Grime-watch ....

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:43 pm

honestbroker1 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:45 am
Carana wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:17 pm
honestbroker1 wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:25 pm
You never have been able to see the problem with Grime.

Which has long mystified me.
I have several problems with how Grime went about things, and I've often said so.




For me, the key points are these:

What was supposed to have been the relationship between Grime and Harrison was simple:

Harrison would draw up a schedule of searches and Grime would carry out those searches in accordance with Harrison's schedule.

Harrison did his bit.

He drew up a sensible and logical schedule of searches.

Harrison then lapses into second-person-speak to outline a schedule, extended from those Harrison (originally) recommended, that had/have no logic whatever: places Madeleine never lived in or went near, the villa, the Renault scenic and so on. Harrison knew in a way Grime seemingly didn't that Grime did not have dogs with the right training for the sort of inspections Grime attempted with them.

That is why Harrison (retrospectively) dismissed both inspections at villa and gym as pj exercises.

Harrison understood in a way, I suspect, Grime did to, that Grime did not have dogs with the right training for the sorts of 'inspections' Grime attempted with them.

Harrison (unwittingly) unleashed in Grime a sort of 'Frankenstein monster' that, as is the way of it with these monsters, he then struggled, with considerable skill, but only partial success, to control.

Meanwhile, the net losers in this mess are Madeleine, Kate, Gerry and Madeleine's extended family.

User avatar
Hael
Posts: 20803
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by Hael » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:40 pm

honestbroker1 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:43 pm
honestbroker1 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:45 am
Carana wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:17 pm

You never have been able to see the problem with Grime.

Which has long mystified me.
I have several problems with how Grime went about things, and I've often said so.




For me, the key points are these:

What was supposed to have been the relationship between Grime and Harrison was simple:

Harrison would draw up a schedule of searches and Grime would carry out those searches in accordance with Harrison's schedule.

Harrison did his bit.

He drew up a sensible and logical schedule of searches.

Harrison then lapses into second-person-speak to outline a schedule, extended from those Harrison (originally) recommended, that had/have no logic whatever: places Madeleine never lived in or went near, the villa, the Renault scenic and so on. Harrison knew in a way Grime seemingly didn't that Grime did not have dogs with the right training for the sort of inspections Grime attempted with them.

That is why Harrison (retrospectively) dismissed both inspections at villa and gym as pj exercises.

Harrison understood in a way, I suspect, Grime did to, that Grime did not have dogs with the right training for the sorts of 'inspections' Grime attempted with them.

Harrison (unwittingly) unleashed in Grime a sort of 'Frankenstein monster' that, as is the way of it with these monsters, he then struggled, with considerable skill, but only partial success, to control.

Meanwhile, the net losers in this mess are Madeleine, Kate, Gerry and Madeleine's extended family.
When it comes to the dogs it always leaves us with more questions than answers. Or at least, many unanswered questions. There is a huge amount of information on this forum about the dogs, but one sad fact remains, the haters and the press at the time, paid too much attention to the dogs and disregarded the fact that ANY indication by the dogs, must be backed up by forensic evidence. And we all know that the dogs were not backed up.

It's as you said HB, the net losers are Madeleine and her family.
The trolls funding a shamed coppers right to lie about Kate and Gerry McCann are a new level of weirdo.[omitted] they may have destroyed all hope for good.Talking up conspiracy theories is one thing.Wrecking the search for an abducted child is another.-The Sun

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19580
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by Carana » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:42 pm

"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:41 pm

Good find, Carana.

I think it supports my argument that it is possible to desensitise dogs to specific scents, and why not blood?

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19580
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by Carana » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:31 am

honestbroker1 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:41 pm
Good find, Carana.

I think it supports my argument that it is possible to desensitise dogs to specific scents, and why not blood?
That's not what I understood from that, HB. I found it interesting due to a debate elsewhere quite some time ago.

My understanding is that - as they couldn't desensitise dogs to the scent of weed once they'd been trained to alert to it - they brought in new dogs that were trained to detect a variety of narcotics, but not weed.

What someone elsewhere had argued was something along the lines that you could desensitise a dog to a scent that they'd already been trained to alert to by simply no longer rewarding it. Or something.

In the case of weed, I'm assuming that the chemical properties are not a major component of other types of drugs, and that that is why new dogs can be trained to simply ignore that particular scent.

However, by the same token, I don't see how a VRD could be trained to alert to decomposing human substances without also alerting to blood - as it's present in just about everything that a VRD would be tasked to alert to.

That said, I can see why the opposite is true regarding Keela as she was only ever trained to detect the physical presence of blood.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:28 pm

Carana wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:31 am
honestbroker1 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:41 pm
Good find, Carana.

I think it supports my argument that it is possible to desensitise dogs to specific scents, and why not blood?
That's not what I understood from that, HB. I found it interesting due to a debate elsewhere quite some time ago.

My understanding is that - as they couldn't desensitise dogs to the scent of weed once they'd been trained to alert to it - they brought in new dogs that were trained to detect a variety of narcotics, but not weed.

What someone elsewhere had argued was something along the lines that you could desensitise a dog to a scent that they'd already been trained to alert to by simply no longer rewarding it. Or something.

In the case of weed, I'm assuming that the chemical properties are not a major component of other types of drugs, and that that is why new dogs can be trained to simply ignore that particular scent.

However, by the same token, I don't see how a VRD could be trained to alert to decomposing human substances without also alerting to blood - as it's present in just about everything that a VRD would be tasked to alert to.

That said, I can see why the opposite is true regarding Keela as she was only ever trained to detect the physical presence of blood.

It would obviously be unthinkable that we would be in complete agreement but we are in partial agreement (I think). And yes, I concede careless use in my earlier post of the word desensitise.

As was as I argued earlier. You sensitise a dog to the scents you want a dog to alert to.

On the part of your post I highlight, I don't see why you see a problem?

To a dog, the scent of decomposing human blood is quite separate and quite distinct from other scents of decomposing human remains, so if you want a dog to react the scent of decomposing human blood -- as a discrete scent -- (distinct from mixed with other scents you want the dog to react to) you must introduce the dog to blodd as a discrete scent and reward the dog for reacting.

Then the dog will.

If you don't, skip that step and the dog won't.

Job done.

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19580
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by Carana » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:10 pm

honestbroker1 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:28 pm
Carana wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:31 am
honestbroker1 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:41 pm
Good find, Carana.

I think it supports my argument that it is possible to desensitise dogs to specific scents, and why not blood?
That's not what I understood from that, HB. I found it interesting due to a debate elsewhere quite some time ago.

My understanding is that - as they couldn't desensitise dogs to the scent of weed once they'd been trained to alert to it - they brought in new dogs that were trained to detect a variety of narcotics, but not weed.

What someone elsewhere had argued was something along the lines that you could desensitise a dog to a scent that they'd already been trained to alert to by simply no longer rewarding it. Or something.

In the case of weed, I'm assuming that the chemical properties are not a major component of other types of drugs, and that that is why new dogs can be trained to simply ignore that particular scent.

However, by the same token, I don't see how a VRD could be trained to alert to decomposing human substances without also alerting to blood - as it's present in just about everything that a VRD would be tasked to alert to.

That said, I can see why the opposite is true regarding Keela as she was only ever trained to detect the physical presence of blood.

It would obviously be unthinkable that we would be in complete agreement but we are in partial agreement (I think). And yes, I concede careless use in my earlier post of the word desensitise.

As was as I argued earlier. You sensitise a dog to the scents you want a dog to alert to.

On the part of your post I highlight, I don't see why you see a problem?

To a dog, the scent of decomposing human blood is quite separate and quite distinct from other scents of decomposing human remains, so if you want a dog to react the scent of decomposing human blood -- as a discrete scent -- (distinct from mixed with other scents you want the dog to react to) you must introduce the dog to blodd as a discrete scent and reward the dog for reacting.

Then the dog will.

If you don't, skip that step and the dog won't.

Job done.
I think we've both fainted on the few occasions on which we've totally agreed on this topic. :s_wink

Seriously, how do you separate the scent of blood from any other decomposing substance of usual interest in a criminal investigation?

ETA: I can understand Keela's training - as it was ONLY to the physical presence of blood.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:06 pm

Carana wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:10 pm
honestbroker1 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:28 pm
Carana wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:31 am
honestbroker1 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:41 pm
Good find, Carana.

I think it supports my argument that it is possible to desensitise dogs to specific scents, and why not blood?
That's not what I understood from that, HB. I found it interesting due to a debate elsewhere quite some time ago.

My understanding is that - as they couldn't desensitise dogs to the scent of weed once they'd been trained to alert to it - they brought in new dogs that were trained to detect a variety of narcotics, but not weed.

What someone elsewhere had argued was something along the lines that you could desensitise a dog to a scent that they'd already been trained to alert to by simply no longer rewarding it. Or something.

In the case of weed, I'm assuming that the chemical properties are not a major component of other types of drugs, and that that is why new dogs can be trained to simply ignore that particular scent.

However, by the same token, I don't see how a VRD could be trained to alert to decomposing human substances without also alerting to blood - as it's present in just about everything that a VRD would be tasked to alert to.

That said, I can see why the opposite is true regarding Keela as she was only ever trained to detect the physical presence of blood.

It would obviously be unthinkable that we would be in complete agreement but we are in partial agreement (I think). And yes, I concede careless use in my earlier post of the word desensitise.

As was as I argued earlier. You sensitise a dog to the scents you want a dog to alert to.

On the part of your post I highlight, I don't see why you see a problem?

To a dog, the scent of decomposing human blood is quite separate and quite distinct from other scents of decomposing human remains, so if you want a dog to react the scent of decomposing human blood -- as a discrete scent -- (distinct from mixed with other scents you want the dog to react to) you must introduce the dog to blodd as a discrete scent and reward the dog for reacting.

Then the dog will.

If you don't, skip that step and the dog won't.

Job done.
I think we've both fainted on the few occasions on which we've totally agreed on this topic. :s_wink

Seriously, how do you separate the scent of blood from any other decomposing substance of usual interest in a criminal investigation?

ETA: I can understand Keela's training - as it was ONLY to the physical presence of blood.
It's that little word you.

We (humans) don't/can't.

To the dog, the scent of decomposing human blood is as distinct, separate and unique as (say, to the human) the aroma of baking bread from the aroma of a sewage plant.

So the dog will react the scent of decomposing human blood -- as a discrete scent -- only if introduced to human blood as a discrete scent
and rewarded for doing so.

If not introduced to blood -- as a discrete scent -- the dog will not react to blood -- as a discrete scent.

But will do so if blood is mixed with other stuff the dog is trained to react to (with other stuff, besides blood) being what will trigger the reaction, even though the dog will, of course, detect the scent of blood separately from whatever other scents that trigger the reaction.

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:52 pm

In the files (that we read on line) the gym gets its first mention here:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:

On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.

On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.

On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.

Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.

On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.

On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.

On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.

On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.

On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
The reference to the gym is emboldened, referred to as a PJ exercise.

It is, beyond doubt, no coincidence that Harrison acknowledges Grime and his dogs only in those inspections Harrison (originally) recommended

And Harrison waited until after the inspections at villa and gym to issue PJ personnel with translated NPIA instructions on how to conduct inspections in building and vehicles.

Just in time for the inspection of vehicles.

Not that that made any difference.

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:47 pm

just after 30 minutes in.

The chap Chris Ellis and what was supposed to have been the nature of the professional and working relationship between Harrison and Grime in PdL (same as between Ellis and Grime in the Kate Prout investigation).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W04cnMnuS58

In the Kate Prout investigation, there were no clothes strewn haphazardly over some floor of a building for dogs (or even a dog) to trample all over and pick up in its mouth.

Grime, in the Kate Prout investigation, was obliged to conform to the English norm for deployment of cadaver dogs.

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:54 pm

Of course, the haters are irrationally obsessed with the (US) Zapata case, where a judge said it was 50-50 whether dogs had alerted accurately, or whether they hadn't. And the haters lose sight of the fact that Zapata's, later, confession makes not a jot of difference to the remarks of the judge.

Still, Gerry would have done better to cite the case of Thomas Quick, and another Z, this time, the name of a dog, Zampo, living in Sweden, and trained identically to Eddie, exclusively on pig-cadavers, who turned Swiss resident Thomas Quick, into the serial killer he never was:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/ ... den-murder
There was a clique of people around Quick, variously described by those I talk to as being akin to "a cult", "a travelling circus" and "a religious sect that did not welcome dissenting beliefs". The same police officer, therapist, prosecuting and defence lawyer dealt with each of his confessions through the years. Even the same sniffer dog, Zampo, was used to trawl each "murder" site.

"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found. The dog is just as bad as the rest of them."

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:35 pm

From Grime's profile
I am a Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of

Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
To be clear, the only trip Martin Grime made to the States while still an employee of South Yorkshire Police was a trip in the New Year, 2006, when he went without dogs to discuss Keela, whom the Americans had heard about and about whom they wanted to know more.

It is perhaps indicative of the way what Grime said on that trip was received that, 18 months later, Grime washed up in Praia da Luz with his dogs, definitely free-lance.

After finishing with SYP, Grime does seem to have done some fringe-work in the States under the auspices of the Forensic Canine Program.

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:41 pm

Acting in my role of advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have
facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United

States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced
pig based products into training assessments 100%! of the animals alerted to the medium.
Is Grime claiming credit for introducing use of pigs to train cadaver dogs?

Really?

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by Whiterose » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:07 pm

honestbroker1 wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:41 pm
Acting in my role of advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have
facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United

States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced
pig based products into training assessments 100%! of the animals alerted to the medium.
Is Grime claiming credit for introducing use of pigs to train cadaver dogs?

Really?
No, I don't think so HB, he is just saying he introduced it to the dogs.
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:12 pm

Whiterose wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:07 pm
honestbroker1 wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:41 pm
Acting in my role of advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have
facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United

States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced
pig based products into training assessments 100%! of the animals alerted to the medium.
Is Grime claiming credit for introducing use of pigs to train cadaver dogs?

Really?
No, I don't think so HB, he is just saying he introduced it to the dogs.
How do you think that statement is likely to have been received by the potential employee who, presumably, weighed the content of his profile in their final decision to employ him?

And the other point: what do you suppose Grime, as a seemingly not all that highly regarded police-constable with South Yorkshire Police, be "advising" the US Justice of department about?

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:02 pm

Keela is a top dog in the police world, earning more in a day than her force's Chief Constable by working on some of the country's highest-profile crimes.
Keela, The pride of South Yorkshire
The pride of South Yorkshire

The 16-month-old springer spaniel can sniff out the smallest samples of human blood - even after items have been cleaned or washed many times.

The South Yorkshire Police dog has already helped forces across the country, including working on the stabbing of Abigail Witchalls in Surrey.

Her going rate is £530 per day, plus expenses.

If she worked every day of the year, she would earn almost £200,000 - around £70,000 more than her force's Chief Constable.

In the New Year, Keela will be travelling to America to assist the FBI with two murder inquiries.

A South Yorkshire force spokeswoman said the crime scene investigation dog has saved more then £200,000 nationally since April this year, helping with investigations in Ireland, Cornwall, Wiltshire, Surrey and the Thames Valley areas.

Her handler, PC Martin Grime, has been responsible for training Keela, along with National Search Adviser Mark Harrison, since June last year.

Unlike ordinary police dogs, Keela has never taken part in the usual six-week training course but has been trained, bit by bit, by PC Grime every day.

Her programme involved training her to ignore decomposing body materials other than human blood.

Instead of barking when she smells blood, she has been trained to have a "passive" alert - freezing with her nose as near to the subject matter as possible without touching, to enable scientists to recover the sample quickly and efficiently.

This technique has saved time and money on major investigations.

South Yorkshire Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes said: "Keela's training gives the force an edge when it comes to forensic investigation, which we should recognise and use more often.

"We know we have an operationally excellent dog section, and our specialist dogs are being developed in a unique way."
In respect of the part I highlight, without touching!

Of course, all fully explains why, in Praia da Luz, we saw her trampling all over stuff she was tasked to inspect, and her canine pal, Eddie, picking stuff up in his mouth, as well as trampling all over stuff.

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Grime-watch ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:44 am

From Mark Harrison's report:

Costs.
Currently only costs for the EVRD and CSI are available.
The daily rate for this dog team is 1000 Euros. Flight travel costs for handler and dogs could be 2750 Euros. Veterinary costs: U.K. and Portugal to comply with Pet Passports scheme 450 Euros. Accommodation, subsistence and vehicle transportation would incur extra charge.
Costs for a VRD dog team to conduct the open area search are not available at the time of writing. Such a team could be sourced from several countries within Europe or USA that have this capability including the UK. However the UK is limited to those teams whose dogs have "pet passports" due to UK quarantine restrictions.
Grime was freelance in Praia da Luz.

So, into whose pocket did this 1000 euros a day (with all other costs on top) go?

And why was Harrison unable to source costs for dogs, that would have been identically trained to Eddie (on pork, and possibly human blood) and also (more likely) competently handled?

We should be told.

Post Reply