Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

Which file?

 Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm


Pages 2836 to 2839 under summary

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm


Pages 2836 to 2839 under summary

OK thanks for that, I read that bit before but it doesn't really mean that a dog alert is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. It means he himself doesn't belief that the conclusion is that a cadaver has been in the location.
He doesn't expressly comment that this evidence can't be used in a court of law does he?

[Venturi Swirl]

"prosecutions involvimg dog evidence have involved dogs trained solely on human cadavers, not a mixture of both humans and pigs, in order to make that particular line of defence redundant."

If you had read all of Mr Grime's white paper you would know this isn't true or indeed possible.

Talk about deliberately mistquoting!!   Could you please highlight the whole sentence I wrote not just a part of it as you did, and thus significantly changing what I wrote, thank you.

[Mr Gray]

OK thanks for that, I read that bit before but it doesn't really mean that a dog alert is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. It means he himself doesn't belief that the conclusion is that a cadaver has been in the location.
He doesn't expressly comment that this evidence can't be used in a court of law does he?

It would mean his comment could be used in a court of law

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I’m sorry but that just won’t do.  You have claimed “investigators”,would decide what the dog alerted to, then you say it’s down to the handler to decide if it was human cadaver or pig products?  It’s all very inexact isn’t it, and well unreliable, when there isn’t a shred of evidence to back it up isn’t it?  Going back to my original point, Grime seems to have acknowledged that dogs trained on pigs and humans cannot be relied upon to be giving correct alerts to human cadavers, and IMO it’s likely that since PdL, prosecutions involvimg dog evidence have involved dogs trained solely on human cadavers, not a mixture of both humans and pigs, in order to make that particular line of defence redundant.

Is any evidence exact? Eye witness? Handwriting? Voice analysis? Even as Davel says LCN DNA. You don’t get definite I am afraid. It’s not a movie. Grime’s point is and this is the point of the paper that it would be preferable to rule out pigs from the equation going forward from now but it doesn’t invalidate his previous alerts.
Your opinion that prosecutions involving dog evidence having been trained on human cadavers is not only not true or even possible which you would know if you had read all of Mr Grime’s white paper.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

It would mean his comment could be used in a court of law

Inference meaning
 
“a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.”
 
He could testify that he couldn’t conclude a body was there but he suspected one was.
It certainly doesn’t rule him out of testifying in court on an alert.

[Mr Gray]

Inference meaning
 
“a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.”
 
He could testify that he couldn’t conclude a body was there but he suspected one was.
It certainly doesn’t rule him out of testifying in court on an alert.

Reaching the conclusion that the alert shows that a body may have been there is making an inference.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Reaching the conclusion that the alert shows that a body may have been there is making an inference.

But the question remains, is there anything that Harrison has stated that would preclude him from giving evidence in a court of law regarding dog alerts, either as an expert witness for the prosecution or the defence?

[Mr Gray]

But the question remains, is there anything that Harrison has stated that would preclude him from giving evidence in a court of law regarding dog alerts, either as an expert witness for the prosecution or the defence?

Certainly has for the prosecution but not for the defence.  As I recall prof Cassella expressed a similar sentiment in the gilroy case

[Venturi Swirl]

Is any evidence exact? Eye witness? Handwriting? Voice analysis? Even as Davel says LCN DNA. You don’t get definite I am afraid. It’s not a movie. Grime’s point is and this is the point of the paper that it would be preferable to rule out pigs from the equation going forward from now but it doesn’t invalidate his previous alerts.
Your opinion that prosecutions involving dog evidence having been trained on human cadavers is not only not true or even possible which you would know if you had read all of Mr Grime’s white paper.

As you misquoted me I don’t think you’re in any position to tell me that what I wrote was not true or not possible.  If alerts from dogs trained on humans and pigs were reliable then why would there be any need to remove pig odour from their training, please explain.  Eye witness, handwriting, voice analysis all unreliable I completely agree, and your point is?

[Mr Gray]

Grime said...

The dogs only alerted to things McCann

Eddies behavior changed as soon as he entered the apartment

Eddie alerted to cuddle cat.....cuddle cat wa s always in kates possession so its difficult to see how it could be contaminated

In his opinion the alerts wer esuggestive of cadaver contamination.

realistically imo ....and alot of others....that has to implicate the mcCanns.



SY say no evidence maddie is dead

wolters says he has evidnce MM was murdered by  a paedophile.

If it can be shown Wolters is correct I wonder how grime will explain what he said about the alerts in LUz

[Icanhandlethetruth]

As you misquoted me I don’t think you’re in any position to tell me that what I wrote was not true or not possible.  If alerts from dogs trained on humans and pigs were reliable then why would there be any need to remove pig odour from their training, please explain.  Eye witness, handwriting, voice analysis all unreliable I completely agree, and your point is?

It is not true that “prosecutions involvimg dog evidence have involved dogs trained solely on human cadavers, not a mixture of both humans and pigs,” and I repeat it is not possible which you would know if you read the white paper.
You might not like my answer but its the truth.
You keep commenting on a white paper that you haven’t even read!
They are reliable in the sense that they could be either human or pig.
If you deem all those to be unreliable what do you consider reliable evidence?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Certainly has for the prosecution but not for the defence.  As I recall prof Cassella expressed a similar sentiment in the gilroy case

What would preclude him from speaking for the prosecution.
 i.e. "I can't confirm that a cadaver was ever there but suspect it may have been"

[kizzy]

Grime said...

The dogs only alerted to things McCann

Eddies behavior changed as soon as he entered the apartment

Eddie alerted to cuddle cat.....cuddle cat wa s always in kates possession so its difficult to see how it could be contaminated

In his opinion the alerts wer esuggestive of cadaver contamination.

realistically imo ....and alot of others....that has to implicate the mcCanns.



SY say no evidence maddie is dead

wolters says he has evidnce MM was murdered by  a paedophile.

If it can be shown Wolters is correct I wonder how grime will explain what he said about the alerts in LUz

If it can be shown Wolters is correct I wonder how grime will explain what he said about the alerts in LUz

Why would Grime put his or dogs reputation on the line if imo he thought  Maddie would found alive. 


Maddie could have been found anytime a long time ago after the alerts ...but she wasn't.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Grime said...

The dogs only alerted to things McCann

Eddies behavior changed as soon as he entered the apartment

Eddie alerted to cuddle cat.....cuddle cat wa s always in kates possession so its difficult to see how it could be contaminated

In his opinion the alerts wer esuggestive of cadaver contamination.

realistically imo ....and alot of others....that has to implicate the mcCanns.



SY say no evidence maddie is dead

wolters says he has evidnce MM was murdered by  a paedophile.

If it can be shown Wolters is correct I wonder how grime will explain what he said about the alerts in LUz

Its a real mess isn't it? IMO no resolution in this case.