Amaral's Hypothesis - credible or not?

[pathfinder73]

From the little information available on residual cadaver odour there is no way the scent would have lasted outside for three months

It would be interesting to hear Grime's opinion on this but we know that branches were collected and they were outside for more than 3 months. If a cadaver had contact with them how do you know Eddie didn't recognise the scent? They commented that the scent was fainter outside.

[Mr Gray]

It would be interesting to hear Grime's opinion on this but we know that branches were collected and they were outside for more than 3 months. If a cadaver had contact with them how do you know Eddie didn't recognise the scent? They commented that the scent was fainter outside.

Who commented because Grime said this....

'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.
 The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert.

[Carew]

Isn`t Mr Grime referring to the CSI dog`s passive alert............not Eddie, the EVR dog in that comment?

[ferryman]

It would be interesting to hear Grime's opinion on this but we know that branches were collected and they were outside for more than 3 months. If a cadaver had contact with them how do you know Eddie didn't recognise the scent? They commented that the scent was fainter outside.

Grime himself scotched that one in his rogatory interview.

The dog does not distinguish between weak or strong scents.

[Mr Gray]

Isn`t Mr Grime referring to the CSI dog`s passive alert............not Eddie, the EVR dog in that comment?

could be ..is eddie any different

[Mr Gray]

this is the whole answer...

Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

[Carew]

Yes, the EVRD is different. It`s been discussed before.

[Carana]

It would be interesting to hear Grime's opinion on this but we know that branches were collected and they were outside for more than 3 months. If a cadaver had contact with them how do you know Eddie didn't recognise the scent? They commented that the scent was fainter outside.

I had wondered at some point if she could have woken up and fallen over the balcony, but there doesn't seem to be anything to substantiate that.

[Mr Gray]

Yes, the EVRD is different. It`s been discussed before.

Why didn't they dig up the flower bed if the dog alerted

[Brietta]

It is my opinion that Dr Amaral’s premise is seriously flawed for a number of reasons, but mainly I think that his dismissal of abduction by a stranger in favour of criminal behaviour by Madeleine’s parents and friends just doesn’t hold water for me. 

For example:
If there is no evidence of an abduction taking place neither is there evidence of death. 

A death whether homicide or accident leaves a lot of evidence behind. 

Abductions leave very little.

Technically, if a person is missing that equates with use of the term "abduction" irrespective of who the perpetrator might be. The amount of discussion which has taken place on this terminology is extraordinary.
The debate isn't whether or not she was abducted but who abducted her and if she is dead or alive. 

The maxim: “an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is perhaps applicable here.

The majority of abductions leave very little if any evidence.
If a child is snatched it is unusual for it to be witnessed.  For example child murderer Robert Black abducted and killed little girls over a period of many years and was only apprehended when an alert person saw a little girl passing a van and vanishing, took the registration and reported it to the police.
http://www.murderpedia.org/male.B/b/black-robert.htm   

“All I could see were her little feet standing next to the man's. Suddenly they vanished and I saw him making movements as if he were trying to stuff something under the dashboard. He got into the van, reversed up the driveway the child had just come from and sped off towards Edinburgh.

David Herkes had the presence of mind to take the vans registration number, and then quickly rang the police.
Police cars were promptly on the scene and the van's description was radioed to officers in the area.

Herkes remembers what happened next:
"I was standing near the spot where the child had been abducted, briefing the police and the girl's distraught father about what had happened. Suddenly I saw the van again and shouted 'That's him'.
The officer dashed into the road and the van swerved to avoid him before coming to a halt.” http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/black/blood_8.html

But for that sighting and intervention there would have been no evidence of abduction other than a missing child. 
If Black’s MO had been followed, there might eventually have been evidence of death, although not necessarily.

[John]

In all honesty I do think that Amaral was influenced by the Cipriano case. He genuinely thought that he was investigating another case of parents being involved in a childs demise which because of the huge pressure on him resulted in a sort of tunnel vision scenario.

I believe he wasn't up to coordinating the Madeleine McCann case for so many reasons and should never have been given the job.  By the time the Portuguese authorities worked this all out it was too late...the damage was done. 

[Carana]

In all honesty I do think that Amaral was influenced by the Cipriano case. He genuinely thought that he was investigating another case of parents being involved in a childs demise which because of the huge pressure on him resulted in a sort of tunnel vision scenario.

I believe he wasn't up to coordinating the Madeleine McCann case for so many reasons and should never have been given the job.  By the time the Portuguese authorities worked this all out it was too late...the damage was done.

I don't always agree with you, John, but on this point I do.

Almost... as I don't agree that anything that could be construed as a confession of any kind in dubious circumstances in the absence of any verifiable corroborating evidence means anything at all. I'm aware that we totally disagree on this. In at least one case that comes to mind, the police attempted to double-check whether what was apparently a "confession" was even probable. No such thing happened in the Cipriano case. I can't think of any term other than shoe-horning in that case.

ETA: And quite possibly an attempt to replicate a scenario that had incredibly led to convictions in the McCann case.

[sadie]

The business of stating that the Smiths confirmed his theory that Gerry was Smithman and he was taking a dead Madeleine down to the little beach to bury her is a nonsense. imo

That beach vanishes at high tide with water, IIRC, about 2 feet deep over it, splashing in and moving the sand underneath it ... as tides do

Yet he goes on to say that the Mccanns removed the body and took it elsewhere.

What a load of rubbish.  Does he think we have no brains?  Or didn't he bother to check the high water conditions?

If Smithman was going down to that beach, then he was going to meet a boat ... or use a boat already there.  He was going to use the smaller boat to rendezvous with a bigger boat, possibly just over the horizon.  imo

And Gerry would not have had the local knowledhge and friends out there, or ability, to do such a thing.



Smithman was NOT Gerry

[Mr Gray]

In all honesty I do think that Amaral was influenced by the Cipriano case. He genuinely thought that he was investigating another case of parents being involved in a childs demise which because of the huge pressure on him resulted in a sort of tunnel vision scenario.

I believe he wasn't up to coordinating the Madeleine McCann case for so many reasons and should never have been given the job.  By the time the Portuguese authorities worked this all out it was too late...the damage was done.

agreed

[Brietta]

In all honesty I do think that Amaral was influenced by the Cipriano case. He genuinely thought that he was investigating another case of parents being involved in a childs demise which because of the huge pressure on him resulted in a sort of tunnel vision scenario.

I believe he wasn't up to coordinating the Madeleine McCann case for so many reasons and should never have been given the job.  By the time the Portuguese authorities worked this all out it was too late...the damage was done.

Agreed ~ and he must have been distracted and distraught at being made Arguido on the 4th May.

Under those circumstances, and given the lack of expertise he and his team had in cases of missing children I think the Portuguese authorities were careless in their expectation of what was expected of him.
I think he just worked the case which was given to him, someone higher up the chain hadn't thought it through.