First of all the only claim I have to legally back up is the one about the officer as I have made a statement against him. The others I legally do not as I have not made a defamatory statement about anyone. If for instance I had accused the mccanns of lying, being involved in the disappearence then I would have to provide actual proof of what I was saying. the mccanns would have a legal right to either hold websleuths legally responsible and make them prove the statements, or get a court order to websleuths for my ip address and then take me to court. I would either have to show the statements were not defmatory, or provide proof (and the proof must be reliable, if i was just reporting any rubbish that someone else had put up then that would not be a defense), or show it is fair comment i.e it is just my opinion, but it is unlikely that accusing someone of being involved in a crime would come under fair comment rules just because one put the words "in my opinion".
here are my references
Amaral conviction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8064671.stm
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15287142
reliability of the sniffer dogs - links describing how grimes and eddie no longer have a uk license, and are no longer used by the police, and false alerts in jersey (eddie alerted to coconut shell), and quote from grimes report
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15959107
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7723860.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz1JuPiWWaT
quote from martin grimes "There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
other attacks and disappearences
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...I-saw-Madeleine-McCann-twice-disappeared.html (near end of article)
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/1315666
http://issuu.com/canarianweekly/docs/cw_744_issue?mode=window&pageNumber=1 (in gran canaria, but some have said there may be a link due to the timing)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/83773089/Yeremi-link-to-British-paedophiles (as above)
casa pia (and some related to madeleine mccann)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...les--disturbing-backcloth-Madeleine-case.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/21/childprotection.uk
so all in all we have a police officer with a conviction and suspended sentence for fabricating evidence in a case related to a missing child, a sniffer dog and handler that have made false alerts, and no longer (at time of press of links) are used by the UK and no longer have a license to practice there, the handler admitting mistakes can be made and also that alerts mean nothing without other evidence, two missing girls within three miles, and several other intrusions and attacks within an hour, a third disappearence in Gran canaria just two months before Madeleine disappeared, and two paedophiles who have been mentioned in that case were working in holiday villas and have been reported as travelling in spain and portugal in 2007. Plus a huge paedophile scandal that points to child abuse being ignored.
That's not good enough, it's all from newspapers which are notoriously unreliable at best. Re the dog, you originally asserted dog alerts mean nothing period. Which is untrue. As for a licence running out days before I doubt the dogs abilities suddenly stop on the date lol. There is no evidence of false alerts, the handler himself states as much, he is the only reliable source.