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

[Mr Gray]

You asked for a cite, you got a cite. Readers can look up Rex Stockham’s CV and experience and make their own minds up about his veracity.

I absolutely accept his figure...but without knowing the deatils of his tests we cannot put the figure into context..
I think maddie was  abducted.....and 99.999% of child abductions are carried out by parents...think about it

[G-Unit]

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.

You don't seem to appreciate that you have failed to demonstrate that Grime committed an error.

[Sunny]

I absolutely accept his figure...but without knowing the deatils of his tests we cannot put the figure into context..
I think maddie was  abducted.....and 99.999% of child abductions are carried out by parents...think about it

You have failed to show that Martin Grime said that the dog alerts were unreliable and that the alerts were actually unreliable in themselves. Just because they weren't admissible in court doesn't make them unreliable.

We don't need to know the details of Stockham's tests all we need to know is what job he did and that he was considered an expert witness at the D'Andre Lane trial.

Do we have all the full details of how the drug tests were carried out on the twins and Kate no we don't, yet you accept the result of them.

[Mr Gray]

You have failed to show that Martin Grime said that the dog alerts were unreliable and that the alerts were actually unreliable in themselves. Just because they weren't admissible in court doesn't make them unreliable.

We don't need to know the details of Stockham's tests all we need to know is what job he did and that he was considered an expert witness at the D'Andre Lane trial.

Do we have all the full details of how the drug tests were carried out on the twins and Kate no we don't, yet you accept the result of them.

You clearly  don't understand  science and evidence IMO... So further discussion  is pointless...

[Sunny]

You clearly  don't understand  science and evidence IMO... So further discussion  is pointless...

So explain to me then Davel. I think I do, you think I don't.  Show me the evidence.

[Mr Gray]

So explain to me then Davel. I think I do, you think I don't.  Show me the evidence.

i already have done...you are quoting the result of a test ....and drawing conclusuions...with no knowledge of the test or what it entailed...that is unscientific and cannot support your evidence...

[misty]

You don't seem to appreciate that you have failed to demonstrate that Grime committed an error.

Neither has anyone managed to demonstrate that Grime didn't make a potential error simply because no-one can determine precisely what Eddie is alerting to when he barks.

[Mr Gray]

Neither has anyone managed to demonstrate that Grime didn't make a potential error simply because no-one can determine precisely what Eddie is alerting to when he barks.

like cuddle cat

[Sunny]

i already have done...you are quoting the result of a test ....and drawing conclusuions...with no knowledge of the test or what it entailed...that is unscientific and cannot support your evidence...

Perhaps as is your claim that the alerts were unreliable as regards remnant scents then Davel.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps as is your claim that the alerts were unreliable as regards remnant scents then Davel.

so you have given up your claim taht the 90% is relevant...teh alerts are unreliable...you have not been able to show in what sense they are reliable...what do they reliably tell us...nothing...so they are unreliable

[Sunny]

so you have given up your claim taht the 90% is relevant...teh alerts are unreliable...you have not been able to show in what sense they are reliable...what do they reliably tell us...nothing...so they are unreliable

Just because something is not considered for court purposes doesn't make it unreliable as you well know.  The high 90s percent test results are relevant as Stockham was an expert witness and not just any expert witness IMO.  He would know whether Grime's dogs had a lot of false alerts and he said they did not.

That is all we need to know.  You are putting words into Grime and Harrison's mouths and in the process disrespecting both them and and Rex Stockham as well.

[Mr Gray]

Just because something is not considered for court purposes doesn't make it unreliable as you well know.  The high 90s percent test results are relevant as Stockham was an expert witness and not just any expert witness IMO.  He would know whether Grime's dogs had a lot of false alerts and he said they did not.

That is all we need to know.  You are putting words into Grime and Harrison's mouths and in the process disrespecting both them and and Rex Stockham as well.

absolute rubbish..if you read my posts you would see I accept stockholms figures........never mind court...what do the alerts reliably tell us...nothing...so they are unreliable......

[misty]

Just because something is not considered for court purposes doesn't make it unreliable as you well know.  The high 90s percent test results are relevant as Stockham was an expert witness and not just any expert witness IMO.  He would know whether Grime's dogs had a lot of false alerts and he said they did not.

That is all we need to know.  You are putting words into Grime and Harrison's mouths and in the process disrespecting both them and and Rex Stockham as well.

If the evidence is reliable it would be acceptable to all US courts & the judge would not have to first consider the competence of the dog. No-one is questioning Stockham's ability when assessing Morse & Grime but it is important to bear in mind he was developing a canine programme at the time. Testing therefore may or may not have been bog-standard minimum requirement or advanced scientifically based.

[Sunny]

If the evidence is reliable it would be acceptable to all US courts & the judge would not have to first consider the competence of the dog. No-one is questioning Stockham's ability when assessing Morse & Grime but it is important to bear in mind he was developing a canine programme at the time. Testing therefore may or may not have been bog-standard minimum requirement or advanced scientifically based.

Thank you for your sensible answer Misty. You may have a point but i believe that Stockham would have been rigorous in his testing from the get go but I am willing to concede your point.  Stockham wasn't new to the FBI as had been an expert in explosives before. 

[Sunny]

absolute rubbish..if you read my posts you would see I accept stockholms figures........never mind court...what do the alerts reliably tell us...nothing...so they are unreliable......

Can you point me to your post where you accept Stockham's figures?  I see this one

and I have shown why your cite is meaningless...the fact you do not realise taht is very telling..imo

This one

Thats your opinion again and incorrect..I would like to evaluate it....but to make  a proper evaluation I would need details of the test carried out...you have blindly accepted the figure..imo

And this one

experts tell us what was tested...its no good giving a result but not explaining what was tested...taht is worthless and im surprised you cant see that...

you are quoting the results of a test...but dont know what was tested...

In none do you accept the results of Stockham's tests.