The timeline revisited

[Mr Gray]

Can you post the comment that you believe contradicts this?

Nice to see you agree to be speculating above. I think it’s important to note that although you post “only facts” and “the truth” you admit that the conclusions you draw from the facts are merely speculative.

I've posted it today.. On one hand he says no inference can be drawn.. Then he says it may indicate a cadaver had been there.. He's drawing an inference.

That's factual.  I point out which posts are factual and which ate opinion.
I'm convinced based on lots that the alerts ate totally useless in this case.....same as in Jersey where Grime was paid a fortune after showing  Harper a video of the dogs in Luz. ...then twice alerting to the coconut she'll.. An absolute joke. Imo

The bottom line is Eddie has made very little contribution in solving cases.. In his whole career.  It's all hype imo

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Indeed it would be a very foolish arguida who accepted everything the police were putting to her as the real deal when their ineptitude was so patently apparent.

SNIP
And so, for the record, this is where we stand on the supposed evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann.

There was never any DNA "proof" that Madeleine's body had been in the couple's hire car - that originated from a misinterpretation by the PJ of inconclusive findings by British forensics experts.

The full report indicates it was the supposed "scent of death" found in the apartment that led directly to the couple's naming as arguidos, but forensics experts have always argued for caution in interpreting sniffer dogs' reactions.

An American court case ruled this kind of evidence inadmissible last year after finding that three supposedly "specialist" dogs were incorrect between 62% and 78% of the time.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/23/madeleinemccann.portugal


Two days later as Eleanor says the McCanns would NEVER have been constituted arguidos for the simple reason the law was changed so that no-one could be made a suspect without supporting evidence.

The fact of the matter is that there never was or had been such evidence.

As far as Justice is concerned it was a shoddy move (no wonder Amaral is the self appointed expert in "scape-goats") and a shameful episode for the Portuguese.

Is that a reference to the Zapata case in the Guardian? Such irony!! I’m surprised any pro-Mcann supporter would still be posting articles referencing that case!!

The fact of the matter in the McCann case was the FSS when asked could this be Madeleine’s DNA said the results were “inconclusive”. I don’t see what is shameful about using highly a experienced UK dog handler and two dogs with an excellent record in the field to see if there was any indicative signs that forensic evidence might be collected to help the investigation. We know the dogs alerted, we know evidence was collected, we know forensic analysis of the samples was “inconclusive”. How exactly is any of that shameful?

[Mr Gray]

Is that a reference to the Zapata case in the Guardian? Such irony!! I’m surprised any pro-Mcann supporter would still be posting articles referencing that case!!

The fact of the matter in the McCann case was the FSS when asked could this be Madeleine’s DNA said the results were “inconclusive”. I don’t see what is shameful about using highly a experienced UK dog handler and two dogs with an excellent record in the field to see if there was any indicative signs that forensic evidence might be collected to help the investigation. We know the dogs alerted, we know evidence was collected, we know forensic analysis of the samples was “inconclusive”. How exactly is any of that shameful?

The alerts by the dogs added absolutely nothing to the investigation.. It was shameful. Amaral and the PJ didn't understand

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I've posted it today.. On one hand he says no inference can be drawn.. Then he says it may indicate a cadaver had been there.. He's drawing an inference.

That's factual.  I point out which posts are factual and which ate opinion.
I'm convinced based on lots that the alerts ate totally useless in this case.....same as in Jersey where Grime was paid a fortune after showing  Harper a video of the dogs in Luz. ...then twice alerting to the coconut she'll.. An absolute joke. Imo

The bottom line is Eddie has made very little contribution in solving cases.. In his whole career.  It's all hype imo

Can you tell me the number of your post that has the link. It sounds to me like you are taking one of the remarks out of context…. You can draw the inference that an alert might suggest a cadaver had been present at one point in time…. You can’t draw from that that a particular person is dead and that it was their corpse that was present at some point. Everyone agrees that the dogs are not infallible… therefore you can’t use the alerts alone to prrve anything. They are indicative that evidence might be found. I don’t recall Harrison claiming differently. I’d like to read the entire article you are quoting from.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Can you tell me the number of your post that has the link. It sounds to me like you are taking one of the remarks out of context…. You can draw the inference that an alert might suggest a cadaver had been present at one point in time…. You can’t draw from that that a particular person is dead and that it was their corpse that was present at some point. Everyone agrees that the dogs are not infallible… therefore you can’t use the alerts alone to prrve anything. They are indicative that evidence might be found. I don’t recall Harrison claiming differently. I’d like to read the entire article you are quoting from.

Do us a favour and point that out to Amaral because that is EXACTLY what he did do.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

The alerts by the dogs added absolutely nothing to the investigation.. It was shameful. Amaral and the PJ didn't understand

I disagree. It wasn’t shameful using the UK dogs even if, as it turned out, the evidence collected was “inconclusive” so ultimately added nothing to the case. It’s not shameful at all to employ such methods in the circumstances.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I've posted it today.. On one hand he says no inference can be drawn.. Then he says it may indicate a cadaver had been there.. He's drawing an inference.

That's factual.  I point out which posts are factual and which ate opinion.
I'm convinced based on lots that the alerts ate totally useless in this case.....same as in Jersey where Grime was paid a fortune after showing  Harper a video of the dogs in Luz. ...then twice alerting to the coconut she'll.. An absolute joke. Imo

The bottom line is Eddie has made very little contribution in solving cases.. In his whole career.  It's all hype imo

I'm not convinced that coconut reference is as clear cut as you like to portray. There were, reportedly, some irregularities in the handling of the specimen. Also coconut shell doesn't contain "collagen" but this debate should probably be elsewhere.

[Mr Gray]

I disagree. It wasn’t shameful using the UK dogs even if, as it turned out, the evidence collected was “inconclusive” so ultimately added nothing to the case. It’s not shameful at all to employ such methods in the circumstances.

I never said it was shameful to use thebdogs but shameful the PJ. Never understood the alerts

[Mr Gray]

I'm not convinced that coconut reference is as clear cut as you like to portray. There were, reportedly, some irregularities in the handling of the specimen. Also coconut shell doesn't contain "collagen" but this debate should probably be elsewhere.

I'm convinced it is clear-cut.. And convinced there was never any collagen in the sample

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Do us a favour and point that out to Amaral because that is EXACTLY what he did do.

No, he realised the results were "inconclusive" in terms of cementing a case of parental involvement, despite his own views. He states clearly in The Truth of the Lie; "These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.

[Brietta]

I disagree. It wasn’t shameful using the UK dogs even if, as it turned out, the evidence collected was “inconclusive” so ultimately added nothing to the case. It’s not shameful at all to employ such methods in the circumstances.

You really do like to play around with words don't you.

No-one said it was "shameful using the UK dogs"- ONLY YOU.

You are deliberately falsifying the content of members posts in a way which I think is inherently dishonest.

You really must desist.

[Eleanor]

She was questioned as a witness on 6th September and answered the questions asked. She was questioned as an arguida on 7th September and choose not to answer the questions asked on that occasion.

So what is your problem?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I never said it was shameful to use thebdogs but shameful the PJ. Never understood the alerts

Amaral understood the results of analysis on the evidence collected  were "inconclusive". He knew the evidence collected, never mind the alerts (to quote him), "do not, for the moment, constitute proof.". How is that understanding shameful?

[Eleanor]

No, he realised the results were "inconclusive" in terms of cementing a case of parental involvement, despite his own views. He states clearly in The Truth of the Lie; "These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.

Did Amaral ever get any Proof?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I'm convinced it is clear-cut.. And convinced there was never any collagen in the sample

In an email from a certain Ms Brock, in the lab, she reports after initial tests to establish if carbon dating is possible; "the sample yielded 1.6% collagen"
https://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2010/03/jar6.html

Like I said though, this is a debate for elsewhere.