Amaral and the dogs

[Carew]

Which is precisely why the importance of finding out exactly what it is the dog is actually alerting to. 

He knows ... the investigators do not. 
Therefore any alert requires back up evidence to say what the alert may be ... whether that is in the form of human remains or a discarded tissue from a nosebleed.

Well quite.

The problem is that there will be "nosebleed" residue or similar blood/saliva/toenail/pork product/mop spillage related contaminants at most sites accessible to the on-duty dog in work mode.

"Any" alert requiring back up evidence would therefore become "many" alerts everywhere requiring back up evidence.

[Eleanor]

Perhaps it would be pertinent to remember that Eddie had assistance in the search for Mr Rose's remains ...

A man accused of murder on an Orkney island led police to sand dunes where his alleged victim was buried, a court has heard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8518464.stm

So the evidence of Martin Grime was of no value whatsoever.  The Perpetrator admitted that he had killed the man, and then told The Police where to find the body.
Although it wouldn't surprise me if the perpetrator pleaded Not Guilty

[pegasus]

So the evidence of Martin Grime was of no value whatsoever.  The Perpetrator admitted that he had killed the man, and then told The Police where to find the body.
Although it wouldn't surprise me if the perpetrator pleaded Not Guilty

That perp told them the area of dunes to find the body in.
Not the exact spot.
That's why Eddie was called in.

[stephen25000]

for all the thousands of posts on the dogs...and all the claims re there skills...the bottom linr remains...

Eddie may have alerted to cadaver odour...and then again he may have not...that statement is confirmed by what Grime said

The dogs responded to the presence of certain compounds.

FACT.

GRIME IS NOT A FORENSIC SCIENTIST, just a dog handler.

Dogs do what they are trained to do.

FACT.

[Eleanor]

That perp told them the area of dunes to find the body in.
Not the exact spot.
That's why Eddie was called in.

My dog could have done it for nothing.

[Mr Gray]

The dogs responded to the presence of certain compounds.

FACT.

GRIME IS NOT A FORENSIC SCIENTIST, just a dog handler.

Dogs do what they are trained to do.

FACT.

what compounds are you referring to and what proof do you have...Grime trained the dogs and he cannot confirm they are alerting to cadaver odour..fact

Forensic scientists tell us was residue was collected...they cannot tell us what the dogs alerted to if there is no residue..fact


We still do not know the value of the alerts although Grime has told us they have no evidential or intelligence reliability...which part of that statement do you not understand

[Mr Gray]

The dogs responded to the presence of certain compounds.

FACT.

GRIME IS NOT A FORENSIC SCIENTIST, just a dog handler.

Dogs do what they are trained to do.

FACT.

What has forensic science have to do with residual scent...nothing at the moment ...

There is no science behind residual sent..it is anectdotal..

science requires proof...there is no proof  to support what eddie alerted to....Grime has made that clear

[Brietta]

Well quite.

The problem is that there will be "nosebleed" residue or similar blood/saliva/toenail/pork product/mop spillage related contaminants at most sites accessible to the on-duty dog in work mode.

"Any" alert requiring back up evidence would therefore become "many" alerts everywhere requiring back up evidence.

Absolutely.
Which is why a dog alert will not be presented in court in the British Isles with the exception of Scotland.

In the case of Suzanne Pilley a murder conviction was returned although Ms Pilley's remains still have not been recovered ... an alert from a cadaver dog was accepted as evidence ... not on its own ... but as part of a vast sum of corroborating evidence which was compelling enough for a jury to return a guilty verdict.
It should be noted that this occurred in a jurisdiction which allows three verdicts ... guilty - not guilty - and not proven.

The not proven cop out verdict usually being interpreted as ... aye, we know you dunnit, but we don't think there is enough evidence to prove it, so away you go and don't do it again.

That people are anxious to hang, draw and quarter the parents of a missing child on the very questionable evidence of a very questionable dog alert ... and only that ... nothing else I find one of the more extraordinary aspects of Madeleine McCann's case, and there are a lot to choose from.

[Brietta]

for all the thousands of posts on the dogs...and all the claims re there skills...the bottom linr remains...

Eddie may have alerted to cadaver odour...and then again he may have not...that statement is confirmed by what Grime said

                                          ... and that is the sum and substance of it.

[stephen25000]

What has forensic science have to do with residual scent...nothing at the moment ...

There is no science behind residual sent..it is anectdotal..

science requires proof...there is no proof  to support what eddie alerted to....Grime has made that clear

'There is no science behind residual sent'

It is you once again who needs lessons in science.

Just what the hell do you think forensic scientists do at the scene of a crime ?

Play happy bunnies perhaps.

[stephen25000]

                                          ... and that is the sum and substance of it.

 

So that's why you and the rest of the mccann faithful keep commenting on this thread.

Deary me.

[lordpookles]

Was the material recovered from behind the sofa confirmed as blood? And if so how much was actually collected and where was it collected from? Because if it was collected from underneath the tiles in small amounts I assume a reasonable amount of blood would need to be spilled in order for it to seep under there.

[Eleanor]

Find a body if there is one.  That's it really.  In the absence of a body or any forensic evidence then one cannot assume that the victim is dead.
My not so humble opinion does not rely on science, which I admit to not entirely understanding.  But does it need to?  I have got enough common sense to understand that there is no evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead.
I have got this thing in my head that correlates what I see or hear that tells me, without the need for an understanding of science, that there is nothing.
Amaral obviously does not have this ability.

[Brietta]

That perp told them the area of dunes to find the body in.
Not the exact spot.
That's why Eddie was called in.

Sands shift and it is easy to lose track of where bodies are buried ... witness Northern Ireland where victims of the troubles cannot be found despite the deposition site being known ... but there is nothing remarkable in a cadaver dog finding a recent burial which must have been stinking to high heaven as it was wrapped only in a duvet.

Digging in sand dunes is particularly difficult as loose sand quickly backfills the area being dug out therefore pin pointing the exact spot would be important and a cadaver dog the proper tool to do that and having been taken to the immediate area I reckon it would have taken Eddie minutes to do that saving hours of digging time.

[Eleanor]

Was the material recovered from behind the sofa confirmed as blood? And if so how much was actually collected and where was it collected from? Because if it was collected from underneath the tiles in small amounts I assume a reasonable amount of blood would need to be spilled in order for it to seep under there.

If there was any blood under the tiles then it was almost certainly shed by the Tile Layer.  Or the person who lifted the tiles.  Shards of tiles can be lethal when it comes to cutting oneself.  As I well know.