Manhunt by Colin Sutton. Are there comparisons with Madeleine?

[G-Unit]

Cite please.

Where there is a reference to the 'main' evidence it's obviously not the only evidence. The rest of it can be found in his report which you can find here;

Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10539.msg511786#msg511786

[Mr Gray]

Where there is a reference to the 'main' evidence it's obviously not the only evidence. The rest of it can be found in his report which you can find here;

Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10539.msg511786#msg511786

Did he not realise the alerts have no evidential value or reliability.....

[G-Unit]

He can have any opinion he wants... But he should not present it as fact...... When the, evidence does not support it..

Do you think saying A 'points to' B is a statement of fact?

[Venturi Swirl]

Where there is a reference to the 'main' evidence it's obviously not the only evidence. The rest of it can be found in his report which you can find here;

Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10539.msg511786#msg511786

so remove the dog alerts and what have you got?  Pretty much nothing as evidenced by the report.

[Mr Gray]

Do you think saying A 'points to' B is a statement of fact?

It is a, statement of fact

[G-Unit]

It is a, statement of fact

It isn't. It's a suggestion.

[Venturi Swirl]

It isn't. It's a suggestion.

”A may point to B” is a suggestion.

[Mr Gray]

It isn't. It's a suggestion.

Everything I have posted points to the PJ not having a proper understanding of the evidence

[G-Unit]

A may point to B is a sugestion.

If Madeleine's DNA was found behind rhe couch that could 'point to' various scenaruis. In Ameida's opinion it pointed to her death.

[Venturi Swirl]

If Madeleine's DNA was found behind rhe couch that could 'point to' various scenaruis. In Ameida's opinion it pointed to her death.

So what?  Did he list all the possible scenarios?  Did he express any doubt? 

[Mr Gray]

If Madeleine's DNA was found behind rhe couch that could 'point to' various scenaruis. In Ameida's opinion it pointed to her death.

Then it points to his poor logic in assessing evidence....

[G-Unit]

So what?  Did he list all the possible scenarios?  Did he express any doubt?

Why should he? Why shouldn't he form a belief? It seems to me that's endemic in this case.

[Venturi Swirl]

Why should he? Why shouldn't he form a belief? It seems to me that's endemic in this case.

As a professional his belief as articulated in an official document should be backed up by solid evidence.  He thought the dog alerts supported his belief but he was wrong to suppose it as they had no evidential value.. 

[Brietta]

Why is it extraordinary that a DNA match for Madeleine was found in a place where it is known that she had been in residence?

[G-Unit]

As a professional his belief as articulated in an official document should be backed up by solid evidence.  He thought the dog alerts supported his belief but he was wrong to suppose it as they had no evidential value..

You seem to expect the police to conpletely ignore any dog alert that doesn't uncover a body or DNA. That would be ridiculous.