Author Topic: Amaral and the dogs  (Read 450349 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Davel

Amaral and the dogs
« on: May 11, 2015, 02:48:51 PM »
I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....

From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)


he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman


973

3124-3277
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 01:53:37 PM by John »
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline Carana

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2015, 08:27:31 PM »
I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....

From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)


he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman

No (IMO), I don't find the word "certainly" to be acceptable. ETA: the word "certainly" doesn't seem to appear in the original text.

On the one hand, I don't think that Grime / Harrison were clear about the limitations of the dogs, nor about the fact that no significance should be attached to alerts in the absence of corroborating forensic evidence in the "dog-selling" stage. Portugal wasn't familiar with such dogs, so I can understand in a way how Amaral & co., could have felt that they were close to hitting the "jackpot" when they did alert.

On the other hand, the caveats were clear in the reports, but Amaral seems to have ignored them. Neither did he understand the forensic results associated with those alerts, which should have been an indication that that avenue wasn't going anywhere.

I don't see how any casual reader, who assumes that the former coordinator was indeed a highly knowledgeable and seasoned expert, could fail to come to the conclusion that she did indeed die there when in reality there is no evidence to support it.

Why would anyone who believed in Amaral's "thesis" continue to be vigilant?

A tragedy of errors...

« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 01:33:31 PM by Carana »

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2015, 08:44:21 PM »
I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....

From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)


he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman
I think it's a prime example of the idiocy (or is it something darker...?) of the author.

Offline Brietta

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2015, 10:44:45 PM »
I n view of what we understand about the alerts, does anyone condone what amaral said in his book.....

From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)


he uses the word "certainly"....does anyone think this is an acceptable statement from an experienced policeman


Even considering the hard sell of the dogs combined with the desire to close the case it is still surprising the police behaved like complete amateurs.  Once the situation was explained the stubbornness with which the original misinterpretation of the dogs' alerts was promoted, to the extent it was the excuse to declare the McCanns arguido is extraordinary.

Even the highly transferable nature of the odour associated with human remains was poorly understood with people being asked about death and bleeding within the apartment not if they had been in contact with a dead person.

For example police officers were not asked if they had been in contact with bodies.
Holidaymakers more recently in residence were not asked were not asked if they had used luggage stored in a room in which a person had died ~ or suffered a recent family bereavement.
The holiday maker who was a surgical assistant was not asked what her work entailed.

Once the theory had been decided and the book written, that was it, no going back ... and the campaign proper was under way.

The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2015, 11:59:49 PM »
The original Portuguese translates into English with a quite different slant.  Roughly speaking "It was concluded that the cadaver odour could only have come from one person : MBM".

This sticks an IF into the equation.  IF it was cadaver odour THEN it came from MBM.  He's stacked up a get out of jail card if the dogs prove to be wrong in this case.

Amaral is normally a lot smarter with his choice of words than the translators who translate him into other languages.
Portelas installed. Plus Gonçalo!  And F1!  And the World Cup!

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2015, 12:14:39 AM »
The dogs gave their evidence and SY are following up on it. The dogs won't alert unless they are certain! SY will be further investigating their alerts re new forensic tests. The British police do not ignore professional British police crime dog evidence. If death did occur and the body was moved then the car boot is the obvious place to search for potential evidence. If you find any possible matching evidence in that location and other witness evidence then the police become very suspicious. They won't ignore the dog alerts in this case as recent events indicate.

Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Brietta

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2015, 12:36:14 AM »
The original Portuguese translates into English with a quite different slant.  Roughly speaking "It was concluded that the cadaver odour could only have come from one person : MBM".

This sticks an IF into the equation.  IF it was cadaver odour THEN it came from MBM.  He's stacked up a get out of jail card if the dogs prove to be wrong in this case.

Amaral is normally a lot smarter with his choice of words than the translators who translate him into other languages.

Under no circumstance is it possible to determine whose remains a VRD may be alerting to without a body being discovered.  So he may have used his words carefully but IMO not carefully enough.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Brietta

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2015, 12:40:33 AM »
The dogs gave their evidence and SY are following up on it. The dogs won't alert unless they are certain! SY will be further investigating their alerts re new forensic tests. The British police do not ignore professional British police crime dog evidence. If death did occur and the body was moved then the car boot is the obvious place to search for potential evidence. If you find any possible matching evidence in that location and other witness evidence then the police become very suspicious. They won't ignore the dog alerts in this case as recent events indicate.



Dogs do not give evidence ... they indicate places where evidence may be found ... Eddie and Keela's work in Praia da Luz uncovered no forensic evidence which implicated Madeleine McCann's parents in her disappearance.

The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2015, 02:50:13 AM »
Under no circumstance is it possible to determine whose remains a VRD may be alerting to without a body being discovered.  So he may have used his words carefully but IMO not carefully enough.
I have simply pointed out that he did not use certainly (certamente, com certezo).  He used proveniente (originating from, arising from).  Plus a construct that is poder ser (maybe, it could be, it might be).  Then he stuck in a só (only).
The translator has had a stab at what Amaral might or might not have said, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm just not getting a 'certainly' here.  I believe that 'certainly' is what the topic is about.
Portelas installed. Plus Gonçalo!  And F1!  And the World Cup!

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2015, 07:26:56 AM »
Dogs do not give evidence ... they indicate places where evidence may be found ... Eddie and Keela's work in Praia da Luz uncovered no forensic evidence which implicated Madeleine McCann's parents in her disappearance.

Go ask Adrian Prout what he thinks about Eddie. The police found no forensic evidence but put all their focus on him after Eddie's alert (they said he wasn't a suspect). Underestimate reliable and case proven police dogs at your peril. What they say publicly and what they think privately can be worlds apart.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Davel

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2015, 07:31:30 AM »
From what I can see amaral has lied to his readers. He has seriously misled them. Most of his support comes from the fact that people believe his lies.
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline Davel

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2015, 07:54:10 AM »
The original Portuguese translates into English with a quite different slant.  Roughly speaking "It was concluded that the cadaver odour could only have come from one person : MBM".

This sticks an IF into the equation.  IF it was cadaver odour THEN it came from MBM.  He's stacked up a get out of jail card if the dogs prove to be wrong in this case.

Amaral is normally a lot smarter with his choice of words than the translators who translate him into other languages.

there is no "if"  there.....it is quite clear...the cadaver odour could only have come from one person.....
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline Benice

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2015, 09:22:38 AM »
From what I can see amaral has lied to his readers. He has seriously misled them. Most of his support comes from the fact that people believe his lies.

I agree.

The fact that he gave his readers no clue whatsoever  that he had never met or spoken to Kate McCann in his life - and had only met Gerry once was blatently dishonest IMO  - as people buying his book thought they were getting a first hand account.

Similarly - his readers would have no idea that on Day One (4th May) he was busily engaged elsewhere being made an arguido himself -  as he made no mention of that either.

The rest of his book is littered with lies, half-truths, lies by omission and nasty innuendo.

To say his readers were misled - particularly about the dogs  - is putting it mildly IMO.

The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2015, 10:23:48 AM »
I have simply pointed out that he did not use certainly (certamente, com certezo).  He used proveniente (originating from, arising from).  Plus a construct that is poder ser (maybe, it could be, it might be).  Then he stuck in a só (only).
The translator has had a stab at what Amaral might or might not have said, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm just not getting a 'certainly' here.  I believe that 'certainly' is what the topic is about.
Oh well back to the drawing board  8(0(*
It's okay to reinvent the wheel, but only when you understand how the current wheel works.

Offline Carana

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2015, 11:21:00 AM »
The original Portuguese translates into English with a quite different slant.  Roughly speaking "It was concluded that the cadaver odour could only have come from one person : MBM".

This sticks an IF into the equation.  IF it was cadaver odour THEN it came from MBM.  He's stacked up a get out of jail card if the dogs prove to be wrong in this case.

Amaral is normally a lot smarter with his choice of words than the translators who translate him into other languages.

Or his editor.

But that caution went out of the window with his narration:

In the next 50 minutes I will prove that the child was not abducted and died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz (No. 41).