Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[jassi]

The fact that technology does not support the dog alert doesn't mean the alert is wrong, merely that it could not be confirmed.

[Brietta]

The fact that technology does not support the dog alert doesn't mean the alert is wrong, merely that it could not be confirmed.

I have provided a quote from the dog owner in support of my opinion ... where is yours?

[jassi]

I have provided a quote from the dog owner in support of my opinion ... where is yours?

I don't need one . What I have posted is indisputable logic.
The tecnhology does not prove the dog is wrong.

[Brietta]

I don't need one . What I have posted is indisputable logic.
The tecnhology does not prove the dog is wrong.

Wrong about what?  The dog owner has stated more than once that the dog indications have to be confirmed.  Exactly as some were.
For example we know that the key fob was alerted to ... we also know the key fob tested positive for a cellular substance and the contributor identified.

That is how it works.  Wishful thinking or guesswork might be entertaining for members of some fora ... this one requires the best positive information to be going on with.
That information has been given by forensic testing backed up by the dog owner's confirmation of the appropriate procedure.

In the interim ... to get back to Misty's question ... any ideas what exactly was Eddie barking at?

[misty]

I don't need one . What I have posted is indisputable logic.
The tecnhology does not prove the dog is wrong.

Isn't that rather like saying the dog is always correct until proven otherwise? If the source of the alert cannot be determined, how can anyone ever prove the dog is wrong?
So much "evidence" against the McCanns is based on what cannot be dis-proven.

All IMO.

[misty]

I was attempting to answer this post of yours misty

Keela had to have her nose very close to the source before she would alert. However, Grime stated that Eddie had alerted to the floor tiles , whereas his nose was appears to be directed at the sofa fabric right before the barking.
Was Keela given the opportunity to examine the sofa at close quarters?
Was the cellular material beneath the floor tiles a chance finding rather than what Eddie actually alerted to?
Could realisation of a sofa alert have been useful to the investigation?

Perhaps eddie was not alerting to the sofa at all.

Eddie may not have been alerting to the end of the sofa but that's the last place he can be seen sniffing before alerting. Isn't that the way alerts are supposed to work? He had previously sniffed at the area in the centre of the wall/floor juncture but not alerted IMO; he bypassed the same area before he reached the r/h end of the sofa.
As I said previously, under the guidance of Grime, Keela was deployed to examine the floor & wall area behind the sofa, where Eddie had barked. Were the findings under the tile chance? Why were swabs taken from stains on the same wall area & back of sofa where Keela had not alerted but widely reported to have been blood?
When talking about scent pooling in the wardrobe area of the parents' bedroom, where Eddie also alerted, Grime attributed it to the apartment having been closed off for the summer. Unbeknown to him, the apartment had been let out to 4 families since 3/5/07, the most recent occupation terminating 5 days before Eddie was deployed.

[G-Unit]

Forensic people were deployed to get the evidence from 5A. They were directed by Jonathan Smith from the FSS. Before they began they watched the film showing KEELA's alerts behind the couch and took up 4 tiles. KEELA was then used again and another tile was taken up.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_EDDIE-KEELA.htm

Eddie's alert behind the couch, it seems, wasn't the important one, Keela's alerts are what mattered.

[misty]

Forensic people were deployed to get the evidence from 5A. They were directed by Jonathan Smith from the FSS. Before they began they watched the film showing KEELA's alerts behind the couch and took up 4 tiles. KEELA was then used again and another tile was taken up.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_EDDIE-KEELA.htm

Eddie's alert behind the couch, it seems, wasn't the important one, Keela's alerts are what mattered.

So why did the team take swabs from stains on the wall & sofa back at the same time if Keela hadn't alerted in those places?

[G-Unit]

So why did the team take swabs from stains on the wall & sofa back at the same time if Keela hadn't alerted in those places?

I didn't read the whole report so I don't know.. All I know is that it was the Brits who organised it all.

[pathfinder73]

I don't need one . What I have posted is indisputable logic.
The tecnhology does not prove the dog is wrong.

Confessions also help when you have numpties involved. Gerry later repeated the same thing to Sandra Felgueiras, "The dogs were too unreliable."

16 September 2007

"They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin.
 
The couple's lawyers have already contacted Zapata's defence team, who are now sending their large file on the matter to Britain.
 
Zapata's estranged wife, flight instructor Jeanette Zapata, was 37 when she vanished on October 11 1976 after seeing her three children off to school. Her body has never been found.
 
Detectives suspected Zapata of involvement in her disappearance but did not charge him because of a lack of evidence.
 
Police decided to conduct new searches using cadaver dogs, a new investigative technique, when an old friend of Mrs Zapata contacted them about the case in 2004.
 
Zapata, 68, was charged with first-degree murder last year after the dogs indicated they sniffed human remains in a small basement "crawl space" at the former family home in Madison and other properties linked to him.
 
But Dane County Judge Patrick Fiedler ruled last month that the evidence that led to the charge could not be put before the jury.
 
He said the dogs were too unreliable in detecting the odour of remains and noted that no remains were actually found."

[misty]

I didn't read the whole report so I don't know.. All I know is that it was the Brits who organised it all.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm

The same CSI team which lifted the tiles took swabs of the wall & sofa stains? Why, if the forensic team hadn't found them during the sweep on 4/5/07?

[jassi]

Isn't that rather like saying the dog is always correct until proven otherwise? If the source of the alert cannot be determined, how can anyone ever prove the dog is wrong?
So much "evidence" against the McCanns is based on what cannot be dis-proven.

All IMO.

I think we have all agreed that the dogs have not been proved correct, but equally they have not been proved incorrect. Their alert is a fact. What it means is uncertain.

[Sunny]

I think we have all agreed that the dogs have not been proved correct, but equally they have not been proved incorrect. Their alert is a fact. What it means is uncertain.

It is also a fact that cadaver dog evidence has been used in at least one trial in the UK which would certainly mean that they are considered evidence even if that evidence may need to be corroborated.  See David Gilroy case.

Martin Grime is a professional man who has many years experience working for the UK police and the FBI for any one to imply he was deliberately cuing any dog is libel IMO.

[Brietta]

It is also a fact that cadaver dog evidence has been used in at least one trial in the UK which would certainly mean that they are considered evidence even if that evidence may need to be corroborated.  See David Gilroy case.

Martin Grime is a professional man who has many years experience working for the UK police and the FBI for any one to imply he was deliberately cuing any dog is libel IMO.

Has anyone on this forum made that accusation?

[Sunny]

Yes luckily it was removed today.