Eddie and Keela and what the alerts meant if anything.

[Mr Gray]

So what? Grime knows the process, just like you know how to administer superfluous, costly dental treatment.

professionals are not always right

[Robittybob1]

grime  think was clear...harrison i know was clear...physical evidence required to corroborate the alerts...that is not opinion...its fact. in the lane case....no physical evidence ...but grime claims anectdotal witness staements  corroborate them....whats going on

They never said "only physical evidence".

[Mr Gray]

They never said "only physical evidence".

Ive provided the cite this morning by harrison

[Robittybob1]

Ive provided the cite this morning by harrison

And I read it.  It doesn't say "only" physical evidence. 
"Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence."  So the finding of human DNA was enough then to show it was an alert to a "human cadaver". 

[Mr Gray]

And I read it.  It doesn't say "only" physical evidence. 
"Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence."  So the finding of human DNA was enough then to show it was an alert to a "human cadaver".

dna is physical evidence but does not support the alert as it could be a live person..im sure there would have been plenty of biancas dna on her car seat........at least you accept now that at that time physical evidence was required not anectdotal witness statements...

[Robittybob1]

dna is physical evidence but does not support the alert as it could be a live person..im sure there would have been plenty of biancas dna on her car seat........at least you accept now that at that time physical evidence was required not anectdotal witness statements...

Had there been supporting statements he would have allowed them.  If someone said "I saw XXX stuffing a suitcase with a girl's corpse".  That would be evidence enough.

[Mr Gray]

Had there been supporting statements he would have allowed them.  If someone said "I saw XXX stuffing a suitcase with a girl's corpse".  That would be evidence enough.

we are discussing what the alerts mean.....someone seen stuffing a corpse in a suitcase is stand alone evidence...we wouldnt need the dogs to tell us a corpse had been present

[Robittybob1]

we are discussing what the alerts mean.....someone seen stuffing a corpse in a suitcase is stand alone evidence...we wouldnt need the dogs to tell us a corpse had been present

Yes you would if the suitcase went missing overnight.  So you might have a cadaver dog alert plus  a statement, but no body no physical parts, and no blood.
Would you accept the statement?
Would you accept the alert?

But as a combination they carry a lot more weight, as the statement backs the alert and the alert supports the statement.

[Mr Gray]

Yes you would if the suitcase went missing overnight.  So you might have a cadaver dog alert plus  a statement, but no body no physical parts, and no blood.
Would you accept the statement?
Would you accept the alert?

But as a combination they carry a lot more weight, as the statement backs the alert and the alert supports the statement.

Your post isn't really clear rob.. If someone was, seen stuffing a cadaver in a suitcase that's strong evidence... What's the use of the alert

[Robittybob1]

Your post isn't really clear rob.. If someone was, seen stuffing a cadaver in a suitcase that's strong evidence... What's the use of the alert

Any statement could be false.  People lie to the police all the time.  It would be a mistake to take any statement at face value.  Every item in a statement needs corroboration and if found, then it is more likely to be truth.

[G-Unit]

So you don't think the fact that grime now says that cadaver dog alerts can be corroborated by anectdotal witness statements represents a change from 2007

I don't see it as, a matter of opinion... I see it as, a matter of fact

If it's facts you like D'Andre Lane was convicted (fact) by anecdotal witness statements (fact) plus cadaver dog alerts (fact)

[Mr Gray]

If it's facts you like D'Andre Lane was convicted (fact) by anecdotal witness statements (fact) plus cadaver dog alerts (fact)

it is facts i like.....have alook at the other thread and you'll see some more facts...how the FBI have presented flawed evidence that has now  been challenged and discredited...the same may well happen to the cadaver dog evidence..

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10842.msg544796#msg544796

[G-Unit]

it is facts i like.....have alook at the other thread and you'll see some more facts...how the FBI have presented flawed evidence that has now  been challenged and discredited...the same may well happen to the cadaver dog evidence..

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10842.msg544796#msg544796

I think not. Lane's appeal was unsuccessful.

[Robittybob1]

Davel - do you know the number of papers that are in the document http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf

There could be more than 10 papers in all which means the internal page numbering, does not match the PDF document numbering.  That totally confuses me as in the end I'm sure where I'm up to, what paper I'm looking at as I look at the 91 times the word "blood" appears.

[Mr Gray]

Davel - do you know the number of papers that are in the document http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf

There could be more than 10 papers in all which means the internal page numbering, does not match the PDF document numbering.  That totally confuses me as in the end I'm sure where I'm up to, what paper I'm looking at as I look at the 91 times the word "blood" appears.

The simplest thing to do is go by the PDF page number
1 to 187...and in all 187 pages the phrase decomposed blood does not appear