Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?

[stephen25000]

Ha!  Who wrote that?  Did they submit this with straight faces?  Where were they when all the shenanigans were going on?

Can you tell me Eleanor, precisely what is your expertise in the use of dogs in these circumstances ?

I'm sure as has been indicated  before appreciate some feedback by experts on this case. I believe John has been in Contact with Martin Grime, though it would seem unlikely he would post on here openly. Surely there is somebody out here, independent of both sides of the case, who could give their 'opinion' on how the dogs were handled and used, without the bias we have seen on here.

[Carana]

I think you might be right about The PJ.  They did use edited parts of a video.  This surely can't be legally allowed.  Although as it happens it didn't work.

As for the other case, The Judges and The Jury did gasp and find them guilty.

I'm not sure that it isn't allowed. If it was edited to bluff a confession, that might well be legal. The problem was that the PJ hadn't counted on the McCanns realising that it wasn't a blind inspection. They HAD wondered if evidence had been planted, but seemingly, upon seeing the video, they even dismissed that.

If Kate's account is true (and I have no reason to think that it isn't), the footage certainly impressed her lawyer who apparently encouraged her to consider "confessing" to a lesser offence - and he is apparently a good one. I expect that he was taken in by the "shock" footage and probably thought that he was acting in her best interests at the time.

I can quite understand how some Portuguese are convinced that the judicial system favours the "rich" over the poor and that if they had been poor Portuguese people, they would have been locked up with the keys thrown away.

I can understand some Portuguese feel that it is unfair that the McCanns were never charged, let alone had to face trial, as a poor Portuguese person with little education and with only an inadequate defence by pro bono lawyers can end up in jail for crimes that they may never have committed either.

However, the logic seems to be upside down. Why should the McCanns have been tried and found guilty even if they weren't because this may have happened to their own compatriots?

That sounds like: "If I can't have it, you can't either".

Isn't the real question about education and access to adequate defence?

People were delighted when the investigation was finally reopened. In some quarters, that delight turned sour when it turned out that the McCanns weren't suspects. Since then, there have been attempts to get it shut down again. Why? Were some people only interested in having the investigation reopened on the proviso that the McCanns were going to be charged as opposed to getting to the bottom of the truth of her disappearance?

The other mantra that suddenly popped up when it became clear that the McCanns were not about to be charged was that it's not fair that Madeleine has had more attention than other missing children. That may well be true. However, the issue - IMO - shouldn't be about decrying the attention paid to her case, but about stimulating public awareness that other missing children (or adults) ALSO need more attention.

As far as I'm aware, the McCanns HAVE tried to highlight that other missing people should have more attention paid to the cases of their missing loved ones.

[Eleanor]

@ Carana.  I thought it was illegal to use lies and distortions to trap people, although I suppose that I could be mistaken.  But it wouldn't bode well if a confession is later withdrawn.  Except in Portugal, of course.

I agree about The McCann's Lawyer.  The whole country seemed to be steeped in the power of The PJ against ordinary people, so he possibly wasn't wrong in his opinion.  But The UK had long gone past that assumption.  An assumption that Amaral seems to have missed when considering The Dog's so called Evidence.

Yes, all missing children should get more attention.  But it has been The McCanns who fought for their own child, and now others.  Well done to them.

[Eleanor]

Can you tell me Eleanor, precisely what is your expertise in the use of dogs in these circumstances ?

I'm sure as has been indicated  before appreciate some feedback by experts on this case. I believe John has been in Contact with Martin Grime, though it would seem unlikely he would post on here openly. Surely there is somebody out here, independent of both sides of the case, who could give their 'opinion' on how the dogs were handled and used, without the bias we have seen on here.

Have you watched that "Edited" Video, Stephen?  And the unedited version?  It doesn't require an expert to see that something was very wrong.

An indépendant opinion would indeed be useful, but I doubt we are going to get that since no expert would risk it, for obvious reasons.

This doesn't have much to do with the innocence or guilt of The Mccanns.  These Dog Videos would simply be useless in a Court of Law.

[stephen25000]

Have you watched that "Edited" Video, Stephen?  And the unedited version?  It doesn't require an expert to see that something was very wrong.

An indépendant opinion would indeed be useful, but I doubt we are going to get that since no expert would risk it, for obvious reasons.

This doesn't have much to do with the innocence or guilt of The Mccanns.  These Dog Videos would simply be useless in a Court of Law.

I will later.

However, the best analysis would be from someone who has no firm opinions on the case.

As it stands, whether people admit it or not, personal bias will inevitably intrude.

[Eleanor]

I will later.

However, the best analysis would be from someone who has no firm opinions on the case.

As it stands, whether people admit it or not, personal bias will inevitably intrude.

But no expert is going to give an opinion on this case.

Not sure about bias.  Do you honestly think that the likes of me haven't considered the other side of all of this? 
It is far too easy to look at the supposedly worst aspects and just accept them.  But there are things that need a closer eye, like ignoring cuddle cat, stuffing it in a cupboard and then actively encouraging the dog to find it.
Can you explain that?

[stephen25000]

But no expert is going to give an opinion on this case.

Not sure about bias.  Do you honestly think that the likes of me haven't considered the other side of all of this? 
It is far too easy to look at the supposedly worst aspects and just accept them.  But there are things that need a closer eye, like ignoring cuddle cat, stuffing it in a cupboard and then actively encouraging the dog to find it.
Can you explain that?

Three points.

I haven't watched both videos yet, but I will.

We weren't there when the videos were recorded, so observations are subjective.

An independent source is better.

[Eleanor]

Three points.

I haven't watched both videos yet, but I will.

We weren't there when the videos were recorded, so observations are subjective.

An independent source is better.

I agree with you, Stephen.  But all opinions and observations are subjective.  Well, most of them.

And I seriously want your opinion when you have watched both edited and unedited versions of The Dog Tapes.  And I won't be miffed if you come up with a different opinion to mine.  That is what this Forum is all about.

[faithlilly]

What I don't understand is why the videos and dogs  being pulled apart in this way ?

Doctored, not doctored, what does it matter and who does it matter to ? Certainly not those who have any power to take this case to a conclusion, they will have seen the originals, so who  ?

[misty]

What I don't understand is why the videos and dogs  being pulled apart in this way ?

Doctored, not doctored, what does it matter and who does it matter to ? Certainly not those who have any power to take this case to a conclusion, they will have seen the originals, so who  ?

There's a passage in "Silence of the Lambs" about where the victims' bodies were found.
"Doesn't this random scattering of the sites seem desperately random? So random, that maybe there's a pattern?"
Apply this to the cadaver odour/blood findings - the random locations were specifically chosen.

[Brietta]

There's a passage in "Silence of the Lambs" about where the victims' bodies were found.
"Doesn't this random scattering of the sites seem desperately random? So random, that maybe there's a pattern?"
Apply this to the cadaver odour/blood findings - the random locations were specifically chosen.

If so, that was nothing to do with the dogs or the handler; they did their job and found whatever was there to be found.

[misty]

If so, that was nothing to do with the dogs or the handler; they did their job and found whatever was there to be found.

I believe that is exactly what happened but I don't believe the dogs would have indicated anything if they'd been brought in almost immediately after the disappearance.
This whole case - it's all about creating illusion - the illusion that people & evidence exist which cannot be disproven by normal scientific methods alone.

[Alfred R Jones]

What I don't understand is why the videos and dogs  being pulled apart in this way ?

Doctored, not doctored, what does it matter and who does it matter to ? Certainly not those who have any power to take this case to a conclusion, they will have seen the originals, so who  ?

You may not think it important that the dog videos that have formed the central lynch-pin for the doubters case against the McCanns have been doctored but some of us do see that as significant, certainly as far as the debate about the McCanns is concerned.  I'm not really surprised that you'd rather trivialise the fact that important elements of those videos have been removed however...

[faithlilly]

You may not think it important that the dog videos that have formed the central lynch-pin for the doubters case against the McCanns have been doctored but some of us do see that as significant, certainly as far as the debate about the McCanns is concerned.  I'm not really surprised that you'd rather trivialise the fact that important elements of those videos have been removed however...

If the PJ had removed those elements I'd say the removal was very significant but as they didn't does it really warrant so much discussion ?

The only context that the removal does matter, and perhaps makes a difference, is with regard to the public's support of the McCanns but should that really be of concern when it will make not a bit of difference to the people that really matter in all this SY and the PJ ?

[ferryman]

The only context that the removal does matter, and perhaps makes a difference, is with regard to the public's support of the McCanns but should that really be of concern when it will make not a bit of difference to the people that really matter in all this SY and the PJ ?

Loosely translated that means that so long as the PJ and British police know the truth, it doesn't matter if the rest of the world is duped into believing that the dog videos reveal something incriminating/suspicious about the McCanns?

Well, I can see why you would think that ...