Exhibit A and the Trial of D'Andre Lane.

[The General]

From your link..


.

Since then we have conducted research and developed doctrine and methodology based upon published scientific proof of concept. Our success has continued, and the use of this type of detection has been included within judicial process where prosecutors have thought it appropriate within the laws of the country or State.


Has any of this research been published or made public... Where is it ...grime is making claims here... Does he have anything to support it.... Or is it more anecdotal... Not scientific... research

It's not my link. I had nothing to do with it.

[Mr Gray]

Funny, I read it with a balanced viewpoint and reached a different conclusion. Confirmation bias is a funny thing.
Bottom line for me remains: would I use Grime / Morse if I was in the unfortunate position of needing them? Yes.

You may not be as balanced as you think... Could you.. From a balanced point of view... Point out any errors in my logic Re the teeth question rather than just making insinuations.


If I needed a cadaver dog I would be happy to use Morse and grime... You miss my point

[The General]

You may not be as balanced as you think... Could you.. From a balanced point of view... Point out any errors in my logic Re the teeth question rather than just making insinuations.


If I needed a cadaver dog I would be happy to use Morse and grime... You miss my point

No. I'm not interested.
Your point is moot to me. I'm totally disinterested in picking apart reliability. If Morse was 62% accurate, I'd use him. If Martin said 'dig there', I'd dig there. Nothing there? Never mind, move on.
Do I want the security company at Canary Wharf to stop patrolling with sniffer dogs? Do I f***! I don't don't care if they're only even right half the time. I don't care. Disarticulated teeth, no arsed. The paper is an interesting read mind.

[Mr Gray]

Funny, I read it with a balanced viewpoint and reached a different conclusion. Confirmation bias is a funny thing.
Bottom line for me remains: would I use Grime / Morse if I was in the unfortunate position of needing them? Yes.

You are a sceptic I have some respect fir but rather than hiding behind an accusation of bias... Could you provide the evidence thst supports your view

[The General]

You are a sceptic I have some respect fir but rather than hiding behind an accusation of bias... Could you provide the evidence thst supports your view

You failed to detect the unintentional nuance in the sentence - I too was affected by confirmation bias, despite my apparent 'balanced view'. I don't think you can read such papers without preconceptions subconsciously clouding judgement.

[Mr Gray]

You failed to detect the unintentional nuance in the sentence - I too was affected by confirmation bias, despite my apparent 'balanced view'. I don't think you can read such papers without preconceptions subconsciously clouding judgement.

You are clouding the issue... Why respond to my post if you don't address the point I have made.
My point is based on strong evidence... Confirmation bias doesn't feature

[Mr Gray]

No. I'm not interested.
Your point is moot to me. I'm totally disinterested in picking apart reliability. If Morse was 62% accurate, I'd use him. If Martin said 'dig there', I'd dig there. Nothing there? Never mind, move on.
Do I want the security company at Canary Wharf to stop patrolling with sniffer dogs? Do I f***! I don't don't care if they're only even right half the time. I don't care. Disarticulated teeth, no arsed. The paper is an interesting read mind.

What about if the sniffer dog signals you are carrying explosives... And the police decided to shoot you dead on their say do.. Would you be bothered then

[The General]

What about if the sniffer dog signsllef you erte carrying explosives... And the police decided to shoot you dead on their say do.. Would you be bothered then

No. I'd be dead.

[faithlilly]

No. I'd be dead.

My General, you do brighten up my day.

[Mr Gray]

No. I'm not interested.
Your point is moot to me. I'm totally disinterested in picking apart reliability. If Morse was 62% accurate, I'd use him. If Martin said 'dig there', I'd dig there. Nothing there? Never mind, move on.
Do I want the security company at Canary Wharf to stop patrolling with sniffer dogs? Do I f***! I don't don't care if they're only even right half the time. I don't care. Disarticulated teeth, no arsed. The paper is an interesting read mind.

This thread is re the lane trial... The reliability of the dogs was, a big issue in the trial. If you aren't interested fine... But then don't disrupt the thread

[Robittybob1]

It's a shame we can't have a grown up discussion... From what I can see in the lane case... Grime considers the alerts  corroborated.... Hes moved the goalposts

He is quoted as saying "he gave us a positive response"  well that isn't what I'd expect as corroboration. 

[Robittybob1]

grime has said a lot more than that...hes moved the goalposts...hes written a 180 page white paper with his latest thoughts...read it and you will be in a position to comment

Where is that document Davel?  http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/  or http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf

[Robittybob1]

No. I'd be dead.

You hope!

[Mr Gray]

Where is that document Davel?

The link has been quoted this morning by gunit..
It makes very interesting reading ...very interesting reading..
Problem is it's about 180 pages..

[Mr Gray]

He is quoted as saying "he gave us a positive response"  well that isn't what I'd expect as corroboration.

As I've Saud grime has moved the goalpost significantly... It's all in the document.

DNA confirms remains IR blood... But not residual scent... It's all their... I'm quite good at reading and understanding long documents quickly but I wonder how others, will fair.

It raises some really interesting  questions... First being grime says only fresh teeth would cause an alert which destroys the claim Re the baby... Deciduous.. Teeth found in jersey