What should the PJ have done differently?

[ShiningInLuz]

What untrue rumours?  It's not a rumour to quote Amarals description of the dogs.  According to him Eddie would  alert ONLY if he found the scent of a dead body at the spot where he barked.      That is patently not true.   Not once does he mention that Eddie also alerts to blood from a living person, or that according to M. Grime there are other scenarios regarding cross-contamination which would also result in an alert. 

Amaral claims that an alert by Eddie proves that a dead body must have been there,

M. Harrison states that (because of other possible scenarios) an alert by Eddie does not prove that a dead body had been there.

So which one is correct in your opinion?

One thing that Amaral could have done differently was that just as he had instructed his officers to follow the UK police and report back their every move, he should have had his prime suspects under surveillance once they hired a car.        He would either have caught the McCanns in the act of moving a body in their car and it would have been game over  - or he would know that at no time did that happen.    What a vast difference to the case that would have made.

AIMHO

Would that be the then non-arguido McCanns and co, or the then arguido Murat and co?

Are you seriously saying Amaral should have predicted the alleged retrieval and disposal of a corpse because the McCanns hired a car?  And do so some months before the dog alerts?

And then mount 24hr surveillance for months on end?

[Carana]

Would that be the then non-arguido McCanns and co, or the then arguido Murat and co?

Are you seriously saying Amaral should have predicted the alleged retrieval and disposal of a corpse because the McCanns hired a car?  And do so some months before the dog alerts?

And then mount 24hr surveillance for months on end?

Why would a suspect need to have arguido status prior to covert police surveillance?

[ferryman]

GA talking about dog alerts:
Chap 16

These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.

So davel is wrong

Davel is right and you are cherry-picking.

[G-Unit]

What untrue rumours?  It's not a rumour to quote Amarals description of the dogs.  According to him Eddie would  alert ONLY if he found the scent of a dead body at the spot where he barked.      That is patently not true.   Not once does he mention that Eddie also alerts to blood from a living person, or that according to M. Grime there are other scenarios regarding cross-contamination which would also result in an alert. 

Amaral claims that an alert by Eddie proves that a dead body must have been there,

M. Harrison states that (because of other possible scenarios) an alert by Eddie does not prove that a dead body had been there.

So which one is correct in your opinion?

One thing that Amaral could have done differently was that just as he had instructed his officers to follow the UK police and report back their every move, he should have had his prime suspects under surveillance once they hired a car.        He would either have caught the McCanns in the act of moving a body in their car and it would have been game over  - or he would know that at no time did that happen.    What a vast difference to the case that would have made.

AIMHO

I look forward to reading your cites.

[Benice]

Would that be the then non-arguido McCanns and co, or the then arguido Murat and co?

Are you seriously saying Amaral should have predicted the alleged retrieval and disposal of a corpse because the McCanns hired a car?  And do so some months before the dog alerts?

And then mount 24hr surveillance for months on end?

The McCanns were his prime suspects.   In his opinion they had removed the body of their dead daughter from 5A and disposed of it somewhere, somehow.    The problem was he didn't where or how.

With that 'problem' in mind  - and if they were guilty as he believed -  then surely that would be enough reason to suspect that hiring a car could be connected with that previous 'disposal' in some way and certainly worth checking out.      In those circumstances covert surveillance would seem to be the obvious solution.

Whether they were arguidos or not is irrelevant IMO.    The British police were not even suspects let alone arguidos.

 

[ferryman]

I look forward to reading your cites.

Well. corroboration of the (rest) of what Benice cites coming up/

But let's start with this:

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, Truth of the Lie).

A novel description of the coconut (Eddie actually reacted to).

Amaral actually goes one 'better' (worse)! than to claim 'cadaver odour'

- From now on we have the certainty that there was a body behind the sofa before being taken into the parents' bedroom.

(Goncalo Amaral), Truth of the Lie

And because context is vital (to avoid being guilty of libel, which, at the moment, I am) I will provide it.

During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.

Mark Harrison.

[Benice]

I look forward to reading your cites.

The relevant cites have been posted so many times before - I can't believe you have missed them.

If you read Amarals book you will see for yourself how he describes the dogs.

The quote from Harrison pointing out that an alert by Eddie is not proof of the past presence of a dead body has also been posted numerous times.

If I could get into my own file I would repeat the actual quotes for you,   However thanks to AOL I can't do that at the moment.   Am having to wait for my grandson to come to the rescue of his ultra- technophobic nan.


 

[Mr Gray]

I know that, you know that, and other open-minded people know that. Those whose  wish to discredit him will continue to spread untrue rumours, sadly. That's pretty pathetic because he did make mistakes, just not the ones they think he made. 

You need to read amarals book to understand what a pigs ear he made of interpreting the evidence
You refusal to accept the truth shows how biased you are

[Alfie]

I think he understood pretty well what was going on. He wanted to find Smithman and all the PI's except one missed that completely. It took SY two years with no distractions and huge resources to arrive at the point he reached in 4 months.

I'm puzzled by your post above.  Why do you assert that no one else wanted to find Smithman apart from Amaral and what point had he reached in four months that it allegedly took the Met 2 years to arrive at?

[Alfie]

Do you have a cite please?

Why do you keep on asking for cites for things that are already well known to the point of tedium?

[ferryman]

The relevant cites have been posted so many times before - I can't believe you have missed them.

If you read Amarals book you will see for yourself how he describes the dogs.

The quote from Harrison pointing out that an alert by Eddie is not proof of the past presence of a dead body has also been posted numerous times.

If I could get into my own file I would repeat the actual quotes for you,   However thanks to AOL I can't do that at the moment.   Am having to wait for my grandson to come to the rescue of his ultra- technophobic nan.


 

Indeed.

And I have produced it (yet again!)

What are we supposed to conclude when the clear evidence of Amaral's manifest inaccuracy (at most charitable) is produced and re-produced, yet repeatedly asked for (afresh) and simply never acknowledged?

That some posters have an agenda far-removed from anything whatever to do with truth and justice (for Madeleine or the McCanns)?

[ShiningInLuz]

The McCanns were his prime suspects.   In his opinion they had removed the body of their dead daughter from 5A and disposed of it somewhere, somehow.    The problem was he didn't where or how.

With that 'problem' in mind  - and if they were guilty as he believed -  then surely that would be enough reason to suspect that hiring a car could be connected with that previous 'disposal' in some way and certainly worth checking out.      In those circumstances covert surveillance would seem to be the obvious solution.

Whether they were arguidos or not is irrelevant IMO.    The British police were not even suspects let alone arguidos.

May I ask how you think covert surveillance would have been implemented, in practical terms?

Presumably with multiple teams of plain clothes officers in unmarked cars, expert enough in covert surveillance to avoid the attention of the McCanns, those they came in contact with, and the media circus.  And all of that 24x7.

And for what?  Dog alerts that had not occurred?

Is there any instance of, say, Leicestershire Police adopting this approach?

[Mr Gray]

I know that, you know that, and other open-minded people know that. Those whose  wish to discredit him will continue to spread untrue rumours, sadly. That's pretty pathetic because he did make mistakes, just not the ones they think he made. 

Could you provide a cite for untrue rumours as per forum rules

[G-Unit]

Could you provide a cite for untrue rumours as per forum rules

You posted the bolded bit in reply to mercury;

quote from: mercury on September 25, 2016, 09:57:45 PM
I bet he was a better policeman than you think you are, hes had decades of experience,

Lol

And besides you cant peove him wrong, even if he was, so.....

i can prove he was pathetic...we all understand the dogs alerts were of no evidential reliability but he didnt...thats proof

I asked you for a cite and mercury provided one which showed you were wrong;

Quote from: G-Unit on September 25, 2016, 10:27:07 PM
Do you have a cite please?
GA talking about dog alerts:
Chap 16

These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.

So davel is wrong

I then mentioned untrue rumours, and still haven't seen a cite from you to back up your assertion.

[ferryman]

May I ask how you think covert surveillance would have been implemented, in practical terms?

Presumably with multiple teams of plain clothes officers in unmarked cars, expert enough in covert surveillance to avoid the attention of the McCanns, those they came in contact with, and the media circus.  And all of that 24x7.

And for what?  Dog alerts that had not occurred?

Is there any instance of, say, Leicestershire Police adopting this approach?

Amaral claims in his book (or is it an interview, I lose track; an interview, I think) El Mundo? that he considered the McCanns suspects from the outset (of the investigation).

He also claims (in his book) that the vehicle was used to drive Madeleine somewhere (dead) in the Renault Scenic.

Given Amaral's (professed) suspicions it seems reasonable that he would have (wanted to) place the McCanns under intense surveillance and scrutiny from the outset.

Wouldn't it?

And that he would have wanted the car traced once they'd hired it.