Amaral and the dogs

[Mr Gray]

Neither did he dismiss it either.

and it wasn't his job to either.

That's the job of the forensic scientists, and just to remind everyone, inconclusive means what it says.

so the alerts tell us nothing either way..thank you...absolutely useless

[Angelo222]

I (genuinely) think it's a good thing to listen selectively to Grime ....

Shouldn't that be read selectively?

[stephen25000]

so the alerts tell us nothing either way..thank you...absolutely useless

If they are so useless, why do you keep commenting, as do others of your ilk ?

[Angelo222]

There can be no doubt that Mr Grime knew the targets before sending in the dogs.  He knew which apartment the McCanns had occupied with Madeleine prior to her disappearance, he knew which car was rented by them and he knew it was their clothing which was laid out on the gym floor.  For me the entire exercise was a fiasco and yet another waste of money.

[stephen25000]

They constitute circumstantial evidence.

and if a body is ever found, quite crucial.

Redwood himself stated Madeleine could have died in the apartment.

Similar dogs were used by SY in Portugal last year and searched in specific locations with no results.

[Carew]

There can be no doubt that Mr Grime knew the targets before sending in the dogs.  He knew which apartment the McCanns had occupied with Madeleine prior to her disappearance, he knew which car was rented by them and he knew it was their clothing which was laid out on the gym floor.  For me the entire exercise was a fiasco and yet another waste of money.

Wouldn`t it be quite usual in potential crime scene investigations for the premises , vehicles and gardens to be  those associated with the missing person and known to be so?

I mean.........how else would they operate?

[Mr Gray]

They constitute circumstantial evidence.

and if a body is ever found, quite crucial.

Redwood himself stated Madeleine could have died in the apartment.

Similar dogs were used by SY in Portugal last year and searched in specific locations with no results.

No evidential reliability
The alerts have zero value
If a body is found how will that change

[stephen25000]

No evidential reliability
The alerts have zero value
If a body is found how will that change

The alerts come down to basic probability.

The dogs are trained to respond to a group of compounds.

They did so.

Did the dogs used last year give any indications ?

[pegasus]

Yes, I found it, Pegasus. So what are you saying?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/V/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2192_a.jpg
ETA image

Yes that photo shows that the 1st Aug forensic team moved the sofa away from wall and looked behind it.
But the GNR on 3rd May, the PJ early 4th May, and the forensic team early 4th May, IMO none of them moved the sofa away from wall to look behind it.

[Mr Gray]

The alerts come down to basic probability.

The dogs are trained to respond to a group of compounds.

They did so.

Did the dogs used last year give any indications ?

you make the same basic mistake as others of your ilk...
no one knows what the dogs alerted to...Grime doesn't know

[stephen25000]

you make the same basic mistake as others of your ilk...
no one knows what the dogs alerted to...Grime doesn't know

Wrong again dave.

[Alice Purjorick]

the archiving report is supportive of the mccanns innocence

The law does not determine innocence. It deals in guilty or not guilty in its own eyes. Or in the case of the archiving report insufficient evidence to bring a case which is not the same as saying innocent.
But then I was referring to the detail of forensics and doggies in the Archiving Report which cannot be changed by either side and it does not say what either side says it does. Tune in in another 300 pages of cut and paste and repetition.

[Alfred R Jones]

Odd that this personal comment remains but my reply was deleted.

The idea that double standards regarding the criticism levelled at those who have been "asking questions " of the McCanns for 8 years by those same posters who target MG on a daily basis similarly is relevant in principle and worth mentioning.

Quoting numbers on various sites as a tit-for-tat excuse doesn`t really alter the principle.

If you wish to pursue this argument then I'm only to glad to do so on an appropriate thread.  Perhaps you could start one off...?

[Carew]

If you wish to pursue this argument then I'm only to glad to do so on an appropriate thread.  Perhaps you could start one off...?

I had made my point already to which you replied,  "you really have no idea at all. "

My reply was removed,  so I made it again.

Your rudeness had survived intact, otherwise I wouldn`t have bothered.

[Mr Gray]

The law does not determine innocence. It deals in guilty or not guilty in its own eyes. Or in the case of the archiving report insufficient evidence to bring a case which is not the same as saying innocent.
But then I was referring to the detail of forensics and doggies in the Archiving Report which cannot be changed by either side and it does not say what either side says it does. Tune in in another 300 pages of cut and paste and repetition.

I never used the word determine.... I said the report supports their innocence
The report does not use the term insufficient... Another mistake

The report criticises the evidence that was used against the mccanns
I think it's fair comment to say the report supports their innocence