Anectdotal witness evidence

[Mr Gray]

Harrison attributes the word confirm to Grime, it's hearsay by Harrison.
In the 2 instances where Grime mentions the words anecdotal witness evidence/statements he uses the words support and corroborate he never associates the word confirm with anecdotal evidence
This thread is about the usage of the words anecdotal evidence stop try to deflect and distract.

By the way what is my bankrupt claim? Is it that corroboration means  “confirm or give support to”.?

It's a bankrupt claim that Grime means support when he talks of corroboration

[Icanhandlethetruth]

It's a bankrupt claim that Grime means support when he talks of corroboration

I am sorry but this getting ridiculous now, I have posted several times the exact definition of corroboration if you can't understand it its not my problem

the word corroborate means “confirm or give support to”.

Do you need me to define the word "or"?

[Mr Gray]

I am sorry but this getting ridiculous now, I have posted several times the exact definition of corroboration if you can't understand it its not my problem

the word corroborate means “confirm or give support to”.

Do you need me to define the word "or"?

You haven't.. You've provided two definitions of corroboration..
Support and confirm are not the same

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You haven't.. You've provided two definitions of corroboration..
Support and confirm are not the same

That's the magic of language, lots of words have two meanings, you have chosen to believe that Grime means confirm when he says corroborate.
But in the context of anecdotal evidence he first mentions it in 2007 and expressly uses the words “support” not confirm. Then in the white paper when he speaks of anecdotal evidence he uses the word corroborate. So, as there is no consensus about the definition of the word corroborate, let's use his statement from 2007 where he uses the word “support”. There is no way that “support” means “confirm” is there?

[Mr Gray]

That's the magic of language, lots of words have two meanings, you have chosen to believe that Grime means confirm when he says corroborate.
But in the context of anecdotal evidence he first mentions it in 2007 and expressly uses the words “support” not confirm. Then in the white paper when he speaks of anecdotal evidence he uses the word corroborate. So, as there is no consensus about the definition of the word corroborate, let's use his statement from 2007 where he uses the word “support”. There is no way that “support” means “confirm” is there?

Busy at the moment... Be prepared to be blown out if the water.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Busy at the moment... Be prepared to be blown out if the water.

I am on the edge of my seat.

[Mr Gray]

I am on the edge of my seat.

what do you understand from this statement made by Grime re the2007 alerts


Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

[Mr Gray]

Getting on toward 15 yrs later Grime and his dogs still cause angst among supporters , you have to wonder why when Wolters has CB as a nailed on one that dunnit.

the  alerts dont cause any angst at all......i just like pointing out the rubbish spouted by those  who beleive them

[Icanhandlethetruth]

what do you understand from this statement made by Grime re the2007 alerts


Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

There is little point in looking at a 30 word paragraph without taking into context the many thousands of words Grime gave to the PJ in 2007, so to add context let's remember the statement

Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.

So from this statement we can recognise that Grime knows there are two types of evidence that can support a dog alert with no obvious remains, the first is forensic the other is witness accounts, with this in mind let’s look at the statement.

He states “human remains” so is obviously talking about forensic evidence, then with the CSI dog alerts he knows that forensic evidence has been recovered as he was there when the CSI team and Jonathon Smith took the swab samples.
So what I take from the statement is the only alerts that may be corroborated forensically are the CSI dogs alerts, what's your take on it?

[Mr Gray]

There is little point in looking at a 30 word paragraph without taking into context the many thousands of words Grime gave to the PJ in 2007, so to add context let's remember the statement

Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.

So from this statement we can recognise that Grime knows there are two types of evidence that can support a dog alert with no obvious remains the first is forensic the other is witness accounts, with this in mind let’s look at the statement.

He states “human remains” so is obviously talking about forensic evidence, then with the CSI dog alerts he knows that forensic evidence has been recovered as he was there when the CSI team and Jonathon Smith took the swab samples.
So what I take from the statement is the only alerts that may be corroborated forensically are the CSI dogs alerts, what's your take on it?

The problem with Grime and Harrison is that they have contradicted themselves... Imi that's because using the alerts as intelligence and evidence was a new idea that hadn't been properly thought through.

Grime in the statement I've made says "the only alerts that may become corroborated are the CSI... Making it clear that only physical evidence can corroborate the cadaver alerts.


What witness statement can you think of that would corroborate the alert.. The Smith statement perhaps.  For me that weakens even more the value of the alerts.  Surely the fact tha Maddir is missing supports the alerts... So they were corroborated in your vuew before 3 months before they arrived.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The problem with Grime and Harrison is that they have contradicted themselves... Imi that's because using the alerts as intelligence and evidence was a new idea that hadn't been properly thought through.

Grime in the statement I've made says "the only alerts that may become corroborated are the CSI... Making it clear that only physical evidence can corroborate the cadaver alerts.


What witness statement can you think of that would corroborate the alert.. The Smith statement perhaps.  For me that weakens even more the value of the alerts.  Surely the fact tha Maddir is missing supports the alerts... So they were corroborated in your vuew before 3 months before they arrived.

The thing that is clearly stated, with no room for misunderstanding by any person with a reasonable understanding of English is his statement

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

supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.

So I don’t know why you say he makes it clear that only physical evidence can corroborate the cadaver alerts when he states 2 types of evidence can, forensic evidence or anecdotal witness accounts. To me he is clearly referring to forensic evidence. There is no contradiction.

If a witness were to testify that they saw a young girl (who has disappeared) go into a neighbours house where an alert was made, but they never saw them leave this would support the evidence of the alert.

[Mr Gray]

The thing that is clearly stated, with no room for misunderstanding by any person with a reasonable understanding of English is his statement

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

supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.

So I don’t know why you say he makes it clear that only physical evidence can corroborate the cadaver alerts when he states 2 types of evidence can, forensic evidence or anecdotal witness accounts. To me he is clearly referring to forensic evidence. There is no contradiction.

If a witness were to testify that they saw a young girl (who has disappeared) go into a neighbours house where an alert was made, but they never saw them leave this would support the evidence of the alert.

So does the fact that Maddie disappeared support the alerts in 5a

[Icanhandlethetruth]

So does the fact that Maddie disappeared support the alerts in 5a

I don't believe Martin Grimes usage of the words "anecdotal witness account" would encompass the fact that Maddie has disappeared. His words would suggest he needs an actual statement that may support the alerts.
But as I keep saying courts don't even need such a statement, they allow uncorroborated dog alerts.

[Mr Gray]

[quote author=Icanhandlethetruth link=topic=12284.msg673260#msg673260

If a witness were to testify that they saw a young girl (who has disappeared) go into a neighbours house where an alert was made, but they never saw them leave this would support the evidence of the alert.
[/quote]

So if a witness confirmed Maddie entered 5a then was never seen again that would support an alert... In Grimes opinion

[Icanhandlethetruth]

[quote author=Icanhandlethetruth link=topic=12284.msg673260#msg673260

If a witness were to testify that they saw a young girl (who has disappeared) go into a neighbours house where an alert was made, but they never saw them leave this would support the evidence of the alert.


So if a witness confirmed Maddie entered 5a then was never seen again that would support an alert... In Grimes opinion

I did say a neighbours house, not the house where she was residing at the time.