Amaral and the dogs

[G-Unit]

Eddie was initially trained on decomposing piglets. He was enhanced by being trained on human decomposing renains. so he was trained on both. He also alerted to human blood. He had years of experience too, which is invaluable whether you are a dog or a human. He knew what he was looking for.

[ferryman]

Now once more, when did the forensic report stipulate the finding of ANY PIG RESIDUES ?

It's really very simple.

Either Eddie alerted to some pig-based product (within his trained repertoire) or he alerted falsely.

Which?

[stephen25000]

It's really very simple.

Either Eddie alerted to some pig-based product (within his trained repertoire) or he alerted falsely.

Which?

and what of human traces ferryman ?

[ferryman]

Eddie was initially trained on decomposing piglets. He was enhanced by being trained on human decomposing renains. so he was trained on both. He also alerted to human blood. He had years of experience too, which is invaluable whether you are a dog or a human. He knew what he was looking for.

Eddie was never trained on human decomposing remains.

Why do you keep repeating that lie?

Eddie's first encounter with actual human remains was as a trained dog on police deployments.

The moot question is whether dogs actually trained on human remains would react to swine cadaver scent.

My hunch is they would.

But I can't prove that.

[ferryman]

and what of human traces ferryman ?

There were none in the flower-bed of apartment 5a PdL

[stephen25000]

There were none in the flower-bed of apartment 5a PdL

However, you and others claim pig residues would give the same reaction.

[ferryman]

However, you and others claim pig residues would give the same reaction.

It seems plausible ....

[stephen25000]

It seems plausible ....

'
It is plausible, that there was an alert to 'human residue', but the samples  tested from the flower bed did not contain any.

[ferryman]

'
It is plausible, that there was an alert to 'human residue', but the samples  tested from the flower bed did not contain any.

Carefully weighing that alert in the context of the whole of the rest of the investigation, I would say, no ...

[stephen25000]

Carefully weighing that alert in the context of the whole of the rest of the investigation, I would say, no ...

Why ?

[ferryman]

Why ?

Explained, repeatedly, over and over.

Cuddle-cat.  An error of omission?  Or an error of commission?

Clothes, not alerted to in the villa, then alerted to in the gym.

Which error?

Omission?

Or Commission?

(As observed by PJ Inspector Dias) spots passed without reaction, then returned to and eventually with reaction.

Errors of omission? Or Commission?

It was noted in the Haut de la Garenne enquiry that the dog was probably not very good.

I think the dog was just not well handled (in both enquiries).

[stephen25000]

and what is your opinion worth as a googler ?

[ferryman]

and what is your opinion worth as a googler ?

Google throws up interesting and pertinent stuff, as I believe I (and others!) have demonstrated.

[stephen25000]

Google throws up interesting and pertinent stuff, as I believe I (and others!) have demonstrated.

NOT QUITE.

You select what suits your agenda, AND THAT IS WELL KNOWN.

[ferryman]

NOT QUITE.

You select what suits your agenda, AND THAT IS WELL KNOWN.

And you don't, I suppose?

ETA:

This is  a better link (than the one I gave earlier) to Grime's trip to America in 2006.

It brings out the cited reason for the trip:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html