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

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.12 17:11

On the McCann-believer STM forum, a poster called 'tigerloaf' has responded (to a very limited extent) to 'admin's questions to members of that forum.

I am working on a full reply to tigerloaf's posting, but in the meantime, I am going to deal with what is in effect a challenge from tigerloaf to my assertion that Martin Grime is one of the top dog handlers in the world.

Martin Grime is now employed in the U.S.A. where the FBI and GSS International are making use of his undoubted talents as a dog handler. That in itself is an accolade. He was chosen for this role. Others were not.

The folk of STM lay the heaviest possible stress on Martin Grime's summary in his initial report to the Portuguese police. He wrote:

!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’s alert indications must be corroborated to establish their findings as evidence".

The STM folk lay great emphasis on that last sentence. But if you look at what they, and other McCann-believers say, you would think that Martin Grime is saying: "If you can't back up the dog's alerts with other forensic or corroborative evidence, these dogs' alerts are uterly worthless". But of course, that's not the case. Everybody except the McCann-believers know that when Martin Grime says: 'There has been a body here', either he is dead right, or, at the very minumum, this is EVIDENCE which must be followed up - and IS followed up by any police force. It is inconceivable that any police force, faced with an expert of Martin Grime's international stature pronouncing that his dogs have alerted to the scent of a human corpse in 11 locations connected with a couple, would not make every effort to establish whose corpse that was and who was responsible for the death. All that Martin Grime is talking about is evidence sufficient to put before a court of law.

Here then is a modest compendium of information about Martin Grime, who to my knowledge has seen his skills deployed in four countries:

UK (plus Jersey)

USA

Portugal

Ireland.

Please feel free to add to this compensium if you can:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

tigerloaf wrote:

Incidentally, you claim that Grime's dogs are among the most sought-after in the world: can you offer examples where they have been used other than the very small number of known US/UK cases in the last five years? Can you even give a list of ten cases to back up that claim? And would any be from other countries? Over 1500 days since August 2007 and only a tiny handful of cases that I know of. So please support your claim about the dogs with evidence.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

INFORMATION ABOUT MARTIN GRIME ON LINKEDIN

Martin Grime
at GSS International
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia

Industry: Law Enforcement

Current work: USA, GSS International, Forensic Canine Search Consultancy

Previous: British police, UK police

Edication: U.K.A.C.P.O. canine trainer

75 connections on LinkedIn

Public Profile: www.linkedin.com/pub/martin-grime/8/4a7/972

Contact Info

Summary

A professional law enforcement related canine Subject Matter Expert concentrating on the specialism of Forensic Canine applicatuon in relation to homicide and child abduction.

A retired law enforcement officer now contracted to the FBI in a consultancy role for the development of the Forensic Canine Program, Victim Recovery Team.

Specialties

Forensic canine application in homicide and child abduction
Canine system training design and delivery
Canine olfactory research

Experience

Currently employed by: Evidence Response Team, Forensic Canine Program, USA

November 2010 – Present (2 years 1 month) USA Washington DC, Virginia

Contract to provide Subject Matter Expert consultancy to the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Evidence Response Team in respect of the Forensic Canine Program, Victim Recovery Team.

To provide appropiate canine resources in support of critical case homicide and child abduction.

To design and facilitate training systems in relation to canine search and odor line up screening.

To provide consultancy and appropiate canine resources to the FBI Laboratory Division CFSRU in relation to research being conducted into the detection of human decomposition odor and human blood.

To provide expert witness opinion in relation to casework.

This position is associated with:

4 Projects

and Director, GSS International

June 2009 – Present (3 years 6 months) Romsey, Hampshire UK

Canine Director for an International company that provides specialist search services and training in the military and law enforcement environment.

Owner

FROM MARTIN GRIME’S REPORT TO THE PORTUGUESE POLICE

Personal Profile [August 2007]

I am a 'retired' police officer, formally a senior instructor at the South Yorkshire Police dog training establishment. I have 35 years experience in the training of dogs both within the police service and in the public sector. I specialise in the development and training of specialist search dogs, to include narcotics, explosives, currency, human remains, blood and semen.

I am the Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program. I am a U.K.A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers, England and Wales) accredited police dog training instructor. I am a Subject Matter Expert in forensic canine search and on the N.P.I.A. (National Policing Improvement Agency) Expert Advisers database. I advise Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the operational deployment of police dogs in the role of homicide investigation. I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and I facilitate training. I am regularly deployed to homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys and USA. 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 a human blood search dog (C.S.I. dog).

CADAVER AND HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOGS’ SEARCH ASSET PROFILES (found at Vol. IX p. 2478- in the PJ files}.

Licensing and Accreditation

In the UK, Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) licensed and accredited cadaver dogs are trained and licensed on the basis of the relevant section of the Police Dog Training and Care manual. This involves the training of G.P. (General Purpose) dogs to alert to the presence of surface deposition and sub-surface deposition to approximately 2 feet [60cm]. The dogs are deployed on long lines to search an area in large numbers.

The UK has also approximately six Police dog teams that have been trained
exclusively on decomposing pig remains not for human consumption, as specialist dogs to work off the leash to locate human remains in a wider variety of scenarios. Pig is used as it has been proven in training and operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human remains-detecting training for dogs.

The possession of human remains for the purpose of training dogs in the U.K. is not acceptable at this point in time. Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario-based, conducted over a period of a week, twice annually. It is conducted utilising independent ACPO-authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a daily basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario-based exercises.

Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if required. All operational deployments are video recorded including a control sample find when appropriate.

Training

The dog, a scavenger, uses its olfactory system to locate food sources, identify its young, other pack members, enemies and predators over large distances. It can track its prey identifying a direction of travel. This entails the dog being able to discriminate the time difference between footsteps using the sense of smell.

The reward of food and protection/close comfort provides the basis for a system to be adopted where the dog shows a willingness to respond, in response to the reward. We are thereby able to 'train' the dog using conditioned responses to stimuli. Repetition and reward then ensure efficiency. Positive and negative reinforcement then shapes the required behaviour in their role. Within their role, these dogs utilise basic survival instincts, but have undergone behaviour-shaping to alert the handler to their finding as opposed to consummation. Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.R.D. system of alert. He has been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead body scent'.

The presence of tangible material [i.e. a dead body or part of it] is not required to produce the response, merely the scent itself. Pseudo-scent is an artificially, chemically- produced product that its manufacturers claim to resemble 'dead body scent'. Although some cadaver dog trainers have had limited success with its use in training, when tested on my dogs, they showed no interest, and it is not used as a training aid for them.

In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department, I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver, not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.

False alerts

'False' positives are always a possibility. To date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat-based and, specifically, pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly, the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.

My experience as a trainer has shown that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in behaviour. This increases handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.

EVRD OPERATIONAL CASEWORK EXAMPLES

1. Northern Ireland, UK A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The search of suspects’ 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot-well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim’s DNA. The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of the woman in a river-bank deposition site. Further searches identified a location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offender’s empty next-door dwelling house. When interviewed, the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.

2. Wiltshire, England, U.K. A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her ex-boyfriend had taken her to his house. A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert-indicated, and forensically confirmed as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirit level, and a shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its original state.

3. Devon, England, U.K. A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at the alert location revealed a small button off from the girl’s clothing in long grass. The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.

4. Cornwall, England, U.K. A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspect’s house by the EVRD was conducted, and he indicated on the living room carpet. No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently, a diary written by the suspect was alert-indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts stating that the offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead. The diary had in fact been written by the suspect who had handled the body. This was confirmed by the offender in interview.

THE ROGATORY INTERVIEW OF MARTIN GRIME, DOG HANDLER, MAY 2008

NOTE: This was an interview carried out by Leicestershire Police Officers with Martin Grime on 14 May 2008.

I am a retired police officer, 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 PJ, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force. On 17 August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the PJ, which was submitted by Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The PJ 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 e-mail several written questions sent by the PJ, together with a request for a written statement. This witness statement was submitted by me, without my having seen or having had any knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analysing the evidence submitted in this case.

The Questions put to me and my Answers:

Q. 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).

Q. 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?

A. Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1). The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognise 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.

Q. 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?

A. 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.

Q. Based upon the dogs’ behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?

A. 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.

Q. 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?

A. The dogs were not taught any ‘tricks’. EVRD ‘signalled’ the toy, which at my request was retained by the PJ for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

Q. 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?

A. 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.

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

A. The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for ‘live’ human odours. No trained dog will recognize the smell of fresh blood. What they find and give the alerts for is dried blood from a live human being.

Q. Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion?

A. The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

Q. How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?

A. Cross-contamination is immediate.

Q. Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?

A. 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.

Q. Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results?

A. I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparisons, 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.

Q. At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case?

A. I have 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 statement is by me and is true according to my understanding.

Martin Grime.

CASES WHERE EDDIE WAS USED

Bianca Jones case, U.S.

]http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/wayne_county/prosecutors-say-dogs-detection-of-human-decomposition-points-to-murder-of-bianca-jones

Haut de la Garenne, Jersey

Body of Bon Rose, island of Sanday, Scotland

]http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/maddie-dog-led-to-body.html

Called in to search for Kate Prout

]http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/biggest-search-in-force-history.html

Working dog focus fast Eddie

]http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/working-dog-focus-fast-eddie.html (Sunday Life, 15 May 2009)

Attracta Harron

QUOTE from above article:

“Elite police sniffer dog Eddie is a shining example to all working dogs. The specially-trained English springer spaniel found the body of murdered Sion Mills pensioner Attracta Harron in 2003.
He was also taken to Praia de Luz in Portugal to take part in the hunt for Madeleine McCann.

Eddie has also been called in to help police forces in the Republic of Ireland and in America and, with handler Martin Grime, who is attached to the South Yorkshire police force, has been given an award for Outstanding Achievement and Dedication to Duty.
The police sniffer dog, which is trained to locate minute traces of blood, has worked with the FBI.

His handler Martin Grime said: "Dogs like Eddie are very, very good at what they do and he has lots of operational experience.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTE:

BY CONTRAST with the above evidence of Martin Grime's experience and international reputation, this is the assessment of Dr Kate McCann in her book: 'madeleine':

This is on pages 249-250 of the book ‘madeleine’.

“When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. From what I saw of the dogs’ responses, this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here…At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site. The dogs ‘ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax. This was not what I would call an exact science”.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.12 7:36

There has been a response overnight from 'tigerloaf' on 'StoptheMyths'.

So at least there is a measure of engagement over the issue of what we should make of the alerts of Eddie, Martin Grime's cadaver dogs.

Main points:

* tigerloaf concedes that Martin Grime has been deployed in at least four nations

* most of the information about Grime's experience is 'self-written' and consequently not worth the paper it's written on, therefore I have not porved my asserion that Grime is 'one of the most sought-after expert dog handlers in the world'

* 'winnower' is 'notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth'

* tigerloaf admits to at least an element of denigration of Grime by Dr Kate McCann but maintains that what shwe wrote is 'simple factual observation with a perfectly valid comment'.

There is no response yet on the issue of whether or not the collective view of 'StoptheMyths' (as appears to be the case) is that Grime's findings in Praia da Luz are utterly worthless and should be completely ignored:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE from 'tigerloaf'

With all this quoting and partial quoting I am afraid Mr. Bennett that you have not in any way demonstrated anything more than that Grime and his dogs have worked in four areas (hardly world-wide), have been deployed on a very, very limited number of occasions in the last five years since they became part of a private company (hardly what could be called among the "most sought-after").

What you have produced is a self-written blurb from Linkedin, a form of self-written CV from Grime for the Portugal job and a bit of comment from a notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth. That is not exactly a spectacular demonstration of the skills of the man or his dogs. I remind you of the initial question from your forum admin which you chose to take up and run with and my challenge to you. It is my contention that you have failed to demonstrate any continuance of trashing by Kate McCann, indeed any such trashing as her comments are simple factual observation with a perfectly valid comment. I also contend that you have still failed to demonstrate that Grime is "one of the most sought-after expert dog handlers in the world".

UNQUOTE

ETA: The much-loathed (by 'tigerloaf' anyway) 'notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth' is 'winnower', who has an informative blog titled 'CADAVER DOGS' which may be viewed here, it includes references to many cases where cadaver dogs have been used successfully:

http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.12 16:59

This was posted this morning by Tony Bennett.

The black sections are his post, the red my reply.

sal wrote:Tony Bennett Today at 7:36 am

There has been a response overnight from 'tigerloaf' on 'StoptheMyths'.

So at least there is a measure of engagement over the issue of what we should make of the alerts of Eddie, Martin Grime's cadaver dogs.

Main points:

* tigerloaf concedes that Martin Grime has been deployed in at least four nations Exactly, no-one ever disputed that fact. What I did dispute and which you still have provided no evidence for is your claim that Grime "is one of the most sought-after expert dog handlers in the world". Deployment in four countries (only once each in 2 of those countries) does not constitute what your admin post and you by your use of that post claim.

Let's call time on that rather peripheral debate. Grime has been called in on leading, high profile cases, in four countries, including Madeleine McCann and Haut de la Garenne, Jersey. Grime was selected by the F.B.I. to head up their dog handler training programme. He has been selected for employment by GSS International. You cannot name one more sought-after dog handler in the world, yet at the same time you deny that he is 'one of the most sought-after dog handlers in the world'. OK. I have made my claim for Grime. You have denied it. Let's move to the next point.

* most of the information about Grime's experience is 'self-written' and consequently not worth the paper it's written on, therefore I have not porved my asserion that Grime is 'one of the most sought-after expert dog handlers in the world' Firstly I never said "not worth the paper its written on" as you imply. That is simply another of your distortions of what the truth of the matter is. And actually there is nothing in what Grime wrote about himself to prove your premise that Grime is "one of the most sought-after dog handlers in the world". He simply shows that he is an experienced dog handler and gives a few examples (was it four or five) of his deployment over the last five years. As I pointed out a UK dog handler was deployed 17 times in 9 days so I find the tiny number of deployments of Grimes dogs over a full five and a half years a very long way from proving the point you make that he is so sought after world wide.

You said that Grime's experience & CV etc. was 'self-written'. You clearly implied that his C.V. was unworthy in some way because it was 'self-written'. How many C.V.s are 'self-written'? Doh! Was your point that it was not accurate, or exaggerated, or in some way deceptive or misleading? If so, please say so. It is plain from his C.V., and from his promotion to F.B.I. adviser - unless you deny any part of it as untrue - that Martin Grime is a vastly experienced and qualified man when it comes to the handling of specialist sniffer dogs. It was a cheap point to try to belittle his C.V. because it was 'self-written'.

* 'winnower' is 'notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth' That is an accurate description of the activity of Winnower on the internet. Do you have any comment about that fact or are you simply agreeing with me?

Do I agree that 'winnower' is 'notorious'? No, I don't. I was merely setting out what you said.

* tigerloaf admits to at least an element of denigration of Grime by Dr Kate McCann but maintains that what shwe wrote is 'simple factual observation with a perfectly valid comment'. I believe that anyone with an open mind, who reads that passage you quoted from Kate McCann and also watches the way in which Grime coaxes the dog to return to the McCann car in the videos for example would very possibly come to the same conclusion that she came to. It seems to be a valid comment about the way in which dogs are handled. I note that you have not responded to my point that you, so far, have not shown that this is a continued "trashing" of the dogs by Kate McCann which you claimed. Nor have you responded to the fact that I provided evidence that the claim by Gerry McCann about the cueing of dogs is valid, something you were trying to say was not the case.

'Trashing' may be a strong word, but I stick with it. 'Denigrating' is certainly accurate. Eddie alerted, in the normal way according to Grime, to 'human cadaver scent' at these 11 locations:

* Below the window in the living room of 5A

* Around the wardrobe of the master bedroom in 5A

* On the veranda of 5A

* In the flower beds of 5A (I admit this was a less strong and therefore less certain alert

* On one of Dr Kate McCann's clothes

* On another of Dr Kate McCann's clothes

* On a red T-shirt belonging to one of the children

* On Cuddle Cat

* On the Renault Scenic car key

* At the driver's door of the Renault Scenic

* At the wheel well of the Renault Scenic.

Dr Kate McCann's thesis in her book is that Martin Grime either unconsciously or consciously 'made' the dogs alert at those 11 locations. That is a comprehensive demolition job on Grime's ability to 'read' his dog's signals. Anyone reading that book would be bound to think: 'My goodness, that bloke Grime really didn't know what he was doing'. It is a serious slur on his professionalism.

Now, in addition, as you know, Dr Gerald McCann has gone on record, in his interview by Sandra Felgueiras, as claiming that cadaver dogs are 'incredibly unreliable'. If he was cross-examined in court, no way would he be able to defend that clearly desperate comment.

Now, let's look back at Dr Kate McCann's book, pages 249 and 250. Here, she refers to only two alerts: (a) 'the spot behind the couch', and (b) the alerts at the Renault Scenic. In terms, Dr Kate McCann says that Grime incorrectly induced the dogs to bark in those locations. Once again, she is saying in very clear terms: 'He is no good at his job. He doesn't know what he is doing'. I am very sure that Grime would say (as I think he does on the extended 1hr 30min video) that he could see that a dog had already exhibited a clear 'interest' in that general area, and was merely directing his dog to give a more precise location.

There is one more matter on which I should be grateful if you could reply. On page 267 of her book, Dr Kate McCann quotes the defendant lawyer in the case of the murder of Jeannette Zapata by Eugene Zapata. I want to put a very direct question to you - which you or anyone at 'StoptheMyths' is free to answer. Given that Eugene Zapata admitted murdering his wife, and confirmed THE EXACT TWO LOCATIONS where the dogs had previously alerted to cadaver scent, was it not thoroughly misleading, indeed positively dishonest, for Dr Kate McCann to refer to the Zapata case? Would not all her readers be misled?

There is no response yet on the issue of whether or not the collective view of 'StoptheMyths' (as appears to be the case) is that Grime's findings in Praia da Luz are utterly worthless and should be completely ignored:

That is simply wrong. You have utterly mis-represented the views of the members here who whilst not agreeing with your inaccurate interpretations of the reports by Martin Grime accept them as the best evidence regarding the dogs in PDL which we have available to us. The fact that we do not have to put our own interpretations on his words to ensure we understand them is important. I cannot speak for everyone but I am sure from my own reading of the posts by members of this forum that we wholeheartedly agree with his comments in the summary where he is categorical that there is only the possibility of cadaver scent and that without further corroboration none of the alerts can be considered evidential. Why do you continually mis-represent the views of others to try to bolster your own case and put people down? Such actions do not in any way enhance your attempts to be seen as a seeker of truth, in fact they positively destroy those attempts.

What was the point of sending over Martin Grime to Praia da Luz? To see if his dogs would alert to the scent of a human corpse in locations associated with the McCanns. And they did. And the police took notice of those 11 sets of alerts - and decided to pull the McCanns in for questioning.

Now, my interpretation of the collective thoughts of 'StoptheMyths' remains that you all think that Grime's work, and the dog's alerts, are 'utterly worthless'.

So just so there's no mistake about this, and for the record, please state which of these reflects your personal view:

1. 'I think Grime's report is worthless', OR

2. 'I think Grime's report has some value'.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE from 'tigerloaf'

With all this quoting and partial quoting I am afraid Mr. Bennett that you have not in any way demonstrated anything more than that Grime and his dogs have worked in four areas (hardly world-wide), have been deployed on a very, very limited number of occasions in the last five years since they became part of a private company (hardly what could be called among the "most sought-after").

What you have produced is a self-written blurb from Linkedin, a form of self-written CV from Grime for the Portugal job and a bit of comment from a notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth. That is not exactly a spectacular demonstration of the skills of the man or his dogs. I remind you of the initial question from your forum admin which you chose to take up and run with and my challenge to you. It is my contention that you have failed to demonstrate any continuance of trashing by Kate McCann, indeed any such trashing as her comments are simple factual observation with a perfectly valid comment. I also contend that you have still failed to demonstrate that Grime is "one of the most sought-after expert dog handlers in the world".

UNQUOTE

ETA: The much-loathed (by 'tigerloaf' anyway) 'notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth' is 'winnower', who has an informative blog titled 'CADAVER DOGS' which may be viewed here, it includes references to many cases where cadaver dogs have been used successfully:

Again that is pure mis-representation. Your invalid use of the adjectival phrase "much-loathed" is typical of your inability to allow the quoted words of people to speak for themselves. By turning my actual phrases about Winnower ("Winnower has no expertise in dog handling but is merely an amateur commentator on the McCann case." and "a notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth") you have done yourself a serious disservice. No average person reading those two comments from me would over-exaggerate my understanding of the actual role of Winnower in the case to a position of loathing let alone much loathing. Once again your inaccuracy lets you down badly and severely damages he case you were attempting to make.

OK, you don't loathe him, but you think so badly of him that you refer to him by the highly pejorative adjective: 'NOTORIOUS'.

I think I understand what your attitude towards 'winnower' really is.

http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/

Edited to add that this post appears to have been removed by Tony Bennett, but as I have no way of knowing how long it was viewable I will leave my response here as the points are all relevant.

No, it was not removed either by me nor by anyone else.

I look forward to your replies - and please let us stick to the central issues relating to Martin Grime's report.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.12 17:35

I offer up this contribution from a poster called 'Mobyra' on StoptheMyths' as the most ridiculous so far:

QUOTE

Is Bennett forgetting that Eddie the dog was known to have alerted to second hand furniture "bought from houses where owners had died"? The PJ, to my knowledge, never checked if any of the furniture in the apartment had been bought second hand (common practice with holiday homes let out to public/tourists). Nor did they check if any of the many holiday guests had ever brought in items acquired second hand/inherited, such as suitcases, bags, etc that could have left residual odours.

UNQUOTE

This could lead to a long extension of the Portuguese investigation, with officers asking every person known to have used the apartment:

"Did you have an inherited bag which had at one time in the past been in contact with a corpse, and if so did you place it at all of the following 11 locations:

* Below the window in the living room of 5A

* Around the wardrobe of the master bedroom in 5A

* On the veranda of 5A

* In the flower beds of 5A (I admit this was a less strong and therefore less certain alert

* On one of Dr Kate McCann's clothes

* On another of Dr Kate McCann's clothes

* On a red T-shirt belonging to one of the children

* On Cuddle Cat

* On the Renault Scenic car key

* At the driver's door of the Renault Scenic

* At the wheel well of the Renault Scenic.

by Guest 13.11.12 17:49

In Dutch we have a saying, which translate roughly as: "He heard the bell ringing but doesn't know where the clapper is". Yes, in the Matthews case the dogs did alert to a second-hand mattress ON which someone had died. It actually only proofs how good they are. If they alert to cadaver, there has been a cadaver. They just cannot give you the name ...

by aiyoyo 13.11.12 21:57

If I were TB I would not even bother to give those people time of the day as they can't be dead serious about their belief.
If they are, they could always google and read up.

Maybe they are sent to deliberately provoke TB into giving out what he's going to use in his defense relating to the Dog's Findings.
So why give the opposing party ammunition.

Firstly we don't know who is hiding behind a screen name over there. Secondly we know that some and certain so and so read here and they may well be the same lot of people.

TB is operating on the overt, and the other side is operating on the covert.....best to be cautious against people in the covert.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.12 22:16

aiyoyo wrote:If I were TB I would not even bother to give those people time of the day as they can't be dead serious about their belief. If they are, they could always google and read up.

Maybe they are sent to deliberately provoke TB into giving out what he's going to use in his defense relating to the Dog's Findings. So why give the opposing party ammunition.

Firstly we don't know who is hiding behind a screen name over there. Secondly we know that some and certain so and so read here and they may well be the same lot of people.

TB is operating on the overt, and the other side is operating on the covert...best to be cautious against people in the covert.

I really appreciate your support, aiyoyo, often given, but as I think I've explained on the forum before, you have to give full particulars of your defence to the court very soon after you are served with a summons. You are not allowed to come up with last-minute surprises, if you try that on, the court may rule you out of order. I am not disclosing anything on here that is not already in my defence - which both the court and Carter-Ruck have seen.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.12 22:44

tigerloaf has replied tonight (13 Nov), in green ink, which I've changed to indigo/purple for readability.

black - TB

red - tigerloaf

blue - TB

indigo - tigerloaf

Some preliminary comments, addressed directly to 'tigerloaf'.

1. Thank you for your responses.

2. Thank you for agreeing to look into the Zapata case, which is most welcome, and in due course I look forward to your explanation for Dr Kate McCann making that strange direct reference in her book to the Zapata case which she does.

3. I will be taking a little break shortly and cannot at present, and for a little while, write a full further response.

4. I am working on a full answer to the queries you raised regarding the evidence we have for 'admin's original questions, which centre around the factual issues surrounding the conduct of the McCanns' private investigations, notably queries relating to the appointment of Metodo 3, Marcos Aragao Correia, Antonio Gimenez Raso and Kevin Halligen etc. I have written extensively on all these subjects either on this forum or on The Madeleine Foundation site. Some of these have now been withdrawn in the face of impending legal action. I have nearly completed a lengthy summary of all those matters on which you requested further information, which I trust will inform our future discussions. I am not dodging the issues you raised, on the contrary, I am going to give you what you have asked for: the facts relating to the issues raised by 'admin', and the sources to back up those facts. Please be patient.

5. One point for now. You denied that to describe winnower as 'notorious' was 'pejorative'. As far as you are concerned, stating that 'winnower' is 'notorious' is 'factual', a fact.

Turning to the Oxford Dictionary:

'notorious': = "Well-known for unfavourable reasons', e.g. 'notorious criminal"'

'pejorative': = "A depreciatory or derogatory expression".

Calling 'winnower' and the other people you describe as 'notorious' clearly is pejorative and is surely not within the terms of the debate propsoed by 'cristobel'.

Preliminary comments to the forum:

I'll be taking a little break shortly, so will be unable to continue the discussion with 'tigerloaf' and STM for a short while. However, I would suggest that, by and large, so far the discussion has illuminated the core beliefs on either 'side' of what contribution Martin Grime has made to solving the great mystery of what really happened to Madeleine McCann. To that extent, the debate around the content and value of Martin Grime's report has perhaps run close to its course.

All for now - T.B.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This was posted this morning by Tony Bennett.

The black sections are his post, the red my reply.

sal wrote:Tony Bennett Today at 7:36 am

Tony Bennett: There has been a response overnight from 'tigerloaf' on 'StoptheMyths'.

So at least there is a measure of engagement over the issue of what we should make of the alerts of Eddie, Martin Grime's cadaver dogs.

Main points:

* tigerloaf concedes that Martin Grime has been deployed in at least four nations

Exactly, no-one ever disputed that fact. What I did dispute and which you still have provided no evidence for is your claim that Grime "is one of the most sought-after expert dog handlers in the world". Deployment in four countries (only once each in 2 of those countries) does not constitute what your admin post and you by your use of that post claim.

Let's call time on that rather peripheral debate. Grime has been called in on leading, high profile cases, in four countries, including Madeleine McCann and Haut de la Garenne, Jersey. Grime was selected by the F.B.I. to head up their dog handler training programme. He has been selected for employment by GSS International. You cannot name one more sought-after dog handler in the world, yet at the same time you deny that he is 'one of the most sought-after dog handlers in the world'. OK. I have made my claim for Grime. You have denied it. Let's move to the next point.

TIGERLOAF: Odd that you believe the debate is peripheral when it was your admin who originally posted it and you who took up the question based on that premise. It is ridiculous for you to state that Grime has been selected for employment by GSS international. Have you not yet taken in the point I made earlier that he is a director of that company? Are you really suggesting that his own company is going to employ a different handler and dogs. Pull the other one. And no, of course I cannot name another such dog handler because no other dog handlers seem to be so hell-bent on publicity. What you have failed to do is show just how sought after this man is. A tiny handful of cases in a period of five and a half years since he took his dogs into a private company is hardly proof of his vast popularity.

* most of the information about Grime's experience is 'self-written' and consequently not worth the paper it's written on, therefore I have not porved my asserion that Grime is 'one of the most sought-after expert dog handlers in the world'

Firstly I never said "not worth the paper its written on" as you imply. That is simply another of your distortions of what the truth of the matter is. And actually there is nothing in what Grime wrote about himself to prove your premise that Grime is "one of the most sought-after dog handlers in the world". He simply shows that he is an experienced dog handler and gives a few examples (was it four or five) of his deployment over the last five years. As I pointed out a UK dog handler was deployed 17 times in 9 days so I find the tiny number of deployments of Grimes dogs over a full five and a half years a very long way from proving the point you make that he is so sought after world wide.

You said that Grime's experience & CV etc. was 'self-written'. You clearly implied that his C.V. was unworthy in some way because it was 'self-written'. How many C.V.s are 'self-written'? Doh! Was your point that it was not accurate, or exaggerated, or in some way deceptive or misleading? If so, please say so. It is plain from his C.V., and from his promotion to F.B.I. adviser - unless you deny any part of it as untrue - that Martin Grime is a vastly experienced and qualified man when it comes to the handling of specialist sniffer dogs. It was a cheap point to try to belittle his C.V. because it was 'self-written'.

TIGERLOAF: I stated the fact that it was self-written to make the point that it could easily be fraudulent and that dependence on such "evidence" without clear back up from independent sources is foolish. Are you not aware that when using CV's that employers see the need for references, i.e. independent support of the claims that the applicant has made? They do not rely on the CV alone as so many are fraudulent (viz. the Birch one). It was not a cheap point at all, but effective in showing that you cannot provide any independent referee of Grime's status.

* 'winnower' is 'notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth'

That is an accurate description of the activity of Winnower on the internet. Do you have any comment about that fact or are you simply agreeing with me?

Do I agree that 'winnower' is 'notorious'? No, I don't. I was merely setting out what you said.

TIGERLOAF: I stated the fact that it was self-written to make the point. But why do so? That's the question. It was you who picked that little phrase to highlight suggesting you don't agree with it. However it is an accurate description, just as you are a "notorious anti-McCann", just as Pat Brown is a "notorious anti-McCann" etc. Notorious in my opinion for attempting to trash the reputations of Gerry and Kate McCann who the authorities were clear there was no evidence against of any crime.

* tigerloaf admits to at least an element of denigration of Grime by Dr Kate McCann but maintains that what shwe wrote is 'simple factual observation with a perfectly valid comment'.

I believe that anyone with an open mind, who reads that passage you quoted from Kate McCann and also watches the way in which Grime coaxes the dog to return to the McCann car in the videos for example would very possibly come to the same conclusion that she came to. It seems to be a valid comment about the way in which dogs are handled. I note that you have not responded to my point that you, so far, have not shown that this is a continued "trashing" of the dogs by Kate McCann which you claimed. Nor have you responded to the fact that I provided evidence that the claim by Gerry McCann about the cueing of dogs is valid, something you were trying to say was not the case.

'Trashing' may be a strong word, but I stick with it. 'Denigrating' is certainly accurate. Eddie alerted, in the normal way according to Grime, to 'human cadaver scent' at these 11 locations:

* Below the window in the living room of 5A

* Around the wardrobe of the master bedroom in 5A

* On the veranda of 5A

* In the flower beds of 5A (I admit this was a less strong and therefore less certain alert

* On one of Dr Kate McCann's clothes

* On another of Dr Kate McCann's clothes

* On a red T-shirt belonging to one of the children

* On Cuddle Cat

* On the Renault Scenic car key

* At the driver's door of the Renault Scenic

* At the wheel well of the Renault Scenic.

Dr Kate McCann's thesis in her book is that Martin Grime either unconsciously or consciously 'made' the dogs alert at those 11 locations. That is a comprehensive demolition job on Grime's ability to 'read' his dog's signals. Anyone reading that book would be bound to think: 'My goodness, that bloke Grime really didn't know what he was doing'. It is a serious slur on his professionalism.

Now, in addition, as you know, Dr Gerald McCann has gone on record, in his interview by Sandra Felgueiras, as claiming that cadaver dogs are 'incredibly unreliable'. If he was cross-examined in court, no way would he be able to defend that clearly desperate comment.

Now, let's look back at Dr Kate McCann's book, pages 249 and 250. Here, she refers to only two alerts: (a) 'the spot behind the couch', and (b) the alerts at the Renault Scenic. In terms, Dr Kate McCann says that Grime incorrectly induced the dogs to bark in those locations. Once again, she is saying in very clear terms: 'He is no good at his job. He doesn't know what he is doing'. I am very sure that Grime would say (as I think he does on the extended 1hr 30min video) that he could see that a dog had already exhibited a clear 'interest' in that general area, and was merely directing his dog to give a more precise location.

There is one more matter on which I should be grateful if you could reply. On page 267 of her book, Dr Kate McCann quotes the defendant lawyer in the case of the murder of Jeannette Zapata by Eugene Zapata. I want to put a very direct question to you - which you or anyone at 'StoptheMyths' is free to answer. Given that Eugene Zapata admitted murdering his wife, and confirmed THE EXACT TWO LOCATIONS where the dogs had previously alerted to cadaver scent, was it not thoroughly misleading, indeed positively dishonest, for Dr Kate McCann to refer to the Zapata case? Would not all her readers be misled?

TIGERLOAF: Kate McCann is reporting her feelings as to what she witnessed. If at the time she believed that what she was witnessing on the video was not an "exact science" as she states she would not be alone. There are many, many people who on witnessing those videos who have exactly the same questions about the clear coaxing of the dog by Grime. I am among them. That is why I have researched a little of the background to the very serious issue of dog cueing and the way it can influence juries and have even offered you evidence of those concerns in a previous post. Again I note that you have deliberately avoided commenting on that report and I strongly advise you to look at it as it goes a very long way to explaining why Gerry McCann believes that dog alerts are unreliable. There are many involved in the legal profession who strongly agree with him. Perhaps when you have consulted that report you would further comment.

There may well be a specific reason that Kate McCann recounts only a certain number of events. Are you forgetting that this is a report of what happened within an interrogation session by the PJ? She was not in control of the video recorder. Paiva possibly only showed the three events. Yes three events. Even when you are supposedly using the book as an actual source you have missed the fact that she comments on Apt 5a, the apt next door and the car. Yet another example of your appallingly shoddy research skills.

I do not have any great knowledge of the Zapata case so will research it before replying. However I find it amusing that it was you who wished us to refrain from looking at peripheral issues but now introduce this perifphery. It is irrelevant to the solving of the case of missing Madeleine that Kate believes anything about another case. Still I will look into it.

There is no response yet on the issue of whether or not the collective view of 'StoptheMyths' (as appears to be the case) is that Grime's findings in Praia da Luz are utterly worthless and should be completely ignored:

That is simply wrong. You have utterly mis-represented the views of the members here who whilst not agreeing with your inaccurate interpretations of the reports by Martin Grime accept them as the best evidence regarding the dogs in PDL which we have available to us. The fact that we do not have to put our own interpretations on his words to ensure we understand them is important. I cannot speak for everyone but I am sure from my own reading of the posts by members of this forum that we wholeheartedly agree with his comments in the summary where he is categorical that there is only the possibility of cadaver scent and that without further corroboration none of the alerts can be considered evidential. Why do you continually mis-represent the views of others to try to bolster your own case and put people down? Such actions do not in any way enhance your attempts to be seen as a seeker of truth, in fact they positively destroy those attempts.

What was the point of sending over Martin Grime to Praia da Luz? To see if his dogs would alert to the scent of a human corpse in locations associated with the McCanns. And they did. And the police took notice of those 11 sets of alerts - and decided to pull the McCanns in for questioning.

TIGERLOAF: And later released them when their understanding of the dog reports and the DNA reports was developed from the very basic understanding demonstrated by Paiva for example. You seem to be stuck in a time-warp mid 2007 when the world has moved on and the PT authorities have noted that there is no evidence of any crime against the McCanns and that is after the dogs and the DNA. Being stuck half way through a case as that comment from you indicates you are is very foolish, especially when you claim to be seeking the truth.

Now, my interpretation of the collective thoughts of 'StoptheMyths' remains that you all think that Grime's work, and the dog's alerts, are 'utterly worthless'.

So just so there's no mistake about this, and for the record, please state which of these reflects your personal view:

1. 'I think Grime's report is worthless', OR

2. 'I think Grime's report has some value'.

TIGERLOAF: Neither. I believe that Martin Grime's report has a great deal of value. That is why I constantly refer to it and quote directly from it. Unlike you I feel no need at all to re-interpret it. I simply quote it directly: [EXTRACT FROM MARTIN GRIME'S REPORT added by 'tigerloaf', which I am unable to reproduce here - T.B.].

[ Additional note: I have since found the quote and can copy it here:

"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".]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE from 'tigerloaf'

With all this quoting and partial quoting I am afraid Mr. Bennett that you have not in any way demonstrated anything more than that Grime and his dogs have worked in four areas (hardly world-wide), have been deployed on a very, very limited number of occasions in the last five years since they became part of a private company (hardly what could be called among the "most sought-after").

What you have produced is a self-written blurb from Linkedin, a form of self-written CV from Grime for the Portugal job and a bit of comment from a notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth. That is not exactly a spectacular demonstration of the skills of the man or his dogs. I remind you of the initial question from your forum admin which you chose to take up and run with and my challenge to you. It is my contention that you have failed to demonstrate any continuance of trashing by Kate McCann, indeed any such trashing as her comments are simple factual observation with a perfectly valid comment. I also contend that you have still failed to demonstrate that Grime is "one of the most sought-after expert dog handlers in the world".

UNQUOTE

ETA: The much-loathed (by 'tigerloaf' anyway) 'notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth' is 'winnower', who has an informative blog titled 'CADAVER DOGS' which may be viewed here, it includes references to many cases where cadaver dogs have been used successfully:

Again that is pure mis-representation. Your invalid use of the adjectival phrase "much-loathed" is typical of your inability to allow the quoted words of people to speak for themselves. By turning my actual phrases about Winnower ("Winnower has no expertise in dog handling but is merely an amateur commentator on the McCann case." and "a notorious anti-McCann amateur sleuth") you have done yourself a serious disservice. No average person reading those two comments from me would over-exaggerate my understanding of the actual role of Winnower in the case to a position of loathing let alone much loathing. Once again your inaccuracy lets you down badly and severely damages he case you were attempting to make.

OK, you don't loathe him, but you think so badly of him that you refer to him by the highly pejorative adjective: 'NOTORIOUS'.

I think I understand what your attitude towards 'winnower' really is.

http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/

TIGERLOAF: So you again mis-interpreted my feeling and claimed it to be loathing. It is a serious habit of yours isn't it? One you should seek help for. I repeat it is not pejorative at all. Please see above for my comment to understand that it is my genuine belief that Winnower is notorious in exactly the same way as you are. It is a factual report of the way I and many others see your hounding of the McCanns.

Edited to add that this post appears to have been removed by Tony Bennett, but as I have no way of knowing how long it was viewable I will leave my response here as the points are all relevant.

No, it was not removed either by me nor by anyone else.

TIGERLOAF: I apologise for suggesting that it appeared to have been removed. I had not realised that you had wandered off the debate thread and created a new one.

I look forward to your replies - and please let us stick to the central issues relating to Martin Grime's report.

TIGERLOAF: I will pursue any avenue which is pertinent to the debate. It is not for you to dictate what I may post on another forum where you have no influence.[/size]

by Bob Southgate 13.11.12 23:27

Tigerloaf talks about the coaxing of the dog by its handler, but a handler will not know exactly where to search. All the handler can do is react to what the dog indicates and go with that. If the dog gives an indication then a good handler will react to that and get the dog to search the area some more to see what indications the dog will give.

If the handler knew where the cadaver smells would be then why would you need a dog to find the evidence?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.12 0:20

Tony Bennett wrote:tigerloaf has replied tonight...
tigerloaf wrote:...And no, of course I cannot name another such dog handler because no other dog handlers seem to be so hell-bent on publicity. What you have failed to do is show just how sought after this man is. A tiny handful of cases in a period of five and a half years since he took his dogs into a private company is hardly proof of his vast popularity.

Responding direct to 'tigerloaf:

You have constantly made reference to Martin Grime and Eddie only being involved in 'a tiny handful of cases'.

But you are aware of this, from Martin Grime's report, aren't you:

QUOTE

To date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat-based and, specifically, pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption.

UNQUOTE

That's more than 33 criminal cases Eddie's been involved in, every year, over a six-year period. I trust that will revise your opinion of how often Martin Grime and Eddie have been deployed.

On another point, you referred to 'just quoting exactly what Martin Grime said', and not interpreting it. Our book: 'The Madeleine MCann Case Files: Volume 1' devotes 11 pages to the contents of Martin Grime's report (pp. 11-12 and 32-41) which merely reproduces verbatim exactly what he says, free from any commentary by us, save for a neutral introductory paragraph. Oddly enough, despite your conviction that Martin Grime's report is valueless from an evidential point of view without corroboration, the McCanns do not quote from or refer to Martin Grime's report anywhere on their blogs, so far as I am aware. And of course, in Dr Kate McCann's book, she denigrates Grime's expertise, effectively making out that he doesn't know what he is doing.

Finally, I spotted a poster with the username 'BrenR1958' on your [STM] site. This wouldn't be the Brenda Ryan who for several months carried as her avatar on 3As a photo of Dr Kate McCann with the words, in capital letters, 'LYING BITCH' emblazoned upon it?

Would it?

by aiyoyo 14.11.12 0:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If I were TB I would not even bother to give those people time of the day as they can't be dead serious about their belief. If they are, they could always google and read up.

Maybe they are sent to deliberately provoke TB into giving out what he's going to use in his defense relating to the Dog's Findings. So why give the opposing party ammunition.

Firstly we don't know who is hiding behind a screen name over there. Secondly we know that some and certain so and so read here and they may well be the same lot of people.

TB is operating on the overt, and the other side is operating on the covert...best to be cautious against people in the covert.
I really appreciate your support, aiyoyo, often given, but as I think I've explained on the forum before, you have to give full particulars of your defence to the court very soon after you are served with a summons. You are not allowed to come up with last-minute surprises, if you try that on, the court may rule you out of order. I am not disclosing anything on here that is not already in my defence - which both the court and Carter-Ruck have seen.

True, no last minute surprises in Court, that much I am aware of.

Just didnt realise that all the arguments from both sides have already been filed.
Isn't it a tad premature for the filing of responses for the libel, since AFAIAW the other side has yet to define which word or words they considered defamatory.

The dogs' finding is going to be the biggest sore point for them , so it leaves one wondering which expert are they going to invite (if ever) as witness to counter this.
All will be revealed in good time no doubt.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.12 1:04

aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If I were TB I would not even bother to give those people time of the day as they can't be dead serious about their belief. If they are, they could always google and read up.

Maybe they are sent to deliberately provoke TB into giving out what he's going to use in his defense relating to the Dog's Findings. So why give the opposing party ammunition.

Firstly we don't know who is hiding behind a screen name over there. Secondly we know that some and certain so and so read here and they may well be the same lot of people.

TB is operating on the overt, and the other side is operating on the covert...best to be cautious against people in the covert.
I really appreciate your support, aiyoyo, often given, but as I think I've explained on the forum before, you have to give full particulars of your defence to the court very soon after you are served with a summons. You are not allowed to come up with last-minute surprises, if you try that on, the court may rule you out of order. I am not disclosing anything on here that is not already in my defence - which both the court and Carter-Ruck have seen.

True, no last minute surprises in Court, that much I am aware of.

Just didnt realise that all the arguments from both sides have already been filed. Isn't it a tad premature for the filing of responses for the libel, since AFAIAW the other side has yet to define which word or words they considered defamatory.

The statements and evidence filed, so far, are for the contempt hearing and my application to set aside/revoke three of the 16 undertakings. IF there is a full-blown libel trial, Carter-Ruck will have to file their evidence and I will have a chance to respond. I know it's all got rather complicated.

The dogs' finding is going to be the biggest sore point for them, so it leaves one wondering which expert are they going to invite (if ever) as witness to counter this. All will be revealed in good time no doubt.

They're not calling Martin Grime.

by aiyoyo 14.11.12 1:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If I were TB I would not even bother to give those people time of the day as they can't be dead serious about their belief. If they are, they could always google and read up.

Maybe they are sent to deliberately provoke TB into giving out what he's going to use in his defense relating to the Dog's Findings. So why give the opposing party ammunition.

Firstly we don't know who is hiding behind a screen name over there. Secondly we know that some and certain so and so read here and they may well be the same lot of people.

TB is operating on the overt, and the other side is operating on the covert...best to be cautious against people in the covert.
I really appreciate your support, aiyoyo, often given, but as I think I've explained on the forum before, you have to give full particulars of your defence to the court very soon after you are served with a summons. You are not allowed to come up with last-minute surprises, if you try that on, the court may rule you out of order. I am not disclosing anything on here that is not already in my defence - which both the court and Carter-Ruck have seen.

True, no last minute surprises in Court, that much I am aware of.

Just didnt realise that all the arguments from both sides have already been filed. Isn't it a tad premature for the filing of responses for the libel, since AFAIAW the other side has yet to define which word or words they considered defamatory.

The statements and evidence filed, so far, are for the contempt hearing and my application to set aside/revoke three of the 16 undertakings. IF there is a full-blown libel trial, Carter-Ruck will have to file their evidence and I will have a chance to respond. I know it's all got rather complicated.

The dogs' finding is going to be the biggest sore point for them, so it leaves one wondering which expert are they going to invite (if ever) as witness to counter this. All will be revealed in good time no doubt.

They're not calling Martin Grime.

That much is obvious they won't be calling Martin Grime, but who can they call to counter Martin Grime dogs' findings - that is the $64M question.

by aiyoyo 14.11.12 1:53

Tony Bennett wrote:[
Oddly enough, despite your conviction that Martin Grime's report is valueless from an evidential point of view without corroboration, the McCanns do not quote from or refer to Martin Grime's report anywhere on their blogs, so far as I am aware. And of course, in Dr Kate McCann's book, she denigrates Grime's expertise, effectively making out that he doesn't know what he is doing.[/color]

No doubt they were advised against directly quoting or referring to Martin Grime's reports.
So the next best they can do (to spin the public) is to belittle his valuable Expertise, an expertise which has been engaged by Police Force and FBI in countless cases with 100% accuracy.
But when it comes to the mccanns case, suddenly his work and his dogs are rubbish. Isn't that just strange?

One very important point :
Kate and Gerry can show as much contempt for Martin Grime and his dogs, but that wont make an ounce of difference to anything when it comes to applying it in Court.
It is not for them (as subject of investigations) to value or devalue Martin Grime and the dogs.
Even (if ever) they are subject of Court Prosecution, it is not for them to value or devalue work of Martin Grime or any experts for that matter. Fortunately when it comes to the crunch, it is down to the Court to decide.

Finally, I spotted a poster with the username 'BrenR1958' on your [STM] site. This wouldn't be the Brenda Ryan who for several months carried as her avatar on 3As a photo of Dr Kate McCann with the words, in capital letters, 'LYING BITCH' emblazoned upon it?

Would it?
HA HA HA....couldn't resist it. I suspect you have observed very well, that is - BrenR1958 is indeed Brenda Ryan. If the year is any indication it is probably no wrong to deduce she is 54 this year.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.12 14:11

I posted up a truly ridiculous suggestion by STM poster 'Mobyra' the other day as they try over there to offer any credible explanation for Eddie the springer spaniel alerting to the scent of a human corpse in 11 different locations all associated with the McCanns - but nowhere else in Praia da Luz.

Now one of their senior members, Deuce = Adrain Upshon of Sudbury, Suffolk, has had a go.

It's hard to know which is the more ridiculous. Here the thoughts of Mr Upshon, then:

QUOTE

CSI dog is used where EVRD alerts to confirm that EVRD has possibly alerted to dried blood from a living person. If both dogs alert in same place then that alert information is discounted if a death is being investigated.

Imagine if there was a dog trained to alert to each individual decomposing material shared with a living person?

Then perhaps we could prove our point, no, prove GRIME'S point that without other corroborating evidence, alerts with no physical find could be so many things, including source being decomposing material, other than blood, from a living person.

Add to that then, all the possible sources there could be from cross contamination.

People often ask why only in 5A?

5A had an extraordinary amount of traffic when the scene came under the spotlight. GNR, Police, scientists, doctors etc etc. A higher risk than anywhere else local, for someone who comes into contact with cadaver scent during the course of their jobs, to cross contaminate the scene. It only takes a microscopic amount of contaminated material to leave it's mark in several places.

Then add to that what others have brought up. The slack security to ensure purest alerts, by those carrying out the checks with the dogs.

With all the above possible sources for the alerts. The mind boggles why some choose to accept that an EVRD alert automatically equates specifically to the location of where a dead body has been.

UNQUOTE

Comment:

OK, first, how many people actually come into contact with dead bodies during the course of their jobs?

Next, of those that do, how many would be likely to have entered G5A?

Third, even if there was a person who had been in contact with a dead body sometime before entering G5A on 3/4 May 2007, how likely is it that that would leave a very strong alert below the living room window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, AND on the veranda, AND in the flower beds?

Fourth and finally, EVEN IF you could account for all those four alerts in and around apartment G5A, how on earth could the presence of those people in G5A for 2-3 hours on 3/4 May possibly account for the dogs' alerts (a) on the clothes (b) on Cuddle Cat and (c) in the hired car?

Is it not much much easier to believe the obvious: Eddie alerted to the past presence of a corpse in those 11 locations?

by **Hobs** 14.11.12 22:21

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 meanmadeleine 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 prents 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 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 1956175960

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 1956175960

by uppatoffee 14.11.12 22:26

Nice work Hobs!

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.12 22:39

Hobs wrote:It is interesting and unexpected behavior from the mccann's in relation to the dogs alerting.

Why you may ask?...

Hobs, thank you. Many of us have made similar points over the years, but your logical and well set-out analysis of the announcement, arrival and alerts of the cadaver dogs excels anything I can recall seeing on the subject - and would surely make any thinking person, well, stop and THINK!

by Da Troof 15.11.12 0:14

Hobs

by sonic72 15.11.12 2:43

"Ask the dogs Sandra" said Gerry McCann...

Dear Gerry McCann, Martin Grimes asked the dogs to do their job, and their answer was that cadaver scent was found in your apartment, and other known places connected to you and Kate.

How else do you expect cadaver scent to be located Gerry? Please speak up!

BTW, does anyone know if the PJ did a thorough search for a body?
The April Jones search is now 6 weeks in, and the search is still ongoing. I don't recall the PJ searching this long for a potential body, but I could be mistaken?

by Guest 15.11.12 9:42

@ Hobs
Great piece of work!
Just tiny little thing. As it could be "used" by other parties trying to point out mistakes: the cadaver dog goes in first, followed by the blood dog.

by Inspectorfrost 13.01.13 17:47

Mr Grime and Eddie worked on the Theresa Parker case in the USA in Sept 07

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=1001.85;wap2

Her body was subsequently found.

There is also a belief that he and Morse were used in the Lisa Irwin missing baby case in the USA last year but this is just borne out of comparing the likenesses of him and the dog caught on video. Nothing officially written as yet.

http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/region_missouri/northland/cadaver-dog-'hits'-inside-baby-lisa's-house

and recent pictures of MG and Morse

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id421.html

by Ribisl 13.01.13 20:07

Hobs wrote:
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.

I am inclined to believe that faced with an injured or gravely ill daughter, they would have sought outside medical help eg taken her to hospital. I cannot imagine any parents, let alone doctors, not seeking the best possible care and facility available for their child in such circumstances.

It has been suggested that perhaps they misdiagnosed the gravity of her condition which resulted in her unexpected death. That may have triggered their survival instinct and set the whole charade in motion but I find it hard to believe that they would deny their daughter a proper burial because of their own need and determination to avoid any accusations directed at them. But maybe they thought she is dead anyway let's make sure the rest of the family survives in tact.

If we assume that the child was already dead when discovered, the normal course of action would be to report her death to the appropriate authorities. There are several possibilities why they could not do so:
1. they were afraid of being charged for neglect (only credible if their checking regime can also be shown to be a lie)
2. they had to avoid autopsy performed on the child's body (medication that may have caused the death directly or indirectly, signs of paedophilia, signs of physical abuse even if it wasn't the direct cause of her death)

Let's hope the review team is getting closer to the truth. I'd love to find out which of the above scenarios they have discarded so far and what other alternatives, outside abduction, they are examining at this moment.

by empath 02.02.17 15:47

Tony Bennett wrote:I offer up this contribution from a poster called 'Mobyra' on StoptheMyths' as the most ridiculous so far:

QUOTE

Is Bennett forgetting that Eddie the dog was known to have alerted to second hand furniture "bought from houses where owners had died"? The PJ, to my knowledge, never checked if any of the furniture in the apartment had been bought second hand (common practice with holiday homes let out to public/tourists). Nor did they check if any of the many holiday guests had ever brought in items acquired second hand/inherited, such as suitcases, bags, etc that could have left residual odours.

UNQUOTE

This could lead to a long extension of the Portuguese investigation, with officers asking every person known to have used the apartment:

"Did you have an inherited bag which had at one time in the past been in contact with a corpse, and if so did you place it at all of the following 11 locations:

* Below the window in the living room of 5A

* Around the wardrobe of the master bedroom in 5A

* On the veranda of 5A

* In the flower beds of 5A (I admit this was a less strong and therefore less certain alert

* On one of Dr Kate McCann's clothes

* On another of Dr Kate McCann's clothes

* On a red T-shirt belonging to one of the children

* On Cuddle Cat

* On the Renault Scenic car key

* At the driver's door of the Renault Scenic

* At the wheel well of the Renault Scenic.

Fair enough second hand furniture, but clothes and cuddle cat ? Whats the chances of all these things having cadavar scent ?

by worriedmum 02.02.17 16:24

Thanks Hobs, thorough and detailed.

For me the phrase which screams out at me off the page is ''I felt myself relax''.

Just WHY?

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

The response from 'tigerloaf'

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

tigerloaf replies in red, my further replies in blue

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Prize

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: 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

Re: 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

Re: 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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: 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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: 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

Re: 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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: 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

Re: 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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: 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

Re: 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

What the deuce?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: 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

Re: 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

Re: 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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: 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

Re: 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

Re: 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

For the record

The case of accidental death in the apartment

Re: 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

Re: 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

Log in for more topics