Gerry and Kate's reaction to sniffer dogs didnt make sense new ninemsn article

[stephen25000]

So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?

I can only assume you cannot understand the terms of the judgement.

[John]

I can only assume you cannot understand the terms of the judgement.

Can you blame him after ten years?

[Mr Gray]

The whole idea of bringing a cadaver dog and a CSI dog to the Algarve at great expense was to look for signs of foul play. The theory being that the dogs will detect blood or cadaver scent associated with a missing child. When a find is made it designated evidence.  If that evidence is then tested and found to be directly connected to the missing child by way of DNA profiling then allowing for other factors that evidence can become proof according to prosecutors that something untoward happened to the child before he or she went missing. Ultimately, a Court will decide if that proof is of sufficient quality to warrant a conviction in the absence of a body. There doesn't require to be a body for someone to be convicted, it all comes down to evidence and proof.

Harrison recommended the dogs to be brought in to find Maddies remains
Whatever you say the alerts are not evidence of cadaver contanimant
According to Grime and harrison

[Innominate]

So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?

From the judgement:

It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually closed, in particular because none of the clues which led to the constitution of the appellants as arguidos was subsequently confirmed or consolidated (n°15 of the proven facts).

However, even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.

and


Thus, everything points to balancing the interests at stake and following a balancing methodology adapted to the specificity of the case, in the sense of freedom of expression, which in this case requires greater protection, taking into account, also, the European legal context where we are inserted and the influence of the European jurisprudential paradigm of human rights.

IANAL but it look like Article 10 rights overrode Ariticle 8 rights.

In the UK the Defamation Act 2013 would apply. The PJ files would appear to attract 'qualified privilege', therefore a defence of honest opinion based on published facts may suceeed, rather than the need to prove the stated opinion is true. However, most would not want to take the risk of having to defend an action, and this to a certain extent chills free speech.

The Portuguese Supreme Court upheld free speech and put a spotlight of the archiving report IMO.
 

[Brietta]

As early as 1st June 2007 the NPIA's profiler recommended that the PJ should investigate Madeleine's family and friends. It was the NPIA's search adviser who recommended using Grime's dogs. None of it would have happened if the UK hadn't pushed it's way into the case. It's not correct to lay all the blame on Amaral. Encarnacao and Neves were in charge, not him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689

I don't think it is as clear cut as your post implies,

The NPIA'S profiler, Lee Rainbow, gave generic advice to the Portuguese police.  The misunderstanding that he said anything other than that arises from Amaral's lawyer's interpretation of a confidential document during the libel trial.

Snip
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'

The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.'
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz4j30EzGmT


Lee Rainbow made the report, I'll take your date of 1st June 2007 ... which very clearly did not say what Antonio Cabrita thought it said.  No-one seemed to be interested in the generic advice on procedure or doing the proper thing of clearing their feet as advised.
Interest seems to have settled on an almost racing certainty ... as Amaral outlines in his book that the profilers were intent on an individual they seemed to think fitted their profile with a 90% supposition. 

Snip
All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party. That seems to us to be a bit too easy. We think that drawing conclusions based essentially on the statement of an ex-convict is rather dangerous.
Amaral

If Lee Rainbow had advocated that British dogs were used in the search, that would appear to be advice which the investigation ignored. Ironically it seems that Madeleine's parents themselves were the catalyst for that, not the profiler ...

Snip
The couple, worried that inquiries by the Policia Judiciaria were losing momentum, asked detectives last month to re-examine the apartment where their daughter went missing and also for the use of sniffer dogs to seek fresh clues.

The subsequent use of British police-trained dogs detected the 'scent of death' on Kate's clothing, a finding that was central in the decision by the Portuguese authorities to name Madeleine McCann's parents as formal suspects. Fresh forensic tests also found new biological samples, partially matching Madeleine's DNA, in the apartment and in the parents' hire car - developments that crystallised the thesis of Portuguese police that the couple were somehow responsible for the disappearance of the four-year-old.

'The family were asking for the investigation to be more thorough,' said a source close to the McCanns.

'That is the supreme irony of the case; that it was them who were asking for the police to look harder at the evidence and re-examine all the issues.

Is that the action of a guilty couple?'

Police sources close to the investigation said yesterday that, although the sniffer dogs 'reacted' to some of Kate's clothes, 'no usable evidence' could be extracted for DNA testing, meaning there was no forensic corroboration for the dogs' reaction.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime

[Tim Invictus]

The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned. As are the DNA forensic tests which were inconclusive but did not exclude Maddie's DNA. As are the McCann's defensive reactions when questioned by the media. (Especially Gerry's disgusting "ask the dogs" response).

The fact that trained dog alerts are not accepted as forensic evidence does not mean they are not evidence against the McCanns. Dogs don't lie!

[Brietta]

Scientists can't explain how these dogs do what they do, so armchair detectives have no chance. I don't know why people find it so difficult to accept that there was something in 5A which caused the dogs to alert. There was nothing in Murat's house or any of the other apartments which triggered that response.

One thing science has worked out is the Clever Hans Effect ... and it is at this point Alfie was known to pop up with "Zampo".

Thomas Quick: the Swedish serial killer who never was
It reads like a real-life Scandinavian crime novel. In the 1990s, Thomas Quick confessed to more than 30 murders, making him Sweden's most notorious serial killer. Then, he changed his name and revealed his confessions were all faked
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder

[Brietta]

The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned. As are the DNA forensic tests which were inconclusive but did not exclude Maddie's DNA. As are the McCann's defensive reactions when questioned by the media. (Especially Gerry's disgusting "ask the dogs" response).

The fact that trained dog alerts are not accepted as forensic evidence does not mean they are not evidence against the McCanns. Dogs don't lie!

Dogs don't lie!  Neither do they speak ... forensic science has to do that for them.

[Robittybob1]

The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned. As are the DNA forensic tests which were inconclusive but did not exclude Maddie's DNA. As are the McCann's defensive reactions when questioned by the media. (Especially Gerry's disgusting "ask the dogs" response).

The fact that trained dog alerts are not accepted as forensic evidence does not mean they are not evidence against the McCanns. Dogs don't lie!

You say "The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned."  That is in your mind only.

[jassi]

You say "The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned."  That is in your mind only.

I rather think that is what Tim said   

[G-Unit]

I don't think it is as clear cut as your post implies,

The NPIA'S profiler, Lee Rainbow, gave generic advice to the Portuguese police.  The misunderstanding that he said anything other than that arises from Amaral's lawyer's interpretation of a confidential document during the libel trial.

Snip
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'

The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.'
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz4j30EzGmT


Lee Rainbow made the report, I'll take your date of 1st June 2007 ... which very clearly did not say what Antonio Cabrita thought it said.  No-one seemed to be interested in the generic advice on procedure or doing the proper thing of clearing their feet as advised.
Interest seems to have settled on an almost racing certainty ... as Amaral outlines in his book that the profilers were intent on an individual they seemed to think fitted their profile with a 90% supposition. 

Snip
All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party. That seems to us to be a bit too easy. We think that drawing conclusions based essentially on the statement of an ex-convict is rather dangerous.
Amaral

If Lee Rainbow had advocated that British dogs were used in the search, that would appear to be advice which the investigation ignored. Ironically it seems that Madeleine's parents themselves were the catalyst for that, not the profiler ...

Snip
The couple, worried that inquiries by the Policia Judiciaria were losing momentum, asked detectives last month to re-examine the apartment where their daughter went missing and also for the use of sniffer dogs to seek fresh clues.

The subsequent use of British police-trained dogs detected the 'scent of death' on Kate's clothing, a finding that was central in the decision by the Portuguese authorities to name Madeleine McCann's parents as formal suspects. Fresh forensic tests also found new biological samples, partially matching Madeleine's DNA, in the apartment and in the parents' hire car - developments that crystallised the thesis of Portuguese police that the couple were somehow responsible for the disappearance of the four-year-old.

'The family were asking for the investigation to be more thorough,' said a source close to the McCanns.

'That is the supreme irony of the case; that it was them who were asking for the police to look harder at the evidence and re-examine all the issues.

Is that the action of a guilty couple?'

Police sources close to the investigation said yesterday that, although the sniffer dogs 'reacted' to some of Kate's clothes, 'no usable evidence' could be extracted for DNA testing, meaning there was no forensic corroboration for the dogs' reaction.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime

We don't know what Lee Rainbow said because his advice wasn't in the files. The UK stopped certain information being disclosed. I think the profiler you refer to was one of the CEOP ones talking about Murat. There is no evidence that the McCanns asked the PJ to re-examine the apartment; not even in Kate's book.

[sadie]

The blood detection dog (Keela) wasn't used in the other apartments because Eddie didn't alert in them.

Eddie was just whizzed around the other apartments.  From the videos taken at the time it can be seen that Eddie needed time .... remember CCat .... and that was a false alarm ... to the folders or sheet of paper on top of the cupboard.   

I wonder who those belonged to?   ...  who put them there?

[slartibartfast]

Eddie was just whizzed around the other apartments.  From the videos taken at the time it can be seen that Eddie needed time .... remember CCat .... and that was a false alarm ... to the folders or sheet of paper on top of the cupboard.   

I wonder who those belonged to?   ...  who put them there?

We know we rely on expert handlers to understand how and when their dig react. It is not an area that the layman can realistically comment on.

[Mr Gray]

We know we rely on expert handlers to understand how and when their dig react. It is not an area that the layman can realistically comment on.

that may be your opinion and others will not agree with you....there is no rocket science involved in the training of the dog or the alerts and comment imo is totally valid. WE also have the statements of grime and Harrison which give further ground for comment

[Tim Invictus]

Just how unlucky are the McCanns?

First their beautiful daughter is abducted in freakishly improbable circumstances and then two trained cadaver/blood sniffer dogs both independently alert both in their apartment and in a garage where their hire car is placed amongst 10 vehicles!

Even sceptics of sniffer dogs agree they have a high degree of accuracy but stress they are not infallible. Even if the dogs are "notoriously inaccurate" as Gerry would have us believe; how unlucky is it that both trained dogs could have alerted wrongly .... twice! 4 out of 4 wrong!

The McCanns must be the unluckiest people on earth.