Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

"Not and a blanket statement... No"

So you still believe Grime's opinion is that uncorroborated dog alerts cant be used as evidence even though you just read his own paper where he says they could?
Three times in Scotland at least. I have never claimed they have been used in England.
As asked before a long time ago, what reason did the SCRCC use to form this opinion, inadmissible? quality of evidence? which test cases did they use to form this opinion?
New evidence is still evidence.
What is your definition of a few, 3,5,10.20,50?

The point I'm making is Grime hasn't been consistent... In Luz he said they couldn't... He's now changed his mind... I think that rsises questions about his opinions credibility

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The point I'm making is Grime hasn't been consistent... In Luz he said they couldn't... He's now changed his mind... I think that rsises questions about his opinions credibility

Thank you for the admission that he has now changed his mind.
You can't really use him any more in your list of experts that believe that alerts are not evidence to be used in court though really can you? What about Harrison? what has he really said on the matter?

[Mr Gray]

Thank you for the admission that he has now changed his mind.
You can't really use him any more in your list of experts that believe that alerts are not evidence to be used in court though really can you? What about Harrison? what has he really said on the matter?

It's not an admission I've stated it several times Herrison hasn't given a further opinion.. Prof Casella has... And he is dismissive of uncorroborated alerts

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I told you why I bolded the word "entire" because that was your word, which I'm sure you used facetiously, or if not were certainly putting words into my mouth.  I hope you're not going to ask me why I bolded the word "your" now. 
Tell us why you think Grime isn't saying what (IMO) he is very clearly saying in that paragraph. 

ETA - I just read back your original post and you didn't use the word "entire" you used the word "all" so my apologies but pretty much the same difference, unless you want to get bogged down in another argument over semantics.

As you know this a white paper, white papers are mostly used to achieve “ proof of concept” going forwards in an organisation or quango. This white paper concerns how the training of dogs could be improved.
The aim of the document is forward looking and not the past. Of course the ideal situation is to use human remains to train dogs rather than animal remains, after all as he mentions we don't train explosive detection dogs on household cleaning materials but on explosives.
Things have obviously moved on since 2007 and he points out on page 132 that they have trained dogs to discriminate between humans and pigs. So if this is the case, here and now in the present a dog trained solely in this manner would be an improvement on a dog that alerts to both humans and pigs as did Eddie in 2007 and in fact all dogs trained in Europe up to now due to the ruling (2004) on the use of human remains. We have to accept that Eddie and all European dogs will alert to humans and pigs but he would like a situation going forward where the evidence is more robust, where dogs are only trained on human remains hence he ventures the ideas outlined in pages 129-145 concerning scent pads and STU units to train dogs and pages 146-151 concerning Forensic Cemetery Research Facilities as he concedes on page 95 that it is unlikely that there will ever be a situation where you could legally acquire human remains for the purpose of training dogs.
 
More to follow

[Vertigo Swirl]

As you know this a white paper, white papers are mostly used to achieve “ proof of concept” going forwards in an organisation or quango. This white paper concerns how the training of dogs could be improved.
The aim of the document is forward looking and not the past. Of course the ideal situation is to use human remains to train dogs rather than animal remains, after all as he mentions we don't train explosive detection dogs on household cleaning materials but on explosives.
Things have obviously moved on since 2007 and he points out on page 132 that they have trained dogs to discriminate between humans and pigs. So if this is the case, here and now in the present a dog trained solely in this manner would be an improvement on a dog that alerts to both humans and pigs as did Eddie in 2007 and in fact all dogs trained in Europe up to now due to the ruling (2004) on the use of human remains. We have to accept that Eddie and all European dogs will alert to humans and pigs but he would like a situation going forward where the evidence is more robust, where dogs are only trained on human remains hence he ventures the ideas outlined in pages 129-145 concerning scent pads and STU units to train dogs and pages 146-151 concerning Forensic Cemetery Research Facilities as he concedes on page 95 that it is unlikely that there will ever be a situation where you could legally acquire human remains for the purpose of training dogs.
 
More to follow

Really, unless you've discovered something in this text which states Grime's' opinion that despite acknowledging that Eddie alerting to both humans and animal matter, his alerts in PdL can be taken as wholly reliable indicators of human cadaver odour then I don't really see what more you can add which alters the thrust of my original point. 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

It's not an admission I've stated it several times Herrison hasn't given a further opinion.. Prof Casella has... And he is dismissive of uncorroborated alerts

You just can't say it can you? Grime has changed his opinion and uncorroborated dog alerts can be heard in court. You say this raises questions about his credibility. I say he is smart enough to see himself giving evidence of uncorroborated dog alerts and realises that his opinion in Luz was wrong. He would be an abject fool if he didn’t change his opinion after appearing several times himself, wouldn’t he?

[G-Unit]

You just can't say it can you? Grime has changed his opinion and uncorroborated dog alerts can be heard in court. You say this raises questions about his credibility. I say he is smart enough to see himself giving evidence of uncorroborated dog alerts and realises that his opinion in Luz was wrong. He would be an abject fool if he didn’t change his opinion after appearing several times himself, wouldn’t he?

It seems to rest on what 'corroboration' means. In my opinion it can mean enough circumstantial evidence to make the previous presence of a dead body more likely than not.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Really, unless you've discovered something in this text which states Grime's' opinion that despite acknowledging that Eddie alerting to both humans and animal matter, his alerts in PdL can be taken as wholly reliable indicators of human cadaver odour then I don't really see what more you can add which alters the thrust of my original point.

This bit is pertinent
 
“his alerts in PdL can’t be taken as wholly reliable indicators of human cadaver odour”
 
They can’t, I agree. They can’t be wholly reliable as solely human remains as they could be human or pig.
If we accept that fact, as we all have, with Eddies alerts and in fact all European dog alerts then nothing has changed. He would just like a situation where the pig could be eliminated from the alert. This would make much more robust evidence in a court. I have the feeling I won’t convince you but I have read all the document and when you read all of it and put it into context he is really not saying he doesn’t believe that his past alerts are unreliable just that he accepts they could be human or pig.
 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

It seems to rest on what 'corroboration' means. In my opinion it can mean enough circumstantial evidence to make the previous presence of a dead body more likely than not.

According to Grime’s paper they can be even less
 
"Human remains detection canines give positive responses which coincide with investigative, behavioural or intelligence related information."

But I don't want to fall into the trap of because Grime said it must be true, so I think you are probably right.
Each case is judged on its own merit.

[Vertigo Swirl]

This bit is pertinent
 
“his alerts in PdL can’t be taken as wholly reliable indicators of human cadaver odour”
 
They can’t, I agree. They can’t be wholly reliable as solely human remains as they could be human or pig.
If we accept that fact, as we all have, with Eddies alerts and in fact all European dog alerts then nothing has changed. He would just like a situation where the pig could be eliminated from the alert. This would make much more robust evidence in a court. I have the feeling I won’t convince you but I have read all the document and when you read all of it and put it into context he is really not saying he doesn’t believe that his past alerts are unreliable just that he accepts they could be human or pig.

I’m sorry but an alert by a cadaver dog trained to find dead humans that might have actually been an alert triggered by a dead pig cannot be considered reliable, no matter how you choose to read it. Otherwise you have simply comfirmed thst my original reading of the paper was absolutely correct.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I’m sorry but an alert by a cadaver dog trained to find dead humans that might have actually been an alert triggered by a dead pig cannot be considered reliable, no matter how you choose to read it. Otherwise you have simply comfirmed thst my original reading of the paper was absolutely correct.

But this is not new news is it, everyone knows that European dogs will alert to both.
This is a bit like doing a book dissertation where I have read the whole book and you have read a few sentences from the middle of the book. You don’t really have the context of the whole work.

[Vertigo Swirl]

But this is not new news is it, everyone knows that European dogs will alert to both.
This is a bit like doing a book dissertation where I have read the whole book and you have read a few sentences. You don’t really have the context of the whole work.

There’s no need to patronise me.  I do have the context of the whole work, I understand what you are saying, what I take issue with is the concept that a dog that could be alerting to either human cadaver or pig cadaver can be relied upon with no supporting  forensic evidence to have been alerting to human cadaver and not pig cadaver.  This being the case, the dog alerts in PdL cannot be said to be reliable. Grime acknowledges this. I don’t see how you could possibly argue otherwise frankly.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

There’s no need to patronise me.  I do have the context of the whole work, I understand what you are saying, what I take issue with is the concept that a dog that could be alerting to either human cadaver or pig cadaver can be relied upon with no supporting  forensic evidence to have been alerting to human cadaver and not pig cadaver.  This being the case, the dog alerts in PdL cannot be said to be reliable. I don’t see how you could possibly argue otherwise frankly.

 I am sorry you feel patronised, not sure why you do. The investigators would surely look at the probabilities that a pig carcass was present at any time compared to a person who is missing. Its all evidence.

[Mr Gray]

I am sorry you feel patronised, not sure why you do. The investigators would surely look at the probabilities that a pig carcass was present at any time compared to a person who is missing. Its all evidence.

Why a pig carcass... Why not a small piece of decomposing pork.. Or in Eddie case a tiny remnant of blood

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Why a pig carcass... Why not a small piece of decomposing pork.. Or in Eddie case a tiny remnant of blood

That would be for the investigators to weigh up and decide what they believed the source to be.