Are we now expected to believe, that both a blood dog and a cadavar dog just happened to separately alert in an apartment, where an infant had gone missing from.. and that these alerts were both false?
A cadavar dog will only alert for cadavar scent. A blood dog will only alert for blood scent.
Regarding the mathematical calculation of probability, what is the chance that two separate types of sniffer dogs would both alert, in an apartment where a child had gone missing from; and that those alerts were not linked to the missing child? I mean it's not impossible - but what odds would I get at Ladbrokes?
Regarding CB, he may have had involvement - or he may be being set up to take the rap, with the plan being that once and for all, the McCann's will be cleared of any taint regarding speculated involvement themselves.
Blood dog - she was staying in the apartment with her parents and siblings for a holiday, so simply detecting her blood, or any human blood, in the apartment establishes nothing of importance, assuming we can even rely on such a dog. Had the police found blood patterns that indicated an assault, that would be different, but no such thing occurred. As far as I am aware, none of her blood has even been seen or detected using forensic methods.
Cadaver dog - is the dog detecting a specific cadaver or cadavers in general? If cadavers in general, then who is to say that nobody other than Madeleine McCann has died in that apartment or that articles and effects in the apartment have not come into contact with dead bodies other than Madeleine McCann? Again, proves nothing. If the cadaver dogs are somehow trained to detect the dynamic envelope of specific bodies, this also establishes nothing in legal terms. As I think I have mentioned before, it's doubtful such evidence would be admissible in a criminal trial, in Portugal or England, because you can't cross-examine a dog. A dog is an instinctual, highly trainable animal but not an automaton exactly, so the results will be inherently unreliable.
What these dogs are doing is providing a guide to investigators. Their main role is in searches rather than investigations per se. It's similar to the role of drug dogs. Nobody can be convicted of a drugs offence just because a dog starts barking at them. The dog is pointing at something, but the evidence still has to be found, so what happens is that the officer then has to search the person or property, or both, under the auspice of (in England & Wales) 'reasonable suspicion', which is section 1 of PACE. It's the dog's reaction that forms the basis of the reasonable suspicion - specifically, it is the fact that a trained dog has started barking when about your presence, which raises a reasonable basis for believing you may have drugs on your person. However, if no drugs are found on your person, then that is the end of it. I reiterate that you can't be taken to court just because you or your car, property or effects have been barked at by a dog. I am not conversant with the criminal laws of Portugal, which in some respects are fundamentally different to ours, but the standard of proof is likely to be similar, so these observations will hold in Portugal too.
The drug dog analogy can be applied to the McCanns. The reaction of dogs is an indication that evidence might be found in the apartment or in a car or whatever. It raises suspicion and I expect this was one of the reasons they became Persons of Interest under judicial protection (arguidos). But it is not hard evidence in itself. You can't convict the McCanns of murder just because some dogs started barking. You'd have to be barking to think like that.
We're still left in the position that there is no solid evidence to support the contention that abduction was 'materially impossible'. Barking dogs makes no difference and I have not seen anything else that would assail the abduction theory. That doesn't mean the McCanns are innocent, but in my view it does mean that we have no right to start casting aspersions on them. They may be completely innocent and they remain innocent in law. That being the case, why do people still keep acting like they're certain the McCanns are guilty of something? What evidence do you have exactly? I always ask this question and I never receive a convincing answer.
