Why People who suspect the McCanns get so angry at People who do not.

[slartibartfast]

Shame you continually avoid the opnion of the expert..Grime

I think you confuse evidence and Legally Admissible Evidence. All he says is that the law requires corroborating evidence.

[Mr Gray]

I think you confuse evidence and Legally Admissible Evidence. All he says is that the law requires corroborating evidence.

 I don't confuse anything...evidence is evidence...he doesn't even mention the law

[pathfinder73]

"In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated
 assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.
 These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I
 introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the
 animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet
 cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from
 scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of
 human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train'
 the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be
 possible in the future."

"'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
 operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
 specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption."

"SUMMARY

 The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
 Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
 locate human remains or Human blood.

 The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
 alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

 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.

 My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
 suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
 suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
 number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
 reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
 corroborating evidence."

[Lace]

"In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated
 assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.
 These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I
 introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the
 animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet
 cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from
 scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of
 human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train'
 the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be
 possible in the future."

"'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
 operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
 specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption."

"SUMMARY

 The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
 Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
 locate human remains or Human blood.

 The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
 alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

 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.

 My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
 suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
 suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
 number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
 reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
 corroborating evidence."

Nothing is done to a pork joint it is just frozen then we buy it and eat it.

Grime also says the decomposition of a body starts IMMEDIATELEY  so if you have a pork joint,  a cadaver dog will smell it.    ANY dog will smell it.

In my opinion the only difference between a cadaver dog and any old dog,  is that the best breed of dog is chosen to be trained.    The dog is trained to obey a signal to seek out the smell,   it is trained NOT to dig or disturb the evidence just to bark when the evidence is found.

Eddie picked the clothes up in his mouth,   that is not what a cadaver dog should do.

[Wonderfulspam]

Nothing is done to a pork joint it is just frozen then we buy it and eat it.

Grime also says the decomposition of a body starts IMMEDIATELEY  so if you have a pork joint,  a cadaver dog will smell it.    ANY dog will smell it.

In my opinion the only difference between a cadaver dog and any old dog,  is that the best breed of dog is chosen to be trained.    The dog is trained to obey a signal to seek out the smell,   it is trained NOT to dig or disturb the evidence just to bark when the evidence is found.

Eddie picked the clothes up in his mouth,   that is not what a cadaver dog should do.

Maybe the scent of pork on the childs shirt made him hungry.

[pathfinder73]

Lace, I'm not wasting my time with idiotic responses. Eddie alerted to 5A inside and outside, the car and the clothes. Eddie barked and alerted to human cadaver odour from a human that has disappeared and hasn't been seen since.

[Rogerandout]

That statement is incorrect.

There is circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. The two versions are very different and as such, for the purposes of prosecution varying degrees of weight are placed on each.

Circumstantial evidence in this instance could be the scent of death detecting that a body has been present. Direct evidence would be the dog alerting to the scent of death upon which at a later date the body is found. Just because the dog alerts to the scent of death does not mean that the body was not there. It just carries less weight because it is clearly more difficult to prove which body was present.

Edit: Pathfinder just beat me to it but in much more detail 

I think you are confused.

"Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Direct+Evidence


In logical terms, direct evidence is a piece of information which (if true) commands a conclusion. If the evidence E is correct, Outcome O is proved.

Indirect evidence (circumstantial) is a piece of information which only suggests that (if true) a certain conclusion may be the case- it makes possible but does not command.

Dog Alerts can never be direct evidence even when confirmed by forensics.

F or instance in a certain case there was a dog alert, it was in error about the location, but a body had been present elsewhere.

It would not be possible for a dog alert to be direct evidence because there cannot be an impeccable logical connection between the information and the outcome, only a suggested, possible one.

[Rogerandout]

Lace, I'm not wasting my time with idiotic responses. Eddie alerted to 5A inside and outside, the car and the clothes. Eddie barked and alerted to human cadaver odour from a human that has disappeared and hasn't been seen since.

You do understand that Eddie alerts to blood as well as cadaver. Blood that may have come from a still living person.

[Redblossom]

Nothing is done to a pork joint it is just frozen then we buy it and eat it.

Grime also says the decomposition of a body starts IMMEDIATELEY  so if you have a pork joint,  a cadaver dog will smell it.    ANY dog will smell it.

Oh not this hogwash again!

- Eddie does not alert to food, never has done
- To suggest nothng is done to meat to process it for human consumption is ridiculous
- A joint of ham does not smell like a decomposed body!
- Clutchhg at straws comes to mind

eta

- Eddie cant tell the difference between the scent of a decomposed pig and the scent of a decomposed human.....because they are so similar....thats all....nothng to do with food at all

[Lace]

Lace, I'm not wasting my time with idiotic responses. Eddie alerted to 5A inside and outside, the car and the clothes. Eddie barked and alerted to human cadaver odour from a human that has disappeared and hasn't been seen since.

If you thought my response was too idiotic for a response then why respond?

I'll tell you why,  you don't like hearing something you don't want to hear.    Eddie cannot tell the difference between the smell of pork and human flesh.

   

[pathfinder73]

If you thought my response was too idiotic for a response then why respond?

I'll tell you why,  you don't like hearing something you don't want to hear.    Eddie cannot tell the difference between the smell of pork and human flesh.

"There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however
 see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat
 foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response. "

Read the report:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Rogerandout]

"There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however
 see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat
 foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response. "

Read the report:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

But he also clearly says that Eddie reacted to burnt pork elsewhere.

Some problem here?

[Rogerandout]

Oh not this hogwash again!

- Eddie does not alert to food, never has done
- To suggest nothng is done to meat to process it for human consumption is ridiculous
- A joint of ham does not smell like a decomposed body!
- Clutchhg at straws comes to mind

eta

- Eddie cant tell the difference between the scent of a decomposed pig and the scent of a decomposed human.....because they are so similar....thats all....nothng to do with food at all

Grime says that Eddie reacted to burnt Pork.

[Lace]

Oh not this hogwash again!

- Eddie does not alert to food, never has done
- To suggest nothng is done to meat to process it for human consumption is ridiculous
- A joint of ham does not smell like a decomposed body!
- Clutchhg at straws comes to mind

Ham is processed meat I am talking about  a fresh joint of pork.

[Rogerandout]

Get real this has no relevance to the case. Eddie alerted to human cadaver odour.

Possibly. Or blood. or in error, or pork?