Why didn't the dogs alert to any of Gerry's clothing?

[pegasus]

@Pegasus

I think the item is too large to be the pyjama bottoms.......and the markings wrong....so please continue..

Its easy to measure by scaling from items of known size and IMO this partly-visible item not too large.

[pegasus]

@Misty for example height of opening between first shelf and second shelf can be measured by scaling from Mr Amaral's height, then any item in pile can be measured from that.

[misty]

Its easy to measure by scaling from items of known size and IMO this partly-visible item not too large.

That's what I thought until I looked to the right & above the  grey item.

[misty]

@Misty for example height of opening between first shelf and second shelf can be measured by scaling from Mr Amaral's height, then any item in pile can be measured from that.

LOL Do I use the height before of after the McCanns battered him into the ground?

I make the distance between the shelves roughly 12", going by the suitcase. That makes the grey object a t-shirt, not trousers, imo.

[pegasus]

LOL Do I use the height before of after the McCanns battered him into the ground?

I make the distance between the shelves roughly 12", going by the suitcase. That makes the grey object a t-shirt, not trousers, imo.

Only part of that grey item is visible we see only the part that is not covered.
And battered Amaral isn't on the menu yet.

[misty]

Only part of that grey item is visible.

I know. I've looked & looked at it. I think it's KM's grey t-shirt or possibly her grey cargo shorts but the imagery is very poor. I honestly don't think it's the dogtooth trousers.
I will ask my son tomorrow if he has any computer software which will enhance the photo far better than on Microsoft OneNote.

[pegasus]

I know. I've looked & looked at it. I think it's KM's grey t-shirt or possibly her grey cargo shorts but the imagery is very poor. I honestly don't think it's the dogtooth trousers.
I will ask my son tomorrow if he has any computer software which will enhance the photo far better than on Microsoft OneNote.

Maybe. But we know for a fact that these trousers were not being worn that night, therefore they were either in parents bedroom wardrobes or in parents bedroom chest of drawers.

[misty]

Maybe. But we know for a fact that these trousers were not being worn that night, therefore they were either in parents bedroom wardrobes or in parents bedroom chest of drawers.

They could also possibly have been inside the washing machine.
Your logic is confusing. On another thread you said KM is wholly innocent & knows nothing, yet here you seem to be suggesting the pyjama bottoms (as shown in the photo) may have caused contamination in the wardrobe. Would you clarify for me, please?
I'm off now, lol-ing at the menu :)
Night. Pegasus.

[pegasus]

They could also possibly have been inside the washing machine.(snip)

Washing machine possible but no indication anything in there. Most likely place that night for grey item and red item would be in a pile of clothes that had been worn during 6 days of holiday.
 

[pegasus]

(snip) ... here you seem to be suggesting the pyjama bottoms (as shown in the photo) may have caused contamination in the wardrobe. ..(snip)

IMO no clothing item was a cause.

[Mr Gray]

Its been scenifically proven that it lasts not only at least three months (carpet squares study) and up to 14 months (residual scent in buildings study) both discussed ad infinitum on here for years eleanor...so u cleaning your pooches pee which is not cadaver scent btw is not a good example of "odourless"

Anyway hey? Just filling you in case youd frgotten those timngs, besides , police wouldnt waste their resources sending dogs in when they did imo

absolutely untrue and another example of a sceptic not understanding the evidence re the alerts...scientific proof requires a lot..lot more than two articles on the net with no background.

The truth is that there is no evidence of a cadaver in 5A according to Grime and that is what is important

[pathfinder73]

Maybe. But we know for a fact that these trousers were not being worn that night, therefore they were either in parents bedroom wardrobes or in parents bedroom chest of drawers.

Were you in the apartment at 6:30? One who claimed to be can't even remember what she was wearing. Maybe he needs to be reminded of what it could be.

[G-Unit]

absolutely untrue and another example of a sceptic not understanding the evidence re the alerts...scientific proof requires a lot..lot more than two articles on the net with no background.

The truth is that there is no evidence of a cadaver in 5A according to Grime and that is what is important

Eddie's barking suggests there was. There is definitely no evidence that there wasn't.

[Admin]

Could you please refrain from making personal comments towards anyone who has a different opinion.

Mr Grime is on record as stating that there is "no evidential reliability" associated with the dog alerts.  In essence, this means that although the dogs were trained to alert to substances associated with deceased persons, there is no way of knowing for sure if that is what they alerted to in this case.  He went on to state that unless the alerts are backed up by independent forensic evidence, no conclusion can be drawn from them.

[Mr Gray]

Could you please refrain from making personal comments towards anyone who has a different opinion.

Mr Grime is on record as stating that there is "no evidential reliability" associated with the dog alerts.  In essence, this means that although the dogs were trained to alert to substances associated with deceased persons, there is no way of knowing for sure if that is what they alerted to in this case.

so there is no evidence of a cadaver being in 5a...good to get that clear....hopefully posters will accept this