Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[Brietta]

The irony is you don't seem to appreciate Grime's potential error may have denied the PJ of the crucial piece of evidence they were looking for.

I get the point ... it was assumed that the point of Eddie's interest was behind the couch at the place confirmed by very directional Keela ... and precluded any further investigation as to why Eddie barked immediately he lifted his nose.
The 'smoking gun' could very well have been the couch ... and even evidence which could have cleared Kate and Gerry of unwarranted suspicion.

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps you could point out where Grime says "no reliability" here

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

In his search evidence he says

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

But we knew that already, that dog evidence is not (or was not) allowed in court that doesn't mean the dogs were unreliable. IMO.

So again a cite where he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts.

Where does Davel say "he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts".

You can't ask for a cite for something not claimed.

Post the URL to the post where Davel says this please.  Either that or stop goading Davel.

[Robittybob1]

I never said he did. He was identifying their usefulness nevertheless.

OK the dog alerted we can't deny that.
But without corroborating evidence we can't say what the alert was to.

It is possible a cadaver was there and removed (leaving no corroborating evidence), so that just becomes an unproven possibility.

[Robittybob1]

In what way are they useful... We already know Maddie may have died in the apartments... We don't need a barking dig to tell us that... At least I dont

Died and left there long enough to be tracked by a cadaver dog 3 months later, did you ever think that was possibility?

[slartibartfast]

Where does Davel say "he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts".

You can't ask for a cite for something not claimed.

Post the URL to the post where Davel says this please.  Either that or stop goading Davel.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915

[Mr Gray]

Died and left there long enough to be tracked by a cadaver dog 3 months later, did you ever think that was possibility?

Would cadaver scent last 3 months in an open building
Would it last 3 months in a, flower bed with wind and rain
I think it's no to both these but as there have been no scientific  tests we don't know...

[Mr Gray]

Where does Davel say "he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts".

You can't ask for a cite for something not claimed.

Post the URL to the post where Davel says this please.  Either that or stop goading Davel.

I've given the cite Re the unreliability of unconfirmed alerts several times

[Robittybob1]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915

OK and the words used were:
"remnant scent alerts are unreliable according to grime and harrison........You cite this 90% calim but havent given any details of what it refers to...is it remnant scent...you dont know"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915

We know their reliability depended on the finding of corroborating evidence at the location.

But Madeleine had been living at that location so finding her DNA there was never going to be enough.

In fact finding her blood there was unlikely to be enough, for a kid can get a bleeding nose and that doesn't mean she died.

Does the corroborating evidence have to be found at the site of the alert.  They don't actually say that do they.  So if her body was found at another location would that be corroborating evidence?

[Mr Gray]

OK and the words used were:
"remnant scent alerts are unreliable according to grime and harrison........You cite this 90% calim but havent given any details of what it refers to...is it remnant scent...you dont know"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478915#msg478915

We know their reliability depended on the finding of corroborating evidence at the location.

But Madeleine had been living at that location so finding her DNA there was never going to be enough.

Of course it wasn't and that applies to many cases

[slartibartfast]

I've given the cite Re the unreliability of unconfirmed alerts several times

You gave a cite regarding the reliability of conclusions drawn from remnant scent alerts not the alerts themselves.

[Mr Gray]

You gave a cite regarding the reliability of conclusions drawn from remnant scent alerts not the alerts themselves.

The only value the alerts have is the information  that can be derived from them... Which is unreliable

[misty]

I get the point ... it was assumed that the point of Eddie's interest was behind the couch at the place confirmed by very directional Keela ... and precluded any further investigation as to why Eddie barked immediately he lifted his nose.
The 'smoking gun' could very well have been the couch ... and even evidence which could have cleared Kate and Gerry of unwarranted suspicion.

I asked myself why (if a body had lain behind the sofa long enough for cadaver odour to develop) the absorbent fabric of the back of the sofa was not contaminated & alerted to as per the German carpet squares non-contact cadaver experiment. That's what led me to examine the footage again & question why Grime was so sure that Eddie had alerted to the wall/floor juncture.

[Robittybob1]

You gave a cite regarding the reliability of conclusions drawn from remnant scent alerts not the alerts themselves.

We can see and hear the dog bark.  But we don't know what made him bark, we presume it was to cadaver odour but we can't be sure, until it is confirmed there is a cadaver somewhere in the location (even possible distant location).

[Sunny]

Where does Davel say "he says that the dogs were unreliable regarding unconfirmed alerts".

You can't ask for a cite for something not claimed.

Post the URL to the post where Davel says this please.  Either that or stop goading Davel.

Davel didn't say "he said that the dogs were unreliable regarding the unconfirmed alerts" if you had read the entirety of my post you would see I was talking about Martin Grime and Davel's claims about what Grime said eg

Davel's post

Both Harrison and Grime say unconfirmed  alerts have no reliability as evidence or.. In Harrison's case... Evidence or intelligence... No reliability means unreliable

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478956#msg478956

I wanted a cite from Davel that Grime said they were "unreliable". I haven't had one. 

Davel is changing Grime and Harrisons words IMO. No reliability as evidence does not mean unreliable.

[Mr Gray]

Davel didn't say "he said that the dogs were unreliable regarding the unconfirmed alerts" if you had read the entirety of my post you would see I was talking about Martin Grime and Davel's claims about what Grime said eg

Davel's post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478956#msg478956

I wanted a cite from Davel that Grime said they were "unreliable". I haven't had one. 

Davel is changing Grime and Harrisons words IMO. No reliability as evidence does not mean unreliable.

Yes it does. ..imo.... And if you disagree then tell us, what reliability  the alerts have.... If you cannot... Then you must accept they have no reliability