Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Robittybob1]

Have you watched the video ? It is not my opinion that the dog alerts were the key piece of evidence, I’m quoting from the programme.

Your last sentence ( actually can you write in proper sentences with proper punctuation ) is very close to libel. Grime called Eddie back because he recognised his change in behaviour around places and objects related to the McCanns.

It’s odd how you suggest that Grime is unprofessional on the one hand yet quote him as if his word is law on the other.

Do you accept what Davel says here:  "are you aware of the apeal to the SCCRC...obviuosly not

the SCCRC ruled that the dog alerts were unreliable but there was so much other evidence the conviction stood"?

[faithlilly]

I have never sugested grime was unprofessional...my posts are all here he is welcome to sue me if he wishes..you again obviously dont understand the evidence

You implied Grime  dishonestly brought his dog’s back again and again to objects that belonged to the McCanns even though Eddie showed no interest. Is that correct ?

[Robittybob1]

You implied Grime  dishonestly brought his dog’s back again and again to objects that belonged to the McCanns even though Eddie showed no interest. Is that correct ?

It was Davel's opinion.  He is not claiming it was a fact.

[Mr Gray]

You implied Grime  dishonestly brought his dog’s back again and again to objects that belonged to the McCanns even though Eddie showed no interest. Is that correct ?

no its not correct and again shows your poor understanding...where have  mentioned dishonesty..absolutely pathetic observation of the written word...you are starting to look somewhat foolish...

grime certainly called the dogs back ...that is a fact...but i dont consider his actions dishonest...as i have posted previously

[Mr Gray]

It was Davel's opinion.  He is not claiming it was a fact.

it is a fact rob...as evidenced in the files

[Robittybob1]

no its not correct and again shows your poor understanding...where have  mentioned dishonesty..absolutely pathetic observation of the written word...you are starting to look somewhat foolish...

grime certainly called the dogs back ...that is a fact...but i dont consider his actions dishonest...as i have posted previously

Do you think there was absolutely nothing wrong with the dog handling techniques?

[Mr Gray]

Do you think there was absolutely nothing wrong with the dog handling techniques?

not at all...Ive posted all this before

[faithlilly]

no its not correct and again shows your poor understanding...where have  mentioned dishonesty..absolutely pathetic observation of the written word...you are starting to look somewhat foolish...

grime certainly called the dogs back ...that is a fact...but i dont consider his actions dishonest...as i have posted previously

According to you he knew he was skewing the evidence when he called Eddie back even though he had previously shown no interest. What else would you call it but dishonest?

Tell you what Davel you explain to me how you think Grime could honestly bring a cadaver dog back to objects he knew the dog had shown no interest in ?

[Robittybob1]

According to you he knew he was skewing the evidence when he called Eddie back even though he had previously shown no interest. What else would you call it but dishonest?

Tell you what Davel you explain to me how you think Grime could honestly bring a cadaver dog back to objects he knew the dog had shown no interest in ?

Simply needed a double check.  Are you saying dogs lie?     

[Mr Gray]

According to you he knew he was skewing the evidence when he called Eddie back even though he had previously shown no interest. What else would you call it but dishonest?

Tell you what Davel you explain to me how you think Grime could honestly bring a cadaver dog back to objects he knew the dog had shown no interest in ?

very simple ...if there was evidence to be found it would be in5a...nothing should be missed...therefore it was important the dogswere repeatedly brought back to examine sites grime felt were important..but nothing of any significance was found

and he wasnt skewing evidence because the alerts themselves are not evidence

[Mr Gray]

Simply needed a double check.

or even triple check...it was important no evidence was  missed

[G-Unit]

have you not seen them before ..grimes interview...grimes rogatory. you think you could tell me...I think you cannot...so it is simply your opinion. You and others are ignoring GRimes and Harrisons reservations on the alerts because they do not suit your opinion

It is against forum protocol to provide quotes without cites.

You think my understanding of the nature of 'specialized investigation methods' is just my opinion? How do you know when you don't know what my understanding is? Talk about illogical!

I have explained the reservations, it's you who have ignored the rest of what was said because it doesn't support your opinions.

[Mr Gray]

It is against forum protocol to provide quotes without cites.

You think my understanding of the nature of 'specialized investigation methods' is just my opinion? How do you know when you don't know what my understanding is? Talk about illogical!

I have explained the reservations, it's you who have ignored the rest of what was said because it doesn't support your opinions.

[Mr Gray]

It is against forum protocol to provide quotes without cites.

You think my understanding of the nature of 'specialized investigation methods' is just my opinion? How do you know when you don't know what my understanding is? Talk about illogical!

I have explained the reservations, it's you who have ignored the rest of what was said because it doesn't support your opinions.

I said I think...not that I know...it is you who are illogical..as is the rest of your post

[Mr Gray]

Grime triple checked and still found no evidence...he was careful to state had found no evidence...yet those who misunderstand think he has grounds to sue me..it shows how little they understand