Wandering Off Topic

[slartibartfast]

A lot of unsubstantiated bad mouthing of Grime going on. Wonder why?

[Mr Gray]

A lot of unsubstantiated bad mouthing of Grime going on. Wonder why?

I dont see a lot of bad mouthing against Grime.  What I see is simply pointing out that the alerts should not have been admitted as evidence in the Gilroy case. Then we have Grimes colleague casting doubt on unconfirmed alerts

[Vertigo Swirl]

A lot of unsubstantiated bad mouthing of Grime going on. Wonder why?

I wonder why no one is interested in what John Cassella has to say and why Pathfinder thinks he is talking shite.  Any ideas?

[G-Unit]

I wonder why no one is interested in what John Cassella has to say and why Pathfinder thinks he is talking shite.  Any ideas?

All we know is what Davel has said. I for one have no intention of signing up to a long podcast to listen to what is probably a short interview. Especially as it won't make any difference to the Pilley case and has no bearing on the McCann case imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

All we know is what Davel has said. I for one have no intention of signing up to a long podcast to listen to what is probably a short interview. Especially as it won't make any difference to the Pilley case and has no bearing on the McCann case imo.

Do you accept that Davel is accurate when he says John Cassella states the dog evidence should have been ruled inadmissible in the Pilley case, or do you think he’s making it up?

[Mr Gray]

All we know is what Davel has said. I for one have no intention of signing up to a long podcast to listen to what is probably a short interview. Especially as it won't make any difference to the Pilley case and has no bearing on the McCann case imo.

The General listened to it as well and has not contradicted anything I've said Re Cassella.  Based on the fact that Almeida  said the main evidence in the first investigation was the alerts then it certainly  is relevant

[Mr Gray]

Do you accept that Davel is accurate when he says John Cassella states the dog evidence should have been ruled inadmissible in the Pilley case, or do you think he’s making it up?

And confirmed by the SCCRC. 

[G-Unit]

Do you accept that Davel is accurate when he says John Cassella states the dog evidence should have been ruled inadmissible in the Pilley case, or do you think he’s making it up?

I don't really care what he said. He was commenting on things outside of his area of expertise.

[Eleanor]

I don't really care what he said. He was commenting on things outside of his area of expertise.

Aren't we all?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't really care what he said. He was commenting on things outside of his area of expertise.

Who was - Davel or the professor of Forensic science?

[Mr Gray]

I don't really care what he said. He was commenting on things outside of his area of expertise.

are you suggesting Prof Cassella was commneting on something outside his area of expertise.......The SCCRC also said the alerts were not admisssable...are they doing the same


and what is your area of experise to support this statement

http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/2556/1/Simon%20Newbery%20poster.pdf

the dog deployed in the Gilroy case was Buster
2yrs old
handler...least experienced
deploymnets...few

[The General]

Do you accept that Davel is accurate when he says John Cassella states the dog evidence should have been ruled inadmissible in the Pilley case, or do you think he’s making it up?

I wasn't taking notes or ought, but I can re-visit the part. He might have said something like that.
I'd recommend anyone here give it a listen. It's free on Audible.
West Cork is excellent too. And Evil Has a Name.

[The General]

are you suggesting Prof Cassella was commneting on something outside his area of expertise.......The SCCRC also said the alerts were not admisssable...are they doing the same


and what is your area of experise to support this statement

http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/2556/1/Simon%20Newbery%20poster.pdf

the dog deployed in the Gilroy case was Buster
2yrs old
handler...least experienced
deploymnets...few

I don't understand all these stupid police forces pressed in to using untested, inexperienced dogs and handlers. It's like they don't know what they're doing, but yet somehow keep securing convictions despite their shortcomings.

[Mr Gray]

I don't understand all these stupid police forces pressed in to using untested, inexperienced dogs and handlers. It's like they don't know what they're doing, but yet somehow keep securing convictions despite their shortcomings.

I think you will find the dogs are not often used... When they, are used they can be very useful in finding evidence

[John]

Most regular posters will know that I don't normally intervene in discussions unless there is an issue. On this occasion there is an issue!

This thread has been provided in order to discuss new events and cases, some of which are of sufficient interest to be later spun off into new threads. This board is not a platform for members to criticise other users or their knowledge about the cases. I remind everyone that it is a breach of the forum rules to single out any member for criticism. Please bear this in mind going forward.TY