Exhibit A and the Trial of D'Andre Lane.

[Mr Gray]

They should be but different countries, different rules re admissible evidence.

I think the standards of admissibility would be similar... Would the alerts have been allowed if Lanes lawyer was better informed... I don't think they would

[Robittybob1]

I think the standards of admissibility would be similar... Would the alerts have been allowed if Lanes lawyer was better informed... I don't think they would

Grime described Morse's reaction to the car seat as a "positive response".  That is not just the bark but the handler's perception of the dog prior to , during and after the alert barking.  It could be partially captured on video but it is the judgement of the handler, a judgement on the body language of the dog.
Through years of training that dog Grime would be able to tell when his dog has really found what he was trained to find.  He would have a degree of confidence in his own ability in reading the dogs body language.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I think the standards of admissibility would be similar... Would the alerts have been allowed if Lanes lawyer was better informed... I don't think they would

If I were his lawyer I would have to accept the expert explanation of the alerts however, I would point out- the cadaver has no name on it i.e the dog alerted to cadaver in that area/s.

 The proscecution  and the jury in this particular case, had a lot of circumstancial evidence pointing to a reasonable account of the fate of  the baby Bianca Jones and who the perpertrator is.

The judge explains this: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/defenders/judge-vonda-evans-opens-up-about-bianca-jones-case-for-first-time

[Mr Gray]

Grime described Morse's reaction to the car seat as a "positive response".  That is not just the bark but the handler's perception of the dog prior to , during and after the alert barking.  It could be partially captured on video but it is the judgement of the handler, a judgement on the body language of the dog.
Through years of training that dog Grime would be able to tell when his dog has really found what he was trained to find.  He would have a degree of confidence in his own ability in reading the dogs body language.

That isnt good enough for the law...the law requires evidence. Grime is now trying to establish scientific validation for his alerts via scientific tests....it seems to me in the lane case that he claimed this is now what he has...I dont beleive he has...Im not a dog handler but i would say Im a nbetter scientist than Grime. If you read his white apper you will see what I m talking about

[Mr Gray]

If I were his lawyer I would have to accept the expert explanation of the alerts however, I would point out- the cadaver has no name on it i.e the dog alerted to cadaver in that area/s.

 The proscecution  and the jury in this particular case, had a lot of circumstancial evidence pointing to a reasonable account of the fate of  the baby Bianca Jones and who the perpertrator is.

The judge explains this: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/defenders/judge-vonda-evans-opens-up-about-bianca-jones-case-for-first-time

I would not accept any explanation not backed by evidence...thats how science works anf grime wants to calim his dogs have scientific validation...I dont see that they do. His lawyer mentioned the coconut in Jersey...grime replied sometimes his dog was wrong. Eddie made 11 alerts in jersey...according to grime cadaver dogs do not react to teeth...it seems to me theres nothing to validate any of the alerts in jersey.

There is alot of evidence against lane....but i beleive the alerts should not have been admitted...i think the judge made a serious error

[Miss Taken Identity]

I would not accept any explanation not backed by evidence...thats how science works anf grime wants to calim his dogs have scientific validation...I dont see that they do. His lawyer mentioned the coconut in Jersey...grime replied sometimes his dog was wrong. Eddie made 11 alerts in jersey...according to grime cadaver dogs do not react to teeth...it seems to me theres nothing to validate any of the alerts in jersey.

There is alot of evidence against lane....but i beleive the alerts should not have been admitted...i think the judge made a serious error

We shall agree to disagree on some of your points.

[Robittybob1]

That isnt good enough for the law...the law requires evidence. Grime is now trying to establish scientific validation for his alerts via scientific tests....it seems to me in the lane case that he claimed this is now what he has...I dont beleive he has...Im not a dog handler but i would say Im a nbetter scientist than Grime. If you read his white apper you will see what I m talking about

Is what Grime saw any different to a witness stating he saw the accused standing on the corner or where ever?  Both are basically observations by a witness.

[Mr Gray]

Is what Grime saw any different to a witness stating he saw the accused standing on the corner or where ever?  Both are basically observations by a witness.

yes its vastly different..Grime saw an alert but he cant confirm scientifically what the alert was to

[G-Unit]

The question I would like answered is why Grime in the Lane case sees the alerts as evidential but in the McCann case not

Had Grime been called to give evidence about Eddie in the McCann case his evidence would have been no different to the evidence he gave about Morse in the Lane case imo.

[Mr Gray]

Had Grime been called to give evidence about Eddie in the McCann case his evidence would have been no different to the evidence he gave about Morse in the Lane case imo.

I beleive in this case he claims Morse has been the subject of scientific tests..I dont see that they have...wheres the data....he has changed his stance....in the mccann case he said the alerts had no evidential reliability...he didnt say that this time..hes presenting them as evidence

[Robittybob1]

yes its vastly different..Grime saw an alert but he cant confirm scientifically what the alert was to

If Gerry stated in court he saw Madeleine lying on the covers at 9:05, is there anyway that that claim can be confirmed scientifically?  They are both reported observations.

[Mr Gray]

If Gerry stated in court he saw Madeleine lying on the covers at 9:05, is there anyway that that claim can be confirmed scientifically?  They are both reported observations.

as i said...so it can be accepted the dog alerted....but the question is why

[Miss Taken Identity]

as i said...so it can be accepted the dog alerted....but the question is why

Breaking it down...

The dogs are trained to alert to cadaver having been in a location.

If the dogs barks at every car or car seat then there is no reason to suppose all cars may have been in some form of accident  where people lost lives, or suppose that the dog is just barking because it is hungry.

To place the dog in a compound with lots of cars and it only barks at one- that does speak volumes if it is the car which was used to transport baby Jones.

[Mr Gray]

Breaking it down...

The dogs are trained to alert to cadaver having been in a location.

If the dogs barks at every car or car seat then there is no reason to suppose all cars may have been in some form of accident  where people lost lives, or suppose that the dog is just barking because it is hungry.

To place the dog in a compound with lots of cars and it only barks at one- that does speak volumes if it is the car which was used to transport baby Jones.

how many of the cars in the compound had a child seat on the back seat..the dog failed to react to the seat when it was covered in paper and grime couldnt see it...but reacted to it later when grime was aware where it was and a slit cut in the paper...morse never reacted to lanes clothes

[faithlilly]

I think the standards of admissibility would be similar... Would the alerts have been allowed if Lanes lawyer was better informed... I don't think they would

Why ?