Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

During a 2009 television interview with Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueira, Gerry McCann was asked about the cadaver dogs alerting to the scent of a dead body in apartment 5A and their rental car.

"I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they're incredibly unreliable," McCann replied

seems gmccann agrees with you.



In one of his preliminary reports, Harrison said any alerts by the dogs may suggest that a body had been in the property and then removed. He added "no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence".



https://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/20/14/18/madeleine-mccann-cadaver-sniffer-dogs-reaction-apartment-car-didnt-make-sense


interesting comment

CORRECTION: On March 21 this article was changed to reflect that 'arguido' status was lifted (instead of 'cleared') from Kate and Gerry McCann.

Martin Harrison agrees, with me too.. And it was he who advised bringing the dogs in... No evidential reliability is very clear... As is no inference

[Mr Gray]

And Suzanne Pilley ? We were told on Crimewartch that the dog alerts were crucial in gaining a conviction without a body.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has revieed this case at the request of gilroys family...there only real finding is that the dog evidence was unreliable...so your claims are meaningless.


In a statement the Gilroy family said: “ We are shocked not just at the decision but also at what seems to us to be many instances where the Commission’s analysis has fallen far short of a full and fair investigation into the detail of the application which David, supported by us, made to them in November 2014. “One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.”

Read more at: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/suzanne-pilley-murder-killer-s-family-shocked-by-closure-of-review-1-4465183

isnt it about time sceptics faced the truth re the alerts

[Robittybob1]

But thankfully no longer on here

( I was getting confused with Pathfinder73 sorry)  Pathfinder is being quiet too.

[Robittybob1]

I'm glad you have learnt something  from a thread I have introduced.. My understanding hasn't changed but it didn't need to

I think your understanding re the stats has room for improvement.

[Robittybob1]

I didn't say anything had been 'proved'. I said the alerts are evidence, which has consistently been denied.

Evidence of what though?

[Mr Gray]

I think your understanding re the stats has room for improvement.

That's, a personal insult ...my knowledge  of stats is pretty good... What don't you think I understand and I can correct you

[faithlilly]

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has revieed this case at the request of gilroys family...there only real finding is that the dog evidence was unreliable...so your claims are meaningless.


In a statement the Gilroy family said: “ We are shocked not just at the decision but also at what seems to us to be many instances where the Commission’s analysis has fallen far short of a full and fair investigation into the detail of the application which David, supported by us, made to them in November 2014. “One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC. They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.”

Read more at: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/suzanne-pilley-murder-killer-s-family-shocked-by-closure-of-review-1-4465183

isnt it about time sceptics faced the truth re the alerts

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

‘The case against him ( Gilroy ) would have been overwhelming. There would have been evidence of: (a) the turbulent nature of his relationship with the deceased, involving intense jealousy in the context of expressed views from the deceased that their relationship was at an end; (b) the proximity of the arrivals of the deceased and the appellant at 11 Thistle Street on the morning of the disappearance; (c) the undoubtedly sinister cessation of text messages between the appellant and the deceased at about the time of her disappearance; (d) the appellant's strange demeanour on the morning of the disappearance and his sudden departure to collect his car on the pretext of having lost the minutes; (d) the cadaver dog's reaction to his car; (e) most significant, the state of the appellant's car upon his return from an unexpectedly long and sudden trip to Lochgilphead; and (f) the injuries on his hands, which he tried to conceal and which were characteristic of a reaction of someone being strangled.

[Mr Gray]

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

‘The case against him ( Gilroy ) would have been overwhelming. There would have been evidence of: (a) the turbulent nature of his relationship with the deceased, involving intense jealousy in the context of expressed views from the deceased that their relationship was at an end; (b) the proximity of the arrivals of the deceased and the appellant at 11 Thistle Street on the morning of the disappearance; (c) the undoubtedly sinister cessation of text messages between the appellant and the deceased at about the time of her disappearance; (d) the appellant's strange demeanour on the morning of the disappearance and his sudden departure to collect his car on the pretext of having lost the minutes; (d) the cadaver dog's reaction to his car; (e) most significant, the state of the appellant's car upon his return from an unexpectedly long and sudden trip to Lochgilphead; and (f) the injuries on his hands, which he tried to conceal and which were characteristic of a reaction of someone being strangled.

The evidence was overwhelming.... The review body however decided that the cafaver dog evidence wad unreliable... Which supports my view

[Mr Gray]

I think your understanding re the stats has room for improvement.

To be honest I don't rate your opinion on anything

[Robittybob1]

That's, a personal insult ...my knowledge  of stats is pretty good... What don't you think I understand and I can correct you

You have not provided proof of that as yet.

[faithlilly]

The evidence was overwhelming.... The review body however decided that the cafaver dog evidence wad unreliable... Which supports my view

I have provided a cite that the Court of Appeal considered the dog alerts to be a valuable piece of evidence. Can you provide a cite, other than the obviously upset family, that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission considered the dog’s evidence ‘unreliable’ ?

[Mr Gray]

You have not provided proof of that as yet.

You have criticised my knowledge of stats.. On what basis

[Mr Gray]

I have provided a cite that the Court of Appeal considered the dog alerts to be a valuable piece of evidence. Can you provide a cite, other than the obviously upset family, that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission considered the dog’s evidence ‘unreliable’ ?

I think that's, a pretty damning condemnation of the alerts.. Don't you

[Robittybob1]

You have criticised my knowledge of stats.. On what basis

From the little that you've said on the matter.

[Mr Gray]

From the little that you've said on the matter.

If I've said little it's not enough  for you to form an opinion... What particularly