Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 166195 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2100 on: May 09, 2021, 06:49:22 PM »
He will point out that Eddie was trained on pig cadaver and that therefore the alerts were false, but that he now no longer uses dogs trained with pig so his career and livelihood will not be in jeopardy thanks to such an outcome.

He may also said at the time...which he did...as I recall something like no conclusions can be drawn from the alerts as tehy could be due to several different scenarios....or something to taht effect

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2101 on: May 09, 2021, 06:54:04 PM »
He may also said at the time...which he did...as I recall something like no conclusions can be drawn from the alerts as tehy could be due to several different scenarios....or something to taht effect
Yes, he would obviously need a get out had Madeleine turned up alive subsequently.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2102 on: May 09, 2021, 06:59:57 PM »
Yes, he would obviously need a get out had Madeleine turned up alive subsequently.

yes...this is what he said..

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.

Offline kizzy

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2103 on: May 09, 2021, 07:16:01 PM »
Three months after disappearance it was very unlikely maddie would be found alive. As I said it will b einteresting how Grime explains his statements if Wolters does have this evidence...which i think he may well have

As I said it will b einteresting how Grime explains his statements if Wolters does have this evidence...which i think he may well have

Well I doubt grime will be worried in the slightest....or will have to explain himself.

I think you know that too ...so why post these things u no wont happen.

It will be interesting to see your reaction... if wolt doesn't have the evidence that you so so believe he has.

What ...we will have to wait an see...ok then

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2104 on: May 09, 2021, 07:24:27 PM »
As I said it will b einteresting how Grime explains his statements if Wolters does have this evidence...which i think he may well have

Well I doubt grime will be worried in the slightest....or will have to explain himself.

I think you know that too ...so why post these things u no wont happen.

It will be interesting to see your reaction... if wolt doesn't have the evidence that you so so believe he has.

What ...we will have to wait an see...ok then

I think he will have  a lot of explaining to do...I doubt he will be able to give a good explanation.

The BKK have been very active against paedos lately... And very successful... I will be very very surprised if Wolters has nothing.  I think he feels he might be able to find the body... and that's why he's, taking his time
« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 08:31:11 PM by Davel »

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2105 on: May 09, 2021, 10:03:57 PM »
yes...this is what he said..

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.


If a dog handler is called to give evidence in court the only part of the above which is of interest to the court is "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant." That is his area of expertise, based upon his work in training and handling cadaver dogs. The court would have no interest in his opinions on what that evidence meant, that would be up to the prosecution to demonstrate.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2106 on: May 09, 2021, 10:06:44 PM »
If a dog handler is called to give evidence in court the only part of the above which is of interest to the court is "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant." That is his area of expertise, based upon his work in training and handling cadaver dogs. The court would have no interest in his opinions on what that evidence meant, that would be up to the prosecution to demonstrate.
The defence would of course manage to elicit the remainder of the quote out of him. 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2107 on: May 10, 2021, 07:30:42 AM »
The defence would of course manage to elicit the remainder of the quote out of him.

The quote includes these words;  "unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." The prosecution wouldn't ask a dog handler to give his/her evidence unless they had other evidence which they believed corroborated it.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2108 on: May 10, 2021, 07:40:56 AM »
If a dog handler is called to give evidence in court the only part of the above which is of interest to the court is "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant." That is his area of expertise, based upon his work in training and handling cadaver dogs. The court would have no interest in his opinions on what that evidence meant, that would be up to the prosecution to demonstrate.
Do you realise you are giving your opinion
Imo you are posting codswallop

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2109 on: May 10, 2021, 07:50:28 AM »
Do you realise you are giving your opinion
Imo you are posting codswallop

Opinion based on observation. In no case brought to trial was the dog handler's evidence the only evidence offered. Other supporting evidence existed.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2110 on: May 10, 2021, 07:57:57 AM »
Opinion based on observation. In no case brought to trial was the dog handler's evidence the only evidence offered. Other supporting evidence existed.

You need to qualify your post with imo and then posters can be clear about it's value

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2111 on: May 10, 2021, 07:59:35 AM »
The quote includes these words;  "unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." The prosecution wouldn't ask a dog handler to give his/her evidence unless they had other evidence which they believed corroborated it.

More opinion as fact... More codswallop imo

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2112 on: May 10, 2021, 08:04:03 AM »
The quote includes these words;  "unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." The prosecution wouldn't ask a dog handler to give his/her evidence unless they had other evidence which they believed corroborated it.
I was referring more to the cross-contamination bit.  And then of course there is the fact that his dog was trained on pig matter.   IMO, any defence worth its salt would have had a field day with those alerts.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Lace

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2113 on: May 10, 2021, 08:29:29 AM »
Someone saying something doesn’t make it a fact that the smell was from nappies, meat, shrimp or anything. The smell was bad enough to be washed out with water and the boot allegedly needed to be left open all night due to the smell. If there was only light transference of cadaver odour then would that be as unbearable as you suggest? Martin Grime actually says he doesn’t mind the smell of human decomposition, says it’s like a sweet putrid smell.

Light transference of cadaver odour????    After that length of time?    What are the McCann's supposed to have wrapped Madeleine in?   Where was she kept?    It's nonsense.


After three weeks the body would be in stage four - 

https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/forensic-archaeology-and-anthropology/0/steps/67858
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 09:03:29 AM by Lace »

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #2114 on: May 10, 2021, 09:17:49 AM »
Light transference of cadaver odour????    After that length of time?    What are the McCann's supposed to have wrapped Madeleine in?   Where was she kept?    It's nonsense.


After three weeks the body would be in stage four - 

https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/forensic-archaeology-and-anthropology/0/steps/67858
Lace, you've not been paying attention.  She was supposed to have been kept in a fridge belonging to one of the group's mystery friends who lived in PdL and who didn't mind helping out or having their petit pois nestling up against a child's corpse for a few weeks.  Then, when the coast was clear the McCs went to this Mystery Friend's house and asked for the body back, which they then allowed to thaw out on a trip to Huelva (under the curious gaze of film crew and accompanying media).  Somehow the McCs managed to smuggle said rapidly defrosting corpse out of the car and into its final resting place all without anyone noticing, but unfortunately by this point the car was full of defrosted bodily fluids and smelt rank so they had to drive home with the windows open and made a big show of airing the car by leaving its boot open when they got home, for all to see.  And that my friend is why the dog alerted (though not to the boot where the body and fluids were sloshing about  but to the key fob and the  door).  Hope that all makes sense now.

Note to Mods:  this is satirical and not libel, as clearly I don't believe this happened and have written it tongue in cheek to show how farcical this whole theory is, hope that's OK.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 09:19:58 AM by Vertigo Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly