I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman
No (IMO), I don't find the word "certainly" to be acceptable. ETA: the word "certainly" doesn't seem to appear in the original text.
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...