The Art of the Possible - Dr. Martin Roberts

Dr. Roberts' latest article "The Art of the Possible" (June 23, 2014) is available at www.mccannfiles.com (under latest news, scroll down).

By Dr Martin Roberts
23 June 2014

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE

From the report of Mark Harrison, NPIA (submitted 23.7.2007, restricted 21.8.2007)

Processo Vol IX Pages 2224 to 2234

McCann's Apartment

"The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (Human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's (sic) blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's".

From the witness testimony of Mark Harrison

LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE SQUAD
Occupation: Police Agent

(Cartas Rogarorias 3, pages 19-20)

"This statement, consisting of two pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything I know to be false or do not believe to be true".

Date: 2 May 2008

4. In this particular case, based on the information and on your experience, what is the possibility that a cadaver was concealed?

"To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment".

In late July 2007 therefore, and on the basis of his personal knowledge and experience, Mark Harrison advises the PJ to deploy an EVRD as "If (such a) scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed".

The removal of a body from the apartment therefore becomes a possibility.

Dog handler Martin Grime's searches were conducted and concluded that first week in August, 2007. Subsequently Mark Harrison personally attended a meeting at which the filmed outcomes were reviewed by investigators, as he stated in his evidence given in answer to question 3 of the same Rogatory request:

"After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the office of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs led by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence".

All parties in attendance at that meeting, including Mark Harrison, were afterwards in possession of unconfirmed information. They were not entirely bereft of information however.

And yet, within a matter of months, Mark Harrison feels he has to answer question 4 with: 'To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment'.

I beg to differ. The question did not call for a definitive conclusion but an opinion as regards a 'possibility', the same possibility in fact that encouraged Mark Harrison to propose the deployment of an EVRD in the first instance. Furthermore the possibility arises as a direct consequence of the behaviour of the EVRD. 'Confirmation', resulting from the subsequent activities of the CSI dog, merely raises the status of likelihood, from possible to probable/certain depending upon the outcome of forensic examination of any residues retrieved from the scene.

Why did Mark Harrison become evasive in the interim? Did the removal of a corpse from apartment 5A cease to be a possibility for some reason?

The initial report by the FSS (6 September 2007) concerning samples submitted for analysis following the CSI dog's indication toward the tiled floor area of apartment 5A were largely inconclusive:

"An attempt to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swabs from the tiles 286/2007 CR/L 5 stains 1, 2 & 3 were unsuccessful in that no DNA profile was obtained.

"An LCN DNA result which contained too little information for meaningful interpretation was obtained from cellular material on the swab from the tile (286/2007 CR/L 9).

"Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.

"An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from a further area on tile 2 and two areas on tile 3 (286/2007-CRL(3) were unsuccessful in that no profiles were obtained".

Taken as a whole these outcomes do not, in themselves, discount the possibility that a body was removed from apartment 5A (i.e., concealed elsewhere). Hence Mark Harrison's 'information', albeit unconfirmed, continued to suggest the possibility that a body had at some time been present in the apartment.

The second report to come from the FSS (18.6.2008) was, if anything, even more equivocal. As author John Robert Lowe concluded:

"In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann".

The original possibility, although unsubstantiated, remained unresolved therefore. It was never dismissed, either by dint of the FSS results or by Harrison himself, although he later elected to avoid it for some reason.

So he is tryiing to say...but not very well, the cadaver scent.....



Could or could not off been left by a dead body



Could or could not off been removed.



Could or could not off been there at some time in that apt.



I dont believe mr grime would off dismissed his own dogs either by insinuating that the dogs positive alerts are NOTHING without the body ....look at his recent case concerning a dead child and no body.

I think Mr Grimes is on record as saying that his dogs indications at the time were indications which needed to be corroborated further, words to that effect, which I took to mean at the time that without a body they were nothing more than indications. That is always how I understood it. Perhaps indications could result in a confession in some cases and lead to more evidence but, in this case, nothing more has ever come along to corroborate the dogs findings. Mark Warner say there was never a dead body of anybody, in that apartment, but its a privately owned apartment with the owner being an unrelated person also by the name of McCann, so would Mark Warner necessarily know? The way I read Mr Grimes report is that dogs indicated a scent of death and indicated cadaver from a dead person, but the dogs cannot indicate from which dead person the scent came from, so it makes sense that it would have to be corroborated further, and no, just because they indicated on Kate's clothing does not prove its from Madeleine either. No matter how much we argue about it, about how on earth could Kate say the scent must have come from her coming into contact with dead patients, it would never stand the test of trial at Court so of course it needs further corroboration by way of a body or a confession leading to the finding of a body or something that is definitely linked to Madeleine (clothing/pyjamas for instance) that ultimately proves she is dead.

For this reason SY and PJ have been digging, not just for a body but clothing too I think. Shame so many people think its a waste of time and shame so many people still believe the McCanns should be charged with something for which not enough evidence can be found. Makes no sense at all. Shame so many people want this case wound up, SY to end it all, PJ to end it all, so that the McCanns just walk away from it all? I would rather, if they walk away at all, that they walk away with SY saying we have investigated every single avenue and unfortunately cannot conclude one way or the other, because that at least would leave a great big question mark hanging over the McCanns for ever more and better that scenario than them saying we're pulling out because of the expense of it all which would leave the McCanns saying yeah well they gave up trying to find the real culprit.

LJC wrote:I think Mr Grimes is on record as saying that his dogs indications at the time were indications which needed to be corroborated further, words to that effect, which I took to mean at the time that without a body they were nothing more than indications.  That is always how I understood it.  Perhaps indications could result in a confession in some cases and lead to more evidence but, in this case, nothing more has ever come along to corroborate the dogs findings.  Mark Warner say there was never a dead body of anybody, in that apartment, but its a privately owned apartment with the owner being an unrelated person also by the name of McCann, so would Mark Warner necessarily know?  The way I read Mr Grimes report is that dogs indicated a scent of death and indicated cadaver from a dead person, but the dogs cannot indicate from which dead person the scent came from, so it makes sense that it would have to be corroborated further, and no, just because they indicated on Kate's clothing does not prove its from Madeleine either.  No matter how much we argue about it, about how on earth could Kate say the scent must have come from her coming into contact with dead patients, it would never stand the test of trial at Court so of course it needs further corroboration by way of a body or a confession leading to the finding of a body or something that is definitely linked to Madeleine (clothing/pyjamas for instance) that ultimately proves she is dead.

For this reason SY and PJ have been digging, not just for a body but clothing too I think.  Shame so many people think its a waste of time and shame so many people still believe the McCanns should be charged with something for which not enough evidence can be found.  Makes no sense at all.  Shame so many people want this case wound up, SY to end it all, PJ to end it all, so that the McCanns just walk away from it all?  I would rather, if they walk away at all, that they walk away with SY saying we have investigated every single avenue and unfortunately cannot conclude one way or the other, because that at least would leave a great big question mark hanging over the McCanns for ever more and better that scenario than them saying we're pulling out because of the expense of it all which would leave the McCanns saying yeah well they gave up trying to find the real culprit.

I think most probably conclude digging up a bit of wasteland near the flat is a waste of time because it is extremely unlikely anyone disposing of a body would choose to do so in plain sight rather than disappearing into the remote and unoccupied countryside or using an alternative method of disposal. Unless SY dig up any available plot across Portugal, dedge the seabed etc it is difficult to see how they can say they have investigated every avenue.

Investigating every avenue means following up and thoroughly investigating all intelligence there is. It is not for us to say where is the most likely places they should dig or otherwise.

However, to get back to the topic, the point I am trying to make is that it is because of Mr Martin Grimes and his dogs indications that SY and PJ feel it is necessary to try to corroborate the dogs indications further, otherwise the dogs alone cannot be classed as sufficient evidence. That is how I understand what Martin Grimes is saying and that is how I read this article which is the point of this topic. That is not to dis-respect the dogs, that is a fact that for anything to succeed at Court there needs to be far more corroborative evidence than the dogs alone and Martin Grimes knew this and said as much at the time.

And that is why SY and PJ continue to dig, why Portugal grants the authority to dig and the dig places are based on intelligence received.

kitti,
 
I agree, this is one of Dr. Martin's more confusing posts. The main point I think he is trying to get across is based on the following question:
 
4. In this particular case, based on the information and on your experience, what is the possibility that a cadaver was concealed?

"To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment".
 
I believe that Dr. Martin feels that Harrison should have replied "Of course there is a possibility that a cadaver was concealed, as the investigation has not ruled out any theory at this point." Dr. Martin further goes on to state that Harrison was evasive in providing this answer, because it had been he who had originally suggested that the dogs be brought in, indicating that he must have considered it to be a possibility that a cadaver had been in the apartment and was later concealed. The dogs indications should have elevated that possibility, not lessened it.
 
The real question is, why was Harrison being so evasive? Why the 180 degree turnaround from when he suggested that the dogs be brought in? Surely if the dogs that you suggested be brought in seem to back up the theory that a cadaver was concealed, then why not just state that it was a possibility?

because then they would have to say there was a possibility they were looking for a dead Maddie, and where would that lead? where SY are now possibly?

LJC wrote:Investigating every avenue means following up and thoroughly investigating all intelligence there is.  It is not for us to say where is the most likely places they should dig or otherwise.  

However, to get back to the topic, the point I am trying to make is that it is because of Mr Martin Grimes and his dogs indications that SY and PJ feel it is necessary to try to corroborate the dogs indications further, otherwise the dogs alone cannot be classed as sufficient evidence.  That is how I understand what Martin Grimes is saying and that is how I read this article which is the point of this topic.  That is not to dis-respect the dogs, that is a fact that for anything to succeed at Court there needs to be far more corroborative evidence than the dogs alone and Martin Grimes knew this and said as much at the time.

And that is why SY and PJ continue to dig, why Portugal grants the authority to dig and the dig places are based on intelligence received.

I agree.  

Grimes is happy his dogs alerted and are correct in their alerts. However they are not saying it is Madeleine, just somebody dead. That is a very important distinction for him to make. Ok, we can put two and two together and come up with four, but that is not beyond reasonable doubt in a court.

SY dug in places they knew full well they wouldn't find anything, simple as that .


SY should off looked at the mileage and the phone pings and then did a scan off what they came up with instead off digging in a place that has been searched more than once since 2007.


Now, either SY are pratts and thick or they are puppets.....which one?

I spoke to an ex police officer who has retired and he is 53.



The reason he has already retired is because they do 30 years service and no more and then they are told to retire.


I'm wondering WHEN Deadwood will retire , will he see this case through to the end regardless how long it will take even though his 30 years service is up or will he retire whilst this case is ongoing OR will it correspond with retirement/closure case.

kitti wrote:SY dug in places they knew full well they wouldn't find anything, simple as that .


SY should off looked at the mileage and the phone pings and then did a scan off what they came up with instead off digging in a place that has been searched more than once  since 2007.


Now, either SY are pratts and thick or they are puppets.....which one?

My guess kitti, is in the case of investigating poor Madeleine's disappearance, SY are pratts and thick and puppets. Either that or there's a chance they enjoy travelling the world, digging up recently filled in holes and then filling them back up again. They could even have been council roadmenders in another life...

Lioned wrote:

Good post...