\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

Dogs don't lie in Portugal either. In fact, dogs don't lie PERIOD. THEY have no reason to, unlike perpretators.

interested wrote:Dogs don't lie in Portugal either. In fact, dogs don't lie PERIOD. THEY have no reason to, unlike perpretators.

They don't know how to lie in any case!

A retired copper who I am aquainted with does, however, caution over the use of dogs, just going from his past experiences when he was serving. Now I am assuming he is not talking about cadaver dogs here because his CID service was not that extensive, but his uniform service was and he came into contact with plenty of police dogs and their handlers. He made the point that the dogs often led the police up the wrong path, so to speak, and he often found the use of dogs more of a hindrance than a help. I must add here that this aquaintenance achieved his 30 years in the police with distinction and was highly regarded. He was happy to be 'just a Sergeant' and does not have much time for some of those coppers he knew who achieved higher ranks through being fast tracked just because they had been to Uni. He said these higher ranking coppers often came to him for advice because he had worked 'on the ground' and had gained a wealth of experience, unlike some of them.

Dogs are not infallible and if you look at the videos again it is noticeable that at times Martin Grimes "guides" the dogs to the area he wants them to search.Also, they were called in months after Madeleine disappeared , the Portugese Police used dogs within 24 hours in search of Madeleine, pity the dogs hadn't been called in sooner.

Panda wrote:Dogs are not infallible and if you look at the videos again it is noticeable that at times Martin Grimes "guides" the dogs to the area he wants them to search.Also, they were called in months after Madeleine disappeared , the Portugese Police used dogs within 24 hours in search of Madeleine, pity the dogs hadn't been called in sooner.

It's not unusual to have to guide dogs to a particular area or place, scents aren't always detectable at a distance and it would be pointless saying to a dog " go search around the back of a vehicle", they wouldn't understand, so they often have to directed where to go to try and ' sniff ' out a scent.

ELI wrote:

Panda wrote:Dogs are not infallible and if you look at the videos again it is noticeable that at times Martin Grimes "guides" the dogs to the area he wants them to search.Also, they were called in months after Madeleine disappeared , the Portugese Police used dogs within 24 hours in search of Madeleine, pity the dogs hadn't been called in sooner.

It's not unusual to have to guide dogs to a particular area or place, scents aren't always detectable at a distance and it would be pointless saying to a dog " go search around the back of a vehicle", they wouldn't understand, so they often have to directed where to go to try and ' sniff ' out a scent.

Morning Eli......that's not what I saw in a Documentary a while ago where dogs were used to smell drugs when luggage was going around on the Carousel......they were jumping on the luggage where they detected drugs and the handler had a hard time chasing them .

Panda wrote:

ELI wrote:

Panda wrote:Dogs are not infallible and if you look at the videos again it is noticeable that at times Martin Grimes "guides" the dogs to the area he wants them to search.Also, they were called in months after Madeleine disappeared , the Portugese Police used dogs within 24 hours in search of Madeleine, pity the dogs hadn't been called in sooner.

It's not unusual to have to guide dogs to a particular area or place, scents aren't always detectable at a distance and it would be pointless saying to a dog " go search around the back of a vehicle", they wouldn't understand, so they often have to directed where to go to try and ' sniff ' out a scent.

Morning Eli......that's not what I saw in a Documentary a while ago where dogs were used to smell drugs when luggage was going around on the Carousel......they were jumping on the luggage where they detected drugs and the handler had a hard time chasing them .

I think it will depend on the circumstances in which the dog is working. The carousel dogs search the same thing, day in day out. They know it is that they are to search. In the circumstances of the car park in PDL video, there were a number of cars, but also and more importantly a large open space. They would still be there if the dogs were to go and have a good old sniff at every corner of that building.

It was pointed out by Mr Grimes at one stage, that the dogs run to and fro, away from and back to the car because they first identify the scent but they try to establish where the scent is strongest. So they will run away from the object, then realise the scent is fading, then run in another direction.

Just a guess on my part, but I think Grimes would know his dogs and their reactions. He will have a good idea as to what they are "saying" before the stop and make the official indication, by either freezing or barking. I am sure he is able to tell when their interest has been sparked in an area as opposed to them happily running around, which is what it looks like to us.

Hi mossman , I read it somewhere on here a while ago that the Police sold the dogs to Grimes because they had passed their sell buy date. Perhaps if they had been been recruited earlier, who knows???? Obviously their findings weren't considered strong enough to be used to charge the McCanns. I think the Portugese dogs were more like bloodhounds, not as sophisticated.

Looking back mossman, the whole case should have been handled better, the Police knew from their early statements and those of Bar Staff and other witnesses that the Tapas 9 statements did not agree, so had they called for a recon then maybe we wouldn't be still debating the case.

[quote="Panda"]Hi mossman , I read it somewhere on here a while ago that the Police sold the dogs to Grimes because they had passed their sell buy date. Perhaps if they had been been recruited earlier, who knows???? Obviously their findings weren't considered strong enough to be used to charge the McCanns. I think the Portugese dogs were more like bloodhounds, not as sophisticated.

Looking back mossman, the whole case should have been handled better, the Police knew from their early statements and those of Bar Staff and other witnesses that the Tapas 9 statements did not agree, so had they called for a recon then maybe we wouldn't be still debating the case.[/quo



Morning Panda. I know Grimes retired from the force and he took the dogs. When I say "took" I don't know how they came into his possession, perhaps they were bought. How it works in UK I do not know, but here the police dogs are very much part of the handlers family, they go home every night with them and if the dogs are close to retirement age when their handler is retiring they very often go with their handler.

However, I know for certain that Keela went to the FBI with Martin Grimes. I do not know what Eddie did but I had the impression Eddie went too. Grimes was training two further dogs Lewis and Morse. Morse has made the headlines, I have not heard mention of Lewis since training, perhaps he did not make the cut.

All of the dogs are continuously trained and tested very very regularly. When not working they are being tested to ensure they remain accurate. As we know little Eddie has since died but if they are getting on in years and their accuracy dwindling this is spotted during training and testing, not during live cases.

I genuinely do not think they were past their sell by date at any stage in the PDL investigation. Whilst Eddie's evidence is very much a moot point (until a body is found), Keelas evidence cannot be disputed. She says there was evidence there and there was, they took it for testing. Neither of the dogs name names. It is important to remember too that they usually do not send Keela in to inspect an area, unless Eddie has made an alert. He made an alert and then Keela found the physical evidence. I do not think that was co-incidence, it would not happen in the different locations each time.

The PJ dogs were very different dogs. They were live scent tracker dogs, live scent will not remain for an extended period of time, largely because it is outside and will be contaminated with other atmospheric odours. They also worked off a towel given to them by McCann who stated it had been used by Madeleine. Why ? A just worn t shirt would contain her scent for certain no room for any doubt. Instead a towel was given, could have been used by anybody. The PJ dogs worked with what they were given, so we immediately have to rely on the input of humans to ensure the dogs are allowed to do their job properly. So whilst I am not so familiar with the PJ dogs and their workings, what little I do know would not lead me to doubt their capabilities but I would doubt what the humans gave them to help them do their work.

Not so with Grimes and his dogs. They need nothing but their noses. They are not asked to identify a specific person, only a dead one.

I have 110% confidence in those dogs and their handler, both in their work now and at that time. Their training was second to none, Eddie trained on actual cadaver scent. Manufactured cadaver scent can be purchased, some dogs are trained that way, that scent did not work for Eddie. He wanted the real deal so to speak and would not indicate at the manufactured stuff. During training the dogs are not rewarded with treats for being right, this is to ensure they do not fall into the trap of alerting just to get a treat. The training is detailed and difficult and I honestly think it is something that requires an unbelievable talent on the part of the trainer and handler.

Grimes is now training his dogs at the Body Farm in USA, the only place in the world where dogs are trained on real cadavers. They train the human FBI agents there too in aspects with regard to burial and retrival of bodies and how to gather evidence etc. A lot has been written about Grimes and his dogs over the years, as there has been about many of those involved, but nothing that I can see has ever led to the possibility of him or the dogs being discredited. No attempt has worked.

Very recent cases have shown us that the work of these dogs and their findings are gaining more and more credibility. Back in the days of PDL they were perhaps an unknown entity to many, their "evidence" very much required back up, be that a confession or a body. This is no longer the case, as we have seen.

I am not normally so unbending in an opinion, there is always room for what ifs. I spent quite a while reading about the EVRD's and how they work, when I became interested in this case, largely because for me to believe the dogs is to disbelieve the parents. In order to believe the parents I had to disbelieve the dogs. I cannot find a way to do that.

I believe Martin Grimes and I believe his dogs. I have long wondered why he retired and if the rubbish written about him because of the McCann case had any part in his decision to go to USA. It is an ill wind that blows somebody good though, he and his dogs are going from strenght to strenght with the FBI and the profile of this science has been raised considerably, thanks to him.

[quote="mossman"]

Panda wrote:Hi mossman , I read it somewhere on here a while ago that the Police sold the dogs to Grimes because they had passed their sell buy date. Perhaps if they had been been recruited earlier, who knows???? Obviously their findings weren't considered strong enough to be used to charge the McCanns. I think the Portugese dogs were more like bloodhounds, not as sophisticated.

Looking back mossman, the whole case should have been handled better, the Police knew from their early statements and those of Bar Staff and other witnesses that the Tapas 9 statements did not agree, so had they called for a recon then maybe we wouldn't be still debating the case.[/quo



Morning Panda. I know Grimes retired from the force and he took the dogs. When I say "took" I don't know how they came into his possession, perhaps they were bought. How it works in UK I do not know, but here the police dogs are very much part of the handlers family, they go home every night with them and if the dogs are close to retirement age when their handler is retiring they very often go with their handler.

However, I know for certain that Keela went to the FBI with Martin Grimes. I do not know what Eddie did but I had the impression Eddie went too. Grimes was training two further dogs Lewis and Morse. Morse has made the headlines, I have not heard mention of Lewis since training, perhaps he did not make the cut.

All of the dogs are continuously trained and tested very very regularly. When not working they are being tested to ensure they remain accurate. As we know little Eddie has since died but if they are getting on in years and their accuracy dwindling this is spotted during training and testing, not during live cases.

I genuinely do not think they were past their sell by date at any stage in the PDL investigation. Whilst Eddie's evidence is very much a moot point (until a body is found), Keelas evidence cannot be disputed. She says there was evidence there and there was, they took it for testing. Neither of the dogs name names. It is important to remember too that they usually do not send Keela in to inspect an area, unless Eddie has made an alert. He made an alert and then Keela found the physical evidence. I do not think that was co-incidence, it would not happen in the different locations each time.

The PJ dogs were very different dogs. They were live scent tracker dogs, live scent will not remain for an extended period of time, largely because it is outside and will be contaminated with other atmospheric odours. They also worked off a towel given to them by McCann who stated it had been used by Madeleine. Why ? A just worn t shirt would contain her scent for certain no room for any doubt. Instead a towel was given, could have been used by anybody. The PJ dogs worked with what they were given, so we immediately have to rely on the input of humans to ensure the dogs are allowed to do their job properly. So whilst I am not so familiar with the PJ dogs and their workings, what little I do know would not lead me to doubt their capabilities but I would doubt what the humans gave them to help them do their work.

Not so with Grimes and his dogs. They need nothing but their noses. They are not asked to identify a specific person, only a dead one.

I have 110% confidence in those dogs and their handler, both in their work now and at that time. Their training was second to none, Eddie trained on actual cadaver scent. Manufactured cadaver scent can be purchased, some dogs are trained that way, that scent did not work for Eddie. He wanted the real deal so to speak and would not indicate at the manufactured stuff. During training the dogs are not rewarded with treats for being right, this is to ensure they do not fall into the trap of alerting just to get a treat. The training is detailed and difficult and I honestly think it is something that requires an unbelievable talent on the part of the trainer and handler.

Grimes is now training his dogs at the Body Farm in USA, the only place in the world where dogs are trained on real cadavers. They train the human FBI agents there too in aspects with regard to burial and retrival of bodies and how to gather evidence etc. A lot has been written about Grimes and his dogs over the years, as there has been about many of those involved, but nothing that I can see has ever led to the possibility of him or the dogs being discredited. No attempt has worked.

Very recent cases have shown us that the work of these dogs and their findings are gaining more and more credibility. Back in the days of PDL they were perhaps an unknown entity to many, their "evidence" very much required back up, be that a confession or a body. This is no longer the case, as we have seen.

I am not normally so unbending in an opinion, there is always room for what ifs. I spent quite a while reading about the EVRD's and how they work, when I became interested in this case, largely because for me to believe the dogs is to disbelieve the parents. In order to believe the parents I had to disbelieve the dogs. I cannot find a way to do that.

I believe Martin Grimes and I believe his dogs. I have long wondered why he retired and if the rubbish written about him because of the McCann case had any part in that decision. It is an ill wind that blows somebody good though, he and his dogs are going from strenght to strenght with the FBI and the profile of this science has been raised considerably, thanks to him.

excellent post Mossman, with you every word

I wish I could find that Police Report about the Dogs being sold to Grimes mossman, but when Grimes bought them he was setting up on his own .....he was engaged on the recommendation of someone, not Leicester Police or SY, I'm sure someone here will remember who.

This case has more holes than a Colander, for instance, when Gerry went to the house to collect DNA, Madeleine's room has not been slept in for months, yet Gerry collects a pillow case , one item when there were any amount of objects with her DNA.....this could not conclusively prove Madeleine was in the car. What about all her clothes and the sandals ? As a Doctor he would have known more than most the importance of DNA.

ELI wrote:

Panda wrote:Dogs are not infallible and if you look at the videos again it is noticeable that at times Martin Grimes "guides" the dogs to the area he wants them to search.Also, they were called in months after Madeleine disappeared , the Portugese Police used dogs within 24 hours in search of Madeleine, pity the dogs hadn't been called in sooner.

It's not unusual to have to guide dogs to a particular area or place, scents aren't always detectable at a distance and it would be pointless saying to a dog " go search around the back of a vehicle", they wouldn't understand, so they often have to directed where to go to try and ' sniff ' out a scent.

Hi ELi, I'm with you here, from my experience
dogs require and expect to be 'asked' to nose
around a certain confined space, or the dog will
not know what the specific task entails.
I sometimes hide tuna in my garage, and only
when I say "go find tuna" does he always go
sniffing until he finds it. He never runs straight
to the garage when the door is open to hunt
for it. Dam smart them dogs.

Panda wrote:I wish I could find that Police Report about the Dogs being sold to Grimes mossman, but when Grimes bought them he was setting up on his own .....he was engaged on the recommendation of someone, not Leicester Police or SY, I'm sure someone here will remember who.

This case has more holes than a Colander, for instance, when Gerry went to the house to collect DNA, Madeleine's room has not been slept in for months, yet Gerry collects a pillow case , one item when there were any amount of objects with her DNA.....this could not conclusively prove Madeleine was in the car. What about all her clothes and the sandals ? As a Doctor he would have known more than most the importance of DNA.

Gosh Panda, I am not doubting you about them being sold please do not think that, I simply have never taken any notice of how he came to have them and sorry there is an error in my last post, I will fix it. I should have said I wonder why he retired from the force but also wonder if his decision to go to America was driven by the McCann case. Did he know they would try to discredit him at every turn, hence no possibility of work in the UK.

I tried to read about the DNA evidence testing and that UK company that were involved and it went over my head I am afraid, it confused me. I still do not know whether the samples were not sufficient enough to prove whose they were or if they were proven to be Madeleines but this information was later whoosed. If anyone knows an idiots guide to these reports it would be great.

The point about the dogs and the samples though, is that they said there were samples in different places, and there was. Under the tiles, hidden to the naked eye, but the dogs found them. The cadaver dog went first, got a scent, then the blood dog went in and the proof was uncovered. So the cadaver dog could stand there all day barking and we would never know if he is right or wrong unless a body is under the floorboards, but the blood dog will corroberate his findings if you like, and the blood dog gave us physical proof. So if we are happy with that set up for apartment 5a, then I cannot doubt the signals were right at the flower bed, the clothes or the car.

However we could say there was some strange happening in 5a years ago that nobody can remember, hence the cadaver odour and the blood under the tiles. But then Kates own clothes, cuddlecat cannot be explained as easily, but a real far fetched explanation is they transferred to the clothes from the air in 5a. The car - they were just unlucky enough to get the one hire car in Portugal that just happened to reek of cadaver scent and have evidence of blood and bodily fluids. But and it is a big but even if those crazy explanations are true, the dogs are still right.

It is the dna testing that is the big question in this part of the story, that is where the EVRD evidence has been let down.

@ Mossman
The PJ investigated the possibility of someone having died in the apartment previous to 3/5/07 very thoroughly. I think they went back many years and the building isn't that old. It seems no one died in the apartment prior to Maddie.

The counter arguments of the McCanns are rather desperate and focus on explaining how the cadaver scent and blood came to be there. Same with the car, the defensive statements were more revealing than if they'd just come clean.
Put yourself in their position except your daughter really has been abducted. The news of cadaver odour in 5a and blood would mean to you that she was killed by the abductor.
In the car: there must be a mistake, it's just not possible to have her DNA in the car - perhaps it got mixed up with Amelie using Maddie's sandals - would be more likely than the rotting meat, nappies and Maddie's dirty pyjamas.
But instead we have cadaver odour in 5a that must be from someone who died there years before and in the car from rotting meat. Rotting meat behind the sofa might not have occurred to them - the odds against finding cadaver odour in those two places coming from separate cadavers is vanishingly small.

Wilst on the topic of smart canines.....
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/

Wasn,t the blood in 5a down to a previous tenant cutting himself shaving???

The first FSS report confirmed Madeleine's DNA in the car, this was later amended to read blood was found but it could not be identified as Madeleines . Remember the LP Officer Stuart Prior ranting that 15 of 19 alleles match would be enough to bring a charge in the U.K. ?

Well, Rachel Mapilly e-mailed him a few months later asking whether he thought it worthwhile to attend the proposed recon....he replied that "no useful purpose would be served".!!!!! I wrote to him in 2008 about this suggesting he was supposed to be helping the PJ and a recon might have proved very useful .....wonder why he never replied???

tigger wrote:@ Mossman
The PJ investigated the possibility of someone having died in the apartment previous to 3/5/07 very thoroughly. I think they went back many years and the building isn't that old. It seems no one died in the apartment prior to Maddie.

The counter arguments of the McCanns are rather desperate and focus on explaining how the cadaver scent and blood came to be there. Same with the car, the defensive statements were more revealing than if they'd just come clean.
Put yourself in their position except your daughter really has been abducted. The news of cadaver odour in 5a and blood would mean to you that she was killed by the abductor.
In the car: there must be a mistake, it's just not possible to have her DNA in the car - perhaps it got mixed up with Amelie using Maddie's sandals - would be more likely than the rotting meat, nappies and Maddie's dirty pyjamas.
But instead we have cadaver odour in 5a that must be from someone who died there years before and in the car from rotting meat. Rotting meat behind the sofa might not have occurred to them - the odds against finding cadaver odour in those two places coming from separate cadavers is vanishingly small.

Tigger, I do not for one second believe there is an innocent explanation for any of the findings, be it dna or cadaver. I was only trying to say even if there were ridiculous explanations, the dogs are still right, they found what they found. Therefore Gerry McCann claiming them to be unreliable is not a true statement. No surprise there.

It simply proves out the title of this thread - dogs do not lie. No they do not - they said there was dna there, and there was.

Gerry McCann thinks he is clever but he is not. He should have thought things through before going off on the defensive and rubbishing the dogs. He made a big mistake - he failed to realise that the dogs said many things, but the one thing they did not say is that it was Madeleine. In his rush to make excuses, he did not take that into account. It is he who assumed the dogs had said he was guilty - they never have - a guilty mind will think that way though.

@Mossman

That was an excellent post about the dogs. Thanks for giving us so much information. Not that I've ever doubted them for a minute anyway but interesting to read more about them.

Dazedandconfused, thank you, you are very kind. My opinion is an uneducated one, with some interesting facts thrown in, nothing more. I do not believe we have been told the truth about the DNA results. What a mistake the PJ made not keeping some samples in their own laboratories. They unfortunately bowed to what they felt was a superior testing method in the UK, were they not described as the best in the world or something. Then the samples destroyed because the PJ never asked for them back. That I cannot understand at all, dna has been held on file and subsequently used years later when new testing has been invented to solve old cases. Yet, luckily in this instance it is just gone, whooshed, unobtainable for ever. That surely must set alarm bells ringing somewhere in Scotland Yard or am I wrong in thinking that ? Are dna samples just thrown into the bin every day ?

marxman wrote:Wilst on the topic of smart canines.....
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/

Villain was an incredibly smart doggie. She helped to solve over 200 cases and was said to be able to detect accelerants at a lower level than the lab's technology could analyse.

Panda wrote:Wasn,t the blood in 5a down to a previous tenant cutting himself shaving???

The first FSS report confirmed Madeleine's DNA in the car, this was later amended to read blood was found but it could not be identified as Madeleines . Remember the LP Officer Stuart Prior ranting that 15 of 19 alleles match would be enough to bring a charge in the U.K. ?

Well, Rachel Mapilly e-mailed him a few months later asking whether he thought it worthwhile to attend the proposed recon....he replied that "no useful purpose would be served".!!!!! I wrote to him in 2008 about this suggesting he was supposed to be helping the PJ and a recon might have proved very useful .....wonder why he never replied???

In the Swedish interview earlier this year Gerry actually said that there'd been no point in doing the reconstruction because it would have shown up inconsistencies, it wouldn't have helped to find Madeleine...
Well, we wouldn't want inconsistencies to be revealed would we now, Dr. McC? Even if they would have helped to find Madeleine.

mossman wrote:Dazedandconfused, thank you, you are very kind. My opinion is an uneducated one, with some interesting facts thrown in, nothing more. I do not believe we have been told the truth about the DNA results. What a mistake the PJ made not keeping some samples in their own laboratories. They unfortunately bowed to what they felt was a superior testing method in the UK, were they not described as the best in the world or something. Then the samples destroyed because the PJ never asked for them back. That I cannot understand at all, dna has been held on file and subsequently used years later when new testing has been invented to solve old cases. Yet, luckily in this instance it is just gone, whooshed, unobtainable for ever. That surely must set alarm bells ringing somewhere in Scotland Yard or am I wrong in thinking that ? Are dna samples just thrown into the bin every day ?

That has to be a lie (from the FSS?) the excuse was that they were contaminated with DNA from the staff!!! All the DNA from the staff is on record just for the purpose of avoiding contamination and indeed detecting it quickly and easily. They were thrown out because of contamination. Which is rubbish because contaminated samples have been held for decades because future techniques may be able to get better results. As in the Lawrence case where one speck of blood has jailed the killers over a decade later.
No, imo the FSS were leant on, I even heard they had a personal visit from the great and good mr. Brown, who did so much for the McCanns from the word go but never met them or was photographed with them, even if at the time it would have netted him a lot of votes. Why not Mr. Brown?


I think that there simply isn't a totally reliable sample of Maddie's DNA to be had. The easiest way to get one would have been the blood from the heel prick that every baby is given at birth.

tigger wrote:

mossman wrote:Dazedandconfused, thank you, you are very kind. My opinion is an uneducated one, with some interesting facts thrown in, nothing more. I do not believe we have been told the truth about the DNA results. What a mistake the PJ made not keeping some samples in their own laboratories. They unfortunately bowed to what they felt was a superior testing method in the UK, were they not described as the best in the world or something. Then the samples destroyed because the PJ never asked for them back. That I cannot understand at all, dna has been held on file and subsequently used years later when new testing has been invented to solve old cases. Yet, luckily in this instance it is just gone, whooshed, unobtainable for ever. That surely must set alarm bells ringing somewhere in Scotland Yard or am I wrong in thinking that ? Are dna samples just thrown into the bin every day ?

That has to be a lie (from the FSS?) the excuse was that they were contaminated with DNA from the staff!!! All the DNA from the staff is on record just for the purpose of avoiding contamination and indeed detecting it quickly and easily. They were thrown out because of contamination. Which is rubbish because contaminated samples have been held for decades because future techniques may be able to get better results. As in the Lawrence case where one speck of blood has jailed the killers over a decade later.
No, imo the FSS were leant on, I even heard they had a personal visit from the great and good mr. Brown, who did so much for the McCanns from the word go but never met them or was photographed with them, even if at the time it would have netted him a lot of votes. Why not Mr. Brown?


I think that there simply isn't a totally reliable sample of Maddie's DNA to be had. The easiest way to get one would have been the blood from the heel prick that every baby is given at birth.

Tigger, I cannot be certain of this and I will have to check in the next day or so, but I believe the reason of the PJ not asking for the samples back as the reason for them being destroyed came from Amarals book. In the overall scheme of things where I read it is irrelevant, the important point being they were destroyed, but I have read it.

Mr Grime now works permanently for the FBI. At least he did the last time I had news. Keela and Eddie went with him. Eddie has sadly passed away from throat cancer but Keela was still working as was Morse.