Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Lace]

How do you think Keela finds blood ? Do you think it has to be visible?

The blood has to be present in the area where Keela is searching.

[Robittybob1]

Would that be the case, if they found corroborating evidence.

It can only be found in the places they looked.  How many of the 17 alert places (?) did they look for corroborating evidence? 

[Robittybob1]

The blood has to be present in the area where Keela is searching.

But what does present mean?

[Mr Gray]

what that they are different.

evidence
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms:   proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More
verb
1.
be or show evidence of.


https://thelawdictionary.org/evidential-value/
"What is EVIDENTIAL VALUE?
Value of records given as or in support of evidence, based on the certainty of the records origins. The value here is not in the record content. This certainty is essential for authentic and adequate evidence of an entity's actions, functioning, policies, and/or structure."

Different definitions or description so they are different concepts.

Semantics... One is a noun and one an adjective. The alerts have no evidential value and therefore no value, as, evidence.. No inference cabn be drawn from them and therefore they cannot be used to support a fact and therefore by definition are not evidence... Of any kind

[Mr Gray]

It can only be found in the places they looked.  How many of the 17 alert places (?) did they look for corroborating evidence?

So how many places did they look for evidence... Is that how much faith was placed in the alerts

[kizzy]

Semantics... One is a noun and one an adjective. The alerts have no evidential value and therefore no value, as, evidence.. No inference cabn be drawn from them and therefore they cannot be used to support a fact and therefore by definition are not evidence... Of any kind

why would you think SY , chose the opinion maddie may have not left the apartment alive.

They did not have to say that.

surely, that would be knowledge of the dog alerts.



 

[Mr Gray]

why would you think SY , chose the opinion maddie may have not left the apartment alive.

They did not have to say that.

surely, that would be knowledge of the dog alerts.

Because it's, an option and was an option before the dogs were brought in... Nothing to do with the alerts

[Lace]

why would you think SY , chose the opinion maddie may have not left the apartment alive.

They did not have to say that.

surely, that would be knowledge of the dog alerts.

They had to say that,   they started the investigation saying they would investigate whether Madeleine was alive or sadly dead.

[jassi]

They had to say that,   they started the investigation saying they would investigate whether Madeleine was alive or sadly dead.

It would appear that they still don't know, after a number of years on intense investigation.

[Mr Gray]

It would appear that they still don't know, after a number of years on intense investigation.

Yes no proof despite the dogs

[faithlilly]

DNA never proves nothing... It proves the presence if a persons DNA.... It doesn't explain how it got
The akert dies not prove the presence if cadaver contaminant

Of course DNA can carry huge weight in a criminal investigation, think a child’s DNA in the boot of a suspect’s car. DNA can also be part of a circumstantial case which,  while not proving anything on its own, taken together with other evidence builds a very strong case for an accused’s guilt. The cadaver dog alerts are the same. By themselves, without a body,  they  are only suggestive of death but together with other evidence, such as blood splatter or proveable lying by the suspect, and they can be part of a very strong case.

[Lace]

It would appear that they still don't know, after a number of years on intense investigation.

They have to find the person who took her to determine that don't they?  IMO

[Mr Gray]

Of course DNA can carry huge weight in a criminal investigation, think a child’s DNA in the boot of a suspect’s car. DNA can also be part of a circumstantial case which,  while not proving anything on its own, taken together with other evidence builds a very strong case for an accused’s guilt. The cadaver dog alerts are the same. By themselves, without a body,  they  are only suggestive of death but together with other evidence, such as blood splatter or proveable lying by the suspect, and they can be part of a very strong case.

To say the alerts are the same as DNA is patently ridiculous and proves my point

Dna proves the presence of the suspects dna but does not explain how it got their

The alert isn't even evidence of cadaver odour

[jassi]

They have to find the person who took her to determine that don't they?  IMO

Probably. No success there either it would seem.

[kizzy]

They have to find the person who took her to determine that don't they?  IMO

What like, find the body - prove we killed her.