Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[mercury]

Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime. MG

These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results.

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

Correct, and all those that say the dog alert is meangless have no basis for sayng so, so slam dunk

[ferryman]

if true
Maybe someone threatened them, highly plausible

Why?

[Mr Gray]

Correct, and all those that say the dog alert is meangless have no basis for sayng so, so slam dunk

my basis for saying the alerts are meaningless is the statement by Martin Grime who you may have heard of

[pathfinder73]

my basis for saying the alerts are meaningless is the statement by Martin Grime who you may have heard of

Betcha like the fact that Scotland Yard used the dogs before the McCann case with positive results. That's an eye-opener for ya 

[Mr Gray]

Betcha like the fact that Scotland Yard used the dogs before the McCann case with positive results. That's an eye-opener for ya 

could you provide independent scientific evidence for the alerts...if you cannot then you can make no claims about them

[pegasus]

Smith saw a man carrying a child
That much we know for sure
His opinion of who it was seems very unreliable

But Davel his testimony about the colour of the man's trousers is not unreliable at all.
Actually it completely rules out the man being GM, and I'm surprised you don't make use of this in your posts.

[ferryman]

Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime. MG

These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results.

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

A classic example, and one that highlights the difference between evidence and intelligence, is the Kate Prout murder case.

The evidence against (Adrian) Prout was that Kate had not used her credit cards and her bank accounts were untouched, for the whole period she was reported missing (and she would have needed money to live).

But a cadaver dog (Eddie, as it happens) alerted in the lounge of the matrimonial home, leading detectives to hypothesise that Prout had strangled Kate in the lounge of the matrimonial home.

An erroneous detail.

In a safe conviction.

And (the essential point) an illustration of the difference between intelligence and evidence.

[pathfinder73]

A classic example, and one that highlights the difference between evidence and intelligence, is the Kate Prout murder case.

The evidence against (Adrian) Prout was that Kate had not used her credit cards and her bank accounts were untouched, for the whole period she was reported missing (and she would have needed money to live).

But a cadaver dog (Eddie, as it happens) alerted in the lounge of the matrimonial home, leading detectives to hypothesise that Prout had strangled Kate in the lounge of the matrimonial home.

An erroneous detail.

In a safe conviction.

And (the essential point) an illustration of the difference between intelligence and evidence.

Eddie's alert provided no forensic evidence in the Prout case but it gave the police the intelligence to know who was the murderer.

[Mr Gray]

Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime. MG

These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results.

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

#from your link...

1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);


did they not understand eddie alerts to blood too

[slartibartfast]

#from your link...

1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);


did they not understand eddie alerts to blood too

Probably why they used a blood dog that didn't alert.

[mercury]

#from your link...

1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);


did they not understand eddie alerts to blood too

Groundhg day? Keela the blood dog searched the bedroom and found no blood ergo eddie was not reacting to blood, sigh, its you who doesnt understand the actual facts lol

Eta oops cross posted with slarti

[pathfinder73]

#from your link...

1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);


did they not understand eddie alerts to blood too

There was no blood found at his first alert at the wardrobe. Unseen human blood is harder to detect than if a death happened inside the apartment. Eddie finds cadaver scent quickly so goes in first.

[Mr Gray]

Probably why they used a blood dog that didn't alert.

"probably " isn't good enough when you are accusing people of serious crime...eddie alerts to cadaver and blood

[ferryman]

Eddie's alert provided no forensic evidence in the Prout case but it gave the police the intelligence to know who was the murderer.

No, it didn't.  The police would have brought the prosecution with, or without, the dog's alert, which was never produced in court to the jury (uncorroborated dog-alerts are excluded as evidence in English courts).

But the police used the dog-alert as their (untested and unpresented, to the jury) assumption that Prout had murdered his wife in the lounge of the matrimonial home.

He murdered Kate several hundred yards away, in an outhouse.

[pathfinder73]

No, it didn't.  The police would have brought the prosecution with, or without, the dog's alert, which was never produced in court to the jury (uncorroborated dog-alerts are excluded as evidence in English courts).

But the police used the dog-alert as their (untested and unpresented, to the jury, assumption that Prout had murdered his wife in the lounge of the matrimonial home.

He murdered Kate several hundred yards away, in an outhouse.

Eddie's cadaver alert was correct. You believe what a serial liar tells you which figures. Maybe he hates dogs like you