Eddie and Keela and what the alerts meant if anything.

[Eleanor]

Just delete it, I totally agree, I'm obtuse and disagreeable at the best of times, despite the fact that I just agreed.

Just behave yourself.  That will be quite enough for me.

[Holly Goodhead]

As the case wanders over block 5, block 4, Casa Liliana and the homes of four other arguidos, what would be your search parameters?

I have reason to believe a car in the family of Sergey Malinka was included in a dog search (July 2014).

Another arguido was living in LuzTur when MBM disappeared.  That's the tallest 'block' in Luz by far.  Should every apartment inside have been doggie-searched?

Your strategy has to take into account that laws in Portugal do not allow mass random searches on the off-chance, much as per Inglaterra.

I don't know anything about Portuguese law or investigatory powers/limitations but it seems to me that if investigators/prosecutors wanted to use this sort of evidence in a court of law then defence counsel would expect to see a control test that rules out other factors?   

In effect I think this does happen as the alerts in themselves are meaningless unless they can be corroborated with other evidence which is usually forensic in nature? 

[Mr Gray]

I don't know anything about Portuguese law or investigatory powers/limitations but it seems to me that if investigators/prosecutors wanted to use this sort of evidence in a court of law then defence counsel would expect to see a control test that rules out other factors?   

In effect I think this does happen as the alerts in themselves are meaningless unless they can be corroborated with other evidence which is usually forensic in nature?

According to Grime in his statement as no remains, were found the, alerts cannot be corroborated

[ShiningInLuz]

I don't know anything about Portuguese law or investigatory powers/limitations but it seems to me that if investigators/prosecutors wanted to use this sort of evidence in a court of law then defence counsel would expect to see a control test that rules out other factors?   

In effect I think this does happen as the alerts in themselves are meaningless unless they can be corroborated with other evidence which is usually forensic in nature?

OK.  I have no reason to believe the judicial forces expected or wanted to use the dog alerts in a court of law.

I think both Grime and Harrison both stated the alerts had to be corroborated by forensics.

So the forensics would have gone to trial, not the dog alerts, the handler Grime, or the search adviser Harrison.

[pathfinder73]

Molly died in 2018.

Prosecutors have introduced hundreds of pages of training records and certifications to validate the dog’s reliability.

Corcoran has worked as a full-time patrol dog handler for about nine years. She testified Thursday that in unrelated cases between 2008 and 2013, Molly made at least six alerts to the odor of human remains when no remains were found. But the dog’s alerts were later validated when suspects confessed bodies had been present where Molly marked.

https://durangoherald.com/articles/283356

[Mr Gray]

Molly died in 2018.

Prosecutors have introduced hundreds of pages of training records and certifications to validate the dog’s reliability.

Corcoran has worked as a full-time patrol dog handler for about nine years. She testified Thursday that in unrelated cases between 2008 and 2013, Molly made at least six alerts to the odor of human remains when no remains were found. But the dog’s alerts were later validated when suspects confessed bodies had been present where Molly marked.

https://durangoherald.com/articles/283356

That's called anecdotal evidence and is not accepted by science.... It's like people claiming that they've smoked 60 a day and never developed lung cancer..

[pathfinder73]

It's called circumstantial evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

OK.  I have no reason to believe the judicial forces expected or wanted to use the dog alerts in a court of law.

I think both Grime and Harrison both stated the alerts had to be corroborated by forensics.

So the forensics would have gone to trial, not the dog alerts, the handler Grime, or the search adviser Harrison.

Well I guess the alerts would go to trial in terms of indicative but this would then need to be supported by robust forensic evidence otherwise how do you rule out innocent contamination as evidenced by the Shannon Matthews case.  Realistically it would be impossible for investigators to produce a history of every item to rule out contamination. 

[Mr Gray]

It's called circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't do circumstantial evidence... It's anecdotal evidence

[The General]

Science doesn't do circumstantial evidence... It's anecdotal evidence

Criminal justice does though, which is the important aspect.

[Mr Gray]

Criminal justice does though, which is the important aspect.

Not Re the issue we were discussing which is the evidence to support the alerts... That should be scientific

If you are saying the court will accept alerts that have no basis in scientific testing.  Then that's a, weakness in the court system and will eventually  be challenged

[Robittybob1]

Dominos are doing stuff crust cadavers now are they?  Who knew!

I'll ask them when I go there tomorrow.

[Robittybob1]

Tell me you're still qualified to work as a vet. Please.

I've retired now. 

[Robittybob1]

Mirror forum myth according to folk here.

This is right.  It seems rather a lot of deaths in just one week, but who knows, it might have been flu season.

[Robittybob1]

If I was asked to explain the dog alerts, even under such supposed stress and duress, I wouldn't be scratching my head, coming up with an explanation - I'd be telling them to **** off, I haven't a clue so stop asking stupid ******* questions. If there's nothing to explain, don't explain.

But in the case against Amaral, one of the undisputed facts were the dog alerts.  I have never heard the McCanns say there never was a cadaver in the apartment.
To me a doctor and a cadaver go hand in hand.  Patients die. A doctor certifies death.