Amaral and the dogs

[faithlilly]

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?

I would imagine and explanation is that the bathroom had been cleaned.

To within an inch of it's life it would seem.

[Brietta]

Thankyou for addressing the forensic finds in the car.

Any help with the rest of the questions in the whole post?

The car was just one issue with the dog searches, but not to worry.

You have obviously been reading what members have posted without understanding what has been said.  Your apparent difficulty in accepting that the only dog alerts in the garage are those which related to a living human donor would seem to confirm that opinion.

Therefore as far as I am concerned life is too short to attempt to address all the questions which have arisen in your mind.  I find when I am perplexed about something it is helpful to do a little reading on the subject.  I recommend some of the links already posted as a good starting point for you.

[Alice Purjorick]

Your interpretation of the letter is what you are referring to by what I interpret from your posts

"What I interpret".
Hardly a definitive statement.

[Carew]

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?

I would imagine and explanation is that the bathroom had been cleaned.

Thanks for the reply.....but it was suggested here that even cleaning would not eliminate the possibility of cross contamination from blood / fertiliser from the garden and other alert trigger contaminants which survive time and cleaning products ;...... could even be contained in a mop......... and which Eddie cannot be unlearned from reacting to.

You appreciate my puzzlement....when he didn`t alert!

It seems to only apply when posters want a convenient "reason" for an alert and the old blood and toenails are brought in to explain it away?

Then we have the calling back  element of the handling  / encouraging and tapping around the bathroom.

This would raise the alleged handler expectation/cuing and Clever Hans factors which are  used to explain away other alerts and backed up by quoting the non-expert Policeman Inspector Dias..........except that Eddie didn`t alert.

You see the problem a person could have with the evidence of selective cherry-picking going on?

[Carew]

You have obviously been reading what members have posted without understanding what has been said.  Your apparent difficulty in accepting that the only dog alerts in the garage are those which related to a living human donor would seem to confirm that opinion.

Therefore as far as I am concerned life is too short to attempt to address all the questions which have arisen in your mind.  I find when I am perplexed about something it is helpful to do a little reading on the subject.  I recommend some of the links already posted as a good starting point for you.

Oh do give the mean-spiritedness a rest, Brietta.

The emboldened comment is about the only part of your post worth bothering with.

[ferryman]

Thanks for the reply.....but it was suggested here that even cleaning would not eliminate the possibility of cross contamination from blood / fertiliser from the garden and other alert trigger contaminants which survive time and cleaning products ;...... could even be contained in a mop......... and which Eddie cannot be unlearned from reacting to.

You appreciate my puzzlement....when he didn`t alert!

It seems to only apply when posters want a convenient "reason" for an alert and the old blood and toenails are brought in to explain it away?

Then we have the calling back  element of the handling  / encouraging and tapping around the bathroom.

This would raise the alleged handler expectation/cuing and Clever Hans factors which are  used to explain away other alerts and backed up by quoting the non-expert Policeman Inspector Dias..........except that Eddie didn`t alert.

You see the problem a person could have with the evidence of selective cherry-picking going on?

Why do you suppose Mark Harrison said this right towards the end of his final report?

During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.



And why do you suppose Harrison never reached a firm conclusion about whether Madeleine was alive or dead?

That's not cherry-picking.

That's summarising, accurately and completely, the thoughts of a true expert.

[Alfred R Jones]

Thanks for the reply.....but it was suggested here that even cleaning would not eliminate the possibility of cross contamination from blood / fertiliser from the garden and other alert trigger contaminants which survive time and cleaning products ;...... could even be contained in a mop......... and which Eddie cannot be unlearned from reacting to.

You appreciate my puzzlement....when he didn`t alert!

It seems to only apply when posters want a convenient "reason" for an alert and the old blood and toenails are brought in to explain it away?

Then we have the calling back  element of the handling  / encouraging and tapping around the bathroom.

This would raise the alleged handler expectation/cuing and Clever Hans factors which are  used to explain away other alerts and backed up by quoting the non-expert Policeman Inspector Dias..........except that Eddie didn`t alert.

You see the problem a person could have with the evidence of selective cherry-picking going on?

I don't know if Eddie would react to a toenail but we know he did react to dried blood - so, what's your problem exactly?

[Alfred R Jones]

Carew seems to be under the impression that she is discussing this issue with one amorphous blob of a McCann worshipper, not several different people, all with shades of opinion about the dog alerts.  At the end of the day though none of our opinions (or those of the "sceptics") are really worth a hill of beans.  We will NEVER know exactly what the dog did or did not alert to, or why - we DO know that no evidence to implicate the McCanns was discovered at any point where the dogs alerted, and that no one who matters (ie: the authorities, the Met etc) sets much store by them now.  Why can that not be accepted by all and why can't we ever move on from this?

[Carew]

Why do you suppose Mark Harrison said this right towards the end of his final report?

During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.



And why do you suppose Harrison never reached a firm conclusion about whether Madeleine was alive or dead?

That's not cherry-picking.

That's summarising, accurately and completely, the thoughts of a true expert.

Shall we not be reading about Inspector Dias.........about Clever Hans.........handler expectation/cuing..........pig-fertiliser and other contaminants Eddie couldn`t unlearn......"work-mode".....and sundry other aspects, then...

..........since they and the reports/cites which have been used to back them are cherry-picked to suit the prejudice of the poster?

Is that about right?

[ferryman]

Carew seems to be under the impression that she is discussing this issue with one amorphous blob of a McCann worshipper, not several different people, all with shades of opinion about the dog alerts.  At the end of the day though none of our opinions (or those of the "sceptics") are really worth a hill of beans.  We will NEVER know exactly what the dog did or did not alert to, or why - we DO know that no evidence to implicate the McCanns was discovered at any point where the dogs alerted, and that no one who matters (ie: the authorities, the Met etc) sets much store by them now.  Why can that not be accepted by all and why can't we ever move on from this?

Why indeed?

[Carew]

I don't know if Eddie would react to a toenail but we know he did react to dried blood - so, what's your problem exactly?

Oh tuts.........you obviously haven`t read up on your mops and the McCann bathroom factor!

Take your own and Brietta`s advice to me.........back to page 1 and work through all those cites pasted up to support your collective assertions about the dog searches.

oooops!

[ferryman]

Shall we not be reading about Inspector Dias.........about Clever Hans.........handler expectation/cuing..........pig-fertiliser and other contaminants Eddie couldn`t unlearn......"work-mode".....and sundry other aspects, then...

..........since they and the reports/cites which have been used to back them are cherry-picked to suit the prejudice of the poster?

Is that about right?

I was asking you to comment on the thoughts of Mark Harrison (not an unreasonable request, I don't think).

You've not really done that.

[Alfred R Jones]

Shall we not be reading about Inspector Dias.........about Clever Hans.........handler expectation/cuing..........pig-fertiliser and other contaminants Eddie couldn`t unlearn......"work-mode".....and sundry other aspects, then...

..........since they and the reports/cites which have been used to back them are cherry-picked to suit the prejudice of the poster?

Is that about right?

There is no prejudice, only individuals seeking explanations and understanding of what is obviously quite an inexact science.  Would you prefer it if we all agreed that the dog alerts were 100% correct, no questions asked?  Would that be the correct course of action in your view?  Is it wrong to draw on such reports and studies as have been discussed here?  Would you like us all to shut up and accept something which even Martin Grime does not make claim to - that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents covered up her death?  Would that make you happy? 

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh tuts.........you obviously haven`t read up on your mops and the McCann bathroom factor!

Take your own and Brietta`s advice to me.........back to page 1 and work through all those cites pasted up to support your collective assertions about the dog searches.

oooops!

As I said just now:

"Carew seems to be under the impression that she is discussing this issue with one amorphous blob of a McCann worshipper, not several different people, all with shades of opinion about the dog alerts". 

PS: It is not name-calling to say that I find the tone of your posts extremely facetious, the above one being no exception.

[Jean-Pierre]

Because, in a nutshell, the McCann "sceptics" have to find something to justify 8 years of accusing the McCanns of sundry crimes, and when it comes down to it, the dog alerts are the only thing.

Myself, I started off neutral, and having read extensively, and thoughtfully, I have come to the conclusion that the Madeleine was an unfortunate victim of an abduction.  And her parents are to be applauded for the strenuous efforts they are making to keep the investigation alive. 

Not really the sort of thing a guilty party would do.  In my opinion.