Another view of dog evidence

[Milly]

It is worth pointing out that Mr Grime is fundamentally d.........t over the accuracy of his dogs.

If further forensic evidence is found, then it is a ´hit´.

If no further forensic evidence is found it is also a ´hit´.

He counts every alert as correct despite the later outcome of tests.

He ignores the known facts about the accuracy of such dogs.

Has he an out if and when Madeleine is eventually found alive and well?

easy peasey >>  just blame the dogs 

[debunker]

I am sorry. It is a FACT that he is dishonest- I did not say that he lied- which would be actionable, but the way he calculates his statistics is not honest, counting nulls as positives. Simple experimental design fault.

If he was honest he would tally confirmed alerts and non-confirmed alerts as separate categories.

[Carana]

It is worth pointing out that Mr Grime is fundamentally d.........t over the accuracy of his dogs.

If further forensic evidence is found, then it is a ´hit´.

If no further forensic evidence is found it is also a ´hit´.

He counts every alert as correct despite the later outcome of tests.

He ignores the known facts about the accuracy of such dogs.

Has he an out if and when Madeleine is eventually found alive and well?

To be fair, he only says that the dog's reaction is a possibility or "suggestive of...". Others exaggerated the importance.

On the other hand, I can sort of understand where others assumed that the dog's reactions equated to a dead person.

On the other hand, again, they should have double-checked - and there's nothing to say that he hadn't pointed out caveats in a verbal briefing.


Back again, to be fair, someone (DCCB?) did wonder and ask... but by then the possibility had become "fact".


Sorry about the number of hands. LOL

[Redblossom]

Carana, ref your post at 8.22am, this was the quote I was referring to from the Lowe report. Substitute corresponding components for known components, my bad.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

My point was, that when the FSS reported that confirmed components matched corresponding components to Gerry Mccann, some people say this is confirmation it was Gerry's blood, while in the same breath saying there is no proof any blood was found, and in another breath saying no blood of Madeleine's was found.

[ferryman]

ETA post I am replying to:

Carana, ref your post at 8.22am, this was the quote I was referring to from the Lowe report. Substitute corresponding components for known components, my bad.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

My point was, that when the FSS reported that confirmed components matched corresponding components to Gerry Mccann, some people say this is confirmation it was Gerry's blood, while in the same breath saying there is no proof any blood was found, and in another breath saying no blood of Madeleine's was found.


(Red Blossom)

It's always good to take quotes in proper context:

An attempt to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swabs from the tiles 286/2007 CR/L 5 stains 1, 2 & 3 were unsuccessful in that no DNA profile was obtained.

An LCN DNA result which contained to little information for meaningful interpretation was obtained from cellular material on the swab from the tile (286/2007 CR/L 9).

Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

Looks as if Madeleine's DNA might have been traced in the apartment ....

[Redblossom]

Ferryman, I am unclear as to what you are trying to say. If you mean those results show that Madeleine's DNA may have been found in the flat, that is true and means nothing of itself obviously. The samples though were taken from an area where the blood dog alerted. Again, it could mean nothing but she possibly had a nosebleed or grazed her arm or leg for instance. My point was, in case you missed it, was that some say partial DNA found matching correspondent components to Gerry Mccann, to some, means Gerry's blood was found, but when partial DNA found matching correspondent components to Madeleine, it can't have been blood. That is all.

[Carana]

Carana, ref your post at 8.22am, this was the quote I was referring to from the Lowe report. Substitute corresponding components for known components, my bad.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

My point was, that when the FSS reported that confirmed components matched corresponding components to Gerry Mccann, some people say this is confirmation it was Gerry's blood, while in the same breath saying there is no proof any blood was found, and in another breath saying no blood of Madeleine's was found.

I'm still confused. Could you be confusing results from the apartment and the car?

The 286A/2007 CRL 3a result was related to the apartment, not the car.

What are you relying on for information? I hope it's not Hideho's videos.

[Redblossom]

I'm still confused. Could you be confusing results from the apartment and the car?

The 286A/2007 CRL 3a result was related to the apartment, not the car.

What are you relying on for information? I hope it's not Hideho's videos.

I am not confusing anything Carana. i get my information from the PJ Files, not any video. It does not matter where a sample came from, the flat or the car.  Read my response a few minutes ago to Ferryman and you might see what I am trying to say.

[Carana]

I'm still confused. Could you be confusing results from the apartment and the car?

The 286A/2007 CRL 3a result was related to the apartment, not the car.

What are you relying on for information? I hope it's not Hideho's videos.

I am not confusing anything Carana. i get my information from the PJ Files, not any video. It does not matter where a sample came from, the flat or the car.  Read my response a few minutes ago to Ferryman and you might see what I am trying to say.

Ok. I just read up.

Is this your comment that you were referring to:

Ferryman, I am unclear as to what you are trying to say. If you mean those results show that Madeleine's DNA may have been found in the flat, that is true and means nothing of itself obviously. The samples though were taken from an area where the blood dog alerted. Again, it could mean nothing but she possibly had a nosebleed or grazed her arm or leg for instance. My point was, in case you missed it, was that some say partial DNA found matching correspondent components to Gerry Mccann, to some, means Gerry's blood was found, but when partial DNA found matching correspondent components to Madeleine, it can't have been blood. That is all.

[Redblossom]

That is the one Carana.
 

[Redblossom]

It is very interesting that no one has complained about Mr Grime and his dogs  until the Mccann case......food for thought perhaps

[registrar]

It is very interesting that no one has complained about Mr Grime and his dogs  until the Mccann case......food for thought perhaps

And that 'food for thought' could well be a 'Bounty bar' as Brunty reported about Grime's adventures in Jersey

90k was it? - for a coconut shell

nice little earner 

[ferryman]

And that coconut shell alert is not a myth.

There is a redacted report of Wiltshire police that describes precisely the sequence of events.

An anthropologist identified what he took to be a skull and it was given to Eddie to test, just as he tested the ignition key of the car.  Eddie alerted and the exhibit was touted as a human skull.

Forensic analysis established it as a coconut.

[registrar]

And that coconut shell alert is not a myth.

There is a redacted report of Wiltshire police that describes precisely the sequence of events.

An anthropologist identified what he took to be a skull and it was given to Eddie to test, just as he tested the ignition key of the car.  Eddie alerted and the exhibit was touted as a human skull.

Forensic analysis established it as a coconut.

quite -

Kew Gardens confirmed the 'skull fragment' from Jersey as a piece of coconut shell

Anyone brave or silly enough to argue with the world's leading authority in botanical science?

[Carana]

That is the one Carana.
 

OK. So that would be the floor tile in 5A?

If so, what contradiction do you find?