Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[Mr Gray]

So they wouldn't need physical evidence to confirm them?

the alerts would not be corroborated  by a confession

[Eleanor]

So a strong confession by the parents would be rejected by the courts? Go figure!

This Comment is nonsense.

[Robittybob1]

We have no way of knowing what the dogs actually alerted to as no body was found, nor any trace of one.

No. Yes - DNA was discovered.

[Wonderfulspam]

Shannon Matthews was missing.  She was missing from school, she was missing from her home, her father had no idea where she was, nor did her siblings, her granparents, her neighbours, nor did the police.  She was missing. F she was not missing prior to her discovery by the police hidden in a divan, what was she?

Hidden.

[Mr Gray]

He certainly states the dog 'has NOT so indicated (falsely) operationally or in training.'

So when and where does he say the dog had EVER given a false positive alert?

If he stated taht the dog has never given a false alert he has made a massive error...he cannot know an alert is true or false unless every alert the dog has ever made has been corroborated..its simple logic

[Mr Gray]

No DNA was discovered.

dna would not prove anything either way

[Mr Gray]

A confession certainly came in handy for confirming the dog alerts in the Zapata case.

we know the dogs will alert without the presence of a cadaver ..

[Robittybob1]

I don't, no. Martin Grime: "'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has NOT so indicated
operationally or in training."

Not so indicated cannot be interpreted in anyway to mean sometimes so indicated. Either operationally or in training.

What mistake do you see?

Well you are treating what Martin Grime has said as some sort of scientific paper on the subject of false positives.
 Martin Grime: "'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has NOT so indicated
operationally or in training."
Where is the evidence for that?

[Brietta]

Hidden.

Let's put a stop this nonsense before it gets any more ridiculous than it already is.

Matthews was convicted of Perverting the course of Justice ~ false imprisonment ~ and kidnapping

Just in case anyone missed that ... she was given a prison sentence for KIDNAPPING amongst other crimes.

[Robittybob1]

I don't know what you would be able to do with a cadaver dog Rob, not being a dog trainer but I do know that 'has NOT so indicated' falsely cannot be interpreted into has 'sometimes so indicated' falsely.

It is all to do with proof and level of proof, and knowledge.

I'm sure there were many places where Eddie alerted but there was no apparent reason for the alert.

But Mr Grime  couldn't see any meat, or roadkill etc nearby to suggest it was a false positive to that category of causes.
Eddie alerted near the wardrobe.  No roadkill near there nor any pork products.

[Robittybob1]

this is what Grime said in his witness statement..


Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

according to that it takes physical remains bring found at the time to corroborate the alerts

But the CSI dog is not Eddie but Keela.  Two different dogs.

[Wonderfulspam]

Let's put a stop this nonsense before it gets any more ridiculous than it already is.

Matthews was convicted of Perverting the course of Justice ~ false imprisonment ~ and kidnapping

Just in case anyone missed that ... she was given a prison sentence for KIDNAPPING amongst other crimes.

...and she knew where Shannon was.

[Mr Gray]

But the CSI dog is not Eddie but Keela.  Two different dogs.

Im aware of that....i understand exactly what grime meant and said

[Mr Gray]

I'm treating for it is, a report that contains information. Part of that information states; "'False' positives are always a possibility; TO DATE Eddie HAS NOT so indicated operationally or in training."

TO DATE EDDIE HAD NOT SO INDICATED. Can't be much clearer than that can it?

Ive shown that Grime cannot possibly know if all eddies positive alerts are genuine....he may have been a little imprecise with is choice of words

[Robittybob1]

dna would not prove anything either way

What I'm meaning is that Grime isn't going to call it a false positive alert if human DNA is found.  It proves a point to Grime if no one else.  He is keeping a score on his dog's performance.