Amaral and the dogs

[faithlilly]

OK, you've convinced me -  Rebelo wasn't thorough, he was slip-shod and conducted an inadequate investigation, same as his predecessor.

So two investigation co-ordinaters where slipshod and conducted an inadequate investigation. My, my the McCanns really were a very unlucky couple, weren't they!

[faithlilly]

How could forensics have proved the McCanns DIDN'T chuck their daughter's body is a bin as you believe?

By proving that someone else did but there seems to be no forensic evidence, not even inconclusive evidence, that any one else was involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

[Jean-Pierre]

And as a detective you most certainly don't want to hear that the results of the forensics tests were CONCLUSIVE and your suspect was categorically ruled out of any criminality.

But that didn't happen here, did it.

As you well know, Faith, forensics do not work that way.  You cannot PROVE a negative in this context. 

[Alfred R Jones]

So two investigation co-ordinaters where slipshod and conducted an inadequate investigation. My, my the McCanns really were a very unlucky couple, weren't they!

Whereas I suppose in your view you think they were really, really lucky.  But then that's the difference between "sceptics" and everyone else.  The McCanns were EXTREMEMLY unlucky - to lose a child, to have the disappearance investigated by incompetents, to have their names and reputations dragged through the mud by the media and the online rabble.  Of course they were a very unlucky couple, only a fool could think otherwise.

[ferryman]

 not even inconclusive evidence, ...

An oxymoron.

[Alfred R Jones]

By proving that someone else did but there seems to be no forensic evidence, not even inconclusive evidence, that any one else was involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

What forensic evidence would prove someone else dumped her body in a bin?  Was it looked for?

[misty]

If you are unwilling to take what Mr Grime says about Eddie's alert in the Renault I am very sorry, but nothing anyone on this forum or elsewhere has to say is going to overcome the level of prejudice and denial you are suffering from so forgive me for stating the obvious yet again.

Mr Grime just cannot make it any clearer that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour in the Renault. 

Do you really think Mr Grime and the PJ were too stupid to verify what Eddie was or was not alerting to by ensuring him access to the car once Keela had detected blood to ensure it was checked out and either ruled in or eliminated for cadaver scent.

In fact when Eddie was introduced to parking level 3 and had the choice to alert either to the car or to the key fob ... what did he choose?
Unless you choose to disregard Mr Grime's statement ... Eddie alerted to the key fob ... Eddie did not alert to the Renault ... therefore Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent, Madeleine McCann's or anyone else's.



**Snip
(Eddie)
15h27 - the dog 'marked' car number 4 - Renault Scenic - rental vehicle currently used by Gerry
and Kate McCann.


(Keela)
Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having been verified the following result:

03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage
compartment of the car;
04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door,which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the Budget rental company.

In order to confirm that the dog had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.

(Eddie)
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
... the present document has been duly signed:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm

Carana & you are just brilliant. 

Grime' own video on the beach showing Eddie locating the jar, containing 100 year old bone fragments, high up in the rocks proved distance from the source of scent was no obstacle.

[Carew]

so forgive me for stating the obvious yet again.

Mr Grime just cannot make it any clearer that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour in the Renault.  If you are unwilling to take what Mr Grime says about Eddie's alert in the Renault I am very sorry, but nothing anyone on this forum or elsewhere has to say is going to overcome the level of prejudice and denial you are suffering from

Do you really think Mr Grime and the PJ were too stupid to verify what Eddie was or was not alerting to by ensuring him access to the car once Keela had detected blood to ensure it was checked out and either ruled in or eliminated for cadaver scent.

In fact when Eddie was introduced to parking level 3 and had the choice to alert either to the car or to the key fob ... what did he choose?
Unless you choose to disregard Mr Grime's statement ... Eddie alerted to the key fob ... Eddie did not alert to the Renault ... therefore Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent, Madeleine McCann's or anyone else's.



**Snip
(Eddie)
15h27 - the dog 'marked' car number 4 - Renault Scenic - rental vehicle currently used by Gerry
and Kate McCann.


(Keela)
Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having been verified the following result:

03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage
compartment of the car;
04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door,which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the Budget rental company.

In order to confirm that the dog had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.

(Eddie)
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
... the present document has been duly signed:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm

Is the highlight in red your way of deflecting the possibility that you could not justify your assertion below by addressing my challenges to it,...... apart from just one "cherry pick?"

Just one ......really?

Where`s the rest?

Even your accepting that I am beyond hope you might at least give it your best shot for the sake of backing up your assertion !

"Not one of the posters to whom you refer is voicing an opinion ... without exception all quote references to scientific studies ~ reports ~ including the comments made by Mr Grime. "

[Carana]

Being thorough ? He didn't question Murat or anyone connected to him even though he was also an arguido, so not especially thorough, and the reconstitution was his idea not Amaral's. It seems he also thought the timeline didn't work.

the reconstitution was his idea not Amaral's..

Erm... Why on earth didn't he organise one when as many people as possible were there in the very early days? He was head honcho in Portimão.

[Jean-Pierre]

Is the highlight in red your way of deflecting the possibility that you could not justify your assertion below by addressing my challenges to it,...... apart from just one "cherry pick?"

Just one ......really?

Where`s the rest?

Even your accepting that I am beyond hope you might at least give it your best shot for the sake of backing up your assertion !

"Not one of the posters to whom you refer is voicing an opinion ... without exception all quote references to scientific studies ~ reports ~ including the comments made by Mr Grime. "

Lets turn this on its head, Carew. 

What do you think Eddie was alterting to in the Scenic, and what are your reasons?

[Alfred R Jones]

Is the highlight in red your way of deflecting the possibility that you could not justify your assertion below by addressing my challenges to it,...... apart from just one "cherry pick?"

Just one ......really?

Where`s the rest?

Even your accepting that I am beyond hope you might at least give it your best shot for the sake of backing up your assertion !

"Not one of the posters to whom you refer is voicing an opinion ... without exception all quote references to scientific studies ~ reports ~ including the comments made by Mr Grime. "

Perhaps if you start at page one of this thread and work your way through it you will find quotes and references to scientific studies which back up the various claims.  I for one have linked to a study of unconscious handler bias on more than one occasion.  I have cited the case of Zampo the cadaver dog in Sweden on more than one occasion.  Do you want to do this all over again?

[Carew]

Carana & you are just brilliant. 

Grime' own video on the beach showing Eddie locating the jar, containing 100 year old bone fragments, high up in the rocks proved distance from the source of scent was no obstacle.

Ah.........so all is well with MG and his deployment this time then?

[Carana]

Thank you Carana

A number of posters make the point that the forensics were "Inconclusive" as though this adds some weight to their argument about the forensic results.

It may be interesting to debate what members here think "Inconclusive" actually means.

To kick this off, here is Vocabulary.com definition
____________________

If something's inconclusive, that means it doesn't lead to a conclusion or a resolution. Inconclusive often describes scientific results. If your data about a flu outbreak is inconclusive, then your results don't prove anything.

A good way to remember the meaning of inconclusive is to look at the root word conclusive, which means "definitive, decisive, and convincing." When you add in- — which means "not" — to the front of conclusive, you get a word that means "not definitive." When something's inconclusive, it doesn't resolve your questions and leaves room for debate. If you're a detective, the last thing you want to hear is that your evidence is inconclusive.
___________

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inconclusive

INTERPRETINGDNA TEST RESULTS
DNA testing generates three possible results: inclusive, exclusive, and inconclusive. An inclusive result occurs when the DNA profile of a donor is consistent with the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence;the individual is included as the possible source of that evidence. However, the strength of inclusion depends upon the number of loci (locations on the DNA strand) examined and how common or rare the resulting DNA profile is in the general population.

An exclusive result occurs when the DNA profile from a donor is inconsistent with the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence; the individual is excluded as the donor of the evidence. However, exclusion does not imply innocence. Other evidence collected at the crime scene may link the suspect to the crime.

Inconclusive results occur when the DNA testing does not include nor exclude an individual as the source of the DNA evidence. This can occur when the quality or quantity of the DNA evidence is not sufficient to produce interpretable results, or if the evidentiary sample contains a mixture of DNA from several individuals. In the case of inconclusive results, additional testing may be necessary or additional evidence may need to be collected and examined.

http://www.lawtechgroup.com/samplechapters/ForensicStudies.pdf

[Carana]

Carana & you are just brilliant. 

Grime' own video on the beach showing Eddie locating the jar, containing 100 year old bone fragments, high up in the rocks proved distance from the source of scent was no obstacle.

I'm not sure which video you're referring to, Misty. The only promo one that I recall was of a spot of blood being hidden for Keela while on walkies somewhere. There may have been others, though...

[misty]

Ah.........so all is well with MG and his deployment this time then?

Are you suggesting that the jar did not contain 100 year old human bone fragments?
I don't have a problem with Eddie alerting, it's what he's alerting to & how it got there I have a problem with in Portugal - especially when the alerts are the basis of illicit financial gain.