Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[kizzy]

We've been through this before.. With Grime Harrison saying the alerts have no evidential value I think you are dreaming

IMO it was evidence but needed something to back it up.

Wich I believe would have been Maddie's body.

Evidence is either evidence or not - not having no evidential value.

Surely if they hadn't anything it would be called NO  evidence

[Mr Gray]

IMO it was evidence but needed something to back it up.

Wich I believe would have been Maddie's body.

Evidence is either evidence or not - not having no evidential value.

Surely if they hadn't anything it would be called NO  evidence

Do you not realise what no evidential value means?

[G-Unit]

I don't think it is due to changes in expert opinion.  I think it has always rested on the reliability of the dogs and the evidence they uncovered.  Grime told us that in his report from Luz.

The fact is that Eddie and Keela did not find any evidence in Luz which fits with sceptic beliefs.  Indeed I believe that expert opinion at the time was that their performance in Luz in combination with that in Jersey, the work of dogs and their handlers was set back many years.

I think the use of dog handler evidence in the Gilroy case in 2012 destroys your argument. The fact that Eddie and Keela alerted is evidence and in Keela's case her alerts were confirmed by forensic evidence.

[Brietta]

We're discussing the admissability of dog alerts as evidence, not the existence or non-existence of forensic evidence.

               Pardon ??

[Mr Gray]

I think the use of dog handler evidence in the Gilroy case in 2012 destroys your argument. The fact that Eddie and Keela alerted is evidence and in Keela's case her alerts were confirmed by forensic evidence.

i dont think one case in i dont know how many years destroys any argumnet...particularly as the evidence admissibilty has been contested. Keela alerts to blood and as grime correctly said this was the only alert that could be corroborated.

so again do you ahe a case in the UK where grimes evidence without forensic corroboration was admitted. According to amaral the dogs help solve 200 crimes so it should be easy for you

[G-Unit]

i dont think one case in i dont know how many years destroys any argumnet...particularly as the evidence admissibilty has been contested. Keela alerts to blood and as grime correctly said this was the only alert that could be corroborated.

so again do you ahe a case in the UK where grimes evidence without forensic corroboration was admitted. According to amaral the dogs help solve 200 crimes so it should be easy for you

I think dog alerts will continue to be used when required, now that they have been used successfully.

[kizzy]

Do you not realise what no evidential value means?

Yes don't you - It means in support evidence.

IMO evidence but need something else to support it as I said in the first place.

[Brietta]

I think the use of dog handler evidence in the Gilroy case in 2012 destroys your argument. The fact that Eddie and Keela alerted is evidence and in Keela's case her alerts were confirmed by forensic evidence.

As has been explained on numerous occasions there was overwhelming evidence against Suzanne Pilley's murderer the weakest of which in my opinion was the dog handler's.

There was absolutely no supporting evidence of any kind against the prime subjects in Luz nor was there rhyme or reason for Eddie's 'alerts' and that is confirmed in the PJ final report.

[Mr Gray]

I think dog alerts will continue to be used when required, now that they have been used successfully.

So you can't provide one case where grime has given evidence in the UK... Not one.  That surely must be a measure of how useful the alerts, are as evidence... Never used once in a UK court

[Brietta]

I think dog alerts will continue to be used when required, now that they have been used successfully.

I think it will depend on the circumstances and it will depend on the proven reliability of the dog.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

As has been explained on numerous occasions there was overwhelming evidence against Suzanne Pilley's murderer the weakest of which in my opinion was the dog handler's.

There was absolutely no supporting evidence of any kind against the prime subjects in Luz nor was there rhyme or reason for Eddie's 'alerts' and that is confirmed in the PJ final report.

So do you agree with Dave that the explanation for all Eddie's alerts was that Grime gave Eddie (subconscious) cues? I've watched all the videos many times and as a lay person I'm certainly not convinced by Dave's claim.

[Mr Gray]

So do you agree with Dave that the explanation for all Eddie's alerts was that Grime gave Eddie (subconscious) cues? I've watched all the videos many times and as a lay person I'm certainly not convinced by Dave's claim.

Why was eddie called back twice to the Mccanns car...but not too any other..
Why did Grime say he didnt know it was the mccanns car when there were posters in the windows

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Why was eddie called back twice to the Mccanns car...but not too any other..
Why did Grime say he didnt know it was the mccanns car when there were posters in the windows

To me Eddie's behaviour changed markedly before he's called back to the car, and what of the other alerts? The posters don't prove Grime knew it was their hire car. Also you are implying that Grime has already made up his mind about the death and who is responsible. Why on earth would Grime encourage false alerts - that wouldn't do his reputation any good!

[Mr Gray]

To me Eddie's behaviour changed markedly before he's called back to the car, and what of the other alerts? The posters don't prove Grime knew it was their hire car. Also you are implying that Grime has already made up his mind about the death and who is responsible. Why on earth would Grime encourage false alerts - that wouldn't do his reputation any good!

so now you are assessing eddies behaviour...im sorry but thats an absolute joke..ive already expaline dall the other alerts....bottom line...no evidential value

[Mr Gray]

Yes don't you - It means in support evidence.

IMO evidence but need something else to support it as I said in the first place.

no it doesnt...no evidentail value means no value as evidence