Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:42 pm

Hi Rosie,

The total time spent on the first 4 vehicles is 44 seconds for the first three....just less than 15 seconds each, and 2 minutes 7 seconds for the renault.

And as you rightly point out, Grimes was a business man who needed to produce results.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Thanks Shingle

Post by Rosie on Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:56 am

I could not remember the exact timing, this is actually worse than I previously thought.

If we can tear this evidence to shreds, I wonder what a decent legal team could do to it?

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Rosie, Shingle

Post by dianeh on Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:49 am

I also asked the question about why the dogs were not used to search the beach. I have said previously,that is Madeleine's body was buried on the beach for 20 days, then it wouldnt have taken the Eddie and Keela to find her. Any old house pooch could have found that body. In fact, so would the stray dogs and cats that I presume are around.

It was indeed Krugel (who is not a psychic Rosie, he is the South African with the new 'technology' DNA finder, who suggested that Madeleine was either taken on a boat or buried on the beach, as that is where the trail ended) who asked for the beach to be searched, and as far I understand it, the McCanns were all for it. So the dogs were brought over and then never went near the beach. I have wondered whether or not, that beach may have been searched on the sly by other dogs.

My own reasoning as to why the apartment and the car (who'd have thought it, I still dont believe the reasoning for this one) would have been searched by the dogs, after such a long time. Especially if Gonc thought that Madeleine had actually died in the apartment. If I thought that I would have brought the dogs in straight away, as happened in the Caylee Anthony case. It just doesnt make any sense that the dogs would be brought over after such a long time, and then the tests performed so poorly, and then no DNA evidence to back it up. I have ideas that make sense that I wont go into on here, except to say, that I expect that Gonc thought the McCanns would confess, just as Leonore did. And since no further work is needed under Portuguese law, it wouldnt matter that there was no other supporting evidence.

But Madeleine's body on the beach now being the new pre-dominant theory from the fat boy. Cmon, get real. If he really thought that, the dogs would have searched the beach. So he must have thought that one up, after the dogs has been to Portugal, and most likely after it was obvious there was no evidence against the McCanns. He is a disgrace, after all he has not one piece of evidence to support his wild theory.
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:22 am

Rosie,

Krugel was the South African body finder. I really don't think he is much more than a charlatan.

However, it was after he left that Eddie and Keela were wheeled in. Now Amarel thought that his findings were important enough to seal the beach off.....but not important enough to use the dogs.


As Dianeh ponts out, any old pooch would have been able to find a body in a shallow grave, that had been there for twenty days, so the worlds leading sniffer dogs should have been alerting as they touched down in Portugal.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Diane and Shingle

Post by Rosie on Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:56 am

I absolutely agree with this. It is inconceivable that holiday makers and children and parents with buckets and spades were all around on that beach and did not manage to fine a 20 day decomposing body.

As Diane has mentioned there would have been more than one person chancing their arm at inspecting and searching that beach and with their own dogs too!

Also Diane is right again, apparently there are wild dogs that roam in this area, I am pretty certain one of them would have found her.

This is just another one of Amaral's bizarre ill thought through fantasies!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Mobira on Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:31 am

I agree that any dog would have done. I remember reading, in the very first reports after Madeleine went missing, that search dogs were in fact brought in to try to trace her from as early, I beleive, as the 5th of May. We have already heard reports that they did find one trace - the one from the resort to the nearby supermarket. So clearly they WERE searching the surrounding areas with these dogs. These searches went on for days, but somehow they accidentally missed the whole beach? Nah, I don't buy that - I suspect they did search it - they may not have been as highly trained in specific fields like Eddie and Keela, but nevertheless search they did - and they, along with everybody else, found NOTHING and Amaral knows it.
avatar
Mobira
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 55
Location : Southern Spain
Registration date : 2008-07-26

Back to top Go down

Wild Dogs

Post by dianeh on Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:10 am

I am not 100% sure but I think the wild dogs idea came from somewhere in the media, maybe even a quote from fatboy himself. I am not going to look it up. But I remember reading that a body in a shallow grave on the beach would have been dug up by the wild dogs.

Wouldnt it be ironic if fatboy had said that himself? But I really cant remember who said it.


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:09 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:31 am

Portuguese prosecutors deemed and ruled that there was no relevance to these lovely cute dogs in a court of law.

End of.

Those that choose to clutch at straws are usually in the drowning mode

flower

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:08 pm

Chinadoll,

I would love to see a half good lawyer tear through this evidence, it would be so good to watch.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:01 am

Shingle wrote:Chinadoll,

I would love to see a half good lawyer tear through this evidence, it would be so good to watch.

Exactly Shingle. That is why the Portuguese Prosecutor deemed the evidence as of no value - unlike Desperate Dan Goncalo, who just could not grasp why it had no merit. Having said that Shingle, as his own courts have allowed him to present equally questionable quality evidence before ie blood in the Leonor case that was not identified as belonging to any particular person, let alone Leonors daughter, I am not surprised. I do believe that had Madeleine been the daughter of local nationals, then her parents would most likely be in jail now and not by means of irrefutable proof/evidence either.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how old Eddie and Keela are?

flower

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:26 pm

Chinadoll,

Eddie is about 8 now, and Keela about two and a half years old.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Hi Pedro

Post by Rosie on Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:52 am

Here it is and this thread on the sniffer dogs you may find very interesting.

Rosie x

Rosiepops wrote:
honestbroker wrote:
Rosiepops wrote:Hi there, I did reply to you yesterday but due to the forum propblems experienced we seem to have lost about 10 posts!

Basically you said you were a bit confused about which dog was in the boot of the Renault?

I believe the Dog was Keela because of the following (sorry for the rushed post, feel free to yell at me if I forget something)

  • If you look at little Eddie, you will see his markings are on the top of his back.
  • Keela's are on the top of her back and travel down her flanks.
  • Look at the dog in the boot, you will clearly see this is Keela because of her distinctive markings.
  • If you listen carefully, you will also actually hear Grimes refer to the dog in the boot as 'Keela'
  • Eddie barks when indicating a positive
  • Keela sort of freezes and wags her little stumpy tail, the dog in the boot indicated like this.
  • When Eddie has finished running around the cars listen to what Grimes says
  • Grimes actually explains that the scent is coming through the seal, so he does NOT intend to put the dog (Eddie) inside the car.


You were having some difficulty viewing the Sun video? Have a look at this one it is the longer version of the video from the Correo de Maure (Portuguese newspaper)

Hope this helps. highfive


It does help, thank you Rosie. I think the markings of the two dogs clinches it, pretty decisively. Not surprised that The Sun got it wrong. As you say, Eddie needed a lot of encouragement to finally react to something in the Renault. I'm sure he reacted to something he recognised; but I also think it legitimate to question the provenance of the scent.

The sequence of Eddie sniffing the clothing and alighting on the tee-shirt wasn't shown in that footage. But I made the point in my previous post that it seems, somehow, unprofessional that Eddie should actually have picked it up and tossed it into the air. It won't have made a difference in this intance because the search was some three months after Madeleine vanished and absolutely anything could have happened in the intervening period. But that won't always be so, and in a Daily Mail article I read, the point was explicitly made that Keela is trained to indicate without touching. I can't think why the same wouldn't be true for Eddie.

LOL Laughing I think little Eddie has got far more of his OWN mind about what he will do and not do then perhaps Mr Grimes leads us to think!
He seemed to be having a fair old game enjoying running around the car park! :sausages:

I think you can find the clothes video link further down this thread, it was attached to this one, although these come from so-called anti sites and they simply edit out the bits they do not like. they think this proves their point but really in doing this the only ones they are fooling is themselves!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:19 pm

Just came across this, and it seems the PJ themselves were worried at the dogs evidence.

ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE FIRST 11 VOLUMES OF THE INQUIRY

(pages 1-3004)

Central Department of Criminal Investigation, February, 8th, 2008

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.

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?

On one of the films, it’s possible to see that “Eddie” sniffs Madeleine’s cuddlecat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he “mark” it (pag 2099). Whys didn’t he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time?

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 alrady mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Hi Shingle

Post by Rosie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:54 pm

That is an excellent report - thank you!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:10 pm

Rosie,

When I think of how the anti's have tried to play those dogs up, and all the time the PJ saw the same things we all saw, well it just makes me boil.

Some are either blind or just closed to the truth.

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:30 pm

I just say this: both dogs and Kruger are not reliable.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5566
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:34 pm

Mr. Amaral has no shred of evidence to support his wild theory.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5566
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Shingle on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:39 pm

Pedro Silva wrote:Mr. Amaral has no shred of evidence to support his wild theory.


Seems not Pedro, and when you take into account the report from Martin Grimes, it is clear that the dogs searched the area, that he has been stating that Madeleine was buried.

Why would he use a lot of suspect evidence from the searches on the car and appartments, and yet choose to ignore the fact that the dogs located nothing in the area he is stateing she was buried in?

Shingle
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 74
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:04 am

With lots of people on that beach, if she was there,which I don´t believe, all those who were on the beach talking sun, wouldn´d they find her at that time, the days following her abduction? Well, no one found there nothing.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5566
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:06 am

I don´t take any of those accounts for granted, about dogs, Kruger, PJ, Mr. Amaral. End of discussion.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5566
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:07 am

The only ones who are totally reliable to me are the couple McCann and their official spokesman.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5566
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:31 am

Amaral took 15 out of 19 markers enough to convict.

Upon reading the FSS email to Amaral my understanding now is that 15 out of 37 (37 because 5 peoples dna was mixed in) components matched 15 of the 19 components that make up Madeleine.

Thus far we have only had Amarals interpretation which those who assume guilt have used as a back up, discounting that we already knew the FSS said the results were not meaningful. But now we have the FSS report and specificaly Lowes email to Amaral, 15 out of 37 is a lot different to 15 out of 19. To add to that that the results cannot show when the DNA was deposited, what body fluids they are from and they cannot determine if a crime was committed.

The hurdle of the Dogs, has been jumped. Madeleine having died that night is now fantasy.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:00 am

Therefore IMO Amaral pursued a charge on the solid foundation of having significant DNA evidence. Strong enough to attempt to entrap Kate into a confession eh ?.

Now we can see his book and theories were based on his misunderstanding, yes? Now we see the foundation of his book has been shattered, yes?

Seeing that Amaral based his theory on the foundation of conclusive DNA evidence. He was convinced enough to paint a picture of storing Madeleine's body in a small freezer, of burying the body under children's castles in the sand, removing the body in a hired car all with the world looking in like it was happening in a room on Big Brother. Take away the foundation and all he has to do now is re write that chapter on DNA evidence. I wonder how he is going to do that?


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:55 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mod and Shingle

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:23 am

Mod do you really have to ask that question?

by ModNrodder on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:00 pm

Therefore IMO Amaral pursued a charge on the solid foundation of having significant DNA evidence. Strong enough to attempt to entrap Kate into a confession eh ?.

Now we can see his book and theories were based on his misunderstanding, yes? Now we see the foundation of his book has been shattered, yes?

Seeing that Amaral based his theory on the foundation of conclusive DNA evidence. He was convinced enough to paint a picture of storing Madeleine's body in a small freezer, of burying the body under children's castles in the sand, removing the body in a hired car all with the world looking in like it was happening in a room on Big Brother. Take away the foundation and all he has to do now is re write that chapter on DNA evidence. I wonder how he is going to do that?


He will just make it up as he goes along.

The PJ were told the markers were nowhere near enough to charge, this is why they never in fact charged them. The DNA found, could have been the DMA of a great many people unrelated to Madeleine, in fact it as said that the DNA tested could have matched that of the person actually testing it!


Shingle wrote:Rosie,

When I think of how the anti's have tried to play those dogs up, and all the time the PJ saw the same things we all saw, well it just makes me boil.

Some are either blind or just closed to the truth.

Shingle,

When we saw that dog evidence and the videos began leaking out, we saw immediately the flaws in it. How come Amaral did not see those flaws and instead of being careful, based on that so-called evidence he made the parents suspects?

Are we supposed to believe that this man did not see what any rational person with half a brain and even others within the PJ saw immediately?

Then why did the prosecutor allow him to make the McCanns suspects on such spurious evidence? Don't forget Amaral went to the prosecutor to ask for the McCanns to be made suspects.

Also do not forget why this was done in such a rush, Portugal's law was about to change and if Amaral was to have waited just 8 days, he would NOT have been able to have the McCanns made suspects, because then Portugal's law change would have demanded he had evidence to do so! He had none! So the parents spent 10 months being forced to endure unnecessary pain and suffering.

This is just ONE reason why there MUST be a full and open public inquiry into this failed investigation.

One more thing to go to the 'other place'!


Last edited by Tinkerbell43 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:59 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Forum revamp - Tinks)
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:44 am

Rosie, I know I keep banging on about this, but I think the point is important.

I've watched the video of Eddie (and keela) in action again. What you say is quite right about the dog in the boot being Keela.

However, Eddie is the 'broadbrush' dog, and Keela the precesion dog, but Eddie's not that broadrush. If you watch him galloping around, he several times colides with the rear of the (closed) boot, and presses his nose hard up against it, but without reacting. It's only when he gets to the front driver's door that he reacts -- and Martin Grimes says on the commentary that Eddie is detecting a scent coming from the panel of that door.

Also, I'm sure that in Grimes' written report (which I can't now find) he states that the area where Eddie reacted was thoroughly examined where Eddie reacted, but no forensic material was gathered.

So I stand by what I said in an earlier post. Eddie has not corroborated anything recovered from the Renault as cadaver.

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum