Anectdotal witness evidence

[G-Unit]

You ate not being fair... I am right.. Not may be right. As I said it would be impossible to clsim Eddie has never given a false positive.  Another thing I would vritiise grime for. Is not stopping these rumours by clarifying things.

Perhaps Grime had so much faith in his dogs he actually believes the mccanns are guilty. I was surprised to see something in his white paper which would support.. But not confirm this

As false positives are alerts to food items or roadkill, it can be claimed that Eddie never alerted to those items.

[Mr Gray]

No I think you may be right is accurate, as Grime doesn't cover Eddies success rate with unproductive alerts. It is an unknown equation.
But here is the difference between you and I, you have presented evidence that supports your claim that Grimes claim of no false alerts refers only to foodstuffs and I accept your evidence makes this the most likely case.
But however when you are presented with the irrefutable evidence that dog alerts have been heard in court in many cases in various countries your reply is well they were only admitted because they were not challenged.
You have no evidence this is the case but it is a mantra you have stuck by for the 2 years I have been here and before.

Do you not think I am perfectly entitled to the opinion that the alerts have been admitted because they have not been robustly challenged. You say they have been admitted in many cases.. One in England and a couple in Scotland. I have supplied evidence that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case so once again you are wrong.
LCN DNA was admitted until challenged and a full review held.  It was then allowed but it's reliability tarnished and is only accepted in less than a handful if countries.

Has any challenge ever raised the questions I have.  Harrison and Grimes statements in luz.  What experts in the Gilriy Cade were called to challenge it... If they had called prof Cassella.  Grimes academic lead I'm sure they would not have been admitted .
Mu claim they have not been robustly challenged is supported by evidence

[Mr Gray]

As false positives are alerts to food items or roadkill, it can be claimed that Eddie never alerted to those items.

So it's just the ciconut then.. That's food.

What's totally false us claims that Eddie hasn't been wrong in 200 cases.. Made by amaral and many sceptics

[Brietta]

Apartment 5 D

We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Do you not think I am perfectly entitled to the opinion that the alerts have been admitted because they have not been robustly challenged. You say they have been admitted in many cases.. One in England and a couple in Scotland. I have supplied evidence that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case so once again you are wrong.
LCN DNA was admitted until challenged and a full review held.  It was then allowed but it's reliability tarnished and is only accepted in less than a handful if countries.

Has any challenge ever raised the questions I have.  Harrison and Grimes statements in luz.  What experts in the Gilriy Cade were called to challenge it... If they had called prof Cassella.  Grimes academic lead I'm sure they would not have been admitted .
Mu claim they have not been robustly challenged is supported by evidence

Same old same old, you are entitled to your opinion on anything, its just in this case it totally ignores the evidence that is in front of you.
You always denied it had been used as evidence in England, now you accept it has, when did that change?
Heard at least once in England, at least 3 times in Scotland, at least 30 times in USA.

You have never provided any evidence that the SCCR said anything, just hearsay from a podcast based on the words of the relatives of the convicted man. I find usually the words of people closely related to a man convicted of murder are tainted by bias and self interest.

LCN was only ever used in a few countries, it was never found to be inadmissible evidence, just in one case deemed to be of poor quality and was reviewed before being found satisfactory for legal proceedings.

I still don’t know what your argument is about not challenged.
Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
When you say challenged do you mean pre court or during a court case.?

[Mr Gray]

Same old same old, you are entitled to your opinion on anything, its just in this case it totally ignores the evidence that is in front of you.
You always denied it had been used as evidence in England, now you accept it has, when did that change?
Heard at least once in England, at least 3 times in Scotland, at least 30 times in USA.

You have never provided any evidence that the SCCR said anything, just hearsay from a podcast based on the words of the relatives of the convicted man. I find usually the words of people closely related to a man convicted of murder are tainted by bias and self interest.

LCN was only ever used in a few countries, it was never found to be inadmissible evidence, just in one case deemed to be of poor quality and was reviewed before being found satisfactory for legal proceedings.

I still don’t know what your argument is about not challenged.
Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
When you say challenged do you mean pre court or during a court case.?

I have supplied evidence it should not have been admitted..
Youbsay it's hearsay.. But it's still evidence.
Stand corrected
Si four times in the UK.. Once in England and you desrube that as many.. It isnt
Stand corrected.

The LCN case shows although evidence is admitted it can be challenged at a later date
I maintain that no robust challenge has been made to the admissibility of cadaver alerts and have supplied evidence

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I have supplied evidence it should not have been admitted..
Youbsay it's hearsay.. But it's still evidence.
Stand corrected
Si four times in the UK.. Once in England and you desrube that as many.. It isnt
Stand corrected.

The LCN case shows although evidence is admitted it can be challenged at a later date
I maintain that no robust challenge has been made to the admissibility of cadaver alerts and have supplied evidence

Hearsay is now evidence is it. Where did you go to Law school?
You have supplied no evidence that there was no robust challenge. None. Not one piece of evidence. Nothing
I will repeat my question again so we can achieve some clarity,

Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
When you say challenged do you mean pre court or during a court case.?

[Mr Gray]

Hearsay is now evidence is it. Where did you go to Law school?
You have supplied no evidence that there was no robust challenge. None. Not one piece of evidence. Nothing
I will repeat my question again so we can achieve some clarity,

Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?
When you say challenged do you mean pre court or during a court case.?

What I believe is that  there is not enough scientific evidence to support their admission and certainly they have not been robustly challenged.
Hearsay evidence may not be admissible but it's, evidence.. Check your dictionary.
If I contacted Cassella and the, SCCRC and ibtaibed written statements.. Would that make any difference to you.. It wouldnt.
As someone trained in science.. As someone trained in the evaluation of evidence at Post Grad level... As someone who assesses evidence regularly.. Imo the alerts do not pass the reliability test

[Icanhandlethetruth]

What I believe is that  there is not enough scientific evidence to support their admission and certainly they have not been robustly challenged.
Hearsay evidence may not be admissible but it's, evidence.. Check your dictionary.
If I contacted Cassella and the, SCCRC and ibtaibed written statements.. Would that make any difference to you.. It wouldnt.
As someone trained in science.. As someone trained in the evaluation of evidence at Post Grad level... As someone who assesses evidence regularly.. Imo the alerts do not pass the reliability test

Its just your belief that they shouldn’t be allowed, only that. The truth is they are allowed but you just can’t bring yourself to admit it.

As someone trained in science you really should not put more weight on tainted hearsay evidence than the actual evidence that you see before your eyes when a case hears such evidence.

As I have already said it would make not one bit of difference what Cassella or the SCCRC say about dog alerts being evidence allowed in court, but get one of the 30 plus judges that have introduced dog alerts into murder cases and I will listen all day long.

We really could make progress and get some clarity if you answer if one part of my question

Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?

[Mr Gray]

Its just your belief that they shouldn’t be allowed, only that. The truth is they are allowed but you just can’t bring yourself to admit it.

As someone trained in science you really should not put more weight on tainted hearsay evidence than the actual evidence that you see before your eyes when a case hears such evidence.

As I have already said it would make not one bit of difference what Cassella or the SCCRC say about dog alerts being evidence allowed in court, but get one of the 30 plus judges that have introduced dog alerts into murder cases and I will listen all day long.

We really could make progress and get some clarity if you answer if one part of my question

Do you believe them to be absolutely inadmissible evidence, in that a law specifically prohibits their introduction in a court of law?

They are not specifically inadmissible and may never be so.
I've never claimed they are.
I would rather listen to those who are experts on the digs than judges.
Cassela says a reliable cadaver dog should only be trained on human tissue... Nothing.else.... And he, should know

[Icanhandlethetruth]

They are not specifically inadmissible and may never be so.
I've never claimed they are.
I would rather listen to those who are experts on the digs than judges.
Cassela says a reliable cadaver dog should only be trained on human tissue... Nothing.else.... And he, should know

So we agree that they are not specifically inadmissible . We agree that there is no law or statute that that prohibits their usage doing a trial. We agree that they have been admitted as evidence in at least 3 countries and at least 30 plus cases. We agree its only your belief that they shouldn't be admitted not an actual fact. What do we disagree on again?

[G-Unit]

Apartment 5 D

We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Interest, not an alert.

[Brietta]

Interest, not an alert.

He was unable to alert because it is rude not to tell lies with food in your mouth 🍗

[misty]

Grime used anecdotal evidence of Eddie's case work history to support his interpretation of Eddie's alerts in both Luz & Jersey. Based on the lack of alerts corroborated by tangible forensic evidence in the majority of those cases, it's almost impossible to place any real value on Eddie's alerts, either with or without separate anecdotal evidence. Even when bodies were later discovered the location of alerts did not necessarily result in a direct correlation between alerts & death.
IMO.

[Mr Gray]

So we agree that they are not specifically inadmissible . We agree that there is no law or statute that that prohibits their usage doing a trial. We agree that they have been admitted as evidence in at least 3 countries and at least 30 plus cases. We agree its only your belief that they shouldn't be admitted not an actual fact. What do we disagree on again?

We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen.. We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged.  We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..