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 September 16, 2014, 07:53:00 AM
Title: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2014, 07:53:00 AM
We know what evidence mean and we know what reliable means...so Grime is saying that the alerts are not reliable evidence...what's your interpretation of these words.
We don't want another 100 pages of the dogs don't lie...very specifically...what does Grime mean
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 16, 2014, 10:43:28 AM
We know what evidence mean and we know what reliable means...so Grime is saying that the alerts are not reliable evidence...what's your interpretation of these words.
We don't want another 100 pages of the dogs don't lie...very specifically...what does Grime mean
The alerts are evidence, merely uncorroborated.
The lack of forensic corroboration does not mean that the dogs didn't alert to a body.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 16, 2014, 11:08:32 AM
Martin Grime had no idea to what Eddie was alerting or from where the ‘scent of death’ was emanating.
I believe he was genuinely puzzled by this alert.
I find it interesting that the caveat was that it could have emanated from anywhere else in the room and had just gathered in that particular corner.
That doesn’t work for me as imo that would have required a primary findable source to generate a moving scent in the first place. There are instances where a cadaver dog has alerted in the vicinity of a body buried outdoors (not to the body or place of burial) which subsequent digging has uncovered; Eddie alerted in the corner of an enclosed room for no discernible reason.
Is ‘the scent of death’ a miasma which continually flits about from place to place as the notion takes it for weeks, months and years? because that seems to be the only way in which Eddie's alert could have occurred.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 16, 2014, 11:39:26 AM
Martin Grime had no idea to what Eddie was alerting or from where the ‘scent of death’ was emanating.
I believe he was genuinely puzzled by this alert.
I find it interesting that the caveat was that it could have emanated from anywhere else in the room and had just gathered in that particular corner.
That doesn’t work for me as imo that would have required a primary findable source to generate a moving scent in the first place. There are instances where a cadaver dog has alerted in the vicinity of a body buried outdoors (not to the body or place of burial) which subsequent digging has uncovered; Eddie alerted in the corner of an enclosed room for no discernible reason.
Is ‘the scent of death’ a miasma which continually flits about from place to place as the notion takes it for weeks, months and years? because that seems to be the only way in which Eddie's alert could have occurred.
You believe in the mccanns abduction story.
The dogs indications show something else may have happened.
So you are never going to say anything else, are you ?
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 16, 2014, 11:51:35 AM
Martin Grime had no idea to what Eddie was alerting or from where the ‘scent of death’ was emanating.
I believe he was genuinely puzzled by this alert.
I find it interesting that the caveat was that it could have emanated from anywhere else in the room and had just gathered in that particular corner.
That doesn’t work for me as imo that would have required a primary findable source to generate a moving scent in the first place. There are instances where a cadaver dog has alerted in the vicinity of a body buried outdoors (not to the body or place of burial) which subsequent digging has uncovered; Eddie alerted in the corner of an enclosed room for no discernible reason.
Is ‘the scent of death’ a miasma which continually flits about from place to place as the notion takes it for weeks, months and years? because that seems to be the only way in which Eddie's alert could have occurred.
Grime said it doesn't necessarily mean the scent source was inside the wardrobe (he said cupboard in the footage). You need to corroborate with other evidence. Grime has no doubts about his dogs alerts.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 16, 2014, 02:33:19 PM
Grime said it doesn't necessarily mean the scent source was inside the wardrobe (he said cupboard in the footage). You need to corroborate with other evidence. Grime has no doubts about his dogs alerts.
Where did I mention wardrobe?
That was just a myth as illustrated by Dr Amaral when he pointed out the shelf in the wardrobe Eddie had alerted to in his documentary so it became common currency that was where Madeleine had been hidden.
Eddie alerted in the corner … not the wardrobe.
If you read what Martin Grime says very carefully he asserts the alert was triggered by the build up of scent in that corner emanating from a physical source.
“If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner.”
Martin Grime mentions a source enabling the accumulation of a scent ... so where is that source?
That is certainly in line with what I have said about cadaver dogs alerting some distance from the cadaver. In other words they scented the body or parts of a body some distance from the location.
Human decomposition = scent, which may or may not be discernible to the human nose = dog alert = finding source of alert even if some distance away = evidence.
Using that example … a valid one according to what Martin Grime has stated … to what did Eddie alert because for sure it wasn’t human detritus or anything which is evidential.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 16, 2014, 02:43:06 PM
Hang on a minute...if Eddie will alert to a smell at some distance from the source of that smell, then the source of that smell may well be (for example) dried blood from a living human, in a different part of the room or building. The blood dog however would not alert to the same spot as Eddie would do in that case, so the dog alert would be classed (by some) as showing the one time presence of a cadaver but this would not necessarily be the case. Sorry, if this has all been said before but it's only just occurred to me!
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: xtina on September 16, 2014, 02:55:02 PM
15/19 or 15/37 & 100% or NOT 100%
There are people in the world who are convinced that Madeleine McCann was not abducted. They believe that Kate & Gerry McCann hid Madeleine's body following her death. One central plank of evidence in this hypothesis is the DNA that was found in the boot of the car hired by the McCann's about three weeks after Madeleine was reported missing. They argue that the only way her DNA could have been in the car is if they moved her body at some time after they hired the car.
There has been considerable debate about whether the DNA profile obtained contained Madeleine's DNA or not. The report by the now disbanded FSS (Forensic Science Service) says clearly that it is impossible to say for certain. Unfortunately it does not go on to say anything else about this sample. There is no attempt to say how likely it is that the DNA came from Madeleine or not. So we are left not knowing whether the chance it is Madeliene's DNA is 1%, 50%, or 99%. All we know is that according to John Lowe of the now defunked FSS that it is not 100%.
Hang on a minute...if Eddie will alert to a smell at some distance from the source of that smell, then the source of that smell may well be (for example) dried blood from a living human, in a different part of the room or building. The blood dog however would not alert to the same spot as Eddie would do in that case, so the dog alert would be classed (by some) as showing the one time presence of a cadaver but this would not necessarily be the case. Sorry, if this has all been said before but it's only just occurred to me!
I do not believe it has been said before ... wood and trees and should have gone to specsavers all pop into the same sentence.
Just as there was no cadaver alert to the Renault or to Cuddlecat in the cupboard or to behind the couch in 5a I have come to the conclusion that neither was there a cadaver alert in the bedroom of 5a.
There was such an investment in these so called alerts that some of us should have known better than to take them at face value, which is what we indisputably have done.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 16, 2014, 03:00:40 PM
Seems to put you in a different camp from me and Martin Grime.
I do not pretend to know why Eddie barked ... neither does he.
The clue may lie in the opinion that these specialist dogs were brought on site much, much later than they should have been.
Anything to denounce an alternative to the abduction.
Pure mccann supporter MANTRA.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: xtina on September 16, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
....its not been proved that there was no DNA evidence........or that there was ....
now don't you think the mccs should have sorted this ........they are not fools .......they were to busy boosting up the fund .....to hire there eleven top paid lawyers want they .....
Why weren't these things done?
I am at a complete loss to explain why these things or at least some of them were not done. The case was huge worldwide news at the time. The McCann's were being suspected of disposing of Maddy's body. The evidence from the single sample in the car boot suggested that could be the case but was inconclusive. Here was a great opportunity to either clear the McCann's or gather evidence that would help to prove they did dispose of Maddy's body.
Why did no one.... NOT EVEN THE McCANN's themselves..... insist that this car was examined thoroughly and every scrap of evidence extracted?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 16, 2014, 03:33:40 PM
Some people just don't seem to understand that the McCanns were cleared of their suspect status many years ago and therefore have no need to have the forensic evidence re-examined.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 16, 2014, 03:42:24 PM
That was just a myth as illustrated by Dr Amaral when he pointed out the shelf in the wardrobe Eddie had alerted to in his documentary so it became common currency that was where Madeleine had been hidden.
Eddie alerted in the corner … not the wardrobe.
If you read what Martin Grime says very carefully he asserts the alert was triggered by the build up of scent in that corner emanating from a physical source.
“If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner.”
Martin Grime mentions a source enabling the accumulation of a scent ... so where is that source?
That is certainly in line with what I have said about cadaver dogs alerting some distance from the cadaver. In other words they scented the body or parts of a body some distance from the location.
Human decomposition = scent, which may or may not be discernible to the human nose = dog alert = finding source of alert even if some distance away = evidence.
Using that example … a valid one according to what Martin Grime has stated … to what did Eddie alert because for sure it wasn’t human detritus or anything which is evidential.
Eddie sniffed the shelf and alerted. It's on film and it connects to the shelf with the pile of clothes on that were possibly emptied out of a bag that is not seen in 5A crime scene photos taken on the night. But Grime said it doesn't necessarily mean that the wardrobe was the scent source.
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." (Martin Grime)
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2014, 03:42:57 PM
Eddie sniffed the shelf and alerted. It's on film and it connects to the shelf with the pile of clothes on that were possibly emptied out of a bag that is not seen in 5A crime scene photos taken on the night. But Grime said it doesn't necessarily mean that the wardrobe was the scent source.
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." (Martin Grime)
I’ve seen the film … and I agree with Martin Grime that the ‘alerts’ are meaningless unless confirmed with corroborating evidence.
When is the penny going to drop on that one?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 16, 2014, 03:55:20 PM
I’ve seen the film … and I agree with Martin Grime that the ‘alerts’ are meaningless unless confirmed with corroborating evidence.
When is the penny going to drop on that one?
Yes, the dog alerts are indeed a worrying hurdle for some. Had they simply been alerts here, there and everywhere their value could be overlooked but that is not what occurred. The alerts only related to the McCanns, their hire car and their clothing and the apartment where Madeleine was last seen. Is that a coincidence too far?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2014, 04:06:51 PM
Yes, the dog alerts are indeed a worrying hurdle for some. Had they simply been alerts here, there and everywhere their value could be overlooked but that is not what occurred. The alerts only related to the McCanns, their hire car and their clothing and the apartment where Madeleine was last seen. Is that a coincidence too far?
no..they mean absolutely nothing...that's my opinion and as Redwood says Maddie may still be alive...how can they mean anything
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 16, 2014, 04:14:21 PM
Is this not what Martin Grime said:- "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence". Should we not be discussing what Mr Grime's report quotes he said rather than a contrived thread title ?.
....its not been proved that there was no DNA evidence........or that there was ....
now don't you think the mccs should have sorted this ........they are not fools .......they were to busy boosting up the fund .....to hire there eleven top paid lawyers want they .....
Why weren't these things done?
I am at a complete loss to explain why these things or at least some of them were not done. The case was huge worldwide news at the time. The McCann's were being suspected of disposing of Maddy's body. The evidence from the single sample in the car boot suggested that could be the case but was inconclusive. Here was a great opportunity to either clear the McCann's or gather evidence that would help to prove they did dispose of Maddy's body.
Why did no one.... NOT EVEN THE McCANN's themselves..... insist that this car was examined thoroughly and every scrap of evidence extracted?
Even if the Grand Scenic had been taken apart and every inch of it tested and a match to Madeleine found it does not prove she was actually in that particular vehicle as her DNA could have got there by contamination from clothing and other items. Finding Madeline's DNA in the hire car really proves nothing at all in the real world.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: John on September 16, 2014, 04:36:37 PM
We know what evidence mean and we know what reliable means...so Grime is saying that the alerts are not reliable evidence...what's your interpretation of these words.
We don't want another 100 pages of the dogs don't lie...very specifically...what does Grime mean
It simply means that the dog alerts, although evidence in their own right, are not reliable as an indicator that cadaver scent was found unless corroborated by other evidence such as blood or DNA etc...
Or to put it another way, had Madeleine's blood been found behind the sofa in the apartment and/or on the rear floor of the hire car then that evidence combined with the dogs alerts becomes reliable.
Some people just don't seem to understand that the McCanns were cleared of their suspect status many years ago and therefore have no need to have the forensic evidence re-examined.
Who 'cleared' them?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 16, 2014, 04:56:44 PM
It simply means that the dog alerts, although evidence in their own right, are not reliable as an indicator that cadaver scent was found unless corroborated by other evidence such as blood or DNA etc...
Or to put it another way, had Madeleine's blood been found behind the sofa in the apartment and/or on the rear floor of the hire car then that evidence combined with the dogs alerts becomes reliable.
Who 'cleared' them?
They were cleared as suspects when their arguido status was removed - or are you going to tell me now that they are still suspects?
Groundhog Day.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 16, 2014, 05:28:39 PM
You appear to ignore what the handler says about his dog's alert in the bedroom. He states quite clearly Eddie barked in the corner of the bedroom. Do watch the film again and you will see the dog doing just that, so your rather tasteless analogy about a bag is irrelevant to this discussion.
Eddie alerted in the exact spot behind the sofa where Keela also found blood so he could've been correct that the scent source was also from the wardrobe in his first alert.
Listen 23:56 - The source may not be in that cupboard
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 16, 2014, 05:37:50 PM
It simply means that the dog alerts, although evidence in their own right, are not reliable as an indicator that cadaver scent was found unless corroborated by other evidence such as blood or DNA etc...
Or to put it another way, had Madeleine's blood been found behind the sofa in the apartment and/or on the rear floor of the hire car then that evidence combined with the dogs alerts becomes reliable.
Who 'cleared' them?
What if hairs found in the boot match Madeleine? Amaral said they can be retested now without roots to get results? Is this true John?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 16, 2014, 05:47:03 PM
Yes, the dog alerts are indeed a worrying hurdle for some. Had they simply been alerts here, there and everywhere their value could be overlooked but that is not what occurred. The alerts only related to the McCanns, their hire car and their clothing and the apartment where Madeleine was last seen. Is that a coincidence too far?
… and therein lies the conundrum, John, which I believe may indeed be a coincidence too far.
Some might think it may even be suggestive of malfeasance given the highly transferrable nature of cadaver scent.
A crime of which I hasten to add I do not suspect Martin Grime, who was as puzzled by Eddie’s bedroom alert as anyone else is who has watched the video and understood his subsequent report.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Benice on September 16, 2014, 05:50:43 PM
Yes, the dog alerts are indeed a worrying hurdle for some. Had they simply been alerts here, there and everywhere their value could be overlooked but that is not what occurred. The alerts only related to the McCanns, their hire car and their clothing and the apartment where Madeleine was last seen. Is that a coincidence too far?
I don't think it has anything to do with co-incidence, but has everything to do with the amount of time the dogs were allowed to search.
With regard to the cars:
After 30 seconds (which was the max. time spent on any of the other cars) no alerts had been made and the dog moved on. Equally after 30 seconds at the Renault - no alerts had been made and the dog moved on.
IMO That would qualify as an unbiased test. i.e. After a maximum time of 30 seconds spent on every car - there were no alerts.
However, unlike with the other cars, the dog was repeatedly called back to the Renault - and finally alerted after approx 2 minutes.
IMO that would not qualify as an unbiased test.
If Eddie had been called back to the other cars for the same amount of time i.e. 2 mins. then he may have also alerted at one or more of those vehicles.
We shall never know, but the idea that the 9 other cars had never had a spot of blood or any other material to which Eddie would alert in them - at any time since they left the factory - seems extremely unlikely to me.
The same applies to the other apartments.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 16, 2014, 05:59:51 PM
Eddie alerted in the exact spot behind the sofa where Keela also found blood so he could've been correct that the scent source was also from the wardrobe in his first alert.
Listen 23:56 - The source may not be in that cupboard
PF, I am sure whatever Eddie barked at didn't emanate from that cupboard (wardrobe).
The mistaken assumption that he did has probably been fostered by a very badly edited video tape showing Keela jumping in and out of the cupboard while she was carrying out her inspection.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 16, 2014, 06:14:34 PM
PF, I am sure whatever Eddie barked at didn't emanate from that cupboard (wardrobe).
The mistaken assumption that he did has probably been fostered by a very badly edited video tape showing Keela jumping in and out of the cupboard while she was carrying out her inspection.
I think you are mistaken. If a dead body was inside that flat then it was hidden away from any possible prying eyes. Eddie sniffed the wardrobe and then barked. It's on film as to what actually happened!
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2014, 06:18:09 PM
It simply means that the dog alerts, although evidence in their own right, are not reliable as an indicator that cadaver scent was found unless corroborated by other evidence such as blood or DNA etc...
Or to put it another way, had Madeleine's blood been found behind the sofa in the apartment and/or on the rear floor of the hire car then that evidence combined with the dogs alerts becomes reliable.
Who 'cleared' them?
Agreed john..so without corroboration they are unreliable
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2014, 06:19:50 PM
Is this not what Martin Grime said:- "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence". Should we not be discussing what Mr Grime's report quotes he said rather than a contrived thread title ?.
I think you are mistaken. If a dead body was inside that flat then it was hidden away from any possible prying eyes. Eddie sniffed the wardrobe and then barked. It's on film as to what actually happened!
I keep telling you - I have watched the video - now for your statement to bear scrutiny you will have to tell me exactly how it was possible to hide a dead body from the prying eyes of the GNR officers, the GNR dogs, all the people who searched for Madeleine and not least her parents, in the confines of an open plan holiday flat.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Montclair on September 16, 2014, 07:04:56 PM
It simply means that the dog alerts, although evidence in their own right, are not reliable as an indicator that cadaver scent was found unless corroborated by other evidence such as blood or DNA etc...
Or to put it another way, had Madeleine's blood been found behind the sofa in the apartment and/or on the rear floor of the hire car then that evidence combined with the dogs alerts becomes reliable.
Who 'cleared' them?
In the Prout case no forensic evidence was found where the cadaver scent was indicated by the dog but the dog's indication was considered essential to their investigation. Corroborating evidence does not have to be forensic, the evidence can be that someone is missing and lived in that house and no one had ever died there.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2014, 07:11:04 PM
In the Prout case no forensic evidence was found where the cadaver scent was indicated by the dog but the dog's indication was considered essential to their investigation. Corroborating evidence does not have to be forensic, the evidence can be that someone is missing and lived in that house and no one had ever died there.
so what does no evidential reliability mean
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 16, 2014, 07:54:05 PM
Some people just don't seem to understand that the McCanns were cleared of their suspect status many years ago and therefore have no need to have the forensic evidence re-examined.
The case was shelved.
Effectively, so was their arguido status, which of course can be reactivated for up to 20 years after the event.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 16, 2014, 07:55:52 PM
I keep telling you - I have watched the video - now for your statement to bear scrutiny you will have to tell me exactly how it was possible to hide a dead body from the prying eyes of the GNR officers, the GNR dogs, all the people who searched for Madeleine and not least her parents, in the confines of an open plan holiday flat.
Madeleine would have been moved out before the alarm was raised so I don't understand your point.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 16, 2014, 09:13:10 PM
That was just a myth as illustrated by Dr Amaral when he pointed out the shelf in the wardrobe Eddie had alerted to in his documentary so it became common currency that was where Madeleine had been hidden.
Eddie alerted in the corner … not the wardrobe.
If you read what Martin Grime says very carefully he asserts the alert was triggered by the build up of scent in that corner emanating from a physical source.
“If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner.”
Martin Grime mentions a source enabling the accumulation of a scent ... so where is that source?
That is certainly in line with what I have said about cadaver dogs alerting some distance from the cadaver. In other words they scented the body or parts of a body some distance from the location.
Human decomposition = scent, which may or may not be discernible to the human nose = dog alert = finding source of alert even if some distance away = evidence.
Using that example … a valid one according to what Martin Grime has stated … to what did Eddie alert because for sure it wasn’t human detritus or anything which is evidential.
Annie, a while back, made a quite brilliant find of all the people (besides Paul Gordon's shaving cut) who did, or might have, bled in apartment 5a.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 16, 2014, 09:25:05 PM
I sincerely hope that the present investigation uncovers exactly what happened to Madeleine McCann. I can take the sneers when I say that nothing would please me better than Madeleine McCann being found alive and well.
Snip
I agree with that.
However I am not hopeful of her still being alive and believe she died that evening.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2014, 10:30:50 PM
However I am not hopeful of her still being alive and believe she died that evening.
I think you are almost certainly correct
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2014, 08:14:07 AM
Just to point out...I rate the dogs highly...that's why dogs are so widely used...bit they are used to find evidence..solid evidence that can be used in court...the dogs found nothing here
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: xtina on September 17, 2014, 08:48:57 AM
EVRD OPERATIONAL CASEWORK EXAMPLES
Northern Ireland, UK A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The search of suspects 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victims' DNA. The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of the woman in a river bank deposition site. Further searches identified a
Vol. IX p. 2482
location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offenders empty next door dwelling house. When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
Wiltshire, UK A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her ex-boy friend had taken her to his house. A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirtit level, and shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its original state.
Devon, UK A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at the alert location revealed a small button off of the girls clothing in long grass. The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.
Cornwall, UK A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspects house by the EVRD was conducted who indicated on the living room carpet. No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently a diary written by the suspect was alert indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts that the offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead, the diary had in fact been written by the suspect having handled the body. This was confirmed by the offender in interview.
New Mexico, U.S.A. A witness reported having seen two men walk off into brush land carrying a spade and a corpse. The area was searched with the EVRD with no indications being forthcoming. Other assets were utilised and the body was found: buried at a depth of 8 feet, under the water table, 3 feet of cement and 5 feet of earth replaced on top the corpse that was wrapped in cling film. There being no scent available to the dog to receive there was no forthcoming
Vol IX p. 2483
CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of blood on property up to thirty-six years old.
Northern Ireland, UK A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The search of suspects 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victims' DNA. The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of the woman in a river bank deposition site. Further searches identified a
Vol. IX p. 2482
location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offenders empty next door dwelling house. When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
Wiltshire, UK A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her ex-boy friend had taken her to his house. A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirtit level, and shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its original state.
Devon, UK A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at the alert location revealed a small button off of the girls clothing in long grass. The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.
Cornwall, UK A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspects house by the EVRD was conducted who indicated on the living room carpet. No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently a diary written by the suspect was alert indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts that the offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead, the diary had in fact been written by the suspect having handled the body. This was confirmed by the offender in interview.
New Mexico, U.S.A. A witness reported having seen two men walk off into brush land carrying a spade and a corpse. The area was searched with the EVRD with no indications being forthcoming. Other assets were utilised and the body was found: buried at a depth of 8 feet, under the water table, 3 feet of cement and 5 feet of earth replaced on top the corpse that was wrapped in cling film. There being no scent available to the dog to receive there was no forthcoming
Vol IX p. 2483
CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of blood on property up to thirty-six years old.
So Grime said that it is possible the dog was alerting to cadaver scent...only possible....not a confirmation
The crux of my post was that your thread intro was a contrived misquotation.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: ferryman on September 17, 2014, 10:40:51 AM
Alfred Jones
Hang on a minute...if Eddie will alert to a smell at some distance from the source of that smell, then the source of that smell may well be (for example) dried blood from a living human, in a different part of the room or building. The blood dog however would not alert to the same spot as Eddie would do in that case, so the dog alert would be classed (by some) as showing the one time presence of a cadaver but this would not necessarily be the case. Sorry, if this has all been said before but it's only just occurred to me!
I do not believe it has been said before ... wood and trees and should have gone to specsavers all pop into the same sentence.
Just as there was no cadaver alert to the Renault or to Cuddlecat in the cupboard or to behind the couch in 5a I have come to the conclusion that neither was there a cadaver alert in the bedroom of 5a.
There was such an investment in these so called alerts that some of us should have known better than to take them at face value, which is what we indisputably have done.
Eddie might have alerted downstairs to a scent that was the residue of Paul Gordon's shaving cut upstairs, and/or any of the numerous other people known to have bled in apartment 5a ...
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2014, 10:53:17 AM
We know what evidence mean and we know what reliable means...so Grime is saying that the alerts are not reliable evidence...what's your interpretation of these words.
We don't want another 100 pages of the dogs don't lie...very specifically...what does Grime mean
Since you are so intelligent you should know that reliability evidence means other forensic corroboration to the dog's alerts. FSS took care that never happened.
Just because the dog's alerts can't be used as evidence in court, since they do not clarify who they are signaling to, it doesn't mean they are not important evidence for the Investigation.
You better review those disturbing reports if not the videos.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 17, 2014, 01:48:58 PM
Indeed but with a few words missing which changes the sense a little (by accident or design one wonders) Back to the plot however, if one reads Mr Grime's quote in full it is somewhat obvious what it means.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2014, 02:54:07 PM
Indeed but with a few words missing which changes the sense a little (by accident or design one wonders) Back to the plot however, if one reads Mr Grime's quote in full it is somewhat obvious what it means.
so it is not a misquote but quoted out of context...
yes it is obvious...the alerts as regards evidence or intelligence are not reliable
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 17, 2014, 04:06:10 PM
so it is not a misquote but quoted out of context...
yes it is obvious...the alerts as regards evidence or intelligence are not reliable
An over simplistic assessment. Is that deliberate in order to present a particular viewpoint or because you don't really understand what Mr Grime said?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2014, 04:11:12 PM
An over simplistic assessment. Is that deliberate in order to present a particular viewpoint or because you don't really understand what Mr Grime said?
Cut the constant criticism and give us your understanding then...simple...
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2014, 11:15:59 PM
An over simplistic assessment. Is that deliberate in order to present a particular viewpoint or because you don't really understand what Mr Grime said?
I'm probably one of the few on this forum who does understand what Grime said.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 17, 2014, 11:29:28 PM
An over simplistic assessment. Is that deliberate in order to present a particular viewpoint or because you don't really understand what Mr Grime said?
I think most would regard that as a critical post...
You have made several critical posts on this thread but failed to address the question asked...as I have said if you are going to post on this thread perhaps you could actually address the topic of the thread rather than trying to score silly points
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2014, 11:50:04 PM
I think we all understand what "no reliability " means...so put that together with evidential and we have Grime's description of the alerts...very uncomfortable for the doubters and that's why there has been so many attempts to derail the thread and avoid answering the question.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 18, 2014, 07:00:18 AM
I think we all understand what "no reliability " means...so put that together with evidential and we have Grime's description of the alerts...very uncomfortable for the doubters and that's why there has been so many attempts to derail the thread and avoids answering the question.
As per usual dave, you assume people can't read.
Now once again, where does Martin Grime say the alerts could not be due to a dead body ?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2014, 07:40:05 AM
Now once again, where does Martin Grime say the alerts could not be due to a dead body ?
if you wish to post on this thread could you address the topic of the thread rather than trying to derail. I'm interested in what Grime said...NOT what he didn't say
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 18, 2014, 08:12:23 AM
if you wish to post on this thread could you address the topic of the thread rather than trying to derail. I'm interested in what Grime said...NOT what he didn't say
First thing. I will post on any thread I wish too.
Second, this is about Martin Grime, and I have reread what he said.
He said the indications are of 'no 'evidential reliability' because it would need forensic backup. He did not say the dogs indications weren't evidence, did he ?
It's no good you petulantly trying to claim Grime's statement is a one way street, it isn't.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2014, 08:17:26 AM
First thing. I will post on any thread I wish too.
Second, this is about Martin Grime, and I have reread what he said.
He said the indications are of 'no 'evidential reliability' because it would need forensic backup. He did not say the dogs indications weren't evidence, did he ?
It's no good you petulantly trying to claim Grime's statement is a one way street, it isn't.
No forensic back up therefore the alerts have no evidential reliability...no reliability.....which of those two words don't you understand
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 18, 2014, 08:24:07 AM
Now let's see what happens if and when a body is found.
Finding a body seems to be your preferred option ... let's wait and see if there are any clues to Madeleine McCann's whereabouts still in existence.
Finding a living breathing person is my preferred option. Either way the only chance to find out anything is for the Met to be allowed to proceed with the investigation with as little hinderance as possible.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Benice on September 18, 2014, 10:33:33 AM
The pathetic response dave as per normal comes from you.
I know perfectly well what evidential reliability means.
it does not mean the indications aren't evidence.
That is why you and other mccann supporters keep returning to this.
Now where in Martin Grimes statement does it say the dogs didn't possibly alert to a body ?
Or more to the point where does Martin Grimes state that a dead body had definitely been in situ wherever Eddie alerted.
No-one is disputing the possibility that a cadaver could be one of many reasons for an alert. It is the contention by some people that a cadaver is the ONLY reason for an alert - to the exclusion of all the other reasons given by Grime which is in dispute imo.
Despite stringent forensic testing - no evidence was found to corroborate that one particular possibility - i.e. that the dogs were alerting to material from a cadaver. Therefore the 'requirements', (as described by Martin Grime himself,) for the alerts to be regarded as evidence that Eddie was alerting to a dead body - were not fulfilled.
No amount of playing with words or wishful thinking will change that fact.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2014, 10:38:16 AM
Or more to the point where does Martin Grimes state that a dead body had definitely been in situ wherever Eddie alerted.
No-one is disputing the possibility that a cadaver could be one of many reasons for an alert. It is the contention by some people that a cadaver is the ONLY reason for an alert - to the exclusion of all the other reasons given by Grime which is in dispute imo.
Despite stringent forensic testing - no evidence was found to corroborate that one particular possibility - i.e. that the dogs were alerting to material from a cadaver. Therefore the 'requirements', (as described by Martin Grime himself,) for the alerts to be regarded as evidence that Eddie was alerting to a dead body - were not fulfilled.
No amount of playing with words or wishful thinking will change that fact.
Once again.
The dogs did not alert in any other accommodation than the mccanns.
No amount of playing with words will change that.
Likewise, living in a fantasy of abduction, doesn't help either.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Benice on September 18, 2014, 04:31:57 PM
The dogs did not alert in any other accommodation than the mccanns.
No amount of playing with words will change that.
Likewise, living in a fantasy of abduction, doesn't help either.
Anyone who doesn't point the finger at the McCanns are' fantasists' in your world Stephen I presume that includes the Portuguese police team - who are looking for an abductor and have ruled the McCanns out as suspects.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: DCI on September 18, 2014, 04:33:02 PM
It's a clever point, but I think that particular key stayed permanently in the car.
It was an ignition key, not a car lock (I don't think).
People don't normally leave the ignition key in their cars do they? I never do. An unlocked car with the ignition key left in it is surely an open invitation to having it stolen.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: ferryman on September 18, 2014, 04:56:13 PM
People don't normally leave the ignition key in their cars do they? I never do. An unlocked car with the ignition key left in it is surely an open invitation to having it stolen.
You may well be right.
I'm not sure.
I thought that the ignition system and the lock were separate ...
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Anna on September 18, 2014, 05:00:13 PM
Meanwhile , your pursuit of this thread clearly reveals how you and others ,as it did clearly with gerry mccann recently in the Portuguese Court, reveals how the mccanns and their suppporters are worried by the work of Martin Grime.
VERY,VERY WORRIED. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2014, 08:15:25 PM
Meanwhile , your pursuit of this thread clearly reveals how you and others ,as it did clearly with gerry mccann recently in the Portuguese Court, reveals how the mccanns and their suppporters are worried by the work of Martin Grime.
VERY,VERY WORRIED. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
It means that as evidence it is unreliable.....
You are so misguided...as I am not in the frame I am not at all worried
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 18, 2014, 08:28:36 PM
Meanwhile , your pursuit of this thread clearly reveals how you and others ,as it did clearly with gerry mccann recently in the Portuguese Court, reveals how the mccanns and their suppporters are worried by the work of Martin Grime.
VERY,VERY WORRIED. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
Why should anyone be worried? The truth of the matter will eventually come out and anyone who has not committed themselves to saying that they know what happened has nothing to worry about, as to the others..........................................................
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2014, 08:41:01 PM
Why should anyone be worried? The truth of the matter will eventually come out and anyone who has not committed themselves to saying that they know what happened has nothing to worry about, as to the others..........................................................
So why do so many mccann supporters keep going on about the dogs, if they are of no consequence ?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2014, 08:50:26 PM
That's right as grime says the alerts in this instance are not reliable as evidence...why would anyone be concerned about the alerts
Actually this is what Mr Grime said: "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence".
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 19, 2014, 12:02:49 PM
In the meantime back at the ranch ... why did Martin Grime think the alerts had no 'evidential reliability'?
Bearing in mind this was prior to the FSS results on the evidence harvested after the bloobath in 5a corroborated there was no link to Madeleine.
He was well aware of the olfactory sensitivity of the dog's nose and stated the alert could have been due to the scent cone ending in that corner.
Scent from what?
Perhaps from the blood which had been spilled in the apartment ... none of which belonged to Madeleine McCann ... but wich Eddie could no doubt scent as soon as the apartment door was opened?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 19, 2014, 12:12:14 PM
In the meantime back at the ranch ... why did Martin Grime think the alerts had no 'evidential reliability'?
Bearing in mind this was prior to the FSS results on the evidence harvested after the bloobath in 5a corroborated there was no link to Madeleine.
He was well aware of the olfactory sensitivity of the dog's nose and stated the alert could have been due to the scent cone ending in that corner.
Scent from what?
Perhaps from the blood which had been spilled in the apartment ... none of which belonged to Madeleine McCann ... but wich Eddie could no doubt scent as soon as the apartment door was opened?
Back at the ranch brietta ?
You mean back at the 'ranch mccann'.
Nothing has come to light in this case, other than the possible indications by the dogs of a dead body.
NOTHING AT ALL.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: John on September 19, 2014, 01:41:12 PM
They were cleared as suspects when their arguido status was removed - or are you going to tell me now that they are still suspects?
Groundhog Day.
Wrong. The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation. Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.
To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Anna on September 19, 2014, 01:59:57 PM
Wrong. The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation. Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.
To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.
That goes for everyone, surely. Nobody has been cleared of involvement or accused of involvement, as it now stands. There is no evidence ,as you rightly say, to suspect or clear anyone. There was no proof of the allegations made by PJ, that were responsible for the mcCanns being made arquido and for this reason the status was lifted (made extinct) Nobody will be cleared until the culprit is found. Please feel free to correct, if am wrong ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous. Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child’s death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct. Portimão, 21.07.08 The above is an excerpt from the final judgement report by-
The Republic’s Prosecutor
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)
The Joint General Prosecutor
(signature)
(João Melchior Gomes)
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Carana on September 19, 2014, 02:01:20 PM
Wrong. The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation. Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status.
No suspects have been 'cleared' in this case.
I find that misleading, John. You are correct that the investigation was time-limited once arguidos had been constituted. However, the status was lifted because there was no evidence (aside from uncorroborated barks from a dog) that could have led to charges against any of the three arguidos. There was nothing to even substantiate what type of crime had been committed, let alone who may have been responsible.
The group DID cooperate with the questioning via the ILORs. I do agree that the T7 were wary of returning to PT for a reconstruction, but so was Jez.
IMO, the reconstruction was a box-ticking exercise at that point - it wouldn't have led to charges nor exonerated anyone in that group. It would, however, have led to a new media frenzy of speculation. We have threads on the reconstruction topic so I don't propose to repeat the points here.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 19, 2014, 02:19:51 PM
Wrong. The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation. Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.
To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.
So they, like Murat, are still suspects are they? Behave!
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 19, 2014, 03:27:04 PM
Nothing has come to light in this case, other than the possible indications by the dogs of a dead body.
NOTHING AT ALL.
Not quite so Stephen.
Blood was found exactly where Eddie barked when the couch was moved to allow him access. Keela confirmed it. The FSS tested it - and remember, it had nothing to do with anyone in the McCann family or their friends.
You saying that Eddie would have been unable to smell the scent of that blood from anywhere in the apartment where it had decided to settle? or even from the blood spots we can see in photos from the files on the walls and curtains? Not showing much faith in his nose then, are you?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 19, 2014, 03:34:49 PM
Blood was found exactly where Eddie barked when the couch was moved to allow him access. Keela confirmed it. The FSS tested it - and remember, it had nothing to do with anyone in the McCann family or their friends.
You saying that Eddie would have been unable to smell the scent of that blood from anywhere in the apartment where it had decided to settle? or even from the blood spots we can see in photos from the files on the walls and curtains? Not showing much faith in his nose then, are you?
Just remind me in which other accommodation did the dogs give responses in ?
and then remind me where else the dogs gave indications other than the in the vicinity of the couch ?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2014, 03:45:49 PM
Wrong. The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation. Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.
To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.
I thought you were going to say...to charge someone requires tangible evidence...which is much more relevant
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 19, 2014, 03:49:01 PM
Actually this is what Mr Grime said: "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence".
So Grime said it was "possible " that the dogs were alerting to cadaver...not that they were...so he isn't sure but many on this forum are...deluded
so as once more you have not answered the question...what does grime mean by no evidential reliability....that means to me no reliable evidence
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2014, 03:59:41 PM
Wrong. The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation. Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.
To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.
So what does it take to clear someone..has Barry George been cleared...probably no such thing legally
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 19, 2014, 04:08:23 PM
So Grime said it was "possible " that the dogs were alerting to cadaver...not that they were...so he isn't sure but many on this forum are...deluded
so as once more you have not answered the question...what does grime mean by no evidential reliability....that means to me no reliable evidence
I have answered the question. Grime meant what he said. What you are doing is to present your interpretation of it. Mostly it has to be said by never quoting the entire passage but just the words which suit you and totally ignoring the context in which the statement was made.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2014, 06:23:36 PM
I have answered the question. Grime meant what he said. What you are doing is to present your interpretation of it. Mostly it has to be said by never quoting the entire passage but just the words which suit you and totally ignoring the context in which the statement was made.
we are all aware Grime meant what he said...but the question is what did he mean...I take it he meant the alerts have no value as evidence as there was no corroboration..no doubter has come up with any other interpretation...almost everything on this forum is quoted out of context
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 19, 2014, 06:43:08 PM
we are all aware Grime meant what he said...but the question is what did he mean...I take it he meant the alerts have no value as evidence as there was no corroboration..no doubter has come up with any other interpretation...almost everything on this forum is quoted out of context
Try rewriting his quote using accepted definitions and synonyms for the key words bearing in mind the context is expert witness perhaps called upon to give evidence in a court of law. Also decide whether "possible" is a misquote as the PJ files say "suggestive".
One could then reasonably have:-
"The alert is indicative of cadaver scent contaminant. The alert on it’s own does not constitute evidence which will adequately stand up to cross examination in a court of law unless backed up by corroborative data". What may be inferred is that the alert is merely circumstantial evidence indicative of cadaver scent. Evidence has to stand up to scrutiny and cross examination to arrive at "beyond reasonable doubt"
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2014, 08:00:42 PM
Try rewriting his quote using accepted definitions and synonyms for the key words bearing in mind the context is expert witness perhaps called upon to give evidence in a court of law. Also decide whether "possible" is a misquote as the PJ files say "suggestive".
One could then reasonably have:-
"The alert is indicative of cadaver scent contaminant. The alert on it’s own does not constitute evidence which will adequately stand up to cross examination in a court of law unless backed up by corroborative data". What may be inferred is that the alert is merely circumstantial evidence indicative of cadaver scent. Evidence has to stand up to scrutiny and cross examination to arrive at "beyond reasonable doubt"
I am happy to consider a misquote...similarly the jemmied shutters....key no key..locked /unlocked doors an be similarly explained.. In my opinion the meaning is clear...evidence with no reliability plus grime confirms he is not sure if the dog was alerting to cadaver
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: John on September 19, 2014, 09:33:43 PM
That goes for everyone, surely. Nobody has been cleared of involvement or accused of involvement, as it now stands. There is no evidence ,as you rightly say, to suspect or clear anyone. There was no proof of the allegations made by PJ, that were responsible for the mcCanns being made arquido and for this reason the status was lifted (made extinct) Nobody will be cleared until the culprit is found. Please feel free to correct, if am wrong
Absolutely Anna 8@??)(
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: John on September 19, 2014, 09:36:39 PM
I find that misleading, John. You are correct that the investigation was time-limited once arguidos had been constituted. However, the status was lifted because there was no evidence (aside from uncorroborated barks from a dog) that could have led to charges against any of the three arguidos. There was nothing to even substantiate what type of crime had been committed, let alone who may have been responsible.
The group DID cooperate with the questioning via the ILORs. I do agree that the T7 were wary of returning to PT for a reconstruction, but so was Jez.
IMO, the reconstruction was a box-ticking exercise at that point - it wouldn't have led to charges nor exonerated anyone in that group. It would, however, have led to a new media frenzy of speculation. We have threads on the reconstruction topic so I don't propose to repeat the points here.
Not misleading by any means...the tapas group refused to cooperate with the Portugese investigators for reasons best known only to them...end off! If Madeleine is hopefully found alive and well some day I hope each and every one of them will have a bloody good excuse for their conduct.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: John on September 19, 2014, 09:40:00 PM
So what does it take to clear someone..has Barry George been cleared...probably no such thing legally
No, he hasn't been cleared thus why they won't pay him rightful compensation for wrongful imprisonment. Same goes for Siôn Jenkins and the murder of Billie Jo, even after two appeals and two retrials.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 19, 2014, 09:51:48 PM
A brief reminder if needed.
The arguido status is not extinct, can be reactivated up to 20 years after the initial period.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2014, 09:57:25 PM
The arguido status is not extinct, can be reactivated up to 20 years after the initial period.
What a poor system...I find it hard to believe its true...In the Uk suspects can be arrested 30 years plus after the crime..no time limit...and rightly so...surely you are mistaken
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: John on September 19, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
The arguido status is not extinct, can be reactivated up to 20 years after the initial period.
Most people unfamiliar with Portuguese Law still fail to comprehend the meaning of arguido status. All it really confers is the right of suspects to have a lawyer present when questioned.
Some members wrongly believe that suspending the arguido status is proof that a suspect has been cleared, something which could not be further from the truth.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2014, 10:01:41 PM
Most people unfamiliar with Portuguese Law still fail to comprehend the meaning of arguido status. All it really confers is the right of suspects to have a lawyer present when questioned.
I think its a bit more than that John...similar to being cautioned ...as I understand that means that any statements made as non arguidos could not be used in court
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: John on September 19, 2014, 10:03:24 PM
I think its a bit more than that John...similar to being cautioned ...as I understand that means that any statements made as non arguidos could not be used in court
Yes, later on in the process but we are talking generally here about police enquiries.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 19, 2014, 10:33:15 PM
I am happy to consider a misquote...similarly the jemmied shutters....key no key..locked /unlocked doors an be similarly explained.. In my opinion the meaning is clear...evidence with no reliability plus grime confirms he is not sure if the dog was alerting to cadaver
You are silent on whether you consider my proposition is plausible based on the English language and comprehension thereof. You merely reiterate your own interpretation.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2014, 10:57:46 PM
You are silent on whether you consider my proposition is plausible based on the English language and comprehension thereof. You merely reiterate your own interpretation.
Your proposition is not plausible..you say evidence has to prove beyond reasonable doubt whilst the dog's in only circumstantial..wrong I am afraid as I'm sure you will agree...circumstantial evidence is allowed in court...the alerts are not...accused have been found guilty on circumstantial evidence......
I commend you for at least trying to defend the dogs when no one else has but it must be difficult when grime himself doubts the meaning of the alerts
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 19, 2014, 11:57:47 PM
mccanns have been cleared full stop...anyone trying to prove otherwise is deluded
I was wondering why it was still unsolved 8)--))
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Anna on September 20, 2014, 12:29:06 AM
tge point I was making is that nobody in the world can be cleared of a crime, with no evidence until the real culprit is found. Nor can anyone be held suspect without evidence to back it up.
This you have seen but I have looked up the penal codes to explain ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code. [/b]Article 277 Termination of investigation 1 - The Public Ministry shall, by order, to the closing of the investigation as soon as you have collected sufficient evidence is not checking crime, the accused have not practiced in any capacity or be legally inadmissible procedure.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled .[/b]3 - The order of filing is communicated to the defendant, the assistant to the complainant with faculty to be assistant and whom has expressed the purpose of deducting claim for damages under Article 75, as well as their advocate or lawyer. ,
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Article 214 Termination of measures 1 - The coercive measures be extinguished immediately: a) With the closing of the investigation,
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Anna on September 20, 2014, 12:46:38 AM
looks like they could claim back their lawyer's fees for being wrongly made Arquido
This case hasn't been solved in 7 years so you can betcha everyone is under suspicion.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: pegasus on September 20, 2014, 02:10:44 AM
The two alerts by the german shepherd dog in New Addington had no evidential reliabilty. They were nothing more than "intelligence" (which BTW solved the case).
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: stephen25000 on September 20, 2014, 07:53:40 AM
The original case was shelved pending further evidence.
The nature of the crime has yet to be ascertained.
We know the original botched case was shelved. Surprised you haven't noticed the new ones being worked by the PJ and the Met ... both forces having exonorated Madeleine McCann's parents and their friends after examining the evidence which allowed them to reopen Madeleine's case.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2014, 11:27:26 AM
We know the original botched case was shelved. Surprised you haven't noticed the new ones being worked by the PJ and the Met ... both forces having exonorated Madeleine McCann's parents and their friends after examining the evidence which allowed them to reopen Madeleine's case.
Madeleine: Top policeman inisists McCanns are 'victims not suspects' By SAM GREENHILL
Last updated at 14:17 02 September 2007
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
"I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exactly the same as what Redwood said.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2014, 12:54:41 PM
Madeleine: Top policeman inisists McCanns are 'victims not suspects' By SAM GREENHILL
Last updated at 14:17 02 September 2007
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
"I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exactly the same as what Redwood said.
This statement was made by a travelling group of clowns posing as police officers who oversaw the original investigation...the investigation is now underway with a proper police force
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Eleanor on September 20, 2014, 12:57:19 PM
Back On Topic, please.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Angelo222 on September 20, 2014, 01:24:13 PM
This statement was made by a travelling group of clowns posing as police officers who oversaw the original investigation...the investigation is now underway with a proper police force
A travelling group of clowns?? Is that what you really think of Leicestershire Police and the Met? tut tut Mr Davel.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Carana on September 20, 2014, 01:29:38 PM
Most people unfamiliar with Portuguese Law still fail to comprehend the meaning of arguido status. All it really confers is the right of suspects to have a lawyer present when questioned.
Some members wrongly believe that suspending the arguido status is proof that a suspect has been cleared, something which could not be further from the truth.
Hmmm. I'd agree that arguido status seems to be misunderstood and that the media doesn't help.
I disagree with "suspending the arguido status". The arguido status was lifted because the investigation was suspended. Anyone, whether a former arguido or a new suspect, can be constituted as an arguido (either by the "suspect's" choice - if granted - or by imposition) if new evidence comes to light that makes it preferable or required for the purposes of questioning that could lead to potential self-incrimination up until the end of the prescription of the crime. As the nature of the crime has not been determined, I presume that the case has been left open under the maximum prescription possible.
Redwood has stated that the none of the T9 were either persons of interest or suspects in their investigation, and the PT authorities appear to have said roughly the same thing (a statement has been quoted on here somewhere to that effect). I find it totally illogical that the Met would not have cleared the ground under their feet regarding the T9 prior launching their investigation.
The PT side can only reopen an investigation if there is new credible and relevant evidence that may help to resolve the case. PT did relaunch their own investigation, but whatever evidence or credible leads that was based on doesn't appear to involve the T9 or Murat.
If that situation were to change, i.e., if new credible and relevant evidence leading to founded suspicions that any former arguido could be involved, then the former arguido could be reconstituted as an arguido, just as anyone could be as a new one.
It was reported in the media that there are new arguidos in this case, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. So far, it seems to have been in response to the UK's request to interview certain people either for the first time or in more depth in order to clarify certain points.
The tabloids immediately jumped to the conclusion that there were going to be imminent arrests, which is silly. The arguido status may have been imposed as part of a bureaucratic system in the light of a transnational investigation, or the defence lawyers may have requested it on behalf of the interviewees.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 20, 2014, 01:31:20 PM
Your proposition is not plausible..you say evidence has to prove beyond reasonable doubt whilst the dog's in only circumstantial..wrong I am afraid as I'm sure you will agree...circumstantial evidence is allowed in court...the alerts are not...accused have been found guilty on circumstantial evidence......
I commend you for at least trying to defend the dogs when no one else has but it must be difficult when grime himself doubts the meaning of the alerts
Now you are being silly in the extreme. By your first statement you failed signally to comprehend what I said. When you can comprehend what I said you will understand that I merely rewrote Martin Grimes statement using English definitions and synonyms for the key words which showed that Grime meant what he said. You have a fixed interpretation to suit your own thesis, from which you will not prised whatever the argument. Your post is pretty much a smoke mirrors attempt to create a diversion. You need to watch out for rabbit holes good sir.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Angelo222 on September 20, 2014, 01:34:49 PM
Hmmm. I'd agree that arguido status seems to be misunderstood and that the media doesn't help.
I disagree with "suspending the arguido status". The arguido status was lifted because the investigation was suspended. Anyone, whether a former arguido or a new suspect, can be constituted as an arguido (either by the "suspect's" choice - if granted - or by imposition) if new evidence comes to light that makes it preferable or required for the purposes of questioning that could lead to potential self-incrimination up until the end of the prescription of the crime. As the nature of the crime has not been determined, I presume that the case has been left open under the maximum prescription possible.
Redwood has stated that the none of the T9 were either persons of interest or suspects in their investigation, and the PT authorities appear to have said roughly the same thing (a statement has been quoted on here somewhere to that effect). I find it totally illogical that the Met would not have cleared the ground under their feet regarding the T9 prior launching their investigation.
The PT side can only reopen an investigation if there is new credible and relevant evidence that may help to resolve the case. PT did relaunch their own investigation, but whatever evidence or credible leads that was based on doesn't appear to involve the T9 or Murat.
If that situation were to change, i.e., if new credible and relevant evidence leading to founded suspicions that any former arguido could be involved, then the former arguido could be reconstituted as an arguido, just as anyone could be as a new one.
It was reported in the media that there are new arguidos in this case, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. So far, it seems to have been in response to the UK's request to interview certain people either for the first time or in more depth in order to clarify certain points.
The tabloids immediately jumped to the conclusion that there were going to be imminent arrests, which is silly. The arguido status may have been imposed as part of a bureaucratic system in the light of a transnational investigation, or the defence lawyers may have requested it on behalf of the interviewees.
Carana surely you're not so naive as to believe that Redwood is showing all his cards?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Angelo222 on September 20, 2014, 01:49:15 PM
Your proposition is not plausible..you say evidence has to prove beyond reasonable doubt whilst the dog's in only circumstantial..wrong I am afraid as I'm sure you will agree...circumstantial evidence is allowed in court...the alerts are not...accused have been found guilty on circumstantial evidence......
I commend you for at least trying to defend the dogs when no one else has but it must be difficult when grime himself doubts the meaning of the alerts
I don't believe for a minute he does doubt the meaning of the alerts but being the true professional he can only report evidence as unreliable in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: John on September 20, 2014, 02:04:21 PM
So all cards are still on the table. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
Correct, detectives will always keep their options open until such time as someone confesses or proof is found which identifies the perpetrators or absolves others. No such proof has been found in this case but I am open to suggestions.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Angelo222 on September 20, 2014, 02:11:14 PM
Correct, detectives will always keep their options open until such time as someone confesses or proof is found which identifies the perpetrators or absolves others. No such proof has been found in this case but I am open to suggestions.
I would offer the suggestion that the refusal by T9 to do all and everything possible to assist the original investigation was suspicious in itself. I hope they can live with themselves.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Carana on September 20, 2014, 02:18:23 PM
Carana surely you're not so naive as to believe that Redwood is showing all his cards?
I never said that.
In fact, what I said was:
Quote
The PT side can only reopen an investigation if there is new credible and relevant evidence that may help to resolve the case. PT did relaunch their own investigation, but whatever evidence or credible leads that was based on doesn't appear to involve the T9 or Murat.
If that situation were to change, i.e., if new credible and relevant evidence leading to founded suspicions that any former arguido could be involved, then the former arguido could be reconstituted as an arguido, just as anyone could be as a new one.
Can you provide a logical explanation as to why the Met and the PT authorities would not have cleared the ground under their feet prior to this new effort to resolve the case?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Carana on September 20, 2014, 02:31:08 PM
I don't believe for a minute he does doubt the meaning of the alerts but being the true professional he can only report evidence as unreliable in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
In the UK, even assuming that the dog could have correctly alerted to a familiar smell (whatever that may have actually been), there would presumably have been a thorough investigation into any possible innocent or irrelevant explanations. Casually asking around whether anyone was aware of anyone who had died in that flat doesn't seem to be a thorough eliminatory process.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Angelo222 on September 20, 2014, 02:31:59 PM
In fact, what I said was: Can you provide a logical explanation as to why the Met and the PT authorities would not have cleared the ground under their feet prior to this new effort to resolve the case?
I don't believe for a minute that they have cleared the ground under their feet. The Met in particular are grasping at straws and scratching about for anything and anyone who will help in the end to justify the expenditure in this case. It isn't about finding Maddie any more is it?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2014, 02:47:01 PM
Now you are being silly in the extreme. By your first statement you failed signally to comprehend what I said. When you can comprehend what I said you will understand that I merely rewrote Martin Grimes statement using English definitions and synonyms for the key words which showed that Grime meant what he said. You have a fixed interpretation to suit your own thesis, from which you will not prised whatever the argument. Your post is pretty much a smoke mirrors attempt to create a diversion. You need to watch out for rabbit holes good sir.
this sis what you posted,,,it seems you don't comprehend your own posts... The alert is indicative of cadaver scent contaminant. The alert on it’s own does not constitute evidence which will adequately stand up to cross examination in a court of law unless backed up by corroborative data". What may be inferred is that the alert is merely circumstantial evidence indicative of cadaver scent. Evidence has to stand up to scrutiny and cross examination to arrive at "beyond reasonable doubt"
As I correctly pointed out to you the alert is NOT circumstantial evidence ...circumstantial evidence is allowed in court...the alerts are not
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2014, 02:49:07 PM
I don't believe for a minute he does doubt the meaning of the alerts but being the true professional he can only report evidence as unreliable in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
that's right...the alerts are unreliable as evidence
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Carana on September 20, 2014, 02:50:20 PM
I don't believe for a minute that they have cleared the ground under their feet. The Met in particular are grasping at straws and scratching about for anything and anyone who will help in the end to justify the expenditure in this case. It isn't about finding Maddie any more is it?
You've misquoted my previous post, but never mind.
I disagree that they wouldn't have tried to clear the ground under their feet. It makes no sense to me. They could have found evidence that any of the T9 were guilty of whatever crime and presented their findings to the CPS. As could the PT authorities. And whatever the rumours about difficulties between the police forces, so far, this hasn't happened.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Anna on September 20, 2014, 03:06:13 PM
No evidential reliability........Means it would not be accepted as evidence in a court of lawJust one example of the many on line concerning, unreliability of evidence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Excerpt:-
Under our recommendations, all four requirements in the statutory test would need to be satisfied, otherwise the evidence would be inadmissible . If the judge is satisfied that the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted, the trial would commence and the expert evidence would be adduced in the usual way. The expert witness would be challenged in cross-examination and no doubt contradicted by the adduction of contrary expert evidence. As well as discouraging the proffering of expert opinion evidence of doubtful reliability, our recommendations would deter dubious challenges to admissibility. It would ordinarily be for a partychallenging the admissibility of an expert’s opinion evidence to provide a coherent argument that the evidence is insufficiently reliable to be admitted. But where a challenge is well-founded, and it appears to the court that an expert’s opinion evidence might not be sufficiently reliable to be admitted, the party seeking to rely on the evidence would have to show that it is sufficiently reliableto be admitted. If the party proffering the evidence cannot show that it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted it will be inadmissible. Unreliable expert evidence would be kept from the jury, reducing the possibility of an erroneous verdict.http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc325_Expert_Evidence_Report.pdf
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Anna on September 20, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
In the UK, even assuming that the dog could have correctly alerted to a familiar smell (whatever that may have actually been), there would presumably have been a thorough investigation into any possible innocent or irrelevant explanations. Casually asking around whether anyone was aware of anyone who had died in that flat doesn't seem to be a thorough eliminatory process.
I totally agree, Carana.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Brietta on September 20, 2014, 03:23:14 PM
No evidential reliability........Means it would not be accepted as evidence in a court of lawJust one example of the many on line concerning, unreliability of evidence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Excerpt:-
Under our recommendations, all four requirements in the statutory test would need to be satisfied, otherwise the evidence would be inadmissible . If the judge is satisfied that the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted, the trial would commence and the expert evidence would be adduced in the usual way. The expert witness would be challenged in cross-examination and no doubt contradicted by the adduction of contrary expert evidence. As well as discouraging the proffering of expert opinion evidence of doubtful reliability, our recommendations would deter dubious challenges to admissibility. It would ordinarily be for a partychallenging the admissibility of an expert’s opinion evidence to provide a coherent argument that the evidence is insufficiently reliable to be admitted. But where a challenge is well-founded, and it appears to the court that an expert’s opinion evidence might not be sufficiently reliable to be admitted, the party seeking to rely on the evidence would have to show that it is sufficiently reliableto be admitted. If the party proffering the evidence cannot show that it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted it will be inadmissible. Unreliable expert evidence would be kept from the jury, reducing the possibility of an erroneous verdict.http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc325_Expert_Evidence_Report.pdf
Thanks for looking that up for us, Anna.
My reading of it is that Martin Grime’s professional experience led him to the conclusion that the dogs’ work would not be admissible in a court of law. As an officer with many years’ experience of what is and what is not acceptable as evidence he was in the position to know. Pity people have disregarded what he had to say – particularly about the necessity to have ‘alerts’ corroborated by evidence - and have woven their own narrative around the videos of the dogs in action.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Anna on September 20, 2014, 03:30:25 PM
My reading of it is that Martin Grime’s professional experience led him to the conclusion that the dogs’ work would not be admissible in a court of law. As an officer with many years’ experience of what is and what is not acceptable as evidence he was in the position to know. Pity people have disregarded what he had to say – particularly about the necessity to have ‘alerts’ corroborated by evidence - and have woven their own narrative around the videos of the dogs in action.
You are welcome Brietta, It is indeed a shame that some will not pull the veil away from a reading of a particular book, to see the reality of the Alert meaning as told by M Grime. I guess they are set in what they believe and nothing will change that.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Angelo222 on September 20, 2014, 03:53:06 PM
The dog handler will have a dam good idea of what his dog is signalling.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2014, 03:54:53 PM
I would offer the suggestion that the refusal by T9 to do all and everything possible to assist the original investigation was suspicious in itself. I hope they can live with themselves.
Jez Wilkins also refused to take part in the reconstruction - does that also strike you as suspicious?
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 20, 2014, 05:11:39 PM
this sis what you posted,,,it seems you don't comprehend your own posts... The alert is indicative of cadaver scent contaminant. The alert on it’s own does not constitute evidence which will adequately stand up to cross examination in a court of law unless backed up by corroborative data". What may be inferred is that the alert is merely circumstantial evidence indicative of cadaver scent. Evidence has to stand up to scrutiny and cross examination to arrive at "beyond reasonable doubt"
As I correctly pointed out to you the alert is NOT circumstantial evidence ...circumstantial evidence is allowed in court...the alerts are not
Merciful heavens sir! You seem to have quite forgotten the title of your own thread. How unfortunate. Now remind me again what is the title of this thread? which it has to be said is a contrived misquote of what Mr Grime actually did say. Since the thread started metaphorically our ears have been assailed by your contention that yours is the only true interpretation, the being, the light. I have adequately demonstrated that is not so, I believe what Mr Grime said is quite clear in the context of what he was doing and what he was doing it for and it is clearly not that which you contend. Your MO of "I am right and all others are ESN" is wearing thin.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Angelo222 on September 20, 2014, 05:15:02 PM
Merciful heavens sir! You seem to have quite forgotten the title of your own thread. How unfortunate. Now remind me again what is the title of this thread? which it has to be said is a contrived misquote of what Mr Grime actually did say. Since the thread started metaphorically our ears have been assailed by your contention that yours is the only true interpretation, the being, the light. I have adequately demonstrated that is not so, I believe what Mr Grime said is quite clear in the context of what he was doing and what he was doing it for and it is clearly not that which you contend. Your MO of "I am right and all others are ESN" is wearing thin.
Gosh Alice you sure have a way with words at times.
Title: Re: What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 20, 2014, 05:22:40 PM
Merciful heavens sir! You seem to have quite forgotten the title of your own thread. How unfortunate. Now remind me again what is the title of this thread? which it has to be said is a contrived misquote of what Mr Grime actually did say. Since the thread started metaphorically our ears have been assailed by your contention that yours is the only true interpretation, the being, the light. I have adequately demonstrated that is not so, I believe what Mr Grime said is quite clear in the context of what he was doing and what he was doing it for and it is clearly not that which you contend. Your MO of "I am right and all others are ESN" is wearing thin.
My OT is not a misquote........the meaning is quite obvious...as evidence the alerts are unreliable...simple