Amaral and the dogs

[Mr Gray]

Stephen is correct. One cannot be declared innocent, because the presumption is that one is innocent.

The role of the police is to investigate, not to decide upon guilt or innocence.   

Although it is not the police role to decide guilt or innocence that is exactly what they often do. in the mccanns case the police decided that the  McCanns were guilty and steered the investigation in taht direction..

In the Colin Stagg case again the police decided Stagg was guilty and did exactly the same

[Jean-Pierre]

Although it is not the police role to decide guilt or innocence that is exactly what they often do. in the mccanns case the police decided that the  McCanns were guilty and steered the investigation in taht direction..

In the Colin Stagg case again the police decided Stagg was guilty and did exactly the same

Davel -you need to consider the respective roles of the police, the prosecutor and the court.

In very simple terms: 

The police - their role is to investigate, to gather evidence and put together a case -to "solve" the crime to the best of their ability.

The prosecutor - in England this is CPS, who decide on the strength of the case, the chance of a conviction and decide whether to bring the matter to trial.

The court - it's role is to "try" the case, and weigh the case presented by the prosecution and the defense, and to decide on a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty".

 

[Mr Gray]

Davel -you need to consider the respective roles of the police, the prosecutor and the court.

In very simple terms: 

The police - their role is to investigate, to gather evidence and put together a case -to "solve" the crime to the best of their ability.

The prosecutor - in England this is CPS, who decide on the strength of the case, the chance of a conviction and decide whether to bring the matter to trial.

The court - it's role is to "try" the case, and weigh the case presented by the prosecution and the defense, and to decide on a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty".

What you have posted is very basic.......you have now admitted that the police  try to solve the crime...the police decide who they think is guilty and build a case against them which in the UK is placed before the CPS. If the police decide in their opinion someone is innocent then investigation into that person stops and nothing is presented to the CPS.

So in the McCanns case...SY interview the parents...if they believe they are telling the truth...they are no longer suspects and no longer investigated...therefore we can assume SY believe the parents account

[Mr Gray]

We are told that in this sort of case best police practice is to investigate the parents first and then rule them in or out.....the police make that decision

[pathfinder73]

We are told that in this sort of case best police practice is to investigate the parents first and then rule them in or out.....the police make that decision

They would look at the last person who saw the missing person first so in this case it would be Gerry.

[Mr Gray]

They would look at the last person who saw the missing person first so in this case it would be Gerry.

they would certainly look at this person...interview them and make a judgement...that's what I am saying...the police make a judgement

[pathfinder73]

they would certainly look at this person...interview them and make a judgement...that's what I am saying...the police make a judgement

You can't make a judgement on one interview when in subsequent interviews the story changes or more evidence is gathered which changes it like the dog alerts or a sighting.

A tiler caused the dogs to alert  Yeah and only in the apartment where the girl went missing from. You will have to do better than that.

[pegasus]

We are told that in this sort of case best police practice is to investigate the parents first and then rule them in or out.....the police make that decision

As Redwood said
"take everything back to the beginning and then reanalyse and reassess everything"

[Anna]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

[misty]

You can't make a judgement on one interview when in subsequent interviews the story changes or more evidence is gathered which changes it like the dog alerts or a sighting.

A tiler caused the dogs to alert  Yeah and only in the apartment where the girl went missing from. You will have to do better than that.

If a cadaver was placed temporarily in the wardrobe, as Amaral stated, why didn't the dog later indicate in the gym inspection to all the clothes or the suitcase that were in the pile of laundry on the 3rd?
If a cadaver wasn't placed in the wardrobe, how can the apparent cadaver scent be accounted for? None of the clothing in there was being worn after 8.30pm.

[pathfinder73]

If a cadaver was placed temporarily in the wardrobe, as Amaral stated, why didn't the dog later indicate in the gym inspection to all the clothes or the suitcase that were in the pile of laundry on the 3rd?
If a cadaver wasn't placed in the wardrobe, how can the apparent cadaver scent be accounted for? None of the clothing in there was being worn after 8.30pm.

The cadaver may have been on the bottom shelf and not touching any clothes. You need to be in contact with a cadaver to be contaminated or touch something like a diary or sit down on a sofa with contaminated clothes probably like Adrian Prout did.

[pegasus]

If a cadaver was placed temporarily in the wardrobe, as Amaral stated, why didn't the dog later indicate in the gym inspection to all the clothes or the suitcase that were in the pile of laundry on the 3rd?
(snip)

In that hypothetical situation you would have direct contact with only a few of the items on the same shelf, and no direct contact with any items on different shelves.

[mercury]

The cadaver may have been on the bottom shelf and not touching any clothes. You need to be in contact with a cadaver to be contaminated or touch something like a diary or sit down on a sofa with contaminated clothes probably like Adrian Prout did.

I'm not sure that is strictly true. Going on what Mr Grime said, the scent can move from it's original position and settle elsewhere, decomposition gases are physical things, they can end up contaminating items they haven't been in contact with in that way?

Also I don't know why anyone thinks anyone would have put a body in the wardrobe in any case.

?

To hide it? From who?

[slartibartfast]

Although it is not the police role to decide guilt or innocence that is exactly what they often do. in the mccanns case the police decided that the  McCanns were guilty and steered the investigation in taht direction..

In the Colin Stagg case again the police decided Stagg was guilty and did exactly the same

...and you now think that the police have decided that the McCanns are innocent and are steering the investigation in another direction.

No difference really.

[ferryman]

There was neither cadaver nor cadaver scent detected in the 2007/8 (shelved) enquiry ....