Amaral and the dogs

[Mr Gray]

                 There is no statement as to how crèche man was found and interviewed.

I think it is infantile to suggest the case was reopened without prior consultation with those closest to the heart of it.

I think "infantile" sums it up

[stephen25000]

I think "infantile" sums it up

''infantile''

Oh what a surprise.

The word that could be used to describe an investigation going nowhere.

[Eleanor]

AMARAL AND THE DOGS.

[ferryman]

It was also concluded that the dog was "unreliable" round about the same place, ferryman;  I didn't post that because I couldn't be bothered ploughing through the document again for a cite.
But if you do come across it when looking for the coconut details can you post it up too.

If I come across it, I will.

Still can't find the bit about the coconut for the moment.

[Mr Gray]

AMARAL AND THE DOGS.

so Grime says....
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to
 'a cadaver scent'  contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
 alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

and amaral says..
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.

Can there be any defence for amaral's outrageous statement...the answer has to be NO

[stephen25000]

so Grime says....
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to
 'a cadaver scent'  contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
 alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

and amaral says..
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.

Can there be any defence for amaral's outrageous statement...the answer has to be NO

It is quite feasible the dogs alerted to a body.

[Jean-Pierre]

so Grime says....
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to
 'a cadaver scent'  contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
 alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

and amaral says..
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.

Can there be any defence for amaral's outrageous statement...the answer has to be NO

In fairness Amaral was a police man with limited experience of this kind of case.

Grime and Harrison had made quite extravagant claims for the dogs abilities and accuracy and that they had never made a false positive (which we know to be economical with the truth).

So Amaral can perhaps be forgiven for putting 1.876 and 2.134 together and making 3.99999999 recurring.

It is not for no reason that dog evidence is not admissible. 

[Carana]

It'll take me a while to find.

But somewhere in that Operation Haven report Brietta posted is definitive  confirmation that Eddie reacted to a coconut.

I will post when I find.

Carana knows where it is. 

She was the first one to highlight it ....

Not sure what you're looking for.




5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.

5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.

There were several reports and I'd have to find which one this extract came from.

[ferryman]

Not sure what you're looking for.




5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.

5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.

There were several reports and I'd have to find which one this extract came from.

You've found what I was looking for, which I think answers Pathfinder earlier ....

[Carana]

In fairness, from what I've read of numerous reports, there were more factors than just Grime and his dogs in the PdL and Jersey fiascos.

This article sums up numerous points on the Jersey situation, which in some ways is quite similar to the PdL one in terms of various agents, assumptions and the media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html#ixzz2nLiavJKv

[Anna]

Not sure what you're looking for.




5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.

5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.

There were several reports and I'd have to find which one this extract came from.

Page 255
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

[ferryman]

In fairness, from what I've read of numerous reports, there were more factors than just Grime and his dogs in the PdL and Jersey fiascos.

This article sums up numerous points on the Jersey situation, which in some ways is quite similar to the PdL one in terms of various agents, assumptions and the media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html#ixzz2nLiavJKv

You are always fair to everyone, something for which I 90% admire you.

I'll leave the 10% reservation to one side for now ....

[ferryman]

Coconut  Martin Grime was correct.

"People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human."

Neither are dogs:

5.6.19 The sample was logged into the ORAU system in the usual manner
and, as in all cases, a sample of bone powder was drilled from the
underside of the specimen using a tungsten carbide drill. The powder
weighed 440 mg. The technician performing this procedure noted that
the material did not behave as bone ordinarily would and did not have
the texture that normal bone exhibits. The technician has a great deal
of experience in the sampling of bone (almost 30 years). Because of
this uncertainty, and as a precaution, a small amount of the sample
was combusted to measure the % nitrogen remaining. % N is a good
correlate for protein, which is dominated in bone by collagen, and the
measurement of nitrogen offers a simple test concerning whether the
sample is dateable or not. Low % N means that the material is
essentially un-dateable using radiocarbon.
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had
0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any
quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller
chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a
result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably
not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material,
the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so
the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist
and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU)
concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost
certainly wood. It seemed surprising to us that the material could be
so confidently identified by X , and particularly that it could
Page 255 of 383




Media Highly Confidential – Personal Information
be determined to be an infant specimen. We informed X of
our concerns shortly afterwards, by phone and e-mail. We stand by our
original assessment. We suggest that the curvature of the material
may have had something to do with the misidentification. We
think it appears to be more like part of a large seed casing, or part of
something like a small piece of coconut. Certainly, the density of the
material is most unlike bone, it is too light. Our conclusion is that this
sample is: a) not bone and b) not human. We are very surprised that
the forensic archaeologist could be so confident and differ in X
identification. We suggested at the time that a further opinion would be
required, but this not considered by X . A further
analysis of the bone structure under a suitable microscope would
confirm the situation rapidly.

[Carana]

Coconut  Martin Grime was correct.

"People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human."

I'm not sure what the joke is. The "skull" fragment turned out to be wood-based.

And picked up by FM.

[Carana]

Page 255
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

Many thanks, Anna!

There's more detail on there.