Anectdotal witness evidence

[Brietta]

Grime used anecdotal evidence of Eddie's case work history to support his interpretation of Eddie's alerts in both Luz & Jersey. Based on the lack of alerts corroborated by tangible forensic evidence in the majority of those cases, it's almost impossible to place any real value on Eddie's alerts, either with or without separate anecdotal evidence. Even when bodies were later discovered the location of alerts did not necessarily result in a direct correlation between alerts & death.
IMO.

Eddie was classed as "incompetent" both in Luz and Jersey.  Had there been a criminal trial in Portugal featuring dog alerts that status would almost certainly have been revealed long before it was in 2010 as a result of the Jersey Review.

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf

[Icanhandlethetruth]

We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen.. We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged.  We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..

OK lets look at these,

We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen..

4 times in UK. Your one piece of "evidence" to support this assertion is questionable hearsay evidence from the family of a man spending life in prison, so lets leave Gilroy case to one side. Where is your evidence that in the cases of Ian Stewart, Edward Cairney , Avril Jones and Ross Willox the evidence wasn’t robustly challenged.

We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged

 I will repeat there is no evidence that they weren’t robustly challenged, even the hearsay evidence doesn’t say they weren’t robustly challenged. I don't know where you got this idea from.

We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..

I have no idea if they said it or not, you seem to believe it because the parents of the convicted man said it was so, you have never seen hide nor hair of the SCCRC report.

Why do you place so much weight on the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder?

[Mr Gray]

OK lets look at these,

We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen..

4 times in UK. Your one piece of evidence to support this assertion is questionable hearsay evidence from the family of a man spending life in prison, so lets leave Gilroy case to one side. Where is your evidence that in the cases of Ian Stewart, Edward Cairney , Avril Jones and Ross Willox the evidence wasn’t robustly challenged.

We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged

 I will repeat there is no evidence that they weren’t robustly challenged, even the hearsay evidence doesn’t say they weren’t robustly challenged. I don't know where you got this idea from.

We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..

I have no idea if they said it or not, you seem to believe it because the parents of the convicted man said it was so, you have never seen hide nor hair of the SCCRC report.

Why do you place so much weight on the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder?

You can look at what you like... I stand by everything I have said... Argument is pointless.  Even if I had confirmation fron the SCCRC you would dismiss it.  You are making a big deal they've been accepted fiur times.. LCN DNA was accepted 2000 times before being challenged.  It's a matter of record that Gilroys defense was poor..

The proof of the pudding.. If Wolters produces evidence.. Which he may well do.. That MM did not die in the apt then Grimes reputation is trashed ...

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You can look at what you like... I stand by everything I have said... Argument is pointless.  Even if I had confirmation fron the SCCRC you would dismiss it.  You are making a big deal they've been accepted fiur times.. LCN DNA was accepted 2000 times before being challenged.  It's a matter of record that Gilroys defense was poor..

The proof of the pudding.. If Wolters produces evidence.. Which he may well do.. That MM did not die in the apt then Grimes reputation is trashed ...

OK just so you are aware, you belief system about the alerts in the Gilroy being not robustly challenged are based on the words of the family of the man serving time in prison for the callous murder of Suzanne Pilley.
You hold the weight of those words to be so great that they override the fact that has been known for a long time that Scottish law absolutely allows the testimony of a dog handler to be an expert witness of an event that occurred during an investigation.

Rational thinking?

[Brietta]

You can look at what you like... I stand by everything I have said... Argument is pointless.  Even if I had confirmation fron the SCCRC you would dismiss it.  You are making a big deal they've been accepted fiur times.. LCN DNA was accepted 2000 times before being challenged.  It's a matter of record that Gilroys defense was poor..

The proof of the pudding.. If Wolters produces evidence.. Which he may well do.. That MM did not die in the apt then Grimes reputation is trashed ...

I think the weight of the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and why I think the main objection to the dog evidence was its irrelevance.  It just was not deemed necessary.

[Mr Gray]

OK just so you are aware, you belief system about the alerts in the Gilroy being not robustly challenged are based on the words of the family of the man serving time in prison for the callous murder of Suzanne Pilley.
You hold the weight of those words to be so great that they override the fact that has been known for a long time that Scottish law absolutely allows the testimony of a dog handler to be an expert witness of an event that occurred during an investigation.

Rational thinking?

Your opinion and you are wrong... As I've said.. Argument is pointless. My thinking on the alerts is quite rational. If the alerts are half as accurate ss Grime has claimed and sceptics believe.. Then then the McCanns are guilty of concealing Maddies body.. I think only a fool would think that is a realistic scenario in the circumstances.  The alerts are therefore junk imo... Unless the PJ planted scent and I dint believe thst either.  Even the PJ observers found the alerts strange.  If Eddie alerts to cadaver scent... Why does he need to be called back twuce before alerting.

Grime and Harrusin came uo with the idea if using the alerts as intelligence in 2005. It was in its infancy in 2007 and vert poorly thought through.  All rational thinking

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Your opinion and you are wrong... As I've said.. Argument is pointless. My thinking on the alerts is quite rational. If the alerts are half as accurate ss Grime has claimed and sceptics believe.. Then then the McCanns are guilty of concealing Maddies body.. I think only a fool would think that is a realistic scenario in the circumstances.  The alerts are therefore junk imo... Unless the PJ planted scent and I dint believe thst either.  Even the PJ observers found the alerts strange.  If Eddie alerts to cadaver scent... Why does he need to be called back twuce before alerting.

Grime and Harrusin came uo with the idea if using the alerts as intelligence in 2005. It was in its infancy in 2007 and vert oiirly thought through.  All rational thinking

OK if you think its rational to place the weight of the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder above the fact that Scottish law allows alerts, I will leave you to it.

[Mr Gray]

OK just so you are aware, you belief system about the alerts in the Gilroy being not robustly challenged are based on the words of the family of the man serving time in prison for the callous murder of Suzanne Pilley.
You hold the weight of those words to be so great that they override the fact that has been known for a long time that Scottish law absolutely allows the testimony of a dog handler to be an expert witness of an event that occurred during an investigation.

Rational thinking?

Proff Cassella says the only reliable cadaver dogs are those trained purely on human remains.  He's an expert in the field with no financial interest in the alerts.. Unlike Grime

[Mr Gray]

OK if you think its rational to place the weight of the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder above the fact that Scottish law allows alerts, I will leave you to it.

You are making an assumption that's all I place my opinion on.. ..I place it on much more than that... You are therefore displaying ignorance imo

Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Proff Cassella says the only reliable cadaver dogs are those trained purely on human remains.  He's an expert in the field with no financial interest in the alerts.. Unlike Grime

So we have been wasting our time in the UK using dogs trained on piglet carcasses.
He better tell the police so that they can stop using these unreliable tools.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You are making an assumption that's all I place my opinion on.. ..I place it on much more than that... You are therefore displaying ignorance imo

Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility

Eh, come again.

[Mr Gray]

Eh, come again.

It's basic English.. Which part are you having problems with

[Icanhandlethetruth]

It's basic English.. Which part are you having problems with

All of it.
Which statements?. I place a lot of credibility in what?
It finishes rather abruptly, seems there is something missing

[Mr Gray]

All of it.
Which statements?. I place a lot of credibility in what?
It finishes rather abruptly, seems there is something missing

You probably haven't noticed there is an ellipsis between the two statements not a full stop

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You probably haven't noticed there is an ellipsis between the two statements not a full stop

I assumed it was an attempt at an ellipsis, but even that is wrong. An ellipsis is three dots,
And what does the ellipsis mean in the context of the sentence, what words were you missing out?

Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility

If you think that was a well crafted sentence you are wrong. Its a dogs dinner.