Zampo - The Full Story?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

No I don’t believe you are trying to mislead anyone, just from what you wrote it sounded to me like Zampo failed to alert to a pit full of human remains.

OK fair enough, as I said it was just a passing point in the narrative I didn’t deem it to be pivotal, but I can see how you came to your judgement.

[Vertigo Swirl]

OK fair enough, as I said it was just a passing point in the narrative I didn’t deem it to be pivotal, but I can see how you came to your judgement.

The thing with VRD dogs is that they are trained to find human remains.  Had Zampo found human remains as he did in the experiment then he would have fulfilled his function perfectly, so what if there were a few false alerts along the way.  Where it becomes more problematic is when using dogs to discover if a body had ever been in a location, there the training and the assessment of the efficacy of the dogs is wide open for debate imo.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The thing with VRD dogs is that they are trained to find human remains.  Had Zampo found human remains as he did in the experiment then he would have fulfilled his function perfectly, so what if there were a few false alerts along the way.  Where it becomes more problematic is when using dogs to discover if a body had ever been in a location, there the training and the assessment of the efficacy of the dogs is wide open for debate imo.

I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.

[Eleanor]

I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.

Often incorrectly.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Often incorrectly.

Perhaps, I suppose it depends which side of the fence you are sitting on.

[Eleanor]

Perhaps, I suppose it depends which side of the fence you are sitting on.

Oh, absolutely.  But what has that got to do with anything?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.

yes, opinions were formed in the case of Thomas Quick and look where that led.

[Mr Gray]

I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.

dog alerts are not EVIDENCE of anything and any conclusion based on the false assumption they are is flawed...thts not opinion its fact

[Brietta]

I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.

I think taking it as intelligence indicating the need for further investigation is fine.  Taking it as opinion forming is naive and unprofessional, in my opinion.

[The General]

I think taking it as intelligence indicating the need for further investigation is fine.  Taking it as opinion forming is naive and unprofessional, in my opinion.

Agreed.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

dog alerts are not EVIDENCE of anything and any conclusion based on the false assumption they are is flawed...thts not opinion its fact

Davel, I have already given up trying to convince you that dog alerts are evidence on the other thread. I realised it was a futile task akin to Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill. I know that whatever I have ever said, or whatever I will ever say you will never accept that dog alerts are used as evidence in a Court of Law.
Even if by some black magic I found video footage of Martin Grime giving evidence in a US court in 2012 concerning uncorroborated alerts by one of his VRD dogs in a murder case you would counter that they are still not to be used as evidence as Martin Grime said this to be so in 2007.

So I won’t try to persuade you that they are evidence and you really don’t need to try and persuade me. But I can’t stop you of course.

[Mr Gray]

Davel, I have already given up trying to convince you that dog alerts are evidence on the other thread. I realised it was a futile task akin to Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill. I know that whatever I have ever said, or whatever I will ever say you will never accept that dog alerts are used as evidence in a Court of Law.
Even if by some black magic I found video footage of Martin Grime giving evidence in a US court in 2012 concerning uncorroborated alerts by one of his VRD dogs in a murder case you would counter that they are still not to be used as evidence as Martin Grime said this to be so in 2007.

So I won’t try to persuade you that they are evidence and you really don’t need to try and persuade me. But I can’t stop you of course.

You say the dog alerts are used as evidence in a court of law... I would say that is a misleading statement and suggest you know that.
I believe Grime has appeared once in court Re the alerts..
I believe they have been oredented once in Scotland as evidence... And later the SCCRC said they.should not have been admitted.  That does not fit your description so my claim that you are trying to mislead is valid.
According to Grime and Harrison and Cassella the alerts are not evidence unless corroborated.  I could go into detail about why they were admitted in the US.... Again in error imo...
They are being challenged again in the Redwine case

[Mr Gray]

Davel, I have already given up trying to convince you that dog alerts are evidence on the other thread. I realised it was a futile task akin to Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill. I know that whatever I have ever said, or whatever I will ever say you will never accept that dog alerts are used as evidence in a Court of Law.
Even if by some black magic I found video footage of Martin Grime giving evidence in a US court in 2012 concerning uncorroborated alerts by one of his VRD dogs in a murder case you would counter that they are still not to be used as evidence as Martin Grime said this to be so in 2007.

So I won’t try to persuade you that they are evidence and you really don’t need to try and persuade me. But I can’t stop you of course.

The reason you have had difficulty is because the alerts are not evidence... Simple

[pathfinder73]

You say the dog alerts are used as evidence in a court of law... I would say that is a misleading statement and suggest you know that.
I believe Grime has appeared once in court Re the alerts..
I believe they have been oredented once in Scotland as evidence... And later the SCCRC said they.should not have been admitted.  That does not fit your description so my claim that you are trying to mislead is valid.
According to Grime and Harrison and Cassella the alerts are not evidence unless corroborated.  I could go into detail about why they were admitted in the US.... Again in error imo...
They are being challenged again in the Redwine case

Mark Redwine will be convicted and the dog evidence will be corroborated. He will never confess like Eugene Zapata.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The reason you have had difficulty is because the alerts are not evidence... Simple

That's one way of looking at it, another would be that you have such an entrenched and dogmatic belief that dog alerts are not evidence that you are prepared to ignore and disregard the empirical evidence that exists.