Amaral and the dogs

[stephen25000]

you have made several claims......your latest is a probability of 7 to 8

I can't see how you can support this with any sort of evidence...
would you be prepared to debate this in a civilised manner then others can make up their own minds

Read the article.

[Carana]

Questions.

Who has the last person to have touched the key card? Gerry drove the car to meet with the PJ, who then took it, but was it then driven on a low-loader all the way into the garage? In between Eddie and Keela sniffing it was taken to a different level for the forensic inspection (from -4 to -3)... Would it have again been put on a low-loader? Or did someone drive it around from the pick-up point to the inspection site, then to the forensic / Keela inspection level? If so, was the person wearing gloves and a forensic suit? The only person visible who was wearing gloves and a suit was Grime. If he drove it, was he wearing the same gloves as when he handled the dogs' leads?

[Alfred R Jones]

Calling me facetious is becoming a habit.

Could it be a convenient way to cover up your cop-out mode when faced with points you can`t bluster through?

( ooops...... could be!)   

No, I don't think so.  I haven't had to bluster through any points, certainly not in the manner which you have just exhibited above!

[Alfred R Jones]

In terms of probability 7-8.

That was based upon the report I posted last week and others I have read in the past.

Simply because dogs are trained to respond to a group of compounds.

The dogs made alerts.

Mccann supporters such as yourself are, lets face it, hardly likely top accept the dogs alerted to a body

I can't give any higher as I have not seen the entire recordings of what happened with the dogs, nor has anyone on here i would surmise.

and since the forensic results were inconclusive, we will go on forever, with no end in sight .

Meanwhile of course, no pig residue was found.

So those who believe the dogs were responding to pig traces are honking up the wrong tree.

No human cadaver 'residue' was found either so...on what evidence is there to support a 70-80% likelihood that the dogs alerted to cadaver? 

[Alfred R Jones]

Read the article.

I haven't seen your article - perhaps you could extract the information from it which supports your claim?

[Carana]

Another point: where Eddie was encouraged to sniff is under the wheels and the boot, plus a quick sniff at the bottom of the door areas. That would be where scent, if present, is expected to emanate from isn't it? Why then didn't he alert to the boot of the Scenic? He was made to check under it more than once.

[stephen25000]

No human cadaver 'residue' was found either so...on what evidence is there to support a 70-80% likelihood that the dogs alerted to cadaver?

The results of the analysis were inconclusive alfred.

[Alfred R Jones]

Well, having passed the buck from posters on to scientific studies, reports and Mr Grime himself, perhaps you could point out where those expert works have addressed themselves specifically to points made about this case rather than simply applied in a cherry-picked disparate way by posters?

Where for instance does the report covering mop-related residual cross contamination from decayed but survived particles of blood, toenails saliva etc., explain the absence of alerts in the 5A bathroom, despite Eddie being called / encouraged back and around with a certain amount of "tapping" at certain areas, too?

How do the Clever Hans / handler cuing studies explain that?

Does Mr Grime in his report,  put it down to Eddie not being in "work-mode" at the time?

Did the dog "unlearn" certain behaviours to suit those occasions when an alert to a multitude of contaminant triggers would make no sense to posters?

Did handler cuing influence the alert to a boys t-shirt or does the cherry picking choose another convenient  scientific study because handler expectation doesn`t cover that one?

Where does MG or any expert state that an alert by Eddie to a key fob rules out any possibility that there was any other cadaver contaminant source ever present in the hire car ?

A source can be found to quote away any point and sounds impressive but when applied to a whole case it can fall apart.

It can work for propaganda purposes, though.

Who wrote the report?

[stephen25000]

I haven't seen your article - perhaps you could extract the information from it which supports your claim?

Look on last weeks posts and click on the link.

[Alfred R Jones]

The results of the analysis were inconclusive alfred.

Were they 70-80% supportive of the presence of a dead body?

[stephen25000]

Were they 70-80% supportive of the presence of a dead body?

The article indicated, over a 90% success rate.

[ferryman]

Questions.

Who has the last person to have touched the key card? Gerry drove the car to meet with the PJ, who then took it, but was it then driven on a low-loader all the way into the garage? In between Eddie and Keela sniffing it was taken to a different level for the forensic inspection (from -4 to -3)... Would it have again been put on a low-loader? Or did someone drive it around from the pick-up point to the inspection site, then to the forensic / Keela inspection level? If so, was the person wearing gloves and a forensic suit? The only person visible who was wearing gloves and a suit was Grime. If he drove it, was he wearing the same gloves as when he handled the dogs' leads?

Another question: remembering, always, that they were looking for Madeleine's blood, what was the basis of supposition that it might be found on the ignition key of a car hired 3 weeks after her abduction?

[Mr Gray]

Read the article.

I read one article you posted last week and it does not support your claim..are you willing to debate your claim in a civilised manner

[stephen25000]

I read one article you posted last week and it does not support your claim..are you willing to debate your claim in a civilised manner

Go ahead.

[Carew]

No, I don't think so.  I haven't had to bluster through any points, certainly not in the manner which you have just exhibited above!

Errm..........below isn`t an example of your name- calling and cop-out bluster then?
That`s the post of yours I replied to this morning.


"Whatever.  You win.  The dog alerts are extremely important evidence and probably almost definitely maybe prove the McCanns dunnit.  There you go, that's right isn't it? 

See I can be facetious too... "