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

LJC wrote:

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.

What about convictions already secured, the Attracta Herron case for example ? The dogs were key to that case.

That said, if there is a trial in Portugal, is it relevant at all ?

The dogs and Martin Grime were not a team put together for the sole purpose of the McCann case. They were already a unit, with a proven track record. Why their capabilities are only ever called into question in relation to the McCann case is beyond me. - I don't mean you LJC.

If the only way the credibility of what they do can be questioned is on a technicality, so be it. The technicality does not satisfactorily answer why they alerted to only the McCann possessions and why they alerted to the only place a child has disappeared from. That is enought to give most parents a breakdown, but then most parents are mere mortals, unlike Kate and Gerry McCann who provide excuse after excuse for the findings, without one iota of concern.

I seriously doubt we will ever see the day a person or persons stand trial in this case, with the sole evidence being that from the dogs.

Good post Mossman. I think that you are right about it never coming to court. What with the DNA and forensic findings literally washed down the drain.

mossman wrote:

LJC wrote:

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.

What about convictions already secured, the Attracta Herron case for example ?  The dogs were key to that case.

That said, if there is a trial in Portugal, is it relevant at all ?

The dogs and Martin Grime were not a team put together for the sole purpose of the McCann case.  They were already a unit, with a proven track record.  Why their capabilities are only ever called into question in relation to the McCann case is beyond me. -  I don't mean you LJC.

If the only way the credibility of what they do can be questioned is on a technicality, so be it.  The technicality  does not satisfactorily answer why they alerted to only the McCann possessions and why they alerted to the only place a child has disappeared from.  That is enought to give most parents a breakdown, but then most parents are mere mortals, unlike Kate and Gerry McCann who provide excuse after excuse for the findings, without one iota of concern.

I seriously doubt we will ever see the day a person or persons stand trial in this case, with the sole evidence being that from the dogs.

I know what you mean mossman but I do live in hope I suppose. And I guess, coming as I do from a family with strong Police links and working as I do for defence lawyers, I do get to see both sides of the coin and which is why I do read up on all sides of a case and I know only too well, especially on the defence side of things, that legal loopholes are being tested all the time. It doesn't matter either that a certain loophole was never tested on a previous case; clever lawyers look for something new all the time. And the McCann case is unique, very unique, and I think for this reason evidence and the people/methods by which such evidence has been collected, will be tested to the limits.

Hi LJC. I understand the point you make and any defence will of course try to discredit everyone and everything involved in this.

when it comes to legalities, yes this case is a minefield, but I fear in the event of anybody ever growing a pair and moving it forward to arrest phase it will fall down on a technicality about jurisdiction as opposed to what Eddie and Keela sniffed during training.

Which police investigation is going to be the force to solve it ? If British citizens are the main suspects, are they extradited ? Can those British citizens be arrested and tried in the UK for a crime carried out in Portugal ? I would be far more concerned that legal argument over those issues would hold up any arrests and subsequent trial for many years or indeed have it thrown out of court all together.

I have in the past read an allegation that one of the dogs was not licenced in the UK (it had lapsed) during the time of the Jersey investigation. Mr Grime responded to that by pointing out Jersey is not in the UK. It seems like a reasonable point to me, are they required to be licensed in the UK in order to work in Portugal ? I cannot see why they need to be.

I think we might have some time to go before we find out the answer, if at all.

Nothing to thank me for or apologise. I just wanted to highlight his correct name since he's been talked about quite often on this thread.

mossman wrote:

LJC wrote:

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.

What about convictions already secured, the Attracta Herron case for example ?  The dogs were key to that case.

That said, if there is a trial in Portugal, is it relevant at all ?

The dogs and Martin Grime were not a team put together for the sole purpose of the McCann case.  They were already a unit, with a proven track record.  Why their capabilities are only ever called into question in relation to the McCann case is beyond me. -  I don't mean you LJC.

If the only way the credibility of what they do can be questioned is on a technicality, so be it.  The technicality  does not satisfactorily answer why they alerted to only the McCann possessions and why they alerted to the only place a child has disappeared from.  That is enought to give most parents a breakdown, but then most parents are mere mortals, unlike Kate and Gerry McCann who provide excuse after excuse for the findings, without one iota of concern.

I seriously doubt we will ever see the day a person or persons stand trial in this case, with the sole evidence being that from the dogs.

Without wanting to detract from your post I do believe that the dog's abilities were questioned or ridiculed in the Jersey investigation from official sources and the media whereas in the McCann case the questioning of the dog's abilities originates from the McCanns themselves - Scotland Yard preferring to ignore their findings as part of a head-in-the-sand approach to the Portuguese investigation.

T4two that is also my understanding. however it needs to be asked why the dogs were ridiculed. Again, the real issue behind the ridiculing of the dogs is the background of child abuse and disappearance. its a bit like shooting the messenger really. it is all try to detract from the issue by attacking and ridiculing the abilities of animals that have and still do assist in finding people, children, sniffing out drugs, explosives, cancer, being a guide dog. there is of course that well asked question would you get on a plane where the dogs indicated explosives. well im sure everyone know the answer, and no one would be dissing those dogs.

It is beyond me why there is such a cover up at such high levels of government or authority instead of trying to bring the perpetrators of such heinous crimes of indefensible vulnerable children, those who indicate potential evidence are ridiculed. I can only come to one conclusion.

Just a bit off topic, Rotherham. 1,400 victims of abuse, not investigated properly either by Social Workers or Police. Sack them all and prosecute them for perverting the course of justice. when will there be sufficient laws and sufficient people in the right places to protect these children and vulnerable people. There should also be a law that anyone who prevents the investigation of potential child abuse should face investigation into the reasons why they didn't take action. imo.

Thanks T4two, you are of course right. 

Tanszi I agree.  My heart breaks for those in Rotherham.  I believe your conclusion is the only one that can be drawn.

We saw the videos off the dogs and as far as the coconut was concerned, someone close to the case remarked that the piece off scull resembles a piece off coconut and the papers got hold off that and went with it, like they do.


Off course everyone knows coconut doesn't contain collagen.




And I wonder what has happened re the 100 people coming forward regarding Jersey.......another cover up like Rotherham, the only difference is, the authorities CHOSE to sweep it under the carpet as the perps were Asian , not mainly Asian as stated because White men don't join Asian gangs and Asians wouldn't allow it anyway but they have to say MAINLY to make it sound like they were mixed perps when they weren't.


Bloody cowards.....say it as it is because I damn sure they would if it were White people, there would be no mainly white just plain White.

I think the fear of being called racist was the main reason for this cover up. That is what they are saying anyway. In this country the fear of being called racist stops us telling it how it is, when it is.

fuzeta wrote:I think the fear of being called racist was the main reason for this cover up. That is what they are saying anyway. In this country the fear of being called racist stops us telling it how it is, when it is.

But one can of course rant against the Portuguese and tell it like it isn't any time one likes as long as one is ranting about swarthy foreigners or gipsies and not be labelled racist.

T4two wrote:

fuzeta wrote:I think the fear of being called racist was the main reason for this cover up. That is what they are saying anyway. In this country the fear of being called racist stops us telling it how it is, when it is.

But one can of course rant against the Portuguese and tell it like it isn't any time one likes as long as one is ranting about swarthy foreigners or gipsies and not be labelled racist.

Calling the PJ sardine munchers was very racist in my opinion.

But I do wonder if this Rotherham crisis is really about racism or about being politically correct and I do think there is a big difference. Judging by the high number of Asian social workers, unless we know the ethnicity of the social workers who stand accused in Rotherham, it could well be more to do with community cohesion which is pushed on to the agenda left right and centre now.  The fear of being labelled racist may be from other quarters in addition to community cohesion.  One heaped on top of the other.  And we are too soft in this country is my view; rather than standing up and being counted we seem to be more concerned with image and how other races view us.  Perhaps some of the children themselves were Asian.

On listening to the news last night this is what some of the social workers said ( fear of being considered racist) Unless I misunderstood.

that is my understanding also T4two.  I also understand from a programme this evening, I think on BBC2 that a prominent Pakistani/Yorkshireman who was appalled at the situation also said that it was a prominent Councillor intervened to such a degree that the cases were not investigated.  that bliddy Police Commissioner should resign.  As should many of the police involved, or be sacked.  it was also said by I think a former Police Inspector that the whole thing should be investigated independently by the IPCC.

I also agree with your comment T4two that the racist rants against the Portuguese were appalling and allowed to stand in the msm.

My betting is that the weren't any Asian children



The Asian gang that abused these children had a very low opinion off White girls, the same as pedophiles have a very low opinion off children in care. They think that know one will care, which they didn't so they were right, and they thought they would get away with it, which they did, and to cap it all, the polices attitude was the same.

Perhaps people don't like hearing this but the proof is there's right above.

kitti wrote:My betting is that the weren't any Asian children



The Asian gang that abused these children had a very low opinion off White girls, the same as pedophiles have a very low opinion off children in care.  They think that know one will care, which they didn't so they were right, and they thought they would get away with it, which they did, and to cap it all, the polices attitude was the same.

Perhaps people don't like hearing this but the proof is there's right above.

There was an Asian lady on the news last night who said some Asian girls were also involved but that only white girls had come forward to complain. I fear that Asian girls would feel too ashamed to come forward once they realised they were not in a proper relationship and were just being exploited instead.

I also feel there are far more people responsible, given the fact that one girl states she was only 11 when the grooming started by Asians boys, who appeared really friendly at first she said. So, is she typical? Were they all so young. And if so, how come they were out there for boys to chat up in the first place, Asian, white, black, Chinese or whatever. 11 is too young. So was she let down by a parent/s, was she in foster care, was she in Social Service care? Is it right that young girls are free to come and go without too many questions asked at the very beginning so that they end up mixing with the wrong types which then goes on to something far worse and sinister. Its all very well to look for scapegoats now, its like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted to some degree, but its the root cause of these girls being out there for the picking to start with that bothers me. There were clearly issues, family issues I would think, at the deep heart of events here.

I don't believe Asian girls were involved.



And I also believe it was the Asian gangs who were racist and only abused White girls



I wonder how the police are getting on with the Paige Chivers enquiry .




One girl was murdered by non White gangs who owned kebab shops and Paige also went to the same shops as this murdered girl. They never found Paiges body and if it was linked to these gangs who abused young girls and used the kebab shops as a front to lure them.

BBC News Report wrote:

'Completely forbidden'
But was it the wider community from which a number of abusers came who put up barriers to protecting Rotherham's children, or a perception of that community and its possible reaction to being identified?

While "several people" interviewed by Prof Jay "expressed the general view that ethnic considerations had influenced the policy response of the council and the police", all senior officials questioned denied race influenced their decision making.

Meanwhile, regardless of underlying political, cultural or ethnic considerations, at least 1,400 children in the town suffered appalling abuse.

Mr Hussain said: "There's nowhere in the Pakistani culture or the religion of Islam that says child exploitation is allowed - it's completely forbidden.

"But because it's a taboo and it's not talked about, I think with this report we need people to come out and we need the Pakistani Muslim community to talk about it."

'Lying in wait'
That taboo has not just prevented perpetrators being identified, but victims too.

Most of the victims in the cases examined were white British girls, but the report found the abuse of Asian girls was not necessarily reported.

Zlakha Ahmed, from the organisation Apna Haq which supports Asian women and children facing violence in the home, said there has been a long-standing problem of Asian girls suffering abuse.

She said: "The report's not come as a shock to me in terms that we've known about these issues for a number of years now.

"They follow the exact same model as the report that's been released; the difference is that the victims are Asian Muslim young girls and the perpetrators have been Muslim Pakistani men.

"It's just a pattern of abuse that's being repeated with another set of vulnerable girls."

Prof Jay reported: "Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates.

"The women and girls feared reporting such incidents to the police because it would affect their future marriage prospects."

Basically Kitti there may be no real proof of whether or not Asian girls were involved. I understand why you believe there were not. However, in this world we live in, it would not surprise me.

LJC I hope ive misunderstood your post.  the girls involved were vulnerable, impressionable, all those things, none of those things but obviously very frightened to speak out whether they had interested parents or not. are you saying that if they hadn't gone out or were out this would not have happened,  in an ideal world I guess that's true.  but its not an ideal world. you mentioned that you had ties to the police community, well im surprised youre not so well aware of the pitfalls for all young children and teenagers.   it could have been a simple argument with mum or dad  if they have them, a guardian a friend who had upset them and someone starts talking to them in a friendly manner, its called grooming and im sure you know that.  and the rest is so heinous I don't want to repeat it.  its been the same since the world began, young girls older boys or men trying to influence them to get what they want.  an no im not anti men,  I anti the bas***** with evil minds who want to take what they can by any means.

oh and as I understand it, some and some parents did try to report the abuse to the police and others.  Regardless of the circumstances the police did not want to do their job.  neither did the social workers, they were all afraid for whatever reason.  sack them all.  theyre worse than the perpetrators, imo

To return to the title of this thread for a moment. If it is true that in the UK cadaver hounds cannot be trained on human cadavers, it is utterly, and irredemiably, STUPID. A corpse, is a corpse, is a corpse, as in dead meat. What is done with it should be a matter for its previous human inhabitant to decide. (Best to let the relatives know well ahead of time, I guess.)

If I decide to leave my recently vacated corpse for medical students to dissect, many people would say. Good for you, students need to train on real bodies, dead ones, before they get to cut up live ones. Similarly dogs, should be trained in sniffing out the whereabouts of corpses, and corpses in all states of disintegration. The US sensibly has a 'body farm'(more than one, I believe) where corpses are left out in the open to deteriorate, or are buried in different types of soil, placed under water, or in collapsed buildings (as in earthquakes) and other types of places where they might be hidden or end up in real life. So long as the corpses are used for the purposes of training the dogs, what's not to like about it? We in the UK should have such a 'body farm'... well protected from rubber-neckers, of course.

I agree with you totally comperedna. perhaps the medical and forensic services should get together. there must already be some kind of register for people to donate their bodies after death. perhaps something could be included that if they wished they could also allow them to be used on a body farm and for training cadaver dogs. I don't know the legal aspects of this obviously but surely it wouldn't be too far removed from the medical purposes. it all research after all. I know that's too simplistic but maybe its a possibility.

tanszi wrote:LJC I hope ive misunderstood your post.  the girls involved were vulnerable, impressionable, all those things, none of those things but obviously very frightened to speak out whether they had interested parents or not. are you saying that if they hadn't gone out or were out this would not have happened,  in an ideal world I guess that's true.  but its not an ideal world. you mentioned that you had ties to the police community, well im surprised youre not so well aware of the pitfalls for all young children and teenagers.   it could have been a simple argument with mum or dad  if they have them, a guardian a friend who had upset them and someone starts talking to them in a friendly manner, its called grooming and im sure you know that.  and the rest is so heinous I don't want to repeat it.  its been the same since the world began, young girls older boys or men trying to influence them to get what they want.  an no im not anti men,  I anti the bas***** with evil minds who want to take what they can by any means.

oh and as I understand it, some and some parents did try to report the abuse to the police and others.  Regardless of the circumstances the police did not want to do their job.  neither did the social workers, they were all afraid for whatever reason.  sack them all.  theyre worse than the perpetrators, imo

Tanzi, as a mother I am more than well aware of the pitfalls for all young children and teenagers. Sorry, but I do feel these vulnerable girls were vulnerable for a reason and part of the bigger picture starts with the adults who are responsible for them at the outset - and it may not be parents because I suspect some of these girls could have been in foster care or in the care of Social Services. You state it could start with a simple argument with mom and dad or a guardian/friend may have upset them. But grooming doesn't happen overnight; these girls would have been outside in bleak city centres mostly at night time, night after night after night, so it almost becomes a lifestyle for them. I can imagine amusement arcades and shop doorways. But whatever the reason they chose to frequent these types of places, most of them were young, much too young some of them, but they must have frequented parts of cities where they really should not have been and must have done so with some regularity, which has led to them falling prey to evil men. So where were the responsible adults is what I am asking? One girl aged just 11 and most of them well under the age its safe to be out. Where were the adults who should have known where they were but didn't. I'm sure each and every one of these girls has their own story to tell of why they became so vulnerable in the first place but for them to feel there was no way out of their lifestyles is really, really sad and then, on top of that, for them to be getting into relationships with these men (some of them even believing the men loved them) is sad beyond words can describe. If these girls were looking for love and affection my heart goes out to them. Perhaps some of them were looking for excitement, perhaps some of them were persuaded by their peers, I don't know I'm sure. But instead they fell prey, tricked into so called loving relationships and then falling victim to older men.

You are right, it is an age old problem to some degree but worse now if this has escalated due to other cultures seeing it as a 'normal' way to treat young girls.

As a parent myself I always had grave concerns about who my kids hung out with and where; and I feel sorry for kids who did not have the protection that mine had. But for these girls to adopt the lives they did in Rotherham their problems were more deep-seated than just usual teenage rebelliousness.

And of course there have been failings after that and I am sure, as you are, that some parents did report the abuse and I totally agree that professionals have let these girls down. I really hope lessons have been learned. Recent arrests of Asian men would indicate lessons have been learned. But some of these girls would still have believed themselves loved - like wives who cling on to husbands even though they get a good beating off them for having a 'headache' in bed. I just really believe we need to try to prevent vulnerable girls/boys getting themselves into these situations but sadly if they do then we really need to listen to them if they complain of abuse afterwards and take their complaints seriously.

thank you for replying L:JC i must have misinterpreted part of your post, and for that i apologise. Sadly i think there will always be vulnerable children, teenatgers and to some degree adults. what is worse in my opinion is those who see they are vulnerable and befriend them for their own satisfactions, whatever those are, and then go on to traffic them to their friends and anyone else. Lets hope as so many organisations say that lessons have been learnt and if these vulnerables fall prey to these evil ******** perhaps now someone one will listen, take note and act.

tanszi wrote:thank you for replying L:JC i must have misinterpreted part of your post, and for that i apologise.   Sadly i think there will always be vulnerable children, teenatgers and to some degree adults.  what is worse in my opinion is those who see they are vulnerable and befriend them for their own satisfactions, whatever those are, and then go on to traffic them to their friends and anyone else.  Lets hope as so many organisations say that lessons have been learnt and if these vulnerables fall prey to these evil ******** perhaps now someone one will listen, take note and act.

No problem tanszi and thank you also for making me think long and hard about certain aspects of this awful business.

comperedna wrote:To return to the title of this thread for a moment. If it is true that in the UK cadaver hounds cannot be trained on human cadavers, it is utterly, and irredemiably, STUPID. A corpse, is a corpse, is a corpse, as in dead meat. What is done with it should be a matter for its previous human inhabitant to decide. (Best to let the relatives know well ahead of time, I guess.)

If I decide to leave my recently vacated corpse for medical students to dissect, many people would say. Good for you, students need to train on real bodies, dead ones, before they get to cut up live ones. Similarly dogs, should be trained in sniffing out the whereabouts of corpses, and corpses in all states of disintegration. The US sensibly has a 'body farm'(more than one, I believe) where corpses are left out in the open to deteriorate, or are buried in different types of soil, placed under water, or in collapsed buildings (as in earthquakes) and other types of places where they might be hidden or end up in real life. So long as the corpses are used for the purposes of training the dogs, what's not to like about it? We in the UK should have such a 'body farm'... well protected from rubber-neckers, of course.

tanszi wrote:I agree with you totally comperedna.  perhaps the medical and forensic services should get together.  there must already be some kind of register for people to donate their bodies after death.  perhaps something could be included that if they wished they could also allow them to be used on a body farm and for training cadaver dogs.  I don't know the legal aspects of this obviously but surely it wouldn't be too far removed from the medical purposes.  it all research after all.   I know that's too simplistic but maybe its a possibility.

I think part of the problem in the UK is that we do not have, very fortunately,the same need for cadaver dogs. For the most part these dogs are used for victim recovery, so in the USA where there are serious earthquakes for instance and hurricanes, the dogs are invaluable at recovering human corpses. In the UK we do not have human disasters on the same scale with bodies buried under rubble so cadaver dogs are more often than not used as a tool to indicate death but indicators are just that and nothing more and very much more forensic evidence, such as a body, needs to be found.

Also there are private organisations that own and train cadaver dogs and look after the dogs' licences and they can be trained overseas I believe and hired out.

However, when a UK police force owns and trains its own cadaver dogs it is my understanding that the training has to strictly comply with UK regulations so no body parts on ethical grounds are allowed - its illegal. Therefore, if South Yorkshire Police owned Eddie and Keela at the time and were responsible for their licences, but if these dogs were trained in the USA, then it is obvious that their training did not comply with UK regulations and I believe this could be the reason why South Yorkshire Police wished for Mr Grime, very near to retirement having almost done his 30 years, to go freelance and to take over the dogs' licences at his own expense. If they were trained in a manner that does not comply with UK regulations then I am not sure how that squares up with their licences legally but I believe it could prove controversial to South Yorkshire Police; perhaps it could have rendered the dogs' licences invalid. I don't know the answer to it or whether I am right in even thinking it.

But yes, totally agree, we should be able to train our UK Police cadaver dogs using human body parts. It will probably happen one day - the States always seems to get their first, they are something like 30 years ahead of us on this one.