Zampo - The Full Story?

[The General]

You have failed to provide a cute on the other thread. I have already explained what my claim is based on. The report from the family and from the podcast featuring Prof Cassella

So what is the text of the Casella quote? I think I've debunked this once before, but I'm happy to do it again.
As a minimum, you failed to provide context, if memory serves.

[Mr Gray]

So what is the text of the Casella quote? I think I've debunked this once before, but I'm happy to do it again.
As a minimum, you failed to provide context, if memory serves.

The difference is I'm quite happy that others don't accept my views...I'm convinced the alerts were deemed inadmissible by the SCRCC....if others don't want to accept it that's fine...it's not important at all. ICHtt thinks he's a cog in a big machine...more of a sock in a washing machine...that sounds more than a bit odd and misguided to me

[G-Unit]

There is a limit to how far any member has to go to get a Cite.

let's have a bit of common sense, please.

If someone quotes a report common sense suggests they've read it. If they've read it then a cite shouldn't be beyond their ability to find.

[G-Unit]

So what is the text of the Casella quote? I think I've debunked this once before, but I'm happy to do it again.
As a minimum, you failed to provide context, if memory serves.

Casella is a forensic expert, not a legal expert so his views on what should be used in evidence are immaterial.

[Mr Gray]

Casella is a forensic expert, not a legal expert so his views on what should be used in evidence are immaterial.

his opinion as to what is reliable forensic evidence is totally valid....judges dont decide themselves...they take the advice of experts...you are totally mistaken. Who decided DNA was acceptable....the judge would take the advice of the scientists

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The difference is I'm quite happy that others don't accept my views...I'm convinced the alerts were deemed inadmissible by the SCRCC....if others don't want to accept it that's fine...it's not important at all. ICHtt thinks he's a cog in a big machine...more of a sock in a washing machine...that sounds more than a bit odd and misguided to me

LOL, you even misrepresent my idioms.
A small cog in a big machine doesn’t mean I think I am important it means the opposite.
From Longman Dictionary

"someone who only has a small unimportant job in a large organization"

The big machine is the world and I am an incidental small cog that has little significance to it. At least I recognize this fact, maybe some others don’t.

[Mr Gray]

LOL, you even misrepresent my idioms.
A small cog in a big machine doesn’t mean I think I am important it means the opposite.
From Longman Dictionary

"someone who only has a small unimportant job in a large organization"

The big machine is the world and I am an incidental small cog that has little significance to it. At least I recognize this fact, maybe some others don’t.

We have no significance in this case but I agree some think they do

[G-Unit]

his opinion as to what is reliable forensic evidence is totally valid....judges dont decide themselves...they take the advice of experts...you are totally mistaken. Who decided DNA was acceptable....the judge would take the advice of the scientists

Dog alerts are nothing to do with forensic evidence unless they find something which the scientists can test. The experts on dog alerts are those who train and handle the dogs.

[Mr Gray]

Dog alerts are nothing to do with forensic evidence unless they find something which the scientists can test. The experts on dog alerts are those who train and handle the dogs.

So you don't include Harrison... absolutely laughable

[G-Unit]

So you don't include Harrison... absolutely laughable

Including Casella is what is laughable.

[Mr Gray]

Including Casella is what is laughable.

Cassella is an expert on forensic evidence.  He's a scientist...he understands what passes  the test for evidence...Grime is a dog handler...and he is subject to confirmation bias.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Cassella is an expert on forensic evidence.  He's a scientist...he understands what passes  the test for evidence...Grime is a dog handler...and he is subject to confirmation bias.

What you always seem to ignore is that it is a matter of law what evidence is deemed to be admissible. It’s not the decision of police officers or University professors.

[The General]

Cassella is an expert on forensic evidence.  He's a scientist...he understands what passes  the test for evidence...Grime is a dog handler...and he is subject to confirmation bias.

Casella continues to use Harrison to collaborate on his studies, including using VRD dogs to successfully uncover a hitherto unidentified grave, the soil from which he used to conduct analysis.
So this pre-eminent scientist, as you quite rightly point out, is happy to include VRD dog handler techniques in the body of his soil sample reports, despite their apparent human shortcomings.

[Mr Gray]

What you always seem to ignore is that it is a matter of law what evidence is deemed to be admissible. It’s not the decision of police officers of University professors.

What you fail to understand is that it's what science backs the so called evidence to decide if it's admissible ..why are lie detectors not admissible...because the law listens to the scientific argument..

[Mr Gray]

Casella continues to use Harrison to collaborate on his studies, including using VRD dogs to successfully uncover a hitherto unidentified grave, the soil from which he used to conduct analysis.
So this pre-eminent scientist, as you quite rightly point out, is happy to include VRD dog handler techniques in the body of his soil sample reports, despite their apparent human shortcomings.

Of course he is...why ever should he not...cadaver dogs have an important role to play...but it's not the role most sceptics seem to think