Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[G-Unit]

i cant see how it could be used as evidence when grime and harrison both say they have no evidentail value and Grimes comment re which alerts could become corroberated. If he has changed his mind...which he appears to have then that makes him an unreliable witness.

As you know, it's not Harrison or Grime's job to decide what is or is not evidence. If a defence team believe the alerts are useful to a case the judge would be the person who would decide whether to allow them to be admitted or not.

[Mr Gray]

As you know, it's not Harrison or Grime's job to decide what is or is not evidence. If a defence team believe the alerts are useful to a case the judge would be the person who would decide whether to allow them to be admitted or not.

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

[G-Unit]

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

I realise that you have relied on what they said, but it has been shown that it's not a police decision.

[The General]

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

The majority of the jurors in the Gilroy case must have been dreaming too. zzZZZZzzzZZZZzzZZZzzzZzzz

[Mr Gray]

I realise that you have relied on what they said, but it has been shown that it's not a police decision.

It's the judges decision based on what the experts say... That's why I rely on what the experts say

[Brietta]

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

I think it is all yesterday's news pretty much as it was on the day and hour the actual forensic report came through from the FSS showing that there was no forensic evidence to back up the wild claims made by Amaral.

A child's body sniffed through feet of concrete indeed !!!! etc.  But we've seen the reality of the Jersey visit and read about the aftermath, so I think it is well beyond time the myth of the dogs was laid to rest,

[G-Unit]

It's the judges decision based on what the experts say... That's why I rely on what the experts say

It seems that the expert view has evolved in that the evidence of dependable handlers with dogs whose training and reliability records are well documented is admissable as part of a body of evidence.

[Lace]

They ignore the tests being done to see what gases are emitted from a pig [which Grime trained Eddie on] and human cadaver.  They showed that during the first stage of decomposition,  there was no gas.  Which means if Madeleine lay dead in the apartment she would have had to have lain there for quite a while for the cadaver scent to be alerted to by Eddie.  All rubbish as far as I'm concerned.  Eddie smelt something but it wasn't cadaver scent.

[G-Unit]

I think it is all yesterday's news pretty much as it was on the day and hour the actual forensic report came through from the FSS showing that there was no forensic evidence to back up the wild claims made by Amaral.

A child's body sniffed through feet of concrete indeed !!!! etc.  But we've seen the reality of the Jersey visit and read about the aftermath, so I think it is well beyond time the myth of the dogs was laid to rest,

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

[G-Unit]

They ignore the tests being done to see what gases are emitted from a pig [which Grime trained Eddie on] and human cadaver.  They showed that during the first stage of decomposition,  there was no gas.  Which means if Madeleine lay dead in the apartment she would have had to have lain there for quite a while for the cadaver scent to be alerted to by Eddie.  All rubbish as far as I'm concerned.  Eddie smelt something but it wasn't cadaver scent.

I don't think a lay person's opinion is going to affect anything. Others will decide whether a dog's alerts are worthy of being included as evidence or not.

[Brietta]

It seems that the expert view has evolved in that the evidence of dependable handlers with dogs whose training and reliability records are well documented is admissable as part of a body of evidence.

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.

[Mr Gray]

It seems that the expert view has evolved in that the evidence of dependable handlers with dogs whose training and reliability records are well documented is admissable as part of a body of evidence.

Just on eexpert it seems....Prof Cassella who wrote the forward to the white paper doesnt agree. i wonder if harrison has changed his mind or not. Grime acnnot change what he said in 2007....I wonder what caused him to change his mind. His change without any reason suggests unrelaibility imo

how many times has Grime ...in his long career ...given evidence in any UK court....I cant remember one. that is very unimpressive imo

[Mr Gray]

I don't think a lay person's opinion is going to affect anything. Others will decide whether a dog's alerts are worthy of being included as evidence or not.

But Grime...Harrison...Cassella have told us they are not

[The General]

But Grime...Harrison...Cassella have told us they are not

When?

[Brietta]

I don't think a lay person's opinion is going to affect anything. Others will decide whether a dog's alerts are worthy of being included as evidence or not.

And it will be lay people ... not 'experts' who will decide the reliability or otherwise of what is presented to a trial.