Amaral and the dogs

[Carew]

There is no prejudice, only individuals seeking explanations and understanding of what is obviously quite an inexact science.  Would you prefer it if we all agreed that the dog alerts were 100% correct, no questions asked?  Would that be the correct course of action in your view?  Is it wrong to draw on such reports and studies as have been discussed here?  Would you like us all to shut up and accept something which even Martin Grime does not make claim to - that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents covered up her death?  Would that make you happy?

To borrow a quote by you  and secure in the knowledge that it isn`t considered rude here :-

                "you really have no idea at all. "

[ferryman]

The questions that Alfred asks are all pertinent.

The research that shows the influence the way a dog is handled can have over whether a dog alerts certainly apply to the (shelved) investigation.

[Alfred R Jones]

To borrow a quote by you  and secure in the knowledge that it isn`t considered rude here :-

                "you really have no idea at all. "

No, I really don't because you didn't answer any of my questions!  Perhaps as I am clueless you could enlighten me?

[Carew]

The questions that Alfred asks are all pertinent.

The research that shows the influence the way a dog is handled can have over whether a dog alerts certainly apply to the (shelved) investigation.

Context, Ferryman.....Keep up.

No need to leap to the defence.....

[ferryman]

@Carew:

Why, in your opinion, did Grime wear the anti-cross contamination gear of his trade only for the inspection of vehicles?

Do you think it irrelevant that Grime was given that video so that he could use it to promote himself in future assignments?

Why do you think Harrison declined to acknowledge the input of Grime and his dogs in both inspections at villa and gym?

Why did Harrison wait until after both those inspections to hand PJ personnel with translated instructions on how to conduct inspections in buildings and vehicles?

Or are these all questions we should simply ignore/brush under the carpet?

(Edited for spelling)

[Carew]

As I said just now:

"Carew seems to be under the impression that she is discussing this issue with one amorphous blob of a McCann worshipper, not several different people, all with shades of opinion about the dog alerts". 

PS: It is not name-calling to say that I find the tone of your posts extremely facetious, the above one being no exception.

[/b]

Whatever you care to call it perhaps you`d better get used to it?   &%+((£

[Alfred R Jones]

[/b]

Whatever you care to call it perhaps you`d better get used to it?   &%+((£

Personally I think it would lead to a more pleasant and productive (not to mention more grown-up) discussion if your dropped the facetiousness, but your call.

[Carana]

Why do you suppose Mark Harrison said this right towards the end of his final report?

During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). 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.



And why do you suppose Harrison never reached a firm conclusion about whether Madeleine was alive or dead?

That's not cherry-picking.

That's summarising, accurately and completely, the thoughts of a true expert.

Good points, FM.

From Harrison:

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 does seem to be the bottom line, ignored by some for years.

[Alfred R Jones]

Good points, FM.

From Harrison:

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 does seem to be the bottom line, ignored by some for years.

Yes, it would be interesting to know which part of the above statement by Harrison that Stephen, Carew, etc disagree with and then maybe we can proceed from there?

[Carew]

Personally I think it would lead to a more pleasant and productive (not to mention more grown-up) discussion if your dropped the facetiousness, but your call.

Pardon me???

In your post lies the fundamental problem.......

Some want their own way ; to discuss on their terms ; to dictate not only what should be questioned but when a person should answer.......alter someone else`s MO or style but not their own.......... dictatorial......

........even deciding what constitutes "grown up" with apparently no self awareness.   

I`ve no interest in accommodating your requirements.

[sadie]

Blinkered – My god I was blindfolded
I know there is a lot of tweets from people going on about what happened pre-arguido days and it seems that they are  living back in 2007 before the Attorney General said the McCanns along with Robert Murat did NOT commit any crimes and they were released from their arguido days.
http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/blinkered-my-god-i-was-blindfolded/

Thank you Brietta.
Somehow I must find the time to read those again
http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/



Such a special woman Brenda Ryan.  She fought her side with vigour


Originally a sceptic, she lead the fight with the 3A's. 
But changed her mind when the files were released and she read them.

Intelligent, she analysed them and realised that a lot of the stuff that she had been believing was propaganda and myths. 

Just hot air.

That there was no basis to suspect The Mccanns.

Just like Jean-Pierre in his post above.  Also like lots of us.




Being the decent, Justice-loving woman that she was, she was magnaminus and admitted her mistake   .... "Blinkered – My god I was blindfolded"

.... then set about trying to make amends


HardLine tho some of you on here are .... after all the facts on documents shown here and absolutely NO EVIDENCE against The Mccanns,  you must be having serious doubts ...

.... unless you dont want to take notice of the documents .... but want The Mccanns to be guilty?   



In that case I have to wonder at your mental condition, You enjoy bullying?

.... or whether you are involved in some way?


ETA  Jean-Pierre and many of us have taken notice of the files and documents now available ....and acted accordingly.  Why dont you guys start analysing and thinking?  And backing off ?   Do the right thing.

[Alfred R Jones]

Ah but therein lies the fundamental problem.......

Some want their own way ; to discuss on their terms ; to dictate not only what should be questioned but when a person should answer.......alter someone else`s MO or style but not their own.......... dictatorial......

........even deciding what constitutes "grown up" with apparently no self awareness.   

I`ve no interest in accommodating your requirements.

Fair enough, I did say it was your call (so much for "dictating" to you).  It does seem to me that you would rather discuss your problems with me than the dogs now, so if you want to take this to PM rather than bore everyone else with your issues that would be grand (but no pressure, your call, entirely up to you, etc etc)

[stephen25000]

Thank you Brietta.
Somehow I must find the time to read those again
http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/



Such a special woman Brenda Ryan.  She fought her side with vigour


Originally a sceptic, she lead the fight with the 3A's. 
But changed her mind when the files were released and she read them.

Intelligent, she analysed them and realised that a lot of the stuff that she had been believing was propaganda and myths. 

Just hot air.

That there was no basis to suspect The Mccanns.




Being the decent, Justice-loving woman that she was, she was magnaminus and admitted her mistake   .... "Blinkered – My god I was blindfolded"

.... then set about trying to make amends


HardLine tho some of you on here are .... after all the facts on documents shown here and absolutely NO EVIDENCE against The Mccanns,  you must be having serious doubts ...

.... unless you dont want to take notice of the documents .... but want The Mccanns to be guilty?   


In that case I have to wonder at your mental condition, You enjoy bullying?

.... or whether you are involved in some way?

OFf TOPIC.

Read the thread title.

[Carew]

Fair enough, I did say it was your call (so much for "dictating" to you).  It does seem to me that you would rather discuss your problems with me than the dogs now, so if you want to take this to PM rather than bore everyone else with your issues that would be grand (but no pressure, your call, entirely up to you, etc etc)

Pardon me???

Just move on.

I have no problem with you.

You get the answers your posts deserve.

[Alfred R Jones]

Pardon me???

Just move on.

I have no problem with you.

You get the answers your posts deserve.

I'm so glad to hear it.  Now, perhaps you'd like to give us your opinion of the Mark Harrison quote underlined by Carana above.  Was he wrong to write what he wrote, in your view?  CAN we infer that a cadaver was present in 5a from the dog alerts alone?  If not, then there must be a reason why the dog alerts cannot be considered as standalone evidence - what is that reason?