Amaral and the dogs

[Eleanor]

So that's why you and the rest of the mccann faithful keep commenting on this thread.

Deary me.

Dreary you, more like.  You keep on commenting.

[Brietta]

'There is no science behind residual sent'

It is you once again who needs lessons in science.

Just what the hell do you think forensic scientists do at the scene of a crime ?

Play happy bunnies perhaps.

I was always under the impression they found and collected things which could be taken back to a lab for forensic testing to be carried out to determine whether it is evidential or not.

[sadie]

Sands shift and it is easy to lose track of where bodies are buried ... witness Northern Ireland where victims of the troubles cannot be found despite the deposition site being known ... but there is nothing remarkable in a cadaver dog finding a recent burial which must have been stinking to high heaven as it was wrapped only in a duvet.

Digging in sand dunes is particularly difficult as loose sand quickly backfills the area being dug out therefore pin pointing the exact spot would be important and a cadaver dog the proper tool to do that and having been taken to the immediate area I reckon it would have taken Eddie minutes to do that saving hours of digging time.

With the way that sands backfill, it is unlikely that the body would have been buried very deeply

[Carew]

Absolutely.
Which is why a dog alert will not be presented in court in the British Isles with the exception of Scotland.

In the case of Suzanne Pilley a murder conviction was returned although Ms Pilley's remains still have not been recovered ... an alert from a cadaver dog was accepted as evidence ... not on its own ... but as part of a vast sum of corroborating evidence which was compelling enough for a jury to return a guilty verdict.
It should be noted that this occurred in a jurisdiction which allows three verdicts ... guilty - not guilty - and not proven.

The not proven cop out verdict usually being interpreted as ... aye, we know you dunnit, but we don't think there is enough evidence to prove it, so away you go and don't do it again.

That people are anxious to hang, draw and quarter the parents of a missing child on the very questionable evidence of a very questionable dog alert ... and only that ... nothing else I find one of the more extraordinary aspects of Madeleine McCann's case, and there are a lot to choose from.

What prevents continual alerts at most sites though, if residual scents or contaminants from toenails/ mops/ pork products / nosebleeds/ nappy related substances /saliva etc are what trigger the response?

Surely the searches on most sites would be pointless were this the case.

That`s the point.

[sadie]

What prevents continual alerts at most sites though, if residual scents or contaminants from toenails/ mops/ pork products / nosebleeds/ nappy related substances /saliva etc are what trigger the response?

Surely the searches on most sites would be pointless were this the case.

That`s the point.

Not pointless if they find forensic evidence

But they didn't in the Mccann case.

[Eleanor]

What prevents continual alerts at most sites though, if residual scents or contaminants from toenails/ mops/ pork products / nosebleeds/ nappy related substances /saliva etc are what trigger the response?

Surely the searches on most sites would be pointless were this the case.

That`s the point.

Probably.

[Carew]

Not pointless if they find forensic evidence

But they didn't in the Mccann case.

The point was that the EVRD doesn`t seem to alert non-stop as he would were the alerts triggered by residual scents from the many  aforementioned substances which would probably be present at most sites under investigation.

[Carew]

Probably.

 

[stephen25000]

Dreary you, more like.  You keep on commenting.

 ............and what do you do in support of the mccanns ?

Very dreary and then some.

[Mr Gray]

'There is no science behind residual sent'

It is you once again who needs lessons in science.

Just what the hell do you think forensic scientists do at the scene of a crime ?

Play happy bunnies perhaps.

there is no science behind residual scent.....at the scene of a crime forensic scientists are responsible for the analysis of any evidence collected...fact...if no evidence is present...as in residual scent...there is no involvement of scientist..

it is you who needs a lesson in science

[stephen25000]

there is no science behind residual scent.....at the scene of a crime forensic scientists are responsible for the analysis of any evidence collected...fact...if no evidence is present...as in residual scent...there is no involvement of scientist..

it is you who needs a lesson in science

So no material was collected from the crime scene in this case ?

You need to get a grip.

and learn some basic science.

'Thinking out of the box' and 'lateral thinking' won't help in your case, as your repeated mistakes in science and maths have amply demonstrated.

[Eleanor]

Tis always good to communicate.

[Brietta]

What prevents continual alerts at most sites though, if residual scents or contaminants from toenails/ mops/ pork products / nosebleeds/ nappy related substances /saliva etc are what trigger the response?

Surely the searches on most sites would be pointless were this the case.

That`s the point.

That would seem to sum up exactly Mr Amaral's late calling in of dogs which he had been told were available to him shortly after Madeleine's disappearance when, as in the case of the reconstitution they would have been of maximum value and certainly of more use than the excellent GNR sniffers. (please don't require a cite ... it's all in the files)

Do you think that based on the fiasco in Praia da Luz, Haute de la Garenne, Tia Sharpe, Shannon Matthews etc ... VRD and CSI working dogs are 'pointless'.

I think you are misunderstanding the role of the dogs as just one very valuable tool in the box of tools available to investigators ... or is it your suggestion that if you or a loved one is lying under a collapsed building it would be pointless to send the dogs in to find you because there are too many distractions around?

[Eleanor]

 ............and what do you do in support of the mccanns ?

Very dreary and then some.

But at least we both express opinions nowadays.  And it's all pretty dreary anyway.  Keep on taking the headache pills.  I am.

[Carew]

That would seem to sum up exactly Mr Amaral's late calling in of dogs which he had been told were available to him shortly after Madeleine's disappearance when, as in the case of the reconstitution they would have been of maximum value and certainly of more use than the excellent GNR sniffers. (please don't require a cite ... it's all in the files)

Do you think that based on the fiasco in Praia da Luz, Haute de la Garenne, Tia Sharpe, Shannon Matthews etc ... VRD and CSI working dogs are 'pointless'.

I think you are misunderstanding the role of the dogs as just one very valuable tool in the box of tools available to investigators ... or is it your suggestion that if you or a loved one is lying under a collapsed building it would be pointless to send the dogs in to find you because there are too many distractions around?

No........I think you are misunderstanding the point.

There`s no need for you to "suggest" what you think I`m "suggesting" about loved ones under collapsed buildings.

The point was that the EVRD doesn`t seem to alert non-stop as he would were the alerts triggered by residual scents from the many  aforementioned substances which would probably be present at most sites under investigation.