Amaral and the dogs

[mercury]

Irrelevant.

I reported from the court judgement with no alterations or amendments.

Not sure why everyone is jumping up and down so muchand getting in a tizz, ..there is no difference here between the judgement and the appeal court exonerating Amaral in the first place...some years ago....proven does not mean the judge counted the DNA markers, proven means the dogs alerted to cadaver scent and blood...as this is what they alert to, now people can spin it semantically and otherwise for another 400 pages...won't change a thing libel wise (which is non existent anyway in this case)

[pathfinder73]

*&*%£

How do pooches with a good memory when trained and worked as cadaver dogs do  remembering remnant scent of saliva, clipped toenails, and bad breath? Sheesh, I expect the whole population of any country would not want cadaver dogs entering their homes....! quick, hide the pork chops, empty the bins, the bacons in there, and the smelly old socks!! Hoover up the nails (though I'm sure some here will argue Eddie could have smelt through a Henry Hoover bag's contents). My list is growing longer, I've just read cadaver dogs alert to freshly mown lawns or some insanity like that, not to mention the other day two kids were fighting and one pulled the others hair out... I am waiting for the dust mites to hit the stage any time soon.Carry on though. It's very entertaining as well as being so bloody pathetic it's unreal.

Eddie helped to convict murderers not toe clippers 

Devon, UK
A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect
was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near
to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at
the alert location revealed a small button off of the girls clothing in long grass.
The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been
initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.

A 39-year-old bus driver was charged last night with the murder of the college student Alicia Eborne, whose body was found concealed in thick woodland at an isolated spot on Dartmoor, in Devon, earlier yesterday.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/17/ukcrime.jamiewilson

[mercury]

Eddie helped to convict murderers not toe clippers 

PMSL!
Classic!

 

Thanks for that! I'm off to send a FOI request to SYP just to make sure Eddie wasn't sent to a nail clipping detection school and Grime surreptitiously left it off his profile because he was "on the make" . What a fraud! If so.

[Mr Gray]

No wonder the dog threads go on forever when the sceptics cannot understand the basics.
It is impossible to prove remnant scent...that is something we have all agreed on..impossible
so Stephen and others are misinterpreting the judgement

[ferryman]

Eddie helped to convict murderers not toe clippers 

Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred''

There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

Martin Grime

[G-Unit]

*&*%£

How do pooches with a good memory when trained and worked as cadaver dogs do  remembering remnant scent of saliva, clipped toenails, and bad breath? Sheesh, I expect the whole population of any country would not want cadaver dogs entering their homes....! quick, hide the pork chops, empty the bins, the bacons in there, and the smelly old socks!! Hoover up the nails (though I'm sure some here will argue Eddie could have smelt through a Henry Hoover bag's contents). My list is growing longer, I've just read cadaver dogs alert to freshly mown lawns or some insanity like that, not to mention the other day two kids were fighting and one pulled the others hair out... I am waiting for the dust mites to hit the stage any time soon.Carry on though. It's very entertaining as well as being so bloody pathetic it's unreal.

Butchers have had it, and gardeners with fertilizer on their wellies. Undertakers are sure to be guilty, and slaughterhouse workers. Pig farmers may as well hand themselves in immediately too.   

[stephen25000]

No wonder the dog threads go on forever when the sceptics cannot understand the basics.
It is impossible to prove remnant scent...that is something we have all agreed on..impossible
so Stephen and others are misinterpreting the judgement

 

READ THE JUDGEMENT. There is no misinterpretation. It is in black and white.

No deflection from you and others will change that.

[Benice]

READ THE JUDGEMENT. There is no misinterpretation. It is in black and white.

No deflection from you and others will change that.

Oh dear - it seems you are still completely missing the point Stephen.

Just to remind you:


@ Stephen  (from Carana)

if I had given a statement to the police that you microwaved puppies for breakfast and "Expert A" wrote a book drawing on that statement, the judge would still have listed that as an "undisputed fact" for the purposes of the civil trial.

It doesn't mean that you do actually engage in such practices, just that an untested statement in the police files to that effect does in fact exist.
[/b][/u]

[stephen25000]

Oh dear - it seems you are still completely missing the point Stephen.

Just to remind you:


@ Stephen  (from Carana)

if I had given a statement to the police that you microwaved puppies for breakfast and "Expert A" wrote a book drawing on that statement, the judge would still have listed that as an "undisputed fact" for the purposes of the civil trial.

It doesn't mean that you do actually engage in such practices, just that an untested statement in the police files to that effect does in fact exist.
[/b][/u]

I'm missing no point.

READ THE JUDGEMENT.

[slartibartfast]

Oh dear - it seems you are still completely missing the point Stephen.

Just to remind you:


@ Stephen  (from Carana)

if I had given a statement to the police that you microwaved puppies for breakfast and "Expert A" wrote a book drawing on that statement, the judge would still have listed that as an "undisputed fact" for the purposes of the civil trial.

It doesn't mean that you do actually engage in csuch practices, just that an untested statement in the police files to that effect does in fact exist.
[/b][/u]

...and in a trial Stephen would, I'm sure, challenge the puppy statement. Strangely enough the alerts weren't challenged in this one.

[G-Unit]

...and in a trial Stephen would, I'm sure, challenge the puppy statement. Strangely enough the alerts weren't challenged in this one.

Gerald McCann tried to bring the subject up and the judge told him to shut it as I recall.

[ferryman]

...and in a trial Stephen would, I'm sure, challenge the puppy statement. Strangely enough the alerts weren't challenged in this one.

No need to challenge them.

Uncorroborated alerts have no evidential value or meaning.

Why waste time challenging them?

[Benice]

...and in a trial Stephen would, I'm sure, challenge the puppy statement. Strangely enough the alerts weren't challenged in this one.

It's my understanding that whether anything written was true or not was irrelevant.   It was proof that statements made were from the files as claimed by Amaral -  that was being sought.   And not whether those statements were factually correct.

Isn't that what the Judge explained to GM?  (from memory)

[Benice]

Gerald McCann tried to bring the subject up and the judge told him to shut it as I recall.

IIRC that was because whether the statements made about the dogs was true or not was irrelevant.    It was establishing whether or not those statements came from the files that was the issue.

[stephen25000]

It's my understanding that whether anything written was true or not was irrelevant.   It was proof that statements made were from the files as claimed by Amaral -  that was being sought.   And not whether those statements were factually correct.

Isn't that what the Judge explained to GM?  (from memory)

Can you please explain what is meant by the phrase 'UNDISPUTED FACTS' ?

P.S. I'm not shouting.