Another view of dog evidence

[Carana]

@ Luz

You mentioned: "the late Director of Faro PJ". Are you sure about who made that remark?

[Luz]

Debunker, as I said I went along with your lie to get you, and I got you. I never was a moderator on any Forum and apart from this (UK Justice Forum) I never denounced or complained against anyone.

So you are making it all up. But if it makes you happy, continue.

Rubbish.

How can you have 'gone along with it' if you deny that you had nothing to do with it?

Is this relevant to the OP?
I don't think so, but it seems to be relevant to a certain way of conducting the discussions by the McCs'lovers. I  hope that people can see how the McCannites operate.

[Luz]

Hello

I've been out for some time, and without being prejudiced, I will not review the posts that have been made - please forgive me for that.

I know that dogs have been used and abused in some cases of criminal investigation in the Us, but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance. And they have been used in other cases that went to court based on their signals. There were cases of convictions for murder because of circumstantial evidence, without corpses or forensic evidence...

Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they announced her disappearance?!

There was blood that was recovered for analysis, there were fluids and hair,...but the best laboratory in the world couldn't even say if the hair was from a dead person - the blasted simplest test to do!

And what was the conclusion of the best laboratory of the world (just by chance a British one) after an elongated period of time?
First, someone from the laboratory released a report that ended being splashed in the Times considering that there was a total match between the samples of the blood by the window and Madeleine McCann. The liason officer of the PJ, Ricardo, received the same report, which was used for the interviews.

But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!

I don't buy it. I respect the professionals that did those tests and I believe that someone that signed that report was very unprofessional and unethical.


P.S. sorry for the typos and syntaxe

[AnneGuedes]

What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in a apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they announced her disappearance?!

Eddie, the EVRD, alerted outside the driver door (car key in the door compartment with blood on it) but wasn't sent into the car. Then nobody can say there was cadaver scent inside.

[debunker]

Hello

I've been out for some time, and without being prejudiced, I will not review the posts that have been made - please forgive me for that.

I know that dogs have been used and abused in some cases of criminal investigation in the Us, but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance. And they have been used in other cases that went to court based on their signals. There were cases of convictions for murder because of circumstantial evidence, without corpses or forensic evidence...

Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they an
nounced her disappearance?!

There was blood that was recovered for analysis, there were fluids and hair,...but the best laboratory in the world couldn't even say if the hair was from a dead person - the blasted simplest test to do!

And what was the conclusion of the best laboratory of the world (just by chance a British one) after an elongated period of time?
First, someone from the laboratory released a report that ended being splashed in the Times considering that there was a total match between the samples of the blood by the window and Madeleine McCann. The liason officer of the PJ, Ricardo, received the same report, which was used for the interviews.

But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!


I don't buy it. I respect the professionals that did those tests and I believe that someone that signed that report was very unprofessional and unethical.


P.S. sorry for the typos and syntaxe

All that rational argument showing how unreliable the dog evidence is, and then a pretendy pychologist drops by to show that they didn't bother to read anything.

[Luz]

You are not my client, why should I read you?!

[Luz]

@ Luz

You mentioned: "the late Director of Faro PJ". Are you sure about who made that remark?

I'm sorry, if you redirect me to the quote you are referring to I'll try to clarify. Thanks

[Carana]

Hello

I've been out for some time, and without being prejudiced, I will not review the posts that have been made - please forgive me for that.

I know that dogs have been used and abused in some cases of criminal investigation in the Us, but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance. And they have been used in other cases that went to court based on their signals. There were cases of convictions for murder because of circumstantial evidence, without corpses or forensic evidence...

Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they announced her disappearance?!

There was blood that was recovered for analysis, there were fluids and hair,...but the best laboratory in the world couldn't even say if the hair was from a dead person - the blasted simplest test to do!

And what was the conclusion of the best laboratory of the world (just by chance a British one) after an elongated period of time?
First, someone from the laboratory released a report that ended being splashed in the Times considering that there was a total match between the samples of the blood by the window and Madeleine McCann. The liason officer of the PJ, Ricardo, received the same report, which was used for the interviews.

But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!

I don't buy it. I respect the professionals that did those tests and I believe that someone that signed that report was very unprofessional and unethical.


P.S. sorry for the typos and syntaxe

Luz, I've read this several times and I'm not sure which facts you are basing your opinions on.


- The dogs "have been attributed as 100% assurance": as to what? Eddie didn't just react to corpses.

- No blood or body fluids were recovered. It's an assumption that what Keela alerted to was blood as that is all she'd been trained to alert to.

- The hair test: Corte-Real met with the FSS and there's a handover slip, signed by Viegas (ETA: from memory). Didn't the PJ/INML double-check?

- The Times article: which one?

[ferryman]

Hello

I've been out for some time, and without being prejudiced, I will not review the posts that have been made - please forgive me for that.

I know that dogs have been used and abused in some cases of criminal investigation in the Us, but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance. And they have been used in other cases that went to court based on their signals. There were cases of convictions for murder because of circumstantial evidence, without corpses or forensic evidence...

Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they an
nounced her disappearance?!

There was blood that was recovered for analysis, there were fluids and hair,...but the best laboratory in the world couldn't even say if the hair was from a dead person - the blasted simplest test to do!

And what was the conclusion of the best laboratory of the world (just by chance a British one) after an elongated period of time?
First, someone from the laboratory released a report that ended being splashed in the Times considering that there was a total match between the samples of the blood by the window and Madeleine McCann. The liason officer of the PJ, Ricardo, received the same report, which was used for the interviews.

But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!


I don't buy it. I respect the professionals that did those tests and I believe that someone that signed that report was very unprofessional and unethical.


P.S. sorry for the typos and syntaxe

All that rational argument showing how unreliable the dog evidence is, and then a pretendy pychologist drops by to show that they didn't bother to read anything.

 (sic) ... but these particular dogs; Eddie & Keela, have been attributed as 100% assurance.

No they haven't, not even by Grime.  Grime said Eddie had never alerted to food and had never alerted to the cadaver scent of a dead wild animal.  That's all.

Why discard these dogs?
What evidence do we have that they are not right that there was a cadaver, and blood in an apartment, where never had been a death before, and in a car, that was rented by the parents of a disappeared little girl, about 3 weeks after they announced her disappearance?!

We know the provenance of Eddie's reaction to the car and we know it was innocent -- spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key.

We know that Eddie erred in his, apparent, reaction to cuddle-cat, either by failing to alert when the toy was in his sight and he could pick it up, toss it in the air and play with it; or in alerting erroneously after the toy had been hidden in a cupboard.

In respect of what Amaral refers to as the "preliminary report", that was very clear that no incriminating inference could be drawn.  It said, Too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation.  In his main report, he summarises the same result without reference to Madeleine by name, but with the same words.

But surprise, surprise, days later, and after a very distraught phone call from "Stue" (our friend from LDP) the laboratory retracted and sent a totally different report a few days later - the one and only that is in the files . the happy go round "15-19" from 3 to 5 possible donors - what a brilliant Laboratory! I wonder what the analysts were doing dancing around the test tubes!

I think it is no coincidence that we don't see Stuart Prior's report on line and surely people don't still believe Amaral gave Prior a flea in his ear, then instructed him to ring the FSS and berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest.

Do they?

[debunker]

Luz- you understand neither DNA nor the Dogs. Educate yourself!

[Carana]

Popping in.

Has anyone worked out what happened to the missing hairs yet?

[Redblossom]

Carana, maybe the dogs ate them? wrong thread?
As regards the dogs that so many police forces rely on in the world, and how many cases they have been instrumental in helping to solve, I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler. No doubter seems to be asking the question, what if the cadaver dog was right and that Madeleine did die in that apartment. It is not IMO  a possibility that anyone can dismiss. It is not true that the dogs should be dismissed. It is positively irresponsible and biased.

[ferryman]

I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.

Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.

At least in the short-term he was very successful.

[DCI]

I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.

Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.

At least in the short-term he was very successful.

Martin Grime and Mark Harrison said that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Guilhermino ENCARNCAO selected and established the priorities for the search areas.

[ferryman]

What was cavalier was the way the searches were conducted