What evidence would confirm a cadaver dog alert?

[Mr Gray]

« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2018, 08:10:19 PM »        [ reply from Davel.]
Quote
Quote from: Robittybob1 on August 12, 2018, 08:04:01 PM
I know that is what Grime is reported to have said, but he wasn't questioned on that point, so it remains unconfirmed IMO.



"I dont agree...logic dictates if both dogs alert at the same spot it could just be blood and no cadaver odour"

It's self explanatory... As both dogs signal blood... If they both alert it could be that only blood is present

[Robittybob1]

Quoting Grime again:
"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."        Martin Grime (thank Brietta)

"no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence"

What was that evidence he is referring to.  That's what I want to know.

[Brietta]

Quoting Grime again:
"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."        Martin Grime (thank Brietta)

"no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence"

What was that evidence he is referring to.  That's what I want to know.

Something which can be presented in court, perhaps.

[Mr Gray]

Quoting Grime again:
"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."        Martin Grime (thank Brietta)

"no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence"

What was that evidence he is referring to.  That's what I want to know.

In his Rogatory  Mark Harrison says,.. Physical Evidence

[Robittybob1]

Something which can be presented in court, perhaps.

I think you are right, and the best evidence would have been someone seeing a person removing a cadaver from the apartment.  Well Jane saw someone carrying a limp child away from the apartment, so she says.
But if it was that child, that means that child had to have been dead for the best part of 2 hours before that.

9:15 minus 2 hour = 7:15  No wonder GA got to thinking bad things.  7:00 PM to 7:30 PM has never been explained very well has it.

[Mr Gray]

I think you are right, and the best evidence would have been someone seeing a person removing a cadaver from the apartment.  Well Jane saw someone carrying a limp child away from the apartment, so she says.
But if it was that child, that means that child had to have been dead for the best part of 2 hours before that.

9:15 minus 2 hour = 7:15  No wonder GA got to thinking bad things.  7:00 PM to 7:30 PM has never been explained very well has it.

You are making an assumption that the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a.... They dont

[Robittybob1]

You are making an assumption that the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a.... They dont

It would only not be an assumption if Jane saw the person actually carry a cadaver out of apartment 5A.

She didn't know where Tannerman came from.  Later they assumed it was from 5A.

Well you tell me what it was that Martin Grimes expected the PJ to find to corroborate the cadaver dog alerts.

[Robittybob1]

You are making an assumption that the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a.... They dont

Would you admit if someone saw a cadaver being removed from apartment 5A that would be sufficient corroboration?

[Mr Gray]

Would you admit if someone saw a cadaver being removed from apartment 5A that would be sufficient corroboration?

Why would the alert be of any importance in that case

[jassi]

Would you admit if someone saw a cadaver being removed from apartment 5A that would be sufficient corroboration?

Like Tannerman ?

[Robittybob1]

Like Tannerman ?

For it to be truly evidential (hard evidence) Tannerman would need to be seen leaving the apartment.  It is therefore circumstantial evidence (I think) that the window being open lends support that Tannerman was connected with 5A but the timing of finding the window open was wrong so there is no circumstantial evidence linking Tannerman to the apartment.

Had Jane gone around the corner and noted the window open then it would be circumstantial. IMO. 

I'm still learning what circumstantial evidence means in this case. Sorry I can't express it clearer ATM.

[Robittybob1]

If human remains were found near the apartment not even considering if they were male or female, or the age of the victim, related to the McCanns or not. Whether it was Madeleine or not?

Where could the remains be found that would corroborate the cadaver alerts?  If the remains were found dumped in Huelva after the 3rd of August that might be evidential but if they had been there since the 4th of May what would be the connection to the apartment?

I think you are right but there would still need to be some evidence Madeleine was not alive when she was taken from the apartment. 

Like, and I'm sure you would agree, if Madeleine wandered (alive) and was subsequently killed by a car (dead), unless someone first brings her back home (until or when more than 2 hours after death has passed) why would cadaver odour have been in the apartment?

[Sunny]

You are making an assumption that the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a.... They dont

Do you have a cite for that and what do the alerts mean then Davel?  Perhaps you should have added IMO.

[Mr Gray]

Do you have a cite for that and what do the alerts mean then Davel?  Perhaps you should have added IMO.

I have a cite that the alerts do not confirm the past presence of a cadaver... I've given it many times... You've seen it... No IMO necessary

[Robittybob1]

I have a cite that the alerts do not confirm the past presence of a cadaver... I've given it many times... You've seen it... No IMO necessary

That is not a respectful reply Davel, and you have left me with no option but to delete your posts as per John's instructions to us.

They do not confirm it or deny it.  You are left with the need of corroborating evidence, but it is virtually impossible to suggest the type of evidence that will truly confirm or deny the past presence of a cadaver.

Only a confession of a cadaver will confirm it.  Did we ever get a denial?