Amaral and the dogs

[Mr Gray]

A brief reminder.

Inconclusive forensic results does not mean NO EVIDENCE.

The dogs alerted.

Simple balance of probabilities.

THAT IS WHY YOU KEEP ON RETURNING TO THIS THREAD.

inconclusive results does mean no evidence...

[stephen25000]

if the dogs first ignored the spots they later alerted to in many cases that alters the credibility of the alerts and therefore reduces the possibility of them actually meaning anything.

Why ?

Have you never observed dogs being used at first hand in such situations ?

[stephen25000]

inconclusive results does mean no evidence...

Inconclusive means the material was contaminated.

Now if a body is found..............................

[Mr Gray]

Why ?

Have you never observed dogs being used at first hand in such situations ?

Eddie ignored uudlecat then later alerted to it...it seems this happened re many of the alerts according to the PJ....If you cannot see that this drastically reduces the credibility of the alerts then its your problem

[Mr Gray]

Inconclusive means the material was contaminated.

Now if a body is found..............................

if a body was found that would be evidence...

[Mr Gray]

So we now know that the dog video has been edited to show the dogs in  a better light and that the dogs repeatedly ignored things they later alerted to...

[Anna]

Yes but if, after editing, a video contains a dog barking at a shelf in a wardrobe, that means the original complete video must have contained a dog barking at a shelf in a wardrobe. Your claim that the video was edited actually proves that the dog barked at that shelf.

I see what you are saying, Pegasus.
However the current discussion is the doubts regarding the alerts as seen on video, by PJ.
Why should that alert in the wardrobe be less doubtful? They saw the full video before it was edited, Did we?

[stephen25000]

Eddie ignored uudlecat then later alerted to it...it seems this happened re many of the alerts according to the PJ....If you cannot see that this drastically reduces the credibility of the alerts then its your problem

Therein lies your trouble.

You haven't seen dogs in action in the real world.

[Mr Gray]

Therein lies your trouble.

You haven't seen dogs in action in the real world.

neither have you or all those on the net who use that video as evidence against the McCanns.....the video which now appears to be fraudulent

[Eleanor]

Any Posts Containing Insults etcetera........

[Mr Gray]

I'm merely pointing out a very interesting fact which undermines the dog's alerts....alerts which have been pivotal "evidence" against the mccanns

[Anna]

Please try and keep your posts within the boundaries of the topic.  And avoid personal comments, which only result in disrupting the thread. Thank you.

[stephen25000]

More deletions.

[sadie]

I see what you are saying, Pegasus.
However the current discussion is the doubts regarding the alerts as seen on video, by PJ.
Why should that alert in the wardrobe be less doubtful? They saw the full video before it was edited, Did we?

Eddie alerts to living scents

What i cant understand is why all this palava over him aparantly alerting at a shelf in a cupboard?  What if the dirty washing from a living Madeleine had been stored there?   There would be a scent then, would there not?

And Eddie who was trained to alert to living scents would have alerted.

[stephen25000]

Eddie alerts to living scents

What i cant understand is why all this palava over him aparantly alerting at a shelf in a cupboard?  What if the dirty washing from a living Madeleine had been stored there?   There would be a scent then, would there not?

And Eddie who was trained to alert to living scents would have alerted.

Have you any direct physical experience of seeing how dogs 'work' in the field ?


Videos, give a false perception.