Friday, 15 April 2016

Every dog has its day

Even McCann sceptics and critics who can’t agree on the time of day seem to be in harmony on one subject: the reliability of the findings by the dogs brought in to assist in the search for Madeleine; Eddie and Keela.

Nothing is more likely to induce foaming at the mouth of their opponents than mention of the canine team and their handler. Mr Twitter is like the proverbial dog with a bone on the subject and his long-lost twin, flesh of his flesh, Insane shares his predilection for bizarre explanations of the dog alerts in various locations related to the McCanns.

But on the Dogs v McCann the character becomes Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Mr Twitter, plays Jekyll and says he doesn’t believe in the dogs; Insane plays Hyde, and says the dogs are to be believed.

Both alter-egos share the same objective of discrediting the dogs’ findings. Mr Twitter by discrediting the dogs, Insane by saying he doesn’t believe in what we ignorant humans have interpreted what the dogs have signalled.

Both know the importance of the dogs as we explained in our “Third Option” post.

Their main focus seems to be on Eddie, the EVRD/cadaver dog, rather than Keela, the CSI/ blood detecting dog, presumably because Keela detects blood which may have originated from a living person, and can therefore be explained away more easily. It’s curious to note that even though claiming to be a dog believer, Insane insists in saying no blood was discovered in 5A even though Keela signalled it there.

We’ve heard the following explanations; by no means an exhaustive list:  dead grandad’s pyjamas, pork products, amputated limb or digit, ill person with cadaver odour, ancient bones in the garden, evidence planted by PJ, dogs cued by handler, dogs trying to please handler, exhausted dogs, hot dog, hungry dogs, unqualified dogs, stupid dogs…

Some explanations contradict others. Some accept cadaver odour existed but it wasn’t Madeleine’s whilst others claim no cadaver odour existed at all.

We’re not going to enter into a debate about these explanations.

Readers can see it for themselves on twitter (and Facebook) and the admirable, well-informed and tenacious defence of the dogs by some well-known twitterers we won’t name (in case they object to being linked to our tinfoil hat-wearing, off-the-wall blog). Those of a less sensitive disposition wanting to read a blistering, passionate and usually misogynistic critique of our opinions know which blog to visit. We don’t recommend it in any way, except to see that when emptied of insult it contradicts absolutely nothing of what we have said.

Instead, we’ll add our support to the dog-defenders by clarifying one of the facts denied by Mr Twitter- that there was no search by the dogs on July 31st 2007, by setting out the chronology of the dogs’ deployment.  And also to confirm the locations of the searches, which have also been the subject of dispute.

Martin Grime’s statement:

“ Operation Task Canine Deployments 1-8 August 2007

On the instruction of the PJ director. The Portuguese police kept all search records concerning the deployment of the search dogs. All dog searches were recorded by video.

The following searches were conducted:

Five apartments at a complex in Praia da Luz

Mr Murat’s property at Praia da Luz

Mr McCann’s villa at Praia da Luz

Articles of clothing from Mr McCann’s residence

Western beach Praia da Luz

Eastern beach Praia da Luz

10 vehicles screened at Portimão

All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications were at apartment 5a, the reported scene…”

There is an error with the above date range as the searches actually commenced on July 31st.

The problem with the information is that it’s located in different areas of the files. The chronology is found in the PJ Files.

July 31st 2007 at 8pm – Inspection of apartments: present Silvia Batista, Ocean Club manager, Tavares A and Ricardo P, PJ Inspectors, Mark Harrison, Martin Grime with Eddie and Keela (Silvia had keys to the apartments)-

Apartment 5A – 8.20 EVRD dog Eddie marks couple’s wardrobe in bedroom.

8.22 – Eddie marks area behind sofa in sitting room near window overlooking road.

9.10 – Keela, blood dog marks area of floor behind the sofa.

Apartments 5B, 5D, 5H and 4G – no alerts by Eddie. 4G was used by the McCanns from 4/5 - 2/7/07

Garden of 5A – access via balcony and steps- Eddie marks area of garden immediately below the window.

No timing is given, but there is a video of Eddie searching at night, so it’s likely to be July 31st.

August 1st – dogs (note plural) 6.40 am – 8.20 am-search local roads (which are all named) and photographic report made. Nothing detected.

August 2nd  Ricardo P and Carlos P , Inspectors, Mark H and M Grime and Eddie: 27 Rua das Flores (the McCanns’ residence at the time).

6.36 Eddie marks cupboard in living room – indicating pink soft toy belonging to MM

Clothing set out under direction of British technicians

11.41-11.52 Eddie marks various clothes (box marked living room)

August 3rd: Ricardo P, Mark H and Martin Grime with Keela only.

19.19 -Keela marks area of tiles in living room, behind sofa.

19.20 Keela marks lower part of left white coloured curtain of window behind sofa.”

So, both dogs have now alerted to the same area behind the sofa.

August4/5th Casa Liliana. Eddie found nothing, either inside or outside.

August 6/7th Underground garage Portimão: 3 PJ officers, 2 UK police experts, Eddie and Keela

Eddie marks Renault Scenic car. Car moved to another level and subject to examination from Police Science laboratory.

August 6th – 3.53- Keela marks lower right- hand side of interior baggage compartment.

4.11 marks tidy compartment/ map pocket on driver’s side door, containing car key plastic electronic card.

4.13 key card concealed in sandbox

4.51 Eddie marked concealed area

So, again , both dogs have alerted to the key card.

August 7th 18.30 – outside areas in vicinity of 5A searched by Eddie only. Nothing signalled.

Western and Eastern beaches searched with no results.

In the PJ Files Grime describes Eddie’s response on first entering 5A

“... the dog’s behaviour changed immediately on opening the front door to the apartment. He will normally remain in sit position until released and tasked to search. On this occasion, he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be ‘in scent’ and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to identify the source of his interest. He did so, alerting in the rear bedroom.

I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so. Alerting in an area to the rear of a sofa in the lounge..

The first alert was given with the dog’s head in the air without a positive area being identified. The alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located, only the scent.

The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed, who gave a specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa. This would indicate the likely presence of human blood..

There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat foodstuffs including pork. These did not result in any false alert response.”


“ … when passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog’s behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the driver’s door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating a scent emitting from inside the vehicle through a seal round the door…. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver’s side of the boot area.. It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant or human blood scent.”

Summary “The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family.. the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those of the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis. My professional opinion as regards the EVRD’s 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 the result of a number of given scenarios.”

There were 4 sets of people who occupied 5A after the McCanns left, before the deployment of the dogs and their details are recorded in the files.

The floor of the apartment would have been washed after the McCanns left and presumably, after the departure of the 4 sets of people.

It is also likely the floor was cleaned during their occupation, so it’s not surprising that any blood spots had become degraded.

It also gives the dog deniers the opportunity to claim the blood could have come from any of these residents, so Keela isn’t the most significant threat even though degradation of stains on walls cannot be explained with any sort of routine cleaning.

It’s Eddie and his handler who come under sustained attack because nobody had previously died in the apartment or the car.

That’s why it’s never often enough that one should underline the importance of Eddie to the revelation of truth.

They may be pinning their hopes that the proposed re-testing of the living room curtains and hairs, said to be the subject of a 6th rogatory request by Operation Grange (perhaps the hairs from the car, referred to by Mr Amaral as being retained by the Portuguese laboratory, 4 in total) will prove inconclusive.  In the absence of a confession or the discovery of Madeleine’s remains, Eddie remains the final obstacle to their attempts to exonerate the McCanns from any suggestion that they were involved, directly or indirectly, in the fate of the body of their daughter.

It’s curious to note that in Vanished book, released before PJ files, which we spoke of in a post with the same title “Vanished” and also in the post “Club of 4”, Danny Collins is first to claim what Mr Twitter repeats. That scent lasts no longer than 28 days, on info from unnamed army dog handler, whose own dog got excited by overripe chicken in his car boot. Presumably a dead chicken detector dog, always useful when one wants to find whodunnit in a chicken coop.
Collins also quotes Zapata case, as does Kate in her book, a faux pas as Zapata since arrested for murder.
In no way could 9 British tourists on the night of May 3 have disposed of the body without help.

Who, when, why and how that help came to be is what we all are waiting for Operation Grange to explain.

Footnote: The information in this post is a compilation/synopsis from different places in the PJ files (Processos 8 pgs 2054-2069 and pgs 2186-2188 and Processos 9 pgs 2462-2485).


  1. Dogs don't and can't lie.

    Interesting that Textusa chooses the dogs and their evidence as a subject for this week's blog.
    Yesterday, in the UK press there was an article online declaring that airport sniffer dogs failed to detect heroin but plenty of cheese and sausages!
    These findings have been reproduced in several newspapers today.
    The survey was conducted at Manchester Airport between November 2014 to June 2015
    No Class A drugs were detected but plenty of cheese and sausages from returning travellers !
    One wonders surely why the dogs failed to detect such drugs? could it possibly be that there simply weren't any to be found during the period of study?
    That's the most logical explanation for me!
    That summation is not commented upon however, reporting concentrating on the dog's failings !
    No doubt, Team McCann Will have a field day with this report and it's interesting that it has suddenly appeared out of the blue into the UK Media !
    Of course, the McCanns fear the dogs and their evidence. Gerry did his utmost to ridicule and dismiss them!
    One does that out of fear!
    "Ask the dogs Sandra!"
    The McCanns would have us believe that human interpretation of the dogs' findings is at fault.
    This is what we, the public have been fed, that the dogs are unreliable, the dogs were 'handler led'.
    This, despite the wealth of evidence Eddie and Keela provided and which Textusa documents above, based on the PJ Files.
    Whichever way one looks at it, the evidence returns to the McCanns.
    Kate's cadaver reeking trousers, the key fob, the apartment, three amongst many.
    How much longer is this ridiculous farce set to continue?
    The people are getting restless for justice.
    Justice for a little girl, Madeleine.
    Shame on all those who have taken part in the cover up!
    Shame on thoe who advised, aided and abetted in this Abduction Hoax.
    Shame on those who do their utmost to discredit the role that dogs play in helping to solve the most stubborn of crimes.

    The exoneration of the McCanns would be a crime in itself and would never be accepted by the public at this stage of the game.
    It will be very interesting to see what transpires.

    1. Addenda:

      Sniffer dogs are like us - like everyone else.

      Some are good (well-trained or educated) others pretty good; others not so good; and so on.

      Eddie and Keela were good. Pretty good. Very good. The Sherlock Holmes of sniffer dogs you might say.

      So good they were in great demand by the FBI in the USA. They were quite simply "the best sniffer dogs in the world" (quote).


      The original "The Times" article is only available for subscribers but for a taster see the link below:

  2. Nobody with an IQ above 1 takes any notice of mr twitters ramblings. The british public who look further than what the mccann media machine and their well connected helpers push out know that 1. The dogs are correct and 2. The case stinks to high heaven of more than the death of a young child.

  3. The Guardian Report also states: “A senior manager agreed that there was a lack of innovation in the use of the dogs and told us that a new management structure was being put into place to take a fresh look at their deployment,” the report said.
    It goes on to mention mistakes in nearly all departments. No mention of baggage inspectors finding any drugs. Criticism seems to be about border controls - an obsession in UK.

  4. Regarding airport dogs, who in their right mind would attempt to smuggle class A drugs through a UK airport these days, given the tight security because of terrorist threats?
    Only someone very desperate. People using drugs at a personal level will buy them at their destination. Large scale consignments now likely to arrive by lorries through ports and shipping containers.
    2 different types of search dog are conflated in this report - food and drug dogs.
    Food detecting dogs are there to find illegal products, like bush meat. People probably don't try and smuggle it in, as used to be more common, if tight security now in place.
    The point of having dogs in place, like having speed traps on motorways, is surely to deter the behaviour.
    If the deterrence - the tight security, the dogs - is removed, the activities, smuggling and terrorist attacks, will return.

    1. That report was misleading!
      Many countries are much more concerned about people bringing in plant diseases than drugs and as you say few people would try to smuggle drugs this way so trained drug dogs would be a huge cost for little return. I know you can't bring in uncooked meats too so the dogs used for these two things have nothing to do with drug dogs. Drug dogs would be far more useful at ferry ports than airports.

  5. I don't see how the report in media re the dogs will in anyway compromise the sniffer dogs. The dog who detected Food products is trained to detect illegal animal products, hence it found what it was trained to find. Food stuff.

    Some consignments of Viagra were also found, meaning that the drug sniffer dogs clearly are alerting to drugs and detecting what they should .

    It all has to do with the readers' attention span as well as not being lazy and reading the article rather than just the headline.

    "But one dog, trained to detect illegal animal products, often found “small amounts of cheese or sausages” carried by holidaymakers, the report said."

    AS for not detecting heroin or cocaine, well there simply wasn't any to detect. That is quite simple and evident. Maybe Manchester airport is not a preferred drug route, who knows. OR maybe they are trying to cut costs and reduce the dog "squad" that is what it reads like to me.

    Supply and demand. There are not enough drugs going through the airport - there is no reason to deploy so many dogs.... Sadly , bad thinking. Traffickers as any others study their market. Should the use of dogs be reduced, there will be then a high demand to traffick via Manchester Airport.


  6. I know for a fact that drug dogs don't alert to food. I'm a retired schoolteacher and once taught in a problematic neighbourhood where drug dogs were once brought into the classroom. I said to the handler that I had a sandwich in my bag. He said the interest the dog showed in the sandwich wouldn't make him alert. He would only alert if he found drugs.
    Which he didn't, of course!

  7. The dogs always have and always will clinch it or me.

  8. Isabel's post is absolutely spot on !

  9. Guardian article:
    Manchester airport dogs detected 181 kg of illegal meat, £28 k cash, 3 occasions illegal drugs as well as cigarettes and tobacco.
    Dogs did make discoveries!

  10. "How much longer is this ridiculous farce set to continue?"... sums it up for me - true and tragic

    1. Anonymous 15 Apr 2016, 20:42:00,

      This ridiculous farce will go on forever. Forever as in many generations to come, and as it is a hoax of monumental proportions and scope involving the death of a little girl, we guess it will be remembered for centuries in the future.

      THAT is what the other side must realise. They must realise the memory of this will last, last and last. What they also must realise is that it's in their hands of what this memory will consist of. If and how it was solved and who helped solve it.

      The memory of all involved, in a good or a bad way, will be attached to the perdurable memory of this affair.

  11. So why is it so hard for DC to take a decision regarding the resolution? Surely he needs to take a step away and see this as an eagle would see it, soaring high above. He was elected as our PM - to make the right decisions. The truth WILL come out sooner or later, no matter what. To let this drag on much longer is unwise and unjust.

  12. Confirming my suspicions that the "news" story a couple of days ago about the sniffer dogs in Manchester airport was a planted load of old rubbish. They could have at least released it on April 1st to give it a slight angle of credibility............

    1. If you think of this news as being old rubbish - why is it so important to you to repeat the link to it?

      ...probably it has something to do with the fact that the last postings took a different direction bringing back the focus of the discussion to the need of having the whole truth coming out (as it usually does in my opinion, sooner or later)?

    2. ; ) Do bear in mind Clarence Mitchell - Head of Election Media Monitoring, based at Conservative Campaign HQ, during the 2010 UK General Election and the McCanns' "reputation manager" never sleeps ...

      May be "Mickey Mouse" is anticipating a Portuguese appellate court ruling on his clients behalf pretty soon. Who knows...

    3. Anonymous 18 Apr 2016, 16:01:00,

      We ask you to take elsewhere comments glorifying Clarence Mitchell in this affair.

      We think he's a nobody, has no voice and absolutely no manipulation capability.

      In our opinion, he was paid to play a role and he played quite feebly. He has the a say in this script as much as any other third-rate actor has in a production, which, we repeat ourselves, is none.

      For us it's completely irrelevant whether he sleeps or doesn't because irrelevant people matter nothing.


    It is nice to be proved correct on our 6 months to find Maddie post.

    1. Sorry - I do not really get the motive for the push to make people believe she is alive...who is pushing this 'alive' suggestion? What is the strategy behind it...and whose strategy is it?

    2. Anonymous 18 Apr 2016, 18:13:00,

      The mention of alive was given headlines but not the mention of murder which he also speaks of.

      Mixed messages: “There is ongoing work. There is always a possibility that we will find Madeleine and we hope that we will find her alive” and “there is a missing girl and if she has been murdered and if we think we have got justifiable and reasonable lines of inquiry to pursue then they should be dealt with.”

      SY has to peddle she may still be alive to get money. Public won't stand for spending on search for dead body.

      What else could he say?

      That they thought she was dead? That they needed more money to find out what happened to her remains?

      Sensibly, what he said means future funding more likely to be given. That’s why in the para where he speaks of hope of her being alive that he speaks of money: “There is ongoing work. There is always a possibility that we will find Madeleine and we hope that we will find her alive. That’s what we want and that’s what the family and the public want and that is why the Home Office continue to fund it. There is work that needs to be done still.”

      The article confirms what we said in our post “Six months to find Maddie?”:

      “I imagine that if we have not completed our inquiries within six months we will go back to the Home Office and ask for more money” or, we will go on until Lisbon court decides.

      To be noted, two things.

      One, both scenarios, alive OR dead, are still options

      Two, it is “Detective Chief Superintendent Mick Duthie, the head of the Yard’s homicide squad” who speaks. The article says “Mr Duthie, who is in overall charge of the investigation Operation Grange”.

      We believe Mick Duthie may be Nicola Wall's line manager, who isn't even mentioned in the article.

    3. What has happened to Nicola Wall?
      She arrived in a blaze of glory based on past achievements amidst much lauding and fanfare.
      Top Cop!
      Catches criminals faster than the speed of light!
      Fresh , New energy.
      Confident and assertive.
      Smart and sassy.
      Yet, she has disappeared from public view in the case, has been a silent entity and indeed in this article, she is very notable by her absence !
      One is aware that the police are not going to comment on this ongoing "investigation", but how strange her absence from this article.
      The last incumbent was forever in the media, spouting gobbledygook.

  14. We placed a comment on our post “Third Option” recommending readers to follow closely the Brazilian political situation:

    “Textusa16 Mar 2016, 15:11:00

    We recommend that readers follow attentively what is going on right now in Brasil, with former President Lula da Silva being appointed minister simply to ensure he has judicial immunity.”

    We are a rigorously apolitical blog (we refer to politics solely when it pertains directly the Maddie case) and our recommendation had to do solely with the fact that the President Dilma Rousseff had nominated Lula da Silva as minister so he would avoid being prosecuted for corruption.

    Yesterday, the Brazilian Chamber of Members of Parliament (Câmara de Deputados) passed the 2/3 vote needed for the procedure to impeach the President to go forward – it will now go to the Brazilian Senate where a simple majority can make that impeachment a reality.

    We will not give here our opinion about what may have moved the President to make that nomination, nor about how the various political parties took advantage of the popular outrage to benefit their own interests.

    Dilma’s supporters call it a coup-d’état against democracy and the constitution, her opposition call it a significant step against corruption. We will not give our opinion on who we think is right although we think we won’t damage our apolitical position by saying we think neither are.

    The point we want to make is to have some people in the UK answer the following question: if Dilma Rousseff hadn’t made that just-a-little-too-much of nomination would she be in the position she is after last night?

    We think not. We think the reality has proved in Brazil that there are limits that those in power have to abide by, under the penalty that they will lose control of the situation.

    Talking about the nomination and the nomination alone, of what “a little-too-much” was Rousseff’s fault? Sometimes there aren’t words that can express exactly what is meant to say although we know exactly what we want to say. A mix of arrogance, petulance and shamelessness. But we prefer that our readers and those who we have addressed the question to define for themselves what too much of what it was she did.

  15. This is your blog. It is your prerogative to censor anyone whom you perceive as disagreeing with you. Myself included.

    Feel free to ignore Clarence Mitchell's connections at the highest levels of the British Establishment.

    The truth is that "Mickey Mouse" has been a key element ("errand boy" or otherwise) right from the inception of this cover-up.

    You only need to analyse his professional track and/or talk (off the record) with some media "insiders" to confirm that.

    It is common knowledge Clary has played an important role (and still does) in the (ideological) dynamics of this cover-up.

    Incidentally, do you have any evidence, names etc. to think otherwise?

    Ah! I thought so, darling!

    Good night and good luck!


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.