Interesting as the interpretation of Mark Harrison's sojourn in Luz is ... it is merely another snapshot of a process of elimination which occurs when police are trying to solve a case or build a case.
Thankfully there was an element of professionalism within the Policia Judiciaria which did not make itself evident in the conduct of the primary investigation which never quite recovered from a very poor start.
For example; why the opinion of an unqualified civilian (Sylvia Batista) that Madeleine's mother's request for a priest constituted grounds for suspicion and was adopted as such by the investigating officers is extraordinary. What sort of 'proof' of anything let alone the death of a child is that on which to base a case against her parents?
**Snip
6.0. The hypothesis of death is based on the following:
a) The witness Silvia Batista, page 1977, refers that at 3:00hrs, May 4th, the couple asked for a priest, which she found strange since there was at that time any indication that the child was dead, and it is 'under those circumstances that usually the presence of a priest is demanded' (sic).
However the visit of Mark Harrison was just one step in the investigation. The visit of the specialist English dogs was another.
What is patently obvious to all but the most dogmatic ~ the visit of the dogs was to all intents and purposes a total and complete waste of time, not to mention a distraction from the importance of looking for a living child.
They failed to find Madeleine or any evidence relating to her at all. They most certainly found no evidence of her death which was evident to the PJ officers who continued working the case by following the evidence, questioning anomalies and waiting for confirmation, just as any competent investigators should.
**Snip
q) This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'
r) These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.
s) It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.
t) In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.
u) From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
v) If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
w) On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
x) Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
**Snip
e) From the mentioned above, we understand that the following recommendations must be made:
- On the hypothesis that there was death of the child, the results performed by the British Laboratory must be awaited, in order to assert what kind of vestiges were collected and if any of those can lead to the identification of Madeleine McCann's DNA profile.
- To obtain, from the trainers and supervisors of the dogs (ERVD and CSI), further enlightening about the 'marking' and the friability of their work.
- Under the hypothesis of abduction, because there are no vestiges to lead to the author, we propose the waiting for a denounce or testimony that permits to obtain new elements of proof in order to achieve an identification.
PJ-1a-1s Intelligence Analysis Report-05-02-08-PJ-Inspector-Paulo-Dias
File pages 1-3004
