Amaral and the dogs

[Brietta]

You are mistaken if you believe that everyone who doubts the McCann's story does so because of Amaral's 'lies about the dogs'. Doubts arose and were expressed long before the dogs went to Praia da Luz.

In what manner do you suppose ... "Doubts arose and were expressed long before the dogs went to Praia da Luz."

It couldn't possibly have been as a result of insider knowledge of what was actually happening within the investigation.

That wouldn't have been allowed under the secrecy law ... from which Madeleine McCann's case could have been exempt ... so the opinions and doubts you mention must have been formed by the incessant propaganda and lies for which the Portuguese press paid 'a source close to the investigation'.

Mr Amaral's use of the dogs appears to be less of an investigative tool and more of a weapon against her parents when seen against the background of this propaganda war. 

I believe he knew they did not constitute just cause which was one reason the magistrates never got the chance to rule on the new change to the law which came into force within days of making them arguidos; the other which would not have borne scrutiny was the alleged dream.

Making them arguidos was precipitate and designed to cause lasting damage, which it did both long and short term.  Which is quite extraordinary considering his own arguido status at the time.

It is little wonder that anyone forming opinions based on information fed to the press in 2007 and subsequently proved false are still asking questions as imo opinion they are displaying a less than adequate analytical grasp of how the media was used against Madeleine's family.

Everybody else realised they had been played for fools.

[stephen25000]

no...just very poor understanding and logic by you

Very logical dave.

Try thinking outside the box. 

[pathfinder73]

PRELIMINARY RESULTS
PREPARATION FOR THE INTERROGATIONS
Analyses of the residues collected following the visit by the dogs is entrusted to the English Forensic Science Service laboratory. To avoid any leaks of information, Stuart Prior, a senior officer with Leicestershire police, is responsible for liaison between the laboratory and José Freitas of Scotland Yard. The latter, who is with us, in Portimão, is passing on any relevant reports.

We confidently wait for the evaluation reports from FSS. A few days after the samples are sent, we are informed that the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns’ car shows a significant match – 50% – with Gerald’s, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. We telephone the public minister to pass on this initial result and wait for the follow-up to the analyses and definite conclusions But the laboratory takes its time.

At the beginning of September, shortly before the McCann couple are placed under investigation, Superintendent Stuart Prior travels to Portimão to present the first of the two preliminary reports from the laboratory and to discuss the progress of the investigation.

At a meeting in our office, with the Portuguese and the English investigation team, Stuart expresses his disappointment over the test results. This is where the saga of the FSS reports begins. We read the part of the report dealing with the traces of blood lifted from the floor of apartment 5A, from behind the sofa and in the boot of the McCanns’ car
and we don’t agree with Stuart’s disappointment We talk about blood traces because the CSI dog is trained to find only that bodily fluid. The reports that support that decision are clear: the CSI dog was used to detect human blood. Low Copy Number, the technique used to determine the DNA of the samples, does not identify the nature of the bodily fluid they are derived from. But we know it’s definitely traces of blood and not other bodily fluids since the CSI dog is trained to detect only human blood.

In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!.

As for the second case, after an explanation about the DNA components in Madeleine’s genetic profile, it concludes that 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine’s profile are present in the sample examined. Only 4 short of 100% reliability. The FSS specialists qualify the results as, “complex,” and state that these 15 markers are not enough to conclude with certainty that it’s definitely Madeleine’s DNA profile, especially as Low Copy Number picked out a total of 37 in the sample. That means that at least three individuals contributed to this result.

But there was more in this first preliminary report. In the same report, the scientist went further and explained that in the profiles of many of the lab experts, elements from the DNA profile of Madeleine are present. This means that a major part of the DNA profile of any given person can be built by three donors. That is understandable. Two questions arose immediately. The first one: what good is a DNA profile in terms of criminal evidence, if it can be the combination of three or more donors? Another question was simple: why did the DNA profile from those three donors contribute to Madeleine’s DNA profile and not to that of any other person, like the scientist who carried out the test? But the surprises from the preliminary reports were not to end there.

On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine’s DNA profile.

As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed.

Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue:either this LCN technique is not reliable or it’s simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine’s DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance.

At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: “With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England.” I look at my colleagues and see that they are as stupified as I am. In fact, in Portugal, it’s not so easy to arrest someone. We explain to Stuart that the McCanns interrogations would not result in detention. According to Portuguese law, the crimes of concealment of a corpse and simulating an abduction are not liable to remanding in custody. (TOTL)

[Mr Gray]

PRELIMINARY RESULTS
PREPARATION FOR THE INTERROGATIONS
Analyses of the residues collected following the visit by the dogs is entrusted to the English Forensic Science Service laboratory. To avoid any leaks of information, Stuart Prior, a senior officer with Leicestershire police, is responsible for liaison between the laboratory and José Freitas of Scotland Yard. The latter, who is with us, in Portimão, is passing on any relevant reports.

We confidently wait for the evaluation reports from FSS. A few days after the samples are sent, we are informed that the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns’ car shows a significant match – 50% – with Gerald’s, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. We telephone the public minister to pass on this initial result and wait for the follow-up to the analyses and definite conclusions But the laboratory takes its time.

At the beginning of September, shortly before the McCann couple are placed under investigation, Superintendent Stuart Prior travels to Portimão to present the first of the two preliminary reports from the laboratory and to discuss the progress of the investigation.

At a meeting in our office, with the Portuguese and the English investigation team, Stuart expresses his disappointment over the test results. This is where the saga of the FSS reports begins. We read the part of the report dealing with the traces of blood lifted from the floor of apartment 5A, from behind the sofa and in the boot of the McCanns’ car
and we don’t agree with Stuart’s disappointment We talk about blood traces because the CSI dog is trained to find only that bodily fluid. The reports that support that decision are clear: the CSI dog was used to detect human blood. Low Copy Number, the technique used to determine the DNA of the samples, does not identify the nature of the bodily fluid they are derived from. But we know it’s definitely traces of blood and not other bodily fluids since the CSI dog is trained to detect only human blood.

In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!.

As for the second case, after an explanation about the DNA components in Madeleine’s genetic profile, it concludes that 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine’s profile are present in the sample examined. Only 4 short of 100% reliability. The FSS specialists qualify the results as, “complex,” and state that these 15 markers are not enough to conclude with certainty that it’s definitely Madeleine’s DNA profile, especially as Low Copy Number picked out a total of 37 in the sample. That means that at least three individuals contributed to this result.

But there was more in this first preliminary report. In the same report, the scientist went further and explained that in the profiles of many of the lab experts, elements from the DNA profile of Madeleine are present. This means that a major part of the DNA profile of any given person can be built by three donors. That is understandable. Two questions arose immediately. The first one: what good is a DNA profile in terms of criminal evidence, if it can be the combination of three or more donors? Another question was simple: why did the DNA profile from those three donors contribute to Madeleine’s DNA profile and not to that of any other person, like the scientist who carried out the test? But the surprises from the preliminary reports were not to end there.

On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine’s DNA profile.

As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed.

Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue:either this LCN technique is not reliable or it’s simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine’s DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance.

At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: “With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England.” I look at my colleagues and see that they are as stupified as I am. In fact, in Portugal, it’s not so easy to arrest someone. We explain to Stuart that the McCanns interrogations would not result in detention. According to Portuguese law, the crimes of concealment of a corpse and simulating an abduction are not liable to remanding in custody. (TOTL)

you are quoting amaral's book..it's gobblydee gook...he doesn't understand the dna.....15 out of 19 being 4 short of 100%....what a ridiculous thing to say...does he actually understand what he is saying

[ferryman]

Who seriously believes that Stuart Prior was first contradicted and corrected by Amaral on interpretation of the forensic results, then rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest?

Anyone?

Apart from Pathfinder?

And (possibly!) Amaral?

ETA: Is it just coincidence that we don't see Prior's report?

[G-Unit]

In what manner do you suppose ... "Doubts arose and were expressed long before the dogs went to Praia da Luz."

It couldn't possibly have been as a result of insider knowledge of what was actually happening within the investigation.

That wouldn't have been allowed under the secrecy law ... from which Madeleine McCann's case could have been exempt ... so the opinions and doubts you mention must have been formed by the incessant propaganda and lies for which the Portuguese press paid 'a source close to the investigation'.

Mr Amaral's use of the dogs appears to be less of an investigative tool and more of a weapon against her parents when seen against the background of this propaganda war. 

I believe he knew they did not constitute just cause which was one reason the magistrates never got the chance to rule on the new change to the law which came into force within days of making them arguidos; the other which would not have borne scrutiny was the alleged dream.

Making them arguidos was precipitate and designed to cause lasting damage, which it did both long and short term.  Which is quite extraordinary considering his own arguido status at the time.

It is little wonder that anyone forming opinions based on information fed to the press in 2007 and subsequently proved false are still asking questions as imo opinion they are displaying a less than adequate analytical grasp of how the media was used against Madeleine's family.

Everybody else realised they had been played for fools.

Early doubts arose when it became clear that the parents had apparently neglected to take proper care of their children's safety and that early stories of jemmied shutters and broken doors reported by friends and family were untrue. No need for propoganda and lies, they admitted that they left the children alone each evening that week and that the shutters weren't jemmied and no doors were broken.

Amaral's opinion of the dog alerts didn't enter into it at that stage.

[Carana]

Who seriously believes that Stuart Prior was first contradicted and corrected by Amaral on interpretation of the forensic results, then rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest?

Anyone?

Apart from Pathfinder?

And (possibly!) Amaral?

ETA: Is it just coincidence that we don't see Prior's report?

Prior's report would be in the restricted files. As Amaral's understanding of English appears to be rudimentary, it's hearsay at best. It's not even clear if he was even there.

Since when would serving UK police officers be allowed to testify in an overseas civil case without Home Office clearance in a case that was already a diplomatic nightmare? Particularly one involving two senior investigating officers involved in different scandals.

I have yet to discover what Amaral's "ace" actually was. My best guess is the tiny extract (without surrounding context) from Rainbow's - sub-judice - report suggesting that Gerry should be investigated in view of his contradictory statements.

Well, you don't need to be Einstein to work out that those closest to a missing child need to be investigated. What Rainbow quite possibly didn't know is that the statements were not verbatim and that it is highly unlikely timewise that Gerry could have read a translated written version before signing on the dotted line on the original PT version.

[Mr Gray]

Prior's report would be in the restricted files. As Amaral's understanding of English appears to be rudimentary, it's hearsay at best. It's not even clear if he was even there.

Since when would serving UK police officers be allowed to testify in an overseas civil case without Home Office clearance in a case that was already a diplomatic nightmare? Particularly one involving two senior investigating officers involved in different scandals.

I have yet to discover what Amaral's "ace" actually was. My best guess is the tiny extract (without surrounding context) from Rainbow's - sub-judice - report suggesting that Gerry should be investigated in view of his contradictory statements.

Well, you don't need to be Einstein to work out that those closest to a missing child need to be investigated. What Rainbow quite possibly didn't know is that the statements were not verbatim and that it is highly unlikely timewise that Gerry could have read a translated written version before signing on the dotted line on the original PT version.

I believe rainbow said that Gerry was a lead that should be investigated
But that the remark ...due to inconsistencies was added by amarals lawyer

[Brietta]

Early doubts arose when it became clear that the parents had apparently neglected to take proper care of their children's safety and that early stories of jemmied shutters and broken doors reported by friends and family were untrue. No need for propoganda and lies, they admitted that they left the children alone each evening that week and that the shutters weren't jemmied and no doors were broken.

Amaral's opinion of the dog alerts didn't enter into it at that stage.

I'm sure the swinger allegations, implied paedophilia and the expert body language analyses of the police wives had nothing at all to do with forming the opinions still so dearly held by the sceptics.

That there are those still in denial that most of the early headlines were deliberate lies and who still believe nonsense such as that being disseminated by Pathfinder from Mr Amaral's book shows that there is something lacking and perhaps they have spent over eight years asking the wrong questions of people who only appear to have access to the wrong answers or the answers that suit them.

Quote ... the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns’ car shows a significant match – 50% – with Gerald’s, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. G Amaral:   Unquote

The unadulterated misinterpretation of the results from the expensive visit of the dogs to Praia da Luz is the lynch pin of Mr Amaral's theory ... how much credence do you think should be given to the above excerpt from his book in the light of what we know from the FSS Report.

[Brietta]

Whenever we do a dog thread there is always discussion about the training of VRD and what may or may not have been the reason for Eddie's alerts ... I found this item from a blog which gives an explanation of just how this individual trains her dogs, I found it to be of interest.

It seems any human detritus at all will emit the scents to which a VRD is trained to alert which broadens the scope for alerts to be made which do not necessarily have to be cadaver.



**Snip

3) Getting the Scent Source

This is the tricky part of Cadaver training. You are training your dog to find and alert on decomposing human tissue.

For that, I need decomposing human tissue. Some may argue they can train with a psuedo-scent or pig scent, but I want to know that my dog has trained on human scent and only human scent.

This doesn't mean you keep arms and legs in your garage! You can, and should, train your dog on multiple sources of decomposing human tissue. Some are easier to obtain than others.

Decomposing bodies outside seep into the soil and leave a blackened oily film over the grass. Long after the body has been removed to the medical examiner's office, that "decomp" soil will still be there. It still smells like a decaying human body because it is filled with "decomp soup."   This decomp soil makes an excellent training source.

Placentas make another wonderful training tool. At the moment Daughter has three placentas in the freezer that came from friends. Knowing the placentas are used for training search dogs, she hits up her pregnant friends for source material.

Teeth are a must. Many scenes that call for search dogs are "bone calls."  Someone finds a human bone and we must scour the area on a bizarre Easter egg hunt for other human bones. Most of the time these have been scattered by scavengers.  There is very little, if any, tissue left on the bones. Because of this, your dog must learn to hunt for bones and teeth.

Yesterday Son's Girlfriend had 4 wisdom teeth removed.  Guess who gets those teeth? Yes, it says something about a family when they collect cadaver material together!

For years Kona trained with a segment of my neice's mummified umbilical cord.

Training a Cadaver Dog turns you into a family of Body Snatchers. No, you're not stealing from corpses. Aside from the fact that it isn't legal, talk about bad Karma! (shudder)

http://farmfreshforensics.com/csi_blog?blogstart=89
 

[G-Unit]

I'm sure the swinger allegations, implied paedophilia and the expert body language analyses of the police wives had nothing at all to do with forming the opinions still so dearly held by the sceptics.

That there are those still in denial that most of the early headlines were deliberate lies and who still believe nonsense such as that being disseminated by Pathfinder from Mr Amaral's book shows that there is something lacking and perhaps they have spent over eight years asking the wrong questions of people who only appear to have access to the wrong answers or the answers that suit them.

Quote ... the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns’ car shows a significant match – 50% – with Gerald’s, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. G Amaral:   Unquote

The unadulterated misinterpretation of the results from the expensive visit of the dogs to Praia da Luz is the lynch pin of Mr Amaral's theory ... how much credence do you think should be given to the above excerpt from his book in the light of what we know from the FSS Report.

It was much simpler than that at the beginning. Just a story that didn't add up, that's all.

[pathfinder73]

Whenever we do a dog thread there is always discussion about the training of VRD and what may or may not have been the reason for Eddie's alerts ... I found this item from a blog which gives an explanation of just how this individual trains her dogs, I found it to be of interest.

It seems any human detritus at all will emit the scents to which a VRD is trained to alert which broadens the scope for alerts to be made which do not necessarily have to be cadaver.



**Snip

3) Getting the Scent Source

This is the tricky part of Cadaver training. You are training your dog to find and alert on decomposing human tissue.

For that, I need decomposing human tissue. Some may argue they can train with a psuedo-scent or pig scent, but I want to know that my dog has trained on human scent and only human scent.

This doesn't mean you keep arms and legs in your garage! You can, and should, train your dog on multiple sources of decomposing human tissue. Some are easier to obtain than others.

Decomposing bodies outside seep into the soil and leave a blackened oily film over the grass. Long after the body has been removed to the medical examiner's office, that "decomp" soil will still be there. It still smells like a decaying human body because it is filled with "decomp soup."   This decomp soil makes an excellent training source.

Placentas make another wonderful training tool. At the moment Daughter has three placentas in the freezer that came from friends. Knowing the placentas are used for training search dogs, she hits up her pregnant friends for source material.

Teeth are a must. Many scenes that call for search dogs are "bone calls."  Someone finds a human bone and we must scour the area on a bizarre Easter egg hunt for other human bones. Most of the time these have been scattered by scavengers.  There is very little, if any, tissue left on the bones. Because of this, your dog must learn to hunt for bones and teeth.

Yesterday Son's Girlfriend had 4 wisdom teeth removed.  Guess who gets those teeth? Yes, it says something about a family when they collect cadaver material together!

For years Kona trained with a segment of my neice's mummified umbilical cord.

Training a Cadaver Dog turns you into a family of Body Snatchers. No, you're not stealing from corpses. Aside from the fact that it isn't legal, talk about bad Karma! (shudder)

http://farmfreshforensics.com/csi_blog?blogstart=89

Why don't you ask the FBI about Eddie and his top marks at their body farm for detecting human cadavers and to MG why Eddie alerted to clothes with no blood on them?

FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow that he and his springer spaniel dogs, Eddie, Keela and Morse, were called in by Northern Constabulary in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on June 6 last year. The jury was told that a body was found at the spot Eddie had indicated. Mr Grime told the court that Eddie’s nose is so sensitive that if someone touched a dead body and then touched a piece of paper before hiding it, Eddie would be able to locate the paper using his sense of smell.

[Brietta]

It was much simpler than that at the beginning. Just a story that didn't add up, that's all.

Why didn't it add up?

Who provided the twos which when the additions were calculated made twenty two not four.



Quote:

There are other drawbacks—for example, Portugal has no DNA data banks or national missing-child alerts.

Moreover, Praia da Luz is not the ideal venue for a topflight criminal investigation.
Gonçalo Amaral, who for five months was the senior detective in the case, is himself involved in another legal battle.
He is accused of covering up a beating by his subordinates of a Portuguese woman who was ultimately convicted of killing her own child.
Locally there are no cadaver dogs trained in tracking human blood or remains; after Madeleine vanished, local residents actually used household pets under the guidance of police with drug-sniffing dogs.

“Let me tell you, I know a lot about detective dogs, and I don’t know why the police would want anyone bringing their pets to assist,” says Robert Tucker, who runs a New York security firm.  Unquote:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=259306;topic=6311.1680


There was no need to delay the introduction of the British dogs.  They could have been in Praia da Luz at a time which could have made all the difference to whether or not Madeleine McCann was found in the days after she vanished from her bed.

Perhaps there is room for the sceptics to direct their questions to why that particular anomaly was not addressed ... was there any good reason to turn down the good offices of 'the two best search dogs in the world' and instead place reliance on searchers' pets?

 


Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
 
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
 
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
 
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
 
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
 
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
 
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
 
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
 
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
 
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
 
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
 
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
 
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
 
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

[Brietta]

Why don't you ask the FBI about Eddie and his top marks at their body farm for detecting human cadavers and to MG why Eddie alerted to clothes with no blood on them?

FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow that he and his springer spaniel dogs, Eddie, Keela and Morse, were called in by Northern Constabulary in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on June 6 last year. The jury was told that a body was found at the spot Eddie had indicated. Mr Grime told the court that Eddie’s nose is so sensitive that if someone touched a dead body and then touched a piece of paper before hiding it, Eddie would be able to locate the paper using his sense of smell.

I have often seen that claim made for Eddie.
I have often seen a request for a cite to substantiate the claim being made.
I have never seen anything to prove what you claim for Eddie is true ... I have seen Morse's qualifications officially and independently endorsed ... I have never seen any independent endorsement for Eddie.

Interesting though to notice the ease with which cadaver scent contamination can be transferred. 

I also noticed that in Mr Roses's case a body was found proving Eddie right.

[sadie]

you are quoting amaral's book..it's gobblydee gook...he doesn't understand the dna.....15 out of 19 being 4 short of 100%....what a ridiculous thing to say...does he actually understand what he is saying

Bwhahaha!


Did Amaral actually say that?


No wonder he got things so wrong.