So what is the evidence for abduction?

[Gildas]

Usually Mr Grime's reports would not be made public in the way they have been.  Would I be right in thinking that dog handlers usually work below the radar in Britain and are seldom called to give evidence in court?

I bet he could not have foreseen his official report being posted on the internet and dissected as it has been.

I think it is a mark of his professionalism that he gave textbook answers covering every point made.
I have never seen any criticism or error pointed out in what Mr Grime says in his report ... but I have seen a lot of misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

I remain unimpressed by the videos though

Brietta,

I think you may have missed an early post of mine.

 Mr Moderator had posted the following;

"The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known.  Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value."

I asked Mr Moderator for a link, but he did not provide one.

As far as I can see, Mr Grimes used the term "evidential reliability" and not "evidential value".

[Brietta]

His response in his rogatory interview to the question put to him about the apparent alert of Eddie to cuddle-cat was the antithesis of professional, or textbook.

I have missed that, ferryman, I will check it out.

I was totally not impressed by Eddie and CC in the video ... and there are huge gaps in my knowledge, so thank
you.

[Air Con]

Let's see what we have so far.  Evidence (not proof) which can point to abduction can include...


* The wide open window and raised shutter.

Sorry, must have missed this bit.

Is there any evidence, let alone proof, of this?

[John]

Mr Moderator,

Thank you for your reply.

When I checked Mr Grimes report, I found that this is what he states about the alerts:

"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."

In this statement, he uses the word "reliability" not "value".

That's correct, Martin never uses the term 'evidential value' but refers to the dog alerts as having no evidential reliability.

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

[Carana]

That's correct, Martin never uses the term 'evidential value' but refers to the dog alerts as having no evidential reliability.

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

That boils down to "maybe" and "maybe not", doesn't it?

At the time of the 5A inspection, there may have been a possibility that the air-borne scent could have come from a physical presence in, or near, the premises, e.g., attic, cellar, garden. As the footage has been edited, there's no way of knowing whether the question was raised, nor whether such checks had been made or not.

[Mr Gray]

That's correct, Martin never uses the term 'evidential value' but refers to the dog alerts as having no evidential reliability.

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

Does it make any difference...the meaning is clear although somw will not accept it

[Fern]

"Child abduction or child theft is the unauthorized removal of a minor (a child under the age of legal adulthood) from the custody of the child's natural parents or legally appointed guardians."


The OP requests 'evidence of an abduction', not an 'abductor' but the actual physical act of an 'abduction'.

In general, what possible evidence does the physical act of an abduction leave apart from the fact that a child is missing ?

Remember, the OP is asking for evidence of an 'abduction' and not of an 'abductor'.

[a.baker]

Archiving report states 'No evidence of any crime' As 'abduction' is obviously a crime,it has been confirmed that there is NO 'evidence' of it. Its really not that hard to understand!

[Gildas]

Does it make any difference...the meaning is clear although somw will not accept it

Does it make a difference, Davel? Well, you seem to think so. This is what you said about it:

"The key word is certainly value...with evidential being the adjective to describe value...so Grime effectively said the alerts, by themselves, had no value."

[Fern]

Archiving report states 'No evidence of any crime' As 'abduction' is obviously a crime,it has been confirmed that there is NO 'evidence' of it. Its really not that hard to understand!

Are you referring to this ? If so, lets look at what the archiving report says and then refer back to your comment;

'Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
 
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
 
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
 
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
 
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
 
Portimão, 21.07.08'


Having read the above extract from the archiving file, is it not evident to you that the Republic's Prosecutor José de Magalhães e Menezes, is referring to the former 'arguidos' ie Rob Murat and McCanns rather than an 'abduction' ?
 

[jassi]

"Child abduction or child theft is the unauthorized removal of a minor (a child under the age of legal adulthood) from the custody of the child's natural parents or legally appointed guardians."


The OP requests 'evidence of an abduction', not an 'abductor' but the actual physical act of an 'abduction'.

In general, what possible evidence does the physical act of an abduction leave apart from the fact that a child is missing ?

Remember, the OP is asking for evidence of an 'abduction' and not of an 'abductor'.

I would have thought that technically, a child could be missing without being abducted. There might be no evidence pointing to indicate the cause.

[Mr Gray]

I would have thought that technically, a child could be missing without being abducted. There might be no evidence pointing to indicate the cause.

thats why there is evidence of abduction but no proof

[jassi]

thats why there is evidence of abduction but no proof

Remind me what that evidence is, please.

[Mr Gray]

Remind me what that evidence is, please.

we have been over this several times and its all on this thread...best just read back..the important thing is to understand the difference between evidence and proof

[Carana]

Possibly not the right thread as I can't find the post on the burglar issue. From memory, it was that a seasoned burglar would wear gloves and, therefore, even in the event of an accidental death due to stopping her shouting, the burglar did not have to worry about DNA and so the idea of removing a body is not logical.

I see a problem with that idea.

Burglars wear gloves to avoid leaving identifiable fingerprints. Why wouldn't there be DNA on the gloves?