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

[colombosstogey]

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.

[Rogerandout]

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.

[colombosstogey]

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.

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.....

[stephen25000]

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.

That is already known.

Forensic back-up is required.

Even if that proves inconclusive as it does in this case, it does not mean the dog's indications were wrong, does it ?

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[stephen25000]

no the alerts do dot confirm the presence of a cadaver in the flat...the pj assumed this and they were wrong

Now Davel, does the lack of forensic corroboration mean the indications of the dogs was wrong ?

[Lyall]

no the alerts do dot confirm the presence of a cadaver in the flat...the pj assumed this and they were wrong

They assumed nothing, they just behaved like police in any country would: what do you think American police do when dogs alert? ignore it?

[Rogerandout]

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.

Occam's razor does not work in the way that you state or the way that you want. The basis of Occam's razor is that of parsimony- do not unnecessarily multiply causes. Given that we KNOW from RESEARCH that dogs alert in error for many reasons, the razor suggests that introducing a body is an extra possible cause. So what it requires is that further forensic evidence is necessary before a body is thought likely.

To simplify- because it is POSSIBLE that the dogs alerted to something other than a body, Occam's Razor requires that without further evidence, that is the most parsimonious option and so should be favoured.
 

[Rogerandout]

They assumed nothing, they just behaved like police in any country would: what do you think American police do when dogs alert? ignore it?

They seek further forensic evidence.

[Redblossom]

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 it doesnt obviously,I agree, thats why these dogs are used, for intelligence at the least...indicative/suggestive.....in the same way much evidence can be without being proof....courts or no courts, some people think because its not enough for a court it means nothing...thats barmy


From Mark Harrisons report
(National Search Adviser
Homicide, Missing Persons, Mass Fatality Disasters)


The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim
Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's.
Murat's House and Garden.

The property has been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however the house and gardens may benefit from a fully invasive specialist search to preclude the presence of Madeleine McCann.
A method previously employed on similar cases has been to use the below assets.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
Deploy the CSI dog to search the house to locate any human blood.
This will act in support of the forensic examination already completed.
An inhibiting factor will be on areas where Luminol has been used.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

PS In the absence of a body, or any remains, there is no forensic corroboration for remnant body scent....the nearest you can get is another indication via blood and matchng dna to the person being sought....not always there either...

[Lyall]

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.

[Rogerandout]

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.

They used a coercive interview full of potential threats and unspoken possibilities. Nye result was that they lost the case as the McCann's decided to assert their rights and refuse to cooperate with a potential fit up.

[Montclair]

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.

[Rogerandout]

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.

Without forensic confirmation, YES.