Amaral and the dogs

[ferryman]

If the alert was in any way meaningful, then, yes 'cross contamination' is a possibility.
There is no way of knowing the reason for the dogs alerts, or whether they were positive or false. We must therefore rely on MG's final assessment/words on the matter.

Why?

[Anna]

Why?

He knew the legal status of the dog alerts....... Who else's opinion could we rely on?

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[ferryman]

He knew the legal status of the dog alerts....... Who else's opinion could we rely on?

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Fair enough that you haven't taken what I underline out of context, but still, why should we rely on that?

[Jean-Pierre]

Forensic results can be admitted as evidence in a court in England and in Portugal.  Alerts by a dog cannot.

There are good reasons why this is so.

[Carana]

Forensic results can be admitted as evidence in a court in England and in Portugal.  Alerts by a dog cannot.

There are good reasons why this is so.

There has been no precedent, which doesn't mean that there will never be one. However, I'd be a lot more concerned about such "evidence" being admitted in court in PT than in the UK.

After all, the judges and the jury bowed to the superior knowledge of "we, experts" in the Cipriano case. No one questioned why a speck of unidentified blood in the fridge could not have been due to anyone's innocent knicked finger ... because it had been found at the back of a removable drawer weeks after the child had gone missing. And everyone seems to have nodded in agreement.

Work that one out... particularly when João had to remove the drawer to attempt to stuff the doll in.

It's surreal.

[Anna]

Fair enough that you haven't taken what I underline out of context, but still, why should we rely on that?

Do you have a suggestion , FM, as to who's professional opinion we should rely on, to give us the legal standing, on the dog alerts, other than MG?

[ferryman]

Do you have a suggestion , FM, as to who's professional opinion we should rely on, to give us the legal standing, on the dog alerts, other than MG?

Mark Harrison:

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.

That is a proper professional opinion.

[Anna]

Mark Harrison:

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.

That is a proper professional opinion.

Of course you are absolutely correct, FM. It all boils down to........"No evidential value"

[pegasus]

Re the alerts by Eddie in the villa and assumed by Amaral to be of the cat toy.
In the Panorama documentary you can see video at the villa earlier the same day before Eddie arrived.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoj-pfBUnY

For example you can see many clothing and other items on airing racks on patio.
Compare with dog video later same day.
By the time the Eddie arrives many of these aired items have been brought inside and placed in the dining area.
Aired pillows pillowcases and towels are put on dining table (where earllier were breakfast cereals and laptop).
And IMO aired clothing neatly folded and put on sideboard.

[Jean-Pierre]

Of course you are absolutely correct, FM. It all boils down to........"No evidential value"

Quite interesting article here

http://www.hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=67

[Carana]

Of course you are absolutely correct, FM. It all boils down to........"No evidential value"

More than that: "no inference can be made".

There could be dozens of unrelated potential explanations to account for the alerts.

[Brietta]

Quite interesting article here

http://www.hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=67

Very good explanation of false and true negatives and positives.  Also of interest was ...

Quote
In the case mentioned at the outset of this article, police attempted to determine whether a human remains detection dog could detect residual odor from a decomposing body they suspected had been transported some time earlier in a rental car.

The rental car, a subcompact, was placed in a police parking garage that was filled with various police vehicles.

The rental car was the only non-police vehicle, the only subcompact, and had out of state license plates, facts which
the dog handler admitted to having noticed.

A film of the event showed the dog passing by the subject rental car without alert until the handler drew the attention of the dog to it again.
United States v. Anderson (E.D. Mich. Case No. 2003 CR 80602) Unquote.


The McCann rental vehicle was covered with Madeleine posters ... so hardly a 'blind' inspection.

[Anna]

Quite interesting article here

http://www.hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=67

Thank you JB. It looks very interesting. I will finish reading it later.

[Anna]

More than that: "no inference can be made".

There could be dozens of unrelated potential explanations to account for the alerts.

Sorry, Carana....Yes I should have included that bit.

[pathfinder73]

Very good explanation of false and true negatives and positives.  Also of interest was ...

Quote
In the case mentioned at the outset of this article, police attempted to determine whether a human remains detection dog could detect residual odor from a decomposing body they suspected had been transported some time earlier in a rental car.

The rental car, a subcompact, was placed in a police parking garage that was filled with various police vehicles.

The rental car was the only non-police vehicle, the only subcompact, and had out of state license plates, facts which
the dog handler admitted to having noticed.

A film of the event showed the dog passing by the subject rental car without alert until the handler drew the attention of the dog to it again.
United States v. Anderson (E.D. Mich. Case No. 2003 CR 80602) Unquote.


The McCann rental vehicle was covered with Madeleine posters ... so hardly a 'blind' inspection.

Eddie was correct in the Parker case with his garage alert and the house next door alert. Eddie's skill is remarkable for detecting cadaver scent as Adrian Prout discovered.

We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent. Eddie is an English Springer Spaniel belonging to Martin Grime, a world-renown forensic K-9 expert based in the United Kingdom.

Grime testified he was paid $450 a day, plus travel and living expenses, by the FBI to search some areas in Walker County in connection with Teresa Parker's disappearance.

During a visit to Parker's home back in September 2007 Grime said he and Eddie sniffed around their garage.

"He immediately gave a positive bark response within the garage between a truck parked to the left of the entrance and a boat parked to the right," Grime said.

Grime added Eddie did not seem interested in the vehicles but in a scent that was wafting in the air, based on the way the dog held his nose upward. Grime said Eddie then "hit" on an abandoned house next door. Testimony shows that house was never repaired after a fire gutted the inside and killed a child several years ago.

During lengthy cross-examination Grime said there is no evidence to show Eddie smelled anything incriminating against or linked to Mr. Parker. Like Higgins, Grime said cadaver dogs can only prove useful when there is other evidence that corroborates the dog's "hits."

http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html