Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Mr Gray]

Martin Grime may tell us all one day in court what he really thinks those alerts by Eddie indicated i.e. cadaver scent.

martin grime has already told us what they mean..are you suggesting he has lied

[jassi]

martin grime has already told us what they mean..are you suggesting he has lied

He may need to be more explicit in a court, where he can be questioned.

[Carew]

Indeed that is a very important point.

That Archival report was just that, the report of the case as in mid 2008 when it was archived.

Since then there have been years of review and further investigation by both the PJ and the SY units.

It would be quite remarkable if they have not in that time reviewed very, very carefully every single aspect of the dog alerts. It is perfectly possible as well that they have re-interviewed those involved with the dog searches to clarify any issues which may have arisen from the reviews and further investigations which have been done.

For example, it would be important to review the procedures used when collecting the clothing from the McCanns villa. From the videos it is clear that those clothes were not (as we would expect under UK evidence collection guidance) individually collected in separate bags. It would be important to know precisely which items were carried from the villa in which boxes to eliminate the possibility of cross-contamination.

The fact is that the dogs can only be reliable in their indications if the procedures used to deploy them are correctly followed and if the procedures used to preserve the locations and evidence they are asked to investigate are properly followed.  I would be amazed if these issues were not a focus in the SY and PJ reviews as they are so important.

Yes......and after all those years of review SY through Andy Redwood said recently and for the first time that Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment.

Do you think that the important issues relating to the dog alerts which you mention might have contributed to that ?

[pathfinder73]

He may need to be more explicit in a court, where he can be questioned.

Thank you. He can explain everything in court.

[Estuarine]

No you miss the point...the document says the dogs alerted..we all agree with that...what good is an alert if no one knows what the alert signifies....its totally useless

Furthermore..it may be the governing document at that time...but times have changed...a bit like...themccanns are not suspects...but that could change...you might understand that

Read the first part of my original post and you will see a qualification which already covered your last sentence.My original post was made to show what the archiving report said. I did not draw or venture any opinion of my own.
You still, nevertheless, miss the point: Your opinion of what is at present the governing document is totally irrelevant because that document will stand until superseded. Do you have actual evidence that it has been superseded? as in a link to another document rather than just another of your assertions. It would of course need to be a Portuguese Judiciary document as they retain primacy in the case.
Or are you now saying the archiving report does not say what it says?

[Estuarine]

And that same archival report goes on to explain very clearly that none of the traces alerted to by the dogs were later ratified in the laboratory. Indeed this very report tells us that none of the indications that led to the McCanns being made arguidos were later confirmed or consolidated.

Rather significant conclusions, in my opinion, which should not be ignored any more than the dog alerts themselves should be ignored.

By George she's got it! (with apologies to Bernard Shaw)

[Carana]

Well I know what it suggests. It suggests that there may have been "cadaver odour" present at those places and on those close. As Martin Grime points out, it does not prove that there was such odour present in any of those places.

It is also vital to remember that there had been no preservation of the scene (either the apartment or the garden) prior to the dogs being deployed and therefore no way of knowing whether the alerts there (if they did accurately point to "cadaver odour" being present) related to the McCanns.

Nor is there any evidence to show that the alerts on the clothes could not have been due to cross-contamination as there was no attempt made to keep the clothing separate.

I would hope that all these issues have been covered by both the SY and PJ reviews of the case since 2008. I would be very surprised if they have not been.

I'd agree with that.

[Carana]

Martin Grime may tell us all one day in court what he really thinks those alerts by Eddie indicated i.e. cadaver scent.

Possibly. In the meantime what are you basing your assumptions on?

[Carew]

From Gilet:-
"Well I know what it suggests. It suggests that there may have been "cadaver odour" present at those places and on those close. As Martin Grime points out, it does not prove that there was such odour present in any of those places.

It is also vital to remember that there had been no preservation of the scene (either the apartment or the garden) prior to the dogs being deployed and therefore no way of knowing whether the alerts there (if they did accurately point to "cadaver odour" being present) related to the McCanns.

Nor is there any evidence to show that the alerts on the clothes could not have been due to cross-contamination as there was no attempt made to keep the clothing separate.

I would hope that all these issues have been covered by both the SY and PJ reviews of the case since 2008. I would be very surprised if they have not been."

I'd agree with that.

After agreeing with Gilet`s hopes that all issues associated with the alerts have been covered in the SY and PJ reviews since 2008, what do you make of SY`s recent comments about Madeleine having POSSIBLY not been alive when she left the apartment?

Do you link the recent comments with any review of the issues surrounding the dog alerts ?

Why would the comments be introduced into the mix at this time?


Edited to add POSSIBLY


*sighs*.......with apologies to Carana for missing out a word.

[jassi]

This is an important issue which has rather got lost in the endless argument over interpretation of the dog alert.
Perhaps that was the intent - distraction away from what was said by Redwood.

[Mr Gray]

He may need to be more explicit in a court, where he can be questioned.

I don't see how he can contradict what he has already said...it would make him look a very poor witness

[jassi]

I don't see how he can contradict what he has already said...it would make him look a very poor witness

I would have thought one could expand on a written report, in response to questions, without the necessity to contradict oneself.

[Mr Gray]

Thank you. He can explain everything in court.

Is there a trial then.....

[jassi]

Sadly, no sign of one and all the while, the guilty go unpunished.

[Mr Gray]

Sadly, no sign of one and all the while, the guilty go unpunished.

Thtas very sad agreed...mainly due to amaral afaiac...hopefully SY will sort it out

I don't agree ...its important to highlight failures so that the same mistakes are not repeated