If Maddie may still be alive...what did the dog's alert to.

[Robittybob1]

Possibly, for those who don't notice inverted commas.

I had it clarified at work inverted commas don't change the meaning of the word yet quite often we think it does.
If Maddie may still be alive...what did the dog's alert to.  Well it could be Madeleine's blood (dried and putrefied) but not her cadaver. So I contend the alert was to someone else.

[Brietta]

Still, we would have, in my modest and, again I repeat, little sustained opinion, a methodological problem: in the case of Maddie, we had precise locations and objects which allowed to draw a methodology that is virtually beyond reproach as to the results observed (the dogs visited several apartments, several cars, smelled different pieces of clothing, BUT, I repeat, BUT there were control and “placebo” devices, if I am allowed to exploit these terms, so it is easier to understand).
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/paulo-sargento-why-he-makes-mccanns-so.html


What does Paulo Sargento mean by "control and “placebo” devices"?  Who knew about them?

[Alice Purjorick]

Still, we would have, in my modest and, again I repeat, little sustained opinion, a methodological problem: in the case of Maddie, we had precise locations and objects which allowed to draw a methodology that is virtually beyond reproach as to the results observed (the dogs visited several apartments, several cars, smelled different pieces of clothing, BUT, I repeat, BUT there were control and “placebo” devices, if I am allowed to exploit these terms, so it is easier to understand).
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/paulo-sargento-why-he-makes-mccanns-so.html


What does Paulo Sargento mean by "control and “placebo” devices"?  Who knew about them?

Who knows and who cares? The linked article is 5 years old and has strong Pat Brown connections. Nuff said unless we are short of things to discuss and want to do this for a laugh. Well we are and do I suppose....

[Robittybob1]

Still, we would have, in my modest and, again I repeat, little sustained opinion, a methodological problem: in the case of Maddie, we had precise locations and objects which allowed to draw a methodology that is virtually beyond reproach as to the results observed (the dogs visited several apartments, several cars, smelled different pieces of clothing, BUT, I repeat, BUT there were control and “placebo” devices, if I am allowed to exploit these terms, so it is easier to understand).
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/paulo-sargento-why-he-makes-mccanns-so.html


What does Paulo Sargento mean by "control and “placebo” devices"?  Who knew about them?

I have proven that the alert on cuddle cat was a ruse. The alert on Sean's red top seemed to be a false alert too.  So maybe these two fall into that category of placebo.  Control would be known contaminations and the expectation that Eddie would alert to these.  Maybe the video clips of them have been removed or edited out.

[Brietta]

Who knows and who cares? The linked article is 5 years old and has strong Pat Brown connections. Nuff said unless we are short of things to discuss and want to do this for a laugh. Well we are and do I suppose....

If there were "control" and "placebo" devices in place during the dog visit to Praia da Luz as stated by Paulo Sargento, in my opinion it is entirely relevant.

As you say the item is dated Friday, June 17, 2011 when there should have been no ambiguity about the significance of any interference with the English dogs.

Please note ... I for one am not laughing about the circumstances which were the excuse used to make the McCanns arguidos in their daughter's disappearance.

[Carana]

Ah, pink-blanket-as-shroud-man.

Paulo Sargento would appear to be the only person with this "knowledge" of controls and placebos. There's no such thing in the files, AFAIK.

[Brietta]

Ah, pink-blanket-as-shroud-man.

Paulo Sargento would appear to be the only person with this "knowledge" of controls and placebos. There's no such thing in the files, AFAIK.

If it had been known that "controls and placebos" had been in place it would have been mentioned in the Harrison and Grime reports.

Where does Sargento's "knowledge" of what must have been an illicit practice stem from ... and if his information was wrong why hasn't it been denied or corrected?

[Alice Purjorick]

If there were "control" and "placebo" devices in place during the dog visit to Praia da Luz as stated by Paulo Sargento, in my opinion it is entirely relevant.

As you say the item is dated Friday, June 17, 2011 when there should have been no ambiguity about the significance of any interference with the English dogs.

Please note ... I for one am not laughing about the circumstances which were the excuse used to make the McCanns arguidos in their daughter's disappearance.

The fact they were ostensibly the last people to see her[MM] would have been enough in England and Wales for an interview under caution which is tantamount to the same thing as "arguido".
Look at it as the cops doing what they were paid to do rather than a gross affront.

[ferryman]

Still, we would have, in my modest and, again I repeat, little sustained opinion, a methodological problem: in the case of Maddie, we had precise locations and objects which allowed to draw a methodology that is virtually beyond reproach as to the results observed (the dogs visited several apartments, several cars, smelled different pieces of clothing, BUT, I repeat, BUT there were control and “placebo” devices, if I am allowed to exploit these terms, so it is easier to understand).
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/paulo-sargento-why-he-makes-mccanns-so.html


What does Paulo Sargento mean by "control and “placebo” devices"?  Who knew about them?

In a sense, Sargento is right.  Lots of cars, as it happens, all placebos.

Lots of items of clothing, only some picked up in his mouth by Eddie; all ignored by Keela, therefore all placebos; cuddle-cat (ahem).  Amost certainly a placebo. 

[Brietta]

The fact they were ostensibly the last people to see her[MM] would have been enough in England and Wales for an interview under caution which is tantamount to the same thing as "arguido".
Look at it as the cops doing what they were paid to do rather than a gross affront.

Blunder upon blunder.

Quote
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.  Goncalo Amaral
End quote

Great store was set upon Eddie's 'alerts' in Praia da Luz, to the extent that they were used justify making Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in her disappearance.
A total misunderstanding of how the dogs are actually used.

The case coordinator at the time seems extraordinarily anxious to perpetuate that misunderstanding by writing a follow up of his interpretation of Eddie's 'alerts' in Haute de la Garenne in Jersey.

Now Paulo Sargento has put it on record that "controls and placebos" such as might be used in a training exercise were used while Eddie was working in the field in Praia da Luz.

Neither Harrison or Grime made mention of that in their reports ... so as far as they are concerned, that scenario just did not happen.

Who was responsible for interfering with the dogs' inspection by doing as Sargento asserts and introducing "controls and placebos" to the crime scene they were working?

[ferryman]

Blunder upon blunder.

Quote
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.  Goncalo Amaral
End quote

Great store was set upon Eddie's 'alerts' in Praia da Luz, to the extent that they were used justify making Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in her disappearance.
A total misunderstanding of how the dogs are actually used.

The case coordinator at the time seems extraordinarily anxious to perpetuate that misunderstanding by writing a follow up of his interpretation of Eddie's 'alerts' in Haute de la Garenne in Jersey.

Now Paulo Sargento has put it on record that "controls and placebos" such as might be used in a training exercise were used while Eddie was working in the field in Praia da Luz.

Neither Harrison or Grime made mention of that in their reports ... so as far as they are concerned, that scenario just did not happen.

Who was responsible for interfering with the dogs' inspection by doing as Sargento asserts and introducing "controls and placebos" to the crime scene they were working?

A (minor) quibble with the one word I highlight.

I think the (more) apt word, there, would be were.

Even though are also fits, though in a sense less important (alright, then, just this once): in my opinion  ....

[Alice Purjorick]

Blunder upon blunder.

Quote
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.  Goncalo Amaral
End quote

Great store was set upon Eddie's 'alerts' in Praia da Luz, to the extent that they were used justify making Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in her disappearance.
A total misunderstanding of how the dogs are actually used.

The case coordinator at the time seems extraordinarily anxious to perpetuate that misunderstanding by writing a follow up of his interpretation of Eddie's 'alerts' in Haute de la Garenne in Jersey.

Now Paulo Sargento has put it on record that "controls and placebos" such as might be used in a training exercise were used while Eddie was working in the field in Praia da Luz.

Neither Harrison or Grime made mention of that in their reports ... so as far as they are concerned, that scenario just did not happen.

Who was responsible for interfering with the dogs' inspection by doing as Sargento asserts and introducing "controls and placebos" to the crime scene they were working?

How does this materially affect the content of the post to which it purports to be a response?

[ferryman]

The fact they were ostensibly the last people to see her[MM] would have been enough in England and Wales for an interview under caution which is tantamount to the same thing as "arguido".
Look at it as the cops doing what they were paid to do rather than a gross affront.

It never occurred to the PJ to suspect Kate and Gerry until around August/September 2007.

[ShiningInLuz]

It never occurred to the PJ to suspect Kate and Gerry until around August/September 2007.

I thought the official supporters view was that Amaral suspected them from day one, to the exclusion of all else.

OK, apart from Murat.

OK, and Malinka.

OK, and everyone else the PJ chased.

Is it now proposed that the PJ was tardy in suspecting the McCanns, or is Aug/Sep about right?  Or were they hasty?

[Robittybob1]

I thought the official supporters view was that Amaral suspected them from day one, to the exclusion of all else.

OK, apart from Murat.

OK, and Malinka.

OK, and everyone else the PJ chased.

Is it now proposed that the PJ was tardy in suspecting the McCanns, or is Aug/Sep about right?  Or were they hasty?

I tend to think it was from day two since they asked for the first interview and never followed that up. Next recorded interview was her arguido statements.  A lot of vital information was lost because it has never been recorded.
Further and more timely interviews with Kate should have happened earlier.  This excuse about her being too distraught is not shown to be true when you read and see what she was up to in the next few days. It is just a poor excuse.