Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 172247 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2025 on: May 09, 2021, 12:42:25 PM »
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

Operation Grange was set up as an investigative review, whose initial purpose was intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. The purpose was to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter.
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2018/november/information-operation-grange/

The remit was written before the review began, and it's clear that abduction was mentioned as a fact before any work was done.
.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2026 on: May 09, 2021, 12:43:18 PM »
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.

And you responded with the answer "I disagree that he tarnishes his entire work with one paragraph,"
I am just curious about what you meant by this

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2027 on: May 09, 2021, 12:44:24 PM »
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.
Obviously the period of time in the days and hours leading up to a disappearance will be of interest to any investigating police force, it's a leap to suggest however that Rebelo gave serious consideration to the possibility that Madeleine died before the McCanns left for dinner - it's clear from the final report that that possibility was never seriously considered by the PJ IMO

"In a final synthesis, based on facts, it seems to us that the following can be asserted:

- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy - like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established - headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep";
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2028 on: May 09, 2021, 12:47:22 PM »
And you responded with the answer "I disagree that he tarnishes his entire work with one paragraph,"
I am just curious about what you meant by this
Just what I said, I couldn't be any clearer if I tried.   Yesterday I said he through Eddie's alerts under the bus with that paragraph and you seemed to agree, have you now changed your mind?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2029 on: May 09, 2021, 01:00:17 PM »
Obviously the period of time in the days and hours leading up to a disappearance will be of interest to any investigating police force, it's a leap to suggest however that Rebelo gave serious consideration to the possibility that Madeleine died before the McCanns left for dinner - it's clear from the final report that that possibility was never seriously considered by the PJ IMO

"In a final synthesis, based on facts, it seems to us that the following can be asserted:

- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy - like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established - headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep";

Whatever the PJ thought, one of the purposes of the reconstitution was to discover;

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2030 on: May 09, 2021, 01:02:30 PM »
And you responded with the answer "I disagree that he tarnishes his entire work with one paragraph,"
I am just curious about what you meant by this

I think Grimes contradictions... Which we have in writing... Raise concerns as to his reliability as a witness

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2031 on: May 09, 2021, 01:04:41 PM »
I think Grimes contradictions... Which we have in writing... Raise concerns as to his reliability as a witness

But you agree though that his opinion is uncorroborated dog alerts can be used in court as evidence?

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2032 on: May 09, 2021, 01:08:13 PM »
Just what I said, I couldn't be any clearer if I tried.   Yesterday I said he through Eddie's alerts under the bus with that paragraph and you seemed to agree, have you now changed your mind?

You could be a little bit clearer as I'm none the wiser what you mean when you bolded the word entire, but never mind.
As I explained in my answer yesterday this is the problem with reading a couple of sentences and taking them out of context. I have now read the entire paper and have indeed changed my mind.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2033 on: May 09, 2021, 01:09:52 PM »
Whatever the PJ thought, one of the purposes of the reconstitution was to discover;

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
And why to do you think the police thought that reconstituting Kate and Gerry's movements in the apartment prior to leaving the apartment at 8.30pm would have revealed anything of significance?  Do you think the police thought the McCanns might helpfully  role play the handing out of sedatives, the sudden death of the child and the hatching of the plan as part of the reconstitution?  Absolute nonsense. 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2034 on: May 09, 2021, 01:11:55 PM »
You could be a little bit clearer as I'm none the wiser what you mean when you bolded the word entire, but never mind.
As I explained in my answer yesterday this is the problem with reading a couple of sentences and taking them out of context. I have now read the entire paper and have indeed changed my mind.
I told you why I bolded the word "entire" because that was your word, which I'm sure you used facetiously, or if not were certainly putting words into my mouth.  I hope you're not going to ask me why I bolded the word "your" now. 
Tell us why you think Grime isn't saying what (IMO) he is very clearly saying in that paragraph. 

ETA - I just read back your original post and you didn't use the word "entire" you used the word "all" so my apologies but pretty much the same difference, unless you want to get bogged down in another argument over semantics. 
« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 01:14:20 PM by Vertigo Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline barrier

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2035 on: May 09, 2021, 01:15:16 PM »
That's because Woltets hasn't shared his evidence

Saves his embarrassment.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2036 on: May 09, 2021, 01:15:54 PM »
But you agree though that his opinion is uncorroborated dog alerts can be used in court as evidence?
Not and a blanket statement... No.  There use has been very limited.. Once in Scotland it seems.. Where as I understand thr SCRCC said they should not have been admitted and never in England.

As I understand  the alerts area new type of evidence... 2005...and have been used in a few cases in the US.
I don't think that establishes then as acceptable evidence

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2037 on: May 09, 2021, 01:16:17 PM »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2038 on: May 09, 2021, 01:18:22 PM »
Operation Grange was set up as an investigative review, whose initial purpose was intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. The purpose was to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter.
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2018/november/information-operation-grange/

The remit was written before the review began, and it's clear that abduction was mentioned as a fact before any work was done.
.

I regarded Grange as an investigation... Not a review.
The remit was written after the scoping exercise
« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 01:41:24 PM by Davel »

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2039 on: May 09, 2021, 01:26:56 PM »
Not and a blanket statement... No.  There use has been very limited.. Once in Scotland it seems.. Where as I understand thr SCRCC said they should not have been admitted and never in England.

As I understand  the alerts area new type of evidence... 2005...and have been used in a few cases in the US.
I don't think that establishes then as acceptable evidence

"Not and a blanket statement... No"


So you still believe Grime's opinion is that uncorroborated dog alerts cant be used as evidence even though you just read his own paper where he says they could?
Three times in Scotland at least. I have never claimed they have been used in England.
As asked before a long time ago, what reason did the SCRCC use to form this opinion, inadmissible? quality of evidence? which test cases did they use to form this opinion?
New evidence is still evidence.
What is your definition of a few, 3,5,10.20,50?