Amaral and the dogs

[Brietta]

I have simply pointed out that he did not use certainly (certamente, com certezo).  He used proveniente (originating from, arising from).  Plus a construct that is poder ser (maybe, it could be, it might be).  Then he stuck in a só (only).
The translator has had a stab at what Amaral might or might not have said, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm just not getting a 'certainly' here.  I believe that 'certainly' is what the topic is about.

It is actually quite a wide ranging topic which was milked for all it was worth by TV pundits such as Amaral, Cristovão and Sargento, with the original misinterpretation of all the evidence, including the erroneous conclusions he reached through ignorance? of how it actually works as far as the dogs are concerned being churned out continually to an audience who were led to believe in the 'professional judgement' of these 'experts'.

The Portuguese audience were not misled by poor translations.  If they bought the book it was the original. 

Any mistranslations in his book ... which actually were nothing to do with him except to eat into his profiteering ... have been accepted by an English or French target audience ... just as the mistranslation of parts of the files has been.

[Carana]

I have simply pointed out that he did not use certainly (certamente, com certezo).  He used proveniente (originating from, arising from).  Plus a construct that is poder ser (maybe, it could be, it might be).  Then he stuck in a só (only).
The translator has had a stab at what Amaral might or might not have said, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm just not getting a 'certainly' here.  I believe that 'certainly' is what the topic is about.

Existiam sinais de morte no apartamento 5A. Era agora necessário comprovar que naquele apartamento, antes de 3 de Maio de 2007, ninguém tinha morrido. Os registos do Ocean Club não relatavam qualquer incidente desse tipo, os bombeiros e serviços paramédicos locais também desconheciam qualquer morte no apartamento. Os anteriores proprietários também não conheciam a ocorrência de qualquer morte. Concluiu-se, então, que aquele odor de cadáver só poderia ser proveniente de uma pessoa: Madeleine Beth McCann.


OK, I agree that I can't see certainly in there and I should have checked the PT version prior to making a comment.
 
However, I understand that sentence to mean: The conclusion, therefore, was that that cadaver scent could only have come from one person: Madeleine Beth McCann.

Or have I misunderstood the original?

[ferryman]

No (IMO), I don't find the word "certainly" to be acceptable.

On the one hand, I don't think that Grime / Harrison were clear about the limitations of the dogs, nor about the fact that no significance should be attached to alerts in the absence of corroborating forensic evidence in the "dog-selling" stage. Portugal wasn't familiar with such dogs, so I can understand in a way how Amaral & co., could have felt that they were close to hitting the "jackpot" when they did alert.

On the other hand, the caveats were clear in the reports, but Amaral seems to have ignored them. Neither did he understand the forensic results associated with those alerts, which should have been an indication that that avenue wasn't going anywhere.

I don't see how any casual reader, who assumes that the former coordinator was indeed a highly knowledgeable and seasoned expert, could fail to come to the conclusion that she did indeed die there when in reality there is no evidence to support it.

Why would anyone who believed in Amaral's "thesis" continue to be vigilant?

A tragedy of errors...

Not at the dog-selling stage, no.

But Harrison's second report, written some 3 months before Amaral was booted off the case, and fully and legally accessible to Amaral, at least the point he was booted off, makes abundantly plain what limitations should be placed on (uncorroborated) dog alerts.

Amaral only had to read Harrison's report.

In fairness, even Grime says that uncorroborated dog alerts have no evidential value.

Amaral only had to read these things.

[G-Unit]

It's true to say that Amaral's team could find no evidence of abduction or of woke and wandered. They were skeptical of Jane Tanner's sighting and found the statements of the Tapas 9 less than believable. Lee Rainbow allegedly agreed that there was cause to look at the parents. Hence in July 2007 Mark Harrison was called in to give his opinion on how to conduct a search for a dead body rather than a live child, something he saw as a reasonable assumption.

I think the alerts confirmed the investigator's suspicions rather than the suspicions having arisen from the alerts. Amaral's evidence is all circumstantial, but he believed that it was enough to reach a conclusion.

This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases.

It was Harrison who suggested using dogs;

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

[Carana]

Not at the dog-selling stage, no.

But Harrison's second report, written some 3 months before Amaral was booted off the case, and fully and legally accessible to Amaral, at least the point he was booted off, makes abundantly plain what limitations should be placed on (uncorroborated) dog alerts.

Amaral only had to read Harrison's report.

In fairness, even Grime says that uncorroborated dog alerts have no evidential value.

Amaral only had to read these things.

And yet he chose not to take those reports into account... why would that be?

[Mr Gray]

It's true to say that Amaral's team could find no evidence of abduction or of woke and wandered. They were skeptical of Jane Tanner's sighting and found the statements of the Tapas 9 less than believable. Lee Rainbow allegedly agreed that there was cause to look at the parents. Hence in July 2007 Mark Harrison was called in to give his opinion on how to conduct a search for a dead body rather than a live child, something he saw as a reasonable assumption.

I think the alerts confirmed the investigator's suspicions rather than the suspicions having arisen from the alerts. Amaral's evidence is all circumstantial, but he believed that it was enough to reach a conclusion.

This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases.

It was Harrison who suggested using dogs;

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

amarals conclusions do not follow the evidence...he has basically lied and misled people. As a policeman it would be expected his opinions would based on evidence and be honest. they are neither

[Carana]

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

Hmmmm.

[ferryman]

During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.

Mark Harrison.

[Benice]

And yet he chose not to take those reports into account... why would that be?

Because  - instead of following the evidence and arriving at a conclusion - he arrived at his conclusion first - then cherry-picked any 'evidence' which supported that conclusion - whilst studiously turning a blind eye to anything that didn't.   

The fact that Eddie alerted to cadaverscent suited him.   The reports did not suit him - so he ignored them imo.

It's easy to make a case against anyone using those tactics.

[ferryman]

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

Hmmmm.

That was before searches were conducted, and before Harrison observed how they were conducted.

[Carana]

During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.

Mark Harrison.

And that report was dated 22.07.2007... i.e., well before Amaral was taken off the case.

[Mr Gray]

During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.

Mark Harrison.

NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN...could everyone make a note of that

[ferryman]

After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.

AMAZING STATISTICS

Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.

The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.


(Goncalo Amaral)

And (some) people wonder why Amaral lost!

[G-Unit]

After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.

AMAZING STATISTICS

Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.

The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.


(Goncalo Amaral)

And (some) people wonder why Amaral lost!

Because he followed the advice of an expert to investigate the family and friends?

[ferryman]

Said expert never issued any such advice.

Neither did he investigate family or friends.

Instead, following the brief handed to him by the PJ, he looked for evidence that might indicate a particular line of enquiry -- and found none.