Gerry and Kate's reaction to sniffer dogs didnt make sense new ninemsn article

[stephen25000]

How is that my problem ?. It does not affect my health or investments therefore it is no problem to me.

This forum is not trying the case so the opinions of Grime and Harrison cannot be put to any test, by this forum, that is relevant or carries weight.

Exactly.


Grime and Harrison were also expending their opinions.

[Mr Gray]

The word evidence has many meanings depending on context.  I have already answered your earlier post.  Unreliable evidence can quickly become reliable given the introduction of relevant forensics.  I think Mr Grime explained all this previously.

when the alert is corroborated it becomes evidence...until then it has no evidential reliability or value

[Mr Gray]

As a reminder, yet again.

The case was shelved due to lack of evidence.

What happened to Madeleine was undetermined.

Opinions not withstanding.

absolutely...lack of evidence....

[John]

when the alert is corroborated it becomes evidence...until then it has no evidential reliability or value

No, when it is corroborated it becomes proof.

[Mr Gray]

I never said they did.

People can make up their own minds for themselves.

and how do sensible people make there minds up...they look at the evidence...and the alerts have no value as evidence

[stephen25000]

absolutely...lack of evidence....

Lack of evidence of abduction.

Yes, absolutely right.

[Mr Gray]

No, when it is corroborated it becomes proof.

proof of what....

[Mr Gray]

Lack of evidence of abduction.

Yes, absolutely right.

no evidence of death in the apartment

[ferryman]

No, when it is corroborated it becomes proof.

But not necessarily proof that advances a criminal enquiry.

The provenance of Eddie's alert to the Renault Scenic was proved.

But of no use in advancing the enquiry or determining what happened to Madeleine.

[John]

proof of what....

The whole idea of bringing a cadaver dog and a CSI dog to the Algarve at great expense was to look for signs of foul play. The theory being that the dogs will detect blood or cadaver scent associated with a missing child. When a find is made it designated evidence.  If that evidence is then tested and found to be directly connected to the missing child by way of DNA profiling then allowing for other factors that evidence can become proof according to prosecutors that something untoward happened to the child before he or she went missing. Ultimately, a Court will decide if that proof is of sufficient quality to warrant a conviction in the absence of a body. There doesn't require to be a body for someone to be convicted, it all comes down to evidence and proof.

[stephen25000]

no evidence of death in the apartment

There is no evidence, which would support bringing anyone to court, on any of the possibilities.

[ferryman]

There is no evidence, which would support bringing anyone to court, on any of the possibilities.

So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?

[John]

no evidence of death in the apartment

There appeared to be evidence of death in 5a by logic that a dog trained to find it alerted.  Problem is that it could have been scent associated with a perfectly innocent death, by transference.

[John]

So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?

Because Mr Amaral's book and DVD was found not to have damaged their reputations.

[G-Unit]

So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?

They were unable to prove they had been libelled.