Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

Do you accept that based on what Grime himself has admitted (in a report he wrote years after the alerts in PdL) that they have no evidential value as Eddie was trained on animal matter?  It’s unlikely that any prosecutor would call him as an expert witness  to stand by those alerts given what he has subsequently written, agreed?

I think what is more important is the defence could call Grime as a witness as to the unreliability of unconfirmed cadaver alerts. they could also call Harrison ad Prof Cassella.

[Mr Gray]

I rather feel you may have. Did you wonder why Mr Grime would want to tarnish all his work in his whole career with a couple of throw away sentences in an obscure white paper? The reason - he doesn't. Who would?
As its late I will try to put it into a clear concise form tomorrow, the white paper does jump around and as you know no copy and paste.

Ive read the white paper and a couple of points stand out to me.

Grime starts by saying that in 2005 he collabortated with Harrison in some out of the box thinking re gathering intelligence in homicide and abduction cases. this seems to me  it was grime who came up with the whole idea of residual scent as intelligence...note he does not say evidence.

Grime says the only reliable alert can be given by a dog solely trained on human tissue...therefore questioning the reliability of any dog not trained on human tissue.

Grime says that the alert can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence....this is a real about turn as to what he said in Luz. I have seen nothing from Harrison or Cassella that agrees with this...remember these are Grimes colleagues.

In the white paper grime says the dogs will not alert to teeth...another massive contrdiction from what he has previosly said....remember Jersey

[G-Unit]

Yes, that’s the study.  Don’t you find it concerning or at least puzzling that in over twenty years there does not appear to have been any follow up research in this matter?  Anything’s a possibility until one examines the rest of the known facts IMO.  You may think you can pull together a plausible and logical theory that centres around the scenario of Madeleine’s earlier death but I don’t think you can.  The fact that no police force has considered it a real possibility surely tells you something?

Dogs vary quite a bit in their abilities, training and success rates, particularly in the US. Research can only tell us about the performance of the dogs used in a study, it can't really claim to apply to all dogs working in the field as cadaver dogs.

In Amaral's book he shares Encarnacio's theory that Madeleine died when her father was speaking with Jes Wilkins. Interestingly, Rebelo's reconstitution would have covered the group's movements from 5.30pm to 11pm. Obviously he was interested in the period between 5.30pm and 8.35pm.

You resolutely ignore the fact that Operation Grange was set up for the purpose of investigating an abduction, so the fact that they are investigating that is hardly surprising.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I disagree that he tarnishes his entire work with one paragraph, rather he acknowledges the need for training dogs solely on human cadaver scent, not a mixture of human and animal cadaver scent as his earlier dog(s) were, when it comes to the issue of alerts to residual scent with no body present and how they may stand up in court.

As you have bolded the word entire I assume you hold the opinion he has only tarnished some parts of his career. Which bits are tarnished and which remain unblemished. Genuine question

[Mr Gray]

Dogs vary quite a bit in their abilities, training and success rates, particularly in the US. Research can only tell us about the performance of the dogs used in a study, it can't really claim to apply to all dogs working in the field as cadaver dogs.

In Amaral's book he shares Encarnacio's theory that Madeleine died when her father was speaking with Jes Wilkins. Interestingly, Rebelo's reconstitution would have covered the group's movements from 5.30pm to 11pm. Obviously he was interested in the period between 5.30pm and 8.35pm.

You resolutely ignore the fact that Operation Grange was set up for the purpose of investigating an abduction, so the fact that they are investigating that is hardly surprising.

Again I think you are wrong... Imo Grange was set up after the review showed abduction was the most likely scenario and the remit does not limit the investigation to other possibilities

[barrier]

Again I think you are wrong... Imo Grange was set up after the review showed abduction was the most likely scenario and the remit does not limit the investigation to other possibilities

For that very reason its possible why its not been solved.

[Mr Gray]

For that very reason its possible why its not been solved.

I think it has been solved. 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Yes,  someone said there was an 'unpleasant'. smell in the car due to bags of nappies being stored for the dump.   Though the smell of a corpse wouldn't be 'unpleasant'. it would be pungent ,choking,  unbearable smell after that length of time.

Someone saying something doesn’t make it a fact that the smell was from nappies, meat, shrimp or anything. The smell was bad enough to be washed out with water and the boot allegedly needed to be left open all night due to the smell. If there was only light transference of cadaver odour then would that be as unbearable as you suggest? Martin Grime actually says he doesn’t mind the smell of human decomposition, says it’s like a sweet putrid smell.

[Mr Gray]

For that very reason its possible why its not been solved.

I think it has been solved in as much that Maddie was abducted and murdered

[jassi]

I think it has been solved in as much that Maddie was abducted and murdered

As yet, neither of those has been proved.

[barrier]

I think it has been solved in as much that Maddie was abducted and murdered

Haven't seen anything regarding that from SY.

[Mr Gray]

Haven't seen anything regarding that from SY.

That's because Woltets hasn't shared his evidence

[Mr Gray]

Someone saying something doesn’t make it a fact that the smell was from nappies, meat, shrimp or anything. The smell was bad enough to be washed out with water and the boot allegedly needed to be left open all night due to the smell. If there was only light transference of cadaver odour then would that be as unbearable as you suggest? Martin Grime actually says he doesn’t mind the smell of human decomposition, says it’s like a sweet putrid smell.

Who days the boot was left open all night... It's better when you stick to facts

[Venturi Swirl]

As you have bolded the word entire I assume you hold the opinion he has only tarnished some parts of his career. Which bits are tarnished and which remain unblemished. Genuine question

It was you who introduced the concept of Grime tarnishing his entire career in one paragraph, I merely pointed out that in the paragraph in question Grime acknowledges that dogs trained on both animal and human cadaver scent (like Eddie was) give alerts that can (rightly IMO) be called into question wrt to their reliability in court.  You suggested last night that owing to my not reading the document in its entirety from start to finish that  I have misundertstood or misquoted or misrepresented this paragraph so perhaps you could now put me right, thanks.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Ive read the white paper and a couple of points stand out to me.

Grime starts by saying that in 2005 he collabortated with Harrison in some out of the box thinking re gathering intelligence in homicide and abduction cases. this seems to me  it was grime who came up with the whole idea of residual scent as intelligence...note he does not say evidence.

Grime says the only reliable alert can be given by a dog solely trained on human tissue...therefore questioning the reliability of any dog not trained on human tissue.

Grime says that the alert can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence....this is a real about turn as to what he said in Luz. I have seen nothing from Harrison or Cassella that agrees with this...remember these are Grimes colleagues.

In the white paper grime says the dogs will not alert to teeth...another massive contrdiction from what he has previosly said....remember Jersey

Grime says that the alert can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence....this is a real about turn as to what he said in Luz. I have seen nothing from Harrison or Cassella that agrees with this...remember these are Grimes colleagues.
 
So now we can agree that one of the people that you have named multiple times on this forum to be of the opinion that dog alerts that are uncorroborated by forensic evidence can not be used as evidence in a court of law infact believes they can be, correct?