Poll

What do you think

They are useless, no point bringing them in
1 (33.3%)
Confused about them overall
0 (0%)
Not confused about them but dont think their alerts around the Mccanns means anything
0 (0%)
Not confused about them but think there is suspicion about them alerting to the Mccanns and  nobody else
1 (33.3%)
Not confused about them and think Eddie alerted to a dead body in flat 5a
1 (33.3%)
Confused Or Not confused about them and think Eddie alerted to innocuous substances in flat 5a
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 1

Author Topic: Re the dogs in this case  (Read 869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re the dogs in this case
« on: April 28, 2013, 07:45:09 PM »
just wondering

registrar

  • Guest
Re: Re the dogs in this case
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2013, 07:51:11 PM »
memo to oneself

must do a poll re. whether Grime should have made  90 thousand  - for finding a piece of coconut shell in Jersey
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 07:54:08 PM by registrar »

Offline gilet

Re: Re the dogs in this case
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2013, 08:33:25 PM »
I think it highly amusing that others criticise a poll which offers a full range of options in a scientific way and this one then appears.

The option that there should be no confusion is not there.

It was Martin Grime who gave us the clearest indication of the dogs' abilities. He said that their alerts were not evidential without forensic corroboration. So I believe that this option is missing from your poll...

  • I am not confused. I know that dogs (both trained and untrained) will alert to many things but I know those alerts are not evidential without corroboration.


That option has one vote. Mine.