Why didnt the portuguese police arrest the mccanns ... after the dogs findings

[Mr Gray]

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.

Excellent post

[Mr Gray]

Are we not allowed to point out that what a poster is claiming is totally untrue

[stephen25000]

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.

Yes Cariad.

No forensic backup, but we knew that already.

So what is the point of a thread where the answer is already known ?

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

Don't forget the garden.

[Benice]

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.

I know of no poster on here who needs 'protecting'.   

Still waiting for you to contribute something meaningful to the actual thread topic.

[Benice]

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) .

It was only when Eddie alerted and Keela didn't that it was suggestive of cadaverscent - (also according to M. Grime.)






 

[slartibartfast]

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) .

To be strictly fair, he only says that about the car search. So it is possible he gets different reactions from the dog. Needs more research.

[Cariad]

Yes Cariad.

No forensic backup, but we knew that already.

So what is the point of a thread where the answer is already known ?

My guess is that the OP wanted to use the fact that it's not legally admissible to say that it's no indication at all.

Just cause it doesn't constitute proof, doesn't mean I don't think it's not a bit iffy.....

[Redblossom]

 >@@(*&)

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.)

He never said that at all, it might be how you interpret things, but you are wrong to put words into his mouth....wheres your back up for this according to Grime

The only reference he made to the possibility of Eddie reacting to  blood was after the car search and even then, in his report he said its possible its cadaver scent contaminant or blood

[Mr Gray]

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

[stephen25000]

There is no point to this thread...problem is some posters on here do not understand the facts...dogs equal no evidence

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.

[John]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

 we understand its usual but not a legal requirement

[Mr Gray]

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.

 how can anything be proved without a trial...or did you mean evidence