In Britain, it is outlawed as illegal and unethical to use human body parts to train cadaver dogs.

fuzeta wrote:You are welcome. Just pleased I found it.

Me too!   

fuzeta wrote:http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html

Plus this on the Maddiecasefiles  In this article Martin Grimes gives his profile and states the dogs were trained using human remains in the USA

Yep   

The initial training of the asset is conducted using pig as the  subject matter for solid hides and human blood for fluid. The use of human remains  for the purpose of training dogs in the U.K. is not acceptable at this point in time. The  dog has however considerable experience in operational recovery of human remains  and evidential forensic material and has trained exclusively using human remains in  the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog involves the  use of collection of 'Dead body scent' odour from corpses using remote technical  equipment which does not contact.  The E.V.R.D. will locate cadaver, whether in the whole or parts thereof; deposited  surface or sub-surface to a depth of approximately 3-4 feet shortly after death to the advanced stages of deposition and putrefaction through to skeletal. This includes  incinerated remains even if large quantities of accelerant have been involved.  The dog will locate human cadaver in water either from the bank side or when  deployed in a boat where a large area may be covered using a gridding system. wrote:

Grimes dog showed no interest in synthetic cadaverine used to train other dogs, when tested with it during training. They react only to the real thing.

Also, my understanding is that it is illegal to have/hold on to body parts to train the dogs in the UK, I.e the possession of the parts is the issue, as opposed to the actual training of the dogs. This link below is has good background information to their training.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

By Gerard Tubb, Sky News correspondent
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.

The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.

The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.

"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.

"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."

The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".

"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.

The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.

The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.

The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.

A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.

But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.

Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.

The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.

"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.

"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."

The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.

The fact of the matter is that the dogs lead you to the evidence, the fact that a cadaver was or is there.   The fact that Eddie alerted to the boot of the hire car together with the forensic evidence of Madeleine's DNA being in that car would have been enough to put the McCann's in court.

Of course we all know what happened.  Firstly Birmingham said the DNA was a match.  Then after a visit from GB it suddenly was not enough of a match. Then they supposedly contaminated it and threw it away.  This from what was supposed to be the best in the world at the time.


PS Good find Mossman

Gerard Tubb would do well to research and learn something about the topics he intends to write about, in advance of their publication.

Perhaps then he could write an educated and balanced report on the subject instead of this ignorant, cut and paste effort.

I agree Mossman. None of us are daft enough to think the dogs can tell us whose cadaver it is. They are doing what they are trained to do and that is to find traces of a cadaver.

Eddie was trained with human remains not pork. Gerry thought he could get away with saying he had rotting pork in the boot. Well Eddie does not alert to pork.

Exactly Fuzeta. Rotting meat and nappies......the "myths" about cadaver dogs. Gerry did not do his homework, even threw a sea bass into the equation, perhaps to explain the red t-shirt alert.

fuzeta wrote:I agree Mossman.  None of us are daft enough to think the dogs can tell us whose cadaver it is.  They are doing what they are trained  to do and that is to find traces of a cadaver.  

Eddie was trained with human remains not pork. Gerry thought he could get away with saying he had rotting pork in the boot. Well Eddie does not alert to pork.

mossman wrote:Exactly Fuzeta.  Rotting meat and nappies......the "myths" about cadaver dogs.  Gerry did not do his homework, even threw a sea bass into the equation, perhaps to explain the red t-shirt alert.

I think some of the statements the Mcanns came out with were extremely incriminating and it was definitely worthwhile taking the dogs to PDL if only to see the obvious trap the McCanns fell into when they opened their mouths. However, I have read that it is wondered in some quarters if it is true that the training took place in America, and if so who paid for this trip as Eddie was owned by South Yorkshire Police at the time and its questionable whether S. Yorks Police would authorise Grimes to take a dog to the USA (plus authorising payment for it), bearing in mind such methods are illegal in Britain.

Well, Mr Grime and his dogs are now working where they are all appreciated, in the USA for the FBI. I think they know what they do...

Well LJC Martin Grimes, in his profile, states that the dogs were trained in the USA with human remains. Surely you are not suggesting he is making it up?

What is the police recruitment policy for these dogs ?

Was Eddie trained by SYP or did he arrive already trained ?

Anything I read makes no reference to how or where these dogs must be trained, only that they are required to be licensed to work in UK and undergo regular testing to ensure their reliability and suitability.

I'm still not certain the method itself is illegal, only the possession of decomposing body parts. That being the case, then if Grimes and Eddie were trained in US by South Yorkshire Police I don't see what the issue is. I'm sure human police people attend conferences everywhere, falling within the scope of professional development.

Don't know Mossman but whichever, they were trained in the USA at the body farm that is for sure. I read that people in the USA make a will saying that their body can be used at the body farm. They have a huge area with bodies outside, all at various stages of decomposition. Not a pleasant thought but good on these people who are prepared to leave their bodies there.

fuzeta wrote:Don't know Mossman but whichever, they were trained in the USA at the body farm that is for sure.  I read that people in the USA make a will saying that their body can be used at the body farm.   They have a huge area with bodies outside,  all at various stages of decomposition.  Not a pleasant thought but good on these people who are prepared to leave their bodies there.

Similar to organ donation I guess, or medical research. A valuable training tool for police people and their dogs.

I think the issue here is that if the dogs had been trained with pork, that might have been a get out for the GMcCs of this world, famously blaming animal meat, shitty nappies and seabass. yet they were trained with human parts so the issue would not have arisen anyway. that's what happens when your research is not thorough enough G.

I don't care who met the cost of training the dogs on a body farm its money well spent with cadaver dogs. imo. we spend so much money on other things whats the cost against the possibilities.

It is amazing Tanzi what one carries around in the boot of a car, especially in a country where there is always a bin within a very short walk.

I had read about the bins but didn't totally understand the reality until my nephew explained. absolutely no need at all for carrying all that crap around. don't understand why its not the same in the UK. or pehaps I do

LJC wrote:

fuzeta wrote:I agree Mossman.  None of us are daft enough to think the dogs can tell us whose cadaver it is.  They are doing what they are trained  to do and that is to find traces of a cadaver.  

Eddie was trained with human remains not pork. Gerry thought he could get away with saying he had rotting pork in the boot. Well Eddie does not alert to pork.

mossman wrote:Exactly Fuzeta.  Rotting meat and nappies......the "myths" about cadaver dogs.  Gerry did not do his homework, even threw a sea bass into the equation, perhaps to explain the red t-shirt alert.

I think some of the statements the Mcanns came out with were extremely incriminating and it was definitely worthwhile taking the dogs to PDL if only to see the obvious trap the McCanns fell  into when they opened their mouths.  However, I have read that it is wondered in some quarters if it is true that the training took place in America, and if so who paid for this trip as Eddie was owned by South Yorkshire Police at the time and its questionable whether S. Yorks Police would authorise Grimes to take a dog to the USA (plus authorising payment for it), bearing in mind such methods are illegal in Britain.

I don't wish to offend you LJC, but I have to be honest and say that in my opinion, you are so focused on discrediting the sniffer dogs, that you are now making absurd claims regarding the reason the sniffer dogs went over to PDL.

What on earth makes you think that the police would spend valuable time and money, sending these two sniffer dogs over to PDL, in the hope that the McCanns would fall into some trap, when they opened their mouths?

As you can see, I've put the link to video number two, of the 'Buried By Mainstream Media'. I doubt very much that you'll believe what is stated in the video, but it's worth a try, if only to make you see that these sniffer dogs are not the dumb animals that you believe they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pY5FHP-K20

The McCanns know that these animals are not the dumb animals you think they are because if they did, you can bet your life that the McCanns would not only have sued their handler, they would have sued the police force who was responsible for sending over the handler.

In case you've forgotten, the McCanns are suing Goncalo Amaral, for stating in his book what they say are lies. They're not suing the authors of the files, where the so called lies of Goncalo Amaral, are there for everyone to see.

LJC if you think my post is offensive, you are welcome to ask admin to remove it.

I am not offended by your opinions Kathybelle and will not be asking for your post to be removed. Why should I? You are entitled to your opinion. However, your sarcastic tone could offend me if I was so inclined but I rise above it.

However, what I will point out is that you are misreading my posts.

Firstly I am not, absolutely not, rubbishing the dogs. Far from it.

My post began as a query as to what might happen in any future trial (hopefully), when the dogs findings and the dogs themselves would come under scrutiny. How is that rubbishing the dogs?

I feel it is a very valid question to ask because if ever there is a resolution to this case the dogs findings will I think come under scrutiny again.

And also I asked this question because there was a post made on another thread that suggested that South Yorkshire Police were part of a conspiracy to cover up for the McCanns by ‘encouraging’ a dog handler to go freelance at a cost to South Yorkshire Police. I presume this to be Martin Grimes.

And that post made me start to think because personally I do not do conspiracy theories. So I began to read up on Martin Grimes and his dogs and I discovered that training methods for UK cadaver dogs are controlled by strict regulations and that use of body parts in this country is illegal but that in America it is not.

And the reason I query it is because I wondered whether this could be a stumbling block in any future court case. This is what I read: -

If the dogs have been trained on human body parts then Martin Grime and anyone who has assisted in procuring those samples could face serious consequences including prosecution. As human body parts cannot be legally obtained in the UK then the dogs can only be tested for licensing purposes on pork and human blood.

So, given the dogs have to be tested every twelve months for their licences, so how does that work - do they send them back to the USA every 12 months for licensing purposes?

Plus I read this: -

All UK cadaver dogs have to be trained in accordance with standard ACPO guidelines.

Therefore, If Eddie had been to America his training would not be in accordance with standard ACPO guidelines.

So I was asking whether this could potentially be problematic in any future Court proceedings. And I believe its a valid question to ask.

Also Martin Grimes was very near his 30 years and could retire/go freelance if he chose.

I have certainly not made any claims about why I thought the dogs had gone to PDL. I never said this was done ‘in the hope’ the Mcanns would fall into a trap.

They fell into a trap of their own making imo. They never had to say a word for even Mr Grimes himself said his dogs finding were indicators only and that further forensic evidence would have to be found to back up the findings. And, if the McCanns had used some common sense, they would have realised that the dogs indicated death but not at whose hands. They cannot tell you whose body it is they are sniffing out either, so no need for the McCanns to say anything at all; it just made them appear guilty, going on about nosebleeds and rotting meat, so they fell into a trap of their own making.

Its seems that if I ask a perfectly valid question, to my mind anyway, you are the only one who seems to answer it with sarcasm. Others on this thread have managed to give their opinions in a grown up way because they I think realise that in a debate such questions are legitimate to ask and discuss in a mature fashion.

The man's name is Martin Grime.

Claudia79 wrote:The man's name is Martin Grime.

Thanks Claudia, at the time of writing my post, I couldn't remember Mr Grime's name.

Claudia79 wrote:The man's name is Martin Grime.

Yes you are correct; his name is frequently misspelt on the Internet.

From reading through old posts on this forum about Eddie and Keela and Martin Grime, it would appear that Grimes was typed by very many posters to this site.

Me for one, so I apologise.

Thank you Claudia.

fuzeta wrote:Well LJC Martin Grimes, in his profile, states that the dogs were trained in the USA with human remains.  Surely you are not suggesting he is making it up?

No Fuzeta far from it. Just whether it was/is something that could be controversial in a court of law if, God willing, this case ever comes to court.