Amaral and the dogs

[stephen25000]

Davel - how could you be so disrespectful?

It is well known that there are some posters who are such polymaths that they have no need of google or any other reference.

Their command of maths, law and chemisty and alchemy is profound and unquestionable.

We should consider ouselves fortunate that such intellectual titans are prepared to bestow their wisdom on us ignorant, uneducated dregs of society.   

I leave the alchemy to you JP.

Unless of course you've found a convenient pathway to remove three protons from lead nuclei.

Or is it a load of quarks to you.

[stephen25000]

It is still very much ruled in that the Smiths might have been seen Madeleine's abductor, unless anything has come to light I am unaware of to rule out the Smith sighting.

Ah the mystical abductor yet again.

 

[Anna]

So have we reached a consensus or what?  Did the dogs inspections at Ocean Club, of the cars or of the McCann's clothing bring anything to the investigation?

The more benevolent  minded, of members, remain to question or even rule out the alerts of the dog, which I might add…have no evidential value, without corroboration of evidential proof.

Whereas the more sceptic views, of other members remain in the believe that the alerts from the EVRD were evidence of  cadaver scent. Who knows? They may be correct, but there is no evidence to support this.

IMO, The latter group would still be blaming the parents, even if the dogs hadn’t been brought in, whereas the former believe in innocent until proven otherwise.

A book is the cause of all of this and the fact that this case (unlike others) has all the PJ files online for all to study…. Only My opinion, of course.
 
So, back to square one really 

[Eleanor]

Close The Thread?  Stand back for fear of being stampeded.

I know.  Let's start another Dog Thread.

[Mr Gray]

Y'all don't seem to like the conclusions of the FSS.
Don't whinge at me I only posted them. Or are you implying I "did a Levy" 
*&*%£

I have no problem with the report from the FSS..... why do you assume I do

[Mr Gray]

So have we reached a consensus or what?  Did the dogs inspections at Ocean Club, of the cars or of the McCann's clothing bring anything to the investigation?

you make a very good point which none of the sceptics have been able to answer......what do the alerts bring to the investigation...absolutely nothing

[Mr Gray]

Davel - how could you be so disrespectful?

It is well known that there are some posters who are such polymaths that they have no need of google or any other reference.

Their command of maths, law and chemisty and alchemy is profound and unquestionable.

We should consider ouselves fortunate that such intellectual titans are prepared to bestow their wisdom on us ignorant, uneducated dregs of society.   

you should be careful making such a post..stephen will think you are serious.

The subject matter of maths and chemistry as taught at a level has probably changed very little since I studied almost 50 yrs ago...stephen has no need to learn new skills and evaluate new information. For those of us working in more challenging professions where ideas seem to change almost daily the internet is a fantastic tool to enable us to keep up to date. We have also developed the ability to question the evidence relating to new ideas so assessing evidence is something we have been taught and do on a daily basis. Part of any MSc  programme involves how to critique scientific papers. This is one of stephen's weaknesses and combined with his failure not to appreciate the value of google has led him to a poor understanding of the evidence

Ste

[Mr Gray]

According to Lowe and his colleagues it brought nothing to the party:
snip >>>>>
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.<<<< snip
snip >>>>>
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann. <<<< snip

from the report...
Why - ...

Well lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

the discussion as to whether the dna matched Maddie  seems to be as a result of a direct question

[Anna]

from the report...
Why - ...

Well lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

the discussion as to whether the dna matched Maddie  seems to be as a result of a direct question

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

[Mr Gray]

Why is it such a surprise? Do I make a habit of not providing cites when asked? Tut tut.

You have read the files you claim, you should then not require a cite should you? but just so as it doesn't bother you all day, let us recap

I said that Mark Harrison called the alerts without forensic corroboration unconfirmed indications, and that is precisely what he said. So, no, you were very wrong when you accused me of making it up , such haste and willingness to disbelieve a simple statement

Here is your cite, I await your apology in due course (when pigs grow wings of course)

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

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

So there we have it, alerts remain indications

So indications is just another word for alerts....so the indications have NO evidential value either

[Mr Gray]

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

it seems the sceptics want to read something into that report that simply isn't there

[Lace]

I don't think the alerts brought anything to the investigation,  just hints enough to point the finger at the McCann's which Amaral jumped on.

The alert in the bedroom is meaningless,  Eddie called back numerous times to finally alert,  to what who knows.

The alert behind the sofa,  was probably to a speck of blood that Keela also alerted to,   yet if Madeleine had been behind the sofa and had bled from a head injury,  why just a speck of blood?   and why wasn't there any in the grout?    Why didn't Eddie alert to a larger area behind the tiles and not just to the exact spot Keela had?

The alerts to the clothes,  well were they alerts?   Eddie picks the items of clothing up in his mouth something cadaver dogs are trained not to do,   so they can't be used as evidence at all.   Looking at the alerts it looks as though Eddie is playing a game.

Alert to Cuddle Cat,   again Eddie in the first video I saw before it was edited,  picked CC up in his mouth and played with it,   did not alert to it at all,  but then Grime hides it in the cupboard and although Eddie seems to be more interested in what is on top of the kitchen unit than the cupboard and barks,  that is seen as an alert to CC.

Alert to the garden,   who knows what that was,  but it was more than likely to the compost on the soil.

Alert to the car,  again to the key fob which had Gerry's blood on it,  the other sample taken proved to be from three people even as many as five.

So my conclusion is the alerts mean nothing.

[Alice Purjorick]

it seems the sceptics want to read something into that report that simply isn't there

It is not too difficult to understand the words in the conclusions of the report. :

did not help to clarify  and  it is not possible for me to determine

Now what do you suppose that means? The full bit is in my earlier post if you want context.

[stephen25000]

you should be careful making such a post..stephen will think you are serious.

The subject matter of maths and chemistry as taught at a level has probably changed very little since I studied almost 50 yrs ago...stephen has no need to learn new skills and evaluate new information. For those of us working in more challenging professions where ideas seem to change almost daily the internet is a fantastic tool to enable us to keep up to date. We have also developed the ability to question the evidence relating to new ideas so assessing evidence is something we have been taught and do on a daily basis. Part of any MSc  programme involves how to critique scientific papers. This is one of stephen's weaknesses and combined with his failure not to appreciate the value of google has led him to a poor understanding of the evidence

Ste

Dear oh dear.

Science has changed over 50 years and you don't need to think outside a box for that.

Perhaps you should take a look at the syllabuses these days.

No more log tables dave and your grasp of Chemistry is weak.

As to me , google isn't the be all and end all.

I read books, you've heard of them no doubt, and journals.

Your repeated mistakes merely reveal that 'googling' knowledge doesn't always help.

As to evidence dave, you only have one perspective in this case.

Protect the mccanns.

[Vulcair Anasak]

you should be careful making such a post..stephen will think you are serious.

The subject matter of maths and chemistry as taught at a level has probably changed very little since I studied almost 50 yrs ago...stephen has no need to learn new skills and evaluate new information. For those of us working in more challenging professions where ideas seem to change almost daily the internet is a fantastic tool to enable us to keep up to date. We have also developed the ability to question the evidence relating to new ideas so assessing evidence is something we have been taught and do on a daily basis. Part of any MSc  programme involves how to critique scientific papers. This is one of stephen's weaknesses and combined with his failure not to appreciate the value of google has led him to a poor understanding of the evidence

Ste

I couldn't help but notice how you refer to google and the internet as being very resourceful, I must disagree with you as quite a lot of information on the internet is incorrect.

You have studied A levels "50 yrs ago", 50 years is a long time and in that time technology has enabled us to research and increase our knowledge, which is used to refine education and change it quite drastically.

" The older you are the wiser you are", this does not apply to you it seems.