UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Gray on December 21, 2021, 05:07:21 PM
-
martin grime claims the alerts can be corroborated by anectdotal witness evidence....but Anectdotal evidence is defined as..
Anecdotal evidence is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.
so grime thinks his alerts can be corroborated by evidece which is not corroborated.....is this from the Alice in Wonderland School of Logic
-
I can see how a dog alert might be collaborated (if not confirmed) by anecdotal evidence, for example in the Shannon Matthews case the dog alerted to a bed(?) and anecdotal evidence was provided that someone had died in the bed. In the McCann case the dogs alerted to blood in the apartment and anecdotal evidence was provided that somene bled there, another example.
-
I can see how a dog alert might be collaborated (if not confirmed) by anecdotal evidence, for example in the Shannon Matthews case the dog alerted to a bed(?) and anecdotal evidence was provided that someone had died in the bed. In the McCann case the dogs alerted to blood in the apartment and anecdotal evidence was provided that somene bled there, another example.
The FACT that someone died in the bed is not Anectdotal...its aproven fact
-
I can see how a dog alert might be collaborated (if not confirmed) by anecdotal evidence, for example in the Shannon Matthews case the dog alerted to a bed(?) and anecdotal evidence was provided that someone had died in the bed. In the McCann case the dogs alerted to blood in the apartment and anecdotal evidence was provided that somene bled there, another example.
I think you forgot about the dog alerts to Kate's clothing laid out on the floor of the underground car park.
That said however, I think the Eddie playing with the toy footage filmed in the apartment was farcical.
-
I saw Eddie being called back time and time again to things he wasn't interested in. Is this anecdotal evidence?
-
I think you forgot about the dog alerts to Kate's clothing laid out on the floor of the underground car park.
Grime has contradicted himself . In Luz he said none of the cadaver alerts could be corroborrtaed....now hes accepting anectdotal evidence as corroboration. Its pereposterous because anectdotal evidence does not corroborate anything. Grime may be able to train a dog...that is not aparticularly difficult task as I understand...but he does not seem to understand the concept of evidence and proof.
the clothes were all put in abox...they would have all contaminated each other...the dog should have raected to everything. If maddie did not die in the apt...and it seems there is proof she didnt...Grime has some expalining to do
-
I think you forgot about the dog alerts to Kate's clothing laid out on the floor of the underground car park.
That said however, I think the Eddie playing with the toy footage filmed in the apartment was farcical.
I didn’t forget anything, I gave one example of (imo) anecdotal corrobration of the dog alerts.
-
The FACT that someone died in the bed is not Anectdotal...its aproven fact
I agree - if it was proven withdoctors certificates etc, then not andcdotal but if it was just an unproven claim then anecdotal corroboration (not proof).
-
I think you forgot about the dog alerts to Kate's clothing laid out on the floor of the underground car park.
That said however, I think the Eddie playing with the toy footage filmed in the apartment was farcical.
I think the clothing laid out on the gym floor was one of the more bizarre episodes. Why would it be thought appropriate to remove items in which the dog had shown absolutely no interest when in the villa, to the gym where it started to mouth them and throw them about.
If that was an alert it was obvious that the clothing had been contaminated in transit or at the gym. Whichever - it would not have stood in court if by some chance it had been allowed to be introduced.
-
I think the clothing laid out on the gym floor was one of the more bizarre episodes. Why would it be thought appropriate to remove items in which the dog had shown absolutely no interest when in the villa, to the gym where it started to mouth them and throw them about.
If that was an alert it was obvious that the clothing had been contaminated in transit or at the gym. Whichever - it would not have stood in court if by some chance it had been allowed to be introduced.
Agreed...it wasn't the Portuguese police's finest hour.
-
Those Dog Videos were a joke, if in fact anyone could tell the difference between those that were edited and those that weren't. Or even why Eddie was throwing clothes around and covering them in saliva.
Nothing he touched would have been fit to test for anything.
-
There was no annecdotal evidence connected to the dog alerts in this case, but there was lots of annecdotal evidence;
All the times given in the timeline.
The open window and shutter.
The conversation with Madeleine on the morning of 3rd May.
All reports of suspicious looking men.
-
There was no annecdotal evidence connected to the dog alerts in this case, but there was lots of annecdotal evidence;
All the times given in the timeline.
The open window and shutter.
The conversation with Madeleine on the morning of 3rd May.
All reports of suspicious looking men.
Grime is wrong...anectdotal evidence confirms nothing
-
martin grime claims the alerts can be corroborated by anectdotal witness evidence....but Anectdotal evidence is defined as..
Anecdotal evidence is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.
so grime thinks his alerts can be corroborated by evidece which is not corroborated.....is this from the Alice in Wonderland School of Logic
Source?
-
Source?
Try Google.
-
Getting on toward 15 yrs later Grime and his dogs still cause angst among supporters , you have to wonder why when Wolters has CB as a nailed on one that dunnit.
-
There was no annecdotal evidence connected to the dog alerts in this case, but there was lots of annecdotal evidence;
All the times given in the timeline.
The open window and shutter.
The conversation with Madeleine on the morning of 3rd May.
All reports of suspicious looking men.
My understanding is that anecdotal evidence is an account given by witnesses of an event. Every account given by that witness will be unique to the personal experience of that individual and even their locus and viewpoint at the time.
That is why it is no mystery there might be discrepancies in statements given by a number of witnesses to the same event - in fact I think it would be decidedly odd if there was not.
The Policia Judiciaria understood that even if Amaral sceptics affect not to.
You are driving a coach and horses through honest witness statements and foisting abroad your mysteriously biased opinion of events which they experienced and you did not. Selectively accepting what it suits you to believe however illogical - is exactly the ill informed trap Amaral fell into which had such dire consequences in preventing a properly conducted investigation to take place.
-
Getting on toward 15 yrs later Grime and his dogs still cause angst among supporters , you have to wonder why when Wolters has CB as a nailed on one that dunnit.
I think you've got that one the wrong way round - just as sceptics always have. However is there the slightest chance of you desisting from your usual deflection and sticking to the topic as a responsible poster should.
-
Getting on toward 15 yrs later Grime and his dogs still cause angst among supporters , you have to wonder why when Wolters has CB as a nailed on one that dunnit.
@)(++(* Poor attempt at WUMming there, must try harder.
-
martin grime claims the alerts can be corroborated by anectdotal witness evidence....but Anectdotal evidence is defined as..
Anecdotal evidence is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.
so grime thinks his alerts can be corroborated by evidece which is not corroborated.....is this from the Alice in Wonderland School of Logic
If I remember last year you were going on about ACPO licencing being unreliable because Grime used the word anecdotal when referencing training. I put you straight on that one at the time unless you still believe ACPO licence dogs by swapping anecdotes.
Now it raises it head again. It is quite clear and obvious that Martin Grime is referring to witness statements of an account the witness observed or experienced. He even explicitly states this in his 2007 statement to the PJ “anecdotal witness accounts.”
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm.
No it is not scientific but not all evidence is, an eye witness statement can not be proved to be reliable by scientific methods but a whole lot of people have been sentenced on the back of them.
IMO you can’t see the wood for the trees and get fixated on small details and words out of context then never let them go. No disrespect intended, just imo.
But beside from all that I would like to wish you and your family a very merry Xmas and a happy New Year.
-
If I remember last year you were going on about ACPO training being unreliable because Grime used the word anecdotal when referencing training. I put you straight on that one at the time unless you still believe ACPO train dogs by swapping anecdotes.
Now it raises it head again. It is quite clear and obvious that Martin Grime is referring to witness statements of an account the witness observed or experienced. He even explicitly states this in his 2007 statement to the PJ “anecdotal witness accounts.”
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm.
No it is not scientific but not all evidence is, an eye witness statement can not be proved to be reliable by scientific methods but a whole lot of people have been sentenced on the back of them.
IMO you can’t see the wood for the trees and get fixated on small details and words out of context then never let them go. No disrespect intended, just imo.
But beside from all that I would like to wish you and your family a very merry Xmas and a happy New Year.
More horseshit from you.. You completely miss the point.
The point is Grime says that anectdotal witness statements can corroborate the alerts. That is a totally daft statement.
It would actually mean any alert could be corroborated before it was made. If you can't see that anectdotal evidence does not conglfirm anything. It can be part if a body of evidence but that's all.
Grime is the only dog handler I've heard whoi has made such a daft statement.
Could you give an anectdotal witness statement that would corroborate an alert.
In 2007 Grime used the word.. Support an alert.
If you think that pointing out that support and corroborate are significantly different you have little understang if the importance if accuracy..... As already evidenced by your poor understanding of Wolters statement Re photographs
-
More horseshit from you.. You completely miss the point.
The point is Grime says that anectdotal witness statements can corroborate the alerts. That is a totally daft statement.
It would actually mean any alert could be corroborated before it was made. If you can't see that anectdotal evidence does not conglfirm anything. It can be part if a body of evidence but that's all.
Grime is the only dog handler I've heard whoi has made such a daft statement.
Could you give an anectdotal witness statement that would corroborate an alert.
In 2007 Grime used the word.. Support an alert.
If you think that pointing out that support and corroborate are significantly different you have little understang if the importance if accuracy..... As already evidenced by your poor understanding of Wolters statement Re photographs
You really need to buy a dictionary or thesaurus, the word corroborate means “confirm or give support to”.
Its very basic English.
No Xmas blessings. You scrooge you.
-
You really need to buy a dictionary or thesaurus, the word corroborate means “confirm or give support to”.
Its very basic English.
No Xmas blessings. You scrooge you.
I think you over estimate the value of your own opinion.
So when Grime says anectdotal witness, statements ..
corroborate an alert that can be read as confirming it
Again you need to understand the difference between confirm and support and when commenting on legal matters Grime needs to be less slopoy with his language
-
I think you over estimate the value of your own opinion.
So when Grime says anectdotal witness, statements ..
corroborate an alert that can be read as confirming it
Again you need to understand the difference between confirm and support and when commenting on legal matters Grime needs to be less slopoy with his language
Its not an opinion that the word corroborate means to “confirm or give support to”.
Its very basic English.
No one else here seems to have a problem that Grime means witness statement even Brietta points this out to you. You just choose to ignore it.
Wood from the trees, wood from the trees.
-
Its not an opinion that the word corroborate means to “confirm or give support to”.
Its very basic English.
No one else here seems to have a problem that Grime means witness statement even Brietta points this out to you. You just choose to ignore it.
Wood from the trees, wood from the trees.
I was reffering to your previous posts and your opinion that I cannot see the wood for the trees.
My opinion..
The whole alert episodes are, a complete dogs dinner because the significance if them has not been full thought through... Hence Harrisons contradictory statements in 2007.
Grime also said in 2007 that the only alerts that could become corroborated were the CSI alerts.. Excluding the cadaver alerts. Now Grime is contradicting himself.
Harrison talked if corroboration being a bidy.. Bbody parts or physical evidence.. They both contradict each other
-
I was reffering to your previous posts and your opinion that I cannot see the wood for the trees.
My opinion..
The whole alert episodes are, a complete dogs dinner because the significance if them has not been full thought through... Hence Harrisons contradictory statements in 2007.
Grime also said in 2007 that the only alerts that could become corroborated were the CSI alerts.. Excluding the cadaver alerts. Now Grime is contradicting himself.
Harrison talked if corroboration being a bidy.. Bbody parts or physical evidence.. They both contradict each other
But you do accept that the use of anecdotal witness evidence is a real thing that corroborates (supports) an alert.
That is what this thread is about.
Its not from the Alice in Wonderland school of logic, its from the real world of logic.
-
But you do accept that the use of anecdotal witness evidence is a real thing that corroborates (supports) an alert.
That is what this thread is about.
Its not from the Alice in Wonderland school of logic, its from the real world of logic.
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Why has Grime changed his mind
-
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Why has Grime changed his mind
I guess that's a no then you don't accept it. I look forward to you raising that Grime used the word anecdotal in the coming years.
The fact is dog alerts that have no physical evidence have been heard in court many times and as I have pointed out many many times Grime I don't believe is a master of evidential law.
There are so many contradictions in the PJ files by Grime, but you only seem to pick out the ones that support your beliefs and drop the others.
-
I guess that's a no then you don't accept it. I look forward to you raising that Grime used the word anecdotal in the coming years.
The fact is dog alerts that have no physical evidence have been heard in court many times and as I have pointed out many many times Grime I don't believe is a master of evidential law.
There are so many contradictions in the PJ files by Grime, but you only seem to pick out the ones that support your beliefs and drop the others.
Grime uses the word confirms in the quote I've supplied.
Confirms is a definitive word... Supports isn't.
Grime has used the words corroborate and confirm... Not support.
You are cesting a totally fallacious argument to support your bankrupt claim.. Imo
-
Grime uses the word confirms in the quote I've supplied.
Confirms is a definitive word... Supports isn't.
Grime has used the words corroborate and confirm... Not support.
You are cesting a totally fallacious argument to support your bankrupt claim.. Imo
Harrison attributes the word confirm to Grime, it's hearsay by Harrison.
In the 2 instances where Grime mentions the words anecdotal witness evidence/statements he uses the words support and corroborate he never associates the word confirm with anecdotal evidence
This thread is about the usage of the words anecdotal evidence stop try to deflect and distract.
By the way what is my bankrupt claim? Is it that corroboration means “confirm or give support to”.?
-
Harrison attributes the word confirm to Grime, it's hearsay by Harrison.
In the 2 instances where Grime mentions the words anecdotal witness evidence/statements he uses the words support and corroborate he never associates the word confirm with anecdotal evidence
This thread is about the usage of the words anecdotal evidence stop try to deflect and distract.
By the way what is my bankrupt claim? Is it that corroboration means “confirm or give support to”.?
It's a bankrupt claim that Grime means support when he talks of corroboration
-
It's a bankrupt claim that Grime means support when he talks of corroboration
I am sorry but this getting ridiculous now, I have posted several times the exact definition of corroboration if you can't understand it its not my problem
the word corroborate means “confirm or give support to”.
Do you need me to define the word "or"?
-
I am sorry but this getting ridiculous now, I have posted several times the exact definition of corroboration if you can't understand it its not my problem
the word corroborate means “confirm or give support to”.
Do you need me to define the word "or"?
You haven't.. You've provided two definitions of corroboration..
Support and confirm are not the same
-
You haven't.. You've provided two definitions of corroboration..
Support and confirm are not the same
That's the magic of language, lots of words have two meanings, you have chosen to believe that Grime means confirm when he says corroborate.
But in the context of anecdotal evidence he first mentions it in 2007 and expressly uses the words “support” not confirm. Then in the white paper when he speaks of anecdotal evidence he uses the word corroborate. So, as there is no consensus about the definition of the word corroborate, let's use his statement from 2007 where he uses the word “support”. There is no way that “support” means “confirm” is there?
-
That's the magic of language, lots of words have two meanings, you have chosen to believe that Grime means confirm when he says corroborate.
But in the context of anecdotal evidence he first mentions it in 2007 and expressly uses the words “support” not confirm. Then in the white paper when he speaks of anecdotal evidence he uses the word corroborate. So, as there is no consensus about the definition of the word corroborate, let's use his statement from 2007 where he uses the word “support”. There is no way that “support” means “confirm” is there?
Busy at the moment... Be prepared to be blown out if the water.
-
Busy at the moment... Be prepared to be blown out if the water.
I am on the edge of my seat.
-
I am on the edge of my seat.
what do you understand from this statement made by Grime re the2007 alerts
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.
-
Getting on toward 15 yrs later Grime and his dogs still cause angst among supporters , you have to wonder why when Wolters has CB as a nailed on one that dunnit.
the alerts dont cause any angst at all......i just like pointing out the rubbish spouted by those who beleive them
-
what do you understand from this statement made by Grime re the2007 alerts
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.
There is little point in looking at a 30 word paragraph without taking into context the many thousands of words Grime gave to the PJ in 2007, so to add context let's remember the statement
Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.
So from this statement we can recognise that Grime knows there are two types of evidence that can support a dog alert with no obvious remains, the first is forensic the other is witness accounts, with this in mind let’s look at the statement.
He states “human remains” so is obviously talking about forensic evidence, then with the CSI dog alerts he knows that forensic evidence has been recovered as he was there when the CSI team and Jonathon Smith took the swab samples.
So what I take from the statement is the only alerts that may be corroborated forensically are the CSI dogs alerts, what's your take on it?
-
There is little point in looking at a 30 word paragraph without taking into context the many thousands of words Grime gave to the PJ in 2007, so to add context let's remember the statement
Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.
So from this statement we can recognise that Grime knows there are two types of evidence that can support a dog alert with no obvious remains the first is forensic the other is witness accounts, with this in mind let’s look at the statement.
He states “human remains” so is obviously talking about forensic evidence, then with the CSI dog alerts he knows that forensic evidence has been recovered as he was there when the CSI team and Jonathon Smith took the swab samples.
So what I take from the statement is the only alerts that may be corroborated forensically are the CSI dogs alerts, what's your take on it?
The problem with Grime and Harrison is that they have contradicted themselves... Imi that's because using the alerts as intelligence and evidence was a new idea that hadn't been properly thought through.
Grime in the statement I've made says "the only alerts that may become corroborated are the CSI... Making it clear that only physical evidence can corroborate the cadaver alerts.
What witness statement can you think of that would corroborate the alert.. The Smith statement perhaps. For me that weakens even more the value of the alerts. Surely the fact tha Maddir is missing supports the alerts... So they were corroborated in your vuew before 3 months before they arrived.
-
The problem with Grime and Harrison is that they have contradicted themselves... Imi that's because using the alerts as intelligence and evidence was a new idea that hadn't been properly thought through.
Grime in the statement I've made says "the only alerts that may become corroborated are the CSI... Making it clear that only physical evidence can corroborate the cadaver alerts.
What witness statement can you think of that would corroborate the alert.. The Smith statement perhaps. For me that weakens even more the value of the alerts. Surely the fact tha Maddir is missing supports the alerts... So they were corroborated in your vuew before 3 months before they arrived.
The thing that is clearly stated, with no room for misunderstanding by any person with a reasonable understanding of English is his statement
Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.
So I don’t know why you say he makes it clear that only physical evidence can corroborate the cadaver alerts when he states 2 types of evidence can, forensic evidence or anecdotal witness accounts. To me he is clearly referring to forensic evidence. There is no contradiction.
If a witness were to testify that they saw a young girl (who has disappeared) go into a neighbours house where an alert was made, but they never saw them leave this would support the evidence of the alert.
-
The thing that is clearly stated, with no room for misunderstanding by any person with a reasonable understanding of English is his statement
Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.
So I don’t know why you say he makes it clear that only physical evidence can corroborate the cadaver alerts when he states 2 types of evidence can, forensic evidence or anecdotal witness accounts. To me he is clearly referring to forensic evidence. There is no contradiction.
If a witness were to testify that they saw a young girl (who has disappeared) go into a neighbours house where an alert was made, but they never saw them leave this would support the evidence of the alert.
So does the fact that Maddie disappeared support the alerts in 5a
-
So does the fact that Maddie disappeared support the alerts in 5a
I don't believe Martin Grimes usage of the words "anecdotal witness account" would encompass the fact that Maddie has disappeared. His words would suggest he needs an actual statement that may support the alerts.
But as I keep saying courts don't even need such a statement, they allow uncorroborated dog alerts.
-
[quote author=Icanhandlethetruth link=topic=12284.msg673260#msg673260
If a witness were to testify that they saw a young girl (who has disappeared) go into a neighbours house where an alert was made, but they never saw them leave this would support the evidence of the alert.
[/quote]
So if a witness confirmed Maddie entered 5a then was never seen again that would support an alert... In Grimes opinion
-
[quote author=Icanhandlethetruth link=topic=12284.msg673260#msg673260
If a witness were to testify that they saw a young girl (who has disappeared) go into a neighbours house where an alert was made, but they never saw them leave this would support the evidence of the alert.
So if a witness confirmed Maddie entered 5a then was never seen again that would support an alert... In Grimes opinion
I did say a neighbours house, not the house where she was residing at the time.
-
I did say a neighbours house, not the house where she was residing at the time.
What's the difference.. &^&*%Why should it matter when if a child comes to harm it's more likely to be at the hands of her family..
-
What's the difference.. &^&*%Why should it matter when if a child comes to harm it's more likely to be at the hands of her family..
If you really can’t see the difference between someone stating a missing girls was seen entering a neighbours house but never leaving and a statement that the missing returned to her own place of residence then there is no hope to have a logical debate.
-
If you really can’t see the difference between someone stating a missing girls was seen entering a neighbours house but never leaving and a statement that the missing returned to her own place of residence then there is no hope to have a logical debate.
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
Yes it is my opinion. Is it your opinion that 2 statements, one, someone saw a missing girl going into a neighbours house and not exiting and another saying the missing went to her usual place of residence are the same?
-
Yes it is my opinion. Is it your opinion that 2 statements, one, someone saw a missing girl going into a neighbours house and not exiting and another saying the missing went to her usual place of residence are the same?
They are both witness statements... They both support the possibility of foul play... In that way they are the same.
-
They are both witness statements... They both support the possibility of foul play... In that way they are the same.
So are you saying a statement that Maddie was seen entering a 5a suggests the possibility of foul play?
Would this in your opinion give support to the alerts?
-
So are you saying a statement that Maddie was seen entering a 5a suggests the possibility of foul play?
Would this in your opinion give support to the alerts?
It doesn't matter what I think it's facts that count. ..and what Grime thinks and claims.
Maddie was last seen with her parents in 5a... She disappeared and three months later hadn't been seen again.. I think that is proof of foul play... Yet you think that only applies if she was seen entering a neighbours house.... And criticise me because I do not agree..
A dog alerts ...according to Grime that supports the alert.. I don't think it does
-
It doesn't matter what I think it's facts that count. ..and what Grime thinks and claims.
Maddie was last seen with her parents in 5a... She disappeared and three months later hadn't been seen again.. I think that is proof of foul play... Yet you think that only applies if she was seen entering a neighbours house.... And criticise me because I do not agree..
A dog alerts ...according to Grime that supports the alert.. I don't think it does
Blimey, so you think the statement that Maddie was seen entering 5a gives support to the dog alerts. Even I don’t go that far.
Good to know, good to know
-
Blimey, so you think the statement that Maddie was seen entering 5a gives support to the dog alerts. Even I don’t go that far.
Good to know, good to know
Read the post... I say I don't..
-
Read the post... I say I don't..
No you said
A dog alerts ...according to Grime that supports the alert.. I don't think it does
Grime has never said this, he has said,
“Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.”
Please clarify what you mean, because you are all over the shop.
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
-
No you said
A dog alerts ...according to Grime that supports the alert.. I don't think it does
Grime has never said this, he has said,
“Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.”
Please clarify what you mean, because you are all over the shop.
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
Note opinion as fact... I said... I DONT THINK IT DOES... and you read that as I think it does... Then accuse me as being all over the shop.
Imo you lost the argument some time ago... Now you are just cinfirning it.
Imo.. The akerts are horse shit.
Are you aware if blood has been diluted before drying then Keela may not pick it up but Eddie will.. So all the, alerts could be to microscopic blood remnants.. .
If you think I'm all over the place then you cannot follow a logical argument. Imo
Imo.. Grime is all over the place.
Grime has talked a lot about science.. I would say I'm more qualified than grime to talk about what is evidence and what is not. Evidence is evidence... I think Grime has a poor understanding of what constitutes evidence
-
Note opinion as fact... I said... I DONT THINK IT DOES... and you read that as I think it does... Then accuse me as being all over the shop.
Imo you lost the argument some time ago... Now you are just cinfirning it.
Imo.. The akerts are horse shit.
Are you aware if blood has been diluted before drying then Keela may not pick it up but Eddie will.. So all the, alerts could be to microscopic blood remnants.. .
If you think I'm all over the place then you cannot follow a logical argument. Imo
Imo.. Grime is all over the place.
Grime has talked a lot about science.. I would say I'm more qualified than grime to talk about what is evidence and what is not. Evidence is evidence... I think Grime has a poor understanding of what constitutes evidence
No, you said I don’t think it does in relation to your belief that Grime has said the alerts are confirmed by the alerts, not to my question which was
“Blimey, so you think the statement that Maddie was seen entering 5a gives support to the dog alerts”
Can I ask politely, is English your mother tongue?
I lost the argument in your mind only.
Answer the question as this thread is about anecdotal witness evidence
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
-
No, you said I don’t think it does in relation to your belief that Grime has said the alerts are confirmed by the alerts, not to my question which was
“Blimey, so you think the statement that Maddie was seen entering 5a gives support to the dog alerts”
Can I ask politely, is English your mother tongue?
I lost the argument in your mind only.
Answer the question as this thread is about anecdotal witness evidence
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
I really can't be bothered with you anymore... You ignore my point that Grime has completely ignored the FACT that as Eddie alerts to blood.. All the alerts could be to blood.. Blood that has been so diluted that Keela could not detect it..
-
I really can't be bothered with you anymore... You ignore my point that Grime has completely ignored the FACT that as Eddie alerts to blood.. All the alerts could be to blood.. Blood that has been so diluted that Keela could not detect it..
Davel as we always disagree, I was hoping by answering my question I could get a better understanding about where you were coming from.
I ignored your point about the blood as it was off topic and you always try to deflect by raising a different subject. Please start a thread about it and I will gladly participate.
Now in the theme of the thread that you yourself started, for the 3rd time,
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
Lets get to the bottom of it.
-
Davel as we always disagree, I was hoping by answering my question I could get a better understanding about where you were coming from.
I ignored your point about the blood as it was off topic and you always try to deflect by raising a different subject. Please start a thread about it and I will gladly participate.
Now in the theme of the thread that you yourself started, for the 3rd time,
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
Lets get to the bottom of it.
When you asked if English was my mother tongue I loost the little respect I had for you.
I explained I had tried to stop all the sniping on the forum but you didn't believe me so I'm doing it again.
Your remark was plain sarcasm
I've given my opinion on Grime and his dogs so I'm sure you must understand what they are by now and need no further explanation.
For me Grime has a poor understanding of what constitutes evidence.
If a clairvoyant days does anyone know a Paul who has recently passed over.. And someone replies yes... That is anectdotal evidence and supports her skill. For me that sums up Grimes claims
-
When you asked if English was my mother tongue I loost the little respect I had for you.
I explained I had tried to stop all the sniping on the forum but you didn't believe me so I'm doing it again.
Your remark was plain sarcasm
I've given my opinion on Grime and his dogs so I'm sure you must understand what they are by now and need no further explanation.
For me Grime has a poor understanding of what constitutes evidence.
If a clairvoyant days does anyone know a Paul who has recently passed over.. And someone replies yes... That is anectdotal evidence and supports her skill. For me that sums up Grimes claims
It was not sniping, it was a genuine question, there are many words that it seems you don't fully grasp the meanings of. You don't have to answer my question about your mother tongue but please in the spirit of this thread please answer this one.
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
I don't know why you are so reticent to answer it?
-
It was not sniping, it was a genuine question, there are many words that it seems you don't fully grasp the meanings of. You don't have to answer my question about your mother tongue but please in the spirit of this thread please answer this one.
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
I don't know why you are so reticent to answer it?
So you THINK there are words I don't fully grasp the meaning of and you decide for yourself it's a fact.
I dont see how you can come to that conclusion based on my posts.. To me that shows very poor logic.
I've answered your question.. With the clairvoyant ananalogy.
Grimes understanding of evidence... Is very poor imo.. Like the people who think clairvoyants are geniune.
If Eddie makes enough alerts.. 12 in Jersey.. About the same in Luz... He's bound to get one right.
-
It was not sniping, it was a genuine question, there are many words that it seems you don't fully grasp the meanings of. You don't have to answer my question about your mother tongue but please in the spirit of this thread please answer this one.
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
I don't know why you are so reticent to answer it?
I think you totally underestimate what a sharp analytical mind I have.
One of my sons who is a bit of a lad was facing expulsion from college.. Fir the umpteenth time and was accused this ime of plagiarism. As his tutors had found me a bit if a handful in a debating sense they decided to involve the dean..of the college to chair the meeting.. A successful academic.
I started the meeting and asked her how she would define plagiarism... She picked uo a piece of paper and read out the definition. I asked for acuracy if that was her definition and she replied pompously.. No... The University of Oxford.. I think she felt she had really out me in my place... It's the timing that counts.
I explained to her that as it wasn't her definition she should have referenced it and as she didn't was guilty of plagiarism..
The meeting didn't last much longer. I did also explain that we had informed the college previously my son suffered from dyslexia... A protected disability. .She lost all her pomposity and ended up being quite friendly.
-
It was not sniping, it was a genuine question, there are many words that it seems you don't fully grasp the meanings of. You don't have to answer my question about your mother tongue but please in the spirit of this thread please answer this one.
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
I don't know why you are so reticent to answer it?
You have a very simplistic way of looking at things.
You nay remember saying that words can have a variety of meanings so you would need to define exactly what you mean by support in order for me to answer the question.
If a Baker runs out of dough.. Should he go to the warehouse or the bank
-
So you THINK there are words I don't fully grasp the meaning of and you decide for yourself it's a fact.
I dont see how you can come to that conclusion based on my posts.. To me that shows very poor logic.
I've answered your question.. With the clairvoyant ananalogy.
Grimes understanding of evidence... Is very poor imo.. Like the people who think clairvoyants are geniune.
If Eddie makes enough alerts.. 12 in Jersey.. About the same in Luz... He's bound to get one right.
No my question wasn’t
a> What is Grimes understanding of evidence?
b>Is, what a clairvoyant says an example of anecdotal evidence?
So your analogy answers nothing.
My question was:
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
This question pertains to this thread you started and you seem reluctant to give a clear and precise answer, not an analogy.
I can give you a cite that explains what is anecdotal evidence if it helps.
“Witness statements in a court of law are anecdotal evidence.”
https://keystagewiki.com/index.php/Anecdotal_Evidence
It really doesn't mention a clairvoyants obvious deceptions and leading questions as anecdotal evidence.
-
I think you totally underestimate what a sharp analytical mind I have.
One of my sons who is a bit of a lad was facing expulsion from college.. Fir the umpteenth time and was accused this ime of plagiarism. As his tutors had found me a bit if a handful in a debating sense they decided to involve the dean..of the college to chair the meeting.. A successful academic.
I started the meeting and asked her how she would define plagiarism... She picked uo a piece of paper and read out the definition. I asked for acuracy if that was her definition and she replied pompously.. No... The University of Oxford.. I think she felt she had really out me in my place... It's the timing that counts.
I explained to her that as it wasn't her definition she should have referenced it and as she didn't was guilty of plagiarism..
The meeting didn't last much longer. I did also explain that we had informed the college previously my son suffered from dyslexia... A protected disability. .She lost all her pomposity and ended up being quite friendly.
Without saying too much about this rambling meaningless post, self praise is indeed faint praise.
-
You have a very simplistic way of looking at things.
You nay remember saying that words can have a variety of meanings so you would need to define exactly what you mean by support in order for me to answer the question.
If a Baker runs out of dough.. Should he go to the warehouse or the bank
That's why you need context, you should probably assume the warehouse as he is a baker but you could be wrong.
Simple is sometimes better.
-
Without saying too much about this rambling meaningless post, self praise is indeed faint praise.
It isn't self praise... My sons been telling the story for ten years... It was quite a brilliant opening... You just can't stand to give credit where it's due.
I had to go to a meeting with my younger sons headmistress.. My daughter said.. She's really horrible and stern.. My older son said... I feel sorry for her already
-
Without saying too much about this rambling meaningless post, self praise is indeed faint praise.
You really want it all your own way don't you... Perhaps you are used to getting it.
You criticise my understanding of words and question my nationality... You should expect a reply. The difference between us is that you cannot come up with anything as original as a out down and rely on tired cliches.
I need to ask you again... Do you want to stop the insults ...you aren't very good at them si that's probably your best option..... Then have an adult conversation or do you want to continue with childish posts
-
You really want it all your own way don't you... Perhaps you are used to getting it.
You criticise my understanding of words and question my nationality... You should expect a reply. The difference between us is that you cannot come up with anything as original as a out down and rely on tired cliches.
I need to ask you again... Do you want to stop the insults ...you aren't very good at them si that's probably your best option..... Then have an adult conversation or do you want to continue with childish posts
I never questioned your nationality, I couldn't care where you come from.
What insults do you speak of?
All I want is for you to give me a clear answer on the following question
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
its very simple address the question, its your thread.
-
I never questioned your nationality, I couldn't care where you come from.
What insults do you speak of?
All I want is for you to give me a clear answer on the following question
Statement says missing girl is seen entering into neighbours house (where a dog alerts) and isn’t seen leaving
Statement says missing girl was seen arriving home (where a dog alerts).
Are one or both of the anecdotal witness statements that support said dog alerts?
its very simple address the question, its your thread.
To suggest English is not my mother tongue questions my nationality... Streuth... Can you not see that.
I've replied to your question but you vsnt see that either.. Streuth again.
I said you need to define support.
You seem to think that confirm and support are the same... Therefore by childish logic as corroborate means confirm or support... Then support means corroborate.. I saw where you were going sone time ago
So according to you.. a cadaver dog goes to a neighbours house where a child was last seen.. Any alert is supported.. And therefore corroborated... Absolute horse shit.. But it seems you believe it... Just to be clear.. I don't
-
To suggest English is not my mother tongue questions my nationality... Streuth... Can you not see that.
I've replied to your question but you vsnt see that either.. Streuth again.
I said you need to define support.
You seem to think that confirm and support are the same... Therefore by childish logic as corroborate means confirm or support... Then support means corroborate.. I saw where you were going sone time ago
So according to you.. a cadaver dog goes to a neighbours house where a child was last seen.. Any alert is supported.. And therefore corroborated... Absolute horse shit.. But it seems you believe it... Just to be clear.. I don't
So you believe that all British people's mothers tongue language is English. I have a shock for you.
Just for your own info, it probably is more likely to me that English is your mother tongue but you just have a poor understanding of vocabulary.
Please point out where I have ever said confirm and support are the same thing, I pointed out that the dictionary describes the word corroborate as to confirm or give support to which is then about context which you believe applies. Its very basic English.
And if you don't think that the scenario I describe of the girl seeing entering the neighbours house where a dog alerted and wasn't seen leaving doesn't support the dogs alert then please don't say you have a sharp mind.
-
So you believe that all British people's mothers tongue language is English. I have a shock for you.
Just for your own info, it probably is more likely to me that English is your mother tongue but you just have a poor understanding of vocabulary.
Please point out where I have ever said confirm and support are the same thing, I pointed out that the dictionary describes the word corroborate as to confirm or give support to which is then about context which you believe applies. Its very basic English.
And if you don't think that the scenario I describe of the girl seeing entering the neighbours house where a dog alerted and wasn't seen leaving doesn't support the dogs alert then please don't say you have a sharp mind.
If my mother tongue is not English it's unlikely I'm english.. You seem to be getting things back to front.
Twi of my staff stole 15 k from me. It's been to the cps twice... They say not enough evidence to secure a conviction. I'm launching a private criminal prosecution. I'm not paying a lawyer or lawyers 30k.. I'm prosecuting myself for theft and fraud.. I probably won't bother with conspiracy to defraud so we can keep it in the magistrates court. The evidence is overwhelming. I ve learnt it all via Google ..I will win the case... I have a very sharp mind
-
If my mother tongue is not English it's unlikely I'm english.. You seem to be getting things back to front.
Twi of my staff stole 15 k from me. It's been to the cps twice... They say not enough evidence to secure a conviction. I'm launching a private criminal prosecution. I'm not paying a lawyer or lawyers 30k.. I'm prosecuting myself for theft and fraud.. I probably won't bother with conspiracy to defraud so we can keep it in the magistrates court. The evidence is overwhelming. I ve learnt it all via Google ..I will win the case... I have a very sharp mind
Really! So if your parents came here from say Sri Lanka or Botswana, you are born here but as an infant you speak you mothers tongue and learn English at school you can't be English/British. That's a very strange view?
I have to honest and say that in my opinion I have seen no evidence of a sharp mind.
-
So you believe that all British people's mothers tongue language is English. I have a shock for you.
Just for your own info, it probably is more likely to me that English is your mother tongue but you just have a poor understanding of vocabulary.
Please point out where I have ever said confirm and support are the same thing, I pointed out that the dictionary describes the word corroborate as to confirm or give support to which is then about context which you believe applies. Its very basic English.
And if you don't think that the scenario I describe of the girl seeing entering the neighbours house where a dog alerted and wasn't seen leaving doesn't support the dogs alert then please don't say you have a sharp mind.
Gordon Bennett, how many negatives can you fit imto one sentence?! I’m completely lost, what the hell are you two arguing about?
-
Really! So if your parents came here from say Sri Lanka or Botswana, you are born here but as an infant you speak you mothers tongue and learn English at school you can't be English/British. That's a very strange view?
I have to honest and say that in my opinion I have seen no evidence of a sharp mind.
If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English.
I'm not really bothered about your opinion.. I've had plenty of confirmation of my intellect
-
Really! So if your parents came here from say Sri Lanka or Botswana, you are born here but as an infant you speak you mothers tongue and learn English at school you can't be English/British. That's a very strange view?
I have to honest and say that in my opinion I have seen no evidence of a sharp mind.
You seem to be suggesting by questioning Davel’s grasp of English comprehension and your explanation above that British born children of immigrant parents don’t have as good a grasp of the English language as indigenous British/English? That’s a bit racist isn’t it?
-
If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English.
I'm not really bothered about your opinion.. I've had plenty of confirmation of my intellect
Wow, just wow! So if you are born and brought up in England and feel English you can't think of yourself as English because your parents didn't come from England.
My parents weren't born and brought up in England but I was born and brought up here and let me tell you I feel very English. Are you saying I shouldn't?
Disgraceful!
-
Wow, just wow! So if you are born and brought up in England and feel English you can't think of yourself as English because your parents didn't come from England.
My parents weren't born and brought up in England but I was born and brought up here and let me tell you I feel very English. Are you saying I shouldn't?
Disgraceful!
You really are losing it now and making a bit of a fool of yourself.. Imo.
I'm merely pointing out something that some might not realise... Being born in the UK does not automatically entitle you to UK citizenship and nationality.
You have lost the argument.. Opinion.. So have resorted to personal insults... Fact...
-
Wow, just wow! So if you are born and brought up in England and feel English you can't think of yourself as English because your parents didn't come from England.
My parents weren't born and brought up in England but I was born and brought up here and let me tell you I feel very English. Are you saying I shouldn't?
Disgraceful!
Well I was born and brought up in Singapore and Malaysia but I am not entitled to think of myself as either of those nationalities (sadly).
-
You really are losing it now and making a bit of a fool of yourself.. Imo.
I'm merely pointing out something that some might not realise... Being born in the UK does not automatically entitle you to UK citizenship and nationality.
You have lost the argument.. Opinion.. So have resorted to personal insults... Fact...
I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the line you used was
If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English.
Not might not be, or possibly not automatically entitled to be English but “I would not be English”.
I am not going to throw words around that another poster attributed to one of my posts tonight so instead I will put down your usage of the word would to poor usage of vocabulary,
You keep saying I am resorting to personal insults, please point them out because I am unaware of what insults you refer to.
-
I mm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the line you used was
If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English.
Not might not be, or possibly not automatically entitled to be English but “I would not be English”.
I am not going to throw words around that another poster attributed to one of my posts tonight so instead I will put down your usage of the word would to poor usage of vocabulary,
You keep saying I am resorting to personal insults, please point them out because I am unaware of what insults you refer to.
Questioning my language and suggesting it's so poor that you suspect it's not my first language.. Claiming my vocabulary and understanding of the meaning of words is poor... All false claims.
I did have a little respect for you but its now gone
-
Questioning my language and suggesting it's so poor that you suspect it's not my first language.. Claiming my vocabulary and understanding of the meaning of words is poor... All false claims.
I did have a little respect for you but its now gone
So is your use of vocabulary so good that you meant to say "would not be English"
You stand by that line in the way it is written?
I may need counselling upon hearing what little respect you had for me has now disappeared.
Oh well, never mind.
-
I think you totally underestimate what a sharp analytical mind I have.
One of my sons who is a bit of a lad was facing expulsion from college.. Fir the umpteenth time and was accused this ime of plagiarism. As his tutors had found me a bit if a handful in a debating sense they decided to involve the dean..of the college to chair the meeting.. A successful academic.
I started the meeting and asked her how she would define plagiarism... She picked uo a piece of paper and read out the definition. I asked for acuracy if that was her definition and she replied pompously.. No... The University of Oxford.. I think she felt she had really out me in my place... It's the timing that counts.
I explained to her that as it wasn't her definition she should have referenced it and as she didn't was guilty of plagiarism..
The meeting didn't last much longer. I did also explain that we had informed the college previously my son suffered from dyslexia... A protected disability. .She lost all her pomposity and ended up being quite friendly.
It is not plagiarism if the source of the definition is quoted. It is quite apparent from your tale that the Dean quoted their source….the University of Oxford.
-
So is your use of vocabulary so good that you meant to say "would not be English"
You stand by that line in the way it is written?
I may need counselling upon hearing what little respect you had for me has now disappeared.
Oh well, never mind.
I'm not interested in debating my language skills.. You seem to want to argue for the sake of it. If you've worked out both my parents are from Botswana... Congratulations.. Is there no start to your perceptive skills
-
It is not plagiarism if the source of the definition is quoted. It is quite apparent from your tale that the Dean quoted their source….the University of Oxford.
The Dean didn't quote the source at first. I asked her for her definition of plagiarism. She read out a definition without giving credit to the source
-
The Dean didn't quote the source at first. I asked her for her definition of plagiarism. She read out a definition without giving credit to the source
She gave the source. Now, if when asked was it her definition, she had claimed that it was then that would have been plagiarism.
TBH I can’t imagine an individual as learned as a Dean getting caught up in such petty arguments.
-
I'm not interested in debating my language skills.. You seem to want to argue for the sake of it. If you've worked out both my parents are from Botswana... Congratulations.. Is there no start to your perceptive skills
I haven't worked out anything about your parentage, I used Botswana as a random example, but if you didn't mean
"If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English" which has a very troubling implication to me, then your vocabulary was incorrect and you should have used a different word to would.
-
She gave the source. Now, if when asked was it her definition, she had claimed that it was then that would have been plagiarism.
TBH I can’t imagine an individual as learned as a Dean getting caught up in such petty arguments.
She actually admitted Id caught her out and we had a little laugh about it.. She realised I'd set a little trap.
My latest one is I had rlto go to hospital ss a out patient... I asked fir a chair while I waited and was refused. I explained I suffered with a disability and should be given s chair.. Still refused. The complaint is in going. I requested a face to face meeting with the complaints team.. Explained they were in breach of the 2010 Equality act. ..They've written to me to ask me which part if the act I think they are in bteach of.
Note the Equality act replaced the 1999 disability act..
Can you imagine that.. A hospital unaware of it's obligation to the disabled
-
I haven't worked out anything about your parentage, I used Botswana as a random example, but if you didn't mean
"If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English" which has a very troubling implication to me, then your vocabulary was incorrect and you should have used a different word to would.
There is a rule on the forum Re persistent pointless arguing.
Faith used your... Instead of You're recently. I didn't make song and dance about it and suggest her parents came from Botswana
-
The Dean didn't quote the source at first. I asked her for her definition of plagiarism. She read out a definition without giving credit to the source
So did your son plagiarise or not, and if he did, is dyslexia a defense? If it is, could a dyslexic Professor get away with it too?
-
I haven't worked out anything about your parentage, I used Botswana as a random example, but if you didn't mean
"If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English" which has a very troubling implication to me, then your vocabulary was incorrect and you should have used a different word to would.
If my parents came from Lesotho but I was born in the UK then I would not be britsh. That sentence is quite accurate.
I did latin at, school... The confusion may well be because would can apply to more than one tense.. Past future perfect for example as opposed to simply past tense. As your mother tongue is not English you may not understand that.. Should I start a new thread
-
She actually admitted Id caught her out and we had a little laugh about it.. She realised I'd set a little trap.
My latest one is I had rlto go to hospital ss a out patient... I asked fir a chair while I waited and was refused. I explained I suffered with a disability and should be given s chair.. Still refused. The complaint is in going. I requested a face to face meeting with the complaints team.. Explained they were in breach of the 2010 Equality act. ..They've written to me to ask me which part if the act I think they are in bteach of.
Note the Equality act replaced the 1999 disability act..
Can you imagine that.. A hospital unaware of it's obligation to the disabled
I’m afraid you hadn’t caught the Dean out as you yourself admitted that she had quoted her source and had not claimed the definition as her own.
What particular section of the Equality Act do you think that they were in breach of? Are you registered as disabled?
-
I’m afraid you hadn’t caught the Dean out as you yourself admitted that she had quoted her source and had not claimed the definition as her own.
What particular section of the Equality Act do you think that they were in breach of? Are you registered as disabled?
You obviously don't understand the equality act if you, ask that question.. As you don't understand the anecdote
Are, you in an employment where you should understand it
-
So did your son plagiarise or not, and if he did, is dyslexia a defense? If it is, could a dyslexic Professor get away with it too?
He was guilty but I showed that it was quite a simple and excusable breach ..the Dean did it inadvertently
Dyslexia is a seperate issue and the college needs to make allowances and offer extra help. Failure to do so is a breach of the equality act and damages have no limit
-
You obviously don't understand the equality act if you, ask that question.. As you don't understand the anecdote
Are, you in an employment where you should understand it
What part of the Act are you particularly relying on to fight your case and are you considered disabled under the Act?
-
What part of the Act are you particularly relying on to fight your case and are you considered disabled under the Act?
Yes I am considered disabled under the act.. I easily meet the criteria.. There is no necessity to be registered disabled.
It's an example of indirect discrimination. The hospital has an obligation to make reasonable allowances for the disabled si they can equally access services. Although they didn't provide sested waiting facilities for the active general public due to covid there were ample options to orovude me with a seat. From a legal point if virw the Covid Act overides the Care act bilut not the equality act. The hospital staff.. And the complaints team are in total ignorance
-
Yes I am considered disabled under the act.. I easily meet the criteria.. There is no necessity to be registered disabled.
It's an example of indirect discrimination. The hospital has an obligation to make reasonable allowances for the disabled si they can equally access services. Although they didn't provide sested waiting facilities for the active general public due to covid there were ample options to orovude me with a seat. From a legal point if virw the Covid Act overides the Care act bilut not the equality act. The hospital staff.. And the complaints team are in total ignorance
True, you don’t have to be registered disabled.
I’ve been involved in several discrimination cases due to disability. Can I ask, what were the particular circumstances of your case?
-
True, you don’t have to be registered disabled.
I’ve been involved in several discrimination cases due to disability. Can I ask, what were the particular circumstances of your case?
Then I'm surprised you had, to ask if I was registered disabled. I have explained briefly already. ..will reply in more, detail tomorrow.
OK... Was asked to wait before being seen.. Asked fir a, seat as , I was in pain standing. I find it more painful to stand than to walk. Male nurse refused even though I explained was disabled. Made no attempt to accommodate me. Left me to stand in pain
-
Then I'm surprised you had, to ask if I was registered disabled. I have explained briefly already. ..will reply in more, detail tomorrow.
Without having more information it seems to me that the the Hospital could use Health and Safety legislation to have your claim thrown out as under para.1 of sch.22 to the Equality Act 2010 any action taken to comply with health and safety legislation would not amount to discrimination due of your disability.
-
Without having more information it seems to me that the the Hospital could use Health and Safety legislation to have your claim thrown out as under para.1 of sch.22 to the Equality Act 2010 any action taken to comply with health and safety legislation would not amount to discrimination due of your disability.
I've already addressed that... There were several empty small rooms where I could have been given a chair. Nurse said no discrimination as he treated me the same as everyone else. I just would like an apology... And for them to admit they should have assisted me
-
I've already addressed that... There were several empty small rooms where I could have been given a chair. Nurse said no discrimination as he treated me the same as everyone else. I just would like an apology... And for them to admit they should have assisted me
What was their reason for not giving you a chair?
-
What was their reason for not giving you a chair?
Health and safety in the corridor.. Bbut they could have taken me into the unit and sat in several empty side rooms. What would have happened if I had, tirned up in my wheelchair.. As, I have done at hospitals.. Would they turf me out and tell me to stand ir put me to waitbin a side room.
The nurse was just being awkward.. No sympathy.. He made his, decision and he wasn't going to change it
-
Health and safety in the corridor.. Bbut they could have taken me into the unit and sat in several empty side rooms. What would have happened if I had, tirned up in my wheelchair.. As, I have done at hospitals.. Would they turf me out and tell me to stand ir put me to waitbin a side room.
The nurse was just being awkward.. No sympathy.. He made his, decision and he wasn't going to change it
A wheelchair would only be used by you…I’m afraid it’s not comparable.
As I don’t know the nurse I have no way of knowing what his motivation was and, legally, it doesn’t matter.
TBH I’m surprised that you had to ask for a chair. At the height of the pandemic I had to accompany a relative to the eye hospital and although I wasn’t able to go into the waiting room with them as I usually would Covid did not affect the number of chairs provided.
-
A wheelchair would only be used by you…I’m afraid it’s not comparable.
As I don’t know the nurse I have no way of knowing what his motivation was and, legally, it doesn’t matter.
TBH I’m surprised that you had to ask for a chair. At the height of the pandemic I had to accompany a relative to the eye hospital and although I wasn’t able to go into the waiting room with them as I usually would Covid did not affect the number of chairs provided.
In other parts of the hospital chairs provided..
I'm not over concerned about it but I don't like to be treated badly and I do like a good argument.
My wife ordered some glasses and was told they would be two weeks.. Three weeks later still no appt and told due to civid perhaps two more weeks.
The same staff deliver glasses and help you choosebwheen you make the order . I rang and asked for an appt for a test and to choose some new glasses... They said they'd had a canc and could see me the following day. I said it would be better if they gave the appt to my wife.. They agreed to see her the following day
-
He was guilty but I showed that it was quite a simple and excusable breach ..the Dean did it inadvertently
Dyslexia is a seperate issue and the college needs to make allowances and offer extra help. Failure to do so is a breach of the equality act and damages have no limit
I didn't think a person could be accused of plagiarism when speaking, but as a Dean is basically an administrator maybe she didn't realise that.
-
In other parts of the hospital chairs provided..
I'm not over concerned about it but I don't like to be treated badly and I do like a good argument.
My wife ordered some glasses and was told they would be two weeks.. Three weeks later still no appt and told due to civid perhaps two more weeks.
The same staff deliver glasses and help you choosebwheen you make the order . I rang and asked for an appt for a test and to choose some new glasses... They said they'd had a canc and could see me the following day. I said it would be better if they gave the appt to my wife.. They agreed to see her the following day
What part of the hospital were you in where there were no chairs provided?
I’m not sure why you included the anecdote about your wife. Could you please explain in what way it’s related to the chair incident?
-
If my parents came from Lesotho but I was born in the UK then I would not be britsh. That sentence is quite accurate.
I did latin at, school... The confusion may well be because would can apply to more than one tense.. Past future perfect for example as opposed to simply past tense. As your mother tongue is not English you may not understand that.. Should I start a new thread
You are skating on thin ice atm. If we use your Lesotho example and use it in the real world.
Bukayo Saka, English footballer, born in Ealing from Nigerian immigrant parents, played for England in Euro 2020. Is he not English/British? He certainly sounds as English as me and he chose to play for England with these words
"My whole family has been in England like forever, it would be very strange for me to adapt to an environment that I had never been in since growing up.
"When I grew up all my documents stated that I am English. Hopefully Nigerian people will understand.
He received a lot of racist abuse stating he wasn’t English after missing the penalty in the final. Is he not English?
-
If my parents came from Lesotho but I was born in the UK then I would not be britsh. That sentence is quite accurate.
I did latin at, school... The confusion may well be because would can apply to more than one tense.. Past future perfect for example as opposed to simply past tense. As your mother tongue is not English you may not understand that.. Should I start a new thread
What in gods green earth has the past future perfect got anything to do with what you wrote, You clearly use would in the past tense and if anything the structure of the sentence is in the 2nd conditional. Unless you would like to correct me and show me that your sentence has anything to do with the past future perfect.
Also I never said my mother’s tongue is not English, I have no idea where you got that information.
-
You are skating on thin ice atm. If we use your Lesotho example and use it in the real world.
Bukayo Saka, English footballer, born in Ealing from Nigerian immigrant parents, played for England in Euro 2020. Is he not English/British? He certainly sounds as English as me and he chose to play for England with these words
"My whole family has been in England like forever, it would be very strange for me to adapt to an environment that I had never been in since growing up.
"When I grew up all my documents stated that I am English. Hopefully Nigerian people will understand.
He received a lot of racist abuse stating he wasn’t English after missing the penalty in the final. Is he not English?
Is English his mother tongue? I bet you would never dare ask him such a question so why did you see fit to put Davel down with such an insult? C’mon mate, you started this diabolical and imo racist nonsense by disrespecting Davel, now own it.
-
What in gods green earth has the past future perfect got anything to do with what you wrote, You clearly use would in the past tense and if anything the structure of the sentence is in the 2nd conditional. Unless you would like to correct me and show me that your sentence has anything to do with the past future perfect.
Also I never said my mother’s tongue is not English, I have no idea where you got that information.
I'm actually winding you up. I mentioned latin because its quite a precise language whereas English isn't.
If a child is born in the UK from Botswanan parents he would not be English. That is a correct statement. He would not be English and not entitled to UK passport. He could eventually apply for s UK passport having lived here fir a certain amount if years.
Your problem is you sre taking your definition of being English and thinking its the only one.
As regards football it's different. I could play play for Ireland.. Even though I wasn't born there.. Do not have an Irish passport ..I have a UK passport. Does that make me Irish...
I think you should get back on topic and stop trying to prove you are an expert in everything. All you have dine is make yourself look a bit fiolish.. Imo
-
What part of the hospital were you in where there were no chairs provided?
I’m not sure why you included the anecdote about your wife. Could you please explain in what way it’s related to the chair incident?
I'm surprised you miss it's relevance.
It's another example of people using covid as an excuse... And another example of me catching them out using quite a novel method
-
You are skating on thin ice atm. If we use your Lesotho example and use it in the real world.
Bukayo Saka, English footballer, born in Ealing from Nigerian immigrant parents, played for England in Euro 2020. Is he not English/British? He certainly sounds as English as me and he chose to play for England with these words
"My whole family has been in England like forever, it would be very strange for me to adapt to an environment that I had never been in since growing up.
"When I grew up all my documents stated that I am English. Hopefully Nigerian people will understand.
He received a lot of racist abuse stating he wasn’t English after missing the penalty in the final. Is he not English?
Getting back on topic.. You claimed that Grime claimed Eddie had never had a false alert and the full stop before talking about road kill meant he wasn't talking about road kill or food.
You are absolutely wrong and I am absolutely right. In his white paper Grime explains what he means by a false positive and it's precisely what I said.
Many sceptics clain Eddie has, 100% record based on this.. They are wrong
-
Getting back on topic.. You claimed that Grime claimed Eddie had never had a false alert and the full stop before talking about road kill meant he wasn't talking about road kill or food.
You are absolutely wrong and I am absolutely right. In his white paper Grime explains what he means by a false positive and it's precisely what I said.
Many sceptics clain Eddie has, 100% record based on this.. They are wrong
The white paper says;
A false positive is an alert to a known and negative stimulous such as foodstuff or roadkill.
An unproductive positive is where there is no obvious stimulus but the response cannot be ruled incorrect. This would include the alert in the main bedroom of 5A.
(5.2 & 5.3)
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/
-
The white paper says;
A false positive is an alert to a known and negative stimulous such as foodstuff or roadkill.
An unproductive positive is where there is no obvious stimulus but the response cannot be ruled incorrect. This would include the alert in the main bedroom of 5A.
(5.2 & 5.3)
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/
So a false positive is an alert to foodstuff as I've always maintained... It does not mean eddie has, 100% recird
-
I'm actually winding you up. I mentioned latin because its quite a precise language whereas English isn't.
If a child is born in the UK from Botswanan parents he would not be English. That is a correct statement. He would not be English and not entitled to UK passport. He could eventually apply for s UK passport having lived here fir a certain amount if years.
Your problem is you sre taking your definition of being English and thinking its the only one.
As regards football it's different. I could play play for Ireland.. Even though I wasn't born there.. Do not have an Irish passport ..I have a UK passport. Does that make me Irish...
I think you should get back on topic and stop trying to prove you are an expert in everything. All you have dine is make yourself look a bit fiolish.. Imo
The way you phrase it above gives it the context that you mean you wouldn’t be British at that point of time ie. birth. But to post
If my parents came from Lesotho but I was born in the UK then I would not be britsh
gives a whole lot darker connotation, but I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not saying people like myself or Mr Saka whose parents were born outside of England would not be able to call themselves English. I would never stoop so low as to accuse someone of posting racist opinions unless I was 100% convinced that was their intention. I find that beyond contempt.
But you should know by the way you are still incorrect as a mother or father from Lesotho(or anywhere) who immigrates to England and either of them achieves settled status with the Home Office any children born to them in England will be automatically granted British citizenship.
-
So a false positive is an alert to foodstuff as I've always maintained... It does not mean eddie has, 100% recird
He's never alerted to those items according to Grime.
-
Getting back on topic.. You claimed that Grime claimed Eddie had never had a false alert and the full stop before talking about road kill meant he wasn't talking about road kill or food.
You are absolutely wrong and I am absolutely right. In his white paper Grime explains what he means by a false positive and it's precisely what I said.
Many sceptics clain Eddie has, 100% record based on this.. They are wrong
He did claim it
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training.
But who would know 11 years later he would define a false positive to exclude an alert when nothing was there.
Any definition I have seen of false positive would include these. I have been let down by my knowledge of logic and punctuation
But I like to be fair and I will say well done Davel, this one time you may have been right.
-
He did claim it
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training.
But who would know 11 years later he would define a false positive to exclude an alert when nothing was there.
Any definition I have seen of false positive would include these. I have been let down by my knowledge of logic and punctuation
But I like to be fair and I will say well done Davel, this one time you may have been right.
You ate not being fair... I am right.. Not may be right. As I said it would be impossible to clsim Eddie has never given a false positive. Another thing I would vritiise grime for. Is not stopping these rumours by clarifying things.
Perhaps Grime had so much faith in his dogs he actually believes the mccanns are guilty. I was surprised to see something in his white paper which would support.. But not confirm this
-
You ate not being fair... I am right.. Not may be right. As I said it would be impossible to clsim Eddie has never given a false positive. Another thing I would vritiise grime for. Is not stopping these rumours by clarifying things.
Perhaps Grime had so much faith in his dogs he actually believes the mccanns are guilty. I was surprised to see something in his white paper which would support.. But not confirm this
No I think you may be right is accurate, as Grime doesn't cover Eddies success rate with unproductive alerts. It is an unknown equation.
But here is the difference between you and I, you have presented evidence that supports your claim that Grimes claim of no false alerts refers only to foodstuffs and I accept your evidence makes this the most likely case.
But however when you are presented with the irrefutable evidence that dog alerts have been heard in court in many cases in various countries your reply is well they were only admitted because they were not challenged.
You have no evidence this is the case but it is a mantra you have stuck by for the 2 years I have been here and before.
-
You ate not being fair... I am right.. Not may be right. As I said it would be impossible to clsim Eddie has never given a false positive. Another thing I would vritiise grime for. Is not stopping these rumours by clarifying things.
Perhaps Grime had so much faith in his dogs he actually believes the mccanns are guilty. I was surprised to see something in his white paper which would support.. But not confirm this
As false positives are alerts to food items or roadkill, it can be claimed that Eddie never alerted to those items.
-
No I think you may be right is accurate, as Grime doesn't cover Eddies success rate with unproductive alerts. It is an unknown equation.
But here is the difference between you and I, you have presented evidence that supports your claim that Grimes claim of no false alerts refers only to foodstuffs and I accept your evidence makes this the most likely case.
But however when you are presented with the irrefutable evidence that dog alerts have been heard in court in many cases in various countries your reply is well they were only admitted because they were not challenged.
You have no evidence this is the case but it is a mantra you have stuck by for the 2 years I have been here and before.
Do you not think I am perfectly entitled to the opinion that the alerts have been admitted because they have not been robustly challenged. You say they have been admitted in many cases.. One in England and a couple in Scotland. I have supplied evidence that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case so once again you are wrong.
LCN DNA was admitted until challenged and a full review held. It was then allowed but it's reliability tarnished and is only accepted in less than a handful if countries.
Has any challenge ever raised the questions I have. Harrison and Grimes statements in luz. What experts in the Gilriy Cade were called to challenge it... If they had called prof Cassella. Grimes academic lead I'm sure they would not have been admitted .
Mu claim they have not been robustly challenged is supported by evidence
-
As false positives are alerts to food items or roadkill, it can be claimed that Eddie never alerted to those items.
So it's just the ciconut then.. That's food.
What's totally false us claims that Eddie hasn't been wrong in 200 cases.. Made by amaral and many sceptics
-
Apartment 5 D
We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
-
Do you not think I am perfectly entitled to the opinion that the alerts have been admitted because they have not been robustly challenged. You say they have been admitted in many cases.. One in England and a couple in Scotland. I have supplied evidence that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case so once again you are wrong.
LCN DNA was admitted until challenged and a full review held. It was then allowed but it's reliability tarnished and is only accepted in less than a handful if countries.
Has any challenge ever raised the questions I have. Harrison and Grimes statements in luz. What experts in the Gilriy Cade were called to challenge it... If they had called prof Cassella. Grimes academic lead I'm sure they would not have been admitted .
Mu claim they have not been robustly challenged is supported by evidence
Same old same old, you are entitled to your opinion on anything, its just in this case it totally ignores the evidence that is in front of you.
You always denied it had been used as evidence in England, now you accept it has, when did that change?
Heard at least once in England, at least 3 times in Scotland, at least 30 times in USA.
You have never provided any evidence that the SCCR said anything, just hearsay from a podcast based on the words of the relatives of the convicted man. I find usually the words of people closely related to a man convicted of murder are tainted by bias and self interest.
LCN was only ever used in a few countries, it was never found to be inadmissible evidence, just in one case deemed to be of poor quality and was reviewed before being found satisfactory for legal proceedings.
I still don’t know what your argument is about not challenged.
Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
When you say challenged do you mean pre court or during a court case.?
-
Same old same old, you are entitled to your opinion on anything, its just in this case it totally ignores the evidence that is in front of you.
You always denied it had been used as evidence in England, now you accept it has, when did that change?
Heard at least once in England, at least 3 times in Scotland, at least 30 times in USA.
You have never provided any evidence that the SCCR said anything, just hearsay from a podcast based on the words of the relatives of the convicted man. I find usually the words of people closely related to a man convicted of murder are tainted by bias and self interest.
LCN was only ever used in a few countries, it was never found to be inadmissible evidence, just in one case deemed to be of poor quality and was reviewed before being found satisfactory for legal proceedings.
I still don’t know what your argument is about not challenged.
Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
When you say challenged do you mean pre court or during a court case.?
I have supplied evidence it should not have been admitted..
Youbsay it's hearsay.. But it's still evidence.
Stand corrected
Si four times in the UK.. Once in England and you desrube that as many.. It isnt
Stand corrected.
The LCN case shows although evidence is admitted it can be challenged at a later date
I maintain that no robust challenge has been made to the admissibility of cadaver alerts and have supplied evidence
-
I have supplied evidence it should not have been admitted..
Youbsay it's hearsay.. But it's still evidence.
Stand corrected
Si four times in the UK.. Once in England and you desrube that as many.. It isnt
Stand corrected.
The LCN case shows although evidence is admitted it can be challenged at a later date
I maintain that no robust challenge has been made to the admissibility of cadaver alerts and have supplied evidence
Hearsay is now evidence is it. Where did you go to Law school?
You have supplied no evidence that there was no robust challenge. None. Not one piece of evidence. Nothing
I will repeat my question again so we can achieve some clarity,
Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
When you say challenged do you mean pre court or during a court case.?
-
Hearsay is now evidence is it. Where did you go to Law school?
You have supplied no evidence that there was no robust challenge. None. Not one piece of evidence. Nothing
I will repeat my question again so we can achieve some clarity,
Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
When you say challenged do you mean pre court or during a court case.?
What I believe is that there is not enough scientific evidence to support their admission and certainly they have not been robustly challenged.
Hearsay evidence may not be admissible but it's, evidence.. Check your dictionary.
If I contacted Cassella and the, SCCRC and ibtaibed written statements.. Would that make any difference to you.. It wouldnt.
As someone trained in science.. As someone trained in the evaluation of evidence at Post Grad level... As someone who assesses evidence regularly.. Imo the alerts do not pass the reliability test
-
What I believe is that there is not enough scientific evidence to support their admission and certainly they have not been robustly challenged.
Hearsay evidence may not be admissible but it's, evidence.. Check your dictionary.
If I contacted Cassella and the, SCCRC and ibtaibed written statements.. Would that make any difference to you.. It wouldnt.
As someone trained in science.. As someone trained in the evaluation of evidence at Post Grad level... As someone who assesses evidence regularly.. Imo the alerts do not pass the reliability test
Its just your belief that they shouldn’t be allowed, only that. The truth is they are allowed but you just can’t bring yourself to admit it.
As someone trained in science you really should not put more weight on tainted hearsay evidence than the actual evidence that you see before your eyes when a case hears such evidence.
As I have already said it would make not one bit of difference what Cassella or the SCCRC say about dog alerts being evidence allowed in court, but get one of the 30 plus judges that have introduced dog alerts into murder cases and I will listen all day long.
We really could make progress and get some clarity if you answer if one part of my question
Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
-
Its just your belief that they shouldn’t be allowed, only that. The truth is they are allowed but you just can’t bring yourself to admit it.
As someone trained in science you really should not put more weight on tainted hearsay evidence than the actual evidence that you see before your eyes when a case hears such evidence.
As I have already said it would make not one bit of difference what Cassella or the SCCRC say about dog alerts being evidence allowed in court, but get one of the 30 plus judges that have introduced dog alerts into murder cases and I will listen all day long.
We really could make progress and get some clarity if you answer if one part of my question
Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
They are not specifically inadmissible and may never be so.
I've never claimed they are.
I would rather listen to those who are experts on the digs than judges.
Cassela says a reliable cadaver dog should only be trained on human tissue... Nothing.else.... And he, should know
-
They are not specifically inadmissible and may never be so.
I've never claimed they are.
I would rather listen to those who are experts on the digs than judges.
Cassela says a reliable cadaver dog should only be trained on human tissue... Nothing.else.... And he, should know
So we agree that they are not specifically inadmissible . We agree that there is no law or statute that that prohibits their usage doing a trial. We agree that they have been admitted as evidence in at least 3 countries and at least 30 plus cases. We agree its only your belief that they shouldn't be admitted not an actual fact. What do we disagree on again?
-
Apartment 5 D
We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Interest, not an alert.
-
Interest, not an alert.
He was unable to alert because it is rude not to tell lies with food in your mouth 🍗
-
Grime used anecdotal evidence of Eddie's case work history to support his interpretation of Eddie's alerts in both Luz & Jersey. Based on the lack of alerts corroborated by tangible forensic evidence in the majority of those cases, it's almost impossible to place any real value on Eddie's alerts, either with or without separate anecdotal evidence. Even when bodies were later discovered the location of alerts did not necessarily result in a direct correlation between alerts & death.
IMO.
-
So we agree that they are not specifically inadmissible . We agree that there is no law or statute that that prohibits their usage doing a trial. We agree that they have been admitted as evidence in at least 3 countries and at least 30 plus cases. We agree its only your belief that they shouldn't be admitted not an actual fact. What do we disagree on again?
We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen.. We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged. We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..
-
Grime used anecdotal evidence of Eddie's case work history to support his interpretation of Eddie's alerts in both Luz & Jersey. Based on the lack of alerts corroborated by tangible forensic evidence in the majority of those cases, it's almost impossible to place any real value on Eddie's alerts, either with or without separate anecdotal evidence. Even when bodies were later discovered the location of alerts did not necessarily result in a direct correlation between alerts & death.
IMO.
Eddie was classed as "incompetent" both in Luz and Jersey. Had there been a criminal trial in Portugal featuring dog alerts that status would almost certainly have been revealed long before it was in 2010 as a result of the Jersey Review.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
-
We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen.. We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged. We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..
OK lets look at these,
We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen..
4 times in UK. Your one piece of "evidence" to support this assertion is questionable hearsay evidence from the family of a man spending life in prison, so lets leave Gilroy case to one side. Where is your evidence that in the cases of Ian Stewart, Edward Cairney , Avril Jones and Ross Willox the evidence wasn’t robustly challenged.
We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged
I will repeat there is no evidence that they weren’t robustly challenged, even the hearsay evidence doesn’t say they weren’t robustly challenged. I don't know where you got this idea from.
We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..
I have no idea if they said it or not, you seem to believe it because the parents of the convicted man said it was so, you have never seen hide nor hair of the SCCRC report.
Why do you place so much weight on the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder?
-
OK lets look at these,
We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen..
4 times in UK. Your one piece of evidence to support this assertion is questionable hearsay evidence from the family of a man spending life in prison, so lets leave Gilroy case to one side. Where is your evidence that in the cases of Ian Stewart, Edward Cairney , Avril Jones and Ross Willox the evidence wasn’t robustly challenged.
We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged
I will repeat there is no evidence that they weren’t robustly challenged, even the hearsay evidence doesn’t say they weren’t robustly challenged. I don't know where you got this idea from.
We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..
I have no idea if they said it or not, you seem to believe it because the parents of the convicted man said it was so, you have never seen hide nor hair of the SCCRC report.
Why do you place so much weight on the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder?
You can look at what you like... I stand by everything I have said... Argument is pointless. Even if I had confirmation fron the SCCRC you would dismiss it. You are making a big deal they've been accepted fiur times.. LCN DNA was accepted 2000 times before being challenged. It's a matter of record that Gilroys defense was poor..
The proof of the pudding.. If Wolters produces evidence.. Which he may well do.. That MM did not die in the apt then Grimes reputation is trashed ...
-
You can look at what you like... I stand by everything I have said... Argument is pointless. Even if I had confirmation fron the SCCRC you would dismiss it. You are making a big deal they've been accepted fiur times.. LCN DNA was accepted 2000 times before being challenged. It's a matter of record that Gilroys defense was poor..
The proof of the pudding.. If Wolters produces evidence.. Which he may well do.. That MM did not die in the apt then Grimes reputation is trashed ...
OK just so you are aware, you belief system about the alerts in the Gilroy being not robustly challenged are based on the words of the family of the man serving time in prison for the callous murder of Suzanne Pilley.
You hold the weight of those words to be so great that they override the fact that has been known for a long time that Scottish law absolutely allows the testimony of a dog handler to be an expert witness of an event that occurred during an investigation.
Rational thinking?
-
You can look at what you like... I stand by everything I have said... Argument is pointless. Even if I had confirmation fron the SCCRC you would dismiss it. You are making a big deal they've been accepted fiur times.. LCN DNA was accepted 2000 times before being challenged. It's a matter of record that Gilroys defense was poor..
The proof of the pudding.. If Wolters produces evidence.. Which he may well do.. That MM did not die in the apt then Grimes reputation is trashed ...
I think the weight of the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and why I think the main objection to the dog evidence was its irrelevance. It just was not deemed necessary.
-
OK just so you are aware, you belief system about the alerts in the Gilroy being not robustly challenged are based on the words of the family of the man serving time in prison for the callous murder of Suzanne Pilley.
You hold the weight of those words to be so great that they override the fact that has been known for a long time that Scottish law absolutely allows the testimony of a dog handler to be an expert witness of an event that occurred during an investigation.
Rational thinking?
Your opinion and you are wrong... As I've said.. Argument is pointless. My thinking on the alerts is quite rational. If the alerts are half as accurate ss Grime has claimed and sceptics believe.. Then then the McCanns are guilty of concealing Maddies body.. I think only a fool would think that is a realistic scenario in the circumstances. The alerts are therefore junk imo... Unless the PJ planted scent and I dint believe thst either. Even the PJ observers found the alerts strange. If Eddie alerts to cadaver scent... Why does he need to be called back twuce before alerting.
Grime and Harrusin came uo with the idea if using the alerts as intelligence in 2005. It was in its infancy in 2007 and vert poorly thought through. All rational thinking
-
Your opinion and you are wrong... As I've said.. Argument is pointless. My thinking on the alerts is quite rational. If the alerts are half as accurate ss Grime has claimed and sceptics believe.. Then then the McCanns are guilty of concealing Maddies body.. I think only a fool would think that is a realistic scenario in the circumstances. The alerts are therefore junk imo... Unless the PJ planted scent and I dint believe thst either. Even the PJ observers found the alerts strange. If Eddie alerts to cadaver scent... Why does he need to be called back twuce before alerting.
Grime and Harrusin came uo with the idea if using the alerts as intelligence in 2005. It was in its infancy in 2007 and vert oiirly thought through. All rational thinking
OK if you think its rational to place the weight of the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder above the fact that Scottish law allows alerts, I will leave you to it.
-
OK just so you are aware, you belief system about the alerts in the Gilroy being not robustly challenged are based on the words of the family of the man serving time in prison for the callous murder of Suzanne Pilley.
You hold the weight of those words to be so great that they override the fact that has been known for a long time that Scottish law absolutely allows the testimony of a dog handler to be an expert witness of an event that occurred during an investigation.
Rational thinking?
Proff Cassella says the only reliable cadaver dogs are those trained purely on human remains. He's an expert in the field with no financial interest in the alerts.. Unlike Grime
-
OK if you think its rational to place the weight of the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder above the fact that Scottish law allows alerts, I will leave you to it.
You are making an assumption that's all I place my opinion on.. ..I place it on much more than that... You are therefore displaying ignorance imo
Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility
-
Proff Cassella says the only reliable cadaver dogs are those trained purely on human remains. He's an expert in the field with no financial interest in the alerts.. Unlike Grime
So we have been wasting our time in the UK using dogs trained on piglet carcasses.
He better tell the police so that they can stop using these unreliable tools.
-
You are making an assumption that's all I place my opinion on.. ..I place it on much more than that... You are therefore displaying ignorance imo
Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility
Eh, come again.
-
Eh, come again.
It's basic English.. Which part are you having problems with
-
It's basic English.. Which part are you having problems with
All of it.
Which statements?. I place a lot of credibility in what?
It finishes rather abruptly, seems there is something missing
-
All of it.
Which statements?. I place a lot of credibility in what?
It finishes rather abruptly, seems there is something missing
You probably haven't noticed there is an ellipsis between the two statements not a full stop
-
You probably haven't noticed there is an ellipsis between the two statements not a full stop
I assumed it was an attempt at an ellipsis, but even that is wrong. An ellipsis is three dots,
And what does the ellipsis mean in the context of the sentence, what words were you missing out?
Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility
If you think that was a well crafted sentence you are wrong. Its a dogs dinner.
-
I assumed it was an attempt at an ellipsis, but even that is wrong. An ellipsis is three dots,
And what does the ellipsis mean in the context of the sentence, what words were you missing out?
Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility
If you think that was a well crafted sentence you are wrong. Its a dogs dinner.
In your very limited opinion.. I think you are sounding extremely desperate and a bit of a fool in your attempts to show you have the upper hand.. You dont dont
-
What speaks volumes for me is that despite Grimes claim he's been working on his project for 16 years tjete have only been four cases in the UK where the dogs have featured... Tjats a pretty abysmal rate
-
In your very limited opinion.. I think you are sounding extremely desperate and a bit of a fool in your attempts to show you have the upper hand.. You dont dont
It would be easier for you just to clarify what your post meant because I have no idea.
Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility
But keep them personal insults coming,
limited opinion,
fool,
desperate.
Its lucky you don't participate in the sniping because just imagine if you did.
-
It would be easier for you just to clarify what your post meant because I have no idea.
Having said that the statements are anectdotal witness statements which when it suits you.. You place a lot of credibility
But keep them personal insults coming,
limited opinion,
fool,
desperate.
Its lucky you don't participate in the sniping because just imagine if you did.
Its of no importance to me whether you understand it or not
-
Its of no importance to me whether you understand it or not
OK, fair enough. Lets have a recap on the theme of the thread.
You think it wouldn't add any support to a dog alert if a witness testified she had seen a missing girl enter into a neighbours house where a dog alerted and stated that she never saw her leave.
And your best example of anecdotal evidence is a clairvoyant giving her spiel to an audience.
Does that cover it?
-
OK, fair enough. Lets have a recap on the theme of the thread.
You think it wouldn't add any support to a dog alert if a witness testified she had seen a missing girl enter into a neighbours house where a dog alerted and stated that she never saw her leave.
And your best example of anecdotal evidence is a clairvoyant giving her spiel to an audience.
Does that cover it?
No... Not at all
-
No... Not at all
Covers it for me.
Brietta censored my words here.
Plus IMO you place great weight on the words of the family of a man serving time for a murder, they cant be biased can they?
Job done.
-
Covers it for me.
Plus IMO you place great weight on the words of the family of a man serving time for a murder, they cant be biased can they?
Job done.
You obviously don't understand how I reach my conclusions... You think you do.. But you dont
-
You obviously don't understand how I reach my conclusions... You think you do.. But you dont
I honestly have no idea how you reach your conclusions.
-
I honestly have no idea how you reach your conclusions.
You've just claimed you do
-
You've just claimed you do
These aren't really conclusions just statements that you have made.
I have no idea how your mind works.
-
These aren't really conclusions just statements that you have made.
I have no idea how your mind works.
So my statement Re the SCCRC is not a conclusion. None of my opinions Re Grime or Wolters are conclusions
-
So my statement Re the SCCRC is not a conclusion. None of my opinions Re Grime or Wolters are conclusions
conclusion:
a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.
Definitely not concerning the SCCRC, there is no reasoning there and I never raised anything you said about about Grime or Wolters in my recap.
-
As regards the alert in a neighbours house..
If the handler was taken to ten empty houses and given no information.... And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from
That would be significant
-
conclusion:
a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.
Definitely not concerning the SCCRC, there is no reasoning there and I never raised anything you said about about Grime or Wolters in my recap.
My conclusion on the SCCRC is based on reasoning
-
As regards the alert in a neighbours house..
If the handler was taken to ten empty houses and given no information.... And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from
That would be significant
Isn't that just about what happened in Luz?
-
Isn't that just about what happened in Luz?
Absolutely not.. Read it again
What you show is you don't read and understand carefully
-
Absolutely not.. Read it again
Lets see:
If the handler was taken to ten empty houses and given no information.... And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from
ten empty houses: 5 empty apartments and two villas,
Given no information: was he informed which apartments he was in?
And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from: Check
-
Lets see:
If the handler was taken to ten empty houses and given no information.... And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from
ten empty houses: 5 empty apartments and two villas,
Given no information: was he informed which apartments he was in?
And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from: Check
Are you suggesting Grime did not know 5a, was the crime scene
-
Are you suggesting Grime did not know 5a, was the crime scene
Has it ever been reported that he did. If it has please provide a cite. Otherwise its just pure conjecture.
Read what you posted again, its virtually a mirror of what happened in Luz.
If the handler was taken to ten empty houses and given no information.... And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from
-
Has it ever been reported that he did. If it has please provide a cite. Otherwise its just pure conjecture.
Read what you posted again, its virtually a mirror of what happened in Luz.
If the handler was taken to ten empty houses and given no information.... And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from
What a silly post.. I made a statement which I stand by.
If Grime did not know 5a was the crime scene then the alerts are highly significant and point to the McCanns guilt.
The question is the surely everyone knew which apt Maddie was abducted from.
-
What a silly post.. I made a statement which I stand by.
If Grime did not know 5a was the crime scene then the alerts are highly significant and point to the McCanns guilt.
The question is the surely everyone knew which apt Maddie was abducted from.
Why do you default to the position that Grime knew which apartment was which, where is any evidence that he was told before hand? He has expressed that he wasn't told which car was which so why would it be different for the apartments. Just let this sink in. You posted
If the handler was taken to ten empty houses and given no information.... And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from
That would be significant
And you stand by this statement.
-
Why do you default to the position that Grime knew which apartment was which, where is any evidence that he was told before hand? He has expressed that he wasn't told which car was which so why would it be different for the apartments. Just let this sink in. You posted
If the handler was taken to ten empty houses and given no information.... And an alert was only made in the house where a child disappeared from
That would be significant
And you stand by this statement.
Of course I stand by it. Every statement I make is, reasoned.
It's a very good and important point
-
Of course I stand by it. Every statement I make is, reasoned.
It's a very good and important point
So where is the difference between your statement and the searches in Luz?
-
What a silly post.. I made a statement which I stand by.
If Grime did not know 5a was the crime scene then the alerts are highly significant and point to the McCanns guilt.
The question is the surely everyone knew which apt Maddie was abducted from.
You appear to think that the dogs alerted to 5A only because Grime knew the McCanns stayed there. That's quite an accusation based on no evidence.
-
So where is the difference between your statement and the searches in Luz?
I've explained... And you have, answered.
-
You appear to think that the dogs alerted to 5A only because Grime knew the McCanns stayed there. That's quite an accusation based on no evidence.
I don't really care, what you think.. It's, of no importance. I've explained a, scientific method that would give the, alerts, massive scientific credibility
-
I've explained... And you have, answered.
So the difference is although you have no evidence to support it, you believe Grime was told before hand who had occupied the apartments.
He wasn't told who the cars belonged to ,but to you, they must have told him the which apartments were which.
Can you confirm it is only your opinion that Grime was told which apartment was which rather than a fact you can prove?
-
So the difference is although you have no evidence to support it, you believe Grime was told before hand who had occupied the apartments.
He wasn't told who the cars belonged to ,but to you, they must have told him the which apartments were which.
Can you confirm it is only your opinion that Grime was told which apartment was which rather than a fact you can prove?
I can't really bother to reply to such a silly post. On such an important point we need to deal in facts not speculation
Let me make it really simple for you.. If it was a blind search then the alerrs are highly significant... Strange no ones mentioned it was if that was, the case
-
So the difference is although you have no evidence to support it, you believe Grime was told before hand who had occupied the apartments.
He wasn't told who the cars belonged to ,but to you, they must have told him the which apartments were which.
Can you confirm it is only your opinion that Grime was told which apartment was which rather than a fact you can prove?
My belief that grime knew the, apt was the crime scene is based on evidence.. It's my opinion.. It's of no importance. The important point is did he know
-
I can't really bother to reply to such a silly post. On such an important point we need to deal in facts not speculation
Let me make it really simple for you.. If it was a blind search then the alerrs are highly significant... Strange no ones mentioned it was if that was, the case
OK, got it. If Grime didn't know which apartment was which the alerts are highly significant in your opinion.
Nice to have such clarity from you,
PS. There is no evidence that Grime knew which apartment was which.
-
My belief that grime knew the, apt was the crime scene is based on evidence.. It's my opinion.. It's of no importance. The important point is did he know
What evidence would that be then?
-
OK, got it. If Grime didn't know which apartment was which the alerts are highly significant in your opinion.
Nice to have such clarity from you,
PS. There is no evidence that Grime knew which apartment was which.
But it's pie in the sky for you because imo it's high impossible grime did not know... Based on the evidence
-
OK, got it. If Grime didn't know which apartment was which the alerts are highly significant in your opinion.
Nice to have such clarity from you,
PS. There is no evidence that Grime knew which apartment was which.
Not just my opinion.. An absolute fact
-
I'm surprised you miss it's relevance.
It's another example of people using covid as an excuse... And another example of me catching them out using quite a novel method
Are you assuming that the lack of urgency with your wife’s glasses was deliberate? Why would they do that then give you an appointment?
-
Are you assuming that the lack of urgency with your wife’s glasses was deliberate? Why would they do that then give you an appointment?
They were obviously more interested in selling more glasses than supplying those already sold
-
Are you assuming that the lack of urgency with your wife’s glasses was deliberate? Why would they do that then give you an appointment?
Most opticians sell glasses but they aren't always made on the premises. If that applied here then an appointment wouldn't make the glasses available any quicker.
-
Most opticians sell glasses but they aren't always made on the premises. If that applied here then an appointment wouldn't make the glasses available any quicker.
The glasses must have been already made as they were available ti fit the following day. The point is that the same staff helped sell glasses, as fitted them and the shop preferred to sell to get more money in
-
They were obviously more interested in selling more glasses than supplying those already sold
That’s a large assumption and a poor way to establish a loyal customer base.
-
You appear to think that the dogs alerted to 5A only because Grime knew the McCanns stayed there. That's quite an accusation based on no evidence.
The issue of Mr Grime's status and that of his dogs was discussed in great depth in the Jersey Inquiry. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
The cadaver dog was designated "incompetent" on arrival, as it was while on duty in Luz. The CSI dog became incompetent during its time in Jersey.
The fact that Grime did not benefit from the presence of another experienced dog handler as per ACPO Recommendations was also subject to criticism.
Which was exactly the case during the searches in Luz.
-
So the difference is although you have no evidence to support it, you believe Grime was told before hand who had occupied the apartments.
He wasn't told who the cars belonged to ,but to you, they must have told him the which apartments were which.
Can you confirm it is only your opinion that Grime was told which apartment was which rather than a fact you can prove?
Areyou of the opinion that Grime had not followed the case of the most famous missing child in the world, and had never watched a news report on the subject beforebeing flown in to work on it? Wow. What leads you to that conclusion?
-
You appear to think that the dogs alerted to 5A only because Grime knew the McCanns stayed there. That's quite an accusation based on no evidence.
It's my opinion that from a scientific point of view the alerts are based in no real evidence
-
But it's pie in the sky for you because imo it's high impossible grime did not know... Based on the evidence
OK, please share the evidence that you have, that makes it high impossible that Grime did not know which apartment had belonged to who?
-
OK, please share the evidence that you have, that makes it high impossible that Grime did not know which apartment had belonged to who?
Evidence is anything that supports, a proposition..
So first it's unlikely grime didn't read details.. Or be told details... Of the case and second because if the alerts were blind that would be absolutely sensational and would have been discussed
-
The issue of Mr Grime's status and that of his dogs was discussed in great depth in the Jersey Inquiry. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
The cadaver dog was designated "incompetent" on arrival, as it was while on duty in Luz. The CSI dog became incompetent during its time in Jersey.
The fact that Grime did not benefit from the presence of another experienced dog handler as per ACPO Recommendations was also subject to criticism.
Which was exactly the case during the searches in Luz.
Unlicenced police dogs were deemed incompetent by ACPO. As Eddie and Keela weren't police dogs they weren't required (or even eligible?) to be licenced.
-
Unlicenced police dogs were deemed incompetent by ACPO. As Eddie and Keela weren't police dogs they weren't required (or even eligible?) to be licenced.
Prof Cassella deems any cadaver dog not trained solely on human remains as being unreliable. All other scent dogs are trained solely on one scent
-
Evidence is anything that supports, a proposition..
So first it's unlikely grime didn't read details.. Or be told details... Of the case and second because if the alerts were blind that would be absolutely sensational and would have been discussed
Wasn't Grime flown over from the USA to Portugal. Having lived for a short time in the USA in the 90's, news of a missing British girl in Portugal would not have been major news in USA imo. I was in England and I could not have told you which apartment the McCanns stayed in.
But to be frank your two pieces of evidence are suppositions not evidence. Anyone can make a supposition about virtually anything, does not make it evidence.
-
Wasn't Grime flown over from the USA to Portugal. Having lived for a short time in the USA in the 90's, news of a missing British girl in Portugal would not have been major news in USA imo. I was in England and I could not have told you which apartment the McCanns stayed in.
But to be frank your two pieces of evidence are suppositions not evidence. Anyone can make a supposition about virtually anything, does not make it evidence.
They are evidence.. Based on rational thought
-
They are evidence.. Based on rational thought
A supposition is not evidence.
-
A supposition is not evidence.
My evidence is based on facts. Are you really suggesting no one has thought to mention grime did not know 5a, was, a crime scene.. It would be absolute dynamite
-
My evidence is based on facts. Are you really suggesting no one has thought to mention grime did not know 5a, was, a crime scene.. It would be absolute dynamite
Your evidence is supposition. Pure and simple. So it would be dynamite if t was revealed that Grime did not know which apartment was which. But he wasn't told which car was which and that's not dynamite at all.
Why would the PJ not tell him who's car was whose but tell him who's apartment was who's?
Now I don't claim to know if he was indeed told or not, but there is no evidence to show he was told which apt was which.
-
Your evidence is supposition. Pure and simple. So it would be dynamite if t was revealed that Grime did not know which apartment was which. But he wasn't told which car was which and that's not dynamite at all.
Why would the PJ not tell him who's car was whose but tell him who's apartment was who's?
Now I don't claim to now if he was indeed told or not, but there is no evidence to show he was told which apt was which.
Grime claimed he was not aware that the renaukt belinged to the mccanns yet the car had posters of Maddie in the windows. He also claimed the dog showed an immediate interest in the car whereas the vudeo showed he trotted straight past
-
Grime claimed he was not aware that the renaukt belinged to the mccanns yet the car had posters of Maddie in the windows. He also claimed the dog showed an immediate interest in the car whereas the vudeo showed he trotted straight past
Yes but there were no posters in the apartment.
The car search was undertaken as a blind search so why are you so sure that the apartment search wasn't. If they did one search as a blind search is it not more likely that both searches were blind searches. There simply is no evidence to suggest the apartment search was not a blind search.
-
Yes but there were no posters in the apartment.
The car search was undertaken as a blind search so why are you so sure that the apartment search wasn't. If they did one search as a blind search is it not more likely that both searches were blind searches. There simply is no evidence to suggest the apartment search was not a blind search.
You are making suppositions....if the apartment search was blind.. Then the mccanns are guilty most likely of hidng a body.. Same goes for the car.
-
You are making suppositions....if the apartment search was blind.. Then the mccanns are guilty most likely of hidng a body.. Same goes for the car.
Yes I am making suppositions but the difference is I am not claiming that it is evidence. It is purely a supposition.
I already posted a few minutes ago that
Now I don't claim to know if he was indeed told or not, but there is no evidence to show he was told which apt was which
-
You are making suppositions....if the apartment search was blind.. Then the mccanns are guilty most likely of hidng a body.. Same goes for the car.
You seem to be saying that Grime influenced the dogs. There's absolutely no evidence of that imo.
-
Yes I am making suppositions but the difference is I am not claiming that it is evidence. It is purely a supposition.
I already posted a few minutes ago that
Now I don't claim to know if he was indeed told or not, but there is no evidence to show he was told which apt was which
I'm claiming the points I've raised as evidence and I stand by that. It's of no importance..
What you are suggesting doesn't fir with the facts
-
I'm claiming the points I've raised as evidence and I stand by that. It's of no importance..
What you are suggesting doesn't fir with the facts
If you can't see that a supposition is not evidence, then I don't know what else I can say.
-
You seem to be saying that Grime influenced the dogs. There's absolutely no evidence of that imo.
I'm simply stating facts. Do you think the alerts have the same value whether the searches were blind or not... They clearly dont
-
If you can't see that a supposition is not evidence, then I don't know what else I can say.
The claim that the search was blind has never been raised despite it's colossal importance.. That's a fact.. Not a supposition
-
I'm simply stating facts. Do you think the alerts have the same value whether the searches were blind or not... They clearly dont
A blind search is definitely preferable, but then Harrison would have known this also, which is why the car search was organised as a blind search.
-
A blind search is definitely preferable, but then Harrison would have known this also, which is why the car search was organised as a blind search.
Posters in the car meant the search was not blind
-
I'm simply stating facts. Do you think the alerts have the same value whether the searches were blind or not... They clearly dont
Grime either knew 5A was the McCann's apartment or he didn't. What makes you think that knowledge would affect his results?
-
The claim that the search was blind has never been raised despite it's colossal importance.. That's a fact.. Not a supposition
You can't say that because, something is not stated means it did not happen. You can suppose it, but it doesn't follow that you are correct.
Wouldn't it be logical that Harrison being aware of blind searches proposed to do so with the searches.
-
Grime either knew 5A was the McCann's apartment or he didn't. What makes you think that knowledge would affect his results?
I've given all the reasons and you've read and complained about them. Blind.. Double blind are the norm to eliminate bias
-
Posters in the car meant the search was not blind
Grime states he wasn't told who the owners were so it was organised as a blind search.
-
You can't say that because, something is not stated means it did not happen. You can suppose it, but it doesn't follow that you are correct.
Wouldn't it be logical that Harrison being aware of blind searches proposed to do so with the searches.
You continue with the, same silly posts
-
Grime states he wasn't told who the owners were so it was organised as a blind search.
It wasn't organised very well then
-
You continue with the, same silly posts
Why say silly posts? I thought sniping was not your thing.
-
It wasn't organised very well then
If they removed the posters they could be accused of tampering with evidence, who knows, take it with Harrison, the National search manager.
-
Why say silly posts? I thought sniping was not your thing.
It's silly because I've answered your questions.
If the search was blind that is colossal.. Strange no one... That's no one.. Has, ever made the point in 14 years.. That fact supports.. And is therefore evidence.. That the, search was not blind
-
If they removed the posters they could be accused of tampering with evidence, who knows, take it with Harrison, the National search manager.
My opinion is he probably realises what a total Cock up the whole episode was
-
It's silly because I've answered your questions.
If the search was blind that is colossal.. Strange no one... That's no one.. Has, ever made the point in 14 years.. That fact supports.. And is therefore evidence.. That the, search was not blind
The post you called silly asked the question
Wouldn't it be logical that Harrison being aware of blind searches proposed to do so with the searches.
Which I have never asked before, but whatever.
But no one has also ever said " Yeah, but he knew he was in the McCanns apartment" Have they?
-
My opinion is he probably realises what a total Cock up the whole episode was
Well he was advising the PJ, is he inept as well in your opinion?
Mark Harrison MBE. Oversaw a search that was a great big cock up. Or did his job to the best of his ability.
You pays your money and take your choice.
-
The post you called silly asked the question
Wouldn't it be logical that Harrison being aware of blind searches proposed to do so with the searches.
Which I have never asked before, but whatever.
But no one has also ever said " Yeah, but he knew he was in the McCanns apartment" Have they?
You accuse me of supposition and then ask me to speculate.. That's silly
My view is Harrison realised what a total Cock uo thevwhhole thing was and wanted to distance himself from it..
After the alerts he changed his opinion to... No inferences can be drawn from the alerts... And making a point of what Grime saud tto thee PJ. I've never gearrd Harrison and. The dogs mentioned together again. In hisvwhite oaper Grime referred to him as the NSA... Not by name
-
Well he was advising the PJ, is he inept as well in your opinion?
Mark Harrison MBE. Oversaw a search that was a great big cock up. Or did his job to the best of his ability.
You pays your money and take your choice.
He changed his tune dramatically after the alers, as I've previously pointed out
-
You accuse me of supposition and then ask me to speculate.. That's silly
My view is Harrison realised what a total Cock uo thevwhhole thing was and wanted to distance himself from it..
After the alerts he changed his opinion to... No inferences can be drawn from the alerts... And making a point of what Grime saud tto thee PJ. I've never gearrd Harrison and. The dogs mentioned together again. In hisvwhite oaper Grime referred to him as the NSA... Not by name
No, just don't treat supposition as evidence.
-
He changed his tune dramatically after the alers, as I've previously pointed out
Did he, what did he say before the alerts?
-
No, just don't treat supposition as evidence.
Are you under some strange illusion that you can give out orders.. What a very odd post
-
Did he, what did he say before the alerts?
Dint you know.. Lol
-
Are you under some strange illusion that you can give out orders.. What a very odd post
Call it advice.
-
Dint you know.. Lol
How can I possibly know what you are referring to.
-
Call it advice.
Are by our under the illusion you are in a position to offer me advice ..lol
-
Are by our under the illusion you are in a position to offer me advice ..lol
Anyone can offer advice, its up to you to accept it or not.
-
How can I possibly know what you are referring to.
Have you not read his statement.
Prior to the alert.. An alert may suggest a dead body ha been present
After the akerrs he completely distanced himself from that.and said ni inference could be taken from the alerts.
-
Anyone can offer advice, its up to you to accept it or not.
I'm just laughing at the fact that you think you are in a position to offer me advice.. Lol
-
I'm just laughing at the fact that you think you are in a position to offer me advice.. Lol
Whys that then? Haven't you heard this
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.
I always listen to advice offered to me.
-
Have you not read his statement.
Prior to the alert.. An alert may suggest a dead body ha been present
After the akerrs he completely distanced himself from that.and said ni inference could be taken from the alerts.
This is where you go wrong. The meaning of words.
Inference means "to draw a conclusion based on evidence". A conclusion is a final decision or judgement
You can't conclude from the alerts but it still may suggest a body has been present.
Its the same meaning, but I doubt you will agree.
-
Whys that then? Haven't you heard this
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.
I always listen to advice offered to me.
A wise man doesn't take advice from fool..
-
A wise man doesn't take advice from fool..
Quite true.
-
This is where you go wrong. The meaning of words.
Inference means "to draw a conclusion based on evidence". A conclusion is a final decision or judgement
You can't conclude from the alerts but it still may suggest a body has been present.
Its the same meaning, but I doubt you will agree.
Conclusions don't have to be final judgements... Suggesting a body may have been present is making an inferencce
-
Conclusions don't have to be final judgements... Suggesting a body may have been present is making an inferencce
How would you define the word conclusion, my definition is as the dictionary.
a judgement or decision reached by reasoning. (Oxford Dictionary)
a final decision or judgment : an opinion or decision that is formed after a period of thought or research.( webster)
a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration (vocabulary.com)
Suggesting a body may have been present is making a suggestion
-
How would you define the word conclusion, my definition is as the dictionary.
)
a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration (vocabulary.com)
Suggesting a body may have been present is making a suggestion
That ones fine... Suggesting a body may have been present is, an opinion based on reasoning.. Which is.. A, conclusion ..and is, therefore, an inference
-
That ones fine... Suggesting a body may have been present is, an opinion based on reasoning.. Which is.. A, conclusion ..and is, therefore, an inference
But it also says judgement reached. and the other two say the same.
You can't just pick the one that suits you best, and ignore the others.
How do you know Harrison meant your definition and not the others.
You don't.
-
The post you called silly asked the question
Wouldn't it be logical that Harrison being aware of blind searches proposed to do so with the searches.
Which I have never asked before, but whatever.
But no one has also ever said " Yeah, but he knew he was in the McCanns apartment" Have they?
Because it’s pretty self evident that’s why.
-
Because it’s pretty self evident that’s why.
Imo it's an assumption by McCann supporters. Why they think it's significant, however, I don't know. Most dog searches are carried out in areas which are associated with the missing person or with suspects. That's why all the apartments occupied by the T9 were visited, as was Murat's house.
-
But it also says judgement reached. and the other two say the same.
You can't just pick the one that suits you best, and ignore the others.
How do you know Harrison meant your definition and not the others.
You don't.
First it was you who offered the definition
...second it fits. Harrison wanted to distance himself from Grimes alerts imo. The evidence is in his statements .
In s previous post gunit made the same observation
-
What has never been sufficiently explained by those who think Grime somehow ‘manufactured’ alerts to promote his business is what did he have to gain? He himself stated that any alerts needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence so why would he manufacture alerts that he knew wouldn’t be?
-
What has never been sufficiently explained by those who think Grime somehow ‘manufactured’ alerts to promote his business is what did he have to gain? He himself stated that any alerts needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence so why would he manufacture alerts that he knew wouldn’t be?
I've explained... The clairvoyant scenario
I have it on very good authority that Grimes dogs alerts are not considered reliable by someone who sceptics consider the top expert in the field
-
What has never been sufficiently explained by those who think Grime somehow ‘manufactured’ alerts to promote his business is what did he have to gain? He himself stated that any alerts needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence so why would he manufacture alerts that he knew wouldn’t be?
Grime had no reason to 'manufacture' alerts. The integrity of his team was his best selling point.
-
I've explained... The clairvoyant scenario
I have it on very good authority that Grimes dogs alerts are not considered reliable by someone who sceptics consider the top expert in the field
Name?
-
Name?
Only detection canine resources trained specifically in the detection of human
decomposition may provide reliable intelligence. Resources trained with the
inclusion of animal-based training aids provide a far wider interpretation of canine
responses that must include the source may equally be animal or human. If
detection canine training is inclusive of food-based pork products this widens the
interpretation spectrum to include foodstuff.
What do you think......i would like your comments before giving the source...you would have to agree this statement questions the whole validity of grime and his alerts
-
Only detection canine resources trained specifically in the detection of human
decomposition may provide reliable intelligence. Resources trained with the
inclusion of animal-based training aids provide a far wider interpretation of canine
responses that must include the source may equally be animal or human. If
detection canine training is inclusive of food-based pork products this widens the
interpretation spectrum to include foodstuff.
What do you think......i would like your comments before giving the source...you would have to agree this statement questions the whole validity of grime and his alerts
What are 'animal-based training aids?'
-
What are 'animal-based training aids?'
Piglets are animal based training aids.. What do you think
-
Imo it's an assumption by McCann supporters. Why they think it's significant, however, I don't know. Most dog searches are carried out in areas which are associated with the missing person or with suspects. That's why all the apartments occupied by the T9 were visited, as was Murat's house.
The point is the amount of time spent in each apartment.
Almost as prejudicial as the abortive removal of clothing from one locale to another when no alert was forthcoming.
We are told there was no alert in the Murat residence.
Why was it not considered appropriate to remove his clothing to a gymnasium for another bite at the cherry - which was the procedure adopted singularly for the McCann clothing.
Just as the obvious difference in the non-blind approach to the vehicles even to the untrained eye.
All of this carried out without peer criticism which might have picked up on and regulated unconscious handler bias.
-
Imo it's an assumption by McCann supporters. Why they think it's significant, however, I don't know. Most dog searches are carried out in areas which are associated with the missing person or with suspects. That's why all the apartments occupied by the T9 were visited, as was Murat's house.
It's like the clairvoyant who has a thousand bereaved people in the crowd....
Grime goes to crime scenes where its obviously a serious crime has occurred.... Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
-
But it also says judgement reached. and the other two say the same.
You can't just pick the one that suits you best, and ignore the others.
How do you know Harrison meant your definition and not the others.
You don't.
Based on the following all the cadaver alerts in luz are unreliable..
Only detection canine resources trained specifically in the detection of human
decomposition may provide reliable intelligence. Resources trained with the
inclusion of animal-based training aids provide a far wider interpretation of canine
responses that must include the source may equally be animal or human. If
detection canine training is inclusive of food-based pork products this widens the
interpretation spectrum to include foodstuff.
-
First it was you who offered the definition
...second it fits. Harrison wanted to distance himself from Grimes alerts imo. The evidence is in his statements .
In s previous post gunit made the same observation
First, how do you know Harrison meant opinion which is a rather vague definition of conclusion would you not concede the more popular definition of conclusion is to reach a judgement, to decide?
Two, the dictionary defines
Suggest:
put forward for consideration.
Infer:
deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements
If you think these two definitions are the same, then its a whole heap of worse.
-
Based on the following all the cadaver alerts in luz are unreliable..
Only detection canine resources trained specifically in the detection of human
decomposition may provide reliable intelligence. Resources trained with the
inclusion of animal-based training aids provide a far wider interpretation of canine
responses that must include the source may equally be animal or human. If
detection canine training is inclusive of food-based pork products this widens the
interpretation spectrum to include foodstuff.
More inept policing then, why did Harrison bring them over.
Forget about slagging off the PJ, slag of the British police they have been wasting time and money for years training and operating these dogs. Write to your MP about this scandal.
-
More inept policing then, why did Harrison bring them over.
Forget about slagging off the PJ, slag of the British police they have been wasting time and money for years training and operating these dogs. Write to your MP about this scandal.
ive explained..with evidence,,,it was a new idea...an experiment,
my cite confirms the alerts are unreliable
-
Imo it's an assumption by McCann supporters. Why they think it's significant, however, I don't know. Most dog searches are carried out in areas which are associated with the missing person or with suspects. That's why all the apartments occupied by the T9 were visited, as was Murat's house.
It’sa very reasonable deduction all things considered. If you belive unconsonsious bias simply does not exist in the world of cadaver dog alerts or that Grime was incapable of such a thing then of course you wouldn’t understand the significance. Meanwhile in the real world…
-
More inept policing then, why did Harrison bring them over.
Forget about slagging off the PJ, slag of the British police they have been wasting time and money for years training and operating these dogs. Write to your MP about this scandal.
What scandal? The only “scandal” is people on forums assigning far too much weight to a couple of dog alerts that happened 14plus years ago and which to anyone who actually matters are completely irrelevant to this case.
-
ive explained..with evidence,,,it was a new idea...an experiment,
my cite confirms the alerts are unreliable
Here is another part of the problem. You don’t seem to recognise nuance or context in language. You see the word anecdotal in “anecdotal witness evidence” and assume it means a tale or whimsical story or even a clairvoyants act. Rather than looking at the context and realising it means an account of an event.
This follows with your cite, it's from the white paper by Cassella and Grime which, if you had read the entire paper as I have, its denouement concerns the authors desire to have a dedicated human parts farm set up in the UK, you might think they are impartial but they have an interest. You have to read the context in everything, not just cherry pick certain paragraphs.
-
It’sa very reasonable deduction all things considered. If you belive unconsonsious bias simply does not exist in the world of cadaver dog alerts or that Grime was incapable of such a thing then of course you wouldn’t understand the significance. Meanwhile in the real world…
according to gunit we can do away with double blind studies in drug trials and just accept unconcious bias doesnt exist...
-
Here is another part of the problem. You don’t seem to recognise nuance or context in language. You see the word anecdotal in “anecdotal witness evidence” and assume it means a tale or whimsical story or even a clairvoyants act. Rather than looking at the context and realising it means an account of an event.
This follows with your cite, it's from the white paper by Cassella and Grime which, if you had read the entire paper as I have, its denouement concerns the authors desire to have a dedicated human parts farm set up in the UK, you might think they are impartial but they have an interest. You have to read the context in everything, not just cherry pick certain paragraphs.
So do you believe they were simply exaggerating for effect in order to try and get a UK body farm set up?
-
First, how do you know Harrison meant opinion which is a rather vague definition of conclusion would you not concede the more popular definition of conclusion is to reach a judgement, to decide?
Two, the dictionary defines
Suggest:
put forward for consideration.
Infer:
deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements
If you think these two definitions are the same, then its a whole heap of worse.
Your post is complete junk...everytime you have a conversation do you get your dic out and check all the meanings of every word..lol
-
Your post is complete junk...everytime you have a conversation do you get your dic out and check all the meanings of every word..lol
No I know what words mean, unlike some people!
-
Here is another part of the problem. You don’t seem to recognise nuance or context in language. You see the word anecdotal in “anecdotal witness evidence” and assume it means a tale or whimsical story or even a clairvoyants act. Rather than looking at the context and realising it means an account of an event.
This follows with your cite, it's from the white paper by Cassella and Grime which, if you had read the entire paper as I have, its denouement concerns the authors desire to have a dedicated human parts farm set up in the UK, you might think they are impartial but they have an interest. You have to read the context in everything, not just cherry pick certain paragraphs.
The white paper is by Grime with an introduction by Cassella...so the quote is owned by Grime.
You are a fool if you think i dont understand what anectdotal means. it sems you dont.
the quote from the paper is quite clear..you just cant handle the truth
-
Here is another part of the problem. You don’t seem to recognise nuance or context in language. You see the word anecdotal in “anecdotal witness evidence” and assume it means a tale or whimsical story or even a clairvoyants act. Rather than looking at the context and realising it means an account of an event.
This follows with your cite, it's from the white paper by Cassella and Grime which, if you had read the entire paper as I have, its denouement concerns the authors desire to have a dedicated human parts farm set up in the UK, you might think they are impartial but they have an interest. You have to read the context in everything, not just cherry pick certain paragraphs.
Perhaps its you who doesnt understand and my posts are too intellectually complex for you to follow.
The reference to clairvoyants has nothing to do with anectdotal...it shows how if someone makes enough pt=redictions some are bound to come true and the gullible forget all the other failures
cherry picking is exactly what Grime does in his cv imo. Nothing wrong with that ...everyone does it
-
The white paper is by Grime with an introduction by Cassella...so the quote is owned by Grime.
You are a fool if you think i dont understand what anectdotal means. it sems you dont.
the quote from the paper is quite clear..you just cant handle the truth
This is how it is introduced on the staffs uni website:
GRIME, Martin and CASSELLA, John (2018) Forensic Canine White Papers A proof of concept foundational guide to the application of forensic canines within law enforcement investigations, research and training development. Other. Staffordshire University, Staffordshire University.
Notice the 2 names in bold.
As you raised this thread about anecdotal witness evidence, what is your definition of anecdotal in context of the phrase above?
If the quote is of any concern to any one in authority why is there not an inquiry into the use of improper dogs by the UK Police force? Because there is no issue with it. You just grab onto it because it suits your beliefs, do you believe everything Martin Grime has written?
-
This is how it is introduced on the staffs uni website:
GRIME, Martin and CASSELLA, John (2018) Forensic Canine White Papers A proof of concept foundational guide to the application of forensic canines within law enforcement investigations, research and training development. Other. Staffordshire University, Staffordshire University.
Notice the 2 names in bold.
As you raised this thread about anecdotal witness evidence, what is your definition of anecdotal in context of the phrase above?
If the quote is of any concern to any one in authority why is there not an inquiry into the use of improper dogs by the UK Police force? Because there is no issue with it. You just grab onto it because it suits your beliefs, do you believe everything Martin Grime has written?
anectdotal...without ref to a dic...a statemnet not suported by reliable evidence...such as ...ive smoked 200 cigarettes a day for 20 yrs..and im quite healthy...thats anectdotal evidence supporting smoking...still think I dont understand
-
Perhaps its you who doesnt understand and my posts are too intellectually complex for you to follow.
The reference to clairvoyants has nothing to do with anectdotal...it shows how if someone makes enough pt=redictions some are bound to come true and the gullible forget all the other failures
cherry picking is exactly what Grime does in his cv imo. Nothing wrong with that ...everyone does it
Davel, please if you don't believe anything else I write or have ever written please believe me when I say your posts are not too intellectually complex for me, believe me.
Well, you did post this about clairvoyants earlier
"If a clairvoyant days does anyone know a Paul who has recently passed over.. And someone replies yes... That is anectdotal evidence and supports her skill."
So which is it, does the reference about clairvoyants have nothing to do with anecdotal or have I just made up this statement from you.
Thats a contradiction for you, forget Harrison.
-
anectdotal...without ref to a dic...a statemnet not suported by reliable evidence...such as ...ive smoked 200 cigarettes a day for 20 yrs..and im quite healthy...thats anectdotal evidence supporting smoking...still think I dont understand
There you go, you do understand some things. Well done!
Now we just have to work on your understanding of context when there is more that one word to process.
Lets start with Anecdotal Witness Evidence, what does that mean to you?
-
This is how it is introduced on the staffs uni website:
GRIME, Martin and CASSELLA, John (2018) Forensic Canine White Papers A proof of concept foundational guide to the application of forensic canines within law enforcement investigations, research and training development. Other. Staffordshire University, Staffordshire University.
Notice the 2 names in bold.
As you raised this thread about anecdotal witness evidence, what is your definition of anecdotal in context of the phrase above?
If the quote is of any concern to any one in authority why is there not an inquiry into the use of improper dogs by the UK Police force? Because there is no issue with it. You just grab onto it because it suits your beliefs, do you believe everything Martin Grime has written?
If cadaver dog alerts by improperly trained dogs were routinely used in British courts to secure convictions then it would imo be an issue that would need addressing but as they’re not, it isn’t.
-
This is how it is introduced on the staffs uni website:
GRIME, Martin and CASSELLA, John (2018) Forensic Canine White Papers A proof of concept foundational guide to the application of forensic canines within law enforcement investigations, research and training development. Other. Staffordshire University, Staffordshire University.
Notice the 2 names in bold.
As you raised this thread about anecdotal witness evidence, what is your definition of anecdotal in context of the phrase above?
If the quote is of any concern to any one in authority why is there not an inquiry into the use of improper dogs by the UK Police force? Because there is no issue with it. You just grab onto it because it suits your beliefs, do you believe everything Martin Grime has written?
cCassella wrote the introduction..Grime wrote the paper...have another look
-
cCassella wrote the introduction..Grime wrote the paper...have another look
This is how it is introduced on the staffs uni website:
GRIME, Martin and CASSELLA, John (2018) Forensic Canine White Papers A proof of concept foundational guide to the application of forensic canines within law enforcement investigations, research and training development. Other. Staffordshire University, Staffordshire University
If you are bothered about it write to staffs uni and get them to remove any reference to Cassella.
(Even though he contributed to it)
-
The point is the amount of time spent in each apartment.
Almost as prejudicial as the abortive removal of clothing from one locale to another when no alert was forthcoming.
We are told there was no alert in the Murat residence.
Why was it not considered appropriate to remove his clothing to a gymnasium for another bite at the cherry - which was the procedure adopted singularly for the McCann clothing.
Just as the obvious difference in the non-blind approach to the vehicles even to the untrained eye.
All of this carried out without peer criticism which might have picked up on and regulated unconscious handler bias.
So you think that the same amount of time should be spent on each location screened? I think that an in depth search only takes place if the dog shows interest in the location. Interest was shown in 5A but not in the other apartments and that's why more time was spent there. A very simple explanation which seems to be beyond the understanding of some.
-
There you go, you do understand some things. Well done!
Now we just have to work on your understanding of context when there is more that one word to process.
Lets start with Anecdotal Witness Evidence, what does that mean to you?
What do you mean by ...we have to work on...are you completely daft. If you are going to continually make such stupid comments I will judge that you have nothing sensible r
to say and not bother replying to you. The vtruth is from my pwesrspective is despite yoy forum name...you simply cannot handle the truth
-
There you go, you do understand some things. Well done!
Now we just have to work on your understanding of context when there is more that one word to process.
Lets start with Anecdotal Witness Evidence, what does that mean to you?
Can you get any more patronising?
-
So you think that the same amount of time should be spent on each location screened? I think that an in depth search only takes place if the dog shows interest in the location. Interest was shown in 5A but not in the other apartments and that's why more time was spent there. A very simple explanation which seems to be beyond the understanding of some.
another one who thinks taht my opposing view is because i dont understand...like you do!,,,...lol
I think grime was right to spend far more time in 5a....I dont see any point in his [correct use spending any time in the other random apartments.
As you understand so much more tahn me...or think you do...what in your opinion was the point in the seraches in random other apartmnets. guarantee you wont have an answer taht makes any sense
-
Can you get any more patronising?
i would say...can you get more stupid...I would offer to educate him but I dont teach elementary level
-
There you go, you do understand some things. Well done!
Now we just have to work on your understanding of context when there is more that one word to process.
Lets start with Anecdotal Witness Evidence, what does that mean to you?
you have already received a severe warning and 25 points...can you not debate without acting like achild.
we can stop the insults if you like and debate like adults....or you can continue to spit your dummy out...i can do both..your choice
-
i would say...can you get more stupid...I would offer to educate him but I dont teach elementary level
You still haven't provided your interpretation of "Anecdotal Witness Evidence" apart from
If a clairvoyant days does anyone know a Paul who has recently passed over.. And someone replies yes... That is anectdotal evidence and supports her skill.
You started the thread so you obviously had an interest in it.
-
you have already received a severe warning and 25 points...can you not debate without acting like achild.
we can stop the insults if you like and debate like adults....or you can continue to spit your dummy out...i can do both..your choice
He’s sent me to Coventry for some reason, I think I must have touched a nerve. @)(++(*
-
you have already received a severe warning and 25 points...can you not debate without acting like achild.
we can stop the insults if you like and debate like adults....or you can continue to spit your dummy out...i can do both..your choice
I am not spitting any dummy out, not acting like a child.
I seriously think you have a problem with the context and nuances of words and phrases, I have seen it time and time again, This whole thread is based on your misunderstanding the words "Anecdotal Witness Evidence" and you can't see a difference in meaning between to suggest and to infer.
My words were all quite adult in the paragraph above , I haven't accused you of being a fool or a child or spitting your dummy out.
-
you have already received a severe warning and 25 points...can you not debate without acting like achild.
we can stop the insults if you like and debate like adults....or you can continue to spit your dummy out...i can do both..your choice
How do you know they've had a severe warning, points are meaningless, no one gets banned.
-
How do you know they've had a severe warning, points are meaningless, no one gets banned.
25 in one go is severe... I look at the evidence dear chap
-
25 in one go is severe... I look at the evidence dear chap
I don't know how warning points work, never had them before but I got the points for editing one of my posts where a moderator edited my post and removed some innocuous content and i re- edited to say " (this moderator) censored my words"
I was not criticising any one, just pointing it that's what happened. The post didn't rally make sense with the words removed.
-
I am not spitting any dummy out, not acting like a child.
I seriously think you have a problem with the context and nuances of words and phrases, I have seen it time and time again, This whole thread is based on your misunderstanding the words "Anecdotal Witness Evidence" and you can't see a difference in meaning between to suggest and to infer.
My words were all quite adult in the paragraph above , I haven't accused you of being a fool or a child or spitting your dummy out.
You are merely quoting your opinion.. I'm happy by to learn from someone superior..
I went through the Grammsr school system.. Excelled at every point.. Top of the class.. 4 a levels two s levels.. S levels don't exist anymore they were beyong a levels for thide think ing of applying fir Oxbridge.. I didn't in the end.
I took my a levels a year early.. Went to university a year early and am highly respected in my profession.
Could you tell me what qualifies you to teach me... I'm all ears and waiting to be immpressed
-
You are merely quoting your opinion.. I'm hapoybto kearn from someone superior..
I went through the Grammsr school system.. Excelled at every point.. Top of the class.. 4 a levels two s levels.. S levels don't exist anymore they were beyong a levels for thide think ing of applying fir Oxbridge.. I didn't in the end.
I took my a levels a year early.. Went to university a year early and am highly respected in my profession.
Could you tell me what qualifies you to teach me... I'm all ears and waiting to be immpressed
I have no desire to try and impress someone on a forum of my background.
I base it on my experience here and it seems since I have been here you have got a lot of things wrong or confused.
I could make a list for you if you want.
-
I don't know how warning points work, never had them before but I got the points for editing one of my posts where a moderator edited my post and removed some innocuous content and i re- edited to say " (this moderator) censored my words"
I was not criticising any one, just pointing it that's what happened. The post didn't rally make sense with the words removed.
Which post was it.. Are you sure you weren't kindly pointing out someone didn't know their a from their e
-
Which post was it.. Are you sure you weren't kindly pointing out someone didn't know their a from their e
Its on this thread, from yesterday I believe you can look for it if you want.
-
25 in one go is severe...
Really !!!. Piddling amount. Still wrong thread for this.
-
He’s sent me to Coventry for some reason, I think I must have touched a nerve. @)(++(*
Nice laughing emoji there.
I will tell you why I am not replying to your posts.
Twice this weekend you have accused me of posting racist posts. Before you band around words like racist you have to be 100% certain that there was some racist intention in these posts. My post was to show someone whose parents arrived from Sri Lanka or Botswana and they were then born in England could call themselves English.
Davel posted something that I found had a questionable connotation
If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English.
But I never levelled any racist intent to the post just asked if he would clarify what he meant, he then reposted
If my parents came from Lesotho but I was born in the UK then I would not be britsh
Which although it was not technically true either clarified what he meant.
I have a daughter who I guess society would describe her as black and for you to so casually throw around racist accusations sickened me to my stomach.
I can have no further discourse with someone who I feel angry and contemptible towards
-
So you think that the same amount of time should be spent on each location screened? I think that an in depth search only takes place if the dog shows interest in the location. Interest was shown in 5A but not in the other apartments and that's why more time was spent there. A very simple explanation which seems to be beyond the understanding of some.
That is utter nonsense.
I appear to have a more retentive memory than you when it comes to the evidence of my own eyes.
The dog indeed showed as much if not more, interest on more than one occasion in more than one apartment than that shown in 5A which to my mind replicated the revolving car scenario.
I think that it is certainly beyond sceptic understanding that so called searches carried out by an incompetent animal are not worth the Levy copyrighted tape it was filmed on.
The world has turned full circle quite a few times since then to the present day when the anecdotal witness statement given by Ms Behan three years before Madeleine's abduction has been backed up by surviving proof. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9534555/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-faces-charged-2004-rape-Irish-tour-rep.html
- she recognised the MO of the convicted rapist and torturer which mirrored her own terrifying ordeal
- she described him as speaking with a German or Dutch accent
- the German prosecutor also recognised the MO saying there were stark parallels between the attack on Ms Behan, the rape of the American woman and the abduction of Madeleine McCann.
- the clincher would appear to be the retention in evidence of a partial fingerprint
So while sceptics are still groundhogging a sorry time in 2007 - it seems anyone else with an interest in Madeleine has moved with the relevant times which are soon to be 2022.
The dogs didn't do it in 2007 whether they were lying or not - I really don't think they have had a locus at any time since then, unless you can cite to the differ - Mr Wolters certainly hasn't mentioned them at all.
Perhaps 2022 will be the year when we will find out what happened to Madeleine, I certainly hope so, but what I do know for certain - it will have absolutely nothing to do with Eddie or Keela. Brace yourself!
-
Nice laughing emoji there.
I will tell you why I am not replying to your posts.
Twice this weekend you have accused me of posting racist posts. Before you band around words like racist you have to be 100% certain that there was some racist intention in these posts. My post was to show someone whose parents arrived from Sri Lanka or Botswana and they were then born in England could call themselves English.
Davel posted something that I found had a questionable connotation
If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English.
But I never levelled any racist intent to the post just asked if he would clarify what he meant, he then reposted
If my parents came from Lesotho but I was born in the UK then I would not be britsh
Which although it was not technically true either clarified what he meant.
I have a daughter who I guess society would describe her a black and for you to so casually throw around racist accusations sickened me to my stomach.
I can have no further discourse with someone who I feel angry and contemptible towards
Touchy and childish reaction imo, but to be expected I suppose. You were obviously intent on insulting Davel with your original “mother tongue” post, implying he was ignorant because English wasn’t his first language and IMO that had racist undertones. We are all entitled to an opinion, and I thought you supported the right of freedom of expression even if that opinion offends, but it seems you prefer the cancel culture route. That’s your choice and that’s fine but I shan’t be put off commenting on your posts as I see fit, no matter how offensive you deem the post to be. Incidentally, having a black or ethnic minority relative does not automatically absolve a person of any possibility of being racist imo.
-
Nice laughing emoji there.
I will tell you why I am not replying to your posts.
Twice this weekend you have accused me of posting racist posts. Before you band around words like racist you have to be 100% certain that there was some racist intention in these posts. My post was to show someone whose parents arrived from Sri Lanka or Botswana and they were then born in England could call themselves English.
Davel posted something that I found had a questionable connotation
If my parents came from Botswana I would not be English.
But I never levelled any racist intent to the post just asked if he would clarify what he meant, he then reposted
If my parents came from Lesotho but I was born in the UK then I would not be britsh
Which although it was not technically true either clarified what he meant.
I have a daughter who I guess society would describe her as black and for you to so casually throw around racist accusations sickened me to my stomach.
I can have no further discourse with someone who I feel angry and contemptible towards
None if my replies were racist... They were factual.. Being born in the UK does not automatically give you the right to a UK passport.
I know that because when my son applied for his passport I had to supply proof I was married to his mother.
I have three children who regard themselves as black and have experienced racism .
My very opinionated 15 year old daughter who keeps me in check Re all things racism related... We agree on everything.
What let's you down is you made no response when I said my wife had experienced racist abuse on this forum.. That really does question all things you have said to VS.
Do you only call out racusm when it affects your family... That would be a very poor show. Give your daughter my best wishes and tell het to disregard the idiots who might abuse her
-
None if my replies were racist... They were factual.. Being born in the UK does not automatically give you the right to a UK passport.
I know that because when my son applied for his passport I had to supply proof I was married to his mother.
I have three children who regard themselves as black and have experienced racism .
My very opinionated 15 year old daughter who keeps me in check Re all things racism related... We agree on everything.
What let's you down is you made no response when I said my wife had experienced racist abuse on this forum.. That really does question all things you have said to VS.
Do you only call out racusm when it affects your family... That would be a very poor show. Give your daughter my best wishes and tell het to disregard the idiots who might abuse her
That's why I didn’t accuse you of racism.
Did everyone on the board commiserate with you about your wife's experience of online racism. You keep mentioning it as if I have committed a mortal sin by not sympathising with you.
I didn’t see the abuse, I wasn’t even on the forum at the time.
When I saw you took offence at my non reply I then did reply
"But as I mentioned in a previous post when I heard that your wife had been racially abused online I felt sad but felt the board wasn’t the right place to discuss racial abuse".
"Having said that, if you perceive that I was disrespecting you by not offering words of comfort then I apologise. And I don’t believe you are evil either, far from it."
Do you want me to prostrate myself in front of you to pay penance?
-
That's why I didn’t accuse you of racism.
Did everyone on the board commiserate with you about your wife's experience of online racism. You keep mentioning it as if I have committed a mortal sin by not sympathising with you.
I didn’t see the abuse, I wasn’t even on the forum at the time.
When I saw you took offence at my non reply I then did reply
"But as I mentioned in a previous post when I heard that your wife had been racially abused online I felt sad but felt the board wasn’t the right place to discuss racial abuse".
"Having said that, if you perceive that I was disrespecting you by not offering words of comfort then I apologise. And I don’t believe you are evil either, far from it."
Do you want me to prostrate myself in front of you to pay penance?
As I recall..not one sceptic did...some posters here contributed to it. Two of those were moderators....
-
As I recall..not one sceptic did...some posters here contributed to it. Two of those were moderators....
Two moderators on this forum racially abused your wife online? are they still moderators?
-
Two moderators on this forum racially abused your wife online? are they still moderators?
one is...but seldom posts.
The first and worst offender was removed...but not for the racist comments. He was quite a nasty piece of work. It would have got worse im sure but his wife died suddenly...he never posted again.
-
one is...but seldom posts.
The first and worst offender was removed...but not for the racist comments. He was quite a nasty piece of work. It would have got worse im sure but his wife died suddenly...he never posted again.
OK.
By the way you get points and another warning for explaining why you got the first warning.
-
OK.
By the way you get points and another warning for explaining why you got the first warning.
The moderation used to be a lot worse.
I've made an offer to you and all other posters. Stop all sniping and disrespect.. Then we don't need moderators.
Start now
-
How can any rational person accept the cadaver dig alerts, as reliable when Grime himself says that a, dog not trained solely on human tissue cannot be considered reliable
-
How can any rational person accept the cadaver dig alerts, as reliable when Grime himself says that a, dog not trained solely on human tissue cannot be considered reliable
With all due respect Dave I believe you are clutching at straws in your attempt to discredit the alerts. There's an old post on here from someone else trying to discredit the dogs. I forget their name now (I think it may have been "Debunked") but they use a maths formula to attempt to show the percentage of alerts that are wrong (i.e not alerts to cadaver odour or human blood). Off the top of my head they conclude that the dogs are only correct about 4 times out of 10 alerts. So you discount any 60% you like in this case.... and what does that leave us with? Alerts only at items connected with the McCann's. We know that analysis from forensic material collected at some of these sites proved to be "inconclusive" but the fact still remains that it is - even by "Debunked's" formula - the case the some of these alerts were to blood or cadaver odour.
Research in Forensic Science journals puts the accuracy of the alerts above 90% btw.
-
How can any rational person accept the cadaver dig alerts, as reliable when Grime himself says that a, dog not trained solely on human tissue cannot be considered reliable
The difficulty with the dog alerts in the apartment and those in the underground car park is that they happened. They can't all be dismissed as not credible.
-
With all due respect Dave I believe you are clutching at straws in your attempt to discredit the alerts. There's an old post on here from someone else trying to discredit the dogs. I forget their name now (I think it may have been "Debunked") but they use a maths formula to attempt to show the percentage of alerts that are wrong (i.e not alerts to cadaver odour or human blood). Off the top of my head they conclude that the dogs are only correct about 4 times out of 10 alerts. So you discount any 60% you like in this case.... and what does that leave us with? Alerts only at items connected with the McCann's. We know that analysis from forensic material collected at some of these sites proved to be "inconclusive" but the fact still remains that it is - even by "Debunked's" formula - the case the some of these alerts were to blood or cadaver odour.
Research in Forensic Science journals puts the accuracy of the alerts above 90% btw.
I'm certainly not clutching at straws my analysis is bang on.
It isn't just what I say it's what all the experts say.
You can't take that 90% figure and use it to assess the accuracy of the alerts.. That isn't how it works
The alerts are total trash.. Imo.. Based on all the evidence.
Even Grime admits any dog not trained solely on human dec odour is unreliable.
-
The difficulty with the dog alerts in the apartment and those in the underground car park is that they happened. They can't all be dismissed as not credible.
They certainly can all be dismissed as not credible. We all saw Grime repeatedly call Eddie back.
If it's proved and I'm sure there is proof.. that Maddie did not die in the apartment grime has sime explaining to do
-
They certainly can all be dismissed as not credible. We all saw Grime repeatedly call Eddie back.
If it's proved and I'm sure there is proof.. that Maddie did not die in the apartment grime has sime explaining to do
Wolters would have more if there is.
-
Wolters would have more if there is.
I don't see wolters making the claims he has unless he has the evidence.. Those who think amaral is some kind of saint with detective superpowers don't rate Wolters.. Lol
-
They certainly can all be dismissed as not credible. We all saw Grime repeatedly call Eddie back.
If it's proved and I'm sure there is proof.. that Maddie did not die in the apartment grime has sime explaining to do
Yes, Grime called Eddie back. So what? Who says that's wrong? McCann supporters seem to think it is, but they have no expertise in dog handling imo.
-
Yes, Grime called Eddie back. So what? Who says that's wrong? McCann supporters seem to think it is, but they have no expertise in dog handling imo.
I've never said it was wrong...
-
I've never said it was wrong...
Why keep on about it then? Imo it's of no significance at all.
-
Why keep on about it then? Imo it's of no significance at all.
First you need to get your facts right
Second... It is significant imo
-
First you need to get your facts right
Second... It is significant imo
Please explain.
-
Please explain.
I have.. Many many times
-
Why keep on about it then? Imo it's of no significance at all.
On the contrary - the PJ found it of the greatest significance that a dog would bypass an item which it totally ignored several times only alerting to it subsequently.
-
Yes, Grime called Eddie back. So what? Who says that's wrong? McCann supporters seem to think it is, but they have no expertise in dog handling imo.
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
-
I have.. Many many times
The problem being that your opinion may be wrong.
-
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
I would think most sceptics haven't seen this
-
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
What that report doesn't say is whether further clarification was forthcoming.
Perhaps that is elsewhere.
-
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
So did Grime work his dogs differently in Luz than he did on other jobs? It can't be assumed that he did. Nor can it be assumed that he did anything wrong just because some PJ analysts and McCann supporters didn't understand what they observed.
-
The problem being that your opinion may be wrong.
It's backed by plenty of evidence. The problem is opinions can be wrong and the alerts in this case seem to rely heavily on Grimes opinion. How do you think it was possible for Eddie to alert twice to a coconut fragnent. That raises sime serious questions imo
As I've said the evidence supports that the alerts in thus case were the result of a poorly thought out experiment. No wonder Harrison... As you confirmed.. Back tracked after the alerts.
The latest evidence I think will confirm Maddue did not die in the, apartment..... But imi Grime has, already had the value from what may well be quite bogus alerts. I dint think he did it deliberately... I think he just placed to much faith/belief in his and his digs abilities
-
So did Grime work his dogs differently in Luz than he did on other jobs? It can't be assumed that he did. Nor can it be assumed that he did anything wrong just because some PJ analysts and McCann supporters didn't understand what they observed.
I think we all have a very good understanding of what we observed.. Particularly Grimes claim of the, CC alert.
The dogs just are not as reliable as you and others think.. Which Grime has confirmed and imo will soon be proven
-
So did Grime work his dogs differently in Luz than he did on other jobs? It can't be assumed that he did. Nor can it be assumed that he did anything wrong just because some PJ analysts and McCann supporters didn't understand what they observed.
The case under discussion is the deployment of an incompetent dog in Praia da Luz and the subsequent dastardly misrepresentation of of what went on there by sceptics who feel no shame in demonstrating their abysmal ignorance at every opportunity.
Nice attempt at deflection nonetheless - can't fault a trier.
-
I, on the other hand, see criticism being levelled at Grime by people with no knowledge of the subject and no evidence to support their beliefs.
Eddie's 'incompetence' in Luz is just another myth imo.
-
It's backed by plenty of evidence. The problem is opinions can be wrong and the alerts in this case seem to rely heavily on Grimes opinion. How do you think it was possible for Eddie to alert twice to a coconut fragnent. That raises sime serious questions imo
As I've said the evidence supports that the alerts in thus case were the result of a poorly thought out experiment. No wonder Harrison... As you confirmed.. Back tracked after the alerts.
The latest evidence I think will confirm Maddue did not die in the, apartment..... But imi Grime has, already had the value from what may well be quite bogus alerts. I dint think he did it deliberately... I think he just placed to much faith/belief in his and his digs abilities
I think he might have been demob happy in Luz.
New business.
Freedom from the constraints imposed by operating as part of team which had to adhere to professional standards.
The fact that the requirement for the cadaver dog's qualification to be regularly updated had been deliberately ignored is I think a bit of a warning shot.
The Jersey Review - Operation Rectangle - criticised Grime's deployment in fields beyond his qualifications. I think that is quite revealing also.
When has there been such emphasis before or since on working dogs and their handler when working a case. They seem to have had their own fan club established with the marketing slogan of "DOGS DON'T LIE". Why on earth should that ever have been thought appropriate.
-
I, on the other hand, see criticism being levelled at Grime by people with no knowledge of the subject and no evidence to support their beliefs.
Eddie's 'incompetence' in Luz is just another myth imo.
All my criticisms are valid and supported by evidence.... Plus the investigation seems to be totally ignoring thr alerts.
Imo the alerts are total BS and will soon be proven to be the case. I'm quite qualified to assess evidence... More so than Grime... All my opimion
-
I think he might have been demob happy in Luz.
New business.
Freedom from the constraints imposed by operating as part of team which had to adhere to professional standards.
The fact that the requirement for the cadaver dog's qualification to be regularly updated had been deliberately ignored is I think a bit of a warning shot.
The Jersey Review - Operation Rectangle - criticised Grime's deployment in fields beyond his qualifications. I think that is quite revealing also.
When has there been such emphasis before or since on working dogs and their handler when working a case. They seem to have had their own fan club established with the marketing slogan of "DOGS DON'T LIE". Why on earth should that ever have been thought appropriate.
Don't forget Eddie alerted twice to a coconut shell in Jersey... What else could that be other than handler bias
-
I, on the other hand, see criticism being levelled at Grime by people with no knowledge of the subject and no evidence to support their beliefs.
Eddie's 'incompetence' in Luz is just another myth imo.
That is very much a post made by one suffering from the "Non so Blind" syndrome suffered by sceptics.
You have no excuse for professing ignorance that Eddie had been deployed in the field when considered INCOMPETENT.
IT IS NO MYTH - it is a matter of record in an official police review undertaken for the Parliament of the States of Jersey. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
Yet again your 'opinion' flies in the face of the evidence and reason. Quite extraordinary, I think.
-
I, on the other hand, see criticism being levelled at Grime by people with no knowledge of the subject and no evidence to support their beliefs.
Eddie's 'incompetence' in Luz is just another myth imo.
If Eddie was competent then he alerted to cadaver odour in Apartment 5a, now ask yourself why, 14 years later, two police forces have chosen to ignore this bombshell “evidence”. Can you proffer any sort of plausible, logical explanation for this? The answer is “no” isn’t it? Even the PJ made no claim that a cadaver had ever been in situ in the apartment or the car so if the dog is always right why did they fail to draw this conclusion? Any ideas?
-
Don't forget Eddie alerted twice to a coconut shell in Jersey... What else could that be other than handler bias
For me the Jersey episode is epitomised by the frantic running around within the building of Haute de la Garenne making alerts which directed the path in which the investigation was taken.
I think it perfectly possible that wee dog might have been showing signs of dementia both then and earlier in Luz when considering the way he careered around mouthing evidence which came within his reach.
The episode of Jar6 really should have been the finish of this nonsense - all it tends to prove now is the obduracy of scepticism.
-
For me the Jersey episode is epitomised by the frantic running around within the building of Haute de la Garenne making alerts which directed the path in which the investigation was taken.
I think it perfectly possible that wee dog might have been showing signs of dementia both then and earlier in Luz when considering the way he careered around mouthing evidence which came within his reach.
The episode of Jar6 really should have been the finish of this nonsense - all it tends to prove now is the obduracy of scepticism.
What surprised me about Jar 6 is what it says in the Rectangle report.
Having seen an apparent alert to the coconut she'll Grime was advised it was part of a childs skull. He the took the fragment to a different location to screen it separately. Once again Eddie alerted to the coconut.. ..according to grime
If that's not proof of handler bias nothing is
-
That is very much a post made by one suffering from the "Non so Blind" syndrome suffered by sceptics.
You have no excuse for professing ignorance that Eddie had been deployed in the field when considered INCOMPETENT.
IT IS NO MYTH - it is a matter of record in an official police review undertaken for the Parliament of the States of Jersey. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
Yet again your 'opinion' flies in the face of the evidence and reason. Quite extraordinary, I think.
A review by BDO Jersey is not 'an official police review'.
-
A review by BDO Jersey is not 'an official police review'.
the report was commissioned by The Minister and Accounting Officer Home Affairs Department
-
A review by BDO Jersey is not 'an official police review'.
there was police involvement with the review
-
there was police involvement with the review
yes
BDO has worked alongside Mr Michael Kellett in performing this Review. Mr Kellett is a former Senior Investigating Officer serving in the UK, who also set up the North West Regional Asset Recovery Team. He has been separately engaged by the Acting Chief Officer, SOJP;
-
Bones
170 pieces of bone which are mainly animal were found in the area of HDLG which was searched. Many more pieces of bone were found in the area of the grounds, all of which are animal.
Of all that material, there are 3 fragments which are ˜possibly' human; the biggest piece is 25 mm long.
2 fragments date 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950
These have not definitely been identified as human bone. Taking in all this information, this is an unexplained find if it is human, but not necessarily suspicious.
-
A review by BDO Jersey is not 'an official police review'.
8. The Report states that the findings are “the joint findings of Mr Kellett and BDO”.
7
-
8. The Report states that the findings are “the joint findings of Mr Kellett and BDO”.
7
In my opinion the report exceeded it's remit, which was to " to provide an independent and objective opinion on the financial and governance controls in place in respect of the HCAE investigation in order to provide assurance to the Accounting Officer and Minister that resources have been used efficiently and effectively"
Grime wasn't responsible for deciding which resources should be used or how they should be used. If it was wrong to use him and his dogs the fault lies not with him, but elsewhere.
-
In my opinion the report exceeded it's remit, which was to " to provide an independent and objective opinion on the financial and governance controls in place in respect of the HCAE investigation in order to provide assurance to the Accounting Officer and Minister that resources have been used efficiently and effectively"
Grime wasn't responsible for deciding which resources should be used or how they should be used. If it was wrong to use him and his dogs the fault lies not with him, but elsewhere.
They were right to point out that a close to 100k grime added no value to the investigation. Pointing out the coconut fiasco helped to show what a waste of money grime was... Which was part of their remit
-
In my opinion the report exceeded it's remit, which was to " to provide an independent and objective opinion on the financial and governance controls in place in respect of the HCAE investigation in order to provide assurance to the Accounting Officer and Minister that resources have been used efficiently and effectively"
Grime wasn't responsible for deciding which resources should be used or how they should be used. If it was wrong to use him and his dogs the fault lies not with him, but elsewhere.
Of course the Report was well within its remit. Every aspect of the expenditure on the abortive police action regarding HDLG was warranted particularly that of the two private contractors.
There were real issues of allegations of child abuse which were neglected as a result of resources and personnel being sent in the wrong direction.
The Report makes it clear the use of the dogs was the catalyst for the digging which went on in the house and the grounds.
You touch on "the big boy dunnit and ran away" syndrome. Which was another aspect the Review went into in great detail - the 'incompetent' dogs, which Grime was qualified to direct - and the other tasks undertaken for which he was not qualified but which bumped his remuneration up considerably.
-
Of course the Report was well within its remit. Every aspect of the expenditure on the abortive police action regarding HDLG was warranted particularly that of the two private contractors.
There were real issues of allegations of child abuse which were neglected as a result of resources and personnel being sent in the wrong direction.
The Report makes it clear the use of the dogs was the catalyst for the digging which went on in the house and the grounds.
You touch on "the big boy dunnit and ran away" syndrome. Which was another aspect the Review went into in great detail - the 'incompetent' dogs, which Grime was qualified to direct - and the other tasks undertaken for which he was not qualified but which bumped his remuneration up considerably.
They also made it clear that they attached no blame to Grime. How could they when the decisions made weren't his responsibility.
-
They also made it clear that they attached no blame to Grime. How could they when the decisions made weren't his responsibility.
Oh ~ where exactly did they do that ~ perhaps you would indicate.
-
Oh ~ where exactly did they do that ~ perhaps you would indicate.
Of course;
. We emphasise here that our criticism is directed in the main not towards Mr Grime but towards those persons who thought it appropriate to retain the services of and to deploy such an expensive resource in this way.
Page 40 BDO report
-
Of course;
. We emphasise here that our criticism is directed in the main not towards Mr Grime but towards those persons who thought it appropriate to retain the services of and to deploy such an expensive resource in this way.
Page 40 BDO report
It says.. In the main.. Which confirms they have some criticism of grime
-
They also made it clear that they attached no blame to Grime. How could they when the decisions made weren't his responsibility.
WRONG
-
It says.. In the main.. Which confirms they have some criticism of grime
Nevertheless, their remit was to consider "the efficient and effective use of resources during the Operation Rectangle investigation."
Grime's remit did not include any responsibility for ensuring that resources were used efficiently and effectively.
-
Nevertheless, their remit was to consider "the efficient and effective use of resources during the Operation Rectangle investigation."
Grime's remit did not include any responsibility for ensuring that resources were used efficiently and effectively.
It was necessary to show what a complete waste of money Grime was
-
It was necessary to show what a complete waste of money Grime was
They highlighted what they saw as bad decisions, but those decisions weren't made by Grime.
-
They highlighted what they saw as bad decisions, but those decisions weren't made by Grime.
They also highlighted his incompetence.. The Coco nut.
Also his instence of using an unnecessarily expensive hotel. And his insistence at being pad for his. Sundays off
-
Nevertheless, their remit was to consider "the efficient and effective use of resources during the Operation Rectangle investigation."
Grime's remit did not include any responsibility for ensuring that resources were used efficiently and effectively.
”Don’t blame me guv, I’m only coining it in because of others’ profligate stupitity and ignorance of how cadaver dogs work”.
-
They also highlighted his incompetence.. The Coco nut.
Also his instence of using an unnecessarily expensive hotel. And his insistence at being pad for his. Sundays off
Not definitively a Coco nut;
"JAR/6 was subsequently examined on 31 March 2008 by a scientist from the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and by a scientist from the British Museum and was found to be a piece of wood or coconut shell."
(page 10)
This exhibit became famous because the media were told it was human before it had been scientifically examined. There was an over-reaction but not by Grime.
As I understand it personnel from LGC stayed at the same hotel as Grime.
Grime's payments for days when he wasn't working is, again, something that should have been considered and agreed before this mismanaged investigation commenced.
-
Not definitively a Coco nut;
"JAR/6 was subsequently examined on 31 March 2008 by a scientist from the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and by a scientist from the British Museum and was found to be a piece of wood or coconut shell."
(page 10)
This exhibit became famous because the media were told it was human before it had been scientifically examined. There was an over-reaction but not by Grime.
As I understand it personnel from LGC stayed at the same hotel as Grime.
Grime's payments for days when he wasn't working is, again, something that should have been considered and agreed before this mismanaged investigation commenced.
From the report the coconut shell was moved to another location where Eddie gave a second positive alert to cadaver
-
From the report the coconut shell was moved to another location where Eddie gave a second positive alert to cadaver
Eddie didn't say it was a child's skull, the anthropologist said that. Why Eddie alerted to the item isn't known.
-
Eddie didn't say it was a child's skull, the anthropologist said that. Why Eddie alerted to the item isn't known.
Grime moved the coconut to another location and Eddie again gave an alert to cadaver odour. That is evidence of cueing... From a reliability point if view that is very suspect
-
Issue Recommendation
The total spend in this investigation was
heavily influenced by the expansion of the
enquiry post discovery of JAR/6 and the
immediate statement to the media.
In particular forensic fees, mutual aid costs,
salary and overtime costs, and hotel and
travel costs were substantial as a result of
the expansion of the enquiry.
The investigation was originally into historic sexual abuse.
It seems that due to Grimes faith in his dogs...the investigation changed to a homicide inquiry.
So as a direct result of faith in the cadaver dog the costs of the investigation spiralled out of control.
Not a good advert fir Grimes business
-
Grime moved the coconut to another location and Eddie again gave an alert to cadaver odour. That is evidence of cueing... From a reliability point if view that is very suspect
Or it's evidence of Grime double-checking Eddie's reaction.
-
Or it's evidence of Grime double-checking Eddie's reaction.
Double checking a false alert.. Confirming a false alert
Demonstrating how unreliable the dig could be
-
Issue Recommendation
The total spend in this investigation was
heavily influenced by the expansion of the
enquiry post discovery of JAR/6 and the
immediate statement to the media.
In particular forensic fees, mutual aid costs,
salary and overtime costs, and hotel and
travel costs were substantial as a result of
the expansion of the enquiry.
The investigation was originally into historic sexual abuse.
It seems that due to Grimes faith in his dogs...the investigation changed to a homicide inquiry.
So as a direct result of faith in the cadaver dog the costs of the investigation spiralled out of control.
Not a good advert fir Grimes business
We don't know why Eddie alerted to the spot where JAR/6 was found, although it appears that the scent which triggered his alert had adhered to the exhibit. Decisions were taken about what happened next, but not by Grime. I think wrong decisions were made, but attempts to lay responsibility at Grime's door are a step too far.
-
Double checking a false alert.. Confirming a false alert
Demonstrating how unreliable the dig could be
How do you know it was a false alert?
-
How do you know it was a false alert?
It's laughable.. That sort of response but it sums up the alerts. I won't explain... It's what makes the alerts total BS in some cases
-
We don't know why Eddie alerted to the spot where JAR/6 was found, although it appears that the scent which triggered his alert had adhered to the exhibit. Decisions were taken about what happened next, but not by Grime. I think wrong decisions were made, but attempts to lay responsibility at Grime's door are a step too far.
You can make up any total junk and say prove me wrong..
I can't. Same as I can't prove the clairvoyant wrong.
It's total junk from an evidence point of view
-
It's laughable.. That sort of response but it sums up the alerts. I won't explain... It's what makes the alerts total BS in some cases
In my opinion you can't explain. You can pontificate about things you know nothing about, but in the end it's merely a layperson's opinion.
-
In my opinion you can't explain. You can pontificate about things you know nothing about, but in the end it's merely a layperson's opinion.
I could explain.. But can't be bothered to a person who doesn't understand what a lay person is. The word.. Lay.. Relates to qualification.. Not to knowledge.
I understand how to assess evidence.. Better than Grime imo.. Based on evidence
-
I could explain.. But can't be bothered to a person who doesn't understand what a lay person is. The word.. Lay.. Relates to qualification.. Not to knowledge.
I understand how to assess evidence.. Better than Grime imo.. Based on evidence
Layperson:
‘ a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.’
That would be Grime then and certainly not you.
-
I could explain.. But can't be bothered to a person who doesn't understand what a lay person is. The word.. Lay.. Relates to qualification.. Not to knowledge.
I understand how to assess evidence.. Better than Grime imo.. Based on evidence
It wasn't Grime's job to assess evidence. The 'evidence' you use; such as "calling Eddie back" isn't actually evidence. It's just something you've observed and decided to name evidence imo.
-
It wasn't Grime's job to assess evidence. The 'evidence' you use; such as "calling Eddie back" isn't actually evidence. It's just something you've observed and decided to name evidence imo.
Calling Eddie back is 100% evidence for what I have claimed.
You really need to understand what constutes evidence
-
Layperson:
‘ a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.’
That would be Grime then and certainly not you.
I probably have more qualification in assessing evidence
than grime.. You need to look at his white paper to understand... It's embarrassing in parts
-
It will be interesting to see who is right Re the application of ECHR law... The SC of Portugal... Or me
-
Calling Eddie back is 100% evidence for what I have claimed.
You really need to understand what constutes evidence
How about another reason why Grime might have called Eddie back; it was how he always worked with the dog.
Do you have any evidence disproving my statement? If not, then my suggestion is as valid as yours. Evidence tells us what happened. Inventive minds speculate about why it happened.
-
How about another reason why Grime might have called Eddie back; it was how he always worked with the dog.
Do you have any evidence disproving my statement? If not, then my suggestion is as valid as yours. Evidence tells us what happened. Inventive minds speculate about why it happened.
What absolute tosh.. So I could suggest Maddie was abducted by an alien spaceship and as you can't prove that wrong it's as valid as any other suggestions.. That shows how daft your post is.
Evidence dies not tell us what happened.. You're wrong again.. You've just confirmed jassi doesn't. Have an inventive mind.
It's important to understand how to value evidence.. That can tell us what probably happened and sometimes prive what happened. Grines cadaver dog alerts.. As he admits.. Do not provide reliable evidence
-
What absolute tosh.. So I could suggest Maddie was abducted by an alien spaceship and as you can't prove that wrong it's as valid as any other suggestions.. That shows how daft your post is.
Evidence dies not tell us what happened.. You're wrong again.. You've just confirmed jassi doesn't. Have an inventive mind.
It's important to understand how to value evidence.. That can tell us what probably happened and sometimes prive what happened. Grines cadaver dog alerts.. As he admits.. Do not provide reliable evidence
Calling Eddie back is evidence of nothing, no matter how much people like to think it is, unless they know why it was done. Guessing is not evaluating.
-
Calling Eddie back is evidence of nothing, no matter how much people like to think it is, unless they know why it was done. Guessing is not evaluating.
You obviously haven't got a clue
-
You obviously haven't got a clue
That sounds convincing. (not)
-
Calling Eddie back is evidence of nothing, no matter how much people like to think it is, unless they know why it was done. Guessing is not evaluating.
The most important point is Grime cannot prove the alerts were to cadaver.
-
The most important point is Grime cannot prove the alerts were to cadaver.
Who said he could? not him.
-
Who said he could? not him.
If a dog such as Eddie is to be used to establish the presence of a cadaver, evidence that may be used in court, then imo there should be some means of independently verifying the accuracy of such a dog. Is that too much to ask?
-
I probably have more qualification in assessing evidence
than grime.. You need to look at his white paper to understand... It's embarrassing in parts
Do you have a professional or specialized knowledge in cadaver dog training then? Where did you obtain this knowledge?
Has the FBI ever employed you because of your expertise in this field? If not, why not?
-
Do you have a professional or specialized knowledge in cadaver dog training then? Where did you obtain this knowledge?
Has the FBI ever employed you because of your expertise in this field? If not, why not?
Self certification it seems.
-
Self certification it seems.
Precisely; "self certification" is what caused Eddie to be classed as "incompetent" when working in Luz (Keela's accreditation lapsed a fortnight into her time in HDLG) although Grime was of the opinion his dogs' training was superior to the ACPO accreditation.
-
Self certification it seems.
like Grime you mean?
-
Precisely; "self certification" is what caused Eddie to be classed as "incompetent" when working in Luz (Keela's accreditation lapsed a fortnight into her time in HDLG) although Grime was of the opinion his dogs' training was superior to the ACPO accreditation.
Police working dogs who failed to achieve a licence were classed as incompetent by ACPO and weren't deployed until they regained their licences. Eddie was no longer a police dog, so ACPO rules no longer applied to him.
Even when Eddie and Keela were police dogs they were assessed in a unique way;
"They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are the only assets of their
type in the world."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
-
Self certification it seems.
It's a reasonable question snd I'm happy to answer it.. But it's a bit early yet. Most of Grimes claims are, self certified
-
Police working dogs who failed to achieve a licence were classed as incompetent by ACPO and weren't deployed until they regained their licences. Eddie was no longer a police dog, so ACPO rules no longer applied to him.
Even when Eddie and Keela were police dogs they were assessed in a unique way;
"They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are the only assets of their
type in the world."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Self certification... It was keela who was unique afsiaa... Eddie obviously wasnt
-
like Grime you mean?
Certain jobs have stringent on-going requirements to ensure competence.
For example - the gas engineer who comes to your home has to undertake a statutory gas safety refresher course at regular set intervals throughout his/her working life.
Without that required up to date certification he/she is not allowed to work at the trade.
-
Do you have a professional or specialized knowledge in cadaver dog training then? Where did you obtain this knowledge?
Has the FBI ever employed you because of your expertise in this field? If not, why not?
I have specialised and professional training in the assessment of evidence..... I would say my understanding of evidence is superior to Grimes based on some very unscientific remarks in his white paper.. For the record I'm UK snd US trained... More to come
-
Police working dogs who failed to achieve a licence were classed as incompetent by ACPO and weren't deployed until they regained their licences. Eddie was no longer a police dog, so ACPO rules no longer applied to him.
Even when Eddie and Keela were police dogs they were assessed in a unique way;
"They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are the only assets of their
type in the world."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
The courts in the USA demand a certain high level of accredited competence for working dogs. Grime was only eligible to appear as an expert witness there due to the proven competence of his dogs. From what I have read of court cases in the US, it also seems to be the norm that use of more than one one handler and more than one accredited dog team is the norm.
-
Police working dogs who failed to achieve a licence were classed as incompetent by ACPO and weren't deployed until they regained their licences. Eddie was no longer a police dog, so ACPO rules no longer applied to him.
Even when Eddie and Keela were police dogs they were assessed in a unique way;
"They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are the only assets of their
type in the world."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Why should cadaver dogs whose evidence may be used (potentially) to determine the innocence or guilt of others in criminal investigations by police not be subjected to independent rigorous testing and licensing? Just one plausible, logical reason will do.
-
Do you have a professional or specialized knowledge in cadaver dog training then? Where did you obtain this knowledge?
Has the FBI ever employed you because of your expertise in this field? If not, why not?
I do have some specialised knowledge of scent dog training.
First.. It's not rocket science and fairly simple.
A dog is chosen who likes to retrieve a ball.. Not al dogs do.
A game is played, and the ball hidden. The dog finds it. Scent is then applied to tha ball and the game continues.
Eventually it's just the scent that's hidden.. The dog finds it a and is rewarded with the ball.. It's an extremely simple low skilled process.
The difference between scent dogs such as explosive.. Drug.. Cash... Dogs is that these digs are trained on a single precise scent.. Which makes them more reliable. Cadaver digs in the UK are not... Hence Grimes statement thst the only reliable cadaver dog is one trained solely on human cadaver scent. We still do not know what a cadavver dogvreacts to..
Si cadaver dog training is simple ..there's not a lot to understand.. More to come
-
Do you have a professional or specialized knowledge in cadaver dog training then? Where did you obtain this knowledge?
Has the FBI ever employed you because of your expertise in this field? If not, why not?
And regards the FBI.. From what I can see Grime impressed only one man.. Reg Stockhouse.
The reason for the interest was nothing to do with Eddie.. The US had plenty of cadaver dogs... It was firstly Keela.. The Americans had no similar blood dig.. Then Grimes idea of using the alerts, as intelligence. In the 2007 Zapata trial the judge referred to the alerts as a new type of evidence.
Thr interesting question is did Grine sppriach the FBI.. And volunteer his services or did the FfBI approach him.
-
Precisely; "self certification" is what caused Eddie to be classed as "incompetent" when working in Luz (Keela's accreditation lapsed a fortnight into her time in HDLG) although Grime was of the opinion his dogs' training was superior to the ACPO accreditation.
Could you explain why you think Eddie would be less competent a fortnight after you allege he lost his ACPO accreditation than he had been a fortnight before? Did he simply forget his training in that fortnight?
-
Could you explain why you think Eddie would be less competent a fortnight after you allege he lost his ACPO accreditation than he had been a fortnight before? Did he simply forget his training in that fortnight?
I agree.. Eddie lost none of his competence.. He was unreliable both before and after according to Grime
-
I have specialised and professional training in the assessment of evidence..... I would say my understanding of evidence is superior to Grimes based on some very unscientific remarks in his white paper.. For the record I'm UK snd US trained... More to come
You didn’t answer my question.
Strangely enough my friend’s granddaughter is a dental assistant in the area that you practice. Perhaps you know each other?
-
You didn’t answer my question.
Strangely enough my friend’s granddaughter is a dental assistant in the area that you practice. Perhaps you know each other?
Which Question.. You asked several
I would be surprised if she didn't know me.. What's the name of the practice. She may even know my daughter.. Shes a dentist in another local practice
-
You didn’t answer my question.
Strangely enough my friend’s granddaughter is a dental assistant in the area that you practice. Perhaps you know each other?
DOXING ALERT
-
I have specialised and professional training in the assessment of evidence..... I would say my understanding of evidence is superior to Grimes based on some very unscientific remarks in his white paper.. For the record I'm UK snd US trained... More to come
Grime, on occasion, was observed calling Eddie back to the task in hand. We know he did it, we saw him. What we don't know is why. In order to find out why more information is needed. Anyone who knows how to assess evidence would understand that.
-
Grime, on occasion, was observed calling Eddie back to the task in hand. We know he did it, we saw him. What we don't know is why. In order to find out why more information is needed. Anyone who knows how to assess evidence would understand that.
Lets look at what we know for sure...As I had already realised and Grime confirms...Eddie was not a reliable cadaver dog...
You need to try and understand that
-
Lets look at what we know for sure...As I had already realised and Grime confirms...Eddie was not a reliable cadaver dog...
You need to try and understand that
That's the message I'm trying to get across to you. You don't know why Grime called Eddie back at times, so can't speculate about what it means, because you have insufficient evidence. Do you now understand how to assess evidence?
Eddie was a reliable dog according to his fieldwork record and his training on human cadaver scent in the US. In 2018 Grime was recommending such training for all UK human remains detection dogs.
-
That's the message I'm trying to get across to you. You don't know why Grime called Eddie back at times, so can't speculate about what it means, because you have insufficient evidence. Do you now understand how to assess evidence?
Eddie was a reliable dog according to his fieldwork record and his training on human cadaver scent in the US. In 2018 Grime was recommending such training for all UK human remains detection dogs.
I have enough evidence to question the calling back.. To question why it happened and my explanation is a possibility.
Eddie was not a reliable cadaver dog fir reasons I've explained. Facts... Not opinion
-
That's the message I'm trying to get across to you. You don't know why Grime called Eddie back at times, so can't speculate about what it means, because you have insufficient evidence. Do you now understand how to assess evidence?
Eddie was a reliable dog according to his fieldwork record and his training on human cadaver scent in the US. In 2018 Grime was recommending such training for all UK human remains detection dogs.
Probably because of the sensitivity of the work little is known regarding those occasions when cadaver dogs actually do find a cadaver.
Training is different - and you have raised the question of Eddie's training in the USA for which I have seen no independent evidence. Where can I have sight of your source.
I know that Grime worked with Morse in the USA and the evidence is he was an outstanding dog in training which is backed up by the evidence of the peer review of his training as demanded by the court system.
What can you tell me about Eddie?
-
I have enough evidence to question the calling back.. To question why it happened and my explanation is a possibility.
Eddie was not a reliable cadaver dog fir reasons I've explained. Facts... Not opinion
You said previously; "Calling Eddie back is 100% evidence for what I have claimed." Now your claim has been downgraded to a possibility because you know that there are other possible explanations, so you can't possibly be 100% sure that your opinion is correct.
-
snip/
"Training is different - and you have raised the question of Eddie's training in the USA for which I have seen no independent evidence. Where can I have sight of your source."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
-
You said previously; "Calling Eddie back is 100% evidence for what I have claimed." Now your claim has been downgraded to a possibility because you know that there are other possible explanations, so you can't possibly be 100% sure that your opinion is correct.
You’re still struggling with the meaning of the word “evidence” after all these years aren’t you? It’s quite staggering imo!
-
You said previously; "Calling Eddie back is 100% evidence for what I have claimed." Now your claim has been downgraded to a possibility because you know that there are other possible explanations, so you can't possibly be 100% sure that your opinion is correct.
Context and comprehension...you said it wasnt evidence...I. said 100% its evidence.
We are both speaking english and still mistakes in understanding
-
You’re still struggling with the meaning of the word “evidence” after all these years aren’t you? It’s quite staggering imo!
correct...if I had evidence of 100% certainty that would be proof...not evidence
-
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Perhaps I have phrased my question badly leading to your misunderstanding.
You posted "Eddie was a reliable dog according to his fieldwork record and his training on human cadaver scent in the US. In 2018 Grime was recommending such training for all UK human remains detection dogs.
I am not familiar with any US record of Eddie's training there as underlined.
If it isn't too much trouble please indicate within https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm that which you think confirms your statement.
-
Context and comprehension...you said it wasnt evidence...I. said 100% its evidence.
We are both speaking english and still mistakes in understanding
I never said it wasn't evidence, I said it didn't 100% support your claim - something you admitted by claiming it was just one possibility.
-
I never said it wasn't evidence, I said it didn't 100% support your claim - something you admitted by claiming it was just one possibility.
I think you are confused
-
Perhaps I have phrased my question badly leading to your misunderstanding.
You posted "Eddie was a reliable dog according to his fieldwork record and his training on human cadaver scent in the US. In 2018 Grime was recommending such training for all UK human remains detection dogs.
I am not familiar with any US record of Eddie's training there as underlined.
If it isn't too much trouble please indicate within https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm that which you think confirms your statement.
I'm sure the FBI have records of Grime taking Eddie to Tenessee, but I don't have access to them. You have to ask yourself why Grime and Harrison would lie about it? That would be very foolish.
-
I think you are confused
I think you're trying to confuse me because I showed your evidence didn't show what you claimed it did. .
-
I think you're trying to confuse me because I showed your evidence didn't show what you claimed it did. .
You didn't show anything. A link to the post would
-
I think you're trying to confuse me because I showed your evidence didn't show what you claimed it did. .
Calling the dog back supports the possibility of cueing and is therefore evidence of cueing
-
Calling the dog back supports the possibility of cueing and is therefore evidence of cueing
It all supports the simpler explanation that it was how Grime worked his dog. Your suggestions are nothing more than guesses.
-
It all supports the simpler explanation that it was how Grime worked his dog. Your suggestions are nothing more than guesses.
You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding about the meaning of the word “evidence”.
-
I think you're trying to confuse me because I showed your evidence didn't show what you claimed it did. .
Perhaps you could explain why it does not.
-
It all supports the simpler explanation that it was how Grime worked his dog. Your suggestions are nothing more than guesses.
thats your opinion...nothing more..
facts...Grime now describes Eddie as an unreliable dog
the investigation is ignoring the alerts
-
I'm sure the FBI have records of Grime taking Eddie to Tenessee, but I don't have access to them. You have to ask yourself why Grime and Harrison would lie about it? That would be very foolish.
Thankyou for confirming that you haven't seen evidence to support your statement.
Isn't it just the thread to be doing it on too when there are so many members evidencing a stubborn reluctance to accept anecdotal evidence at all.
You yourself have posted
There was no annecdotal evidence connected to the dog alerts in this case, but there was lots of annecdotal evidence;
All the times given in the timeline.
The open window and shutter.
The conversation with Madeleine on the morning of 3rd May.
All reports of suspicious looking men. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12284.msg672965#msg672965
By my count that makes four instances of anecdotal evidence being questionable according to you. I make it five when considering the dogs dinner concocted from that outlined in your assertive introductory sentence.
Gives you a bit of a quandary when you take the question you have directed at me into account. Fairs fair though - before I answer you - I think I am entitled to know how you address the conundrum you have given yourself by your posts on anecdotal witness evidence.
Unless you don't think Grime and Harrison come into that category.
-
thats your opinion...nothing more..
facts...Grime now describes Eddie as an unreliable dog
the investigation is ignoring the alerts
My opinion is that none of us know why Grime called Eddie, despite the efforts by some to suggest it's significant in some way.
-
My opinion is that none of us know why Grime called Eddie, despite the efforts by some to suggest it's significant in some way.
It’s obviously significant whatever the reason.
-
My opinion is that none of us know why Grime called Eddie, despite the efforts by some to suggest it's significant in some way.
So you accept that you dont know why he called Eddie back several times but only to things McCann.
-
So you accept that you dont know why he called Eddie back several times but only to things McCann.
I noticed how much he called to Eddie during the screening of G5H. Far more than he did in G5A. Have you never compared the two?
-
I noticed how much he called to Eddie during the screening of G5H. Far more than he did in G5A. Have you never compared the two?
There's calling and calling back. It's of no importance now. I think the Germans have proof Maddie did not die in the apartment
-
There's calling and calling back. It's of no importance now. I think the Germans have proof Maddie did not die in the apartment
Yes, and the only calling back supporters are interested in is when they think they can use it to cast doubt on Grime's work. Very open-minded. (not)
-
I noticed how much he called to Eddie during the screening of G5H. Far more than he did in G5A. Have you never compared the two?
Yes I have made the comparison and what I find extraordinary is that you and I appear to be watching different videos.
But there you go.
-
Yes, and the only calling back supporters are interested in is when they think they can use it to cast doubt on Grime's work. Very open-minded. (not)
Nonsense - Grime's work was fine. It is much of the incompetent dog's work which caused the Policia Judiciaria to note and comment on in their final report.
-
Yes, and the only calling back supporters are interested in is when they think they can use it to cast doubt on Grime's work. Very open-minded. (not)
In case you haven’t noticed it’s not just supporters casting doubt on Grime’s work but two police forces currently investigating prime suspect the serial paedophile and rapist Christian Beuckner.
-
Yes, and the only calling back supporters are interested in is when they think they can use it to cast doubt on Grime's work. Very open-minded. (not)
I think it's quite open-minded to question Grime if I feel the alerts are valueless in this case.
It isn't just the calling back I've posted many points to question the validity of thr alerts.
Grime says the alerts are suggestive of cadaver odour. What do you think Grime means by that... How suggestive... You can't possibly know. Without that question being answered it puts more doubt on the alerts
-
I noticed how much he called to Eddie during the screening of G5H. Far more than he did in G5A. Have you never compared the two?
Could you supply a link to support that claim
-
Which Question.. You asked several
I would be surprised if she didn't know me.. What's the name of the practice. She may even know my daughter.. Shes a dentist in another local practice
I’ll PM you the details and some rather interesting information.
-
I’ll PM you the details and some rather interesting information.
I somehow doubt you will
-
I somehow doubt you will
Why ever not?
-
Why ever not?
We will see
-
We will see
Don’t you want to know who the dental assistant is that you or your daughter might know?
-
Don’t you want to know who the dental assistant is that you or your daughter might know?
I know a lot of local nurses.. Dentists.. It's a small community.. If you want to dm me go ahead.. But I doubt you will. Your chance to prove me wrong
-
I know a lot of local nurses.. Dentists.. It's a small community.. If you want to dm me go ahead.. But I doubt you will. Your chance to prove me wrong
Prove you wrong? About what?
-
Prove you wrong? About what?
I said you wouldnt dm me with any information
-
I said you wouldnt dm me with any information
And I knew that you’d deny that I had.
-
And I knew that you’d deny that I had.
Deny what.. Are you suggesting you have sent me a pm.. And I am denying it
-
Well this conversation has taken a creepy turn.
-
Well this conversation has taken a creepy turn.
An interesting turn
-
Faith may have confirmed something I'd suspected
-
Faith may have confirmed something I'd suspected
I would refrain from entering into any private discourse with that one, she’s clearly trying to id you imo. If she sends you any links don’t click on them fgs.
-
I would refrain from entering into any private discourse with that one, she’s clearly trying to id you imo.
She hasn't pmd me.. As I predicted in the first place
-
Well this conversation has taken a creepy turn.
And now faith has gone very quiet
-
Still no message from faith.. Looks like she's run out of ideas..
Very odd
-
I can only think faith tried to play a little game that badly backfired on her.. Makes her look more than a little strange
-
In case you haven’t noticed it’s not just supporters casting doubt on Grime’s work but two police forces currently investigating prime suspect the serial paedophile and rapist Christian Beuckner.
The dog alerts proved nothing. That's not the subject being discussed. The discussion is about whether Grime worked his dogs in the correct manner.
-
The dog alerts proved nothing. That's not the subject being discussed. The discussion is about whether Grime worked his dogs in the correct manner.
No it isn't.. It's about whether the alerts can be corroborated with anectdotal witness statements
-
The dog alerts proved nothing. That's not the subject being discussed. The discussion is about whether Grime worked his dogs in the correct manner.
If Grime worked his dogs correctly and that everything he claimed about their infallibility was correct then you'd have to concede that it is not just McCann supporters that doubt Grime and his claims, but also two leading police forces, seeing as how they appear to be treating both him and his dog alerts as a complete irrelevance to the current investigation.
-
The dog alerts proved nothing. That's not the subject being discussed. The discussion is about whether Grime worked his dogs in the correct manner.
I have no problem with how Grime worked his dogs...apart from the fact he seemed to encourage alerts in 5a..imo...the claimed alert to cc doesnt really look credible.
its the claims he has amdea nd not clarified. How suggestive are the alerts om a scale of 1 to 100
-
Yes I have made the comparison and what I find extraordinary is that you and I appear to be watching different videos.
But there you go.
I have counted how many times Grime called Eddie in 5A. I made it 3 times. In 5H I counted at least 10 times that Grime called "Eddie come".
In my opinion that was because Eddie was, as Grime mentioned, very focused in 5A and much less so in 5H. Here is the link if anyone wishes to count for themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8&t=1510s
-
If Grime worked his dogs correctly and that everything he claimed about their infallibility was correct then you'd have to concede that it is not just McCann supporters that doubt Grime and his claims, but also two leading police forces, seeing as how they appear to be treating both him and his dog alerts as a complete irrelevance to the current investigation.
I can't speak for the Germans, but Operation Grange's remit was to search for the abductor. Somewhere along the way it was decided that the crime was an abduction, it seems. Whether that was the correct decision can't be judged, as the evidence considered has never been shared.
-
I can't speak for the Germans, but Operation Grange's remit was to search for the abductor. Somewhere along the way it was decided that the crime was an abduction, it seems. Whether that was the correct decision can't be judged, as the evidence considered has never been shared.
I wasn't asking you to judge on their decision, only to concede that clearly it's not just McCann supporters who doubt the dog alerts - the police at some level also had doubts about Grime's dog alerts as they appear to have dismissed them entirely. Of course you will never concede anything, twas ever thus.
-
I have counted how many times Grime called Eddie in 5A. I made it 3 times. In 5H I counted at least 10 times that Grime called "Eddie come".
In my opinion that was because Eddie was, as Grime mentioned, very focused in 5A and much less so in 5H. Here is the link if anyone wishes to count for themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8&t=1510s
You have a lot of belief in Grime and his dogs abilities. I dont. It takes about 2 months to train a scent dog....instructions on you tube.
I think Grime simply has too much faith in his dogs abilities.
You have faith in Grime but not in Wolters...your opinion and choice. Wolters has the opportunity to show which one of us is right
-
You have a lot of belief in Grime and his dogs abilities. I dont. It takes about 2 months to train a scent dog....instructions on you tube.
I think Grime simply has too much faith in his dogs abilities.
You have faith in Grime but not in Wolters...your opinion and choice. Wolters has the opportunity to show which one of us is right
If you want to think I believe in Grime feel free. My intention is, in fact, to demonstrate the weakness of the evidence used to support the slurs aimed at him.
-
If you want to think I believe in Grime feel free. My intention is, in fact, to demonstrate the weakness of the evidence used to support the slurs aimed at him.
You are giving your opinion on the evidence...that is all
I use the word believe because there is so little evidence to support the alerts...you seem ok with that.
According to the Germans the evidence shows that Maddie did not die in the apt
-
If you want to think I believe in Grime feel free. My intention is, in fact, to demonstrate the weakness of the evidence used to support the slurs aimed at him.
How kind of you. Perhaps you might just for a change have a go at demonstrating the weakness of the evidence used to support slurs aimed at the McCanns? No, thought not....
-
If you want to think I believe in Grime feel free. My intention is, in fact, to demonstrate the weakness of the evidence used to support the slurs aimed at him.
To what slurs do you refer?
Please give some examples.
-
I can't speak for the Germans, but Operation Grange's remit was to search for the abductor. Somewhere along the way it was decided that the crime was an abduction, it seems. Whether that was the correct decision can't be judged, as the evidence considered has never been shared.
Part of the evidence would be the dog alerts. SY and the Germans are quite happy to totally ignore them which can only mean they are not convinced by them.
-
Part of the evidence would be the dog alerts. SY and the Germans are quite happy to totally ignore them which can only mean they are not convinced by them.
The dog alerts are not evidence of abduction. I don't know what evidence of abduction the police are relying on.
-
The dog alerts are not evidence of abduction. I don't know what evidence of abduction the police are relying on.
You seem extremely reluctant to accept that the current investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance has dismissed the dog alerts as irrelevant- why?
-
The dog alerts are not evidence of abduction. I don't know what evidence of abduction the police are relying on.
I understand exactly what evidence the police are relying on and it makes perfect sense. If the alerts are valid then it means Maddie was not abducted... Therefore both SY.. And the Germans do not accept they are valid
-
You seem extremely reluctant to accept that the current investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance has dismissed the dog alerts as irrelevant- why?
There are currently two separate investigations into Madeleine's disappearance. Why do people keep trying to suggest there's only one?
Do you have a cite showing either of them describing the dog alerts as irrelevant? I suspect that word was chosen by you.
-
There are currently two separate investigations into Madeleine's disappearance. Why do people keep trying to suggest there's only one?
Do you have a cite showing either of them describing the dog alerts as irrelevant? I suspect that word was chosen by you.
There are two separate investigations into madeleine’s disappearance but co-operating with each other. Both are focused on stranger abduction which means without any doubt whatsoever that the dog alerts are, as far as both investigations are concerned, completely irrelevant. Now argue that they are still relevant to the investigations.
-
There are currently two separate investigations into Madeleine's disappearance. Why do people keep trying to suggest there's only one?
Do you have a cite showing either of them describing the dog alerts as irrelevant? I suspect that word was chosen by you.
There is only one... That's why they have met to confer. Do you have any evidence there is more, than one.
-
There is only one... That's why they have met to confer. Do you have any evidence there is more, than one.
There have been attempts in the past to suggest that OG were conducting a joint investigation with the PJ, just based on the fact that they met. That wasn't true and neither is the claim that OG and the BKA are working on the same theory imo.
-
There have been attempts in the past to suggest that OG were conducting a joint investigation with the PJ, just based on the fact that they met. That wasn't true and neither is the claim that OG and the BKA are working on the same theory imo.
Is it untrue to say that OG and the BKA consider that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and that therefore the dog alerts can play no part in such a scenario?
-
There have been attempts in the past to suggest that OG were conducting a joint investigation with the PJ, just based on the fact that they met. That wasn't true and neither is the claim that OG and the BKA are working on the same theory imo.
Cressida Dick has said Grange are working very closely with the Germans...Your highlighted claim is laughable imo
-
Is it untrue to say that OG and the BKA consider that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and that therefore the dog alerts can play no part in such a scenario?
Well G-Unit? Are you going to answer this?
-
Well G-Unit? Are you going to answer this?
Correct.
-
Well G-Unit? Are you going to answer this?
When Grime himself admits Eddie was unreliable there's no way the alerts can be defended
-
The dog alerts are not evidence of abduction. I don't know what evidence of abduction the police are relying on.
I walked out of a supermarket a couple of weeks ago and set an alarm off. I'd paid for everything and everything was double-checked. Alarm went off again. I then walked back, left my bag of stuff, emptied my pockets, took my coat off, left my handbag, everything conceivable short of a strip show, and still set the alarms off yet again.
I've no doubt that the supermarket has video evidence that my passage set off an alarm, but there is no evidence that I'd done anything wrong, because I hadn't.
-
Correct.
why not? Don’t you realise how that makes you look?
-
I walked out of a supermarket a couple of weeks ago and set an alarm off. I'd paid for everything and everything was double-checked. Alarm went off again. I then walked back, left my bag of stuff, emptied my pockets, took my coat off, left my handbag, everything conceivable short of a strip show, and still set the alarms off yet again.
I've no doubt that the supermarket has video evidence that my passage set off an alarm, but there is no evidence that I'd done anything wrong, because I hadn't.
Alarms don’t lie Carana, you are obviously a shoplifter!