Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Mr Gray]

we will compare the text.

Shoe me where grime mentions corroboration by witness statements in luz

[Robittybob1]

Shoe me where grime mentions corroboration by witness statements in luz

I have this sentence where he says "... corroboration by DNA etc...."  he didn't give us the list of things that corroborate an alert.  It is in the "ETC" bit.

[Mr Gray]

I have this sentence where he says "... corroboration by DNA etc...."  he didn't give us the list of things that corroborate an alert.  It is in the "ETC" bit.

Where does that quote come from..cite..I'm fairly sure that relates to the CSI dog

It's your opinion he's referring to witness statements.

[Mr Gray]

I have this sentence where he says "... corroboration by DNA etc...."  he didn't give us the list of things that corroborate an alert.  It is in the "ETC" bit.

Harrison who collaborated with grime says physical evidence

[Mr Gray]

  The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog


So Rob....what's your explanation for the above statement

[Robittybob1]

Where does that quote come from..cite..I'm fairly sure that relates to the CSI dog

It's your opinion he's referring to witness statements.

Its in Grime's rogatory interview.   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
"They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. 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.

[Mr Gray]

Its in Grime's rogatory interview.   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
"They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. 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.

how can dna corroborate an evrd alert when it is impossible to tell if the dna is from a live or dead person..

Grime is talking about both dogs...then talks of dna etc...very imprecise

[Mr Gray]

The Redwine case is the latest in the US to allow alert evidence...starts in september. should be interesting as there is a real scientist giving evidence for the defence.

An expert for the defense, Mary Cablk, has testified that dogs can be unreliable and removed remains should not be detectable after one week.


It would be interseting to see on what evidence her claims are made ......the alerts in Luz were  after 3 months

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

how can dna corroborate an evrd alert when it is impossible to tell if the dna is from a live or dead person..

Grime is talking about both dogs...then talks of dna etc...very imprecise

It is the role of forensic scientists to evaluate the evidence and Grime has always said so. It is very unfair to try to discredit him, IMO. To establish why MM DNA was in the car (had that been the case) they would test scientifically certain theories. i.e. Was it from a hair brush? Or a sandal? Also what was in the car with MM's DNA hypothetically speaking but wasn't in Apartment 4G? This would be another hypothesis that scientists could evaluate. It will be just the same in the Jos Brech case. His defence will undoubtedly seek to dispute DNA evidence. They have already claimed that DNA could have been innocently transferred - that it doesn't prove that Brech is linked to Nicky Verstappen's death. I'm sure other forensic scientists for the prosecution will try to show how the DNA evidence is damning.

[Mr Gray]

It is the role of forensic scientists to evaluate the evidence and Grime has always said so. It is very unfair to try to discredit him, IMO. To establish why MM DNA was in the car (had that been the case) they would test scientifically certain theories. i.e. Was it from a hair brush? Or a sandal? Also what was in the car with MM's DNA hypothetically speaking but wasn't in Apartment 4G? This would be another hypothesis that scientists could evaluate. It will be just the same in the Jos Brech case. His defence will undoubtedly seek to dispute DNA evidence. They have already claimed that DNA could have been innocently transferred - that it doesn't prove that Brech is linked to Nicky Verstappen's death. I'm sure other forensic scientists for the prosecution will try to show how the DNA evidence is damning.

i dont think its all wrong to question Grime....the point im making is that Grime seems to have changed his postion dramatically in what constitutes corroboration......with no real explanation as to why. There was no mention of anectdotal witness statements in LUz...the emphasis was on physical remains.

It will be interesting to see what the expert says in the redwine case as to how long the scent of death lasts as a remnant scent...

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

i dont think its all wrong to question Grime....the point im making is that Grime seems to have changed his postion dramatically in what constitutes corroboration......with no real explanation as to why. There was no mention of anectdotal witness statements in LUz...the emphasis was on physical remains.

It will be interesting to see what the expert says in the redwine case as to how long the scent of death lasts as a remnant scent...

All I have ever seen Grime say (or write) is that the dogs are highly skilled in alerting to what they have been trained to alert to. This alert, he tells us, is just an indicator. It helps a team of scientists recover material for examination and interpretation. That's all he has ever said as far as what I have seen, and this is exactly what happened in the McCann case.

[Mr Gray]

All I have ever seen Grime say (or write) is that the dogs are highly skilled in alerting to what they have been trained to alert to. This alert, he tells us, is just an indicator. It helps a team of scientists recover material for examination and interpretation. That's all he has ever said as far as what I have seen, and this is exactly what happened in the McCann case.

thats what he said in Luz...he nows says something different. He sees the alerts themselves as evidence if they are corroborated by anectdotal witness statements

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

thats what he said in Luz...he nows says something different. He sees the alerts themselves as evidence if they are corroborated by anectdotal witness statements

Well I agree that they are certainly worth considering. We've been "considering" the Keela and Eddie alerts for years!

Here's a hypothetical situation.... If I was on a jury and watched E&K's 17 alerts which were indicators towards only items relating to the McC's ... and the FSS said there were 15 DNA markers but that possible contamination meant it was "too complex for meaningful interpretation"..... and then a witness said(hypothetically speaking) "I saw one of the parents walk quickly towards the beach carrying a lifeless body" ..... In that situation I'd be certainly considering that amount of circumstantial evidence. It wouldn't, for me, pass the test of beyond all reasonable doubt though.

Also surely Grime knows that hearsay is not admissible as evidence in court? Or by "anecdotal" do you mean first hand accounts given in court by the person who saw or heard something?

[Mr Gray]

Well I agree that they are certainly worth considering. We've been "considering" the Keela and Eddie alerts for years!

Here's a hypothetical situation.... If I was on a jury and watched E&K's 17 alerts which were indicators towards only items relating to the McC's ... and the FSS said there were 15 DNA markers but that possible contamination meant it was "too complex for meaningful interpretation"..... and then a witness said(hypothetically speaking) "I saw one of the parents walk quickly towards the beach carrying a lifeless body" ..... In that situation I'd be certainly considering that amount of circumstantial evidence. It wouldn't, for me, pass the test of beyond all reasonable doubt though.

Also surely Grime knows that hearsay is not admissible as evidence in court? Or by "anecdotal" do you mean first hand accounts given in court by the person who saw or heard something?

Ive already suggested what you have posted...if that evidence was presented to a hostile court in portugal the Mccanns would be convicted...but the "evidence " is total bull

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Ive already suggested what you have posted...if that evidence was presented to a hostile court in portugal the Mccanns would be convicted...but the "evidence " is total bull

Evidence is evidence... it's what it is... It's up to lawyers to argue about what it means... and up to lay people to decide which side of the debate they believe.... what it isn't is "total bull". That is meaningless. What do you actually mean? Is it "total bull" that the dogs alerted? Is it "total bull" that human material was collected where the CSI dog alerted? Is it "total bull" that the FSS said some of the DNA collected had 15 DNA markers of MM but that a conclusive interpretation was not possible?