Capabilities of the Dogs

chirpyinsect wrote:

***

very amusing, now keep looking behind the sofa both of you

Very funny.
Should I look behind the curtains too?
And in my dressing? Bedroom? Flowerbed?

Apologies all. I didn't mean 'what'.

I meant 'where' as in where exactly did each dog individually alert to and also both together..

Thought bulletpoints on that could be useful.

(I have been around a while to know which dog alerts to what - sorry for the confusion)

Look where you want Chatelaine, but first check which dog alerted to what, and what it means if they both alerted in the same place. It's quite important

For Andrew - the apartment (but they've got the flowerbed on the wrong side of the building)

and the car and clothes. Eddie alone alerted to the white top, the checked trousers and the red aeroplane T shirt

Satsuma wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:I'm not on about a frozen corpes,I'm asking where your expertise is in EVRD's and how you interpret their findings.

I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours

I have none,I don't make spurious claims,the dogs alerted in numerous places,what as not been determined is to whom these alerts belonged to,just for you,a learned judge in the McCann v Amaral damages trial quite categorically stated out fo 83 proven facts no's 6 and 7 concerned the dogs.Once more Grime never gave evidence in the said trial,the Judge must therefore have read the relevant files.You will also note undisputed facts.Now where is your expertise in how and what the dogs alerted to,a verifiable cite to your qualification wouldn't go amiss.

6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Appreciate that Sat.

Will come back to it. The phone I'm on is struggling between red and orange for some reason. Plus the football is on shortly.

Could you do a bulletpoint list as earlier mentioned.

Cheers.

Heisenburg wrote:a learned judge in the McCann v Amaral damages trial quite categorically stated out fo 83 proven facts no's 6 and 7 concerned the dogs.Once more Grime never gave evidence in the said trial,the Judge must therefore have read the relevant files.

Grime said this in his official report to the PJ regarding the vehicle search:

"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD (Eddie) is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant OR human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm#mg2466

I don't imagine the judge is a greater expert on Eddie and Keela than Grime was, so it looks as if that paragraph of the summing up is wrong

Grime went on to say  in his summary:

"The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or Human blood.

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog (Keela) indicated by forensic laboratory analysis."

So far as I can see there,  Grime is referring only to blood. So where did the frozen corpse fluid idea come from?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm#mg2466

Satsuma wrote:

I don't imagine the judge is a greater expert on Eddie and Keela than Grime was, so it looks as if that paragraph of the summing up is wrong

Now its the judge who is wrong,a cite to experience in such matters wouldn't go amiss.

Well if you want to believe that the judge knew more about the dogs than their own handler, that's up to you. The court can only work on the information that it's given, and that will have been provided by the PJ

Bump this answer from earlier...the point for me is this , do you follow the ideas of Goncalo (or anyone who you respect for that matter!) or those of Satsuma ....who I may add is providing page after page of game playing in the smug supercilious manner that she has honed to perfection....

Amaral can be quoted and thank goodness he has otherwise people would walk around listening to disruptor so like you. And this has been a great disruption......except it just an idle interlude Sat and as hard as you try,it comes down to a choice,who do we believe, you or Gonzalo Amaral? I know where my money is...... I leave a quote from Gonzalos book courtesy of Textusa. And if we are too listen to his words seems like someone else believes him...... “On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine's DNA profile. As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed. Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue: either this LCN technique is not reliable or it's simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine's DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance. At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: "With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England. Touché Madame Satsuma wrote:

Bampots wrote:Bump this answer from earlier...the point for me is this , do you follow the ideas of Goncalo (or anyone who you respect for that matter!) or those of Satsuma ....who I may add is providing page after page of game playing in the smug supercilious manner that she has honed to perfection....

I'm with you all the way here Bampots. Well sussed.

Amaral can be quoted and thank goodness he has otherwise people would walk around listening to disruptor so like you. And this has been a great disruption......except it just an idle interlude Sat and as hard as you try,it comes down to a choice,who do we believe, you or Gonzalo Amaral? I know where my money is...... I leave a quote from Gonzalos book courtesy of Textusa. And if we are too listen to his words seems like someone else believes him...... “On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine's DNA profile. As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed. Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue: either this LCN technique is not reliable or it's simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine's DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance. At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: "With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England. Touché Madame Satsuma wrote:

I think Kate McCann's lawyer said almost exactly the same...

Mrs McCann says their lawyer warned them: ‘If you were Portuguese, this would be enough to put you in prison.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385336/Kate-McCann-Madeleine-guilt-meant-I-make-love-Gerry.html

Who was it that said 15/19 markers would have been enough also?!?

GA was and always was right, imo.

Hence the disgraceful rubbish that quickly followed him.

If he was totally off the mark, then TM would of left him be.

He was too smart for them (TM), hence the bollox that followed.

And it did follow, for years.

No more though.

Andrew wrote:GA was and always was right, imo.

Hence the disgraceful rubbish that quickly followed him.

If he was totally off the mark, then TM would of left him be.

He was too smart for them (TM), hence the bollox that followed.

And it did follow, for years.

No more though.

That's where you're hitting the nail on the head! They hadn't counted on his intelligence!

If only he'd been allowed to stay on the case, he would have solved the case.

So why was he taken off and who took him off. We know he wasn't sacked despite SMS repeating that myth ad nauseum.

As he was about to solve the case (imo), then I reckon Gordon begged Socrates to do something as not to embarrass him (Gordon) or the nation (UK) at the time.

'if you scratch my back and all that'

Socrates strikes me as the sort of person who could be easily persuaded/bribed.

I mean he did get arrested for corruption (amongst other things).

Satsuma wrote:

AndyB wrote:Who says we're looking for proof? What proof have you offered?

There, in a nutshell, is the reason that you're getting nowhere, along with nearly everyone else on here. You want to accuse but you have no proof. I don't need proof because I'm not claiming I know what happened, I'm just showing how flimsy your argument is

And there, in a nutshell, are all your problems rolled into one post. Perhaps, if you ever grow up, you'll learn that sneering condescension is not the way to deal with your insecurities but will end up making you even more disliked. I have no time for negative people like you who refuse to communicate on an even footing so congratulations, you're the first person on this site, and only the second person ever, to end up in my ignore file. Before I go though;
1) I'm not trying to get anywhere
2) I'm my own person with my own thoughts and ideas, I'm not with "nearly everyone else". I'm sure there are many here who will be able to attest to this
3) The only accusations I have made are that you are sneering and condescending and I stand by those. I have made none in connection with the Madeleine Mccann case
4) That you require everyone else to have proof yet excuse yourself the same burden for entirely spurious reasons speaks volumes about your character
5) In my last post I told you that I wasn't looking for proof it is only you that sets the barrier so high
6) I'm not claiming I know what happened either so don't suggest that I did
7) My only argument is that the most likely explanation for Eddie's alerts is the simplest one that requires the fewest assumptions (in this case no assumptions at all) - that he alerted to where a body had been. You continuously and deliberately ignore this point, despite it being central to everything that I have written on this thread because you have no answer. I suggest you google Occams Razor

Was just having a quick read of the PJ files over breakfast (as you do) and came across this about Russell O'Brien. Never come across it before about him having a car...

To the coordinator of the criminal investigation.

In the context of the investigation, we have collected information concerning a vehicle used by RUSSELL O'BRIEN, friend and member of the group who spent their holiday with the McCann family in the Algarve . At the time of the request for vehicles considered important to the procedures that follow, we were not aware of the identification details of this vehicle. Meantime, our investigation has led us to establish that it may be a vehicle of the "Opel" range, a "Corsa" model, registration....AG - 62. At the present time, we do not have a mandate to search for and seize the vehicle to allow us to add the vehicle to the planned inspections. As a consequence, we request such a legal mandate in order to be able to realize the planned inspections.

Satsuma wrote:Well if you want to believe that the judge knew more about the dogs than their own handler, that's up to you. The court can only work on the information that it's given,  and that will have been provided by the PJ

I believe a judge over any thing you say.

Andrew wrote:Was just having a quick read of the PJ files over breakfast (as you do) and came across this about Russell O'Brien. Never come across it before about him having a car...

To the coordinator of the criminal investigation.

In the context of the investigation, we have collected information concerning a vehicle used by RUSSELL O'BRIEN, friend and member of the group who spent their holiday with the McCann family in the Algarve . At the time of the request for vehicles considered important to the procedures that follow, we were not aware of the identification details of this vehicle. Meantime, our investigation has led us to establish that it may be a vehicle of the "Opel" range, a "Corsa" model, registration....AG - 62. At the present time, we do not have a mandate to search for and seize the vehicle to allow us to add the vehicle to the planned inspections. As a consequence, we request such a legal mandate in order to be able to realize the planned inspections.

Not got time to search but wasn't it a Corsa mistakenly photographed as belonging to WK? Somewhere in files. Not sure.