Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method

[stephen25000]

2nd pair of Hypothesis Tests.

Null Hypothesis : There was no abduction.

Alternate Hypothesis : There was an abduction.


Now can someone disprove this initial Hypothesis ?

 >@@(*&)

[icabodcrane]

What was the point of bringing an abstract scientific formula to the board  if you are not prepared to apply it to aspects of the particular case we are focussed on  ?

Martin Grime stands charged  ( by you )  of cueing his dogs  (  a rather serious charge, as it happens,  because if he did do what you accuse him of then he perverted the course of justice in the case of a missing three year old )

Please use the scientific formula you have highlighted in order to process the  serious charge you have made

...  we are at the point where you are required to produce evidence

I have not said that he cued the dogs.

Yes you have

On the thread most active today, for instance,  you have made numerous posts accusing Mr Grime of 'obviously' cueing his dogs ...  of 'pressuring'  them ...  and of 'forcing'  them

I  think you should follow up your charge by applying your own scientific formula

...  or else withdraw the charge and allow that there is no evidence to support it

Please quote exactly what I have said. I have not (I hope) accused Mr Grime of anything. I have suggested possibilities.

I have quoted you  ... you said there was 'obvious'  cueing in the underground garage ...  and, in seperate posts accused Mr Grime of  'pressuring'  and 'forcing'  his dogs

I am pleased that you now confirm you do not believe Mr Grime cued his dogs

[debunker]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

[icabodcrane]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs 

[debunker]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

[stephen25000]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That is supposition, not a fact.

[icabodcrane]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

[debunker]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

[icabodcrane]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ? 

[debunker]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ?

Proof is not necessary for every episode of likely unconscious cuing. The evidence of the video in the parking lot is adequate to suggestthat Mr Grime did not use strict time or indication protocols.

[Redblossom]

icabodcrane, this is the fullest version there is online  an hour or so, but the whole recorded dog video was about five hours long


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html

[icabodcrane]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ?

Proof is not necessary for every episode of likely unconscious cuing. The evidence of the video in the parking lot is adequate to suggestthat Mr Grime did not use strict time or indication protocols.

In accordance with the scientific method we are following, I think proof of every episode is necessary

The next stage of the formula,  afterall is  :

Does the evidence overturn innocence    (  we are presuming Mr Grime is innocent at this point, remember )

Partial, or incomplete evidence cannot be sufficient to overturn innocence

( thanks Redblossom )

[debunker]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ?

Proof is not necessary for every episode of likely unconscious cuing. The evidence of the video in the parking lot is adequate to suggestthat Mr Grime did not use strict time or indication protocols.

In accordance with the scientific method we are following, I think proof of every episode is necessary

The next stage of the formula,  afterall is  :

Does the evidence overturn innocence    (  we are presuming Mr Grime is innocent at this point, remember )

Partial, or incomplete evide cannot be sufficient to overturn innocence

The null is "no cuing occurs". One exception negates that.

You don't have any science training, do you?

[icabodcrane]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ?

Proof is not necessary for every episode of likely unconscious cuing. The evidence of the video in the parking lot is adequate to suggestthat Mr Grime did not use strict time or indication protocols.

In accordance with the scientific method we are following, I think proof of every episode is necessary

The next stage of the formula,  afterall is  :

Does the evidence overturn innocence    (  we are presuming Mr Grime is innocent at this point, remember )

Partial, or incomplete evide cannot be sufficient to overturn innocence

The null is "no cuing occurs". One exception negates that.

You don't have any science training, do you?

No ...  but I do know that making an assumption based on partial and incomplete evidence is insupportable  ...  in science particularly 

[debunker]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ?

Proof is not necessary for every episode of likely unconscious cuing. The evidence of the video in the parking lot is adequate to suggestthat Mr Grime did not use strict time or indication protocols.

In accordance with the scientific method we are following, I think proof of every episode is necessary

The next stage of the formula,  afterall is  :

Does the evidence overturn innocence    (  we are presuming Mr Grime is innocent at this point, remember )

Partial, or incomplete evide cannot be sufficient to overturn innocence

The null is "no cuing occurs". One exception negates that.

You don't have any science training, do you?

No ...  but I do know that making an assumption based on partial and incomplete evidence is insupportable  ...  in science particularly

One exception overturns the hypothesis.