Why didnt the portugese police arrest the mcCanns and friends ... after the dogs findings ...
why didn't the Portuguese police order the McCann's back Portugal ...if the dogs findings were so crucial to the case ... >@@(*&)
The world was watching, Benita. That answers your questions.
Order them? In 2007/8? 8-)(--) Good luck with that.
The world was watching, Benita. That answers your questions.
It is very important that the world watches police and criminal justice behaviour. Every system of state control leads to dreadful injustices- we need public opinion- the world watching- to limit these.
welcome back Aiofe .... when did the pj come to uk to question the tapas group was it before the uk dogs or after ....and the McCann were still in Portugal when the dogs went into 5a ... why didn't the pj question them again ....or had they left before te results were known .... >@@(*&) I cant remember because its along time ago now ...and so much to take in ....
The rogatories were long after the dogs. The PJ had an immediate informal report on the dogs late July and the report arrived 23rd August. The McCanns were questioned on the 7th September and returned to the UK on 9th September.
The dogs were July/August, I think, but otherwise right.
I wonder if Grime has ever had a more humiliating experience in his career than to be asked, in his rogatory interview, whether Eddie's apparent reaction to the cuddle-cat toy was a mere trick of the dog?
what date did the pj receive grimes results ...wasn't it said that Gerry was questioned about the dogs results ... before the pj had even received .....? >@@(*&)
See my post below. Results 23rd August, interview 7th September.
The world was watching, Benita. That answers your questions.What a telling statement, Lyall.
What a telling statement, Lyall.
so you are saying that if the world had not neen watching the Portuguese Police would have done what ever they wanted with them?
I wonder if they would have been subjected to the Michael Cook and Leonr Cipriano torture treatment? Would the anti terrorist unit, the DCCB, have been called in from Lisbon to get results?
Any results to please the PJ?
What a telling statement, Lyall.
so you are saying that if the world had not neen watching the Portuguese Police would have done what ever they wanted with them?
I wonder if they would have been subjected to the Michael Cook and Leonr Cipriano torture treatment? Would the anti terrorist unit, the DCCB, have been called in from Lisbon to get results?
Any results to please the PJ?
Your even suggesting the mccanns might have been tortured is ridiculous.....but then its true to form
Ridiculous why?
It happened to Leonor Cipriano.
Why do you rule out it might have happened to the McCanns?
Ridiculous why?Might be something to do with the 'eye of the world' being on them, not to mention representatives of the Foreign Office and and a government spin doctor.
It happened to Leonor Cipriano.
Why do you rule out it might have happened to the McCanns?
One day when you have a minute contemplate what would have happened if Madeleine had disappeared without trace in a US resort instead.
Might be something to do with the 'eye of the world' being on them, not to mention representatives of the Foreign Office and and a government spin doctor.
i'll tell you why they didn't arrest them ..... they had NO! evidence against them ....they didn't have one iota of evidence ....and that's why amaral is in court .....for libel and hampering the search for madeleine ....the dogs aren't evidence and don't stand up in a court of law .... ?>)()<
The reason is perfectly simple. There simply was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction in a Court of Law and at the end of the day that's what matters. As it is I don't buy this do(d)ggy evidence ; there's too much of the dog that didn't bark in the night about this one.
If there was a Prosecutor with balls they all would have been put to jail until the neglect was clarified. That's why Mr. British Ambassador was in Portimão headquarters little after the police team was assembled.
What you mean is that if there was a prosecutor willing to bend the law towards your fascist position, they would have been arrested.
This is the benefit of the rule of law rather than the rule of the mob.
A Prosecutor that would apply the law. In Portugal it is a crime to leave toddlers alone without adult supervision.
The Tapas 9 accounts for their supervision were not enough to obviate a clear situation of outstanding neglect. Any portuguese couples in that situation would have been taken to Courtand the children, if not taken, supervised by the Social Services.
The McCann and co. getting away with such a crime was very badly taken in Portugal, by the people.
I don't think that bringing the dogs over was a waste of time - they might have found something highly significant to take the case forward (whoever was responsible). Eddie might even have found a trace within the outdoor perimeters of the search area. However, there was nothing of significance discovered in this case.
In the Prout case, did police say "oh we'll ignore the dog indication in that vehicle because the handler knew who the vehicle belongs to and was subconciously cuing the dog" ?
In the Hazell case, did police say "oh lets not bother looking up there yet again, that dog pointing up there is just being subconciously cued by the handler because the handler knows whose house they are in" ?
In the Prout case, did police say "oh we'll ignore the dog indication in that vehicle because the handler knew who the vehicle belongs to and was subconciously cuing the dog" ?
In the Hazell case, did police say "oh lets not bother looking up there yet again, that dog pointing up there is just being subconciously cued by the handler because the handler knows whose house they are in" ?
I am not saying that no notice should be given, only that it should not be accepted as real evidence.Agreed dogs give indications, not evidence.
The reason is perfectly simple. There simply was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction in a Court of Law and at the end of the day that's what matters. As it is I don't buy this do(d)ggy evidence ; there's too much of the dog that didn't bark in the night about this one.
Hello and welcome, interesting take...so nothing matters in your opinion except whether someone is charged and/or or convicted....I disagree...unless your comment was directly related to why they werent charged after the dog alerts.......in that case apologies in advance.......and there is nothing dodgy about the dogs.....just another case they worked on doing what they are trained and tasked to do...the original question is pointless anyway..... No one is ever convicted on dog evidence or whatever you want to call it alone..without a body or clear forensic or other evidence, what the dogs provide is circumstantial evidence just like any other circumstantial evidence
You could ask yourself in how many cases of missing people have cadaver dogs alerted and they were found dead or never found and in how many cases did they alert and the people turned out alive......
>@@(*&)
Excellent question. There must be data about this of the net. I shall have a dig around today and see what I can find....
The problem is how statistics and news stories are compiled. News stories require interest, so 'Cadaver Dog finds f all' is not a news story. 'Cadaver dog confirmed by evidence' is a news story. Grimes uses this in his statistics- he would count Jersey and PdL as possibles rather than negatives. This way, negatives never balance out the times when confirmation is found.
The problem is how statistics and news stories are compiled. News stories require interest, so 'Cadaver Dog finds f all' is not a news story. 'Cadaver dog confirmed by evidence' is a news story. Grimes uses this in his statistics- he would count Jersey and PdL as possibles rather than negatives. This way, negatives never balance out the times when confirmation is found.
binita quotq
i'll tell you why they didn't arrest them ..... they had NO! evidence against them ....they didn't have one iota of evidence ....and that's why amaral is in court .....for libel and hampering the search for madeleine ....the dogs aren't
lux quote
If there was a Prosecutor with balls they all would have been put to jail until the neglect was clarified. That's why Mr. British Ambassador was in Portimão headquarters little after the police team was assembled. 8@??)(
... removed unnecessary comment ...
Excellent question. There must be data about this of the net. I shall have a dig around today and see what I can find....thanks Cariad, might be a bit of an uphill struggle there, but the question remains......
I was about to say very much the same. I could point out a high profile case in which a dog alert proved to be wrong as the person in question was later found alive, but someone else could point out that a dog alert eventually turned out to be correct.Please point out, Carana !
Police statistics might be more useful if available, but in which country? With which dogs?
Apologies if my explanation was misunderstood. I was merely looking at it from the legal aspect.
I wouldn't say the dogs'evidence was worthless but I would like to point out that without corroboration from forensics it was a case of non plus ultra. For example a specialist dog may be able to sniff out a consignment of illegal drugs but it itself cannot determine whether they are are illegal drugs or not.
No worries, so what are you sayng? A small spot of blood giving a poor / incomplete sample but with all identified markers consistent with those of Madeleine Mccann mean nothing but a pool of blood might....sure.....PV means that Eddie can't identify the cadaver, hence the need of some DNA support.
Please, what do you mean ?
I’ve not only holidayed in Portugal but other Med hot spots as well
PV means that Eddie can't identify the cadaver, hence the need of some DNA support.
My suggestion to you Xtina is grow up.
Perhaps you might care to read both Amnesty International 2013 report on police torture in Portugal and that of the Council for Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) dated 24.04.13 following its SIXTH visit to Portugal. Edifying reading it is not.
You may have chosen to ignore it but I have not and that is Amaral has a criminal conviction or perjury resulting from an attempted cover up of police torture. If he has landed in Court yet again that was a result of his own doing and nobody else'.s
You might also care to bear in mind that last year he lost his own libel case against Marco Aragoa Correia the lawyer representing Leonor Cipriano. Now why should that have been?
Jeez it always comes back to AMARAL.
Grow up is a joke, telling a poster to grow up....All THE people who keep dragging up Amaral and Cirpriano need to get a life.
This is about the dogs isnt it? Woof Woof......
I must admit i cant understand why they were not arrested over this.
The guy in Gloucester was arrested and there was no body..(the dog Eddie indicated in his house again it was RIGHT).
Even though he protested his innocence he finally confessed to killing his wife after being found guilty by a jury.
Also didnt the Zapata case turn up side down, when he finally confessed to his wifes murder (dogs scented) they threw the dogs evidence out, but they were right..those dogs are always right......
The Portuguese prosecutors clarified the "neglect". By Portuguese law, there was none.By law, yes, parents have the right to leave their kids alone without imagining that their most precious ones can wake up not from a nightmare but in a nightmare of despair and fear.
I was impressed on Wednesday when I heard the last words of a documentary I had watched once 4 years back and I thought it wasn't useless to display it after all. GA's last words express his conviction that the truth will emerge one day (suggesting that he doesn't hold it). Then a voice off says that for now we only know that a little girl disappeared one night in PDL.
no.......... you grow up sweetie
my suggestion to you is ....don't lecture me on my opinion ..OK
i admire G.A. for having the guts to want to get to the truth...in the mcc case ....he has always stood by his beliefs ...been consistant ..[which is more than can be said for mccs & co]
he has landed in court because he stood by his principles .....and as mentioned somewhere above ...he hampered the search ...the mccs did a good job of that ...[by suppressing the efit along with threats ]...dontcha think
I was impressed on Wednesday when I heard the last words of a documentary I had watched once 4 years back and I thought it wasn't useless to display it after all. GA's last words express his conviction that the truth will emerge one day (suggesting that he doesn't hold it). Then a voice off says that for now we only know that a little girl disappeared one night in PDL.
If she did die from an accident in the apartment it was probably falling from the sofa. The sofa was pushed back against the wall/window crumpling the curtains. First reports said blood spray re broken larynx.
"An early forensic report is alleged to have mentioned a certain blood spray ... commensurate with a certain type of broken larynx ... some DNA samples found related to cerebral fluids indicates a broken neck or fracture skull". Also "Sousa himself told of this very fine mist of spray that was found in the apartment."
So if an EVRD alerts, that then confirms that the scent they are trained to detect is present at the location they've alerted at ?
So if an EVRD alerts, that then confirms that the scent they are trained to detect is present at the location they've alerted at ?
No none on this forum knows the answer to that question. grime does...he said the alerts had no evidential value ...SY say Maddie may still be alive...amarals lawyer says maddie may still be alive
No evidential value, in Portugal and England. But Mr Grime recently gave evidence in a courtroom in a US state where they do have evidential value.
still doesn't answer the question about what the alerts ACTUALLY PROVE no one on this forum really knows the answer to that question
I don't think the alerts in themselves 'prove' anything, they are merely an indication by the trained EVRD that 'evidential' vestiges may possibly retrieved from the location of the alert !
I agree ..the alerts prove nothing..they show where evidence may be found..no evidence was found
That's your opinion, but those US states made their decisions to allow alerts to be used as evidence in trials because they listened to scientists and experts.
But of course Portugal and England - and other US states - haven't reached the same conclusion yet. It's an evolving science.
I agree ..the alerts prove nothing..they show where evidence may be found..no evidence was found
I really don't comprehend how folks don't get it -Dogs have their uses, but without corroboration their contribution isn't really worth anything.
What exactly are you saying..you need to be more precise ..alerts to be used as evidence of what...with what reliability
I really don't comprehend how folks don't get it -Dogs have their uses, but without corroboration their contribution isn't really worth anything.
Amaral's credibility was destroyed the moment he received a criminal conviction.
the problem for posters is that amaral thought the dogs proved more...to accept that the dogs alerts prove nothing...destroy amarals credibility
Michigan and Florida say otherwise. That's the point.
From what has been revealed about him....I don't think he had much left to destroy.
Michigan and Florida say otherwise. That's the point.
I really don't comprehend how folks don't get it -Dogs have their uses, but without corroboration their contribution isn't really worth anything.
we know that but some posters cling to a false beliefThey sure - do a bit like dogs to a bone.... @)(++(*
Is entirely a matter of opinion.
It's an evolving science. The prosecutor who brought the evidence of the dog alerts into the Casey Anthony courtroom is the same man who first used DNA evidence in a US trial. He's a big supporter of new forensic sciences.
This is the person who suggested Madddie was a battered child without any evidence...now your credibility is destroyed
It's an evolving science. The prosecutor who brought the evidence of the dog alerts into the Casey Anthony courtroom is the same man who first used DNA evidence in a US trial. He's a big supporter of new forensic sciences.
Its an evolving science means it is not supported by scientific evidence...again..what do the alerts prove...try sweet fa
Why should a suggestion require evidence?
Abduction as a claim appears to require none.
And just who the f*** do you think you are to be judging my credibility
Its an evolving science means it is not supported by scientific evidence...again..what do the alerts prove...try sweet fa
you seem to rate your opinion and I rate mine...you accuse the MccAnns of being child beaters with no evidence yet cant accept criticism of amamral when there is a plethora of evidence...thats why I question your credibility...then when questioned you get angry...so it would appear you are not confident in your own ability
Why should a suggestion require evidence?
Abduction as a claim appears to require none.
And just who the f*** do you think you are to be judging my credibility
That's exactly what Anthony's attorney said ?{)(**
Really need the head banging smilie on here.
It's a science. A science that was examined in American courtrooms before the evidence could be used in trials.
you still havent answered the question
Don't you read replies?
It's a science. A science that was examined in American courtrooms before the evidence could be used in trials.
I don't need to. The question was answered by pretrial examination in American courtrooms: alerts are scientific, at least according to Florida and Michigan. If they weren't the evidence would never be allowed in trials.
Always 8((()*/
basically its bo888cks and until you can come up with some corroboration that's all it is
But do you understand them? 8-)(--)
Scientists are busy teaching computers to do the same thing dogs do, so it is most definitely not bo888cks: it's science.
Doesn't Mr Amaral say he ordered such a machine in 2007?
the problem for posters is that amaral thought the dogs proved more...to accept that the dogs alerts prove nothing...destroy amarals credibility
Oh yes. I have answered ?>)()<
The dogs weren't useless. But the same can't be said about the Forensic officers who got their DNA on evidence e.g. Lino Manuel Lima Henriques and Fernando Viegas.
286/2007-CRL (17) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 2
A DNA profile that appeared to be from at least two sources was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered in that area. In my opinion, the major part of the profile matched that of Lino Henriques. Breaking [departing] from the principle, for it to have had a DNA contribution from Lino Henriques then the remaining information in the smaller part of the result is too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.
To be fair davel, it seems to me that 'pro's' are way more interested in Ameral than any 'anti' I've come across...
I couldn't really give a toss about the man personally. Any opinion I have reached is because I have studied the available evidence.
I'm not going to believe than the Mccann's 'done it' cause he says so any more than I'm willing to believe that they are entirely innocent because Redwood claims they are not persons of interest.
Discredit him as much as you like. His opinion is slightly more valid than yours or mine since he's a professional with hands on knowledge, doesn't mean we have to unquestioningly accept everythin he says does it?
his opinion is not more valid than mine as he has been convicted of perjury.. Dr shipman was a professional with hands on knowledge so you would also support him
"his opinion is not more valid than mine"
Is entirely a matter of opinion.
actually no its not..I have more credibility because I have not been proved to be a LIAR in court
No, it is.
So they found Henriques DNA and Viegas but no deceased persons. No one knows what else if anything important that the dogs "alerted" to.
The dogs alerted inside and outside the apartment and in the hire car. Coincidence I think not!
That's your opinion...it seems amaral has more problems in the pipline...a case regarding the torture of Leandro re the cipriano case..its not just me ...the whole uk press regard him as a disgraced cop..plus he was SACKED from the Mmccann case
.it seems amaral has more problems in the pipline...a case regarding the torture of Leandro re the cipriano case..its not just me ...the whole uk press regard him as a disgraced cop.
Is your opinion.
no these are facts
you seem to have missed the last six years ..reacted to what and what does their reaction proved
his opinion is not more valid than mine as he has been convicted of perjury.. Dr shipman was a professional with hands on knowledge so you would also support him
Well that depends, if the question is 'is it ok to murder eldery patients in your care for material gain?' I think my answer of 'no' is more valid than his. However if the question is ' does this amount of bruising and swelling suggest a break or a sprain?' I think that his answer would be more valid.
Dr Shipman was a callous murderer and probably a psychopath. He was still medically trained though and as such his informed opinion on medical matters is more valid than mine.
I really don't think that recognising that means I support him though...
he was a medical professional and people like you trusted him because of that. Just because amaral is a professional does not mean he deserves trust
Ditto the McCanns.
Ditto the McCanns.
Yes, Dr's are just as capable as us mere mortals of being despicable human beings....
Thank you for pointing that out davel, a very helpful reminder for 'people like me' who just blindly trust professionals.
actually no its not..I have more credibility because I have not been proved to be a LIAR in courtWho here has ?
you should never blindly trust professionals... I am surprised you do...
Amaral is a convicted fraudster and no longer working..
Gerry is a well respected hospital cardiologist
I don't. I simply pointed out that someone with professional knowledge has a slightly more valid opinion on matters relating to that defined field.
Somehow that turned in to me supporting serial killers and being credulous.
I think it's my bed time now anyway.
Nighty night all!
How do you know that he's no longer working ?
How do you think he manages to live when half of his pension is frozen because of the trial ?
I'm sure there's a reason why Portuguese authorities froze his pensionThe reason is simple and doesn't depend on the Portuguese authorities. Mrs Duarte made sure that provision would exist. She's no fool.
he isn't available to babysit ...but he is available..if you are very lucky to treat victims of heart attacks
The reason is simple and doesn't depend on the Portuguese authorities. Mrs Duarte made sure that provision would exist. She's no fool.
There's no opinion about it. Criminal convictions are facts.
There's no opinion about it. Criminal convictions are facts.What do you mean by "criminal" conviction ? Do you know the terminology used in penal courts in Portugal ?
Yes, Dr's are just as capable as us mere mortals of being despicable human beings....
Thank you for pointing that out davel, a very helpful reminder for 'people like me' who just blindly trust professionals.
I don't need to. The question was answered by pretrial examination in American courtrooms: alerts are scientific, at least according to Florida and Michigan. If they weren't the evidence would never be allowed in trials.
Courts do not validate science; scientists do. British courts accepted the pseudo science about cot deaths an was proved wrong.Could you explicit this ?
Does Ms Duarte exercise that much influence over the decision-making of the Portuguese authorities?It has nothing to do with decision making.
Could you explicit this ?
I'm thinking of Dr Southall, the MSP "expert".
What do you mean by "criminal" conviction ? Do you know the terminology used in penal courts in Portugal ?
Could you explicit this ?
I'm thinking of Dr Southall, the MSP "expert".
Eddie alerted to cadaver scent. That scent was coming out from the car door that's why he was chasing around with his nose in the air between the two cars in the car park until he found the source of it and then he barked. He didn't alert anywhere else. Murat's or the other apartments.
So you are stating that it was actually established that there was a Cadaver scent coming out of the car door and that this is in Mr Grimes report ?
No it wasnt, from Grime's report specifically referring to the car......
"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent'
contaminant or human blood scent."
Im glad I looked that up as it confirms that Mr Grime did not include blood as *cadaver scent contaminant*
The pseudo-science in respect of cot death was Roy Meadow'sDr Southall is a pioneer in discoveries about adults who harm their children, the problem is that it has turned an obsession. He accused horribly Sally Clark and Mandy Morris, among others.
It ran like this. He took instances of cot death in the community (something like 1 in 7000) and squared that number to arrive at "odds" of the same happening twice.
Three times would be the number cubed and that was "murder".
His most widely publicised blunder was that he overlooked the possibility that genetic/hereditary or environmental influences might actually shorten, not lengthen, odds of the same thing happening twice.
His worse blunder was straightforward misapplication of maths.
The culpable homicide of an infant by a parent is one, rare and independent, event.
And the unexpected death of an infant from unexplained natural causes is a second, rare and independent, event.
There is no correlation between the two.
No attempt should be made to correlate them.
Eddie was reacting to blood or nothing at all.Are we back to suspicion that Mr Grime (whose unique credit was his dogs' accuracy) was (unconsciously perhaps) corruptible ?
Are we back to suspicion that Mr Grime (whose unique credit was his dogs' accuracy) was (unconsciously perhaps) corruptible ?
Not corruptible, merely unconsciously communicative as all humans are.What are you communicating unconsciously or not here ?
Grime's own claim to have taken his cue from the dog as to which car Eddie had taken an interest in should certainly be held at arm's length.
IMO It is clear from the video that it was M. Grime and not Eddie who showed more interest in the Renault than any other car.
Had he shown the same amount of interest in the other cars, and spent the same amount of time calling his dog back to them - then one or more alerts from those cars may well have been the result.
He did call his dog back to a different car.....Of course.
The dog INDICATED between the McCanns and another car and kept going back and forward as it had caught the scent.
You dont just dismiss this so Grimes had to bring the dog back to the car to check if the scent was coming from that one....the dog had a scent in the air without doubt....
The dog definatly indicated he went back and forth on his own sniffing the air.....previously to this on other cars his nose was down....
The fact is he could have gone back to the car and not indicated.....ANYTHING. How was Grimes to know the dog would find cadaver? Or are we saying it was all planted? Very dangerous I would say, this dog and handler came from the UK POLICE....not some back street doggy training club. 8(>((
So are we now saying that Grimes knew the McCanns car and before he went into the car park he quickly trained the dog Eddie to BARK at the Renault on cue? 8-)(--)
Just what are we saying?
Even if Grimes asked the dog to come back and have another sniff, he couldnt make it bark unless it found what it was trained to find.
The dog also indicated on clothing was he cued there too? 8((()*/
I have watched the full video so many times.
He did send him back to a car NOT belonging to the McCanns as well I counted at least 3 before the Renault.
What if the evidence was not genuine but planted? How would a dog know the difference?
What if the evidence was not genuine but planted? How would a dog know the difference?
Sorry for you it I don't There's too many non barking dogs about this particular matter enough for even a junior defence lawyer to blow apart something I'm sure the juiz de instruçao and public prosecutor would have known from the start.
Sorry for you it I don't There's too many non barking dogs about this particular matter enough for even a junior defence lawyer to blow apart something I'm sure the juiz de instruçao and public prosecutor would have known from the start.It's taking no risk to be sure everybody (PGR, Juiz, Prof Harrison, etc.) knew much before thinking of calling the dogs that there was no corpse in the 5A !
What evidence is there that was ever a corpse in Apartment 5A?Mr McCann would answer you : ask the dogs, PV !
Instead of going ho ho ho why not answer the question?Now Im pretty sure that was directed at me and my laughey smiley.......phew
He did call his dog back to a different car.....
The dog INDICATED between the McCanns and another car and kept going back and forward as it had caught the scent.
You dont just dismiss this so Grimes had to bring the dog back to the car to check if the scent was coming from that one....the dog had a scent in the air without doubt....
The dog definatly indicated he went back and forth on his own sniffing the air.....previously to this on other cars his nose was down....
The fact is he could have gone back to the car and not indicated.....ANYTHING. How was Grimes to know the dog would find cadaver? Or are we saying it was all planted? Very dangerous I would say, this dog and handler came from the UK POLICE....not some back street doggy training club. 8(>((
So are we now saying that Grimes knew the McCanns car and before he went into the car park he quickly trained the dog Eddie to BARK at the Renault on cue? 8-)(--)
Just what are we saying?
Even if Grimes asked the dog to come back and have another sniff, he couldnt make it bark unless it found what it was trained to find.
The dog also indicated on clothing was he cued there too? 8((()*/
I have watched the full video so many times.
He did send him back to a car NOT belonging to the McCanns as well I counted at least 3 before the Renault.
The operation was clearly not biased IMO.
The test was clearly biased IMO.
How can I ask dogs when they can't talk? What a stupid response to be sure!Then ask Mr McCann who advised to ask the dogs !
Have any of you the least idea just cross-contaminable cadaver odour is? If you want to know just ask any medical student. I'm sure they'd be delighted to enlighten your ignorance including how to get rid of it.
Like a group of doctors embarking on an attempted cover-up would have made no attempt to get rid of any cross-contaminated items beforehand? You have to be joking.
Have any of you the least idea just cross-contaminable cadaver odour is? If you want to know just ask any medical student. I'm sure they'd be delighted to enlighten your ignorance including how to get rid of it.
Like a group of doctors embarking on an attempted cover-up would have made no attempt to get rid of any cross-contaminated items beforehand? You have to be joking.
benice said
If Grime knew it was not unusual for Eddie to take many minutes to identify where a scent was coming from - then why didn't he allow Eddie the same amount of time on the other cars and keep calling him back to them in the same way he did with the Renault.
***
Same reason as the flats, the dog showed no interest when first approaching, was not in scent, the exact opposite of what happened immediately on entry to 5a and the car exercise..once the dogs behaviour changes the scent has been detected, it needs a little time to find thenearest source,...I will take Grimes words, a professional dog handler over yours.....any day
have to go out now!
The dogs are far, far better than that 8(0(*8)-)))
Will you dare to denounce this to the authorities of your country ? Or do those need specsavers as well ?
Anyone who can't see the difference in Grime's 'behaviour' at the Renault compared to his 'behaviour' at the other cars needs a visit to specsavers IMO.
By saying Maddie may still be alive then SY and amarals lawyer are showing that the dogs alerts are not conclusiveWithin a hundred years, for the same reason and according to your strange logic, Madeleine might still be alive.
And what evidence is there to suggest she isn't?
Within a hundred years, for the same reason and according to your strange logic, Madeleine might still be alive.
Not my strange logic...amarals lawyerMr Amaral's lawyer is what a lawyer should always be : neutral. His job is to eventually criticize but finally defend his client's perspective, nothing less, nothing more, it is certainly not to speculate about Madeleine's destiny.
To judge by the Court transcripts Amaral's lawyer is having a hard time of it.
Stop prevaricating and answer these two questions
1.
What evidence is there to support the theory that there was any corpse in Apartment 5A?
2
What evidence is there to support any theory that Madeleine is dead?
Evidence please, not supposition, suggestion, conjecture, allegation or opinion
As they say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit Assuming one has any wit to begin with.
You obviously haven't read the statements given by the defence witnesses. AS Poirot might say, ' Evasion, evasion , evasion.'
And as Poirot might also say out this board, Evasion, evasion, evasion . What's wrong with answering a simple straightforward question ?
Let's hear your evidence why you think she isn't. Assuming you have anything that could be called evidence.
Raw nerve?. To judge by your comments yours are in bits.
Let's hear your evidence why you think she isn't. Assuming you have anything that could be called evidence.
Raw nerve?. To judge by your comments yours are in bits.
The fact that there is no evidence that she was abducted is the evidence. Absence of evidence is just as important as evidence.
The fact that there is no evidence that she was abducted is the evidence. Absence of evidence is just as important as evidence.
[ignorestupidabuse]I accept the possibility of anything. I require convincing evidence to make a decision[/ignorestupidabuse]
Abuse reported.
Stehen..you have claimed to have a degree in chemistry but failed to be able to answer a simple question
Stephen
With all due respect how does one post that kind of evidence on the Internet? You want to know it for sure it has to be done outside of cyberspace.
I am trying to make a simple point.
Anyone can claim anything they want to , as we have seen in this case...............
The Mccanns have claimed there was an abduction without an iota of proof, but we are asked to accept it.
The forensic examination of the flat, and elsewhere did not prove anything either, which I accept.
So where does that leave us ?
You have not been asked to accept anything...its nothing to do with you
You have not been asked to accept anything...its nothing to do with you
Where does that leave us? With no right to conduct 'trial' by way of the Internet.
Wrong on that.
I am a tax payer, and tax payers money has gone into the 'investigation'.
Wrong on that.
I am a tax payer, and tax payers money has gone into the 'investigation'.
nothing to do with you...you elect your mp and you have to stand by what govt decides...govt does not have to answer to you how money is spent...only at the ballot box..you are not as important as you think you are
Stop the whinge about taxpayers. Like the people of Portugal don't pay tax?
The citizens of Portugal have paid for the carelessness and irresponsibility of the Mccanns , since the onset of the case.
Do you think this is just ?
Stephen
What evidence do you have to support such an allegation?
Have any of you the least idea just cross-contaminable cadaver odour is? If you want to know just ask any medical student. I'm sure they'd be delighted to enlighten your ignorance including how to get rid of it.
Like a group of doctors embarking on an attempted cover-up would have made no attempt to get rid of any cross-contaminated items beforehand? You have to be joking.
For real emergencies try bicarbonate or soda and/or vinegar.
His mate told him.
Well do you know a lot of medical students lol..
I asked my friend about the dogs at the beginning.
She has trained dogs since the early seventies, some for the police, others for dogs for blind etc.
To have cross contamination you first have to be in contact with a source?
So where would you have been in contamination of a source of cadaver to cross contaminate in the first place.
Did the group for example visit a mortuary at the time to see how the portugese deal with bodies, or did they spend time in the cemetery helping with dead bodies?
ALSO one has to remember the McCanns had been to their friends apartments so if they had cross contamination scent on themselves they would have taken it into the other apartments wouldnt they but the dog did not indicate in any other apartment..
Cross contamination yes I can go with that but from where is the point and why only certain items?
Perhaps you have an idea you would like to share with me, thanks awfully I really want to learn about all this.
As to your sentence I have emphasised.
Perhaps they were not so clever as they thought they were, and missed a few areas......after all most of the doctors I have seen seem to miss the obvious even on MRIs lol... @)(++(*
Stephen
What evidence do you have to support such an allegation?
Cross contamination from Portuguese police who regularly come into contact with cadavers and have a cavalier attitude towards wearing protective clothing
Cross contamination from Portuguese police who regularly come into contact with cadavers and have a cavalier attitude towards wearing protective clothing
Not sure where all these dead bodies are coming from that police regularly are in contact with.....Lisbon eg is one of the safest places in Europe, indeed according to eurostat no 1 or 2 with extremely low homicide rates...in fact the lowest in europe, .you would think it was Soprano city..or downtown Detroit! Way some people go on
@)(++(*
People die in all kinds of circumstances Red which may involve a police presence. Road traffic accidents for instance.
For accidents, the GNR is called not the PJ.
GNR officers were the first to arrive and enter 5A.
Cross contamination from Portuguese police who regularly come into contact with cadavers and have a cavalier attitude towards wearing protective clothing
LOL your joking right?
The first person who would touch a dead body/murdered etc would not be the police.
I would not expect one policeman would TOUCH a dead body in a crime scene...even on CSI and Body of Proof the police NEVER touch the body, only the MEDICAL EXAMINER would be allowed to touch a dead body, so sorry W.R.O.N.G....
IF for example say one had cadaver all over them, then why did the dog only indicate at one point in the wardrobe?
LOL, I love this forum its like reading tales from the unexpected because I never know what to expect next lol.
What you can expect is to have your certainties dented.
Blood and Cadaver Dogs make errors like any others.
Cadaver scent is easily transmitted by cross contamination.
Dog Handlers engage in unconscious cueing.
Because of this, dog alerts with no corroboration are not reputable evidence that could secure a conviction.
What you can expect is to have your certainties dented.
Blood and Cadaver Dogs make errors like any others.
Cadaver scent is easily transmitted by cross contamination.
Dog Handlers engage in unconscious cueing.
Because of this, dog alerts with no corroboration are not reputable evidence that could secure a conviction.
The dogs alerting is enough to cause the police to assume that a body had been in the flat. Since no deaths had previously occurred in the flat and only one person had gone missing from the flat, logically it would be Maddie. Regarding the reliability of the dogs, Occam's razor would tell us to take the simplest solution I.e. A body. From an evidential point of view more was needed and that could not be found. Just because the alerting is not acceptable as evidence in Portugal doesn't mean it can be discounted completely.
no the alerts do dot confirm the presence of a cadaver in the flat...the pj assumed this and they were wrong
no the alerts do dot confirm the presence of a cadaver in the flat...the pj assumed this and they were wrong
The dogs alerting is enough to cause the police to assume that a body had been in the flat. Since no deaths had previously occurred in the flat and only one person had gone missing from the flat, logically it would be Maddie. Regarding the reliability of the dogs, Occam's razor would tell us to take the simplest solution I.e. A body. From an evidential point of view more was needed and that could not be found. Just because the alerting is not acceptable as evidence in Portugal doesn't mean it can be discounted completely.
They assumed nothing, they just behaved like police in any country would: what do you think American police do when dogs alert? ignore it?
The dogs alerting is enough to cause the police to assume that a body had been in the flat. Since no deaths had previously occurred in the flat and only one person had gone missing from the flat, logically it would be Maddie. Regarding the reliability of the dogs, Occam's razor would tell us to take the simplest solution I.e. A body. From an evidential point of view more was needed and that could not be found. Just because the alerting is not acceptable as evidence in Portugal doesn't mean it can be discounted completely.
They seek further forensic evidence.
And in the meantime do they sit in the office twiddling their thumbs?
Or do they interview people?
That's all the Portuguese police did.
It is possible that someone could die in a spot without leaving forensic evidence. What do the police do, just ignore the dog's alert.
It is possible that someone could die in a spot without leaving forensic evidence. What do the police do, just ignore the dog's alert.
It is possible that someone could die in a spot without leaving forensic evidence. What do the police do, just ignore the dog's alert.A dog's alert is always intelligence. If that lead isn't enough, then the police and Justice have to desist. The result is imo the worst and the more sticky of conclusions : doubt. It's not rare that descendants of convicted persons, self-claimed to be innocent, try to reopen cases. And if not family, historians do, as recently in the Lindbergh case.
LOL your joking right?
The first person who would touch a dead body/murdered etc would not be the police.
I would not expect one policeman would TOUCH a dead body in a crime scene...even on CSI and Body of Proof the police NEVER touch the body, only the MEDICAL EXAMINER would be allowed to touch a dead body, so sorry W.R.O.N.G....
IF for example say one had cadaver all over them, then why did the dog only indicate at one point in the wardrobe?
LOL, I love this forum its like reading tales from the unexpected because I never know what to expect next lol.
You are not as well informed as you think you are..police attend a lot more deaths than you realise...unexpected and sudden deaths...suicides...accidents...elderly people who die alone and a forced entry is needed...drug overdoses....the list goes onPolice officers aren't trained to touch corpses but to call a doctor as soon as they see a cadaver.
Police officers aren't trained to touch corpses but to call a doctor as soon as they see a cadaver.
Well do you know a lot of medical students lol..
I asked my friend about the dogs at the beginning.
She has trained dogs since the early seventies, some for the police, others for dogs for blind etc.
To have cross contamination you first have to be in contact with a source?
So where would you have been in contamination of a source of cadaver to cross contaminate in the first place.
Did the group for example visit a mortuary at the time to see how the portugese deal with bodies, or did they spend time in the cemetery helping with dead bodies?
ALSO one has to remember the McCanns had been to their friends apartments so if they had cross contamination scent on themselves they would have taken it into the other apartments wouldnt they but the dog did not indicate in any other apartment..
Cross contamination yes I can go with that but from where is the point and why only certain items?
Perhaps you have an idea you would like to share with me, thanks awfully I really want to learn about all this.
As to your sentence I have emphasised.
Perhaps they were not so clever as they thought they were, and missed a few areas......after all most of the doctors I have seen seem to miss the obvious even on MRIs lol... @)(++(*
Police officers aren't trained to touch corpses but to call a doctor as soon as they see a cadaver.
How do they tell if it is a cadaver or a living person without touching it?They smell.
How do they tell if it is a cadaver or a living person without touching it?
How do they tell if it is a cadaver or a living person without touching it?
You look.
And they tend not to look back with their open dead glazed over eyes.......there are loads of signs....but of course in Portugal any police even touching a dead person, does not wear gloves and spreads the dead scent , IF it has developed, of course, around, cos their useless and sloppyIn Portugal corpses are exposed in churches..
8)-)))
In Portugal corpses are exposed in churches..
In Portugal corpses are exposed in churches..
Was this written in a monotone?
Isnt this what the McCanns used to excuse the dogs findings and spouted on about Zapata and his trail etc the dogs evidence couldnt be used?
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.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh yeh and what happened in that case then....
THE DOGS SCORED A HOME RUN, they were right all along as he confessed in 2008 to killing her and carrying her body around to different hiding places.
Good doggy..... 8(0(*
Way, way, back (before the files were released) there was a report that Eddie had reacted in the PdL church and (I think) The Times had somehow secured an interview with either a PJ or GNR officer.
It was put to him that the cadaver dog had reacted in the church.
He replied: Of course the dog reacted in the church.
There are funerals in the church
They smell.
Is that a 'real' question ?
In Portugal corpses are exposed in churches..
Note to self. Not one pro McCann answered this post wonder why?
Hummmm >@@(*&) oh I can guess because the dog was CORRECT even without a body the doggy told his master he could smell a dead body.
The McCanns used the Zapata case to prove a point about how unreliable the dogs were, but it sadly backfired as the guy eventually confessed to a lesser charge.
He had been carrying his dead wives body around.
Its funny how no one wants to know that lol....
DOGGIES 2 ....... MCCANNS 0 8**8:/:
Note to self. Not one pro McCann answered this post wonder why?
Hummmm >@@(*&) oh I can guess because the dog was CORRECT even without a body the doggy told his master he could smell a dead body.
The McCanns used the Zapata case to prove a point about how unreliable the dogs were, but it sadly backfired as the guy eventually confessed to a lesser charge.
He had been carrying his dead wives body around.
Its funny how no one wants to know that lol....
DOGGIES 2 ....... MCCANNS 0 8**8:/:
Probably only after they have been prepared by a mortician!Simple fill-in. Corpses have to be buried or incinerated before 24 hours after death. By law.
Simple fill-in. Corpses have to be buried or incinerated before 24 hours after death. By law.
Note to self. Not one pro McCann answered this post wonder why?
Hummmm >@@(*&) oh I can guess because the dog was CORRECT even without a body the doggy told his master he could smell a dead body.
The McCanns used the Zapata case to prove a point about how unreliable the dogs were, but it sadly backfired as the guy eventually confessed to a lesser charge.
He had been carrying his dead wives body around.
Its funny how no one wants to know that lol....
DOGGIES 2 ....... MCCANNS 0 8**8:/:
'On the fence' I think not.
In Portugal, I assume.Yes.
The last link you cited was an ex-pat information website, AngloInfo, the hint is in the word Anglo, cretin !
No I came off after reading all the garbage by the pro mccanns lol..got fed up of trying to have a decent conversation so I have decided to go with the doggies now. The dogs never lie Amen to that.
No, you've provided links to websites that advise FOREIGN NATIONALS on the procedures regarding death and burial in Portugal for FOREIGN NATIONALS not with regard to the same procedures for Portuguese nationals !
In Portugal corpses are exposed in churches..
And did said consular employee provide you the relevant location in the Portuguese constitution for that assertion ?
Anne is quite right in what she says. It is normal practice to have burials in Portugal and Spain within 24 hours. There can be exceptions where a family can afford to have the body embalmed or refrigerated. The ordinary person cannot afford these procedures and since a body can deteriorate very quickly in the heat they are entombed or cremated asap.
Anne is quite right in what she says. It is normal practice to have burials in Portugal and Spain within 24 hours. There can be exceptions where a family can afford to have the body embalmed or refrigerated. The ordinary person cannot afford these procedures and since a body can deteriorate very quickly in the heat they are entombed or cremated asap.
Anne said "by law" so she was in fact wrong...You make me laugh ! Yes, the law is like this and the reason is sanitary. In Summer in some parts of Portugal temperature goes over 108° Fahrenheit.
You make me laugh ! Yes, the law is like this and the reason is sanitary. In Summer in some parts of Portugal temperature goes over 108° Fahrenheit.
It is a tenet of Islam that the dead should be buried in 24 hours.
That is because many Islamic countries are very hot, and (at least in the days before refrigeration) if you left it longer, you'd get a nasty smell.
Anne is quite right in what she says. It is normal practice to have burials in Portugal and Spain within 24 hours. There can be exceptions where a family can afford to have the body embalmed or refrigerated. The ordinary person cannot afford these procedures and since a body can deteriorate very quickly in the heat they are entombed or cremated asap.
For which you can no doubt provide the citation for same in the administrative law pertinent to Portugal ?
You make me laugh ! Yes, the law is like this and the reason is sanitary. In Summer in some parts of Portugal temperature goes over 108° Fahrenheit.
EMPTY ON PURPOSE...I am not responding to copied rubbish off Internet.
And did said consular employee provide you the relevant location in the Portuguese constitution for that assertion ?
Please dont insult my intelligence with copied rubbish of the Internet. I listen to real people who train dogs. The dogs NEVER LIE. Period. You can spin it anyway you like, but tell that to all those behind bars when the dogs caught them out.EVEN ZAPATA...yes the guy the McCanns used to prove no evidence no body even with a good dog alert CONFESSED TO KILLING HIS WIFE, and carrying her body around, so the dog was right there too...[/b]
I am not going to argue about this so it would be better if you kept your energy for other things, thanks kindly.
You can listen to who you like...I listen to Grime who is the expert on these dogs and he says that the alerts can be of a result of cross contamination
You can listen to who you like...I listen to Grime who is the expert on these dogs and he says that the alerts can be of a result of cross contamination
With all this diversion, can you say with absolute certainty, that the dogs alerts did not indicate that something happened to Madeleine in the apartment ?
What diversion..this thread is about the dogs and I am posting about the dogs...you need to get your basic facts right
Diversion.
Answer the question.
Seriously? You are in no position to assess someone's credibility! Can you not even see the irony of that statement?
What this reminds me of most is kids who close their eyes and think they've become invisible.
Peek a boo, we see you Debunker.
Until you start posting with your own user name, please refrain from commenting on other users credibility.
Because he questioned Anne's credibility while posting from a different user name after being banned.
NO, IT IS MERELY THE TRUTH.
YOU JUST WON'T ADMIT IT.
Why the shouting? How immature - not to mention completely untrue.
Still waiting for you to post on the subject of the thread instead of trying to disrupt and divert as per usual.
Why the shouting? How immature - not to mention completely untrue.
Still waiting for you to post on the subject of the thread instead of trying to disrupt and divert as per usual.
I realise this was directed at Stephen, but I don't think I have either, so I will now.
Why didnt the portuguese police arrest the mccanns ... after the dogs findings ?
Because dog alerts are intelligence, not evidence. Without forensic corroboration they are useless, legally speaking.
I realise this was directed at Stephen, but I don't think I have either, so I will now.
Why didnt the portuguese police arrest the mccanns ... after the dogs findings ?
Because dog alerts are intelligence, not evidence. Without forensic corroboration they are useless, legally speaking.
For example the bed in the UK case where the child was hidden for ransom. Someone had died in it, it was bought second hand and the dog reacted.
Problem is no one had previously died in the room or the car. Yes cross contamination can occur but how scent would get behind a sofa via policeman handling corpses is problematical and any explanations tend to start stretching credulity.
No shouting, merely making a point.
Your continued responses in protecting debunker are examples of disruption and diversion, but for you, par for the course. That is your mantra.
Problem is no one had previously died in the room or the car. Yes cross contamination can occur but how scent would get behind a sofa via policeman handling corpses is problematical and any explanations tend to start stretching credulity.
The scent behind the sofa was alerted to by both dogs. Therefore according to Grime that was classed as a blood detection as both dogs alerted to blood - from both dead and living people - (according to Grime) .
Yes Cariad.
No forensic backup, but we knew that already.
So what is the point of a thread where the answer is already known ?
The scent behind the sofa was alerted to by both dogs. Therefore according to Grime that was classed as a blood detection as both dogs alerted to blood - from both dead and living people - (according to Grime) .
It was only when Eddie alerted and Keela didn't that it was suggestive of cadaverscent - (also according to M. Grime.)
Yes Cariad.
No forensic backup, but we knew that already.
So what is the point of a thread where the answer is already known ?
There is no point to this thread...problem is some posters on here do not understand the facts...dogs equal no evidence
Please keep to the subject matter guys. References to a debunker will all be removed as will the use of the word liar or lying.
Rogerandout. As far as the burial of remains in Portugal is concerned it is usual to have an internment within 24 hours especially in the summer months. The documents you quote from are merely guidelines as anyone who has lived in Portugal for any length of time will know.
The dogs indicated what to what might have happened in the apartment.
The forensics were inconclusive. No more, no less.
Meanwhile proof of anything else.....................................
Just hot air.