Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do they lie.? how do they do that? did they lie in the McCann case?  you have no expert knowledge about those particular dogs at all. To say it is stupid to say dogs don't lie would be pretentious on your part.

Not at all.  Dogs do lie - on the ground when resting or sleeping, however dogs have no concept of honesty so cannot choose whether or not to deceive, that's why it's as stupid as saying "ask the dogs" because as we know dogs can't talk either, though some do believe that when a trained dog barks it's saying "there used to be a body here". When that happens they may be correct, they may be not, we have no way of knowing for certain either way without supporting evidence.  .

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps as strange as thinking that dogs are capable of lying.

I don't know anyone who believes that, do you?

[slartibartfast]

I don't know anyone who believes that, do you?

Well as you said it was stupid, one would have to assume you believe it?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well as you said it was stupid, one would have to assume you believe it?

I said "dogs don't lie" is a stupid phrase because dogs CAN'T lie!  I'm not sure why you think I think they do.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Shucks.  I've got to eat some humble pie here.  It seems I was wrong.  Dogs do lie after all!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201703/do-dogs-ever-lie-or-try-deceive-people

[Carana]

Shucks.  I've got to eat some humble pie here.  It seems I was wrong.  Dogs do lie after all!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201703/do-dogs-ever-lie-or-try-deceive-people

I hadn't read that before. lol

[John]

Shucks.  I've got to eat some humble pie here.  It seems I was wrong.  Dogs do lie after all!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201703/do-dogs-ever-lie-or-try-deceive-people

Dogs are driven by their own self interest and the need to please.  They do not have the capability to deceive or lie.

[Robittybob1]

Dogs are driven by their own self interest and the need to please.  They do not have the capability to deceive or lie.

That experiment really showed that dogs can think in terms of self interest.  Isn't that why humans lie as well?

Why would Eddie lie about finding a cadaver odour alert.  Can he tell the difference between a training exercise and an actual case?  If he barked on a training day at the wrong place he would not get a reward for barking at the wrong time.  Did you see Eddie getting any rewards for barking during the examination of the apartments?  I didn't.  So what sort of message is that being given to Eddie?  Will he have been thinking "could I be wrong?"  Maybe he gets the reward at the end of the day only.

[G-Unit]

It's not an insult it's my opinion... You think Gerry was angry because he couldn't answer the question... When in reality his, anger was understandable as he had lost his daughter...
Your hatred is palpable...IMO... Do you have no sympathy for them... You don't... IMO... Which to me is very odd

Your opinion being that I have difficulty understanding something which you, being more perceptive than me, can. Gerry McCann refused to answer the questions and, with no mention of being upset he explained;

"The place to have those discussions is in the judicial and legal environment where they can be properly assessed and dealt with within the bounds of the law

So there you have it. 'Judicial secrecy', their previous reason/excuse for not answering questions, may have ended, but it's been replaced by another reason/excuse. Gerry McCann stated their position very clearly;

the Portuguese judiciary have agreed that there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead or that we were involved....."If people accept that, then they will accept that Madeleine is missing and can still be found."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm

It's not quite true, of course, what Gerry McCann said. Suspicions remained and 'absolutely no evidence' was actually 'insufficient evidence', which the Portuguese people understood and which the SC officially clarified
again years later.

Gerry McCann was asking the Portuguese people to accept, without question, his version of the conclusions of the investigation.

As Sandra Felgueiras said;

 "It is two-and-a-half years after Madeleine disappeared and this was the first time they talked to us in a big interview since the files were closed. I think I should feel free and they should feel free to talk about it. It would be the only chance to clear up the rumours."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm

A chance which the McCanns didn't take.

I do have sympathy for the McCanns, but my reasons are probably very different from yours.

[Mr Gray]

Your opinion being that I have difficulty understanding something which you, being more perceptive than me, can. Gerry McCann refused to answer the questions and, with no mention of being upset he explained;

"The place to have those discussions is in the judicial and legal environment where they can be properly assessed and dealt with within the bounds of the law

So there you have it. 'Judicial secrecy', their previous reason/excuse for not answering questions, may have ended, but it's been replaced by another reason/excuse. Gerry McCann stated their position very clearly;

the Portuguese judiciary have agreed that there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead or that we were involved....."If people accept that, then they will accept that Madeleine is missing and can still be found."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm

It's not quite true, of course, what Gerry McCann said. Suspicions remained and 'absolutely no evidence' was actually 'insufficient evidence', which the Portuguese people understood and which the SC officially clarified
again years later.

Gerry McCann was asking the Portuguese people to accept, without question, his version of the conclusions of the investigation.

As Sandra Felgueiras said;

 "It is two-and-a-half years after Madeleine disappeared and this was the first time they talked to us in a big interview since the files were closed. I think I should feel free and they should feel free to talk about it. It would be the only chance to clear up the rumours."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm

A chance which the McCanns didn't take.

I do have sympathy for the McCanns, but my reasons are probably very different from yours.

I believe the archiving report stated ..no evidence....there is not much prospect of understanding the truth re the dogs when amaral claims in his book that eddie discovered a body under a slab of concrete in jersey..totally untrue..

a tv interview is not the place to discuss the evidence in the case...do you realy think it would be possible to understand the dog alerts when ther has been endless discussion here and still no agreement...do you think Gerry could have settled it in a few sentences

[G-Unit]

I believe the archiving report stated ..no evidence....there is not much prospect of understanding the truth re the dogs when amaral claims in his book that eddie discovered a body under a slab of concrete in jersey..totally untrue..

a tv interview is not the place to discuss the evidence in the case...do you realy think it would be possible to understand the dog alerts when ther has been endless discussion here and still no agreement...do you think Gerry could have settled it in a few sentences

I could argue, but I don't need to. It's well known now what weight the archiving report carried, so belive what you like.

In my opinion a sincere and reasonable attempt to answer Sandra's questions would have been far more likely to persuade the Portuguese public to put their trust in the couple and to help them than the response I saw.

[Carana]

I could argue, but I don't need to. It's well known now what weight the archiving report carried, so belive what you like.

In my opinion a sincere and reasonable attempt to answer Sandra's questions would have been far more likely to persuade the Portuguese public to put their trust in the couple and to help them than the response I saw.

What did Sandra actually ask?

[Mr Gray]

I could argue, but I don't need to. It's well known now what weight the archiving report carried, so belive what you like.

In my opinion a sincere and reasonable attempt to answer Sandra's questions would have been far more likely to persuade the Portuguese public to put their trust in the couple and to help them than the response I saw.

I'm sure anything Gerry said would have been pulled apart... There had been that many lies, told in the Portuguese press... That anything the mccanns said would have made no difference...

It would be impossible  to have any valued discussion are the dogs... The alerts have no evidential value according to the experts but you don't accept that

[byron]

What did Sandra actually ask?

Comment from Sandra F

RB: One big problem is only the Portuguese authorities can re-open the case. Sandra Felgueiras is one of Portugal’s leading TV presenters and has covered the McCann story from the start. With her own nightly news show she’s watched Portuguese public support shift away from the McCanns.

SANDRA FELGUEIRAS: They were following the case as it was a big movie. So if you start saying three months later from her disappearance that maybe the McCanns are involved people start thinking, “Oh my God, those guys, the same that were asking for help, I gave them money. I tried to help them and now they must be involved. The police is saying that.” And peoples minds changed and I never felt really that the Portuguese were likely to give a chance to the McCanns again.

[G-Unit]

What did Sandra actually ask?

There's a transcript here;

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/31NOV9/Independent_ie_04_11-09.htm

or the interview can be seen here choose your own video;

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ask+the+dogs+sandra