Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Carana]

I totally agree but it was the other stuff which convicted them and rightly so.  If they were both so innocent why did they make up the cock and bull story about killing her and hiding the body?  It really isn't the sort of thing you do if your child has been abducted or is it?

Noticeably, it was the mother who received the larger sentence for murder while brother João got a slightly reduced sentence for his involvement after the fact.

Her shoes which she wore and the merchandise she purchased from the cafe should be a clue.  Add to that the fact that she was seen walking home by a neighbour.

Arghh. LOL I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not even convinced that you really believe that.

[Angelo222]

Exactly which is what I said but my post has disSappeared?...so in this case the dog alerts remain as circumstantial evidence

That's correct but without corroboration they remain unreliable.

[Angelo222]

Arghh. LOL I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not even convinced that you really believe that.

Which parts are you disputing Carana?

[Carana]

Which parts are you disputing Carana?

How would anything I dispute be relevant to the topic thread? Or even the sub-forum for that matter.

[G-Unit]

citing individual cases is meaningless...just like quoting you smoking since you ere 15.....doesn't prove smoking is not damaging to health...or perhaps you think it does

The point, davel, is that statistics just give us probabilities. The statistics on smoking and health may tell us that x number of smokers will suffer from y number of smoking-related diseases. They can't tell us which individuals will suffer from these diseases. They can only provide the odds of an individual suffering.

By the same token, statistics relating to cadaver dogs and handlers can only tell us the odds of false alerts happening. They can't tell us anything about individual dogs and their handlers.

Science has been hugely successful because it mostly works with inanimate objects, not people.Human beings can't be studied like rocks or trees, because they think and react to the circumstances they find themselves in. Testing will affect the dog's handlers. Some may not find the testing stressful, but others will; just like exam nerves. Dogs will pick up their handler's mood, and if the handler is stressed the dog will be stressed too. Testing will not replicate the success rate of the handlers and dogs when they are working in the normal way, it will add pressure which will affect the results.

[Mr Gray]

The point, davel, is that statistics just give us probabilities. The statistics on smoking and health may tell us that x number of smokers will suffer from y number of smoking-related diseases. They can't tell us which individuals will suffer from these diseases. They can only provide the odds of an individual suffering.

By the same token, statistics relating to cadaver dogs and handlers can only tell us the odds of false alerts happening. They can't tell us anything about individual dogs and their handlers.

Science has been hugely successful because it mostly works with inanimate objects, not people.Human beings can't be studied like rocks or trees, because they think and react to the circumstances they find themselves in. Testing will affect the dog's handlers. Some may not find the testing stressful, but others will; just like exam nerves. Dogs will pick up their handler's mood, and if the handler is stressed the dog will be stressed too. Testing will not replicate the success rate of the handlers and dogs when they are working in the normal way, it will add pressure which will affect the results.

Statistics tell us that smoking is damaging to health....you may still develop lung cancer

[Alice Purjorick]

Statistics tell us that smoking is damaging to health....you may still develop lung cancer

Really? and there was me believing it was medical research.

[Alfred R Jones]

The point, davel, is that statistics just give us probabilities. The statistics on smoking and health may tell us that x number of smokers will suffer from y number of smoking-related diseases. They can't tell us which individuals will suffer from these diseases. They can only provide the odds of an individual suffering.

By the same token, statistics relating to cadaver dogs and handlers can only tell us the odds of false alerts happening. They can't tell us anything about individual dogs and their handlers.

Science has been hugely successful because it mostly works with inanimate objects, not people.Human beings can't be studied like rocks or trees, because they think and react to the circumstances they find themselves in. Testing will affect the dog's handlers. Some may not find the testing stressful, but others will; just like exam nerves. Dogs will pick up their handler's mood, and if the handler is stressed the dog will be stressed too. Testing will not replicate the success rate of the handlers and dogs when they are working in the normal way, it will add pressure which will affect the results.

Don't you think working on the most publicised missing child there has ever been might have put pressure on the handler to produce meaningful results?

[Carew]

Might the handler have been influenced by knowing that Mr Murat was already under suspicion ?

Might he therefore have been "unconsciously" inclined to "cue" or give out "tells" in order to produce meaningful results in the most publicised missing child ever ?

Might he have felt that there must have been reasons why this person was Arguido and would therefore have been influenced by knowing this?

Might the handler have considered the public /press outcry and his vilification and traducing by their supporters should the parents be "alerted to" by the dogs in any way and been influenced by this?

[OxfordBloo]

Might the handler have been influenced by knowing that Mr Murat was already under suspicion ?

Might he therefore have been "unconsciously" inclined to "cue" or give out "tells" in order to produce meaningful results in the most publicised missing child ever ?

Might he have felt that there must have been reasons why this person was Arguido and would therefore have been influenced by knowing this?

Might the handler have considered the public /press outcry and his vilification and traducing by their supporters should the parents be "alerted to" by the dogs in any way and been influenced by this?

Might he have been told by Amaral that he had the McCanns bang to rights and all he needed was some forensics to force a confession?

[Alfred R Jones]

Might the handler have been influenced by knowing that Mr Murat was already under suspicion ?

Might he therefore have been "unconsciously" inclined to "cue" or give out "tells" in order to produce meaningful results in the most publicised missing child ever ?

Might he have felt that there must have been reasons why this person was Arguido and would therefore have been influenced by knowing this?

Might the handler have considered the public /press outcry and his vilification and traducing by their supporters should the parents be "alerted to" by the dogs in any way and been influenced by this?

Might the handler have been briefed before conducting the searches by the police, who by this time had formed a very firm opinion as to what happened to Madeleine?

Might the police have privately discounted Murat's likely involvement by the time the searches took place, as there is no mention of any theory in Amaral's book as far as I know which links Murat to the McCanns in the alleged death and disposal of the child and no questions put to Gerry and Kate about any possible link to Murat during their questioning as arguidos...?

So many questions, so few answers!

[Carew]

Might the handler have been briefed before conducting the searches by the police, who by this time had formed a very firm opinion as to what happened to Madeleine?

Might the police have privately discounted Murat's likely involvement by the time the searches took place, as there is no mention of any theory in Amaral's book as far as I know which links Murat to the McCanns in the alleged death and disposal of the child and no questions put to Gerry and Kate about any possible link to Murat during their questioning as arguidos...?

So many questions, so few answers!

............and such a headache for the handler apparently having to  bear in mind the "expected outcome" and consistently cue it to the dog, without any cock-ups on the day!

Oh what a performance!

[OxfordBloo]

............and such a headache for the handler apparently having to  bear in mind the "expected outcome" and consistently cue it to the dog, without any cock-ups on the day!

Oh what a performance!

No performance.

All unconscious cueing.

[Carew]

Might he have been told by Amaral that he had the McCanns bang to rights and all he needed was some forensics to force a confession?

Might the handler...........supposing he`d been told as you say............ have possibly made different choices in his cue sites for the dog, since it would have been a conscious rather than unconscious process?

[Alice Purjorick]

Then of course there is the possibility that to the "operator" it was just another job.
Same old crap different day as we used to say.