the side window

1.2. Blood dog: 
* Living room behind the sofa, close to the lateral window (on the same spot signalled by the cadaver dog);

2. Front garden to the apartment 5A

2.1. Cadaver dog
* Flower bed (the dog handler commented on the 'lightness' of the odor)

3. Apartments where the rest of the group were staying
* NOTHING was detected by the dogs

4. Actual residence of the McCann
* NOTHING was detected on the house by any of the dogs

5. At Aldeia da Luz
* NOTHING was detected by any of the dogs

6. Clothes and belongings of McCann family

6.1. Cadaver dog:
* 2 pieces of clothing of Kate McCann
* One piece of Madeleine McCann
* Madeleine's soft toy
* The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann
* It was confirmed in out of the house conditions

7. Vehicle used by the McCann family

7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the booth

7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the booth

8. Car used by a family friend that was staying in the same resort, in some of the same days 
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs

9. All the cars used by the arguido Robert Murat and the people that are close to him
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs.

(In a total of 10 cars the cadaver dog and the blood dog only marked the car of the McCann family, rented at May 27th)


Tigger wrote:- including a bit from Missing Madeleine forum: I am afraid I don't have the exact reference but I've left the avatar of the poster in the text.
mossman wrote:
I think the dogs Gerry asked for were the live scent dogs, not the EVRD. The dogs who were given a towel to track Madeleine. I bet he knows their effectiveness is short lived, live scent does not stay in the air for a long period of time. He asked for them, knowing they would find nothing. He did not bet on Eddie and Keela arriving later.
...
Mossman: Though they are sometimes called ' live scent dogs ' the scent they locate or detect is located as result of the human body shedding skin cells, we loose aprox. 4000 microscopic cells every minute. Here's where it gets interesting ~ “All humans, alive or dead, constantly emit microscopic particles bearing human scent” ~ research from the United States Search & Rescue Task Force.
Both the GNR & Human Search & rescue dogs were deployed on 4 separate days following Madeleine's disappearance, different dogs at different times and given different items in which to locate the scent, a towel, blanket and clothing for the search, again on different days.

All set off from apt. 5a and all followed the same route.

The reason I am dubious about the live scent dogs is the fact that they will obviously only work from the item of clothing they are given. We only have the McCanns word for it that the towel, blanket and clothing etc were in fact Madeleines. I remember reading, almost certainly in Amarals book, that the dogs tracked the scent to the Baptista supermarket where it stopped. Now my question is why did these dogs never go the creche ? That is where Madeleine was, all day every day. Surely, they would have followed the scent there, if she was in fact in the creche or indeed if in fact the items used were hers. I have never seen mention of them going to the creche.

The  dogs NOT going to the creche is a big red flag, that was the path that Madeleine was said to have taken every day of her holiday.


So if these items were supposed to be from contact with Madeleine, and the dogs didn't follow the route to the creche she was supposed to have followed four times a day who was it signed in as her at the creche and where was Madeleine? 

http://www.k9sardog.com/usesardog.html
"Scent. All search dogs will pick up the freshest scent of the animal, and track it instinctively. As a human or animal walks along, it sheds approximately 10,000 pieces of scent per minute. This scent falls to the ground and stays there until the wind and air currents move the scent to nearby dirt, sand, brushy vegetation areas. The scent is held there until it fully dissipates about a year later. When an animal or human walks in one specific direction it's laying down scent that the trained search dog can track up to 365 days later, even in the rain. Rain actually helps the scent. It brings the scent closer to the ground surface, keeps the search dogs nasal passages moist to help the dog retain the scent, and it will liven the scent. ..."

http://www.missingpetpartnership.org/lost-pet-help/find-a-pet-detective/how-long-can-scent-survive/
"...she is comfortable in estimating that in optimal scent conditions (cool, damp areas with heavy vegetation and no wind) a trained trailing dog is probably capable of following a scent trail that is up to three (possibly even four) weeks old."

The dogs must have followed the way to the creche!!!!! A few hours "old" scent!!!!
Why didn´t they??? Or more interesting is- why did they??? Was this the expected trace the dogs would/should find???
"mossman wrote:
I think the dogs Gerry asked for were the live scent dogs, ..."

And no scent from the Tapas tea back to the apartment because KM was "conveniently" carrying Madeleine.

dantezebu wrote:And no scent from the Tapas tea back to the apartment because KM was "conveniently" carrying Madeleine.

Well, seems to be the light post  and the parking area. Two of Malinka's cars were torched - last  year Malinka was made an arguido, don't know if this is still the case. 

A blue bag carried to a car? Would seem to be the most logical explanation. Could even be a blue bag briefly set down in the garden area next to 5a, waiting for a car?

Tigger wrote:

dantezebu wrote:And no scent from the Tapas tea back to the apartment because KM was "conveniently" carrying Madeleine.

Well, seems to be the light post  and the parking area. Two of Malinka's cars were torched - last  year Malinka was made an arguido, don't know if this is still the case. 

A blue bag carried to a car? Would seem to be the most logical explanation. Could even be a blue bag briefly set down in the garden area next to 5a, waiting for a car?

Would this then suggest that Smithman is of no consequence.

I believe Smithman is of paramount importance. As in my opinion Madeleine was long gone before the 3rd.

caricature wrote:

Tigger wrote:

dantezebu wrote:And no scent from the Tapas tea back to the apartment because KM was "conveniently" carrying Madeleine.

Well, seems to be the light post  and the parking area. Two of Malinka's cars were torched - last  year Malinka was made an arguido, don't know if this is still the case. 

A blue bag carried to a car? Would seem to be the most logical explanation. Could even be a blue bag briefly set down in the garden area next to 5a, waiting for a car?

Would this then suggest that Smithman is of no consequence.

Not at all. Imo Gerry carried a live girl, not M. Smiths are very relevant imo.

Yes I agree. Gerry (Smithman) again in my opinion did carry a live child.

Tigger wrote:

caricature wrote:

Tigger wrote:

dantezebu wrote:And no scent from the Tapas tea back to the apartment because KM was "conveniently" carrying Madeleine.

Well, seems to be the light post  and the parking area. Two of Malinka's cars were torched - last  year Malinka was made an arguido, don't know if this is still the case. 

A blue bag carried to a car? Would seem to be the most logical explanation. Could even be a blue bag briefly set down in the garden area next to 5a, waiting for a car?

Would this then suggest that Smithman is of no consequence.

Not at all. Imo Gerry carried a live girl, not M. Smiths are very relevant imo.

Thanks.

Tigger wrote:

caricature wrote:

Tigger wrote:

dantezebu wrote:And no scent from the Tapas tea back to the apartment because KM was "conveniently" carrying Madeleine.

Well, seems to be the light post  and the parking area. Two of Malinka's cars were torched - last  year Malinka was made an arguido, don't know if this is still the case. 

A blue bag carried to a car? Would seem to be the most logical explanation. Could even be a blue bag briefly set down in the garden area next to 5a, waiting for a car?

Would this then suggest that Smithman is of no consequence.

Not at all. Imo Gerry carried a live girl, not M. Smiths are very relevant imo.

Sorry I have come to this a bit late.

Wasn't there a grey car in the parking area, or does my memory deceive me?   I must check that out, but I feel it was mentioned by someone that night.

Am I quite mistaken that someone mentioned a car (large) near the supermarket as well?   Goodness my memory is useless now so I require assistance.  

I would add that I also think the Smiths very relevant, in my opinion it was Gerry with a-nother child.   I believe Madeleine was long gone by that time.
I do realise my opinions are of no consequence to this matter, but must acknowledge your valuable information Tigger.    Re: the above I will research details.

bluebell wrote:

Tigger wrote:

caricature wrote:

Tigger wrote:

dantezebu wrote:And no scent from the Tapas tea back to the apartment because KM was "conveniently" carrying Madeleine.

Well, seems to be the light post  and the parking area. Two of Malinka's cars were torched - last  year Malinka was made an arguido, don't know if this is still the case. 

A blue bag carried to a car? Would seem to be the most logical explanation. Could even be a blue bag briefly set down in the garden area next to 5a, waiting for a car?

Would this then suggest that Smithman is of no consequence.

Not at all. Imo Gerry carried a live girl, not M. Smiths are very relevant imo.

Sorry I have come to this a bit late.

Wasn't there a grey car in the parking area, or does my memory deceive me?   I must check that out, but I feel it was mentioned by someone that night.

Am I quite mistaken that someone mentioned a car (large) near the supermarket as well?   Goodness my memory is useless now so I require assistance.  

I would add that I also think the Smiths very relevant, in my opinion it was Gerry with a-nother child.   I believe Madeleine was long gone by that time.
I do realise my opinions are of no consequence to this matter, but must acknowledge your valuable information Tigger.    Re: the above I will research details.

Someone saw a large black car near the supermarket and I think one of the police saw Gerry in a grey car which was backed up by one of the witnesses.

chirpyinsect wrote: [...]
Someone saw a large black car near the supermarket and I think one of the police saw Gerry in a grey car which was backed up by one of the witnesses.

***
That's new to me. Do you have a link or quote?

Châtelaine wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote: [...]
Someone saw a large black car near the supermarket and I think one of the police saw Gerry in a grey car which was backed up by one of the witnesses.

***
That's new to me. Do you have a link or quote?

I had a quick look Chateleine but as it is late here I will search for it tomorrow. There was something about the look on his face or something and it was a female who lived nearby who had just checked the time with her boyfriend or friend which is why she remembered.

ETA I may be confusing things here. I found this in GA`s book chapter 16
At around 10pm, police officers see Gerry McCann, going past the apartment at the wheel of his hire car, a Renault Mégane Scenic, an impenetrable look on his face.

This was on the night that the dogs had been doing their work in 5A.
I am still sure I read something about a grey car too though.

She [and her boyfriend] saw a parked grey car IIRC. But not that Gerry was inside ...

Châtelaine wrote:She [and her boyfriend] saw a parked grey car IIRC. But not that Gerry was inside ...

Have amended my post Chateleine. Found this in McCann files.

One witness described seeing a small grey car parked near the McCanns' apartment but it is not apparent from the files whether the owner of the vehicle has been identified and ruled out.

Tanner never mentioned it. Also ignored by TM as significant, didn't want attention drawn to cars in general? Seeing that the dogs lost the scent in the car park further up the road.

One for Textusa.

https://audioboom.com/boos/2544196-bernard-hogan-howe-confirms-cadaver-dogs-alerted-to-alice-gross-suspects-hanging-body?playlist_direction=reversed

In dogs we trust.

Sniffer dogs used in Maddie McCann and April Jones searches join the hunt

Specialist sniffer dogs used in the hunt for Madeleine McCann and April Jones have been used to search the home of missing teen Becky Watts.

The highly trained victim identification dogs from South Wales police were drafted in to search the property in Bristol yesterday.

The dogs were first seen being led to the back of the house into the garden by officers wearing blue and white overalls.

The two spaniels were repeatedly taken from a large white van parked outside the family home and could be seen going in and out of the house throughout the afternoon as the search intensified.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rebecca-watts-missing-live-updates-5237735

The biggest load of crap ever was...

K Mccann. Cadaver smell was from 6 corpses I saw prior.

Followed by GM with some flannel about seabass.

Christ sake. Joke.

I'm applying for a job in OG. Get this farce put to bed.

Programme about Martin Grime, Eddie and Keela on Pick TV right now! Think there's a bit about the McCann case coming up.

Does anyone know if cadaver odour can contaminate a mattress within 6hrs?

dogs don't lie wrote:Does anyone know if cadaver odour can contaminate a mattress within 6hrs?

Hmm, being discussed across the way this evening. Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is, if Maddie had passed whilst in possession of cc, could/should Eddie have marked the bed? Was the bedding changed from the 3rd until Eddie was brought in? If it was, would the contamination have seeped through to the mattress? If this could happen but Eddie didn't alert to the bed, then we have to think of how cc was contaminated after the 3rd. Could hands or clothes contaminate cc?
Just questions, no facts.

Resistor wrote:Programme about Martin Grime, Eddie and Keela on Pick TV right now!  Think there's a bit about the McCann case coming up.

Better late than never. Here's a YouTube link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmdkR1K-jU0

So if Eddie didn't alert to Maddies mattress (as on the clip posted by PeterMac across the way) cc could have been in contact with a cadaver, but if the contact should have been alerted to but wasn't, then that's troubling because that would mean cc was in contact with a cadaver between the 3rd May til Eddie marked it?!? Have to check exactly where cc was on the bed, on the mattress cover sheet or on the pillow? I really don't believe cc was at work with KM at all, because then Eddie would've marked most of AMs clothes too?
All IMO