Amaral and the dogs

[Alfred R Jones]

It is if you know who it is 

The problem is - we all know who it is, hence the derision!

[Carew]

Well..........I expect all these outpourings help to displace any hint of a possibility that an alert by the EVRD could have originated from the cadaver of the missing child.

Better to opt for urine- contaminated shorts, alleged handler incompetence and an overly - playful dog alerting for a reward.......( or was it an exhausted dog, alerting to get it all over with?)

 

[ferryman]

Well..........I expect all these outpourings help to displace any hint of a possibility that an alert by the EVRD could have originated from the cadaver of the missing child.

Better to opt for urine- contaminated shorts, alleged handler incompetence and an overly - playful dog alerting for a reward.......( or was it an exhausted dog, alerting to get it all over with?)

EVRD?

An individual and unique classification bestowed upon Eddie by Grime, that ceased to exist when Eddie stopped working ....

[Carew]

EVRD?

An individual and unique classification bestowed upon Eddie by Grime, that ceased to exist when Eddie stopped working ....

Try not to let it worry you.

[Carana]

I have a broader issue (although it is linked).

Why is some evidence admissible in court and other evidence not?

[Alfred R Jones]

Well..........I expect all these outpourings help to displace any hint of a possibility that an alert by the EVRD could have originated from the cadaver of the missing child.

Better to opt for urine- contaminated shorts, alleged handler incompetence and an overly - playful dog alerting for a reward.......( or was it an exhausted dog, alerting to get it all over with?)

Are you 100% convinced that the dogs alerted to the body of the missing child?  Is so, why?  If not, why not?

[sadie]

I have a broader issue (although it is linked).

Why is some evidence admissible in court and other evidence not?

Come on Carana

Let us know please.



I well remember The Michael Cook case when his work colleagues were not allowed to verify that he was working with them at the time that a red car was seen.  In a place that his little car hadn't the ground clearance to reach + several other things which in any normal Court would have got the defendent off.

Then the anomolies in the Leonor and Joao Cipriano case.  They are legendary

[Mr Gray]

It is if you know who it is 

an anonymous source on the internet...is this the poster who assured us that grime was going to answer questions from this forum

[Jean-Pierre]

I have a broader issue (although it is linked).

Why is some evidence admissible in court and other evidence not?

A very broad answer is that some evidence is objective and repeatable, and is capable of being viewed in the same way by different people.  e.g fingerprints, DNA results, a written statement, forensic matching of a bullet to a gun etc etc.

Other evidence is subjective, and depends on circumstances, interpretation.  Dog alerts would come into this category - a dog is a tool to narrow down and aid the search for forensic evidence. and it is the results of such analysis which constitutes evidence.

Whether the dog alerted in down to Grime's interpretation of what constitutes an alert.  That is why it would need to be corroborated by forensic analysis.

A question -would you be happy, say as a member of a jury, to send someone to prison for life on the basis of the video of Eddie searching the flat and the car?     

[Brietta]

an anonymous source on the internet...is this the poster who assured us that grime was going to answer questions from this forum

                       %£5&%     Aaaah ... I know who we are talking about now.

[Brietta]

A very broad answer is that some evidence is objective and repeatable, and is capable of being viewed in the same way by different people.  e.g fingerprints, DNA results, a written statement, forensic matching of a bullet to a gun etc etc.

Other evidence is subjective, and depends on circumstances, interpretation.  Dog alerts would come into this category - a dog is a tool to narrow down and aid the search for forensic evidence. and it is the results of such analysis which constitutes evidence.

Whether the dog alerted in down to Grime's interpretation of what constitutes an alert.  That is why it would need to be corroborated by forensic analysis.

A question -would you be happy, say as a member of a jury, to send someone to prison for life on the basis of the video of Eddie searching the flat and the car?     

I can put my hand on heart and say that about ten seconds in to my first viewing of the dog videos I was incredulous that people had been taken in by them.
Now that I have read a bit more about the training and skills of all types of working dogs and their handlers, that initial response has been reinforced.

I don't think there would ever have been the slightest chance that any jury would have been been asked to view the videos; for the simple reason I don't think they would have been allowed to be presented in court as there wasn't even circumstantial evidence to back them up.

Although having read a little of what was allowed in the Cipriano case it could have been interesting if there had been a prosecution in Madeleine's case.

[Carana]

A very broad answer is that some evidence is objective and repeatable, and is capable of being viewed in the same way by different people.  e.g fingerprints, DNA results, a written statement, forensic matching of a bullet to a gun etc etc.

Other evidence is subjective, and depends on circumstances, interpretation.  Dog alerts would come into this category - a dog is a tool to narrow down and aid the search for forensic evidence. and it is the results of such analysis which constitutes evidence.

Whether the dog alerted in down to Grime's interpretation of what constitutes an alert.  That is why it would need to be corroborated by forensic analysis.

A question -would you be happy, say as a member of a jury, to send someone to prison for life on the basis of the video of Eddie searching the flat and the car?     

Perhaps back in my more innocent days I might have been influenced as a jury member.

I don't know - perhaps it would depend on the preparation for jury members and my own prior research into such matters.

There's no way now that if I'd been on the Cipriano jury at the time that I would have accepted any of it on face value.

On the other hand, if I were called up tomorrow on e.g., a money-laundering case with all kinds of potentially complex legal shenanigans, I doubt that I'd have a clue what to believe.

[ferryman]

Try not to let it worry you.

The point might concern Grime, should someone from officialdom choose to question him about this unique classification at some (future) time.

My sole concern is to chart truth and separate it from fiction ....

[Carana]

I can put my hand on heart and say that about ten seconds in to my first viewing of the dog videos I was incredulous that people had been taken in by them.
Now that I have read a bit more about the training and skills of all types of working dogs and their handlers, that initial response has been reinforced.

I don't think there would ever have been the slightest chance that any jury would have been been asked to view the videos; for the simple reason I don't think they would have been allowed to be presented in court as there wasn't even circumstantial evidence to back them up.

Although having read a little of what was allowed in the Cipriano case it could have been interesting if there had been a prosecution in Madeleine's case.

My very first reaction was shock at seeing the Sun clip of Eddie barking at the car. I really did wonder at the time.

When I then saw the extended videos a bit later, I realised that it was most definitely no smoking gun (Eddie never did bark at the boot, for example).

And then when I was able to read the forensic results, plus JT's rog... that was it. The penny dropped.

[Mr Gray]

Well..........I expect all these outpourings help to displace any hint of a possibility that an alert by the EVRD could have originated from the cadaver of the missing child.

Better to opt for urine- contaminated shorts, alleged handler incompetence and an overly - playful dog alerting for a reward.......( or was it an exhausted dog, alerting to get it all over with?)

the question is why and what did eddie alert to and as even Grime isn't sure....to suggest it is to anything in particular is ridiculous