Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Robittybob1]

I think posters, are making the mistake of assuming they understand what the, Portuguese court mean by proven facts..... They certainly are not proven facts as, we understand the term... More like what the prosecution believe to be true and on what they base their case... It's then up yo the defense to dispute them but this, can only be done at a criminal trial.... That's why the judge would not let Gerry question them

well you can make that suggestion, but is it a indisputable fact?

[Mr Gray]

well you can make that suggestion, but is it a indisputable fact?

It is an indisputable  fact that the cadaver alerts are not proven... 100%

[Robittybob1]

It is an indisputable  fact that the cadaver alertsvare not proven... 100%

Indisputable fact that there were cadaver dog alerts, by dogs who are trained to alert to cadaver odour.

[Mr Gray]

Indisputable fact that there were cadaver dog alerts, by dogs who are trained to alert to cadaver odour.

No... One dog... Not dogs... And by a dog that alerts to their things apart from cadaver... Plus, the, alerts care not confirmed or proven

[Robittybob1]

No... One dog... Not dogs... And by a dog that alerts to their things apart from cadaver... Plus, the, alerts care not confirmed or Provence

Sorry 1 cadaver dog and 1 CSI dog. 

[Mr Gray]

Sorry 1 cadaver dog and 1 CSI dog.

2 cadaver dogs giving the same alert independently in the same spot would be a totally different  situation... Perhaps I could give grime some advice.. With different handlers

[Robittybob1]

2 cadaver dogs giving the same alert independently in the same spot would be a totally different  situation... Perhaps I could give grime some advice.. With different handlers

It would be a matter of expense,  they don't come cheap.

[G-Unit]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm (10th September 2007)
snipped
Nevertheless, before the Media they kept (and keep) declaring their hope on finding their daughter alive: the first time that the hypothesis of the death of the little girl was raised it was, effectively, suggested by the McCann.

Although maintaining all the lines of the investigation opened it was, nevertheless, decided to advance in the direction of a new inspection to the local where the girl disappeared.
The inspection technique is frequently used in the United Kingdom and consists on the use of dogs especially trained.

As it's natural it is the dog's olfact the 'sense' used. In the case of this 'sense' the difference between the human and the dog is 5 million cells to 200 millions.

It must be highlighted that the resource to this kind of inspection is frequent in the UK and the success rate is 100%.

One of the dogs is trained to detect the odour of cadaver and the other to identify vestiges of human blood.

We refer now that the location of the cadaver odours signifies that physically the body (cadaver) is not on the place, marked by the dog, but certainly it has been there, as long as the dog signals it.

As it can be verified from the 'Autos', in the inquiry, the dogs inspected the locales and objects with the results described below.

All the inspections were recorded in sound and image and were directed by our British colleagues that accompanied the dogs.

Among the great number of objects and locales inspected, the dogs marked the following places:
1. Apartment 5 A, Ocean Club resort, the place from where the child disappeared
1.1. Cadaver odour
* Master bedroom, in a corner, by the wardrobe
* Living room, behind the sofa, by the side window
1.2. Blood dog:
* Living room behind the sofa, close to the lateral window (on the same spot signalled by the cadaver dog);
2. Front garden to the apartment 5A
2.1. Cadaver dog
* Flower bed (the dog handler commented on the 'lightness' of the odor)
3. Apartments where the rest of the group were staying
* NOTHING was detected by the dogs
4. Actual residence of the McCann
* NOTHING was detected on the house by any of the dogs
5. At Aldeia da Luz
* NOTHING was detected by any of the dogs
6. Clothes and belongings of McCann family
6.1. Cadaver dog:
* 2 pieces of clothing of Kate McCann
* One piece of Madeleine McCann
* Madeleine's soft toy
* The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann
* It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
7. Vehicle used by the McCann family
7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the booth
7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the booth
8. Car used by a family friend that was staying in the same resort, in some of the same days
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs
9. All the cars used by the arguido Robert Murat and the people that are close to him
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs.

(In a total of 10 cars the cadaver dog and the blood dog only marked the car of the McCann family, rented at May 27th)

The places and the pieces marked and signaled by the blood dog are being subjected to forensic exams, part of which are already concluded.

Not less relevant is the refinement of the results that point towards Madeleine's DNA as being present at the apartment 5A behind the sofa, a place marked by the cadaver and the blood dog. In every place marked by the blood dog it was confirmed there was DNA.
================================================================

It is an undisputed fact that there is a record in the files from the original investigation, during Amaral's time in charge, stating that the dog alerted to cadaver. Rightly or wrongly, if the book is a reflection of the investigation, then the alert to cadaver is a fact within itself but not necessarily the truth of the matter.

That's what I thought it was all about, that the book matched the files. Whether what the files and the book said was true was a different question to be decided by the criminal courts.

[Carana]

@ Rob

Read Misty's post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg453083#msg453083

It's now ringing a bell that it was the TdeA report that was submitted to justify the assertion of what the dogs alerted to (not Grime documents).  That would make sense as it's quite clever: it avoids Lowe's email and Grime & Harrison's caveats.

Along the lines of what Misty pointed out, it is therefore an undisputed fact that there is a report in the investigation that makes that claim, and Amaral's defence was that he was only discussing the contents of the investigation up to when he left (in the book and documentary).

The McCanns could have complained that Amaral was going around claiming that the McCanns were Martians and that this was causing harm. Amaral's defence was that there is a report to that effect in the investigation, which is true. It doesn't matter if the reasoning was that e.g., someone had heard the McCannns had mentioned life on Mars, were therefore homesick and therefore Martians.

The judge's position was that it was true that there was a report to that effect (undisputable fact), and that therefore Amaral's claim was valid.

What I haven't worked out is whether the McCanns' lawyer could have counter-submitted Lowe's email or not (that at least had arrived prior to Amaral being booted). That would require wading through the Civil Procedural Code all over again, and I'm not sure I have the energy to do that, at least not today.

Anyway, the bottom line, IMO, is that it's not correct to state that a judge had ruled that the dogs had indisputably reacted to x or y, just that there was indeed a statement to that effect in the files.

[Brietta]

In my opinion it is an awesome thing to determine as sceptics do that the indications made by one animal at a supposed scene of crime set the marker as far as evidence is concerned.

Alfie found Zampo who prolifically assisted police in confirming many of Thomas Quirk's fantasy murders where it seems there was a suspension of disbelief in all concerned if the following quote is anything to go by ...
Snip: A breakthrough seemed to come when a bone splinter was found by a ‘cadaver dog’ called Zampo at one of Quick’s murder sites. Two scientific experts who looked at it were quite sure it came from a girl of about the right age; subjected to molecular analysis, however, it was found to be a piece of fibreboard. (In the meantime it was taken as the clinching piece of evidence in one of the cases.)
 https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/12/02/bernard-porter/the-thomas-quick-affair/

Of recent cases in Britain it is evident that more than one dog is used when searching for human remains; we've watched them being taken to possible scenes of crime in news reports and we know that more than one dog was used in the search for Susanne Pilley, Shannon Mathews and in the latter searches when cadaver dogs were deployed in the village of Luz by Operation Grange.

In cases where Eddie was deployed in Britain for example the search for Attracta Harron ... more than one dog was deployed.
In my opinion it would appear that it is standard procedure to have alerts confirmed by more than one search and recovery animal.

Just as it is in America where Martin Grime has been used as an expert witness in court cases ... but never with reliance on one animal ... there is always the back up of at least one other team consisting of dog and handler.

I think the unreliability of using one dog and one handler is something which escapes the understanding of sceptics despite the fact that despite not possessing cadaver dogs per se it was a factor well understood by the GNR handlers who employed it in Luz ... and in at least one instance the officer worked 'blind' preferring not to know the location of the McCann apartment so he did not (clever Hans) his dog.

[Mr Gray]

It would be a matter of expense,  they don't come cheap.

They could do this on one or two occasions  and, see, what the, results, we're... They used, two dogs in the gilroy case, but both at the same time
If they  could show, two and independent handlers, with a, different dog... Alerted to the, same place
Without knowing  the other result... That would be, real evidence... And I don't see, a, good reason why they haven't done this

[Carana]

That's what I thought it was all about, that the book matched the files. Whether what the files and the book said was true was a different question to be decided by the criminal courts.

More or less, yes, that's my understanding as well. There were a few things that I couldn't find in the files, but I can't remember offhand what they were, and they might well be OT anyway.

An issue, IMO, was that Amaral wasn't just using selected elements of the files (as opposed to the totality), but was then extrapolating that through his interpretation of the bits he chose to highlight.

An example is how he presented the DNA issue. How many casual readers would actually question whether he  understood the facts underlying his ruminations, or would simply assume that, as a seasoned member of the "we policemen, experts" brigade, his assessment must therefore be accurate?

[Mr Gray]

@ Rob

Read Misty's post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg453083#msg453083

It's now ringing a bell that it was the TdeA report that was submitted to justify the assertion of what the dogs alerted to (not Grime documents).  That would make sense as it's quite clever: it avoids Lowe's email and Grime & Harrison's caveats.

Along the lines of what Misty pointed out, it is therefore an undisputed fact that there is a report in the investigation that makes that claim, and Amaral's defence was that he was only discussing the contents of the investigation up to when he left (in the book and documentary).

The McCanns could have complained that Amaral was going around claiming that the McCanns were Martians and that this was causing harm. Amaral's defence was that there is a report to that effect in the investigation, which is true. It doesn't matter if the reasoning was that e.g., someone had heard the McCannns had mentioned life on Mars, were therefore homesick and therefore Martians.

The judge's position was that it was true that there was a report to that effect (undisputable fact), and that therefore Amaral's claim was valid.

What I haven't worked out is whether the McCanns' lawyer could have counter-submitted Lowe's email or not (that at least had arrived prior to Amaral being booted). That would require wading through the Civil Procedural Code all over again, and I'm not sure I have the energy to do that, at least not today.

Anyway, the bottom line, IMO, is that it's not correct to state that a judge had ruled that the dogs had indisputably reacted to x or y, just that there was indeed a statement to that effect in the files.

Which is, exactly how I see it... And IMO another example of sceptics not understanding  the evidence

[Robittybob1]

They could do this on one or two occasions  and, see, what the, results, we're... They used, two dogs in the gilroy case, but both at the same time
If they  could show, two and independent handlers, with a, different dog... Alerted to the, same place
Without knowing  the other result... That would be, real evidence... And I don't see, a, good reason why they haven't done this

What if two dogs alerted at the same place you'd accept it as evidence - traitor!

[Mr Gray]

What if two dogs alerted at the same place you'd accept it as evidence - traitor!

If two dogs, alerted at the, same place with a, different  handler... And each handler having no knowledge of the other, alert then that would have to be, strong evidence and highly suggestive... But could, still be as, a result of cross contamination and not necessarily  cadaver