The timeline revisited

[Eleanor]

What was he actually doing for a 3rd of a year then?

Doing things for Harper that he wasn't qualified to do.

He was also moved into a better hotel that the Enquiry paid for.

[Mr Gray]

I have watched the videos and, just like other posters, I'm not qualified to reach conclusions about them.

If you think eddie has never made a false alert you are not qualified to comment

[G-Unit]

You dint need any qualifications to see grime calling eddie back.. Nor to see the posters in the Renault... Nor to see Eddie did not alert to CC... Etc etc

As you aren't qualified to comment, your insinuations are merely the opinions of an 'armchair detective' and not worthy of notice imo.

[Mr Gray]

As you aren't qualified to comment, your insinuations are merely the opinions of an 'armchair detective' and not worthy of notice imo.

As you are woefully,  woefully  misinformed and ignorant Re the actual facts about the alerts.. As you falsely believe eddie has never had a false alert.... Your opinion is totally worthless. It's just basically laughable.. Typical sceptic ignorance imo

[Vertigo Swirl]

As you aren't qualified to comment, your insinuations are merely the opinions of an 'armchair detective' and not worthy of notice imo.

Your opinions are merely those of an armchair detective too, but the way you educate and lecture us anyone would think you were some sort of leading authority of all matters.  Give it a rest girl!

[Brietta]

I have watched the videos and, just like other posters, I'm not qualified to reach conclusions about them.

I think you are proving that other posters may possess more analytical skills than you and can recognise a pup when they see one.

It is interesting that you don't trust the evidence of your eyes despite ~

• watching the evidential videos which were taken as a record of the occasion??? - despite the time and date stamp being missing
• your opinion that you are not "qualified" to reach conclusions

I think you are evidencing a wee bit of denial there 🤣 and your readiness to accept your qualification across the board to voice opinion on everything else - dare I say it, probably even by implication, Eddie's alerts.

[G-Unit]

I think you are proving that other posters may possess more analytical skills than you and can recognise a pup when they see one.

It is interesting that you don't trust the evidence of your eyes despite ~

• watching the evidential videos which were taken as a record of the occasion??? - despite the time and date stamp being missing
• your opinion that you are not "qualified" to reach conclusions

I think you are evidencing a wee bit of denial there 🤣 and your readiness to accept your qualification across the board to voice opinion on everything else - dare I say it, probably even by implication, Eddie's alerts.

My opinion, which you seem to have missed, is that I have no idea whether the dogs were handled correctly because I'm not a dog handler. There has been much speculation about the right and wrong way to handle CSI dogs, but in the end that's all it amounts to.

[Mr Gray]

My opinion, which you seem to have missed, is that I have no idea whether the dogs were handled correctly because I'm not a dog handler. There has been much speculation about the right and wrong way to handle CSI dogs, but in the end that's all it amounts to.

It's not about handling the dogs it's about evidence supporting the value of the alerts. Evidence is evidence and some people understand how to value it... It's part of my education and skill set.. Perhaps its not yours.
I'm perfectly qualified to value the alerts as evidence

[Brietta]

My opinion, which you seem to have missed, is that I have no idea whether the dogs were handled correctly because I'm not a dog handler. There has been much speculation about the right and wrong way to handle CSI dogs, but in the end that's all it amounts to.

I haven’t missed posts like the one above in which you abrogate all responsibility of the sceptic tenets which shape the basis of your comments.
My opinion of that is that you do not have the courage of your conviction and there can be only one reason for that.

[G-Unit]

I haven’t missed posts like the one above in which you abrogate all responsibility of the sceptic tenets which shape the basis of your comments.
My opinion of that is that you do not have the courage of your conviction and there can be only one reason for that.

I've got no idea what 'sceptic tenets' are. I speak as I find, and having examined Grime, his work, his evidence and his career minutely (due to supporters being obsessed with it all), I can find nothing to arouse my suspicions. Baseless mud-slinging abounds, but there's no evidence.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I've got no idea what 'sceptic tenets' are. I speak as I find, and having examined Grime, his work, his evidence and his career minutely (due to supporters being obsessed with it all), I can find nothing to arouse my suspicions. Baseless mud-slinging abounds, but there's no evidence.

It’s a bit rich to say supporters are “obsessed with it all” when the only reason Grime and his dogs are still being discussed 14 years later is because sceptics think his dogs are evidence of McCann involvement when clearly to anyone that actually matters they are not.  The world has moved on, sceptics have not, and cling to their “Dogs Don’t Lie” mantra for comfort.

[Mr Gray]

I've got no idea what 'sceptic tenets' are. I speak as I find, and having examined Grime, his work, his evidence and his career minutely (due to supporters being obsessed with it all), I can find nothing to arouse my suspicions. Baseless mud-slinging abounds, but there's no evidence.

You may have examined it but not understood it. To claim Eddie has never given a false alert shows your total ignorance.  I have found s lot to question...and all my claims criticising the value if the alerts are supported by evidence.

Your naive view is we cannot question grime because he isvan exoert is ridiculous.  Experts are not always right

[Mr Gray]

I've got no idea what 'sceptic tenets' are. I speak as I find, and having examined Grime, his work, his evidence and his career minutely (due to supporters being obsessed with it all), I can find nothing to arouse my suspicions. Baseless mud-slinging abounds, but there's no evidence.

Grimed claim that the akertd can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence is logically and scientifically absurd.. That is not opinion it is fact.  If Grime truly believes that then it undermines his whole credibility. Again.. Fact not opinion

[The General]

Grimed claim that the akertd can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence is logically and scientifically absurd.. That is not opinion it is fact.  If Grime truly believes that then it undermines his whole credibility. Again.. Fact not opinion

Dog alerts.
No body found.
Body found elsewhere.
Killer caught.
Killer confirms body was in place where dog alerted.

Would you like some examples? I'll provide cites where you never do.
Have you emailed Martin yet, or are you worried he won't understand your typing?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Dog alerts.
No body found.
Body found elsewhere.
Killer caught.
Killer confirms body was in place where dog alerted.

Would you like some examples? I'll provide cites where you never do.
Have you emailed Martin yet, or are you worried he won't understand your typing?

Then there’s the example of “killer” confessing, leading them to the kill site, dog alerting multiple times, then it turns out the “killer” made the whole thing up.