Amaral and the dogs

[Carana]

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.

On the other hand, I find it simplistic to assume that Eddie-only alert + missing child (- established other death) = child died in 5A.

[Brietta]

You are not 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

Initially when one starts to read Madeleine McCann's case it is with the assumption that everything was sequential with one reported event making a smooth transition to another.

I don't know how it works in other investigations of this type ... but when considering the events of the 3rd May 2007 ... there are many significant gaps in the narrative.

For example ... until fairly recently I thought Jane Tanner's sighting and the Smith sighting had been reported to the police at the start of the investigation ... that the Smith sighting was not reported till a fortnight after the event was a bit of a puzzle.

Between Madeleine's disappearance and the visit from the dogs the fact that four other families had holidayed in the apartment from which she had disappeared is very significant.


I noticed a post today (sorry, I don't remember which one or which thread) in which the use of luminol was mentioned.
This called to mind a conversation (soundtrack of dog video) Martin Grime had with the officer present when he asked what had been used in the earlier blood investigations as luminol interferes with the dogs' sensory abilities.


**snip
It is often used as a last resort, since the chemical reaction can destroy the very evidence it reveals, but it can still prove incredibly useful. For example, it might reveal an assailant’s shoe prints or show investigators where to look more closely. Blood on carpet that may be invisible to the naked eye can be revealed, prompting investigators to look for much larger, visible stains in the wood beneath. Those working with luminol must be wary of false positives, however, as it also reacts to the presence of urine, copper, and horseradish sauce.
http://listverse.com/2014/05/29/10-fascinating-facts-about-forensics/

[ferryman]

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.

Re-read what I said. 

If both dogs react to blood and both dogs react in the same spot, both will be reacting to blood.

Your point (which I will make for you) is that conceivably the cadaver dog will be reacting to blood and something else besides.

That might (conceivably) be true.

But since cadaver scent is not something you can capture and analyse (as you can blood) that always only ever be an assumption unless you find a body or other remains. 

[Carana]

Initially when one starts to read Madeleine McCann's case it is with the assumption that everything was sequential with one reported event making a smooth transition to another.

I don't know how it works in other investigations of this type ... but when considering the events of the 3rd May 2007 ... there are many significant gaps in the narrative.

For example ... until fairly recently I thought Jane Tanner's sighting and the Smith sighting had been reported to the police at the start of the investigation ... that the Smith sighting was not reported till a fortnight after the event was a bit of a puzzle.

Between Madeleine's disappearance and the visit from the dogs the fact that four other families had holidayed in the apartment from which she had disappeared is very significant.


I noticed a post today (sorry, I don't remember which one or which thread) in which the use of luminol was mentioned.
This called to mind a conversation (soundtrack of dog video) Martin Grime had with the officer present when he asked what had been used in the earlier blood investigations as luminol interferes with the dogs' sensory abilities.


**snip
It is often used as a last resort, since the chemical reaction can destroy the very evidence it reveals, but it can still prove incredibly useful. For example, it might reveal an assailant’s shoe prints or show investigators where to look more closely. Blood on carpet that may be invisible to the naked eye can be revealed, prompting investigators to look for much larger, visible stains in the wood beneath. Those working with luminol must be wary of false positives, however, as it also reacts to the presence of urine, copper, and horseradish sauce.
http://listverse.com/2014/05/29/10-fascinating-facts-about-forensics/

Luminol also reacts with some cleaning agents containing bleach (cf the Kercher case).

It's not clear whether luminol or a black torch was used in 5A, nor is it entirely clear where or how the initial team searched for blood on 4 May.

It was quite possibly a black torch as that was what was used in the Cipriano home (I've posted about it somewhere on here). The problem is that a black torch will also show up traces of sweat - and that's one of my issues in that case: an age-old speck of blood within a patch of a sweaty handprint could be misinterpreted as a large patch  of blood.

"Pure" sweat apparently doesn't contain DNA, but would do if combined with skin cells.

[Carana]

Re-read what I said. 

If both dogs react to blood and both dogs react in the same spot, both will be reacting to blood.

Your point (which I will make for you) is that conceivably the cadaver dog will be reacting to blood and something else besides.

That might (conceivably) be true.

But since cadaver scent is not something you can capture and analyse (as you can blood) that always only ever be an assumption unless you find a body or other remains.

I have no problem with that.

I'm still curious as to whether Eddie would have reacted to the residual scent of a bloodied plaster or other item or not.

[Carew]

On the other hand, I find it simplistic to assume that Eddie-only alert + missing child (- established other death) = child died in 5A.

I have never assumed that.

[Carew]

Re-read what I said. 

If both dogs react to blood and both dogs react in the same spot, both will be reacting to blood.

Your point (which I will make for you) is that conceivably the cadaver dog will be reacting to blood and something else besides.

That might (conceivably) be true.

But since cadaver scent is not something you can capture and analyse (as you can blood) that always only ever be an assumption unless you find a body or other remains.

Thankyou for acknowledging that possibility.
 

You didn`t need to make the point for me though. I`d made it for myself several times already.

You have asserted several times on this thread........as below....... that alerts by both dogs must indicate only blood, thereby ruling out cadaver contaminant.


Quote from: Carew on July 06, 2015, 05:51:59 PM

Not necessarily.

Why could Eddie`s alert not be to cadaver contaminant, with Keela`s to blood at the same spot?

How have you ruled that out and concluded that both dogs alerted only to blood?



Ferryman
Because both dogs are trained to react to the scent of blood.

So yes.

Necessarily!



.........and another one!

Quote from: Carew on July 06, 2015, 05:56:38 PM

Which does not rule out a cadaver contaminant alert by Eddie at the same spot.



Ferryman
Yes, it does.

[ferryman]

Thankyou for acknowledging that possibility.
 
(About time, too! )

You have asserted several times on this thread........as below....... that alerts by both dogs must indicate only blood, thereby ruling out cadaver contaminant.


Quote from: Carew on July 06, 2015, 05:51:59 PM

Not necessarily.

Why could Eddie`s alert not be to cadaver contaminant, with Keela`s to blood at the same spot?

How have you ruled that out and concluded that both dogs alerted only to blood?



Ferryman
Because both dogs are trained to react to the scent of blood.

So yes.

Necessarily!

If you don't find other remains then the only (safe!) assumption is that both dogs have alerted to blood.

Since it seems unlikely that Eddie and Keela ever worked together on the same case before PdL, that is all the more true.

[pegasus]

I'm surprised the peeps who think dogs are "incredibly unreliable" haven't found and grasped the pregnancy straw yet?

[ferryman]

I'm surprised the peeps who think dogs are "incredibly unreliable" haven't found and grasped the pregnancy straw yet?

Eddie's track-record from PdL doesn't inspire confidence.

Did he scent something on cuddle cat?

Or didn't he?

Why could he (apparently!) detect scent on clothes in the gym he could find no trace of (that is scent!) in the villa?

All most odd ...

[pegasus]

Eddie's track-record from PdL doesn't inspire confidence.

Did he scent something on cuddle cat?

Or didn't he?

Why could he (apparently!) detect scent on clothes in the gym he could find no trace of (that is scent!) in the villa?

All most odd ...

If you watch the first alert in the Rua Das Flores house video, it is not to the cat, it is to the last thing sniffed, which answers both your questions.
By a straw not yet grasped at I meant k9 pregnancy surprised you haven't used that yet?

[John]

Madeleine McCann should rightly have been the focus of the investigation from the minute she was reported missing.  Everything of hers and everything with which she was in close contact should have been taken for examination.

If the abductor had dropped a hair which stuck to either cuddle cat or her blanket ... it would never be found otherwise.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Regardless of what has been subsequently claimed, the initial response was (due to the fact that there was no forced entry to the apartment and that one of the external doors was left unlocked) to a child who might have got out on her own and got lost.  Bagging articles for DNA testing was not considered a serious requirement until hours later.

[John]

Do you agree that a VRD can alert to cadaver at the same spot that a blood dog alerts to?

That`s the point.

It has been stated that both dogs must have only alerted to blood.

That is misleading because we don`t actually know, do we?

Absolutely, Keela alerted to blood while Eddie alerted to blood and cadaver.  Both dogs alerting at the same spot could be an indicator of blood or both cadaver and blood.  Unless a forensic sample is found and independently tested giving a positive for blood or cadaver then there is no way of determining what the dogs found.

[ferryman]

Absolutely, Keela alerted to blood while Eddie alerted to blood and cadaver.  Both dogs alerting at the same spot could be an indicator of blood or both cadaver and blood.  Unless a forensic sample is found and independently tested giving a positive for blood or cadaver then there is no way of determining what the dogs found.

The legal assumption (or the assumption that would be made in court) is that both dogs alerted to blood in the absence of anything corroborating otherwise.

And since there are at least two question-marks over the provenance of Eddie's alerts in PdL, none of that inspires confidence.

Before PdL I don't believe there is any record of Eddie and Keela working on the same case.

[John]

I don't know how you desensitise a dog to a specific scent.  But you can clearly train a dog not to bark and the trick with Eddie (and other dogs of his type) is still cleverer; the canine equivalents of elective mutes, trained to bark at specific times and to specific scents, but at no other time or scent.

How do you train a dog not to bark at cats (for example?)

You clearly can ...

And I'm sure you can desensitise a dog to the scent of blood ....

The simple answer is that you cannot teach a dog a negative.  A dog which is trained to react to specific substances will only react to those substances.  If you require that the dog will never react to blood then blood will have been meticulously absent from his or her training regime.  It's not a case of ignoring blood, rather a case of reacting to that which they have been taught to react to.  A dog will always smell blood but if trained to find only cadaver then only cadaver it will find.

In order to separate blood from cadaver then three dogs are required.

Dog A reacts only to blood.
Dog B reacts only to cadaver.
Dog C reacts to both.