Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Robittybob1]

When you make a post like that it makes me realise I shouldn't bother to reply to any of your posts

When was the last time you saw a frog?   I'd be happy to see a frog with a sore leg.  They have just about become extinct in NZ. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

The dogs alerted to objects that were not in 5A. They picked out a certain item of clothing, for example.

Besides Grime has absolutely nothing to gain from encouraging the dog to randomly bark in suspects property.

He said he did it consciously?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

He said he did it consciously?

He couldn’t direct the dogs as far as the clothes go... and how did he direct Keela in the car? Trying to totally discredit the dogs isn’t the best way to defend the parents, IMO.

[Robittybob1]

He said he did it consciously?

Is that a question or a questionable statement of fact?

[Robittybob1]

"The weight of evidence of "detection canine responses" is wholly dependent upon corroboration."  Page #47/187

[Robittybob1]

Martin Grime said:  "To my knowledge a victim has never been found alive in a case where the author's VRD team has provided a related final response."

The DNA found in the apartment did not prove to be Madeleine's. She may be still alive but "the victim" is definitely thought to be dead.  Page  #48/187.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is that a question or a questionable statement of fact?

it’s a typo, I meant to write “who” not “he”.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He couldn’t direct the dogs as far as the clothes go... and how did he direct Keela in the car? Trying to totally discredit the dogs isn’t the best way to defend the parents, IMO.

I’m not trying to totally discredit the dogs but if the parents aren’t involved (which even you must admit is a possibility) then understanding how and why the dog alerts may not have the last word on the matter is worth exploring.  If you disagree do explain why please.

[Robittybob1]

it’s a typo, I meant to write “who” not “he”.

You mean:  "Who said he did it consciously?"  OK that is a fair question.

[Robittybob1]

" Canine responses that are initially categorised as "intelligence may, with reliable corroboration, be put to jurors in criminal trial following judicial review of competency of the handler /canine team."  Page #55/187

[Mr Gray]

Martin Grime said:  "To my knowledge a victim has never been found alive in a case where the author's VRD team has provided a related final response."

The DNA found in the apartment did not prove to be Madeleine's. She may be still alive but "the victim" is definitely thought to be dead.  Page  #48/187.

From a scientific point of view what grime is saying is risible.
It is equivalent saying a person has smoked 60 cigarettes a day and has not had any illness

[Mr Gray]

" Canine responses that are initially categorised as "intelligence may, with reliable corroboration, be put to jurors in criminal trial following judicial review of competency of the handler /canine team."  Page #55/187

This is the point I'm making. .it's a seismic shift to what he and Harrison said in Luz. His white paper shows no new studies or evidence to support this change.

[Robittybob1]

This is the point I'm making. .it's a seismic shift to what he and Harrison said in Luz. His white paper shows no new studies or evidence to support this change.

I think you are wrong.  It is much the same in both situations.  I have transcribed the text from portions of the white paper.  Howabout you finding the text that makes you think they are different?
And we will put them side by side.

[Mr Gray]

I think you are wrong.  It is much the same in both situations.  I have transcribed the text from portions of the white paper.  Howabout you finding the text that makes you think they are different?
And we will put them side by side.

It's totally different

Grime does not mention corroboration by witness statements in luz

[Robittybob1]

It's totally different

we will compare the text.