Eddie and Keela and what the alerts meant if anything.

[Mr Gray]

I think it's just a matter of time until the alerts are used in evidence in England and Wales. When the right case comes along they will be imo.

I can't see on what basis you make that claim... What evidence to support it... There's lots to contradict it which you seem to want to ignore

[Mr Gray]

In 2007 grime said the alerts had no evidential reliability..
Now he has presented them as evidence... I would like him to explain what has changed his mind

[G-Unit]

But the operative word in your post is surely 'collection'? 

What collection of circumstantial evidence exists against the McCanns?

I'm not discussing the McCanns I'm discussing the never ending attempts to discredit Grime and his dogs.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Never in England Ireland Wales... Once in scotland
He ignored it Luz
LCN was used in the UK extensively till challenged and it's limitations exposed

Some US states, also use canine line up ID which had been shown to be unreliable and the cause of several miscarriages of justice.

Afaics... Grime is on a mission to make them accepted and his views have changed dramatically  since 2007

His science and tests are poor imo... And that's why they are not accepted in England

That’s a misrepresentation of his views based on what he has actually said about alerts (at the time of his involvement with the McCann investigation. He was always clear that the alerts on there own did not constitute evidence. He said the alerts can be used to signpost a forensic team towards areas where they are likely to find samples of interest. He always stated that it was then up to the scientists to interpret their findings. He stressed that several times.

[Robittybob1]

You have watched the Eddie videos?

Then you will have watched Eddie retrieve a food item from a kitchen waste bin in one of the apartments ... whether or not that was a bacon sandwich ... it was an action outwith the parameters of his training.

He is still a dog who likes a bit of food.

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm not discussing the McCanns I'm discussing the never ending attempts to discredit Grime and his dogs.

But the alerts alone are meaningless and there's no evidence to corroborate them, is there?

You can see the potential pitfalls with these dogs from the Shannon Matthews case which was after MM's disappearance:

Page 25 of the document:

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

[Mr Gray]

That’s a misrepresentation of his views based on what he has actually said about alerts (at the time of his involvement with the McCann investigation. He was always clear that the alerts on there own did not constitute evidence. He said the alerts can be used to signpost a forensic team towards areas where they are likely to find samples of interest. He always stated that it was then up to the scientists to interpret their findings. He stressed that several times.

he has cahnged his opinion dramatically...he is now saying anectdotal witness sateents can corroborated the alerts,,...in 2007 he said it had to be human remains..

wheres your cite for 30 mins by the way

[Mr Gray]

I'm not discussing the McCanns I'm discussing the never ending attempts to discredit Grime and his dogs.

what happened to this...

Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything


why doesnt it apply to grime

Im not attempting to discredit anyone...im looking for the truth..

[Mr Gray]

I'm not discussing the McCanns I'm discussing the never ending attempts to discredit Grime and his dogs.

its very telling taht you have never criticised the lies told about the dogs...such as eddie found a body under a concrete slab in jersey...total lies

I never mentioned grime in this post... Thanks for the cite confirming your mistake

[Robittybob1]

he has cahnged his opinion dramatically...he is now saying anectdotal witness sateents can corroborated the alerts,,...in 2007 he said it had to be human remains..

wheres your cite for 30 mins by the way

If someone confessed to placing a cadaver in a bag and hid that bag in the McCann's main bedroom wardrobe, I can see Grime thinking that corroborates Eddie's alert at the wardrobe.
There doesn't have to be remains. 

If you thought there had to be remains where would these remains have to be found?  If Madeleine's body was found 7 km away from the apartment does that corroborate an alert in the apartment?  IMO it doesn't.

So what do you mean by "in 2007 he said it had to be human remains"?  Where would those remains have to be? 

[G-Unit]

As I have said according to the family the appeal court criticised the admissibility of this evidence
It seems you have just case and nothing else

I don't see the dogs being used much and I don't see them being useful apart from less than a couple of cases over the last 12 years.  What I have seen in the official report from Jersey is criticism if them

Of course they did. So did D'Andre Lane. Convictions are difficult to achieve when there's no body, which is why bodies are disposed of.

[Robittybob1]

its very telling taht you have never criticised the lies told about the dogs...such as eddie found a body under a concrete slab in jersey...total lies

Cite for this please " eddie found a body under a concrete slab in jersey".  Why introduce random objections like that without proof?
This site mentions it: https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccanns-case-how-can-dog-sniff-through.html
"A child's remains were discovered under several inches of concrete at a former children's home in Jersey after police bought in dogs to search the site. But how can they sniff through concrete?

For Eddie, it's all in a day's work."

I know moisture will permeate through concrete so I don't see why cadaver odour can't do the same.

But whether Eddie did alert above the concrete, and they found child remains below - who knows?

[Mr Gray]

If someone confessed to placing a cadaver in a bag and hid that bag in the McCann's main bedroom wardrobe, I can see Grime thinking that corroborates Eddie's alert at the wardrobe.
There doesn't have to be remains. 

If you thought there had to be remains where would these remains have to be found?  If Madeleine's body was found 7 km away from the apartment does that corroborate an alert in the apartment?  IMO it doesn't.

So what do you mean by "in 2007 he said it had to be human remains"?  Where would those remains have to be?

im simply quoting grime as i have before and provided  a cite..he said...

as no remains have been found the only alerts taht can be corroborated are the csi...

the questions you ask are therefore not relevant

[G-Unit]

But the alerts alone are meaningless and there's no evidence to corroborate them, is there?

You can see the potential pitfalls with these dogs from the Shannon Matthews case which was after MM's disappearance:

Page 25 of the document:

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

It's not up to me, though, it's up to the police and the prosecutora which evidence they use in a particular case. it's then up to the judge(s) and jurors to decide if it's admissible and convincing.

[Mr Gray]

Cite for this please " eddie found a body under a concrete slab in jersey".  Why introduce random objections like that without proof?

what do you mean..random suggestions... it isnt random...its in amarals book or video..ive supplied the cite several times