UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on February 26, 2017, 04:47:07 PM
-
If OG has stated that the McCanns are not suspects in the investigation into their daughter's disappearance it is obvious that they have decided that the cadaver dog evidence is not relevant. Why then did Gerry draw unneeded attention to it in his statement to the Lisbon court ?
'GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...'
-
The judge then told him, very clearly, what the purpose of the civil trial was. For those who bleat on about the 'lies' in the book; it's not relevant;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
-
The judge then told him, very clearly, what the purpose of the civil trial was. For those who bleat on about the 'lies' in the book; it's not relevant;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
What a splendid putdown @)(++(*
Gerry must have been furious.
-
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
That's why he brought it up in court.
Next!
-
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
That's why he brought it up in court.
Next!
In his opinion. Just as in Amaral's opinion the abduction story wasn't true.
Why did he bring up something that wasn't even being considered by the court? He clearly misunderstood the purpose and scope of the trial, as well as the purpose and scope of the archiving dispatch.
-
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
That's why he brought it up in court.
Next!
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
In the first instance the judge concluded it had,three appeal judges followed by three Supreme court judges concluded that it had not.Next.
-
But they're all wrong, don't you know? Only the most junior, least experienced judge got it right @)(++(*
Appeal judges, pah, what do they know ?
-
In his opinion. Just as in Amaral's opinion the abduction story wasn't true.
Why did he bring up something that wasn't even being considered by the court? He clearly misunderstood the purpose and scope of the trial, as well as the purpose and scope of the archiving dispatch.
It's not an opinion - it's a fact that the book is full of so called facts that are not true. And I've just explained why he brought it up in court. The dog alerts was one of the so-called facts in the book, and the trial was about the damage the book (and by book we mean the contents, including all the so-called facts) caused the McCanns. But never mind, he clearly misunderstood so let's all have a good sneer at the utter stupidity of the man for even trying to defend his reputation in court. What a complete idiot! More contempt for Gerry needed here please, this thread hasn't nearly enough yet.
-
The judge then told him, very clearly, what the purpose of the civil trial was. For those who bleat on about the 'lies' in the book; it's not relevant;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
Where and when are these conversations being recorded.
-
It's not an opinion - it's a fact that the book is full of so called facts that are not true. And I've just explained why he brought it up in court. The dog alerts was one of the so-called facts in the book, and the trial was about the damage the book (and by book we mean the contents, including all the so-called facts) caused the McCanns. But never mind, he clearly misunderstood so let's all have a good sneer at the utter stupidity of the man for even trying to defend his reputation in court. What a complete idiot! More contempt for Gerry needed here please, this thread hasn't nearly enough yet.
Proven facts from the first trial the one where the Judge supposed to have got it right and the subsequent appeal judges wrong.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
.
-
Proven facts from the first trial the one where the Judge supposed to have got it right and the subsequent appeal judges wrong.
Who's blood and who was the cadaver?
"6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]."
I don't mind someone saying the dogs alerted to something but it was never corroborated with finding physical evidence.
-
It's not an opinion - it's a fact that the book is full of so called facts that are not true. And I've just explained why he brought it up in court. The dog alerts was one of the so-called facts in the book, and the trial was about the damage the book (and by book we mean the contents, including all the so-called facts) caused the McCanns. But never mind, he clearly misunderstood so let's all have a good sneer at the utter stupidity of the man for even trying to defend his reputation in court. What a complete idiot! More contempt for Gerry needed here please, this thread hasn't nearly enough yet.
The fact that you hold the same opinion as Dr McCann doesn't make it true either. Neither does it make it relevant to the question being decided by the court; something which both you and Dr McCann seem unable to grasp.
-
Proven facts from the first trial the one where the Judge supposed to have got it right and the subsequent appeal judges wrong.
Link please.
-
The fact that you hold the same opinion as Dr McCann doesn't make it true either. Neither does it make it relevant to the question being decided by the court; something which both you and Dr McCann seem unable to grasp.
OK, because I am so stupid, perhaps you can tell me why the contents of Amaral's book are irrelevant to the question being decided by the court.
-
Who's blood and who was the cadaver?
"6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]."
I don't mind someone saying the dogs alerted to something but it was never corroborated with finding physical evidence.
Its not been determined yet,nor has what happened the night of 3/05/2007.
-
OK, because I am so stupid, perhaps you can tell me why the contents of Amaral's book are irrelevant to the question being decided by the court.
Who said the contents of the book were irrelevant?
The judge said something quite different; if you work out what she said all will be revealed.
-
Link please.
Do you mean to say you have no idea of the first verdict?
-
Its not been determined yet,nor has what happened the night of 3/05/2007.
Therefore they are not facts that point to Madeleine. Unproven, uncorroborated.
-
Do you mean to say you have no idea of the first verdict?
No I don't mean to say that, I'm asking you for the link to the passage you provided, hope that's within forum rules.
-
Therefore they are not facts that point to Madeleine. Unproven, uncorroborated.
Read the judgement,it say's nothing of Madeleine it say proven fact of the dog findings,some ten years no with these pesky dogs not proving any thing they don't half cause some consternation when in all truth they shouldn't.
Edit spelling.
-
Read the judgement,it say's nothing of Madeleine it say proven fact of the dog findings,some ten years no with these pexsky dogs not proving any thing they don't half cause some consternation when in all truth they shouldn't.
I don't deny the dogs alerted, but what did that mean in the bigger picture? If the implication was that they pointed to Madeleine that is the Court being deceitful.
-
Read the judgement,it say's nothing of Madeleine it say proven fact of the dog findings,some ten years no with these pexsky dogs not proving any thing they don't half cause some consternation when in all truth they shouldn't.
the judgement cannot rule that the dog alerts are proven....it is impossible
-
the judgement cannot rule that the dog alerts are proven....it is impossible
So if she got that point wrong in the first instance is it any wonder the rest was unsafe.
-
Of course the alerts are proven - they took place. What they mean has not been determined.
-
Of course the alerts are proven - they took place. What they mean has not been determined.
that isnt what the judgement says unless the translation is wrong
-
So if she got that point wrong in the first instance is it any wonder the rest was unsafe.
If only the silly **** had listened to what Gerry had to say on the subject before telling him to shut up she would have learned something and not got it wrong!
-
Of course the alerts are proven - they took place. What they mean has not been determined.
They are without meaning so prove nothing. You are right for once!!
-
I don't deny the dogs alerted, but what did that mean in the bigger picture? If the implication was that they pointed to Madeleine that is the Court being deceitful.
The first judge in the first instance brought them to the for as proven facts,was she deceitful?,if thats the case why is it a surprise her judgement was overturned.
-
They are without meaning so prove nothing. You are right for once!!
What it means is that science is not advanced enough to determine why the dogs were alerting
-
The first judge in the first instance brought them to the for as proven facts,was she deceitful?,if thats the case why is it a surprise her judgement was overturned.
Some would like it to be as the Curate's Egg and probably believe it's possible to be "a little bit pregnant".
-
The first judge in the first instance brought them to the for as proven facts,was she deceitful?,if thats the case why is it a surprise her judgement was overturned.
It wasn't an entire victory for the McCanns in the first instance was it? Won some, lost some.
What it means is that science is not advanced enough to determine why the dogs were alerting
Science to the point of reading their minds. Even then a dog couldn't name the cadaver or name the person whose blood it was.
-
What it means is that science is not advanced enough to determine why the dogs were alerting
we dont know the dogs were alerting to anything
-
It wasn't an entire victory for the McCanns in the first instance was it? Won some, lost some.
The ones that were won were overturned though.
-
we dont know the dogs were alerting to anything
And we don't know that they weren't, either.
-
The ones that were won were overturned though.
But they were or were not related to the dog alerts? How would you know?
-
But they were or were not related to the dog alerts? How would you know?
The SC judges included the proven facts in their report,so who knows &%+((£
-
The SC judges included the proven facts in their report,so who knows &%+((£
Let's reword your post "The SC judges included some uncorroborated irrelevant facts in their report, so who knows."
-
Let's reword your post "The SC judges included some uncorroborated irrelevant facts in their report, so who knows."
Let it be noted in your words not any judges.
-
Let's reword your post "The SC judges included some uncorroborated irrelevant facts in their report, so who knows."
Does that make you feel better? Apart from yourself, who are you trying to convince ?
-
Does that make you feel better? Apart from yourself, who are you trying to convince ?
I'm already fully convinced but now I'm working on you.
-
Let it be noted in your words not any judges.
SC judges and all the others who have allowed the same "uncorroborated irrelevant facts in their reports".
-
SC judges and all the others who have allowed the same "uncorroborated irrelevant facts in their reports".
Gosh, there's a lot of them! Three appeal court judges in the injunction overturning. The first instance judge, Two more appeal court judges, three SC judges; so at least 9 judges. Then we have Duarte, who never objected to that 'proven fact' to my knowledge.
-
Gosh, there's a lot of them! Three appeal court judges in the injunction overturning. The first instance judge, Two more appeal court judges, three SC judges; so at least 9 judges. Then we have Duarte, who never objected to that 'proven fact' to my knowledge.
You may have added it up wrong, but there have been a few. It took us a long time work it out too that dog alerts are not evidence unless they are corroborated.
-
Gosh, there's a lot of them! Three appeal court judges in the injunction overturning. The first instance judge, Two more appeal court judges, three SC judges; so at least 9 judges. Then we have Duarte, who never objected to that 'proven fact' to my knowledge.
Object to this so-called proven fact and, like Gerry, you'd be told "irrelevant" and to shut up.
-
Gosh, there's a lot of them! Three appeal court judges in the injunction overturning. The first instance judge, Two more appeal court judges, three SC judges; so at least 9 judges. Then we have Duarte, who never objected to that 'proven fact' to my knowledge.
Every man jack/woman jill of them wiv plenty of college in Portuguese law but sadly a mere bagatelle when compared with the extensive knowledge of Portuguese law which will be aligned against them by the supporters on this forum.
-
Object to this so-called proven fact and, like Gerry, you'd be told "irrelevant" and to shut up.
The proven fact is that the CSI and cadaver dogs alerted, not what they alerted to imo.
-
Every man jack/woman jill of them wiv plenty of college in Portuguese law but sadly a mere bagatelle when compared with the extensive knowledge of Portuguese law which will be aligned against them by the supporters on this forum.
It must be as confusing for them as it seems to have been for the McCanns and Duarte. Many of the points that they think are important were dismissed by the first judge; the 'lies' in Amaral's book, the significance of the dogs. Other points they made couldn't be proved, like the 'damage to the investigation' and what 'the Portuguese people' were thinking. They couldn't even back up their claim that Kate was depressed; she denied that herself.
-
It must be as confusing for them as it seems to have been for the McCanns and Duarte. Many of the points that they think are important were dismissed by the first judge; the 'lies' in Amaral's book, the significance of the dogs. Other points they made couldn't be proved, like the 'damage to the investigation' and what 'the Portuguese people' were thinking. They couldn't even back up their claim that Kate was depressed; she denied that herself.
In your opinion is it a proven fact that the dogs alerted to cadaver?
-
In your opinion is it a proven fact that the dogs alerted to cadaver?
It doesn't appear in the list of proven facts, so your question is immaterial, just as Dr McCann's desire to talk about the dogs was immaterial.
-
It doesn't appear in the list of proven facts, so your question is immaterial, just as Dr McCann's desire to talk about the dogs was immaterial.
From what I have seen alert to cadaverine is in the proven facts
Very strange
Page 19
Points 6 and 7
-
From what I have seen alert to cadaverine is in the proven facts
Very strange
Page 19
Points 6 and 7
These are the words in Anne Guedes translation:
Page 19 .... "6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance."
Note: It is "Cadaver scent" rather than cadaverine.
-
These are the words in Anne Guedes translation:
Page 19 .... "6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance."
Note: It is "Cadaver scent" rather than cadaverine.
Neither is proven
-
Neither is proven
Corroborated is the word used.
Page 23:
"To this should be added that in fact none of the clues that led to their constitution as “arguidos" was later confirmed or consolidated. Let's judge it: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the police was not confirmed, the residues that were marked by the dogs were not corroborated in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email (17) better examined afterwards, that ended up appearing to be inconclusive.
Even if hypothesising that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where, when, with what means, with whose help and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted..."
-
In your opinion is it a proven fact that the dogs alerted to cadaver?
It is in the proven facts
Have you not read them
-
Corroborated is the word used.
Page 23:
"To this should be added that in fact none of the clues that led to their constitution as “arguidos" was later confirmed or consolidated. Let's judge it: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the police was not confirmed, the residues that were marked by the dogs were not corroborated in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email (17) better examined afterwards, that ended up appearing to be inconclusive.
Even if hypothesising that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where, when, with what means, with whose help and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted..."
Yet they are in the proven fact
-
In your opinion is it a proven fact that the dogs alerted to cadaver?
Cadaver or cadaver body parts (even decomposed blood will have the required odour, within the limits of Eddie's reliability. Since there was no cadaver found associated with the alert it is not "a proven fact that the dogs alerted to cadaver".
But they definitely alerted to something. (That is on video).
-
I don't think it is the veracity or accuracy of the statement that is "a proven fact" as quite patently it is not.
It is a "proven fact" that it was in the files at the time of the Amaral investigation and that is what his book was based on.
The fact it was proved entirely wrong is neither here nor there.
-
From what I have seen alert to cadaverine is in the proven facts
Very strange
Page 19
Points 6 and 7
Ah yes, copied from the findings of the first judgement, but I'm not sure where they came from originally. Perhaps Duarte should have picked that up and objected at the time?
Page 8
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
-
It took us a long time work it out too that dog alerts are not evidence unless they are corroborated.
This is spot on and perfectly summarises my thoughts regarding the dogs. They were merely another tool to be utilized in identifying potential forensic evidence. In this case however there was nothing of value forensically that helped in the investigation. This is important to note because many people have been misled in thinking that the dogs merely reacting was proof of some crime by the either or both of the McCanns. This is simply inaccurate.
Had the dogs reacted to an area and then forensics had gathered evidence that was proven to be connected to Madeleine then that would have progressed the investigation further. As it stands, this didn't happen and the dog handler Mr Grimes, only could state officially that the dogs reacted to certain areas as they are trained to do so.
I've always found the use of the dogs and their alerts to be very problematic. Of all the investigations where they have been used successfully this is the one that we hoped would be fruitful, alas it wasn't the case.
-
This is spot on and perfectly summarises my thoughts regarding the dogs. They were merely another tool to be utilized in identifying potential forensic evidence. In this case however there was nothing of value forensically that helped in the investigation. This is important to note because many people have been misled in thinking that the dogs merely reacting was proof of some crime by the either or both of the McCanns. This is simply inaccurate.
Had the dogs reacted to an area and then forensics had gathered evidence that was proven to be connected to Madeleine then that would have progressed the investigation further. As it stands, this didn't happen and the dog handler Mr Grimes, only could state officially that the dogs reacted to certain areas as they are trained to do so.
I've always found the use of the dogs and their alerts to be very problematic. Of all the investigations where they have been used successfully this is the one that we hoped would be fruitful, alas it wasn't the case.
You have practical experience of the usage of dogs then?
-
It doesn't appear in the list of proven facts, so your question is immaterial, just as Dr McCann's desire to talk about the dogs was immaterial.
And you have the cheek to say we're confused!
-
Cadaver or cadaver body parts (even decomposed blood will have the required odour, within the limits of Eddie's reliability. Since there was no cadaver found associated with the alert it is not "a proven fact that the dogs alerted to cadaver".
But they definitely alerted to something. (That is on video).
That's correct, the dogs did what they were trained to do, Gerrys claim that dogs are unreliable is a load of cobblers.
-
Ah yes, copied from the findings of the first judgement, but I'm not sure where they came from originally. Perhaps Duarte should have picked that up and objected at the time?
Page 8
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Detected yes, found no. What wasn't made clear is that Eddie also alerted to other substances.
-
Detected yes, found no. What wasn't made clear is that Eddie also alerted to other substances.
There is no evidence cadaverine was detected
-
That's correct, the dogs did what they were trained to do, Gerrys claim that dogs are unreliable is a load of cobblers.
Gerrys claim is not such
-
All cadaver dogs alert to blood so Eddie is no exception. Was blood found at the wardrobe? Was blood found on clothes? The dogs SY used in Luz were the same as Eddie.
How to Train a Cadaver Dog
“Drug dogs are trained on drugs, and cadaver dogs are trained on cadaver,” says Mary E. Cablk, a scientist at the Desert Research Institute in Nevada who studies scent detection. Training a cadaver dog requires regular contact with human blood, decaying flesh and bones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/magazine/how-to-train-a-cadaver-dog.html?_r=0
-
That's correct, the dogs did what they were trained to do, Gerry's claim that dogs are unreliable is a load of cobblers.
The cases where there is an alert and no corroborating evidence they would fall into a category that could be described as more unreliable.
How would anyone ever prove how reliable these residual cases would be?