Wandering Off Topic

[Icanhandlethetruth]

this is the same evidence you think contains evidence pointing to parental involvement- so is it reliable or unreliable in your view?

I think they are reliable, that's why I put them as seemingly unreliable as some people seem to think they aren't IMO. Each to their own.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

What questions would you ask Harrison and Grime.  I seem to recall somewhere Harrison saying they briefed the PJ and confirmed the alerts were not evidential.

They have both given very full statements on the alerts... I really think you are giving the alerts more credibility than they deserve

Well I would start with asking their opinions of the alerts, in the same way as when uncorroborated dog alerts are brought up in court and the handler gives his expert opinion on them.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think they are reliable, that's why I put them as seemingly unreliable as some people seem to think they aren't IMO. Each to their own.

If it’s reliable then no need for the Met to go over the same ground again is there?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well I would start with asking their opinions of the alerts, in the same way as when uncorroborated dog alerts are brought up in court and the handler gives his expert opinion on them.

They already gave their opinions of the alerts didn’t they?  Well Grime did.  What’s he going to say that would make any difference to the direction of the investigation?

[Mr Gray]

Well I would start with asking their opinions of the alerts, in the same way as when uncorroborated dog alerts are brought up in court and the handler gives his expert opinion on them.

Theyve given their experts opinion on them

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Its OK, I get it. You both are perfectly happy that Operation Grange looked at the past evidence and decided there was no need to re-open any investigation of parental involvement. I say, what's the harm in covering everything rather than ruling something out based on someone else's evidence. There can be a difference of opinion, I accept yours even if I don’t agree with it.

[Mr Gray]

Its OK, I get it. You both are perfectly happy that Operation Grange looked at the past evidence and decided there was no need to re-open any investigation of parental involvement. I say, what's the harm in covering everything rather than ruling something out based on someone else's evidence. There can be a difference of opinion, I accept yours even if I don’t agree with it.

They looked at all the evidence...you suggested they question Grime and Harrison...you cant accept that the testimony by both Grime and harrison has decreed the alerts valueless.

What more could they do to investigate the parents involvement...you cant seem to give  a decent answer

[Icanhandlethetruth]

They looked at all the evidence...you suggested they question Grime and Harrison...you cant accept that the testimony by both Grime and harrison has decreed the alerts valueless.

What more could they do to investigate the parents involvement...you cant seem to give  a decent answer

I can't accept it cause it ain't true.  What more could they do? not close the idea of parental involvement after looking at somebodies else's evidence. Look for themselves. Keep an open mind. Take a fresh look at what the PJ files suggested happened. Investigate, is that not their job?

[Mr Gray]

I can't accept it cause it ain't true.  What more could they do? not close the idea of parental involvement after looking at somebodies else's evidence. Look for themselves. Keep an open mind. Take a fresh look at what the PJ files suggested happened. Investigate, is that not their job?

Yes it is true.. If it wasn't... I would agree with you.. But it is..
I don't see any real evidence in the files which incriminates the parents

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Yes it is true.. If it wasn't... I would agree with you.. But it is..
I don't see any real evidence in the files which incriminates the parents

So if its true that both Grime and Harrison have testified on the alerts, and those testimonies have made the alerts worthless, can I see where you got that from?
If there isn't any evidence in the files maybe SY should look for some because as you said last week you believe its a possibility that the parents were involved. Every reasonable possibility should be investigated.

[Mr Gray]

So its true that both Grime and Harrison have testified on the alerts, and those testimonies have made the alerts worthless, can I see where you got that from?
If there isn't any evidence in the files maybe SY should look for some because as you said last week you believe its a possibility that the parents were involved. Every reasonable possibility should be investigated.

You are well aware of the statements made by Grime and Harrison that form part of the files..There is an incredibly tiny chance the parents could have been involved but I'm confident Wolters has near enough proof they are not ..
Richard Dawkins says he can't prove god doesn't exist and therefore he has to accept there's a possibility... That's how I view parental involvement

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You are well aware of the statements made by Grime and Harrison that form part of the files..There is an incredibly tiny chance the parents could have been involved but I'm confident Wolters has near enough proof they are not ..
Richard Dawkins says he can't prove god doesn't exist and therefore he has to accept there's a possibility... That's how I view parental involvement

 I am well aware of the statements but nowhere does it say that either of them express the opinion that the alerts are valueless. Regardless of whether Dawkings is agnostic or atheist, if you believe there is even the tiniest chance that the parents were involved, shouldn't that be investigated, they have been working on it for 9 years now.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Its OK, I get it. You both are perfectly happy that Operation Grange looked at the past evidence and decided there was no need to re-open any investigation of parental involvement. I say, what's the harm in covering everything rather than ruling something out based on someone else's evidence. There can be a difference of opinion, I accept yours even if I don’t agree with it.

The original files contained hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence.  Are you suggesting that Operation Grange should have started from scratch, ignored “someone else’s evidence” and gathered their own hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence?  Re-interview hundreds of witnesses?  Revisit hundreds of houses? Redeploy dogs in Apat 5 A and the hire car?  Send in forensics?    Or just do a bit of this and if so which bits to re-do and which bits of the original investigation to rely on?   Or how about they take a fresh look at all the evidence gathered, use HOLMES to make some sense of it, unearth dozens of previously unfollowed up leads and missed investigative opportunities?  Would that not rather make better use of time and resources?

[Mr Gray]

I am well aware of the statements but nowhere does it say that either of them express the opinion that the alerts are valueless. Regardless of whether Dawkings is agnostic or atheist, if you believe there is even the tiniest chance that the parents were involved, shouldn't that be investigated, they have been working on it for 9 years now.

Afaiac SY have looked at the evidence and decided the parents are not involved.  You can't accept  it because you give thr alerts credibilty they do not deserve ..imo

[Mr Gray]

I am well aware of the statements but nowhere does it say that either of them express the opinion that the alerts are valueless. Regardless of whether Dawkings is agnostic or atheist, if you believe there is even the tiniest chance that the parents were involved, shouldn't that be investigated, they have been working on it for 9 years now.

After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.