Amaral and the dogs

[Brietta]

Not quite, cadaver dog alerts are not evidence in England in the absence of a body....and there is no such thing as corroboration of their alerts in the absence of a body, or body parts, unless other  circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence is combined with the alerts. You are also wrong to state that both dogs alerting in the same place MUST be an indication of blood only. The absence of corroboration of a "cadaver" alerg in the absence of a body is the main reason.

I believe Scottish Law allowed cadaver dog indications to be presented in a murder trial.  There were alerts to the boot of the accused's car and an area in the workplace where the victim and the accused were known to have been.
(Ms Pilley had been caught by CCTV on her way to work and almost at the entrance although not entering ... the man convicted of her murder was at work in the building for part of that day but left to go on an apparently unscheduled work related journey.)

Suzanne Pilley's body has not been discovered till this day.  But there was sufficient evidence to convince the jury of the guilt of the accused person. (which he has appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court in England - but continues to protest his innocence and the case is under review in Scotland).

I am unsure of the part played by the dogs in the trial for the simple reason there was no song and dance about it at the time or since.

[ferryman]

I believe Scottish Law allowed cadaver dog indications to be presented in a murder trial.  There were alerts to the boot of the accused's car and an area in the workplace where the victim and the accused were known to have been.
(Ms Pilley had been caught by CCTV on her way to work and almost at the entrance although not entering ... the man convicted of her murder was at work in the building for part of that day but left to go on an apparently unscheduled work related journey.)

Suzanne Pilley's body has not been discovered till this day.  But there was sufficient evidence to convince the jury of the guilt of the accused person. (which he has appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court in England - but continues to protest his innocence and the case is under review in Scotland).

I am unsure of the part played by the dogs in the trial for the simple reason there was no song and dance about it at the time or since.

Scottish law allows uncorroborated dog alerts as evidence, true!

[Brietta]

Yes, Ferryman is wrong to keep stating this as fact.

Both dogs alerted to blood.  Therefore if both alert and blood is found Ferryman is correct to state as a fact they alerted to blood for the simple reason that is the fact of the matter.

Which begs the question as to the 'alerts' attributed to the dogs in the Renault Scenic.

Keela alerted to blood in the boot of the vehicle.
Eddie did not alert to blood in the boot of the vehicle.

Eddie alerted to cellular material - which must have been blood since the doner is alive - on the key fob in the door pocket of the vehicle.
Keela did not alert to the key fob or the place it where it was stored.

Work that one out.

[Carew]

Pantomime season

Oh yes, I am ...

Well, yes, it does descend to pantomime level to maintain as fact that if both dogs alert at the site from which a cadaver has been removed it must be only to blood, never cadaver contaminant.

On the whole though, it is obvious that the MO is to put across as often and as authoritively as possible that any alert in and around the McCanns must have been only to the nosebleeds/shaving related incidents from ages past.

Never ever must there remain even a hint of the possibility it might be to the cadaver of the missing person.

[Brietta]

Scottish law allows uncorroborated dog alerts as evidence, true!

I know nothing about when or if it has ever been allowed or mentioned in a Scottish court before or since.  It was briefly mentioned in only one newspaper article covering the trial.
As in other cases of missing persons we saw the dogs working in news broadcasts ... usually it leads to the discovery of remains.

Murder convictions without a body are rare and I have no idea if such evidence has been allowed before ... for example in another high profile Scottish case, that of Arlene Fraser, which led to her husband's conviction for murder ... I have never heard of 'dog' evidence of any kind being mentioned.

[Brietta]

Well, yes, it does descend to pantomime level to maintain as fact that if both dogs alert at the site from which a cadaver has been removed it must be only to blood, never cadaver contaminant.

On the whole though, it is obvious that the MO is to put across as often and as authoritively as possible that any alert in and around the McCanns must have been only to the nosebleeds/shaving related incidents from ages past.

Never ever must there remain even a hint of the possibility it might be to the cadaver of the missing person.

Are you really questioning the little forensic evidence retrieved from apartment 5A?

There was no forensic evidence that the blood found in the McCann residence was theirs or more specifically Madeleine's .
There was forensic evidence of historical bleeds attributed to other doners - notably that of a GNR officer.

There is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine McCann is dead ... and I really do wish you would read and digest what Marting Grime said about the value of the dogs' alerts in his report.

[Carew]

Are you really questioning the little forensic evidence retrieved from apartment 5A?

There was no forensic evidence that the blood found in the McCann residence was theirs or more specifically Madeleine's .
There was forensic evidence of historical bleeds attributed to other doners - notably that of a GNR officer.

There is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine McCann is dead ... and I really do wish you would read and digest what Marting Grime said about the value of the dogs' alerts in his report.

Brietta........I am concerned that it is being presented as "fact" that if both dogs alert at the same spot, then it must be blood to which they both reacted.

Quite simply that.

As a definitive statement of fact it is misleading.

No amount of authoritive wordy justification will alter that principle.

[ferryman]

Yes, Ferryman is wrong to keep stating this as fact.

It seems to be tolerated here, though.

I will explain this as simply and clearly as I can.

Cadaver dogs alert to blood

Blood dogs alert to blood.

So where a blood dog alerts, there is blood.

And if a cadaver dog alerts in the same place, the cadaver dog, also, will be alerting to blood.

[Carew]

I will explain this as simply and clearly as I can.

Cadaver dogs alert to blood

Blood dogs alert to blood.

So where a blood dog alerts, there is blood.

And if a cadaver dog alerts in the same place, the cadaver dog, also, will be alerting to blood.

No, you are mistaken.

The alert by the cadaver dog in the same place does not mean definitively that only blood is being alerted to.

[Brietta]

Brietta........I am concerned that it is being presented as "fact" that if both dogs alert at the same spot, then it must be blood to which they both reacted.

Quite simply that.

As a definitive statement of fact it is misleading.

No amount of authoritive wordy justification will alter that principle.

Similarly I have concerns that if the cadaver dog has 'alerted' and the blood dog not, the assumption must be that human remains or human remains contaminant were present.

However I have no issues with two dogs both trained on human blood alerting to a substance which proves to be human blood.

[pathfinder73]

When the first alert was for cadaver scent then the 2nd most probably is. Did you notice how long it took Keela to detect the minutest blood in that area where Eddie alerted.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

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

[Carew]

Similarly I have concerns that if the cadaver dog has 'alerted' and the blood dog not, the assumption must be that human remains or human remains contaminant were present.

However I have no issues with two dogs both trained on human blood alerting to a substance which proves to be human blood.

I agree with you.

It is however unwise to state definitively that only blood alone must have prompted the cadaver dog alert.

If blood was actually found at the site alerted to by both dogs it does not disprove or rule out the presence of cadaver contaminant also.

That is the only point I have issue with.

[Carana]

Brietta........I am concerned that it is being presented as "fact" that if both dogs alert at the same spot, then it must be blood to which they both reacted.

Quite simply that.

As a definitive statement of fact it is misleading.

No amount of authoritive wordy justification will alter that principle.

I see what you mean. It's possible that Eddie reacted to blood and another human decomp substance at the same time, whereas Keela would have only reacted to any blood present (assuming that she's always accurate...). A potential example is the Jersey sex clean-up tissues. In that instance, was Eddie alerting to a speck of blood or blood and sex fluids?

I have a caveat, however. Grime states that Keela will only react in the physical presence of blood, but he says nothing about whether Eddie would react to the residual smell of blood when no longer physically present. As the apartment had been rented out numerous times, I don't see how something as innocent as a bloodied plaster or sock that had been removed prior to the inspection can be ruled out.

[Carew]

I see what you mean. It's possible that Eddie reacted to blood and another human decomp substance at the same time, whereas Keela would have only reacted to any blood present (assuming that she's always accurate...). A potential example is the Jersey sex clean-up tissues. In that instance, was Eddie alerting to a speck of blood or blood and sex fluids?

I have a caveat, however. Grime states that Keela will only react in the physical presence of blood, but he says nothing about whether Eddie would react to the residual smell of blood when no longer physically present. As the apartment had been rented out numerous times, I don't see how something as innocent as a bloodied plaster or sock that had been removed prior to the inspection can be ruled out.

Quite.

It will generally be point of principle if I challenge what seems to be a misleading statement.

I readily accept that my knowledge of the case is limited in comparison to most who post here.

I just don`t think it is wise to make definitive judgements about what the cadaver dog alerted to.

[Carana]

A small point is that there was no forensic evidence that there was any blood anywhere in 5A or in the car. We're all assuming that the trace DNA must have been blood because that's all that Keela was trained for.