Blood and the EVR dog - Part 4

1. Introduction

This is part 4 of what started as a single post and has evolved to become 6 of them. For now.

In part 1, we showed that blood decomposition is different from human decomposition and that Keela, the blood dog alerts to human blood in all its forms, consistencies and constituencies as may be found in a crime scene.
In Part 2, we showed that there is a difference between live blood, which decomposes on its own and dead blood, which has as its origin from a human cadaver. Dead blood was once a sub-set of the human decomposition until it left the dead body while live blood is an independent decomposition process the minute it leaves a live human body.

Also in part 2 we showed that Eddie alerts to blood contaminated with cadaver compound. Meaning he alerts to contaminated blood in exactly the same way he alerts to contaminated trousers and contaminated Cuddle-cats. EVRD dogs alert to dead blood because it’s contaminated and not just because it’s blood so doing that doesn’t make them in any way blood dogs. EVRD dogs in such situations are alerting to cadaver compound in the blood and in no way to the scent of blood.

In part 3 we showed how blood has to be used as an instrument for training an EVRD dog both as a positive control (using dead blood) and as a negative one (using live blood).

In the beginning of part 3, we explained that it was meant to be a single post about training but it had become so long that we decided to divide the subject matter dedicated to training into 2 posts.

This post continues about training and more specifically on how some are trying to mislead about what EVRD dogs are trained for, especially Eddie.




2. Rat, the player

In the comments section of part 2 of this series, we put up these two tweets and said that we were “We are VERY, VERY CURIOUS what the Rat will reply to this”.

And because we were very, very curious, we watched, in absolute silence. Because the only way that one does not disturb the players, is to watch them in silence and that’s why we didn’t even say that we were watching.

We know they knew we were, but to say anything would be to acknowledge that fact and we didn’t even want to do that. Because they could be putting on a show for us and not be playing between themselves. And it turns out we were right, because by not giving the attention they desired, they stopped playing with each other. As we say... wasn’t that so interesting?

The Rat is a very special player deployed in very special and critical times. Please don’t confuse the times of being critical was because of Mr Thompson’s blunder.

The Rat appeared at the beginning of April and Mr Thompson’s blunder was on May 11. Times are critical and special because of Theresa May’s expected stepping down and her foreseeable replacement by Boris Johnson.

To be clear, the Maddie case has little or no influence in the game of thrones for Nº10, however it does float on those waters. This means that with May’s exit, those most interested in the archival of the case decided that it was the right time to play their trump. Time became special and critical in April and not in May.

Mr Thompson’s blunder seriously affected the Rat’s game (otherwise it wouldn’t have been a blunder) by forcing him to expose himself sooner than he had planned. We will deal with this in the last part of this series of posts.

The Rat’s intent was to position himself as a very reputable anti, we would even say the most reputable anti of all and once having gained that status, use it to help archive the case.

An anti suddenly appears on the scene, literally out of nowhere, no one knows who he is or has heard of him before, an anti who shows an outstanding knowledge of the case, of the forensics, of the dogs, of all its complexities, which demonstrates he has been around, and no one finds that suspicious? Apparently not. We, however, did.

The Rat has one big problem: he needs validation. And that validation can only be achieved by winning the arguments he engages in and win them clearly. Show that his knowledge of the case is undisputed, correct and above all credible.

Without such clear victories he doesn’t earn the status he needs to. He needs to be seen as the highest authority on all critical of the case. Basically, earn a reputation that whatever the Rat has said, then it must be.

To have that reputation is particularly important in the terrains that are both critical to the trump intended to be played: forensics and dogs. Terrains that are fertile for misinformation because both are very complex. Complexity is the best ground for the flourishing of soundbites, said at the right time and in the right way. Both are key to the case and the Rat must be seen to dominate both.

And to be clear, his objectives are: in terms of the dogs, to make sure people believe that Eddie alerted to blood; in terms of forensics to make sure people believe that Mark Perlin’s offer is worthless. Of the two, the last he can concede as if people are convinced that Eddie alerts to blood then whatever Mark Perlin has to say is indeed worthless.

Together, both Eddie alerting to blood and Mark Perlin’s offer being worthless would make a strong case for archival, wouldn’t it? It certainly would. 

But to earn the desired status, the Rat has one huge problem: he needs victims. Not any victim, he needs credible victims. His reputation grows in direct relationship to the reputation of his victims.

There are no such victims available. Those who know as much about the case are those who cannot afford to have their reputations ruined because that is what will happen once the Rat is done with them. That’s why, with the exception of the Frog, the Rat has only engaged in meaningless conversation with pros who know better than to commit and with the fictional like Nick Townsend, who has retaken his role of the punch-bag that he was last year to validate JBLittlemore and Mr Thompson, now with the Rat.

But, as we have realised in the past year and a half, those who have built a reputation on the internet and could give the Rat his desired respectability, have been his co-players all along. They don’t engage with him because they know exactly what is at stake: be destroyed to make the Rat rise.

The fact that they don’t engage with him at all, means only they know this beforehand. They stay away from the Rat because they want to keep their reputation.

That’s why the Rat says a cadaver leaves a film of oily substance and among those who say that’s an absurdity do not challenge him. If they do that, they know they will be mercilessly defeated by the Rat because, as we will later see, they know he will defeat them with the truth.

How silly would they look being clobbered silly by a newcomer (who evidently is not a newcomer at all)? And what would they defend afterwards? No, they must avoid the Rat like the plague.

That's why we don’t see JBLittlemore engaging with the Rat. For the Rat to win, JBLittlemore would have to lose significantly. Mr Watcher (NotTextusa) could send his BFF Mr Thompson to engage with the Rat on Twitter but he never does that.

They are all playing the same game and because they are playing that same game, the Rat was failing miserably.

By the way, did people notice that when challenged to explain if there was or not biological differences between blood from a living human and a dead human he dodges the bullet?

To his words “And you’re pissed because you though(t) there was a biological difference between blood from a living human and blood from a dead human?” the Frog has this request: “Would you be a luvvie & tell Textusa that...”

He doesn’t even make an attempt. 



3. Rat, the fake-pusher

Before we bring in the Frog (and remind readers that this post is about the training of the dogs) we must first speak of an expression that has become since 2016 one of the most important, if not the most important expression of the century: fake news.

Because it is said by who it is said by and because it contains the word ’fake’ in it people underestimate it, they foolishly think they won’t fall it.

When reading something from a fake-pusher like the Rat one has imagine blue print (for the truth) and red (for the lies).

As we know, the Rat likes to divide his tweets to make them more difficult to read (an indication of well-planned tactics by this character when it was created) this is what he said:
 

“Blood is blood. Once out of the body it is a dead substance. It begins breaking down. But it presents an entirely different signature to cadaverine compounds in general, the “scent of death.”

It is that to which Eddie was trained to alert.

He was reprogrammed by “advanced” training to go beyond ACPO guidelines because someone, possibly Grime himself, saw the advantage in having that facility in the UK, utilisig training we didn’t offer to increase the sensitivity and the change the focus, the tasking of the dog.”

88 words, 430 characters in total.

Now let’s scrutinise the above, in blue what is true, in red what is to deceive:

“Blood is blood. Once out of the body it is a dead substance. It begins breaking down. But it presents an entirely different signature to cadaverine compounds in general, the “scent of death.”

It is that to which Eddie was trained to alert.

He was reprogrammed by “advanced” training to go beyond ACPO guidelines because someone, possibly Grime himself, saw the advantage in having that facility in the UK, utilisig training we didn’t offer to increase the sensitivity and the change the focus, the tasking of the dog.”

And that’s it.

35 characters used to lie and that’s only 8% of the characters used. The other 92% are true.

7 words (or 9 if we count “reprogrammed” and ““advanced””) used to lie and that’s only 8% (or 10%) of the words, the other 92% (or 90%) are true. The overwhelming majority of what is said is true.



4. The Rat, trying to reprogramme truth

Let’s now detail what fake-pusher Rat is trying to twist and how.

He starts to differentiate blood decomposition from human decomposition which is true and he does say that Eddie is trained to alert to cadaver compound which is also true. He used the truth to establish a sound base to follow it with the misleading.

The first fallacy: he says that Eddie is trained to alert to cadaver but doesn’t say that’s the only scent that he’s trained for and that is exactly what he seeks to convince whoever reads him and doesn’t know he’s a fake-pusher.

As we will see, before he says the above he has said that Eddie was first trained for blood and then invents the link between the word “advanced” with him being then trained to cadaver scent.

This is totally false as we will see further down in this post. EVRD dogs are not trained on blood and then on cadaver but that is exactly what the Rat tries to imply by using the “re” in “reprogramming” because it would mean that Eddie had been first programmed on something else.

What something else? Blood, of course. He has previously said that hat Eddie was first trained for blood hasn’t he. With only 2 letters he has driven that idea deeper into the readers’ subconscious.

When he says “It is that [cadaver scent] to which Eddie was trained to alert. He was reprogrammed…” it means that yes, he agrees that Eddie alerts to cadaver scent BUT the reader mustn’t forget, as the Rat has carefully pointed out previously, that Eddie was, according to the Rat, first trained on blood. The Rat is pretty devious, isn’t he? With just one syllable he distorts totally what he is apparently saying.

This idea that he wants to really instill, that Eddie was first trained in blood is reinforced by the use of the double quotation mark on the word “advanced” – implying it’s some special kind of advancement, not just any simple upgrading – and the use of the absolutely false “and the change the focus, the tasking...”.

If on one hand he’s implying said advancement was special for some that he doesn’t explain which special, saying that it changed to dog’s focus is to clearly reinforcing the idea that Eddie was first trained on blood, and the advancement was to change his focus into cadaver.

To be able to change focus, the dog had to be focused on something else, blood.

He really wants to bring home that Eddie was trained on blood without mentioning the word a single time. Without the reader even realising it, the idea that Eddie is also a blood dog has been pushed very efficiently.

The link between Eddie and him being a blood dog is never mentioned but not only is it maintained but with the appropriate wordplay becomes reinforced.

And this reinforcement happens because the predisposition is to accept what he says because all he had said in the previous paragraph is true, so the reader will assume that all he says is true, that this will be true as well.

Repeating ourselves, Rat is just a fake-pusher using the truth to mislead, to lie.

Eddie was not reprogrammed. A plumber has to have his professional capabilities reprogrammed to be an accountant. A plumber does not undergo reprogramming if he upgrades his qualifications to use pipes made from a new material or to use a new wrench on the market. That’s simply upgrading his expertise not reprogramming. Making Eddie a better cadaver dog is to upgrade him not to have him reprogrammed. Words are important because they trigger assumptions in our subconscious.

He was programmed, or trained to alert to human cadaver scent in the UK as per UK’s standards of certification.

He then underwent further training, an upgrading (not reprogramming) his capabilities (his sensitivity, to be precise) now according to US’s standards to the exact same scent.

The difference, the US training allows for the use of human remains while the UK’s does not. To those saying that decomposing uneviscerated piglets produce a different scent to human cadaver scent, legally that is not true.

Legally they are the same as the UK certification authorities have approved that the scent from a decomposing uneviscerated piglets is the equivalent of that from human decomposition, and arguing against that is just wasting their time and breath and we will return to this topic later.

To be reprogrammed is to start all over again. To upgrade is to make something better. Eddie upgraded his training to human cadaver in the US, he was not reprogrammed like the Rat so much wants people to believe.

As we have shown, the majority of his words above are true. But not all of them, he lies just enough  to intentionally mislead.

And the less attentive reader would have fallen for it because overall, it did sound right.

And that’s how a “friendly” voice is very far from being friendly.



5. The Rat and Mr Watcher (NotTextusa)

People have asked us privately why is the Rat undermining Mr Watcher’s (NotTextusa) position.

To start, the fact they are different characters doesn’t mean they are different people.

Both characters want to achieve the exact same objective: convince people that Eddie is also a blood dog because that would make his alerts meaningless especially those in the Scenic.

Both try to convey the idea that they are absolutely convinced that the McCanns are guilty, but both are working on the way to show how, according to them, there’s no way to prove their guilt.

So, according to both, there’s no other option, regardless however much they don’t like it and they will reiterate that they don’t, than to archive the case and hope for a confession one day.

On the day the case gets archived (that is what both characters are really working hard for), both will shed a river of (crocodile) tears, because that, they will shout while banging their fists on the table, is how angry the archiving has made both of them. But, they will say while wiping their tears, as they are civilised people they will accept that decision and and recommend to those who are reading them to do the same.

They are only using the same path to achieve the exact same objective. Pretend to be an anti to achieve what the pros desire: archival of the case.

However, the more the Rat undermines Mr Watcher’s (NotTextusa) position the more the Rat scores credibility points he that he so much needs to have when the trump card is supposedly to be played. After these posts, we doubt very much it will now be played but who knows?




6. Using the Rat in our favour

To conclude about the way the Rat plays the game, as said one has to read every single word, even syllable, with 2 colour fonts in mind, red and blue. But the way he plays it, it allows us to extract important information from him.

And that comes from the fact that the Rat has to stick to the truth as much as he can to become credible. When he deviates from it, it’s a nugget of information he gives us. When that happens, the first thing one knows is that it’s critical information and then one just has to ask why and after a moment of reflection thought it’s always interesting.



7. The Rat v the Frog 3D chess

If the reader thought we have overcomplicating things up to here, we inform you that what we have done so far was the exact opposite. We have simplified things to allow the reader to understand that the conversations between the Frog and the Rat are simply them playing a game of chess.

We have already explained before the tactic that has been most used by the other side in achieving their goals: play a chess game with both the white and black pieces. However, there’s a special twist in the game played by the Frog and the Rat, it’s a 3D chess game.

Our contact with this game, which we surprisingly found out recently that it really exists, was in the TV show “The Big Bang Theory”. It tuns out to be a real game and it first appeared in a “Star Trek” episode.

Any spectator watching this game from the outside and familiar with chess, will recognise the pieces on the board(s), will acknowledge that there are 2 opposing players, will recognise the chequered pattern of the board(s) but that is all the spectator will know about it.

Adding the third dimension to an otherwise familiar game makes it impossible for an outsider to understand if the moves being played are according to any rules or if the pieces are just being moved randomly by the players just for the sake of the spectacle.

Knowing that whoever is watching them hasn’t the foggiest on how the pieces should be moved, allows both players, if in cahoots with one another (which is the case) to move the pieces in whichever way they like and no one will know better.

A farce desguised as a serious game, the most fertile of all grounds to make fake-facts flourish. The ideal playground for any fake-pusher.

The Rat, in the absence of an opponent willing to be humiliated by him has decided the best way to earn the credibility he needs was to engage in a 3D chess game with the Frog.

Why? To befuddle, confuse and as we saw above to mislead



8. The 2 camps on the enemy side


Now, it’s important to make a clarification about the Frog and the Rat.

The other side has never, ever been united. That is evident by the clear and transparent hatred shown by some of them against each other.

We believe that there are 2 main camps: the pro-McCann and the pro-hoax.

The only thing that they share is  that neither want the truth outed.

Not the truth about what happened to Maddie or what caused her death but the truth about the why of the cover-up, why such a cover-up exists. Both camps agree on absolutely not letting that be known.

Where do theses 2 camps disagree? On the T9 guilt.

The pro-hoax camp wants to punish that group for what happened as long as the reason for the cover-up is not known while the pro-McCann camp doesn’t want to assume any criminal responsibility for what they know to have been a very unfortunate accident, one in which a little girl lost her life.

This difference makes the pro-hoax camp wanting to archive the case but perpetuate the myth of the evil McCanns while the pro-McCann camp wants the case archived with guilt-free McCanns.

These 2 groups hate each other but recognise that an outed truth about the reasons for the cover-up will hurt them both. So they will work together where they have to work together but will always try to pursue their own agendas.

As might be imagined, the pro-hoax are the ones who are the powerful, the ones who call the shots while the pro-McCanns are just on board for the ride and are limited with only being able to influence and not decide the outcome.

In terms of what relates to this post in particular, both camps share the determination to make Eddie also a blood dog because that is what will get the case archived, which is in their mutual interest.

There’s a slight difference in what both camps want to achieve with Eddie. The pro-hoax wants Eddie to be a competent cadaver and blood dog, meaning the case will be archived but the shadow of guilt will continue to follow the McCanns, while the pro-McCann camp wants Eddie to be incompetent and so clear the couple of involvement in their daughter’s death.

Once the case archived – something both camps ardently strive for – the guilt of the T9 will be battled online afterwards until people get tired and abandon the case. Then, the pro-hoax intends to perpetuate the myth the McCanns are guilty but foiled the system while the pro-McCanns will do their best to contradict this.

The Frog is a very special player for team pro-McCann. The Rat a very special and critical player for team pro-hoax.

Watching their dialogues has been fascinating. Pity they have apparently stopped. Probably because other than us, no one really understands their objective so not swaying anyone and probably the Rat feels he has gained the credibility status that he will be able to achieve. Any more might just be over-egging the pudding.

Understanding that fake-facts are spread by telling the truth now to be able to lie later without ever losing sight of the intended objectives – these 2 have engaged in a rigged game to make sure all are convinced that Eddie is also a blood dog.



9. Frog, the liar to validate the Frog as the truthsayer

In terms of content what the Frog says is totally irrelevant. She has clearly proven that she wants nothing to do with the truth. As an example:

https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1143983897446952962
“Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
Replying to @SadeElishaa @Jules1602xx @MrDelorean2
How could Keela pinpoint what Eddie was alerting to & thus corroborate or rule out cadaver contaminant? She couldn't.
What no-one seems willing to explain is why Keela was not deployed in dining area of rented villa after Eddie's 2 alerts, which were clearly not to CC.
9:46 PM - 26 Jun 2019” 

No one can explain what has no explanation when there’s no explanation to give.

The Frog sees 2 alerts where there are no alerts. Then based on that non-facts demands an explanation as if they were fact. No matter how many time the Frog keeps repeating it, they won’t become facts.

The best the Frog can do is have the opinion that there were these 2 alerts and ask why Martin Grime didn’t see them as such. And that’s all. She then will have to wait for an answer from him and until then she cannot extrapolate anything from what is merely her opinion, which she has the right to have.

Martin Grime concluded there were no alerts in the dining area, so for what reason would he bring Keela in? He didn’t because there was no reason to.

The Frog bangs on with these blatant lies in the hope that they will be kissed by some prince and become truth. 12 years haven’t gone well for the repetitive liars. In fact, the passage of time only helps more the truth than it helps the lies, food for thought for some.

However, and in this 3D chess game what the Frog says is important because it’s the Frog saying it being a blatant pro, whoever challenges her becomes validated as an anti.

Plus, the Frog is shown to be the best prepared self-assumed pro. So, who better to validate the Rat as an anti? The Frog.

The more points the Rat scores against the Frog the more credible he comes across. Simple notion.

The Frog says Martin Grime cues the dogs, the Rat then ridicules that notion, tallying up good credibility points on his credibility tab.

So the Frog’s role in this 3D chess is twofold. On one hand, is to validate the Rat as an anti and on the other be the ideal partner to let him slip in convincingly the 10% of critical false information in the middle of the 90% of truthful things he writes.

That’s why one has to pay attention to all the Rat says. What is true is the other side is willing to concede, what is false is what the other side deems critical, what they will defend in their last line of resistance.

10. Finding the  nuggets

Hopefully now, the reader will be able to see can see in the following tweet conversation between these two the nuggets they reveal.

We will help by highlighting them in red.

This came from this bit of the debate between the Rat and the Frog that took place on June 19:

https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1141457088058671104
“Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
Replying to @ArataMylov
1. Keela was the blood dog. Only blood, nothing else.
2.. You can't untrain a dog to alert to an odour it's already trained to alert to. You can't train a VRD not to alert to decomposing piglet odours when those are used to test the dog's capabilities.
10:25 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/ArataMylov/status/1141459278538129408
“Ismail Arata Mylov‏ @ArataMylov
Replying to @FragrantFrog
Oh yes, you absolutely can [untrain a dog to alert to an odour it's already trained to alert to]. And Grime did.
You can train a dog to alert to multiple scents.
Hell, you can get a tracker dog to rehome on a scent signature in moments. If you couldn’t you’d need a fresh dog every search.
You absolutely can retrain them.
Guaranteed.
10:34 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1141465242133835777
“Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
Replying to @ArataMylov
Different training for a tracker dog, he only has to locate one given scent at any time. A cadaver dogs has to remember a specific set of odours & never deviate from them.or the dog will end up confused & unreliable.
10:58 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/ArataMylov/status/1141467915818024965
“Ismail Arata Mylov‏ @ArataMylov
Replying to @FragrantFrog
You have absolutely zero credible knowledge of the process.
A detction dog can be trained to recognise in excess of 200 scent signatures, and tuned to react to an extremely narrow range of them at any given time.
11:08 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1141470188279410689
“Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
Replying to @ArataMylov
So how do you desensitise a dog to one particular element of the combination he's already learned?
11:17 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/ArataMylov/status/1141471118823436288
“Ismail Arata Mylov‏ @ArataMylov
Replying to @FragrantFrog
I’m struggling to understand why for someone with so much argument about detection dogs you have the ridiculous notion that they’re simplistic one trick ponies, programmed with binary instructions that can be written once and never altered.
They’re really not...
Silly man.
11:21 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/ArataMylov/status/1141471701533958144
“Ismail Arata Mylov‏ @ArataMylov
Replying to @ArataMylov @FragrantFrog
You don’t have to “desensitise” the dog, nitwit.
You simply train it for something more or something else.
11:23 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1141475566438236160
“Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
Replying to @ArataMylov
Yes you do. How do you stop a cadaver dog alerting to stale urine, semen & faeces which all contain elements of human decomposition?
11:39 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

The reader may now think that we are playing tricks. We have just said that the Frog is a liar and we have shown 5 tweets in which she is 100% correct.

We will just ask the reader, having the previous and correct perception that the Frog is indeed a spreader of false information, in the dialogue above (which is but an excerpt of their conversations) which one would the reader be inclined to think would be telling the truth? It would be the Rat.

But as can be seen - and we will explain why - the Rat is the one lying while the Frog tells the truth. Please always remember, this is not regular chess but 3D chess, not only are they playing with both black and white as they adapt the rules (what rules?) to their agendas.

And because the reader knows the Frog to be a pro, the reader will automatically give the Rat the benefit of the doubt and will subconsciously tend to believe what he says.

And if the reader did just that, the reader would have fallen into the intended trap. Sneaky, isn’t?



11. Pavlov and conditioning

To understand where, how and why the Rat is lying, one has go to the basics of dog training.

Mark Harrison says this about Eddie’s training:

“Enhanced training to produce a EVRD.

The training of a VRD provides an alert response using Ivan Pavlov's theory of producing a conditioned reflex, in this case barking, to the presence of detected decomposing human/pig flesh, bone, body fluid and blood. The dog will bark, whether or not it is able to get to the source of the scent. The benefit of this reflex is that the dog will respond whenever the target scent is present.”

Martin Grime, the dog’s handler and trainer, specifically on Eddie’s training:

“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 shape the required behaviour in their role. Within the role of these dogs they are utilising basis survival instinct 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'.”

Very clearly Ivan Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning theory is used. This is how Wikipedia defines that theory:

“Classical conditioning occurs when a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US). Usually, the conditioned stimulus is a neutral stimulus (e.g., the sound of a tuning fork), the unconditioned stimulus is biologically potent (e.g., the taste of food) and the unconditioned response (UR) to the unconditioned stimulus is an unlearned reflex response (e.g., salivation). After pairing is repeated the organism exhibits a conditioned response (CR) to the conditioned stimulus when the conditioned stimulus is presented alone. (A conditioned response may occur after only one pairing.) Thus, unlike the UR, the CR is acquired through experience, and it is also less permanent than the UR.”

Very complex. An image is always worth a thousand words:

Very simply put, the objective is to get the dog to produce a constant, consistent and reliable response (salivate) to an external, unrelated but perfectly defined stimulus (bell), which is what is shown in #4 of the picture above. The 3 pictures before just show how to get there.

The way there is simple. Before the training, dog salivates (intended response) to food (reward) and does not salivate to the bell ringing (intended stimulus). It’s important to verify as a negative control at this stage that the dog at the beginning of training does not react to the intended stimulus. Only in this way can his future reactions to that stimulus be considered reliable.

Then training is done by simply associating the reward (food) to the stimulus (bell). The dog salivates to the food but quickly his brain is conditioned to establish a relationship between the bell and his upcoming reward. When he salivates, he doesn’t do it because of the bell but because of the reward.

That bell, to his brain, means food, to him it’s a very direct link. The bell just happens to be a bell.

When he hears the bell, he doesn’t think, there’s the bell, food is coming. He hears the bell and his brain reacts to the reward, food. It’s an irrational response, one coming from his subconscious. Nothing to do with him deciding anything.

The dog doesn’t decide, he’s been conditioned to react.

Very much like our reaction to pain, one does not choose to feel it, it’s an irrational, uncontrolled reaction from the body in self-defense to a stimulus.

Once conditioned, henceforth, in whatever situation the trained dog hears that bell, he reacts the same way as he does to food, salivates.

Likewise, Eddie, at the end of his training and when certified, was conditioned to sit and bark, all done irrationally,  in all situations his nose was triggered by cadaver scent.

Same with Keela, at the end of her training and when certified, was conditioned to react in whatever situation her nose is triggered by human blood.



12. Tracker dogs

We think the concept of the dog being trained to be conditioned to an irrational, uncontrolled reaction to a stimulus is a concept that is very easy to understand.

In fact it’s so easy that it makes it very easy to understand what a snake’s oil salesman the Rat really is when he tries to convince people that it’s easy to reprogramme a dog to different scents.

Note, not to upgrading but to reprogramming. Not to programming but to reprogramming. Making him stop reacting irrationally and uncontrollably to one scent and start to react irrationally and uncontrollably to another.

The last bit is easy, as one just has to repeat with the new scent what one has done with the training for the old scent. As we said, that is not reprogramming but programming.

And no doubt in our mind that a dog can be conditioned, or programmed, for more than one scent. We will even speak of it later when we speak of SAR (search and rescue) dogs.

The number of scents a dog can be trained, or programmed to alert to has only to do with the time and the patience one has to train, nothing else.

The number of scents a dog should be trained for is a totally different thing and has to do with what purpose one is training the dog for.

So where is the Rat wrong? When he implies that to stop a dog from alerting to a scent is easy. We will debunk this notion that a dog can be stopped to alert to something later but for now we would like to focus on how he brings in tracker dogs to mislead.

To prove the point that dogs can switch off one scent and move on to another, forgetting the previous one, says the Rat:

“You can train a dog to alert to multiple scents. Hell, you can get a tracker dog to rehome on a scent signature in moments. If you couldn’t you’d need a fresh dog every search. You absolutely can retrain them [dogs].”

The Frog replies to this correctly:

“Different training for a tracker dog, he only has to locate one given scent at any time. A cadaver dogs has to remember a specific set of odours & never deviate from them.or the dog will end up confused & unreliable.”

As we saw, the objective of the training is to get the dog to produce a constant, consistent and reliable response from an external, unrelated but perfectly defined stimulus. The response, as we have shown, is irrational and uncontrollable.

The difference in the training of tracker dogs is evidently the stimulus. In dogs trained for a specific scent, the stimulus scent, while in tracker dogs, where scents are by definition variable, the only way to condition a dog to that is to focus on the novelty of the scent, and not exactly on the scent itself, as it will always be different.

And that is the only constant that a tracker dog has: the novelty. He has to react irrationally, uncontrollably to the latest scent his handler gives him to smell.

He’s given scent A associated with a key word like “search”, and is put on a track where there are scents A, B, C and D. When he alerts to A, he gets a reward.

He’s taken off that track. Afterwards he’s given scent D and told to again to “search”. He will probably alert to A, as it was from which he got a reward last time but doesn’t get any. Only when he alerts to scent D does he get rewarded,

Slowly the dog is conditioned to alert to that scent the handler is holding when he hears “search”. When he hears the key word, he memorises the particular scent the handler is giving him in that moment.

When the next search cycle begins (word “search” with a new scent given) the memory of the previous scent that he had been asked to signal is erased, replaced by the new one.

This is important because in tracking one must be certain that he is tracking the right scent and not a different one. To give an example, the dog is given a shirt to track individual A. He will act according to his training to that scent. That done, he’s given a scarf to track individual B. The moment that happens, individual A’s scent has been erased from his brain as a scent to be tracked. From that moment on he will only track individual B’s scent. Until the next cycle and as in many cycles needed.

What is never erased from his memory is that whatever scent is associated with the word “search” is the one that will bring him a reward. That is what he’s been conditioned to, not to the scent itself.

Let’s then revisit what the Rat has said.

“You can train a dog to alert to multiple scents”, is absolutely true, he’s setting up the stage with the truth to lie.“Hell, you can get a tracker dog to rehome on a scent signature in moments. If you couldn’t you’d need a fresh dog every search”, is absolutely true if only talking about tracker dogs, and he’s not as the context is Eddie. “You absolutely can retrain them”, is absolutely false but is taken as truth because it follows a totally truthful comment and another that is true but intentionally out of context. He uses speciously the tracker dogs to convince us that Eddie can be retrained when he knows that is not possible. Note, retrain and not train.

A cadaver dog, like the Frog says “has to remember a specific set of odours & never deviate from them.”

When the Rat tries to establish an equivalency between tracker dogs and cadaver dogs he’s either being ignorant or intentionally misleading. When he then says “You absolutely can retrain them”, there’s no question what the liar is trying to do.

One thing is to redirect a dog to a different scent by conditioning him to be redirected to new scents (training of tracker dogs), another is to claim, as the Rat does, that to redirect a dog to a different scent is to retrain a dog. It’s not and it’s very transparent lie but said embedded in the right words, is a soundbite that pleases the ears.



13. Untraining dogs

As we have seen the Rat has stated that “You absolutely can retrain them” which is absolutely false. But he takes this concept a little further:

“The reason he can be claimed to be trained to detect blood but not alert to it (...) the dog can identify the smell of blood from a living or dead human, but not react to it when it is from a living human”.

How can one train a dog not to alert to something? One can’t.

What one can do is to stop a dog from giving a certain physical reaction to a scent. That is not stopping him giving a physical reaction to that scent.

The way to stop a dog from reacting to a scent is through negative reinforcements or punishments.

A dog’s nose is permanently receiving scents to which he doesn’t react to in the way instructed by humans, so if he barked to every scent he sensed he would be permanently barking. A dog not giving a designed reaction to a scent is its natural response in much the same way a human does not react to everything that the human sees.

Not reacting to the world around us is the default reaction, and the same happens with dogs and scents. The dog reacts/ignores the scent of vanilla in the exact same way he reacts/ignores the scent of tires.

One cannot tell what scent the dog is ignoring at a certain point in time.

So rewarding him positively for not reacting to a scent, is useless because the dog won’t know what he’s being rewarded for.

To say a dog can be trained to not alert to a scent is ridiculous. A dog is always trained not to react to any scent. The dog is as much trained to not react to blood as it is not to react to shoe polish. Or to Semtex or to Mr Muscle Oven Cleaner. To train a dog not to alert to a scent is as easy as to train a dog to not recite Shakespeare.

He has to associate the scent to his actions and the only way for him to “ignore” a scent is to punish him every time he doesn’t ignore it.

To be able to do that, the dog has first to be trained to react to that scent. Only then will one have the certainty that he always reacts to it and only then can one start to train him not to react to it: by punishing him every time he does.

That way, he will start to associate his reaction to that particular scent and will mentally create a barrier to stop reacting to it to avoid the punishment. He will construct an imaginary electric fence around that particular scent, like the ones used in many yards to contain dogs in.

But that non-reaction is a reaction. He fears the outcome of barking to that scent but that only means that he doesn’t bark, his reaction to the scent is not barking. That is a physical reaction, an alert, to the scent. He is alerting to it, because he’s physically reacting to it.

Can the reader see the absurdity of suggesting that a dog can be untrained to a scent? Once it’s embedded in his brain, it’s not possible to switch that off.

But the Rat needs to convey the idea that Eddie is indeed a cadaver dog but somewhere inside him there’s a chip for blood scent and that is something he believes can be switched on at any moment. He cries that Eddie is a cadaver dog while simultaneously casting doubt over the dog’s alerts.

No, Eddie was never a blood dog. To say he was is to intentionally mislead.

When the Rat says “Oh yes, you absolutely can” untrain a dog to alert to an odour he’s already been conditioned to alert to, he’s either being ignorant or misleading. When he then follows that statement with “And Grime did”, there’s no question what the liar is trying to do.




14. Blood denying, the new blasphemy?

We have left for last in terms of training the question that hasn’t been asked but that our critics have refused to answer: what is the reason to have Eddie trained for both blood and cadaver?

That THE question one needn’t even to be asking as one expected to have seen answered by now. And one hasn’t. In fact, none of our critics has even approached it within their line of sight.

What is the added value in training Eddie for blood? No one has given a reason and no one will. Because there isn’t one.

We won’t even get into the fact that there are dogs, like Keela, trained specifically for blood. Let’s leave that obvious fact aside.

Why even train Eddie for blood?

We all have experienced that human blood is a common occurrence in every household for the most diverse of reasons.

Even in uninhabited homes have traces of blood in them because of accidents that happen in their construction.

Every house that has had a woman with the ages between puberty and menopause residing in it is certain to have traces of blood.

It would be very strange if a dog trained to alert to blood to not alert multiple times in every single home. So why train a dog that will most certainly alert to every single house it enters? Sorry to be repetitive but we have to say it again: absurd, isn’t it? Yes, it is.

Let’s now look at just crime scenes. Again, why train an EVRD dog for blood?

Does every suspicious death involve blood? No, two bloodless scenarios jump to mind immediately: strangling and poisoning. In both, no blood spilled so no blood expected. So even though the most expected fluid to be found in a crime scene there is no direct correlation between a crime and blood. Plus, as explained above, the vast majority of origins of blood found in any home comes from live human beings, unrelated to any crime, even in homes where crimes have happened.

But there’s a direct correlation between a crime scene and death. The alerting to and only cadaver scent is an added asset in any murder investigation where a body no longer is present.

There is, from a logical point of view, absolutely no reason for training EVRD dogs for the scent of blood.

Yet our critics say that there is and present one and only one reason: Grime said so, in the only phrase he is said to have said the word “live” – if he indeed did say it.

They hold on to that phrase disregarding all that is written on the subject.

They don’t even attempt to explain why that phrase contradicts all else that is said in the same paragraph it appears.

Nor even try to explain why Grime changed from referring to Eddie in the singular form in the entire paragraph to “they” in that particular sentence.

When directly and specifically asked to explain what the “etc” in that paragraph and “other fluids” mentioned elsewhere to which Eddie is then supposedly also trained for means, they simply go silent.

Instead they barricade themselves into stating that Grime said it once (did he?) so it must be. Not up for debate, and will hold a gun to the head of whoever dares even try.

Meanwhile, the Rat speaks as if it’s a proven fact that Eddie is indeed a blood dog, whilst saying at the same time and only to confuse that Eddie was trained for cadaver:

“No idea who TextUSA is. Never spoken to him.
But you’re talking bollocks, that’s for sure.
You seem to think the dogs are trained to detect a substance.
Hence you’re confusing yourself with blood from the living and blood from the dead.
The dogs don’t know what a substance is strictly speaking - they’re reacting to scent signatures.
Eddie was trained to detect blood. But then - the “E in EVRD - he was trained beyond blood.
The reason he can be claimed to be trained to detect blood but not alert to it, the reason Grime can paradoxically say the dog can identify the smell of blood from a living or dead human, but not react to it when it is from a living human, is because the dog was trained to alert to the signature scent of cadaverine compounds. Eddie would alert to cadaverous compounds. When he alerted, if blood was found as a result, the reason Grime could be so cocksure that Eddie had had a hit of body residue was because even though blood had been found, it was not the blood the dog was alerting to. The dog was alerting to a scent signature beyond the blood... the signature of human death.”

“No idea who TextUSA [we were missing being called that] is. Never spoken to him [gender]” is as transparent a lie as saying that Eddie is “trained to detect blood but not alert to it”.



15. Grime, the new Brian

If Grime had joked to a friend that God had created the world in only 5 days, these people would immediately have the Bible burned. Martin Grime is their new messiah.

But he’s a messiah only in that particular translated phrase, all other things he’s said, are not to be taken with such ferocious orthodoxy.

Our critics want everyone to follow Grime in the same way the crowd follows Brian in the clip above.

Brian pleads “please, please, please listen  you don’t need to follow me (...) you don’t need to follow anybody, you’ve got to think for yourselves, you’re all individuals (...) you’ve all got to work it out for yourselves, don’t let anyone tell you what to do, otherwise...” and his mother, who feels she can speak for Brian, comes, pulls his ear and says categorically “that’s enough, that’s enough”.

Could there be a better analogy to what is happening in trying to make out Eddie is also a blood dog? How many “Brian’s mothers” are out there who feel they can speak for Brian, saying conclusively “that’s enough, that’s enough, Eddie is a blood dog, Grime said so in that phrase”.

Only missing is seeing someone pulling Grime’s ear but God know what he must be feeling when he reads the most absurd things that are supposedly to have come out from his mouth.

In reality, even the ear-pulling has equivalence as although people accept that there’s an unwritten injunction to stop Martin Smith from speaking freely, it seems they don’t allow for the exact same thing happening with Martin Grime. A Maddie case unwritten legal injunction that only applies to men named Martin related to the case.

And before people say we are mocking Grime by comparing him to Brian, we are not as there are a lot of similarities between them: Brian is an honest man who gets caught up in events bigger than himself and who sees his words get twisted by others in the pursuit of their own agendas.

Like Brian, Grime is made out to be a messiah, when he’s only a human being doing his job for which he was trained and certified for. And like any other professional, he should have all his actions and words critically analysed and not simply followed blindly.

That phrase, out of context, is the sole commandment in their stone tablet of those defending that Eddie is a blood dog. And if anyone dares to think for themselves they are a heretic, deserving to be stoned to death, for having blasphemed this new Jehovah’s name in vain.

Ask any of those who stated adamantly that Eddie is also a blood dog what is the added value for him to be that, what one reason to even train an EVRD dog to live blood scent and they won’t answer.

They will dodge the bullet, they will say they haven’t enough academic qualifications or say one hasn’t the qualifications or even the education to even begin to understand.

But what they will keep banging on about is that Brian, sorry Grime has said (has he?) that it is, so it is. IT IS, they shout!

We will wait for someone to inform us what is the reason and/or added value of having Eddie trained as a blood dog.



16. Cross-trained dogs
.
Unlike our detractors who cannot present a single reason for a dog to be trained for both blood and cadaver, we can definitely offer a reason for EVRD dogs to be trained for only one scent, cadaver scent, and that reason is summed up in one word: reliability.

As we have shown, there are no limitations in training dogs to different scents. In fact, if there’s an objective reason, a purpose that’s an added value, then they should be trained for more than one scent.

For example, Search and Rescue (SAR) dogs are usually cross trained for dead and live human scents. The reason is simple to understand, they are meant to find people, dead or alive. For people lost in the wilderness but the most obvious use of these dogs is in disaster areas such as earthquakes and floods.

However, there is an inconvenience for this:

“Another potential issue is whether dogs should be expected to identify more than one scent.

There is evidence to suggest that, to avoid false positives, dogs should be trained to only identify one type of scent. When comparing live scent dogs (for finding living people) with dogs trained to find either live or cadaver scents depending on the command they are given (cross-trained dogs), it was found that the cross-trained dogs performed worse when looking for live scent in areas with a mix of live and cadaver scent, just cadaver scent, or no scent at all. Cross-trained dogs are inclined to indicate at the scent they are not supposed to be looking for, possibly because they have received rewards for signalling at that scent in the past. This may be less of an issue when looking for remains, but when dogs are looking for survivors in rubble after a major disaster, this can cost searchers valuable time.”

(from Mr Watcher’s (NotTextusa) blog)

In natural catastrophes we would say that there are clearly 3 different phases in rescue missions. In the first hours and days, the priority is to find the living, followed by the stage when there is the searching for the dead in the hope of finding living and lastly the phase where the focus is the recovery of the dead, never losing hope of a miracle.

In the 2 last phases, to use a dog trained solely on live scents would be absurd. However, as the living are their priority, dogs trained to alert to live scents should be used, thus the use of cross-trained dogs.

But as can be seen above, the preference is to use single-scent trained dogs. Either for live or for dead.

To this question:

“Q. My question concerns the wisdom of dual certifications. I have a two (2) year old pup locally certified in Area/Live search through our SAR team. I have truly enjoyed the training and the time spent with my K-9 partner but, the truth of the matter is, we don't get many callouts for this discipline. I have done some disaster training too with the dog but I'm considering adding HRD to the curriculum so that I can better serve my community and work the dog more. What would be the considerations, the pros and cons, and the feasibility of tackling this?”

Susan Bulanda says:

“A. This is a good question and one that has been hotly debated; that is, can you cross train a dog? To fully understand the dynamics that is involved in cross training a dog, we have to look at this from a canine behaviorist point of view. (I am a certified animal behavior consultant.)

(…)

Therefore a dog can be trained to do multiple tasks and they will not get confused or make a mistake. Cross training a dog is no different than a dog who knows how to behave one way in a given situation and another way in a different situation.

(…)

My husband, Larry and I have successfully cross trained SAR dogs for many years. When you have a small unit or few units in an area, it can be very helpful to have a dog that can switch from one discipline to another as needed. Some of my SAR dogs were also trained to do other non-SAR related jobs as well.

To successfully cross train a dog requires a few rules that cannot be broken. First, you must be able to clearly communicate to the dog, exactly what the task is and the circumstances.

Next, you must use a different command/word for each discipline so that the dog knows what you expect him to do. The dog must have a different signal for each discipline. For example, one signal for HRD, one for live finds, one for drowning, etc. Lastly, you must trust your dog and be able to "read” what the dog is communicating to you.”

As we have said all along, if Eddie had been trained to both blood and cadaver he would have been able to tell the scents apart, and would give different alerts to each scent. That was not the case, Eddie is trained as a single scent dog.

Susan Bulanda then adds:

“The only drawback to cross training a dog is that some authorities will not trust the dog’s findings if they are cross trained. They may feel that the dog could make a mistake and the evidence may not hold up in court.

However, in all the years I have been in the field, I have never found this to be a problem and have never had to go to court. When I first started in SAR, DNA evidence was not perfected. Today we have DNA and other ways to prove whatever a dog may find. A handler must decide how many times the cross trained dog will be able to assist the search vs. how many times they will have to submit evidence in court. It is a personal decision.”

She’s basically saying, to cross-train a dog is to have lost an asset to provide evidence in court. SAR dogs are to save lives, not to be used in court. EVRD dogs are used to exclusively to help in investigations and are used, as they should be, more and more in courts.

So why would Martin Grime cross-train Eddie? He wouldn’t and he didn’t.



17. The decomposing unviscerated piglet non-controversy

Even though he is single-scent dog, the pros try to make that controversial. One just has to imagine the field day they would have if Eddie had been trained for two!

One just has to look at the fuss the pros have made about Eddie having been trained in the UK with uneviscerated piglets.

If the UK authorities have determined that the scent of decomposing uneviscerated piglets is reliably equivalent to the human cadaver scent, then arguing against that is not to doubt Eddie’s alerts but to doubt the capability, competence and intelligence of the authorities that determined that.

For all legal purposes in the UK, saying that a dog alerts to the scent of decomposing uneviscerated piglets is exactly the same as saying that the dog alerts to human cadaver scent.

When some try to joke and say “Eddie, the dog that smells pigs?” to discredit the dog’s capabilities the joke is on them because they don’t even realise what great ignorance they are showing.

The first question raised by any handler with a dog with just UK training, is to see what the probabilities are of the presence of decomposing uneviscerated piglets in the sites and/or alerted objects alerted to by the EVRD dog.

If the probability is nil, as is in 99.9999% of the cases, then it’s human cadaver that has been alerted to as determined by of the British cadaver dog certification authorities.

People like the Frog, try to convince people that there may have been contamination from a dead pig in all McCann related Eddie alerts but they forget that it’s not enough for the pig or piglet to have simply died.

The pig or piglet has to have been dead, has to have been uneviscerated and has to have been left unattended in situ for at least a hour and a half. Only then will it have produced cadaver compound in enough quantity to trigger the nose of a cadaver dog.

As there is no explanation for a pig or a piglet to have died, to have been left uneviscerated and unattended for more than a hour and a half in all McCann related Eddie’s alerts, then Eddie only alerted to human decomposition, the scent of a cadaver, as per the ruling of the Portuguese justice system.
 


18. Mark Perlin

Readers will remember what the 2 red lines were for the Rat, one redder than the other, the 2 subjects he lied about: Eddie has to be a blood dog as well and Mark Perlin will not bring any added value to the case.

Isn’t this so much Rat? Of course it is:

“IF - and it’s a big “IF” the samples need any more analysis than they’ve had and that is to say that doing so might add something more meaningful to the possibility of prosecution, the PJ have already done it, or have a plan on where to do it.”

Why have the gang gone silent on Perlin? Why have they suddenly stopped supporting him?

Because when they thought that they could present a convincing case (and they were really convinced they could), whatever Mark Perlin had to say would be irrelevant - remember telling the truth as much as possible to be convincing when lying?

Who would doubt them when Mark Perlin’s supporters were saying that Eddie was also a blood dog? No one, they really thought.

But Mark Perlin’s findings with Eddie being just an EVRD dog, then they become damning. Very damning.

Remember the good old days when it was fashionable to support Mark Perlin? That was such a long, long time ago... over what? Two months ago? Three? Such a long time ago that memory fails to recollect...


19. Conclusion

Eddie, unlike the Rat tries convince people, has not been trained first on blood and then on cadaver. He was not been desensitised to blood, he was not trained to stop alerting to blood.

He was simply not trained to alert to the scent of blood.

Most importantly, there is absolutely no reason for him to have been trained to it in the first place.

People trying to convey the idea that an EVRD dog is selected from trained blood dogs are just being as ridiculous as those who would say that a Semtex-trained dog was selected from a pack of Mr Muscle Oven Cleaner trained dogs. Absurd.

But this exercise also serves to observe and understand the tactics of those wanting to undermine Eddie.

They rely on the fact that “people don’t want to be informed, they want to feel informed”, the famous saying inside Fox News when Robert Ailes launched the network in 1996.

That’s why the Rat and the gang won’t commit to anything. They never do. They all hold inconsistent positions, keeping onboard people who just choose which position chimes with theirs. Not many look closely and see the inconsistencies, falling easily for sound bites.

Not surprisingly, we are victims of this. Some have wised up on realising that the opinion they had formed about us came not from themselves but from what they had been told about us from those who, by simply being the most vocal appeared to know the most about the case.

These heinous people only have to write “12 years today #MadeleineMcCann aged 3 disappeared whilst on holiday in Praia da Luz with her family.. She was badly let down before & after her disappearance ... One day all the lies will unfold.. She must get justice.. She deserves it.. 💖” and claim the status of untouchable anti.

Once that status is conquered, these people can then lie about literally anything just as long as it’s short of Maddie having been abducted.

All else is a game, all else can be distorted, deceived about, ignored when convenient, lied about because the natural reaction from people who are only seeking to fulfill a need to feel they have been informed instead of seeking to be informed will be to think that it is impossible for someone who wrote the above to then lie about the death of a 4 yr old, denying her justice and desecrating her memory.

Only, unfortunately, that is not impossible at all.

By playing simultaneously the black and white pieces the other side thought they could win the game easily.

They counted on their charm and on people’s laziness to educate themselves. People want to absorb information but so want to be spoonfed. Nothing like an opportunistic hand and its poisonous and deceitful spoon to mislead and misinform.

Once that is achieved, they thought they could sacrifice pieces of the game senselessly and all would be accepted by the lazy.

A rook could be taken by a pawn and the queen by a knight and all were expected to be silent about their bafflement and simply trust in the hands they have put their trust in.

The sacrifices of those pieces were being made by an “anti” so there has to be a reason behind it and if they can’t see it, it’s their fault and never the deceit of the “anti”.

That’s why they truly expected that if they said today, from the mouths of the dominant “antis” in the social media, the exact same words that were said by pros in the past, that would not be contested and would even be accepted.

(from our blog)

They really thought they held such supremacy (“I have the blog, the FB group, and media contacts”, Twitter not even mentioned so much was the way they dominated it then) that they could easily crush any opposition just by the sheer size of their numbers, social media and media they controlled.

Fortunately things have not gone well for them, the players they thought they could rely on have bolted for cover, and those left to hold the baby hurt more their cause than help it, so the Rat is literally their last standing character.

We say this because of all their characters up to date, the Rat was the one to tread the closest to the truth. To go full circle on this post, to use the truth to deceive.

The fact that they had to deploy a character that had to toe the line of truth as the Rat has, means that the time was either critical or that they have run out of moves to play. Most likely both together on placing all their bets on the new foreseeable Prime-Minister.

Is the Rat clobbering the pros? No, not really. He’s just throwing the punches in rigged fights where both he and his opponents know it won’t hurt.

To be convincing, the Rat has to punch convincingly. From what we have seen, he’s given up trying to be convincing.

The irony is that the Rat outside the case whines about being hurt, on a personal level, by the consequences of these times of our lives ruled and determined by fake news. If we live in such fake news times, where fact is moulded to the agenda, we have to thank people like the Rat as he has played a relevant role in making blatant lies pass as truth for the past 12 years. He can now go and look in the nearest mirror and ask himself if the 30 coins of silver were worth it.

We are starting to believe in Karma. Maybe if we all believed hard enough in Karma, Karma will one day pay all people in the Maddie case all they are due. In good and bad coins. That would be satisfying.