Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

[Mr Gray]

No it doesn't. Read it again.

FALSE ALERTS

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog

..............perhaps he was getting a bit confused

[Robittybob1]

FALSE ALERTS

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog

..............perhaps he was getting a bit confused

one criminal case could involve multiple deployments of the cadaver dog.  If there were 6 - 7 individual searches per case 37 cases becomes 200 searches.

[Mr Gray]

one criminal case could involve multiple deployments of the cadaver dog.  If there were 6 - 7 individual searches per case 37 cases becomes 200 searches.

correct...200 searches   not 200 cases...so the dogs never solved 200 cases as amaral claimed

[G-Unit]

correct...200 searches   not 200 cases...so the dogs never solved 200 cases as amaral claimed

If you read both cites, Grime appears to have referred to both 200 cases and 200 case searches in different reports,

[Mr Gray]

If you read both cites, Grime appears to have referred to both 200 cases and 200 case searches in different reports,

so hes contradictory...

[G-Unit]

Interesting. This seems to confirm that when Grime refers to evidence he means evidence admissible in court.;

The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there

is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such

as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable

evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

[Sunny]

Interesting. This seems to confirm that when Grime refers to evidence he means evidence admissible in court.;

The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there

is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such

as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable

evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

From your quote G-Unit

Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes

That was the case in 2007 but not when David Gilroy was convicted of Suzanne Pilley's murder in 2012

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17142957




From David Gilroy's family webpage

no body, no forensic evidence of any description relating to any of the strands of evidence, no witnesses – and, when properly and clearly examined, an impossibly small window of time in which to commit the crime in the way described by the prosecution and cover it up – all leaving no trace of anything which remotely begins to stand up to a test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ .

He of course is still in jail for murder.

http://www.gilroyfamily.info/case.asp

[Robittybob1]

In the Gilroy case the cadaver dog alert was just one part in a chain of circumstantial evidence.
In the McCann situation there was not a chain of circumstantial evidence.

That is the nature of a case based on circumstantial evidence, you can't build a case on just one circumstance IMO.

[Sunny]

In the Gilroy case the cadaver dog alert was just one part in a chain of circumstantial evidence.
In the McCann situation there was not a chain of circumstantial evidence.

That is the nature of a case based on circumstantial evidence, you can't build a case on just one circumstance IMO.

Do you know what circumstantial evidence there was in the Gilroy case Rob?  This was the circumstantial evidence

THE case against David Gilroy was built wholly on circumstantial evidence pieced together by police and prosecutors, but it was enough to prove his guilt. The jury were presented with five crucial strands of evidence which enabled them to convict Gilroy of murdering Suzanne Pilley.

• Gilroy bombarded Ms Pilley with more than 400 texts and 49 phone calls between April 11 and May 3. But after she disappeared the following morning, he did not text or call his victim’s phone even once as he knew she was already dead, later telling police it was because he did not want to “interfere” in their investigation. • Gilroy had cuts and grazes to his hands and arms, which he claimed he suffered while gardening three days before Ms Pilley vanished. Forensic experts testified that they appeared more recent and matched those typically inflicted by victims of strangulation. A police photographer also spotted that he had tried to cover the wounds with make-up while she was taking pictures of them on May 7, 2010.

 • Specially trained “cadaver” dogs, which can identify the smell of human remains, showed “interest” in the boot of Gilroy’s Vauxhall Vectra and areas of the garage at IML where he would have loaded Ms Pilley’s body into the vehicle.

• Police re-staged the journey Gilroy made from Edinburgh to Lochgilphead on May 5, 2010, and found it took them around three hours. Gilroy took almost five-and-a-half hours, giving him time to dispose of the body. Vegetative matter found on his car, which also had three fractured coil springs, indicated that it had been driven “off-road”.

• Prosecutors had to present evidence that Ms Pilley was dead to prove their case. Checks established that Ms Pilley had not used her bank account, credit cards, passport or bus pass, and had never contacted friends or family after May 4, 2010.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/evidence-against-david-gilroy-1-2177407

   To my knowledge Suzanne Pilley's body has never been found.

[G-Unit]

From your quote G-Unit

Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes

That was the case in 2007 but not when David Gilroy was convicted of Suzanne Pilley's murder in 2012

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17142957




From David Gilroy's family webpage

no body, no forensic evidence of any description relating to any of the strands of evidence, no witnesses – and, when properly and clearly examined, an impossibly small window of time in which to commit the crime in the way described by the prosecution and cover it up – all leaving no trace of anything which remotely begins to stand up to a test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ .

He of course is still in jail for murder.

http://www.gilroyfamily.info/case.asp

I have only ever argued that any police investigation would keep the dog alerts in mind as possible clues because the idea that the police would ignore them because no forensics were found isn't feasible imo. 

In the Gilroy case dog alerts became part of a very complex body of circumstantial evidence.

[Brietta]

I have only ever argued that any police investigation would keep the dog alerts in mind as possible clues because the idea that the police would ignore them because no forensics were found isn't feasible imo. 

In the Gilroy case dog alerts became part of a very complex body of circumstantial evidence.

Exactly so ... evidence was led which indicated that dogs had identified three areas of interest which supported the prosecution case of murder ... along with a substantial body of evidence painstakingly collected by the police.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7875.msg375534#msg375534

Part of the CCTV evidence produced in court included evidence tracking Suzanne Pilley's journey to work on the morning of her disappearance and Gilroy's suspicious behaviour around the work's garage that day.

Snip
Gilroy knew there were no CCTV cameras at the place where he and Pilley worked.

However, CCTV cameras on properties outside the building show him going in and out of the basement garage.

The man who quickly became a suspect had arrived at work by bus but later made excuses to go home and collect his car.

Later he was caught by CCTV having just bought four air fresheners.

Police believe Gilroy lured Suzanne to the basement and killed her.

He then hid her body in a stairwell before later transferring it to the boot of his car.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17727255

There was NO evidence of any kind recovered against anyone in Pria da Luz.

[Mr Gray]

I have only ever argued that any police investigation would keep the dog alerts in mind as possible clues because the idea that the police would ignore them because no forensics were found isn't feasible imo. 

In the Gilroy case dog alerts became part of a very complex body of circumstantial evidence.

I have never suggested the alerts be ignored.....they should be evaluate and any conclusions drawn

[slartibartfast]

I have never suggested the alerts be ignored.....they should be evaluate and any conclusions drawn

You said they had no value? Why would you evaluate something with no value?

[Eleanor]

You said they had no value? Why would you evaluate something with no value?

They were evaluated and found to have no value.

[barrier]

They were evaluated and found to have no value.

Up until what point.