Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

Well it is now as he is long gone. The only way to test the validity of any dog alert is in controlled conditions. I believe a Grimes dog(Morse) was tested before the Lane cane and scored 95%to 100% accuracy in controlled conditions.
From People v Lane November 2013

“Grime submitted Morse and Keela's training reports into evidence. Over the course of 49 tests, Morse gave no false negative or false positive responses to tests in controlled environments. He gave one “unexplained” response, which was a single bark in a “blank” room. Morse scored 100 percent in tests on December 2 and December 6, 2011. Morse was tested on variety of dates between January 21, 2011, and February 13, 2013. Morse scored 100 percent in all but one test, on which he scored 95 to 100 percent. Morse did not give false positive responses to animal remains during his tests.

Without details of the tests its impossible to judge how reliable they are.

Does anyone know what Eddie alerted to in PDL....

[Mr Gray]

No but I trust Martin Grime to be a competent trainer of such dogs. Why wouldn't I? I am sure he knows more about it then me.

Grimes a dog handler... Not sure of his knowledge of scientific testing.  I've deen no evidence the dogs have been properly tested

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Grimes a dog handler... Not sure of his knowledge of scientific testing.  I've deen no evidence the dogs have been properly tested

Grimes is a dog handler/trainer. I am not sure of his knowledge of scientific testing either, or his understanding of law as it pertains to the admissibility of evidence but you keep quoting him on the latter subject.

[Mr Gray]

Grimes is a dog handler/trainer. I am not sure of his knowledge of scientific testing either, or his understanding of law as it pertains to the admissibility of evidence but you keep quoting him on the latter subject.

I'm quoting what he said... Can you not see the difference.
I'm not quoting him on the admissibilty of evifrnce but on his opinion of the alerts

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I'm quoting what he said... Can you not see the difference.
I'm not quoting him on the admissibilty of evifrnce but on his opinion of the alerts

So we finally agree Grimes statements are only his opinion on whether the alerts are evidence, not the actual fact that they are. Hurrah!! a breakthrough at last.

[Mr Gray]

So we finally agree Grimes statements are only his opinion on whether the alerts are evidence, not the actual fact that they are. Hurrah!! a breakthrough at last.

How could those alerts be presented as evidence when. Grime says they have no evidential value

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why ask me, I am neither a trained dog handler or on a jury where such evidence is presented. It would depend on how the evidence was presented during trial.

Why ask you?  Because you seem keen for people to accept that dog alerts are evidence. I'm just wondering what you see them as evidence of in this case.  I thought this was a discussion forum for exchange of opinions amongst other things,but if you don't want to say what you think then fair enough.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

How could those alerts be presented as evidence when. Grime says they have no evidential value

Grime hasn't passed the bar, is not an expert on law and in your words is a dog handler, not a scientist, a judge or even a lawyer. A dog handler who has given evidence in trials also.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Grime hasn't passed the bar, is not an expert on law and in your words is a dog handler, not a scientist, a judge or even a lawyer. A dog handler who has given evidence in trials also.

So who is the expert who decides whether or not dog alerts have evidential value and on what basis do they arrive at that decision?

[Eleanor]

No but I trust Martin Grime to be a competent trainer of such dogs. Why wouldn't I? I am sure he knows more about it then me.

Unfortunately Eddie was taught too many tricks, so in the end no one including Martin Grime knew exactly what Eddie was alerting to.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

So who is the expert who decides whether or not dog alerts have evidential value and on what basis do they arrive at that decision?

The judicial process of law making. There are guidelines that have been published in various countries. IMO.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Why ask you?  Because you seem keen for people to accept that dog alerts are evidence. I'm just wondering what you see them as evidence of in this case.  I thought this was a discussion forum for exchange of opinions amongst other things,but if you don't want to say what you think then fair enough.

I am keen for people to stop spreading falsehoods, what's the point in spreading these untruths can we just accept the fact that dog alerts have been used as evidence in court cases in the UK and overseas. I told you many months ago what my take on the alerts is, cut and paste from reply 37 - Dog Alerts - Evidence or Not?

“The dogs alerts are evidence that the dogs alerted in the flat where a missing child was last seen.
Nothing more than that.”

[Brietta]

So we finally agree Grimes statements are only his opinion on whether the alerts are evidence, not the actual fact that they are. Hurrah!! a breakthrough at last.

Martin Grime is an expert dog handler who as a police officer would I believe, fulfil all the necessary requirements of his job.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The judicial process of law making. There are guidelines that have been published in various countries.

Can you supply the guidelines for Scotland please?

[Eleanor]

The judicial process of law making. There are guidelines that have been published in various countries.

A Cite would be appropriate for this Statement.  Thank you in advance.