Eddie and Keela and what the alerts meant if anything.

[G-Unit]

I did come up with an answer... Martin Grimes answer

As I have said... Grime had now moved the goalposts.
In 2007 he said the alerts had not been confirmed because no remains hard been found... He now seems to have changed his mind.
Grime now says that anecdotal witness statements can corroborate the alerts... Although the degree of corroboration affects the weight of the evidence.

 That us an incredible seismic shift and I believe has been influenced by his experience in the US.... I've got a lot more to say on the topic of Grime and will post it later
He also includes proficiency testing and successful field  missions... It now seems if he says they are corroborated then they are...
Martin Grime.... A man on a mission

I don't think Grime's opinion has changed at all. He always believed in his dogs because they were almost always right when tested in training, assessments and operationally. He always knew that alerts had to be corroberatedin order to be used as evidence in court. He now has proof that the corroberating evidence can be circumstantial, that's all.

[The General]

They have been helpful. They have indicated to a team of forensic investigators that there are certain areas where they may find samples of interest. Guess what? That's exactly what they did find! It's  not the dogs fault that the limited FSS methods at the time found the evidence "too complex" to allow for meaningful interpretation.

Exactly.
I'm not interest in analysing the efficacy or science behind the detection method. It could be a sharp-eyed detective who finds a bullet casing that everyone missed - it's the analysis and subsequent results and interpretation of those results thereafter that is contentious / admissible / not admissible evidentially.
I've said it before - if Eddie, Morse or Keela were 60% right, so what? They're a detection tool. Ground penetrating radar needs you to dig down to an anomaly; a lot of the time there's b....r all down there, it's nowhere near an exact science, but it's pretty useful. You'd rather have the tools than not.

The problem we have here is that the 'finds' of the dogs don't jive with some supporters paradigm; to the point where their efficacy needs to be denigrated. Mr McCann started this process himself in quite a vociferous manner.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think Grime's opinion has changed at all. He always believed in his dogs because they were almost always right when tested in training, assessments and operationally. He always knew that alerts had to be corroberatedin order to be used as evidence in court. He now has proof that the corroberating evidence can be circumstantial, that's all.

Cite for... He has proof.... He absolutely  doesnt
He thinks he has but Grime is not a scientist..

[Mr Gray]

Exactly.
I'm not interest in analysing the efficacy or science behind the detection method. It could be a sharp-eyed detective who finds a bullet casing that everyone missed - it's the analysis and subsequent results and interpretation of those results thereafter that is contentious / admissible / not admissible evidentially.
I've said it before - if Eddie, Morse or Keela were 60% right, so what? They're a detection tool. Ground penetrating radar needs you to dig down to an anomaly; a lot of the time there's b....r all down there, it's nowhere near an exact science, but it's pretty useful. You'd rather have the tools than not.

The problem we have here is that the 'finds' of the dogs don't jive with some supporters paradigm; to the point where their efficacy needs to be denigrated. Mr McCann started this process himself in quite a vociferous manner.

The problem is Grime now thinks he has scientific support for his, alerts... He doesn't.
As a sceptic all I'm saying us I don't accept the, alerts or Grimes claims without some sort of decent evidence to support them.. I think that's a much more sensible approach

[Robittybob1]

For the sake of clarity, Eddie was an EVRD which meant that his primary role was to find the bodies of victims which by default meant finding evidence. I don't think that can be any clearer?

In  the often talked about White paper by Martin Grime he calls ERVD dogs now Human Remains Detection dogs HRDD.  and he defines their roles on page 7  or page 12/187 of the whole document.

There are also HRTEDD dogs  that are trained for detecting trace evidence.  (I sure Eddie was one of these dogs)

They smell trace of odour resulting from the direct or indirect  transference of odour from a source.    There is no scientific test that can confirm this type of alert.

Definitely not bodies found most of the time, but transference of odour.

[G-Unit]

Cite for... He has proof.... He absolutely  doesnt
He thinks he has but Grime is not a scientist..

D'Andre Lane was convicted on circumstantial evidence. That evidence was the only corroboration of Morse's alerts.

[Mr Gray]

D'Andre Lane was convicted on circumstantial evidence. That evidence was the only orroberation of Morse's alerts.

That doesnt address your claim that grime now has proof to support the alerts..cite required

[Mr Gray]

D'Andre Lane was convicted on circumstantial evidence. That evidence was the only orroberation of Morse's alerts.

That evidence is not proof to support the alerts

[The General]

The problem is Grime now thinks he has scientific support for his, alerts... He doesn't.
As a sceptic all I'm saying us I don't accept the, alerts or Grimes claims without some sort of decent evidence to support them.. I think that's a much more sensible approach

Again, apart from you, who cares if you don't accept the alerts or Grime thinks he has scientific support? He is running a business after all. Law enforcement all over the USA are chomping at the bit to deploy him and doggo and they're getting ringing endorsements.
Woof.

[Mr Gray]

Again, apart from you, who cares if you don't accept the alerts or Grime thinks he has scientific support? He is running a business after all. Law enforcement all over the USA are chomping at the bit to deploy him and doggo and they're getting ringing endorsements.
Woof.

I don't see anyone chomping at the bit... I have very good answers to all your points, and will post later when I'm not busy... I think I know why the prosecutors wanted grime and not a n other dog handler

[G-Unit]

The problem is Grime now thinks he has scientific support for his, alerts... He doesn't.
As a sceptic all I'm saying us I don't accept the, alerts or Grimes claims without some sort of decent evidence to support them.. I think that's a much more sensible approach

Stockham carried out blind and double blind tests on Morse. Are such tests unscientific?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjH36h2PwE

[Mr Gray]

Stockham carried out blind and double blind tests on Morse. Are such tests unscientific?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjH36h2PwE

I haven't looked yet..  They may be basically scientific but totally inadequate ...with little scientific value... Grime and Stickhan are not scientists

[The General]

I don't see anyone chomping at the bit... I have very good answers to all your points, and will post later when I'm not busy... I think I know why the prosecutors wanted grime and not a n other dog handler

I get your drift, nudge nudge, use a sympathetic doggo and handler to secure a spurious conviction. What? Not my words. Not my opinion.
I'm out. I've received a minimal warning for something about language apparently. Which I think is **** *** ******** **** *****. **** *******.

[Mr Gray]

I get your drift, nudge nudge, use a sympathetic doggo and handler to secure a spurious conviction. What? Not my words. Not my opinion.
I'm out. I've received a minimal warning for something about language apparently. Which I think is **** *** ******** **** *****. **** *******.

You might think you get my drift but it would be better to wait for my explanation

[Robittybob1]

You might think you get my drift but it would be better to wait for my explanation

Is that a promise?