Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

I think some confuse “not to be relied on” with unimportant.

I think on the whole supporters understand  the alerts far better than sceptics.  The alerts.. If uncorroborated.. May suggest a line of enquiry... As do statistics from previous cases... But are not evidence.
In the Gilroy case I doubt the, alerts played any part in the investigation... Gilroy was questioned... He had cuts on his hands... 450 texts... He'd been having an affair which Suzzanne wished to end... He warranted further investigation  purely fir these reasons alone... It was, these further investigation s that identified his deceit Re his car journey... That was the evidence that convicted him... Not the alerts

[G-Unit]

I think some confuse “not to be relied on” with unimportant.

They were very important in the conviction of David Gilroy. The police had CCTV evidence that Suzanne was heading to work, but not of her entering the building. It was the dog alerts that suggested she entered the building, was killed and was then removed in Gilroy's car boot. The alerts suggested a reason for his wounds, for him going to get his car and for his unexplained mileage the following day.

[Mr Gray]

They were very important in the conviction of David Gilroy. The police had CCTV evidence that Suzanne was heading to work, but not of her entering the building. It was the dog alerts that suggested she entered the building, was killed and was then removed in Gilroy's car boot. The alerts suggested a reason for his wounds, for him going to get his car and for his unexplained mileage the following day.

So you think the only reason death was suspected was because of the alerts... As I understand the SSCRC stated that there was, ample evidence without the evidence of the dog handler

Do you think he would not have been convicted without the alerts... Of course he would have been.... There was, real evidence  against him

[Alice Purjorick]

I'm not sure why there is a belief in some quarter that I am here because I believe my views will help shape a future court action.  I'm simply shooting the breeze.  I thought that's what internet discussions were for?  Nor contrary to insinuation above am I implying that Mr Grime is potentially guilty of the crime of fraud, however I do think my questions are relevant to the case and to the discussion at hand.  Should Mr McCann claim to be an Enhanced Heart Surgeon, one might wonder where and how he came by such a prestigious title, or whether it was just him bigging himself up?

If you are really that interested in the reason I would suggest you concentrate your efforts in a place where you will find that reason. Asking questions in this small corner of cyber world is unlikely to deliver.

[faithlilly]

So you think the only reason death was suspected was because of the alerts... As I understand the SSCRC stated that there was, ample evidence without the evidence of the dog handler

Do you think he would not have been convicted without the alerts... Of course he would have been.... There was, real evidence  against him

Do you have a cite for that?

[Mr Gray]

Do you have a cite for that?

There's a newspaper  article  that supports, that statement
I'm on a phone at the moment... I'm fairly sure I've quoted it before... It really is quite obvious when you look at the amount of evidence against Gilroy

[G-Unit]

So you think the only reason death was suspected was because of the alerts... As I understand the SSCRC stated that there was, ample evidence without the evidence of the dog handler

Do you think he would not have been convicted without the alerts... Of course he would have been.... There was, real evidence  against him

I can't say what the verdict would have been without the dog alerts and neither can you. Police often ask five questions; who, what, why, where and when.

Who and why soon became clear. What, where and when were suggested by the alert evidence. All the evidence was equally important in my opinion.

[Mr Gray]

I can't say what the verdict would have been without the dog alerts and neither can you. Police often ask five questions; who, what, why, where and when.

Who and why soon became clear. What, where and when were suggested by the alert evidence. All the evidence was equally important in my opinion.

In your opinion...
From what I have, read that is not the case.... And surely you can see the overwhelming amount I'd evidence against Gilroy

[Brietta]

There's a newspaper  article  that supports, that statement
I'm on a phone at the moment... I'm fairly sure I've quoted it before... It really is quite obvious when you look at the amount of evidence against Gilroy

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GILROY FAMILY
In response to The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decision to close the case against David Gilroy’s claim he had suffered a miscarriage of justice.

One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable. They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court. However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict. That verdict was by a majority so some jurors did not agree that the case against him had been proved.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp

The family argued that without the dog evidence more jurors may have been convinced not to convict ... maybe they were hoping for the infamous Scottish "not proven" ... which some interpret as saying: "We know you did it we just can't prove it".

However the Commission didn't agree with the family's contention and Gilroy's conviction for Suzanne Pilley's murder remains with The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission declaring that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.

[Brietta]

In your opinion...
From what I have, read that is not the case.... And surely you can see the overwhelming amount I'd evidence against Gilroy

Just some of which is mentioned here ... http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2012/03/15/in-full-the-evidence-which-convicted-david-gilroy-of-murdering-suzanne-pilley/

I think the Crown case was very comprehensive when the quality and amount of evidence they presented is taken into consideration.

In my opinion the dog alerts were important indications for the police that they were investigating the right suspect ~ but they were not of themselves evidence of anything other than that.

[Carana]

What's admissible in one jurisdiction isn't necessarily the case in another.

Blablaland might have a law that states that an uncorroborated woof is sufficient to convict someone and sentence them to death.

How would that be relevant to the present case?

[G-Unit]

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GILROY FAMILY
In response to The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decision to close the case against David Gilroy’s claim he had suffered a miscarriage of justice.

One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable. They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court. However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict. That verdict was by a majority so some jurors did not agree that the case against him had been proved.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp

The family argued that without the dog evidence more jurors may have been convinced not to convict ... maybe they were hoping for the infamous Scottish "not proven" ... which some interpret as saying: "We know you did it we just can't prove it".

However the Commission didn't agree with the family's contention and Gilroy's conviction for Suzanne Pilley's murder remains with The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission declaring that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.

The SCCRC hought there was enough evidence to convict Gilroy without the dog evidence, but his family didn't. As the judgement stands we're unlikely to find out who was right.

[Brietta]

What's admissible in one jurisdiction isn't necessarily the case in another.

Blablaland might have a law that states that an uncorroborated woof is sufficient to convict someone and sentence them to death.

How would that be relevant to the present case?

I agree.  In my opinion it is horses for courses. 

In Edinburgh there was evidence enough to prosecute a case against a suspect. 

In Praia da Luz there was no evidence which would have enabled a case to be prosecuted against anyone.

In my opinion, thinking there was underlines that there is a basic misconception about what constitutes evidence.

[faithlilly]

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GILROY FAMILY
In response to The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decision to close the case against David Gilroy’s claim he had suffered a miscarriage of justice.

One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable. They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court. However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict. That verdict was by a majority so some jurors did not agree that the case against him had been proved.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp

The family argued that without the dog evidence more jurors may have been convinced not to convict ... maybe they were hoping for the infamous Scottish "not proven" ... which some interpret as saying: "We know you did it we just can't prove it".

However the Commission didn't agree with the family's contention and Gilroy's conviction for Suzanne Pilley's murder remains with The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission declaring that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.

So nothing from the SCCRC ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

If you are really that interested in the reason I would suggest you concentrate your efforts in a place where you will find that reason. Asking questions in this small corner of cyber world is unlikely to deliver.

Never mind, I enjoy posing the questions nonetheless, but thank you for your advice and concern.