The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.

[Lyall]

I don't read the tabloids full stop...my arguments are based on written statements..grime......and live television statements redwood, amarals lawyer

TV statements!

Apart from those Mr Redwood (and GA's lawyer) naturally agreed with the AG in 2008, who also said evidence was insufficient to determine the nature of the crime.

[Mr Gray]

TV statements!

Apart from those Mr Redwood (and GA's lawyer) naturally agreed with the AG in 2008, who also said evidence was insufficient to determine the nature of the crime.

They both went further than the AG report and stated that maddie may still be alive

[Lyall]

They both went further than the AG report and stated that maddie may still be alive

Nope, it's not an inch further.

[Mr Gray]

Nope, it's not an inch further.

so none of them believe the dogs

[Lyall]

so none of them believe the dogs

As you know it wasn't the reliability of the dogs that was the issue, it was the forensic results obtained afterwards. Nobody claims they were conclusive.

[Mr Gray]

What evidence is there that we know about which shows Madeleine is still alive? NONE

What evidence is there that we know about which shows Madeleine is dead? NONE

What clues are there that we know about which show Madeleine may still be alive? NONE

What clues are there that we know about which show Madeleine may be dead? THE DOGS

Conclusion.....probably dead.



Redwood's conclusion........wishful thinking!

I would agree with every one apart from the dogs... the alerts signify nothing

[pegasus]

Eddie made 10 alerts, and here 5 of those alerts are shown to all give the same intelligence.

(A) The alert in the south bedroom. This was just after Eddie sniffed at the surface of the first shelf above the floor, and therefore indicates that something was on that shelf. From PJ photos we know there was a pile of clothes on that shelf that night. Therefore, something was hidden under that pile.
(B) The 3 alerts to clothing items at Portimao. These indicate simply that those three items were in that pile and happened by chance to be the items in most direct contact. These 3 alerts do not incriminate the adult and child who happened to own those clothes. Who owns those clothes is irrelevant, because they were not wearing them.
(C) The alert attributed by handler to the toy in the villa dresser. This was actually an alert not to the toy but to the same 3 items of clothing, in a neatly folded pile which Eddie sniffs just before alerting.

So those 5 alerts all say just one simple thing = that something was concealed that night under that pile on that shelf.
Just intelligence, and opinion, not evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Just out of interest.....why do you agree with the conclusion Madeleine is probably dead, if in your opinion, there is no evidence or clues to point in this direction?

depends what you mean by evidence...the fact that maddie disappeared and has not been seen again is evidence that points to the fact that she may well have died..im sure tthe mccanns believe this too....however there is no proof that she is dead so there is a slim chance she is still alive

[Mr Gray]

Is that your attempt at a clear answer?

perfectly clear to me

[pegasus]

I think the problem you have is not with the dogs but the location the dogs alerted. If the dogs only alerted 100 yards away then maybe you would be less inclined to dismiss their findings. The problem with the dogs alerting in the apartment and on clothing is that in order for you to blindly back the McCanns you have no choice but to dismiss the dogs previous good work because otherwise there are too many unanswered questions.

Precisely. Understand the enemy. They have no choice, given 10 EVRD alerts all directly associated, but to rubbish all EVRDs period. Point out a stunning success, like the dog who solved the recent attic case single handed, and they have no option but to ignore or rubbish it.

[a.baker]

The dogs have no evidential value without corroborating evidence. There is a missing child with no evidence that she was abducted by a stranger. Is that then not evidence in itself?

[icabodcrane]

The dogs have no evidential value without corroborating evidence. There is a missing child with no evidence that she was abducted by a stranger. Is that then not evidence in itself?

You make an excellent point amanda

A three year old  child is reported missing by her parents 

A dog who is trained to bark when he detects the scent of death, barks in the apartment where the missing child was last seen  alive  (  by the parents who reported her missing  )

The child is never seen again

There is simply no reason to  presume  the dog was mistaken  ...   nothing in this story suggests that he was

[Benice]

Quote from: Benice on February 18, 2014, 06:52:52 PM
I don't think a washing machine is airtight once the door is closed.  There are the openings at the top where the powder and conditioner are placed which prevent that - and from where odours would escape - and be detected by a dog.

Eau de Desperation anyone?

Are you being serious?  IIRC your claim was that as the washing machine door was airtight no cadaver odour could escape from the washing machine.  That is clearly not true as cadaverscent could escape from the drawer at the top of the washing machine into the surrounding air.      Isn't it one of the 'sceptics' arguments that in the car park Eddie could detect odour in the air from several metres away from the Renault?   Doesn't Grime say that cadaverscent drifts?

You can sneer as much as you like - it doesn't alter the fact that you were wrong.

Neither does it alter the fact that Eddie failed to alert to several articles of clothing in the villa which were later claimed to have cadaverscent on them. 

[Benice]

You make an excellent point amanda

A three year old  child is reported missing by her parents 

A dog who is trained to bark when he detects the scent of death, barks in the apartment where the missing child was last seen  alive  (  by the parents who reported her missing  )

The child is never seen again

There is simply no reason to  presume  the dog was mistaken  ...   nothing in this story suggests that he was

I for one have never presumed that Eddie was mistaken.  What I object to is the claim made that because he alerted then someone MUST have died there  - when Grime makes it very clear that there are various innocent reasons why the dog would alert - and without corroborating evidence which proves a body was there  -   i.e. a confession maybe  - or the discovery of a dead body elsewhere, then an alert on its own is not proof that a dead body was ever in that spot. 

[icabodcrane]

I for one have never presumed that Eddie was mistaken.  What I object to is the claim made that because he alerted then someone MUST have died there  - when Grime makes it very clear that there are various innocent reasons why the dog would alert - and without corroborating evidence which proves a body was there  -   i.e. a confession maybe  - or the discovery of a dead body elsewhere, then an alert on its own is not proof that a dead body was ever in that spot.

A three year old child was reported missing,  never to be seen again,  and a dog trained to bark at the smell of death barked in the flat where she was last seen alive

Unless evidence is found that the little girl did  not  die in that apartment,  then it is simply not possible to dismiss the indications given by  the dog

*edited to add*

As far as we know,  the dog may have been accurate in his alerts  and the missing child did    die in the apartment   

There is nothing,  by way of evidence   (  apart from her parents'  assertions  )  to say she did not