Brietta posted:
"Martin Grime said 'suggestive of cadaver odour' to be determined by forensic testing"
According to the archived documents held by the court, Document Ref No(201/07.0GALGS, p. 2477). Mr Grime's report said:
"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 how 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"
I would suggest finding out precisley what the law means by corroborating evidence before saddling up.
When where and how did "corroborating evidence" morph into "to be determined by forensic testing".
It's only about the third time I have asked in as many weeks. It really isn't too difficult to understand.
The trick is spotting the bit where the two texts are at variance.
That is exactly the reason I started that thread asking about "corroborating evidence".
It was in Martin Grimes rogatory where he said:
"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "
Because the PJ seem to focus on the finding of DNA one is lead to understand that corroborating evidence was going to be DNA. (which is found by forensic analysis).
I can see how one gets sidetracked into thinking only forensics will solve the issue as to whether the alerts were really to a cadaver or not.
What do you include in the set called "corroborating evidence" then?
