Brought To Book by Dr. Martin Roberts

Another great commentary by Dr. Martin Roberts is available at www.mccannfiles.com (scroll down under 'latest news')

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html





EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com


By Dr Martin Roberts

17 December 2013





BROUGHT TO BOOK

As regards the question of whether the McCanns did or did not see fit to promote the Smith sighting to a wider public all those years ago, it has recently been claimed that Kate McCann has since devoted half a dozen pages (of her book madeleine) to the 'Smith sighting'.

Did she by Jove?

Instances of the name 'Smith' contained within the book sum to zero. It does not even feature in the Index.

There is however an entry which reads: Irish family, see man carrying child on Rua da Escola Primária 98, 328–9, 365.

That appears to be four pages where the topic is mentioned (not 'devoted to'), not six, and the last reference is an error in any case (the Smith sighting per se is not referred to). The total coverage amounts to little more than a page.

Well what else should one expect from the semi-literate? Mind you, some of what is said on those very pages is, without question, extraordinary.

"Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts." (p. 328)

Which parts might they be – Adult male carrying young girl? What about the man's short versus long hair, travelling West versus East, or holding a seemingly dormant child wearing a long-sleeved top vertically, as opposed to cradling one in short-sleeves horizontally? Do such details not matter then?

Heaven protect all NHS surgical patients from the anaesthetist capable of confusing Oxygen with Nitrous Oxide, both gases being administered from canisters almost identical in parts (size, shape, valves and metal – colour and labelling don't count).

"Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don't think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically?" (p. 328-9)

How right you are. Assumptions really are the most dangerous of things. Had you but waited a further two years this very question could have been avoided altogether, as we now know that a father has come forward to identify himself and his daughter – We have been told so by none other than DCI Redwood of the Metropolitan Police.

No less extraordinary than these confused observations are equally confused observations occurring elsewhere within the same tome.
"The most critical question relating to the use of the dog alerts as evidence is how likely is the dog's alert to be correct. In this regard, the only testing of these handler and dog teams recorded an abysmal performance. Here 'the basis' for the possible past presence of human remains is that there is a 20 or 40 per cent chance that a dog's 'alert' was correct. In other words, with respect to residual odour, the dog-handler teams performed significantly worse than if the handlers had simply flipped a coin to speculate as to the presence of residual odour at each location.


State of Wisconsin v. Zapata, 2006 CF 1996 – defendant supplemental memorandum


"These tests, it should be noted, were performed within twelve hours of body parts being removed from the testing area. Just imagine much how worse the results would be after three months.

"Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals given by them to lead a dog where the handler suspects evidence to be located. We are mindful that less than scrupulously neutral procedures which create at least the possibility of unconscious 'cueing' may well jeopardize the reliability of dog sniffs."


United States v. Trayer, 898 F. 2d 805.809 (CADC 1990)


Sounds impressive, but let's take a closer look.

"The most critical question relating to the use of the dog alerts as evidence is how likely is the dog's alert to be correct".

Agreed, but….

"In this regard, the only testing of these handler and dog teams recorded an abysmal performance".

I'm sorry, which handler and dog teams were these?

"...with respect to residual odour, the dog-handler teams performed significantly worse than if the handlers had simply flipped a coin to speculate as to the presence of residual odour at each location".

Oh, I see. The dog-handler teams trained, managed and tested in the U.S.A. Not the British dogs employed by Martin Grime then.

Isn't that rather like saying the fuel consumption figures announced for your small diesel engine car cannot be considered valid, on account of the neighbours' 2-litre Mercedes (another car) not meeting them?

"These tests, it should be noted, were performed within twelve hours of body parts being removed from the testing area. Just imagine much how worse the results would be after three months".

Why should we imagine that results for odour detection, in relation to residues proven to be detectable after weeks if not months, even in the USA, be worse in this instance? This is unjustified special pleading. Never mind. Another quote from American case law should straighten things out.

"Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals given by them to lead a dog where the handler suspects evidence to be located. We are mindful that less than scrupulously neutral procedures which create at least the possibility of unconscious 'cueing' may well jeopardize the reliability of dog sniffs."

Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. Errare humanum est then. Dogs rule, o.k9.

"A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals".

In exceptional circumstances 'a false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals'. It can only be in exceptional circumstances, since it has just been determined that almost all errors are attributable to misinterpretation by the handler(s). That something can occur is no guarantee that it will, making the incidence of misdirection in this context even more unlikely. But this explanatory context still cannot be taken to subsume Mr Grime's Spaniels, as they were not among the subjects tested, nor even referred to.

One very basic piece of advice, given to exam candidates since the dawn of the GCE 'O' level, is to 'answer the question on the page, not the one that springs to mind'. How on earth Kate McCann ever qualified as a doctor is, on this basis, rather hard to imagine.

Well said Dr Roberts.

And didn't he just slip in a real zinger with that last paragraph!

Thanks to "wjk" for posting the commentary (I'm hopeless when it comes to the tech stuff). And YES "almostgothic" that was quite a zinger but, when you consider the statements of the rest of the "professionals" who were on that holiday, it makes me wonder how ANY of them even got through high school.

Interesting Kate (who is hardly semi literate, while her tale is often disingenuous and always self serving, she's quite easy to read, and less convoluted and easier to follow than Martin's own writing when he waxes literary) mentions the striking similarities between Tanner man and Smith man, while there really are none - apart from, as he says, man carrying kid in pjs.

Something you would expect to see in a resort with a night crèche and something you would not expect to see in a kidnapping -- and indeed if Sy is correct the Tanner sighting was in fact a tourist carrying a child from the crèche (or to it, if she actually saw this earlier...)

I presume the reason the tourist didn't come forth was that he was not going away from 5a and to the crèche at 915 so knew it wasn't himself she had seen given the obsessive attention to the timeline we have all been treated to. Maybe Smithman did not come forth for another reason.

Sy would excuse some confusion on Jane's behalf, due to the darkness, late hour, drink, upsetting nature of that night & Chinese whispers (the PJ interviews use the same exact words when interviewing several suspects so either that story was pre conceived with exactly the same language not being departed from by the interviewees, in itself a red flag, or the interpretation was put down exactly the same way to avoid the hideous attempt at interpreting exactly what these people were saying in their own words, which gives me a headache reading their statements when transcribed).

If SY are onto McCanns, they might not want to state that "we found a guy going the other direction - or a guy going that way, but at 830." It just makes for a lot of unhelpful gossip that won't keep the witnesses cooperative. They can hardly have missed it however nor the fact that Tannerman is going a different direction than he would be if returning from the night crèche.

Smithman is another thing altogether, because rather than being highlighted by McCanns, he was suppressed - and in fact a blatant attempt to make it seem like he was the SAME PERSON (ie swarthy, tan pants, maroon jacket) is plain the book. She states they were strikingly similar and puts only the swarthy images and Tanner sighting when in fact by the time she penned the bewk, she had seen the Smith sighting and we had all heard (those who were listening) that Smithman called in because he recognized Gerry. Gerry doesn't have long dark hair. That's not one of the "illogical" things the kidnapper would be doing - stopping off for a haircut and dye job.

The other place Kate gives short shrift is Matt Oldfield's check. One short paragraph, maybe 3 sentences, really skims it - Matt went when she stood up, she took his offer - why not? - and he returned giving the all clear.

Kate, knowing her book would be more widely read than the PJ files, must have felt quite confident in stating balderdash. Those who want the alternative "perspective" on the truth can read Amaral's book - or the Pj investigation - which match each other and do not correspond with what she has written.

Kate Mccann's reaction is very suspect here because
-If you don't know really what happened to your child,you fear she has been killed and you could only say: "I hope the dogs are wrong but it is a possibility." Not :"it's impossible".
-If you think that the dogs are sometimes wrong, how could you explain that 3 times in a row, in different places ( in the flat, in the car,with the clothes) they are wrong? The dog is bad? What about 2 dogs? Both wrong or misleaded by an incompetent or mischievous handler? The dogs were nearly always successful and Grime is a very respected British professionnal.

Why is it so important for the McCanns to discredit the dog's findings? They don't want people believing that Madeleine died in the flat.May be because it is difficult to believe that an intruder would kill a child and take away the corpse. Moreover, if someone killed and took the child, it would have been very fast, not long enough to leave a scent for the dog=as the presumed dead child was on the floor at least for one hour ( time for the scent to expand),did the intruder wait or come back? Absurd.Obvious conclusion: if the dogs are right,there was no intruder. If there was no intruder, who took her corpse away and why? Obvious suspicion: the family, as very often in such cases.

frencheuropean wrote:Kate Mccann's reaction is very suspect here because
-If you don't know really what happened to your child,you fear she has been killed and you could only say: "I hope the dogs are wrong but it is a possibility." Not :"it's impossible".
-If you think that the dogs are sometimes wrong, how could you explain that 3 times in a row, in different places ( in the flat, in the car,with the clothes) they are wrong? The dog is bad? What about 2 dogs? Both wrong or misleaded by an incompetent or mischievous handler? The dogs were nearly always successful and Grime  is a very respected British professionnal.

Why is it so important for the McCanns to discredit the dog's findings? They don't want people believing that Madeleine died in the flat.May be because it is difficult to believe that an intruder would kill a child and take away the corpse. Moreover, if someone killed and took the child, it would have been very fast, not long enough to leave a scent for the dog=as the presumed dead child was on the floor at least for one hour ( time for the scent to expand),did the intruder wait or come back? Absurd.Obvious conclusion: if the dogs are right,there was no intruder. If there was no intruder, who took her corpse away and why? Obvious suspicion: the family, as very often in such cases.

Yes. They know that if the dogs were right then there was about a 1% chance of an abduction - no one steals a dead child. Unless to keep their dna from being found on her, I suppose. But for someone to have gotten in, killed her, give time for cadaverine to develop, and THEN take her out would mean that she was left alone and unchecked while the most unimaginable things were done to her and she was dead in the apt for over an hour. Surely that is cause for a finding of abandonment leading to harm and knocks their argument on the head that they were checking every half hour.

But given kate's and Gerry's "research" that cadaverine only lasts half an hour (a lie, easily uncovered) they felt okay stating that the dogs were just plain wrong and often are, only reliable 20-40% of the time.

I wonder by the time kate's book went to press if they knew that the Zapata case had turned out that the dogs were RIGHT. The body of his wife had indeed been in the basement and in the storage unit held by her husband. He confessed as much - chillingly - when his daughter, a child at the time, got him to admit it on a phone call she taped. He later pled guilty to murder...?

Why would you cite a case that disproves your point? The dogs were still found to be unreliable but surely they could find another case where that was true - the dogs were unreliable - AND the dogs were wrong. Or at elast not so obviously RIGHT.

They cite the DEFENSE argument (the defense of Mr Zapata, who confessed to murdering his wife and keeping her in the storage unit) that the dogs were unreliable. Those dogs WERE reliable.

The argument that no BODY was found there is just so stupid it's unimaginable. If the dogs can only be reliable if a body is found there who needs the bloody dogs? I think given half an hour any of us could "detect" a corpse lying in a storage unit. You have the dogs not to find the corpse -- though they do if one is there, obviously-- but to find the scent. The scent can be there long, long after the corpse is gone.

And does not fade in 30 days. Far from it. The Zapata case was something like 30 years after the corpse was moved from the house.

I don't think Kate McCann can make up her mind.


She Insinuates that mr grime and his dogs were WRONG....scent only lasts 3 months...


She then stupidly Insinuates that mr grime must off known where the scent was as it was HE who dragged the dogs over to the car and MADE them Bark.


You notice that she doesn't mention the dogs indicating in 5a behind the sofa and outside in the flower bed.


She's not very bright our Kate McCann because the consequence off the second part..I.e...subconsciously got into the dogs mindset which made the dogs 'indicate'....must mean there was cadaver scent there in the first place but it wouldn't off been found if mr grimes hadn't off 'led' the dogs to find it .


Stupid women.

I think she means the dogs alert when the handlers indicate they should. Fair enough on the car, I see her point that the dog was brought back there, it was obvious it was their car as it had the missing poster in the window - but the dogs simply don't work like that. They won't bark if no scent. If they picked up cues from handlers they aren't much good - imagine if they were looking for bodies under rubble and the dogs kept alerting to please the handler, rather than when they had really found a body.

Dr M makes the good point that only a set of dogs were tested and of course Zapata defense would find ones that proved their point, they were trying to get a guilty client off.

But you're right -for Keela find blood there, Grimes would have had to have known it was there (or put the blood there) ahead of time. Pretty tough to find a match to MM and insert it deep into their wheel well.

$19 Billion Later, Pentagon’s Best Bomb-Detector Is a Dog



Drones, metal detectors, chemical sniffers, and super spycams — forget ‘em. The leader of the Pentagon’s multibillion military task force to stop improvised bombs says there’s nothing in the U.S. arsenal for bomb detection more powerful than a dog’s nose.

Despite a slew of bomb-finding gagdets, the American military only locates about 50 percent of the improvised explosives planted in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that number jumps to 80 percent when U.S. and Afghan patrols take dogs along for a sniff-heavy walk. “Dogs are the best detectors,” Lieutenant General Michael Oates, the commander of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, told a conference yesterday, National Defense reports. That’s not the greatest admission for a well-funded organization — nearly $19 billion since 2004, according to a congressional committee — tasked with solving one of the military’s wickedest problems.

Improvised explosive devices continue to rise in Afghanistan. There were 1,062 successful bomb attacks in the first eight months of 2010 there, compared to 820 during the previous period in 2009. Making matters worse in Afghanistan is the fact that most homemade bombs there are powered by fertilizers and chemicals, rendering metal detectors useless.

Picking up the chemical signature of those bombs should be relatively straightforward — just a matter of picking up the stray molecules that float away from unstable explosive material. In practice, it hasn’t been so easy. In 1997, a young program manager at Darpa launched the “Dog’s Nose” progam, to develop a bomb-sniffer as good as a canine’s. Today, that program manager, Regina Dugan, runs the entire agency. And Darpa is still has a project on the books to “leverag[e] the components of the canine olfactory system to create a breakthrough detection system.”

Detection is a “significant challenge,” Oates tells National Defense.

So rather than continuing a potentially futile search for a silver bullet, JIEDDO is now recommending other, non-technological, ways to combat IEDs, such as improved training and deeper understanding of the local sociopolitical landscape where IED planters are created much faster than U.S. forces can find them.

And JIEDDO is still spending big money on gadgets to spy on and disrupt every part of the IED network. Drones in the skies over Afghanistan hunt teams of bomb-planting insurgents. Forensics teams match latent fingerprints on bombs with Afghan bad guys whose thumb-scans and eye-prints are stored in biometric databases. JIEDDO pays for radio jammers to stop the frequencies insurgents might use to detonate the bombs.

The Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar is a $138 million aircraft-mounted sensor that tracks moving targets like scampering insurgents from the skies. JIEDDO has also outfitted over 500 vehicles with special sensors to spot bombs at night (cost: $51 million); sponsored a “Wolfhound” sensor for dismounted infantrymen to detect insurgents’ personal communication devices (cost: $15 million); and an “enhanced optics system” called Keyhole that helps marksmen hit their bombmaker targets (cost: undisclosed). At yesterday’s conference, Oates said aerial sensors, particularly those creating full-motion video of bomb-heavy areas, were “enormously useful” in the fight against IEDs.

Congress, however, isn’t pleased. In March, the House Armed Services Committee questioned how well JIEDDO spent the $18.77 billion it’s received since its 2004 inception. “It is still difficult to associate funds spent with positive effects,” the committee wrote in a memo critical of the organization’s “inability to clearly articulate what it has been able to accomplish.” Last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee, while supportive of JIEDDO overall, cut nearly $442 million out of the Pentagon’s requested budget for the organization next year, finding that “certain programs” it operates “fall outside [an] IED-specific focus.” That’s in line with years of Hill disillusionment about the organization over its bureaucracy and dependence on contractors.

The core problem: the bombs are still proliferating — and not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but globally. According to statistics Darpa provided Danger Room last month, for the last six months, there have been an average of 273 monthly IED incidents around the world excluding Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s hard to believe anyone would have such a problem with JIEDDO’s budget if the threat from the cheap, easy-to-rig bombs were receding.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/19-billion-later-pentagon-best-bomb-detector-is-a-dog/