What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"

[pathfinder73]

We know the original botched case was shelved.  Surprised you haven't noticed the new ones being worked by the PJ and the Met ... both forces having exonorated Madeleine McCann's parents and their friends after examining the evidence which allowed them to reopen Madeleine's case.

Madeleine: Top policeman inisists McCanns are 'victims not suspects'
By SAM GREENHILL

Last updated at 14:17 02 September 2007

Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".

"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.

"I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the same as what Redwood said.

[Mr Gray]

Madeleine: Top policeman inisists McCanns are 'victims not suspects'
By SAM GREENHILL

Last updated at 14:17 02 September 2007

Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".

"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.

"I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the same as what Redwood said.

This statement was made by a travelling group of clowns posing as police officers who oversaw the original investigation...the investigation is now underway with a proper police force

[Eleanor]

Back On Topic, please.

[Angelo222]

This statement was made by a travelling group of clowns posing as police officers who oversaw the original investigation...the investigation is now underway with a proper police force

A travelling group of clowns??  Is that what you really think of Leicestershire Police and the Met?  tut tut Mr Davel.

[Carana]

Most people unfamiliar with Portuguese Law still fail to comprehend the meaning of arguido status.  All it really confers is the right of suspects to have a lawyer present when questioned.

Some members wrongly believe that suspending the arguido status is proof that a suspect has been cleared, something which could not be further from the truth.

Hmmm. I'd agree that arguido status seems to be misunderstood and that the media doesn't help.

I disagree with "suspending the arguido status". The arguido status was lifted because the investigation was suspended. Anyone, whether a former arguido or a new suspect, can be constituted as an arguido (either by the "suspect's" choice - if granted - or by imposition) if new evidence comes to light that makes it preferable or required for the purposes of questioning that could lead to potential self-incrimination up until the end of the prescription of the crime. As the nature of the crime has not been determined, I presume that the case has been left open under the maximum prescription possible.

Redwood has stated that the none of the T9 were either persons of interest or suspects in their investigation, and the PT authorities appear to have said roughly the same thing (a statement has been quoted on here somewhere to that effect). I find it totally illogical that the Met would not have cleared the ground under their feet regarding the T9 prior launching their investigation.

The PT side can only reopen an investigation if there is new credible and relevant evidence that may help to resolve the case. PT did relaunch their own investigation, but whatever evidence or credible leads that was based on doesn't appear to involve the T9 or Murat.

If that situation were to change, i.e., if new credible and relevant evidence leading to founded suspicions that any former arguido could be involved, then the former arguido could be reconstituted as an arguido, just as anyone could be as a new one.

It was reported in the media that there are new arguidos in this case, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. So far, it seems to have been in response to the UK's request to interview certain people either for the first time or in more depth in order to clarify certain points.

The tabloids immediately jumped to the conclusion that there were going to be imminent arrests, which is silly. The arguido status may have been imposed as part of a bureaucratic system in the light of a transnational investigation, or the defence lawyers may have requested it on behalf of the interviewees.

[Alice Purjorick]

Your proposition is not plausible..you say evidence has to prove beyond reasonable doubt whilst the dog's in only circumstantial..wrong I am afraid as I'm sure you will agree...circumstantial evidence is allowed in court...the alerts are not...accused have been found guilty on circumstantial evidence......

I commend you for  at least trying to defend the dogs when no one else has but it must be difficult when grime himself doubts the meaning of the alerts

Now you are being silly in the extreme. By your first statement you failed signally to comprehend what I said.
When you can comprehend what I said you will understand that I merely rewrote Martin Grimes statement using English definitions and synonyms for the key words which showed that Grime meant what he said. You have a fixed interpretation to suit your own thesis, from which you will not prised whatever the argument.
Your post is pretty much a smoke mirrors attempt to create a diversion.
You need to watch out for rabbit holes good sir.

[Angelo222]

Hmmm. I'd agree that arguido status seems to be misunderstood and that the media doesn't help.

I disagree with "suspending the arguido status". The arguido status was lifted because the investigation was suspended. Anyone, whether a former arguido or a new suspect, can be constituted as an arguido (either by the "suspect's" choice - if granted - or by imposition) if new evidence comes to light that makes it preferable or required for the purposes of questioning that could lead to potential self-incrimination up until the end of the prescription of the crime. As the nature of the crime has not been determined, I presume that the case has been left open under the maximum prescription possible.

Redwood has stated that the none of the T9 were either persons of interest or suspects in their investigation, and the PT authorities appear to have said roughly the same thing (a statement has been quoted on here somewhere to that effect). I find it totally illogical that the Met would not have cleared the ground under their feet regarding the T9 prior launching their investigation.

The PT side can only reopen an investigation if there is new credible and relevant evidence that may help to resolve the case. PT did relaunch their own investigation, but whatever evidence or credible leads that was based on doesn't appear to involve the T9 or Murat.

If that situation were to change, i.e., if new credible and relevant evidence leading to founded suspicions that any former arguido could be involved, then the former arguido could be reconstituted as an arguido, just as anyone could be as a new one.

It was reported in the media that there are new arguidos in this case, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. So far, it seems to have been in response to the UK's request to interview certain people either for the first time or in more depth in order to clarify certain points.

The tabloids immediately jumped to the conclusion that there were going to be imminent arrests, which is silly. The arguido status may have been imposed as part of a bureaucratic system in the light of a transnational investigation, or the defence lawyers may have requested it on behalf of the interviewees.

Carana surely you're not so naive as to believe that Redwood is showing all his cards?

[Angelo222]

Your proposition is not plausible..you say evidence has to prove beyond reasonable doubt whilst the dog's in only circumstantial..wrong I am afraid as I'm sure you will agree...circumstantial evidence is allowed in court...the alerts are not...accused have been found guilty on circumstantial evidence......

I commend you for  at least trying to defend the dogs when no one else has but it must be difficult when grime himself doubts the meaning of the alerts

I don't believe for a minute he does doubt the meaning of the alerts but being the true professional he can only report evidence as unreliable in the absence of other corroborating evidence.

[John]

The nature of the crime is unknown.

So all cards are still on the table. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

Correct, detectives will always keep their options open until such time as someone confesses or proof is found which identifies the perpetrators or absolves others.  No such proof has been found in this case but I am open to suggestions.

[Angelo222]

Correct, detectives will always keep their options open until such time as someone confesses or proof is found which identifies the perpetrators or absolves others.  No such proof has been found in this case but I am open to suggestions.

I would offer the suggestion that the refusal by T9 to do all and everything possible to assist the original investigation was suspicious in itself. I hope they can live with themselves.

[Carana]

Carana surely you're not so naive as to believe that Redwood is showing all his cards?

I never said that.

In fact, what I said was:

The PT side can only reopen an investigation if there is new credible and relevant evidence that may help to resolve the case. PT did relaunch their own investigation, but whatever evidence or credible leads that was based on doesn't appear to involve the T9 or Murat.

If that situation were to change, i.e., if new credible and relevant evidence leading to founded suspicions that any former arguido could be involved, then the former arguido could be reconstituted as an arguido, just as anyone could be as a new one.

Can you provide a logical explanation as to why the Met and the PT authorities would not have cleared the ground under their feet prior to this new effort to resolve the case?

[Carana]

I don't believe for a minute he does doubt the meaning of the alerts but being the true professional he can only report evidence as unreliable in the absence of other corroborating evidence.

In the UK, even assuming that the dog could have correctly alerted to a familiar smell (whatever that may have actually been), there would presumably have been a thorough investigation into any possible innocent or irrelevant explanations. Casually asking around whether anyone was aware of anyone who had died in that flat doesn't seem to be a thorough eliminatory process.

[Angelo222]

I never said that.

In fact, what I said was:
Can you provide a logical explanation as to why the Met and the PT authorities would not have cleared the ground under their feet prior to this new effort to resolve the case?

I don't believe for a minute that they have cleared the ground under their feet.  The Met in particular are grasping at straws and scratching about for anything and anyone who will help in the end to justify the expenditure in this case.  It isn't about finding Maddie any more is it?

[Mr Gray]

Now you are being silly in the extreme. By your first statement you failed signally to comprehend what I said.
When you can comprehend what I said you will understand that I merely rewrote Martin Grimes statement using English definitions and synonyms for the key words which showed that Grime meant what he said. You have a fixed interpretation to suit your own thesis, from which you will not prised whatever the argument.
Your post is pretty much a smoke mirrors attempt to create a diversion.
You need to watch out for rabbit holes good sir.

this sis what you posted,,,it seems you don't comprehend your own posts...
The alert is indicative of cadaver scent contaminant.
The alert on it’s own does not constitute evidence which will adequately stand up to cross examination in a court of law unless backed up by corroborative data".
What  may be inferred is that the alert is merely circumstantial evidence indicative of cadaver scent.
Evidence has to stand up to scrutiny and cross examination to arrive at "beyond reasonable doubt"

As I correctly pointed out to you the alert is NOT circumstantial evidence ...circumstantial evidence is allowed in court...the alerts are not

[Mr Gray]

I don't believe for a minute he does doubt the meaning of the alerts but being the true professional he can only report evidence as unreliable in the absence of other corroborating evidence.

that's right...the alerts are unreliable as evidence