Eddie and Keela and what the alerts meant if anything.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Thats anectdotal not scientific evidence... And IMO not very impressive for 5 years, work

Anecdotal? Do you dispute all these cases? Do you dispute Eddie alerted in those cases? Do you dispute forensic material or evidence of the presense of a corpse was found where Eddie alerted in those cases? Do you dispute the confessions? Do you dispute the entire case in those examples?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I'm not talking about Keela... It's the cadaver dog that's important....

You asked if Keela had ever alerted and then no DNA was found.

[Mr Gray]

Anecdotal? Do you dispute all these cases? Do you dispute Eddie alerted in those cases? Do you dispute forensic material or evidence of the presense of a corpse was found where Eddie alerted in those cases? Do you dispute the confessions? Do you dispute the entire case in those examples?

The evidence us anectdotal... It's not scientific... Eddie found one cadaver...from those examples
We would need to see all the cases he was involved in to make a judgement...

[Mr Gray]

You asked if Keela had ever alerted and then no DNA was found.

That's because you introduced keela...

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

That's because you introduced keela...

Keela is in the thread title... and besides the dogs work together.

[Mr Gray]

Keela is in the thread title... and besides the dogs work together.

Keelad alerts, are confirmed by the finding of blood.. Has a court ever been asked to accept blood was present purely in an alert.. I dint think so

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

The evidence us anectdotal... It's not scientific... Eddie found one cadaver...from those examples
We would need to see all the cases he was involved in to make a judgement...

In all those examples Eddie alerted to cadaver odour. Why do you concede the efficacy of dogs trained to alert to blood, drugs, or firearms but not cadaver odour?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Keelad alerts, are confirmed by the finding of blood.. Has a court ever been asked to accept blood was present purely in an alert.. I dint think so

Of course not - I never once suggested that. I said the alerts are not evidence. They are simply indicators which point a team of forensic scientists to areas where they may find blood or human celular material. It is the findings of the forensic team that are presented to court - not a dog barking!! Good grief!!

[Mr Gray]

In all those examples Eddie alerted to cadaver odour. Why do you concede the efficacy of dogs trained to alert to blood, drugs, or firearms but not cadaver odour?

Do we know for certain that the dogs, alerted to cadaver odour... No

As far as, I know other dog handlers, are not trying to claim their dogs alert as true if no evidence is found
Drug dogs alert to drugs, and only drugs.. Eddie akerts to cadaver... Blood.. What else

[Mr Gray]

Of course not - I never once suggested that. I said the alerts are not evidence. They are simply indicators which point a team of forensic scientists to areas where they may find blood or human celular material. It is the findings of the forensic team that are presented to court - not a dog barking!! Good grief!!

The dogs bark was presented in the Lane case

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Do we know for certain that the dogs, alerted to cadaver odour... No

As far as, I know other dog handlers, are not trying to claim their dogs alert as true if no evidence is found
Drug dogs alert to drugs, and only drugs.. Eddie akerts to cadaver... Blood.. What else

pig corpses

[Parky41]

Of course not - I never once suggested that. I said the alerts are not evidence. They are simply indicators which point a team of forensic scientists to areas where they may find blood or human celular material. It is the findings of the forensic team that are presented to court - not a dog barking!! Good grief!!

T'would be a leap in bettering some of our justice system, the day we get Barbara Woodhouse in to decipher/translating for the 'dog in the dock'

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

The dogs bark was presented in the Lane case

I would accept it as circumstantial evidence but not as scientific evidence.

I do find it remarkable that despite all the chaff from those who try to discredit cadaver dogs the fact remains that Eddie only alerted to items directly related to the McCanns. The coin flipping analogy doesn't quite fit with that!!

[Robittybob1]

So by your own admission you have assumed Grime was called as an expert witness? Unless you have evidence your claim is just opinion. IMO required.

Grime giving evidence would be equivalent to a FSS scientist giving evidence or is he just another of the police team giving evidence?  That is a hard question.

[Parky41]

pig corpses