Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

If the court thinks it's a proven fact then the court does not have a clue... That has to be a fact... How can it not be a fact

[barrier]

Do you believe it's a proven fact then?  That the dog definitely alerted to cadaver, because the court said so?

I believe its written down as a proven fact,do you question a courts judgement because it doesn't suit?

[Robittybob1]

What a court says stands as correct until proved otherwise.

But you at least admit that a court declaration still could be wrong and changed on a later date.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I believe its written down as a proven fact,do you question a courts judgement because it doesn't suit?

No, I question it because I'd like to know how they arrived at the decision that it was definitely a cadaver.  Based on the court ruling are you certain the dog alerted to cadaver?

[barrier]

If the court thinks it's a proven fact then the court does not have a clue... That has to be a fact... How can it not be a fact

So its not in dispute thats its written in a court judgement,so maybe the  thread title should read "do understand the evidence".

[barrier]

No, I question it because I'd like to know how they arrived at the decision that it was definitely a cadaver.  Based on the court ruling are you certain the dog alerted to cadaver?

I'm certain its written down.

[Mr Gray]

I believe its written down as a proven fact,do you question a courts judgement because it doesn't suit?

No I question it because it is not correct

What I DO KNOW.. is that the Portuguese courts have some strange ideas about what is a proven fact...this is plainly and 100% not a proven fact... As we understand it..
When was it proven... In which court

[jassi]

No, I question it because I'd like to know how they arrived at the decision that it was definitely a cadaver.  Based on the court ruling are you certain the dog alerted to cadaver?

Perhaps if you obtained a transcript of the court proceedings you might discover that which you seek.

[barrier]

No I question it because it is not correct

What I DO KNOW.. is that the Portuguese courts have some strange ideas about what is a proven fact...this is plainly and 100% not a proven fact... As we understand it..
When was it proven... In which court

Did you not read the link?

[Robittybob1]

I'm certain its written down.

Cite the words then please?

[Mr Gray]

Did you not read the link?

It's been discussed many times before... I believe the telavent term is... The evidence of common experience...

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm certain its written down.

As you've avoided answering directly twice it would seem to me that you don't accept it's a certainty that the dog alerted to cadaver, and unless you tell me otherwise I will continue to hold that assumption.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps if you obtained a transcript of the court proceedings you might discover that which you seek.

I don't need to read the court transcript to know for a fact that there is no way of proving what the dog in this case alerted to.

[barrier]

Cite the words then please?

keep up rob you being a mod an all,post 1127.

[Robittybob1]

keep up rob you being a mod an all,post 1127.

I've just woken up.  A bit of reminding doesn't hurt. 
Quote from 1127
"6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0"