talking of excellent reports...the following is reported to be part of the judgement made by the appeal court that overturned the injunction...
Eddie’ marked (or signalled) cadaver odour at the following locations:
•in the McCann couple’s bedroom in Apartment 5A (from where little Madeleine disappeared), in the area next to the wardrobe;
•in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to a street below - behind a sofa
•and in an area of the garden of the same apartment.
The dog ‘Eddie’ again marked the signal of cadaver odour at these additional locations:
•at the ‘Vista do Mar’ villa, which was rented by the McCann couple after Madeleine’s disappearance, in the area of a wardrobe that contained a soft toy that had belonged to the little girl;
•on clothing that belonged to one of the applicants in these proceedings, Kate Healy, Madeleine’s mother;
•on the outside of the Renault Scenic vehicle with the registration plate number 59-DA-27, which was rented by the Mccann couple after the disappearance (next to the driver’s door), and
•on that vehicle’s key/card.
We know that this is blatantly untrue as Grime has said that the alerts are merely suggestive of cadaver odour and do not confirm the presence of cadaver odour...are we being grossly misled... I would say we are
Excellent cite, Dave, that fully illustrates the point that the court erred grievously in finding that Amaral's book is faithful to the files.
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.Mark Harrison affirms, positively, that there were
no physical remains ...
These ex-parte judgments ...
You just can't trust 'em.
