The timeline revisited

[Mr Gray]

Having not even looked at this site for 4 months I had a few spare minutes so thought I would look to see if Davel had received an early Xmas present of CB being charged yet, but alas no, they are still in the evidence gathering phase it seems.

Then I see this post and realise it's still the same horseshit that is being posted. This is why laymen shouldn’t pontificate on subjects that they have no background or experience in.
A scent dog at an airport is doing a blind screen search, it is not led by intelligence to target a specific person or area, a cadaver dog search is normally intelligence lead and the dogs are searching for something that may or may not be in the search area, hence blind screen dogs are kept on leads and cadaver dogs search off lead and are given freedom to explore the area thoroughly. To equate the two types of search as being no different from each other shows a lack of understanding in just how different types of police dogs operate.

You can keep saying that Eddie’s searches were suspect but realise, this is only your opinion nothing else.  It is also just my opinion that the searches were done correctly as I am not an expert dog handler either, but as we both lack qualifications or experience in this matter the best course of action would be to follow the qualified experts that carried out or observed said searches and have not opined that they were suspect or corrupt. Or maybe not?

I'm more than happy to follow the qualified experts... No inference. Should be drawn from the alerts... The alerts have no evidential value or reliability... Hows thst for starters

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I'm more than happy to follow the qualified experts... No inference. Should be drawn from the alerts... The alerts have no evidential value or reliability... Hows thst for starters

But here is the problem, you are following the words of experts in one field that are proclaiming about things that pertain to another field.
These are dog handlers not experts on what can be used as evidence in a court of law.
Listen to the experts in matters of law who have admitted such alerts to be heard in a court of Law, ie the judges that have, in at least England, Scotland and USA and probably more countries that we don’t know about.

[Mr Gray]

But here is the problem, you are following the words of experts in one field that are proclaiming about things that pertain to another field.
These are dog handlers not experts on what can be used as evidence in a court of law.
Listen to the experts in matters of law who have admitted such alerts to be heard in a court of Law, ie the judges that have, in at least England, Scotland and USA and probably more countries that we don’t know about.

Your post is total rfubbish. the Judge decides what evidence can be admittede based on expert advice.  judges take advice from experts in the field.

So you thinhk that if an expert  testified that no inference should be taken from an alert....that the alert needs to be corroborated  with forensic evidence....do you think the judge would admit it.

Could you cite the english one again....as ive said before. cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged...same as LCN DNA.


from what i can see in the US its being admitted on the back of trail dog evidence...its not the same

[faithlilly]

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

“ The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search."

That’s exactly what Grime was doing.

[Mr Gray]

my view on Grime and the alerts.

firstly it was Grime and harrison who came up with the idea of using alerts as intelligence in 2005. therefore in 2007 it was in its infancy and im not sure Grime or Harrison fully understood the implications of what they were proposing. that would expalin harrisons contradiction as no inference .....may indicate  abody has been present.

in 2007 the judge in the Zapata case referred to it as a new type of evidence. Grime has now changed his mind from 2007 to say that the alert can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence...logically thats plain daft as anectdotal evidence corrobortaes nothing.

In 2007 grime decide he would rertire and start a new business re the cadaver dogs so the relevance and performance of the dogs were critical to his new business success. Thats called aconflict of interest


In luz grime carried out intelligence led searches. he knew there was mor chance of finding evidence from McCann associated items than others.
In the the raprtments and cars it was a blind search and thats why he skated through them .

In%a he knew tahts wher ehe might find evidence....alll this is fact but my opinion is he tried to hard to make sure he didnt mis anything. Thats why he spent longer and called the dogs back...all fact......opinion..he tried too hard.

So the reason the dogs alerted to things mcann was because Grime tried harder in these areas and didnt want to miss anything.   This is nothing new from me ive posted it several times...an intelligence led search as opposed to a blind search for the other apts and cars.


the fact taht Grime tried so hard to find evidence and foyund nothing supports the view maddie did not die in the apt and the alerts are basically worthless

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Your post is total rfubbish. the Judge decides what evidence can be admittede based on expert advice.  judges take advice from experts in the field.

So you thinhk that if an expert  testified that no inference should be taken from an alert....that the alert needs to be corroborated  with forensic evidence....do you think the judge would admit it.

Could you cite the english one again....as ive said before. cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged...same as LCN DNA.


from what i can see in the US its being admitted on the back of trail dog evidence...its not the same

Provide a cite that states a judge must take expert advice before admitting evidence. He doesn’t. A judge can admit evidence based on previous case precedents.

Grime has said in written statements that no inference should be taken but he has been called as an expert witness many times. Now either the judge is unaware of Grimes previous statements, although the defence would be remiss not to raise them or it really is only up to the judge if they are admitted or not.

The case in England was Helen Bailey.

I presume when you say  “cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged” you mean pre trial rather than the trial itself in open court?

Is it your opinion that “cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged” or is it a fact that you could also provide a cite for.
 
LCN DNA was not admitted and then found it had not been robustly challenged so was admitted in error, it was found to be poor quality evidence during the Omagh trials. It was suspended then allowed again as evidence after a review. Please stick to the facts.

Its not admitted in the US on the back of anything, its admitted because the judges deems it to be evidence.

[Mr Gray]

“ The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search."

That’s exactly what Grime was doing.

thank heavens our resident dog handler expert has given us her opinion

[Mr Gray]

my informed opinion is that it doesnt matter how many times eddie was called back...it doesnt matter if Grime kicked him up the.....to make him alert. it doesnt matter at all. What amtters is the physical evidence recovered.....nothing...which equals the value of the alerts

[Icanhandlethetruth]

my view on Grime and the alerts.

firstly it was Grime and harrison who came up with the idea of using alerts as intelligence in 2005. therefore in 2007 it was in its infancy and im not sure Grime or Harrison fully understood the implications of what they were proposing. that would expalin harrisons contradiction as no inference .....may indicate  abody has been present.

in 2007 the judge in the Zapata case referred to it as a new type of evidence. Grime has now changed his mind from 2007 to say that the alert can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence...logically thats plain daft as anectdotal evidence corrobortaes nothing.

In 2007 grime decide he would rertire and start a new business re the cadaver dogs so the relevance and performance of the dogs were critical to his new business success. Thats called aconflict of interest


In luz grime carried out intelligence led searches. he knew there was mor chance of finding evidence from McCann associated items than others.
In the the raprtments and cars it was a blind search and thats why he skated through them .

In%a he knew tahts wher ehe might find evidence....alll this is fact but my opinion is he tried to hard to make sure he didnt mis anything. Thats why he spent longer and called the dogs back...all fact......opinion..he tried too hard.

So the reason the dogs alerted to things mcann was because Grime tried harder in these areas and didnt want to miss anything.   This is nothing new from me ive posted it several times...an intelligence led search as opposed to a blind search for the other apts and cars.


the fact taht Grime tried so hard to find evidence and foyund nothing supports the view maddie did not die in the apt and the alerts are basically worthless

This again is your opinion about Harrison coming up with the idea based on a single paragraph in Martin Grimes white paper. I have pointed out the FBI had human scent trailing programs prior to this. Has Harrison ever claimed it, if not its hearsay.

Grime hasn’t changed his mind he says in his profile in the PJ files

 “Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are

supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.”

We have already covered the time spent in the apartment before the first alert. I believe it was 3mins 16 secs.

And of course the fly in the ointment for Grimes master plan to get more business for himself was what if the girl or body was found elsewhere.
And do you think he would try to coax false positives around the McCanns property by consciously spending more time there, so to get more business he was willing to through a young distressed couple under the bus so to speak.
Your theory has more holes than swiss cheese.

[Mr Gray]

Provide a cite that states a judge must take expert advice before admitting evidence. He doesn’t. A judge can admit evidence based on previous case precedents.  Before admission the judge would  look at the evidence supplied previously...he dosnt just amke the decision based on...well it was ok before. Alerts have been admitted very sparingly and not robustly challenged imo. It seems the defence teams are not fully aware of the facts

Grime has said in written statements that no inference should be taken but he has been called as an expert witness many times. Now either the judge is unaware of Grimes previous statements, although the defence would be remiss not to raise them or it really is only up to the judge if they are admitted or not.

i would say neither the judge nor the defence are aware

The case in England was Helen Bailey. ill have  alook at that

I presume when you say  “cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged” you mean pre trial rather than the trial itself in open court?

Is it your opinion that “cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged” or is it a fact that you could also provide a cite for.
 
LCN DNA was not admitted and then found it had not been robustly challenged so was admitted in error, it was found to be poor quality evidence during the Omagh trials. It was suspended then allowed again as evidence after a review. Please stick to the facts....lCN was admitted and when challenged the trial was stopped.....its allowed as evidence in the UK but very few other countries....in fact the dna evidence in this case would not be admissible in the portuguese cour
ts
Is not admitted in the US on the back of anything, its admitted because the judges deems it to be evidence.


ive seen trial reports where the judge refers to the precedent set by trail dogs

You may think my posts are not factual...you are wrong.  If wolters ghas the evidence he claims...if its shown Maddie did not die in the apt and was not transported in the car...what will that say for the reliability of the alerts

[Mr Gray]

This again is your opinion about Harrison coming up with the idea based on a single paragraph in Martin Grimes white paper. I have pointed out the FBI had human scent trailing programs prior to this. Has Harrison ever claimed it, if not its hearsay.

Grime hasn’t changed his mind he says in his profile in the PJ files

 “Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are

supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.”

We have already covered the time spent in the apartment before the first alert. I believe it was 3mins 16 secs.

And of course the fly in the ointment for Grimes master plan to get more business for himself was what if the girl or body was found elsewhere.
And do you think he would try to coax false positives around the McCanns property by consciously spending more time there, so to get more business he was willing to through a young distressed couple under the bus so to speak.
Your theory has more holes than swiss cheese.

in Luz Grime says supported not corroborated...stick to the facts


As for hs masterplan the more alerts made the more chance he has of hitting  atarget...thats how clairvoyents fool poeple..looks like you are easily fooled

[Icanhandlethetruth]

in Luz Grime says supported not corroborated...stick to the facts


As for hs masterplan the more alerts made the more chance he has of hitting  atarget...thats how clairvoyents fool poeple..looks like you are easily fooled

Those are his actual words that I copied and pasted from the PJ files, I am sticking to the facts.
You might think I am easily fooled (a bit rude!) but you don't fool me, you don't know as much as you like to think you do.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You may think my posts are not factual...you are wrong.  If wolters ghas the evidence he claims...if its shown Maddie did not die in the apt and was not transported in the car...what will that say for the reliability of the alerts

It's all conjecture, no facts. Your opinion is that Grime set out to coax alerts by spending more time in McCann places suggests a corrupt officer out for gain rather than truth.
If Wolters has the evidence it will show the alerts were all false. I have no problem with that, dogs can and do make false alerts, I have never said otherwise. But lets cross that bridge when we get to it shall we?

[Brietta]

I saw what you saw. I chose to accept the handler's explanation of what I saw, you chose to believe those who were not experienced dog handlers. It's difficult to accept that your choice was not biased by your views on the case.

I had been primed by sceptic hype and what I saw was not what I expected to see. 

I was astounded by what I saw.

My opinion was formed as a result of observation and the fact that I am not stupid.  So mark up yet another false premise to your score which must be getting very high by now.

[Mr Gray]

It's all conjecture, no facts. Your opinion is that Grime set out to coax alerts by spending more time in McCann places suggests a corrupt officer out for gain rather than truth.
If Wolters has the evidence it will show the alerts were all false. I have no problem with that, dogs can and do make false alerts, I have never said otherwise. But lets cross that bridge when we get to it shall we?

The fact is Grime called the dogs back to things McCann... That's factual not opinion.. You don't seem to understand the difference.  I'm reporting facts and you and gunit are suggesting the facts make him corrupt.
I think it's a high on certainty that Wolters has the evidence... Glad you agree thst would suggest all the alerts are false.