What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"

[Carana]

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?

You've misquoted my previous post, but never mind.

I disagree that they wouldn't have tried to clear the ground under their feet. It makes no sense to me. They could have found evidence that any of the T9 were guilty of whatever crime and presented their findings to the CPS. As could the PT authorities. And whatever the rumours about difficulties between the police forces, so far, this hasn't happened.

[Anna]

No evidential reliability........Means it would not be accepted as evidence in a court of lawJust one example of the many on line concerning, unreliability of evidence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt:-

Under our recommendations, all four requirements in the statutory test would need to be satisfied,
otherwise the evidence would be inadmissible
. If the judge is satisfied that the evidence is
sufficiently reliable to be admitted, the trial would commence and the expert evidence would be
adduced in the usual way. The expert witness would be challenged in cross-examination and no
doubt contradicted by the adduction of contrary expert evidence.
As well as discouraging the proffering of expert opinion evidence of doubtful reliability, our
recommendations would deter dubious challenges to admissibility. It would ordinarily be for a partychallenging the admissibility of an expert’s opinion evidence to provide a coherent argument that
the evidence is insufficiently reliable to be admitted. But where a challenge is well-founded, and it
appears to the court that an expert’s opinion evidence might not be sufficiently reliable to be
admitted, the party seeking to rely on the evidence would have to show that it is sufficiently reliableto be admitted. If the party proffering the evidence cannot show that it is sufficiently reliable to be
admitted it will be inadmissible. Unreliable expert evidence would be kept from the jury, reducing
the possibility of an erroneous verdict.http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc325_Expert_Evidence_Report.pdf

[Anna]

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.

I totally agree, Carana.

[Brietta]

No evidential reliability........Means it would not be accepted as evidence in a court of lawJust one example of the many on line concerning, unreliability of evidence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt:-

Under our recommendations, all four requirements in the statutory test would need to be satisfied,
otherwise the evidence would be inadmissible
. If the judge is satisfied that the evidence is
sufficiently reliable to be admitted, the trial would commence and the expert evidence would be
adduced in the usual way. The expert witness would be challenged in cross-examination and no
doubt contradicted by the adduction of contrary expert evidence.
As well as discouraging the proffering of expert opinion evidence of doubtful reliability, our
recommendations would deter dubious challenges to admissibility. It would ordinarily be for a partychallenging the admissibility of an expert’s opinion evidence to provide a coherent argument that
the evidence is insufficiently reliable to be admitted. But where a challenge is well-founded, and it
appears to the court that an expert’s opinion evidence might not be sufficiently reliable to be
admitted, the party seeking to rely on the evidence would have to show that it is sufficiently reliableto be admitted. If the party proffering the evidence cannot show that it is sufficiently reliable to be
admitted it will be inadmissible. Unreliable expert evidence would be kept from the jury, reducing
the possibility of an erroneous verdict.http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc325_Expert_Evidence_Report.pdf

Thanks for looking that up for us, Anna.

My reading of it is that Martin Grime’s professional experience led him to the conclusion that the dogs’ work would not be admissible in a court of law. 
As an officer with many years’ experience of what is and what is not acceptable as evidence he was in the position to know.   
Pity people have disregarded what he had to say – particularly about the necessity to have ‘alerts’ corroborated by evidence - and have woven their own narrative around the videos of the dogs in action.

[Anna]

Thanks for looking that up for us, Anna.

My reading of it is that Martin Grime’s professional experience led him to the conclusion that the dogs’ work would not be admissible in a court of law. 
As an officer with many years’ experience of what is and what is not acceptable as evidence he was in the position to know.   
Pity people have disregarded what he had to say – particularly about the necessity to have ‘alerts’ corroborated by evidence - and have woven their own narrative around the videos of the dogs in action.

You are welcome Brietta,
  It is indeed a shame that some will not pull the veil away from a reading of a particular book, to see the reality of the Alert meaning as told by M Grime. I guess they are set in what they believe and nothing will change that.

[Angelo222]

The dog handler will have a dam good idea of what his dog is signalling.

[Mr Gray]

The dog handler will have a dam good idea of what his fog is signalling.

a damn good idea isn't good enough..Grime could have said in his opinion the dog WAS alerting to....he didnt

[stephen25000]

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

 

[Angelo222]

a damn good idea isn't good enough..Grime could have said in his opinion the dog WAS alerting to....he didnt

He will be saving that one for a rainy day in Portugal.

[John]

He will be saving that one for a rainy day in Portugal.

They must be few and far between?   

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

Jez Wilkins also refused to take part in the reconstruction - does that also strike you as suspicious?

[Alice Purjorick]

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

Merciful heavens sir! You seem to have quite forgotten the title of your own thread. How unfortunate.
Now remind me again what is the title of this thread? which it has to be said is a contrived misquote of what Mr Grime actually did say. Since the thread started metaphorically our ears have been assailed by your contention that yours is the only true interpretation, the being, the light. I have adequately demonstrated that is not so, I believe what Mr Grime said is quite clear in the context of what he was doing and what he was doing it for and it is clearly not that which you contend.
Your MO of "I am right and all others are ESN" is wearing thin.

[Angelo222]

Jez Wilkins also refused to take part in the reconstruction - does that also strike you as suspicious?

Yes and disgracefully too.

[Angelo222]

Merciful heavens sir! You seem to have quite forgotten the title of your own thread. How unfortunate.
Now remind me again what is the title of this thread? which it has to be said is a contrived misquote of what Mr Grime actually did say. Since the thread started metaphorically our ears have been assailed by your contention that yours is the only true interpretation, the being, the light. I have adequately demonstrated that is not so, I believe what Mr Grime said is quite clear in the context of what he was doing and what he was doing it for and it is clearly not that which you contend.
Your MO of "I am right and all others are ESN" is wearing thin.

Gosh Alice you sure have a way with words at times.

[Alfred R Jones]

Yes and disgracefully too.

So what do you suspect him of, exactly?