594 users online (84 members and 510 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 434
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Quote Originally Posted by jordynsmommy529 View Post
    Thanks...

    Madeleine McCann police to start interviews

    DETECTIVES in Portugal have been recruited to help Scotland Yard quiz suspects and witnesses as the hunt for Madeleine McCann gained pace yesterday.
    By: Mark Reynolds
    Published: Mon, August 26, 2013

    The Algarve-based officers have already been handed a list of more than 30 people’s names by British police who they want to interview over Madeleine’s disappearance in May 2007.
    It's been two months and if they're now only starting to ask please can we interview some people I think it's safe to say that it was extremely overoptimistic to say that there could be arrests within weeks.

    The “persons of interest” are expected to include a taxi driver who claims he may have picked up Madeleine the night after she vanished.

    Driver Antonio Castela, 73, said he took three men, a woman and a child in pink pyjamas who resembled the missing youngster from close to the Spanish border to a hotel near Faro. He gave a statement to the Policia Judiciaria but was never questioned afterwards.

    It doesn't sound like a likely story to me geographically. Why would the abductors travel two hours or more to take Madeleine all the way to the Spanish border only to travel halfway back to Faro, to stay with an kidnapped child in a hotel...?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    i dont think scotland yard have anything at all about any stranger.....going over old ground two yrs later over thngs the PJ already investigated and 10 million dollars later....they should look closer to home..im sure they are too

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Clutchbag View Post
    i dont think scotland yard have anything at all about any stranger.....going over old ground two yrs later over thngs the PJ already investigated and 10 million dollars later....they should look closer to home..im sure they are too
    God I hope so.

    If they are doing a proper job, there should be arrests within weeks

    If they are doing just another PR exercise, look for more attention grabbing headlines with zero substance.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Inana View Post
    "These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are only evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dog, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory."

    The dogs findings were never verified or identified by forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory, therefore the dogs findings and alerts are all rendered invalid and nugatory.
    This is not entirely accurate. Without going to deep, the dog's alert is just that - an alert. It is something the dog uses to communicate to it's handler that it has located the odor it has been trained to find. Hopefully, this will be confirmed through laboratory testing but lack does not render the alerts invalid or nugatory (had to look that one up in my dictionary). While, training records, certifications, and previous history help to substantiate the alert it is possible for odor to be deposited without physical evidence. So while LE tries to confirm the dog's alert through laboratory testing, lack of positive results do not negate the alert. Science is still trying to catch up to the sensitivity of a dog's nose.

    In some cases the dog's alert is enough to establish probable cause for a search warrant. In others, it's considered circumstancial evidence taken and weighted with the rest of the circumstancial evidence. One piece of circumstancial evidence taken by itself may not be enough to establish probable cause but take enough circumstancial evidence and you can make a case. I have watched the videos of Eddie's work. The method and manner of his work is consistant with a dog working in odor. You may not agree with Eddie and question his "validity" but, in this, I have to side with the dog.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kansas Prairie
    Posts
    501
    I understand how scent dogs work, and have said nothing negative about their performance in this case. If laboratory validation is not possible, their work was in vain. Maybe not in your opinion, but in the eyes of the law, it is not evidence.

    This was a "holiday apartment". Just a hotel suite, used over and over and over for 20 years, now (14 years at the time.) The dogs don't know how old the scent is. Obliviously some person/person's over the years have left decomposition odor and blood too.

    Same thing with the car--it was a rental. Been rented many times before. The DNA could have been from anyone. Does not mean a thing.

    No McCann DNA identified, The evidence is in the FSS report:
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

    I believe the dogs alerts were genuine. Its too bad they can't tell us when and how these scents were left, and especially in this cause, who. If you refuse to believe the science, I have to believe you are unreasonable.

    All my own opinion (except for the FSS link. That's science)

    I have no desire to hash and rehash. Believe what you like.
    Can't we all just get along? ~ Rodney King

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    SWO :)
    Posts
    4,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Tulessa View Post
    ... and the mother said she had handled 6 dead bodies before going on vacation.
    Pronouncing death does not mean Kate McCann would have been handling bodies enough to transfer body fluids onto either her clothing or her person. Latex gloves would prevent transfer to her hands, and alcohol wipes would clean her stethoscope before putting it back into her bag. All the GP does in terms of contact with the body is to check for and confirm death, so apart from observing for pallor, pupillary reaction and respirations, listening for heartbeat or breath sounds, checking pulses and testing for corneal reflexes or doing a sternal rub (not always), the GP would have no reason for direct contact with the body.

    In fact, in the case of a body which is decomposing, GP's would be well aware of the risks of aerosolizing potentially hazardous material by undue movement, and would take pains to follow Universal Precautions i.e. to wear the appropriate barrier garments.

    Morgue staff or undertakers or coroner's staff, i.e. those physically handling and moving the body are the ones you'd expect to find transfer on.

    And, of course she wouldn't holiday with her GP clothes... and surely she showered each day. For me too, the 6 bodies "excuse" holds no water.
    *** THIS POST IS JMO (unless a link is provided) AND IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Inana View Post
    I understand how scent dogs work, and have said nothing negative about their performance in this case. If laboratory validation is not possible, their work was in vain. Maybe not in your opinion, but in the eyes of the law, it is not evidence.

    This was a "holiday apartment". Just a hotel suite, used over and over and over for 20 years, now (14 years at the time.) The dogs don't know how old the scent is. Obliviously some person/person's over the years have left decomposition odor and blood too.

    Same thing with the car--it was a rental. Been rented many times before. The DNA could have been from anyone. Does not mean a thing.

    No McCann DNA identified, The evidence is in the FSS report:
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

    I believe the dogs alerts were genuine. Its too bad they can't tell us when and how these scents were left, and especially in this cause, who. If you refuse to believe the science, I have to believe you are unreasonable.

    All my own opinion (except for the FSS link. That's science)

    I have no desire to hash and rehash. Believe what you like.
    Thanks, I will!

    Trouble is, no one has ever died in 5a before.

    There was also a hit in the garden just outside, the Renault hired 24 days later, on Kate's clothing, and on Madeleine's pink toy, cuddle cat, which had been carried around by Kate since she vanished.

    So unless cuddle cat was rubbed up against a spare dead body lying around somewhere, it does seem as though it was contaminated right there on the holiday along with all the other sites.

    This makes me wonder if M was in the garden bed all through the initial search. No one would have even thought to look under landscaping material.

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Inana View Post
    I understand how scent dogs work, and have said nothing negative about their performance in this case. If laboratory validation is not possible, their work was in vain. Maybe not in your opinion, but in the eyes of the law, it is not evidence.
    Sorry but you have spoken negatively and I don't believe you fully understand the rules of evidence. If the dog alerts you try to validate through laboratory testing but even if the lab cannot it doesn't invalidate the alert or mean the odor isn't present. It just means the lab couldn't find any evidence on their end to back up the dog's alert. Just because something can't be validated in a lab does not mean it is not present or does not exist.

    So, Yes, it is evidence. Circumstancial, perhaps, but still evidence. While you may not consider it to be, it is. And admissible in court.

    My dogs have done many things over the years that couldn't be backed up by lab testing such as indicating a dead body was transported in a certain vehicle when science could find no physical evidence of such with luminal testing or dna results or that the suspect's scent was present as certain locations or on certain items that couldn't be validated through fingerprints or dna swabs. Or the suspect argued the dogs were wrong and we were a bunch dumb clucks to believe a stupid mutt. But in almost every case, after the guy got sentenced to jail, where the dogs' work was part of the evidence used, they would walk up and say, "by the way, those damn dogs.... they were right."

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    218

    Rules of Evidence

    Federal Rules of Evidence

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

    please feel free to browse around. And learn just what is considered evidence and how it gets included - or excluded - from a court case. And if you locate the Rule where it says lack of laboratory results invalidate a trained canine's alert, please bookmark it for the rest of us. I was unable to locate it.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    9,324
    Quote Originally Posted by K9Snoop View Post
    This is not entirely accurate. Without going to deep, the dog's alert is just that - an alert. It is something the dog uses to communicate to it's handler that it has located the odor it has been trained to find. Hopefully, this will be confirmed through laboratory testing but lack does not render the alerts invalid or nugatory (had to look that one up in my dictionary). While, training records, certifications, and previous history help to substantiate the alert it is possible for odor to be deposited without physical evidence. So while LE tries to confirm the dog's alert through laboratory testing, lack of positive results do not negate the alert. Science is still trying to catch up to the sensitivity of a dog's nose.

    In some cases the dog's alert is enough to establish probable cause for a search warrant. In others, it's considered circumstancial evidence taken and weighted with the rest of the circumstancial evidence. One piece of circumstancial evidence taken by itself may not be enough to establish probable cause but take enough circumstancial evidence and you can make a case. I have watched the videos of Eddie's work. The method and manner of his work is consistant with a dog working in odor. You may not agree with Eddie and question his "validity" but, in this, I have to side with the dog.
    Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

    I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

    The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

    A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,749
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

    I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

    The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

    A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.
    ~bbm

    Yes, that's a big part of the problem. The Federal Rules of Evidence wouldn't apply in this case since it wouldn't be venued in the US, obviously. But to the extent the relevant jurisdictions' law is similar, I found this case talking about this exact problem. This site has the defense's motion in limine to exclude a cadaver dog hit and a detailed discussion of the relevant considerations and existing precedent. It also includes the court's ruling denying the motion as moot because the gov't agreed not to offer the evidence. Imo, that usually happens only when there's a good chance of setting bad precedent with a negative ruling.

    On the other hand, given the US propensity to protect a defendant's rights to the extreme, possibly a European court would be more likely to admit inculpatory evidence that would be inadmissible in the US. jmo

    I didn't follow this case but loosely when it happened, but it caught my attention here in the past couple of days and is very interesting!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30194903/D...ne-Cadaver-Dog

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

    I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

    The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

    A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.

    of course you do, no one has argued otherwise...and as far as I am aware no case ever has been brought on dog alerts alone!!!!


    The alerts remain as evidence...circumstantial but evidence all the same....it is up to a jury to weigh that evidence and all other evidence given.....do you think the cadaver dog in this case falsely alerted seven times? Because that how many times he alerted...that is, to cadaver scent alone..places and items the blood dog made no alert when taken there......he made other alerts too but because the blood dog alerted in the those same places some argue they could havebeen just to blood as this cadaver dog also alerts to dry blood... all alerts being around the mccanns homes and belongings? And for some reason did not falsely alert anywhere else in the six other homes he was taken to?? Where he did not alert at all? What are the odds?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

    I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

    The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

    A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.
    That is false.

    The dogs alerted, the areas were swabbed, and in the exact same areas 15/19 of Madeleine's alleles (DNA) were located.

    Oh yes, only 15/19, could have been random, blah blah. What cannot be explained is the presence of the DNA only at the cadaver alert spots. The chances of this belonging to someone else and accidentally ending up exactly where the dogs said, are so vast they really cant be calculated let alone considered a viable explanation.

    If it wasn't Madeleine who died that holiday, it was another McCann.

    The rest of them got home in one piece.

    Random chance does not explain the alert Eddie made to Cuddle Cat. Unless Kate had taken her daughter's favourite toy to work with her and dragged it around the only dead body she'd seen for 3 years, Cuddle Cat got the Cadaver odor on that holiday, the same time as Kate's clothing, behind the sofa, in the garden bed.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

    I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

    The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

    A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.
    Nope, never said 100%. But you have to go back to the original question

    Originally Posted by Inana View Post
    "These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are only evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dog, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory."

    The dogs findings were never verified or identified by forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory, therefore the dogs findings and alerts are all rendered invalid and nugatory.


    This poster indicated that evidence collection should be attempted and subjected to forensic analysis at a lab. And that lack of confirmation by said lab renders the alert invalid - which is untrue. The alert happened. That's fact. Now can a lab confirm? Yes, or no. If yes, then that's wonderful. If no, then it does not mean the alert is invalid? No, it just means the lab could not confirm what the dog is alerting on. Now, if lab testing comes back with a non-human material identified such as animal remains or barbeque sauce then the dog's alert could be ruled "invalid".

    As of this moment in time, I am unaware of ANY case where the dog's alert was the one sole piece of evidence. Which, again, I never stated. Normally, it's weighted separately and then again as a whole with the rest of the case. But an alert in the case where someone is missing or potential foul play is suspected, gives LE a good reason to dig a little deeper than might be typical in a missing person case.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.

    The Cadaver dog was brought in by the British police, because the British police wished to have an indication as to whether or not Madeleine may have died in 5a.

    They got that indication.

    Swabs confirmed that someone sharing 15/19 (at least) with Madeleine, had laid in the cadaver spots.

    I don't care about proving stuff at trial (especially an imaginary trial), I care about the results of different investigatory techniques.

    Eddie clearly indicated a death. He didn't invent it, he wasn't steered towards the cadaver. He found it all by himself because that's his job.

    Dogs don't lie.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Scotland Yard 'Black Museum' treasures await display
    By wfgodot in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-03-2015, 11:24 PM
  2. Scotland Yard's Black Museum seeks public
    By wfgodot in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2014, 10:52 AM

Tags for this Thread