According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Robittybob1]

It does not matter one iota but we will no doubt find out when the wagon stops rolling.
We will then have a piece of information we can do nothing constructive with.

It matters to the forum. 

[Mr Gray]

It matters to the forum.

Yes
What matters is amaral said he would  prove it and provide the evidence... He didn't... He failed

[Robittybob1]

Yes
What matters is amaral said he would  prove it and provide the evidence... He didn't... He failed

I tend to think Amaral pretended to have evidence when he didn't in an attempt to get a confession. 

[Mr Gray]

I tend to think Amaral pretended to have evidence when he didn't in an attempt to get a confession.

That may well be true but I'm referring to his claim in the documentary where he said in the next 50 minutes he would prove Maddie died in the apartment

[Robittybob1]

That may well be true but I'm referring to his claim in the documentary where he said in the next 50 minutes he would prove Maddie died in the apartment

OK and he didn't, well not to our level of proof IIRC.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It does not matter one iota but we will no doubt find out when the wagon stops rolling.
We will then have a piece of information we can do nothing constructive with.

I think you misunderstand.  Amaral claims to have supplied proof - either he did or he didn’t.  If he did then there can be no finding out at a later date, if it was proof then it must already be established as such, so...

[Mr Gray]

So Amaral thought the evidence he presented proved Maddie died in the apartment... It didn't... The man who wrote the book and has so much respect from some does not understand  the evidence

[faithlilly]

The cadaver dog was neither person specific or scent specific.

Of course a cadaver dog is scent specific.

[ShiningInLuz]

So Amaral thought the evidence he presented proved Maddie died in the apartment... It didn't... The man who wrote the book and has so much respect from some does not understand  the evidence

That's another IYO.

Many a person holds a different opinion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's another IYO.

Many a person holds a different opinion.

Proof establishes a fact, it is not an opinion.

[ShiningInLuz]

Proof establishes a fact, it is not an opinion.

Since we are dealing with a paucity of facts in certain crucial areas, we are drowning in opinions.

[sadie]

Of course a cadaver dog is scent specific.

No he wasn't.
 
He alerted to 1) dried blood from a living person as well as 2) Cadaver odour from a dead body.  He was trained on desicated blood from a living person too

He was also trained to alert to 3) dead piglets, so....... ?

[G-Unit]

No he wasn't.
 
He alerted to 1) dried blood from a living person as well as 2) Cadaver odour from a dead body.  He was trained on desicated blood from a living person too

He was also trained to alert to 3) dead piglets, so....... ?

He was trained to alert to cadaver odour and blood. Decomposing piglets were used to train him, which smell the same as decomposing humans. If he alerted and the CSI dog Keela didn't he was alerting to cadaver odour, as in the bedroom of G5A.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Since we are dealing with a paucity of facts in certain crucial areas, we are drowning in opinions.

Here’s a fact for you - Amaral failed to prove Madeleine died in the apartment, despite his contention to the contrary.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He was trained to alert to cadaver odour and blood. Decomposing piglets were used to train him, which smell the same as decomposing humans. If he alerted and the CSI dog Keela didn't he was alerting to cadaver odour, as in the bedroom of G5A.

So now it’s a fact that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent, or is that just your opinion?