Amaral and the dogs

[Brietta]

The big difference however being that a party trick has a predetermined outcome whereas an investigation by its very nature is just that, an investigation.  Unless of course you are claiming the outcome was engineered??

I don't think for a minute that the outcome was engineered ... my initial concern was contamination of some kind since the fob was in direct contact with the sand.
Usually evidence is bagged immediately.

My concern was way before watching the  numerous training exercises available on the internet, reading blogs and papers.  But having  read all that ... I still do not understand what went on with the sand and the key fob.

This was no training exercise using known quantifiable materials.  The key fob was evidence in the case of a missing child and my gut feeling is that was not the way to handle evidence.  Once removed from the vehicle and the vehicle ignored by the cadaver dog ... surely it wasn't necessary for the investigators on the ground to establish that there was blood on the key fob ... that was for a forensic examination to determine.

[stephen25000]

I don't think for a minute that the outcome was engineered ... my initial concern was contamination of some kind since the fob was in direct contact with the sand.
Usually evidence is bagged immediately.

My concern was way before watching the  numerous training exercises available on the internet, reading blogs and papers.  But having  read all that ... I still do not understand what went on with the sand and the key fob.

This was no training exercise using known quantifiable materials.  The key fob was evidence in the case of a missing child and my gut feeling is that was not the way to handle evidence.  Once removed from the vehicle and the vehicle ignored by the cadaver dog ... surely it wasn't necessary for the investigators on the ground to establish that there was blood on the key fob ... that was for a forensic examination to determine.

'... known quantifiable materials...'

What precisely do you think that means ?


Are you referring to the presence of  specific 'substances' which would be qualitative, and/or concentrations of specific substances ?

To which substances are you referring to exactly ?

[Alice Purjorick]

The big difference however being that a party trick has a predetermined outcome whereas an investigation by its very nature is just that, an investigation.  Unless of course you are claiming the outcome was engineered??

It's kind of like a long stop.
The dogs alert but: 
the alerts are meaningless; the dogs will alert to any substance you care to name; the dogs can be "gerrymandered"; the handler is bent; the handlers handler is bent; it was all a trumped up job. One of them has to stick surely?
Nonetheless these views did not form part of the archiving process. Mind you following the usual trains of thought the archiving process was imprecise, based on fallacious information or just plain bent.

[G-Unit]

So you'll be conceding defeat with good grace, then!


That's good.

I'm back, refreshed and ready to make my point again. I don't need an answer unless supported by references, thank you.

Your first assertion was that Harrison criticised Grime (tacitly). To support this assertion you suggested that Harrison only referred to Grime and the dogs when he spoke about searches recommended by Harrison, not when referring to the searches Harrison had nothing to do with (places or things which Madeleine  never went near).

All the searches carried out were chosen following Harrison's recommendations in his reports, with the possible exception of the screening of items taken from the McCann's villa. I would guess that the decision to carry out those screenings arose after the alerts in G5A.

Your second assertion was that Harrison didn't write the report 'Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document'.

Harrison actually wrote two reports for the PJ. The one above and another one entitled 'Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann—Praia da Luz & Marina'

The reports were submitted and then a meeting was held;
At both meetings, PJ agents were present and they were presided over by the Regional Director of the PJ Guilhermino ENCARNCAO who selected and established the priorities for the search areas.

Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm

[Brietta]

'... known quantifiable materials...'

What precisely do you think that means ?


Are you referring to the presence of  specific 'substances' which would be qualitative, and/or concentrations of specific substances ?

To which substances are you referring to exactly ?

You seem to be misunderstanding my post in which I refer to training materials.  Unless it is your opinion that there is a haphazard selection of substances used in training of which the trainers have no knowledge.
I don't quite see how that would work.

[Brietta]

It's kind of like a long stop.
The dogs alert but: 
the alerts are meaningless; the dogs will alert to any substance you care to name; the dogs can be "gerrymandered"; the handler is bent; the handlers handler is bent; it was all a trumped up job. One of them has to stick surely?
Nonetheless these views did not form part of the archiving process. Mind you following the usual trains of thought the archiving process was imprecise, based on fallacious information or just plain bent.

       I have no idea how you can possibly make that inference from my original post.  Quite mysterious.

[Mr Gray]

It's kind of like a long stop.
The dogs alert but: 
the alerts are meaningless; the dogs will alert to any substance you care to name; the dogs can be "gerrymandered"; the handler is bent; the handlers handler is bent; it was all a trumped up job. One of them has to stick surely?
Nonetheless these views did not form part of the archiving process. Mind you following the usual trains of thought the archiving process was imprecise, based on fallacious information or just plain bent.

Once you understand the role of the dogs is to find evidence and it's the evidence they find which is important not the alerts..... Then it will all make sense to you

[stephen25000]

You seem to be misunderstanding my post in which I refer to training materials.  Unless it is your opinion that there is a haphazard selection of substances used in training of which the trainers have no knowledge.
I don't quite see how that would work.

I understand you perfectly well.

The dogs, in whatever field of perorations they are used, are trained on a certain group of substances.

I presume you do understand the difference between 'qualitative and quantitative' ?

[Mr Gray]

I understand you perfectly well.

The dogs, in whatever field of perorations they are used, are trained on a certain group of substances.

I presume you do understand the difference between 'qualitative and quantitative' ?

So when were the human remains you have referred to found

[Brietta]

I understand you perfectly well.

The dogs, in whatever field of perorations they are used, are trained on a certain group of substances.

I presume you do understand the difference between 'qualitative and quantitative' ?

In my original post I said ...
"I have always had my reservations about the key fob actually being in the sand.  It seemed a strange thing to do.  More like the demonstration of a party trick than a genuine investigation."

The only interpretation I can put on your response is one of total misunderstanding. 

[ferryman]

I'm back, refreshed and ready to make my point again. I don't need an answer unless supported by references, thank you.

Your first assertion was that Harrison criticised Grime (tacitly). To support this assertion you suggested that Harrison only referred to Grime and the dogs when he spoke about searches recommended by Harrison, not when referring to the searches Harrison had nothing to do with (places or things which Madeleine  never went near).

All the searches carried out were chosen following Harrison's recommendations in his reports, with the possible exception of the screening of items taken from the McCann's villa. I would guess that the decision to carry out those screenings arose after the alerts in G5A.

The part I underline is wrong.  Harrison's wording of those searches he recommended is very different from Harrison's wording for those searches he had nothing to do with; the places Madeleine never lived in or went near.  It is undoubtedly deliberate (by Harrison) that those searches Harrison recommended he acknowledges the input of Grime and his dogs.


Your second assertion was that Harrison didn't write the report 'Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document'.

Later amended to Harrison included in his report recommendations not his (which is correct)

Harrison actually wrote two reports for the PJ. The one above and another one entitled 'Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann—Praia da Luz & Marina'

Harrison wrote 3 reports.

The reports were submitted and then a meeting was held;
At both meetings, PJ agents were present and they were presided over by the Regional Director of the PJ Guilhermino ENCARNCAO who selected and established the priorities for the search areas.

Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm

[stephen25000]

In my original post I said ...
"I have always had my reservations about the key fob actually being in the sand.  It seemed a strange thing to do.  More like the demonstration of a party trick than a genuine investigation."

The only interpretation I can put on your response is one of total misunderstanding.

You seem unable to grasp what I asked.

Now try reading my last post again, rather than making incorrect assumptions.

[ferryman]

The big difference however being that a party trick has a predetermined outcome whereas an investigation by its very nature is just that, an investigation.  Unless of course you are claiming the outcome was engineered??

For me, at least, the biggest question mark over the key fob was its likelihood of yielding Madeleine's DNA.

What were the chances of it being found on the ignition key of a car hired 3 weeks after abduction?

[G-Unit]

Please provide references for your replies.

[Mr Gray]

All scent dogs are valued on their ability to find evidence that can be used in court