Have the dog alerts any significance?

[Robittybob1]

Evidence can be neutral Robbie but it's still evidence.

But if all the alerts were due to cross contamination what sort of evidence would that be?

[ferryman]

I confess to getting a bit cross with preoccupation with 'defending' the reputations of two dogs who couldn't (and in respect of Eddie, RIP) didn't! give a damn what humans said about them.

What gets trampled in the midst of this mush is the reputations of two human beings accused of covering up the (alleged!) 'fact' of her death, fabricating an abduction and launching a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead) daughter's name.

You know.  What matters more?

The reputations of two dogs?

Or the reputations of two human beings, grappling with aftermath of scurrilous accusations, post the shelved enquiry, published in a book sold to hundreds-of-thousands across countries of the continent of Europe?

[ferryman]

Does it not concern anyone that for one -- and only one -- of all inspections in the shelved PDL enquiry (the inspection of vehicles!) Grime wore the white anti cross contamination overalls of his trade?

And does it not concern anyone that, post PdL, Grime was handed the video of that inspection to use for personal and promotional purposes?

Or that he did when he applied for the gig at Haut de la Garenne?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html

'Grime made a presentation, showing him [Harper] a video of the dog finding the "scent of death" in Kate and Gerry McCann's car,' the detective said.

Eddie the sniffer dog with handler Martin Grime
False trails: Eddie the sniffer dog with handler Martin Grime

'They were still formal suspects and the case had got worldwide publicity. It seemed to get Lenny very excited. I think Grime kind of bewitched him.'

[stephen25000]

As to who is guilty or not guilty of any possible crime has yet to be determined and certainly not by you.

[misty]

As to who is guilty or not guilty of any possible crime has yet to be determined and certainly not by you.

Is that any different to someone saying that the McCanns were totally responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine?

[John]

Does it not concern anyone that for one -- and only one -- of all inspections in the shelved PDL enquiry (the inspection of vehicles!) Grime wore the white anti cross contamination overalls of his trade?

And does it not concern anyone that, post PdL, Grime was handed the video of that inspection to use for personal and promotional purposes?

Or that he did when he applied for the gig at Haut de la Garenne?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html

Why should it?   Grime is a dog handler expert, it's up to him what he wears and which media presentations of his work he wishes to promote.

[stephen25000]

Is that any different to someone saying that the McCanns were totally responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine?

They instigated the events, no doubt about it.

As to what happened next, that is the subject of debate and opinions, and as I have said before, barring a confession, never likely to be known.

[Robittybob1]

Why should it?   Grime is a dog handler expert, it's up to him what he wears and which media presentations of his work he wishes to promote.

Is the point that the others there didn't?

[Robittybob1]

Plenty of interviews to do statement analysis on.  Peter Hyatt did an analysis on one over 4 years old and thought they were guilty, but I think he needs to do more.

[Mr Gray]

Why should it?   Grime is a dog handler expert, it's up to him what he wears and which media presentations of his work he wishes to promote.

so is it correct to use a video concerning  a case that is still under investigation and may go to court

[John]

so is it correct to use a video concerning  a case that is still under investigation and may go to court

Use it in what way?

[Mr Gray]

Use it in what way?

To promote his business
A serious conflict of interest

[John]

The alerts are unreliable as evidence...thats all that is important. sceptics just dont seem to understand

the only reason they could be unreliable as evidence is because they ahve not been shown to be reliable .....that is the very unfortunate truth for the sceptics

When you quote Grime you could at least quote him properly ergo

Grime:

' My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence. '

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

So the important factor here is corroborating evidence meaning alerts can have evidential reliability in the right circumstances. Stating that dog alerts generally are not reliable evidence is false.

[John]

You made an error again Grime said "He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects."  So even though what you said is true in that all the alerts are on the McCann associated properties "it does not identify suspects".

That's right, its just one big coincidence. 

[John]

Grime's reaction to Eddie's reaction to a coconut was: humans can't be right all the time.

Grime, at least, makes no bones that Eddie reacted to the coconut.

Maybe someone's ashes had been buried within the coconut shell?