Amaral and the dogs

[ferryman]

That is the problem I have with it, Carana.  Blood is part of the decomposition process.  No-one knows exactly what makes up the components of that and exactly what it is the dogs are smelling.

Of this I am certain.

Still today (in the rest of the world that uses cadaver dogs) it is not standard that uncorroborated dog-alerts are taken as infallible evidence of death.

Until comparatively recently, the same was true in the US (still is in most parts of the US)

The exception is the US Forensic Canine Program

I can think of only one reason why that would be.

Dogs in that program (US spelling) have been desensitised to blood.

I can think of no other logical or coherent reason for it.

[G-Unit]

No conclusion was reached as to what happened.

Only about what didn't happen, namely, that the McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their (loved and cherished!) daughter.

That remains to be demonstrated;

In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[ferryman]

That remains to be demonstrated;

In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

That remains to be demonstrated;

No it doesn't.

The so-called "reconstitution" was (rightly!) seen through as a farce.

[G-Unit]

That remains to be demonstrated;

No it doesn't.

The so-called "reconstitution" was (rightly!) seen through as a farce.

According to the legal report it does. You keep quoting it to prove innocence, but it also said what i quoted.

[Brietta]

Hmmm ... I doubt if even Operation Yewtree will dig up any more than Eddie did ... particularly since unlike Savile there are some who are alive and kicking and ready to defend their names ... much as Freddie Starr is doing in a libel action against a woman whose 'story' is worth researching.
It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.



Freddie Starr will not be prosecuted, CPS confirms
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27294888

Freddie Starr libel trial: Karin Ward insists she told the truth to BBC and ITV about dressing room encounter
 http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/freddie-starr-libel-trial-karin-ward-felt-pressured-newsnight-interview-did-not-know-comments-itv

The investigation is Operation Whistle, not Yewtree.

Whatever.  It still won't go any where near vindicating Eddie ... I think the problem you appear to have is recognising facts with which you disagree and the fact remains that the visit to Haut de la Garenne was an unmitigated disaster from most points of view.

[pathfinder73]

It's hypocritical when the first arguido fully co-operated. So what makes them any different. Parents are always suspects in these cases so it's not like they didn't know it was going to happen at some stage if it remained unsolved.

[Eleanor]

It's hypocritical when the first arguido fully co-operated. So what makes them any different. Parents are always suspects in these cases so it's not like they didn't know it was going to happen at some stage if it remained unsolved.

It is not hypocritical to protect oneself within the rights of The Law.  What Robert Murat decided to do was his own affair.

Lies had been spread through The Media with leaks from The PJ.  And The PJ blatantly lied to them during interviews.  This was despicable.

Did Amaral deliberately misunderstand The Dogs and The DNA, or was he just unbelievably ignorant?

[ferryman]

Pathfinder needs a new Sat Nav.

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.

(Portuguese prosecutors, who reached that conclusion without a reconstitution).

[pathfinder73]

Pathfinder needs a new Sat Nav.

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.

(Portuguese prosecutors, who reached that conclusion without a reconstitution).

There's no conclusion yet. It's been re-opened and the investigation is on-going.

[Benice]

It's hypocritical when the first arguido fully co-operated. So what makes them any different. Parents are always suspects in these cases so it's not like they didn't know it was going to happen at some stage if it remained unsolved.

How unco-operative was it of Kate McCann to decide not to actively assist the police in their last ditch attempt to pin a crime (which she knew had been committed by someone else) on herself?     Common sense alone dictates that only someone completely off their rocker would decide to actually help the police to frame them. 

[ferryman]

How unco-operative was it of Kate McCann to decide not to actively assist the police in their last ditch attempt to pin a crime (which she knew had been committed by someone else) on herself?     Common sense alone dictates that only someone completely off their rocker would decide to actually help the police to frame them.

Beautifully and succinctly put, Benice ....

[pathfinder73]

How unco-operative was it of Kate McCann to decide not to actively assist the police in their last ditch attempt to pin a crime (which she knew had been committed by someone else) on herself?     Common sense alone dictates that only someone completely off their rocker would decide to actually help the police to frame them.

Robert Murat thought he was being framed but he fully co-operated against his lawyers advice because he knew he was innocent. Every comment on the Sun facebook page over 500 today all have the same opinion on this case. You better not go there.

[ferryman]

Robert Murat thought he was being framed but he fully co-operated against his lawyers advice because he knew he was innocent. Every comment on the Sun facebook page over 500 today all have the same opinion on this case. You better not go there.

Robert Murat insisted he spent the evening May 3rd home with his mother.

The point is hotly disputed ...

[Benice]

Robert Murat thought he was being framed but he fully co-operated against his lawyers advice because he knew he was innocent. Every comment on the Sun facebook page over 500 today all have the same opinion on this case. You better not go there.

But Gerry McCann did exactly the same as Robert Murat.   So what's the difference?  Why does that point to the innocence of one man but not the other?

I don't know how your reference to the Sun facebook is connected.   I've never read it.  Care to elucidate?


Sorry just realised I'm off topic.  No need to reply PF.

[pegasus]

I would go further.... A dog not alerting does not rule out cadaver odour

So what do you deduce from the fact that Eddie did not alert in the bathroom ?