Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[gilet]

So do you know precisely which clothes were contaminated and which weren't ?

Are you privy to all the forensic reports ?

What exactly are your scientific qualifications ( I'm not talking about any particular university )  ?

Did the PJ actually bother to send both the cat and the clothes to be forensically analysed? If not, why not?

[gilet]

............Or the Apt the MCanns  moved into with their clothing after leaving 5A and before the villa. Someone said that the dog handler did not know which Apt was used by the McCanns........................It was all over the news 

And the dog handler, Grime himself, claimed not to know which car belonged to the McCanns even though while he was deploying his dog all round it he could not have failed to have noticed that it was covered in posters of Madeleine. And how do I know he could not have failed? Well look at the video and see how those posters were dealt with and why.

[stephen25000]

Meanwhile in the real world, the forensics neither disproved or proved what the dogs indicated. So it is clearly possible they indicated correctly.

We now know that 'Redwood of the Yard' does consider Madeleine died in the apartment.

Mutually exclusive events ?

Most certainly not.

As to Redwood's previous stances on the case, well let's consider the police get it wrong.

[gilet]

Meanwhile in the real world, the forensics neither disproved or proved what the dogs indicated. So it is clearly possible they indicated correctly.

We now know that 'Redwood of the Yard' does consider Madeleine died in the apartment.

Mutually exclusive events ?

Most certainly not.

As to Redwood's previous stances on the case, well let's consider the police get it wrong.

We have no evidence at all that the dogs alerted to a cadaver and in particular a cadaver of the missing child.

And we also know that DCI Redwood believes that Madeleine may have been abducted.

And we know that he has stated that the parents are not involved.

Mutually exclusive events?

You don't have any proof by the way that his stance has changed because there has always been the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment or did not die in the apartment. As DCI Redwood has previously explained, she may be dead or alive.

Your assumption that there has been a change in his stance is just that, an assumption (or more curtly, a guess) because you have no proof of that claim.

[stephen25000]

The evidence  inconclusive, no more, no less.

Redwood could believe in fairies, but it doesn't make it true.

Evidence of abduction none, including forensics.

Redwood is merely chasing his tail and no doubt more red herrings to come.

Meanwhile his power to act in this case, NONE.

He is merely plodding a trail and little more.

Meanwhile  Redwood's analytical ability was shown to the full in 'she may be dead or alive'.

[gilet]

The evidence  inconclusive, no more, no less.

Redwood could believe in fairies, but it doesn't make it true.

Evidence of abduction none, including forensics.

Redwood is merely chasing his tail and no doubt more red herrings to come.

Meanwhile his power to act in this case, NONE.

He is merely plodding a trail and little more.

Oh dear. Such an attitude!

Personally, I trust he is doing the best he can to solve the case of a missing little girl who as you agree, could be alive or dead. Sorry, you can't also trust in the work of the police. Life must be so depressing for someone who has no trust.

[Mr Moderator]

We have no evidence at all that the dogs alerted to a cadaver and in particular a cadaver of the missing child.

And we also know that DCI Redwood believes that Madeleine may have been abducted.

And we know that he has stated that the parents are not involved.

Mutually exclusive events?

You don't have any proof by the way that his stance has changed because there has always been the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment or did not die in the apartment. As DCI Redwood has previously explained, she may be dead or alive.

Your assumption that there has been a change in his stance is just that, an assumption (or more curtly, a guess) because you have no proof of that claim.

Redwood has kept his options open by publicly declaring that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.   A dead child cannot be abducted.

As far as evidence of a cadaver in apartment 5a is concerned, a very experienced and most successful victim recovery dog indicated that there was.  You can choose to discount the dog alerts but it changes nothing, they existed and are documented into evidence.

[Mr Moderator]

And the dog handler, Grime himself, claimed not to know which car belonged to the McCanns even though while he was deploying his dog all round it he could not have failed to have noticed that it was covered in posters of Madeleine. And how do I know he could not have failed? Well look at the video and see how those posters were dealt with and why.

Why would Martin Grime necessarily assume that the Grand Scenic was used by the McCanns just because it had Madeleine posters on the back windows, for all he knew it was a decoy vehicle entered into the process.  You are allowing your prejudices to cloud your judgement gilet.

[Mr Gray]

Redwood has kept his options open by publicly declaring that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.   A dead child cannot be abducted.

As far as evidence of a cadaver in apartment 5a is concerned, a very experienced and most successful victim recovery dog indicated that there was.  You can choose to discount the dog alerts but it changes nothing, they existed and are documented into evidence.

You can claim what you like but it is NOT what grime said...I'll will stick with grime. Remember SY have also said that maddie may still be alive...which contradicts YOUR statement re tha dogs

[Mr Gray]

Redwood has kept his options open by publicly declaring that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.   A dead child cannot be abducted.

As far as evidence of a cadaver in apartment 5a is concerned, a very experienced and most successful victim recovery dog indicated that there was.  You can choose to discount the dog alerts but it changes nothing, they existed and are documented into evidence.

your posts are getting more bizarre....the dogs alerts are NOT evidence..according to grime

[Mr Gray]

its no wonder there are so many posts on the dogs when after seven years posters still dont understand the basics

[gilet]

Redwood has kept his options open by publicly declaring that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.   A dead child cannot be abducted.

As far as evidence of a cadaver in apartment 5a is concerned, a very experienced and most successful victim recovery dog indicated that there was.  You can choose to discount the dog alerts but it changes nothing, they existed and are documented into evidence.

But the problem is that there is no evidence that the alerts were in any way related to Madeleine McCann.

And the appalling handling of the case by the PJ, not interviewing (it would seem) prior occupants of the apartment or checking on the origin of the furniture means that other options may never be investigated.

Just because no body has ever lain in apartment 5A does not mean that cadaver scent had never been introduced into the same apartment by some other means. Do you not recall the Shannon Matthews case? Thankfully a proper check indicated the origin of the scent in that case.

Cadaver dog alerts do not automatically relate to a body as you appear to be assuming.

[Mr Moderator]

your posts are getting more bizarre....the dogs alerts are NOT evidence..according to grime

Put it this way.  If Madeleine is found dead in or near Praia da Luz are you really telling us that the dog alerts won't take on a whole new meaning?  The deployment of the dogs is now evidence in itself in this case whether you like it or not.  Why do you think Martin Grime cannot comment on this case while it is a live investigation?  Do you not understand the meaning of the term 'evidence'?

[Mr Moderator]

But the problem is that there is no evidence that the alerts were in any way related to Madeleine McCann.

And the appalling handling of the case by the PJ, not interviewing (it would seem) prior occupants of the apartment or checking on the origin of the furniture means that other options may never be investigated.

Just because no body has ever lain in apartment 5A does not mean that cadaver scent had never been introduced into the same apartment by some other means. Do you not recall the Shannon Matthews case? Thankfully a proper check indicated the origin of the scent in that case.

Cadaver dog alerts do not automatically relate to a body as you appear to be assuming.

As it stands there may or may not be a connection, the dog evidence is uncorroborated at this time.  In the Matthews case the dogs correctly alerted to a cadaver but a cadaver from other unconnected premises, cadaver scent having been introduced on second hand furniture.

I do agree though, it's just as likely that Eddie alerted to dried blood so inconsequential that Keela missed it, who's to know?

[ferryman]

Put it this way.  If Madeleine is found dead in or near Praia da Luz are you really telling us that the dog alerts won't take on a whole new meaning?  The deployment of the dogs is now evidence in itself in this case whether you like it or not.  Why do you think Martin Grime cannot comment on this case while it is a live investigation?  Do you not understand the meaning of the term 'evidence'?

Yes.

I once ordered a king-sized prawn curry in a pub that also served standard-sized prawn curries on a menu that had about 40 or 50 different meals.

Imagine my consternation when, after, about the time this pub would typically take to serve meals, a waiter turned up and served a king-sized prawn curry -- to the woman on the table adjacent to me.

She was entitled to claim it.  It was hers.  She'd ordered it and paid for it.

A very short while later, along came my curry.

Coincidences happen!