Another view of dog evidence

[Redblossom]

I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.

Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.

At least in the short-term he was very successful.

A wholly subjective and biased, bordering, if not actually, on libellous view and factually incorrect as well as he continues to be employed six years later.

[Redblossom]

I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.
Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.
At least in the short-term he was very successful.

Martin Grime and Mark Harrison said that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Guilhermino ENCARNCAO selected and established the priorities for the search areas.

Actually that is not what Mr Harrison said, but never mind, the general point being, that even if no forensics are found, it does not mean a dog is wrong on a certain search, just that an alert on its own is not proof. To dismiss a cadaver dog alert just because no forensics has been found is as I said irresponsible, as there are many cases of cadaver dogs alerting, with no forensics, where it has been been proven that they were right. you do know that people can die with no blood spillage.

[debunker]

I find it hard to believe that so many posts on here are trying to do a hatchet job not only the dogs but their handler.
Martin Grime was a man, either on the brink of or actually in to, a solo career, gripped by the commercial imperative of getting himself and his dogs in lights.
At least in the short-term he was very successful.

Martin Grime and Mark Harrison said that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Guilhermino ENCARNCAO selected and established the priorities for the search areas.

Actually that is not what Mr Harrison said, but never mind, the general point being, that even if no forensics are found, it does not mean a dog is wrong on a certain search, just that an alert on its own is not proof. To dismiss a cadaver dog alert just because no forensics has been found is as I said irresponsible, as there are many cases of cadaver dogs alerting, with no forensics, where it has been been proven that they were right. you do know that people can die with no blood spillage.

And there are many cases where no evidence was found and many cases in the researcvh literature where the dogs identify or fail to identify incorrectly. This is why itcan never be stand alone evidence.

[Redblossom]

Moot point unless any of that can be attributed to the actual dog involved IMO

Edited for spelling error.

[debunker]

Moot point unless any of that can be atteibuted to the actual dog involved IMO

And only in your very humble opinion- the science is quite clear. Dog evidence alone is never probative.

[Redblossom]

Moot point unless any of that can be atteibuted to the actual dog involved IMO

And only in your very humble opinion- the science is quite clear. Dog evidence alone is never probative.

Your point was not the point of discussion. Not moving goalposts perchance? Unless you can come up with evidence that Eddie, RIP, failed to alert to the remnant scent of a corpse or last place a corpse contaminated before being moved, or that he alerted to a place a missing person was last seen and they turned up alive, you have  no argument here, IMHO.

[ferryman]

Unless you can come up with evidence that Eddie, RIP, failed to alert to the remnant scent of a corpse or last place a corpse contaminated before being moved, or that he alerted to a place a missing person was last seen and they turned up alive, you have  no argument here, IMHO.

Shouldn't the burden of evidence be the other way?

[Redblossom]

Unless you can come up with evidence that Eddie, RIP, failed to alert to the remnant scent of a corpse or last place a corpse contaminated before being moved, or that he alerted to a place a missing person was last seen and they turned up alive, you have  no argument here, IMHO.

Shouldn't the burden of evidence be the other way?

It is up to the accuser to prove what they say  is true.

[ferryman]

Unless you can come up with evidence that Eddie, RIP, failed to alert to the remnant scent of a corpse or last place a corpse contaminated before being moved, or that he alerted to a place a missing person was last seen and they turned up alive, you have  no argument here, IMHO.

Shouldn't the burden of evidence be the other way?

It is up to the accuser to prove what they say  is true.

Wrong.

The accusation is against the McCanns (that the dogs might have alerted to something incriminating); the onus on those who suggest they might have to prove their point (or shut up)!

ETA: What evidence is there Eddie has passed on?

[Redblossom]

Eddie passed away from cancer.

No, Ferryman, you are wrong, you and others are accusing Mr Grime of fraud, and saying this particular dog makes errors, etc, was not trained n the USA, etc it is up to you to prove  your accusations.

[ferryman]

Eddie passed away from cancer.

No, Ferryman, you are wrong, you and others are accusing Mr Grime of fraud, and saying this particular dog makes errors, etc, was not trained n the USA, etc it is up to you to prove  your accusations.

A SYP FOI answer (now removed) says Eddie's training was (sic) in accordance with standard ACPO guidelines

I've read them.  They say nothing about sending dogs to America to be trained on human cadavers.

Another FOI answer says SYP never received a report about the training Eddie allegedly received.

In the UK, it is illegal to use human remains to train dogs.  Particularly given that we have a tried and trusted alternative method of training dogs, why would we indulge both the expense and the hypocrisy of sending dogs to America to be trained in ways outlawed here?

And if we are going to indulge that expense and hypocrisy, why ever on a dog (at the time Eddie is supposed to have gone) aged 6 and about 18 months from retirement?

[Redblossom]

Then Ferryman why not just say it out loud, you think Mr Grime is a liar. You are saying it anyway.

[ferryman]

Then Ferryman why not just say it out loud, you think Mr Grime is a liar. You are saying it anyway.

The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.

The curtain was sent because Keela alerted to it.

They could find no blood ...

[Redblossom]

Then Ferryman why not just say it out loud, you think Mr Grime is a liar. You are saying it anyway.

The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.

The curtain was sent because Keela alerted to it.
They could find no blood ...

That means nothing at all as Keela could scent blood even when it was washed away. Even the FSS have conceded they take Mr Grimes dog evidence over and above their tests which dont stand up to the abilities of the dogs.

[Carana]

Was any blood associated with the dog searches in PdL actually forensically proven to be so?


However, on the subject of blood, whatever happened to the tests on some street wall in PdL?