Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Robittybob1]

That is not accepted scientific  testing.... They actually use the, word anectdotal..


Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a dialy
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.

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

You would have to work out what "Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases" means  before you say it is unscientific.  It might be like "mock exercises"  where they know there is cadaver odour at the scene  and the dogs have to find it to pass their qualification.

[Robittybob1]

Where is the cite which supports it?

Well where is the post by G-unit using the disputed words?

[Robittybob1]

Where is the cite which supports it?

"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."  source http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Mr Gray]

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

You would have to work out what "Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases" means  before you say it is unscientific.  It might be like "mock exercises"  where they know there is cadaver odour at the scene  and the dogs have to find it to pass their qualification.

I what anectdotal means and I know what scientific  means

[Mr Gray]

"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."  source http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Gunit had claimed that Grimes opinion is that it IS cadaver contaminant when grime has never stated that.... He's used the words possible and suggestive... Can you not see the difference

[Mr Gray]

There is a report in the files from the PJ which states that grime brought the dogs back to places they had previously ignored... It is therefore  not libellous to make this claim. The cite has been given several times but I cannot find it at the moment... I have never said this in a malicious sense but stated clearly  he did this so as not to miss any important evidence... Imo

[Mr Gray]

What is, going on... My post is, supported by a statement  from the PJ that is, in the files.... Are moderators not aware of this

[slartibartfast]

What is, going on... My post is, supported by a statement  from the PJ that is, in the files.... Are moderators not aware of this

When you find them you can post them.

[Mr Gray]

When you find them you can post them.

it has been posted on the forum before...is it only me who remembers them...its part of the files

[slartibartfast]

it has been posted on the forum before...is it only me who remembers them...its part of the files

When you find them you can post them.

[Robittybob1]

Gunit had claimed that Grimes opinion is that it IS cadaver contaminant when grime has never stated that.... He's used the words possible and suggestive... Can you not see the difference

I can obviously see the word "suggestive" in one sentence and "is" in the other.  But the thing to consider is we are determining Grime's opinion and as far as opinion can be turned into fact does it really make any difference whether it was written "in my opinion it was triggered by cadaver odour"  or whether it was "in my opinion it was triggered as I suggest by cadaver odour"

[Mr Gray]

I can obviously see the word "suggestive" in one sentence and "is" in the other.  But the thing to consider is we are determining Grime's opinion and as far as opinion can be turned into fact does it really make any difference whether it was written "in my opinion it was triggered by cadaver odour"  or whether it was "in my opinion triggered as I suggest by cadaver odour"

Grime did not say the alert was triggered by cadaver odour...he used the word suggestive and possible...there is an absolute world of difference....we are looking at what grime said...NOT what some poster THINKS he meant

[sadie]

BUMPED. 

Welcome Vertigo
An answer please for our new member. 


Quote from: Faithlilly on Today at 02:50:30 PM

You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.

We can be quite sure that SY understand what precisely regarding the dog alerts in this case?  Perhaps you could clarify, thanks.

[Alice Purjorick]

On this date I join to the case files the translations of the verbal reports made in English by the police sniffer dog trainer Martin Grime, referring to the sniffer dog inspections carried out with the cadaver odour detection dog Eddie and the human blood detection dog, Keela.

These translations were made working from the audio-visual recordings of each of the inspections.

These terms of joining were elaborated and will be signed.

Portimao 23 August 2007

Inspector Paiva

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

We are debating the semantics of syntax against this backdrop ? !

[Robittybob1]

Grime did not say the alert was triggered by cadaver odour...he used the word suggestive and possible...there is an absolute world of difference....we are looking at what grime said...NOT what some poster THINKS he meant

No matter what is actually written it has to be read and that requires thought and understanding.  You are technically correct but I don't see the difference.  How are the two views different?
And besides it is only Grime's opinion.  He needed corroborating evidence before he would say it was a fact.