Amaral and the dogs

[pegasus]

But you have no proof all three items were in that shelf and also AS I said the scent could have come from anywhere in that room

Now I am interested to know what your underlying thesis is surrounding all this

If the scent molecules came from some other part of the room, how did they decide to bypass the beds (porous, air-trapping) and attach instead on the smooth laminate surface of a shelf cavity (non-porous non-air-trapping)?

[mercury]

If the scent molecules came from some other part of the room, how did they decide to bypass the beds (porous, air-trapping) and attach instead on the smooth laminate surface of a shelf cavity (non-porous non-air-trapping)?

I have no idea and neither do you, perhaps a cadVer dog alerts to the most concentratedly saturated item? However that came across with the transference of the scent. A matress is a large item, a small t shirt is tiny

[pegasus]

I have no idea and neither do you, perhaps a cadVer dog alerts to the most concentratedly saturated item? However that came across with the transference of the scent. A matress is a large item, a small t shirt is tiny

I might be wrong but the simplest solution IMO is that the 3 listed clothing alerts and the bedroom alert have a single explanation.

[mercury]

I might be wrong but the simplest solution IMO is that the 3 listed clothing alerts and the bedroom alert have a single explanation.

your problem is you dont actually KNOW that all three items were together to start with

[Brietta]

I might be wrong but the simplest solution IMO is that the 3 listed clothing alerts and the bedroom alert have a single explanation.

I've had another look at the relevant part of the dog video, Pegasus, and I really do not think it passes muster as an indication of anything other than a dog using his mouth to toss items around and barking while running over and tossing various items in the line laid out on the floor.  None of these items were alerted to when in situ anywhere else.

This was one fed up dog making it plain he had had enough.

I think your notion to try to explain Eddie in the bedroom is way off mark ... why he barked there is anyone's guess ... and the fact it is a guess makes it an irrelevance.

Keela's trained response was to freeze and we saw examples of that.

Eddie's trained response was to bark and the example we saw of him alerting to cellular material from a living donor was at the door of the Renault:  where he sat down and remained stationary while barking:  therefore that was his trained response ... barking while stationary.

I do not believe his antics in the gymnasium were a trained response.

[pathfinder73]

your problem is you dont actually KNOW that all three items were together to start with

That's why Amaral wanted to know what Madeleine was wearing that day and to collect their clothes the following day. A shelf full of clothes weren't alerted and we know the mother was with the children from 6-7 on 3 May when Gerry was playing tennis.

[pegasus]

That's why Amaral wanted to know what Madeleine was wearing that day and to collect their clothes the following day. A shelf full of clothes weren't alerted and we know the mother was with the children from 6-7 on 3 May when Gerry was playing tennis.

I believe you agree that shelf was alerted (sniiffed just before bark).
Obviously if something was placed so that it contacted the shelf it would also contact some of the clothes.

[pathfinder73]

I believe you agree that shelf was alerted (sniiffed just before bark).
Obviously if something was placed so that it contacted the shelf it would also contact some of the clothes.

More clothes would alert so I think the obvious explanation for only three items is by direct contact or after handling clothes are immediately touched i.e. secondary transfer.

[ferryman]

All the clothes would alert so I think the obvious explanation is clothes in direct contact or after handling cadaver clothes are immediately touched i.e. secondary transfer.

How do you explain the fact that none of the clothes, apparently, alerted to in the gym were alerted to in the villa, despite all being present in the villa during that inspection?

[pathfinder73]

How do you explain the fact that none of the clothes, apparently, alerted to in the gym were alerted to in the villa, despite all being present in the villa during that inspection?

The venue (gym) was screened by both dogs prior to introducing clothing. (MG) Clothes have to be screened separately. Please provide proof where the alerted clothes were in the villa?

[ferryman]

The venue (gym) was screened by both dogs prior to introducing clothing. (MG) Clothes have to be screened separately. Please provide proof where the alerted clothes were in the villa?

On the "prior" screening of the gym, here is a remarkable fact:

Official record of the canine inspection at 23h20 on 2 August 2007 at the Municipal Pavilion of Lagos, [situated in] Lagos.

The ten participants are indicated as being five PJ Chief Inspectors (2)/Inspectors (3); The UK NPIA officer (Harrison); the UK dog handler (Grime); the Portuguese-speaking officer from Scotland Yard (Freitas); and the two UK English Springer spaniels - Eddy and Kila.

Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.

In these terms, the pieces of clothing recovered [from the home] were laid out individually in accordance with instructions given by the British technicians, the dogs [then] walking the area where they [those pieces of clothing] were laid out by order and with the following results described below.

1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.

2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.

3. Clothes from the box labelled Lounge ("sitting room") were inspected by the blood dog between 00h02 (now 3 August) and 00h05 without any result. The same clothes were inspected by the cadaver dog between 00h06 and 00h07 also without any result.

4. Then the suitcase labelled 'Twins bedroom' was inspected, followed by two sets of inspections of its contents due to the large number of individual pieces it contained: the blood dog inspected [the first set] between 00h12 and 00h15, and then [the second set] between 00h22 and 00h24 - both without any result.
The cadaver dog inspected [set one] between 00h16 and 00h17, then [set two] between 00h25 and 00h26, also without any result.

5. An empty suitcase labelled 'Visitors bedroom' was inspected, along with sundry clothing packed in a box labelled Outside Clothes rack. Between 00h40 and 00h43 the blood dog inspected without any result, and in its turn the cadaver dog inspected between 00h44 and 00h45, also without any result.

6. The clothes packed in the box labelled "couple's bedroom 1" was inspected by the blood dog between 00h51 and 00h55, while the cadaver dog inspected it between 00h56 and 0057 without any result from either dog.
because there were so many pieces of clothing in the box a second inspection was conducted between 01h04 and 01h07 by the blood dog, and between 01h08 and 01h09 by the cadaver dog, [again] without any result from either dog.

7. The clothes packed in the box labelled "couple's bedroom 2" was inspected by the cadaver dog between 01h20 and 01h22, then the blood dog between 01h23 and 01h25. Nothing abnormal was detected by either dog.

Attached, the photo report which immediately follows and the video recording on MiniDV cassette.

There being nothing more the activity stopped at 01h30.

This document is drawn up to ratify the truth of the above and it is going to be signed by all participants.
(three signatures appended; five missing)

E.&O.E.

There was no gap between the "prior" screening of the gym and the commencement of inspection of the clothing, tending to suggest that the clothes were already laid out before the screening.

So why no alert during the "prior" screening?

And what was the point of the screening?

Or do you think the PJ might have read the translated instructions Mark Harrison gave them after both inspections at villa and gym and "cribbed" from them without really understanding what they were reading? ....

[pegasus]

More clothes would alert so I think the obvious explanation for only three items is by direct contact or after handling clothes are immediately touched i.e. secondary transfer.

On shelf a small number of the items would be in direct contact with a specified item and the remainder would not.
The contact items would be random and it is irrelevant which individual happened to be the user of them.
I posted the two images for one item, the design and its size match IMO.
IMO all 3 listed items were on that shelf all evening.
There seems to be objection to this from both sides?
Isn't it likely that a pile of clothes contains clothes?

[pegasus]

@FerryMan

This paragraph is a summary of all the following (numbered) paragraphs
"In these terms, the pieces of clothing recovered [from the home] were laid out individually in accordance with instructions given by the British technicians, the dogs [then] walking the area where they [those pieces of clothing] were laid out by order and with the following results described below"

If you read the paragraph numbered "1" you will find that the venue was checked between 2320 and 2330

If you read the paragraph numbered "2" you will notice the first clothing was removed from box and checked at 2330

You can confirm this by watching the video

[Eleanor]

This cross contamination does seem to be rather selective.

[ferryman]

@FerryMan

"In these terms, the pieces of clothing recovered [from the home] were laid out individually in accordance with instructions given by the British technicians, the dogs [then] walking the area where they [those pieces of clothing] were laid out by order and with the following results described below"

That paragraph is a summary of the following (numbered) paragraphs

I query why there was no gap between the laying out of the clothing and the commencement of the search.

In fact, I query why there was a search of clothing at all.

These were not clothes kept in some special storage pending the investigation. 

They were clothes in everyday use as clothes are: worn, washed, hung out on washing lines, packed in suitcases.

The point is frequently (and rightly) made that there was zero reference to cross-contamination of any (hypothetical) scent on clothing. 

But that didn't matter.

The inspection came 3 months after the crime; cross-contamination (if it was going to occur) would, long since, already have done so.

The key questions are: what was the point of any inspection at all?

And why a re-inspection of clothing already inspected once (in the villa) without result?