What does Grime mean by "No evidential reliability"

[Anna]

Wrong.  The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation.  Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.

To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.

That goes for everyone, surely. Nobody has been cleared of involvement or accused of involvement, as it now stands.
There is no evidence ,as you rightly say, to suspect or clear anyone.
There was no proof of the allegations made by PJ, that were responsible for the mcCanns being made arquido and for this reason the status was lifted (made extinct)
Nobody will be cleared until the culprit is found.
Please feel free to correct, if am wrong
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child’s death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.


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
The above is an excerpt from the final judgement report by-

The Republic’s Prosecutor


(José de Magalhães e Menezes)

The Joint General Prosecutor

(signature)

(João Melchior Gomes)

[Carana]

Wrong.  The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation.  Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status.

No suspects have been 'cleared' in this case.

I find that misleading, John. You are correct that the investigation was time-limited once arguidos had been constituted. However, the status was lifted because there was no evidence (aside from uncorroborated barks from a dog) that could have led to charges against any of the three arguidos. There was nothing to even substantiate what type of crime had been committed, let alone who may have been responsible.

The group DID cooperate with the questioning via the ILORs. I do agree that the T7 were wary of returning to PT for a reconstruction, but so was Jez.

IMO, the reconstruction was a box-ticking exercise at that point - it wouldn't have led to charges nor exonerated anyone in that group. It would, however, have led to a new media frenzy of speculation. We have threads on the reconstruction topic so I don't propose to repeat the points here.

[Alfred R Jones]

Wrong.  The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation.  Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.

To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.

So they, like Murat, are still suspects are they?  Behave!

[Brietta]

Back at the ranch brietta ?

You mean back at the 'ranch mccann'.

Nothing has come to light in this case, other than the possible indications by the dogs of a dead body.

NOTHING AT ALL.

Not quite so Stephen.

Blood was found exactly where Eddie barked when the couch was moved to allow him access.
Keela confirmed it.
The FSS tested it - and remember, it had nothing to do with anyone in the McCann family or their friends.

You saying that Eddie would have been unable to smell the scent of that blood from anywhere in the apartment where it had decided to settle? or even from the blood spots we can see in photos from the files on the walls and curtains?
Not showing much faith in his nose then, are you?

[stephen25000]

Not quite so Stephen.

Blood was found exactly where Eddie barked when the couch was moved to allow him access.
Keela confirmed it.
The FSS tested it - and remember, it had nothing to do with anyone in the McCann family or their friends.

You saying that Eddie would have been unable to smell the scent of that blood from anywhere in the apartment where it had decided to settle? or even from the blood spots we can see in photos from the files on the walls and curtains?
Not showing much faith in his nose then, are you?

Just remind me in which other accommodation did the dogs give responses in ?

and then remind me where else the dogs gave indications other than the  in the vicinity of the couch ?

[Mr Gray]

Wrong.  The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation.  Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.

To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.

I thought you were going to say...to charge someone requires tangible evidence...which is much more relevant

[Brietta]

Just remind me in which other accommodation did the dogs give responses in ?

and then remind me where else the dogs gave indications other than the  in the vicinity of the couch ?

Good Lord, Stephen, don't you know it was verboten to bleed anywhere at all in PDL unless it was in apartment 5a?

And as for dying in PDL ... forget it unless you want to have a squatter stuffed into share a coffin with you.

May I remind you ... Mr Grime stated the legal position as regard to the 'alerts' ... and he should know.

[Mr Gray]

Actually this is what Mr Grime said:
"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent'
contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence".

So Grime said it was "possible " that the dogs were alerting to cadaver...not that they were...so he isn't sure but many on this forum are...deluded

so as once more you have not answered the question...what does grime mean by no evidential reliability....that means to me no reliable evidence

[Mr Gray]

Wrong.  The removal of the arguido status was brought about by the refusal of the group to cooperate with the Portuguese investigation.  Under Portuguese Law such a status is time dependent so the AG was left with two options, charge them or revoke the arguido status, his choices were limited.

To clear someone requires tangible evidence, something which is sadly lacking in this case.

So what does it take to clear someone..has Barry George been cleared...probably no such thing legally

[Alice Purjorick]

So Grime said it was "possible " that the dogs were alerting to cadaver...not that they were...so he isn't sure but many on this forum are...deluded

so as once more you have not answered the question...what does grime mean by no evidential reliability....that means to me no reliable evidence

I have answered the question. Grime meant what he said. What you are doing is to present your interpretation of it.
Mostly it has to be said by never quoting the entire passage but just the words which suit you and totally ignoring the context in which the statement was made.

[Mr Gray]

I have answered the question. Grime meant what he said. What you are doing is to present your interpretation of it.
Mostly it has to be said by never quoting the entire passage but just the words which suit you and totally ignoring the context in which the statement was made.

we are all aware Grime meant what he said...but the question is what did he mean...I take it he meant the alerts have no value as evidence as there was no corroboration..no doubter has come up with any other interpretation...almost everything on this forum is quoted out of context

[Alice Purjorick]

we are all aware Grime meant what he said...but the question is what did he mean...I take it he meant the alerts have no value as evidence as there was no corroboration..no doubter has come up with any other interpretation...almost everything on this forum is quoted out of context

Try rewriting his quote using accepted definitions and synonyms for the key words bearing in mind the context is expert witness perhaps called upon to give evidence in a court of law. Also decide whether "possible" is a misquote as the PJ files say "suggestive".

One could then reasonably have:-

"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"

[Mr Gray]

Try rewriting his quote using accepted definitions and synonyms for the key words bearing in mind the context is expert witness perhaps called upon to give evidence in a court of law. Also decide whether "possible" is a misquote as the PJ files say "suggestive".

One could then reasonably have:-

"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"

I am happy to consider a misquote...similarly the jemmied shutters....key no key..locked /unlocked doors an be similarly explained..
In my opinion the meaning is clear...evidence with no reliability plus grime confirms he is not sure if the dog was alerting to cadaver

[John]

That goes for everyone, surely. Nobody has been cleared of involvement or accused of involvement, as it now stands.
There is no evidence ,as you rightly say, to suspect or clear anyone.
There was no proof of the allegations made by PJ, that were responsible for the mcCanns being made arquido and for this reason the status was lifted (made extinct)
Nobody will be cleared until the culprit is found.
Please feel free to correct, if am wrong

Absolutely Anna 

[John]

I find that misleading, John. You are correct that the investigation was time-limited once arguidos had been constituted. However, the status was lifted because there was no evidence (aside from uncorroborated barks from a dog) that could have led to charges against any of the three arguidos. There was nothing to even substantiate what type of crime had been committed, let alone who may have been responsible.

The group DID cooperate with the questioning via the ILORs. I do agree that the T7 were wary of returning to PT for a reconstruction, but so was Jez.

IMO, the reconstruction was a box-ticking exercise at that point - it wouldn't have led to charges nor exonerated anyone in that group. It would, however, have led to a new media frenzy of speculation. We have threads on the reconstruction topic so I don't propose to repeat the points here.

Not misleading by any means...the tapas group refused to cooperate with the Portugese investigators for reasons best known only to them...end off!   If Madeleine is hopefully found alive and well some day I hope each and every one of them will have a bloody good excuse for their conduct.