Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

Can you provide a cite that these various videos are the same as the official videos? Can you provide evidence of your expertise on the correct usage of police dogs?

This thread is about 'sceptics' misunderstanding evidence. In my opinion certain people can't even identify evidence, let alone assess it.

To be clear the alerts have no value as evidences

[G-Unit]

To be clear the alerts have no value as evidences

Just like the dog videos and people's opinions.

[Brietta]

I’m not interested in your or my knowledge but the professionals who do actually know what they are talking about and posting a research paper which is twenty years old as some kind of proof of a cadaver dog’s fallibility is ridiculous in the extreme.

As to Zampo he is described as a sniffer dog, and not a very well trained one at that. As far as we can tell he was neither an EVRD dog like Eddie nor a blood dog like Keela and was used by people who obviously didn’t know what they were doing.so any likeness to the McCann case ends right there, no matter how hard you try to push those ‘similarities’.

Oh, sorry ... I thought you were interested when you posted ... "1998 ? I’m sure our knowledge of cadaver dogs has moved on since this paper was written."

I thought it was a pretty comprehensive document for its time ... exactly what was in it that you think has been superseded apropos the collection of evidence with the assistance of dogs in 2007 ... which is the period of usual interest.

Aaaaah ... good old Zampo ... isn't he a proper wag.  Had everyone proper fooled did he not?  All those alerts and nary a shred of evidence in support.
One wonders why anyone fell for that one, eh?
Not a shred of supporting evidence, eh?  Oh wait a minute ... 

[Carana]

Personally, I don't feel comfortable with the title of this thread, as it seems to be of the tennis-match variety, so I doubt that I will often post on it.

If it had been a more generic "do case-followers simply misunderstand the evidence", I think I'd have found that to be more open to potential misunderstandings and to possibly bridge the gap in some aspects.

JMO.

[Brietta]

Of course it has.

How can I put this as simply as possible Lace. Grime, who is the expert, says that Eddie alerts to cadaver scent and dried blood from a living person. Keela alerts to dried blood from a living person even if there has been attempts to wash that blood away. Both Eddie and Keela smell the blood. However, and this is the important part, Keela didn’t smell blood in the bedroom of apartment 5a so didn’t alert. Eddie alerted and we know it wasn't to the scent of blood because if it had been Keela would have alerted ergo it must have been to the other scent he was trained to alert to ie cadaver scent.

Please watch how you word your posts to ensure you do not offend fellow members.

Let us imagine for a moment we are ordinary members of the public called to jury duty in an adversary justice system such as our own.  In the midst of the trial one expert makes a case for the prosecution and another expert presents an opposing argument on behalf of the defence.
The judge will ensure the objectivity of the expert evidence presented ... but it is the ordinary members of the public who will deliberate on it and evaluate it before making a decision on it.

On this forum we probably have a more informed opinion on many matters than do jurors in many trials in the real world.  In the absence of a dog expert to 'keep us right' here, we the de facto jurors are well qualified to express an opinion without let or hindrance. 

[Alice Purjorick]

Personally, I don't feel comfortable with the title of this thread, as it seems to be of the tennis-match variety, so I doubt that I will often post on it.

If it had been a more generic "do case-followers simply misunderstand the evidence", I think I'd have found that to be more open to potential misunderstandings and to possibly bridge the gap in some aspects.

JMO.

I agree. But then what did you expect when you consider the instigator is the self appointed arbiter of evidence?
It's a nice place in which to hone one's "Goyalka* skills" when one feels the desire to do so.....

* that'll keep the "Googlers" busy for ten or twelve years! 

[Carana]

I agree. But then what did you expect when you consider the instigator is the self appointed arbiter of evidence?
It's a nice place in which to hone one's "Goyalka* skills" when one feels the desire to do so.....

* that'll keep the "Googlers" busy for ten or twelve years! 

Who started the thread is irrelevant, IMO. Anyone could have done.

I'd have preferred a different title.

[faithlilly]

If you want to be rude.   How can I put this as simply as possible Faithlilly.

Keela didn't smell blood in the bedroom as there was no blood present for her to smell.

Exactly. So the alert from Eddie couldn’t have been from blood.

[Carana]

Exactly. So the alert from Eddie couldn’t have been from blood.

Why not?

[faithlilly]

Why not?

You seem to believe that Eddie alerts to the residual scent from blood. Do you have a cite for that ?

[G-Unit]

Personally, I don't feel comfortable with the title of this thread, as it seems to be of the tennis-match variety, so I doubt that I will often post on it.

If it had been a more generic "do case-followers simply misunderstand the evidence", I think I'd have found that to be more open to potential misunderstandings and to possibly bridge the gap in some aspects.

JMO.

I agree. It's purpose seems to be to identify and insult a particular group of people while at the same time suggesting that the author and those who agree with him are superior. I think it's very close to breaking forum rules.

[Carana]

I agree. It's purpose seems to be to identify and insult a particular group of people while at the same time suggesting that the author and those who agree with him are superior. I think it's very close to breaking forum rules.

I'm not getting into an argument over this. Anyone could have started it and my view would be the same.

All I'm saying is that I'd have been more interested if there had been a more inclusive title over potential misunderstandings of evidence.

[Robittybob1]

I'm not getting into an argument over this. Anyone could have started it and my view would be the same.

All I'm saying is that I'd have been more interested if there had been a more inclusive title over potential misunderstandings of evidence.

Propose a better title and get Davel to agree to the change and we'll see if the editing can be done.

[Mr Gray]

I agree. It's purpose seems to be to identify and insult a particular group of people while at the same time suggesting that the author and those who agree with him are superior. I think it's very close to breaking forum rules.

Its not meant to insult anyone its a genuine question which I think is important. On a leading sceptic site which you have praised, a letter has been posted which has been sent to the net flix film makers,
In it it states that the TWO cadaver dogs alerted to cadaver odour in 17 places and that this hs been confirmed by Grime...we also had faithlilly claming that grime has effectively confirmed taht the alerts are confirmed as cadaver odour....this is a very serious misrepresentation of the truth which needs to be addressed...It seems to me that sceptics in general believe the alerts are evidential and confirm the presence of a cadaver...this is patently wrong.

all sceptics have to do is point out where I  am wrong...it shouldnt be that  difficult if I am...so go ahead...so far no one has

[Mr Gray]

I'm not getting into an argument over this. Anyone could have started it and my view would be the same.

All I'm saying is that I'd have been more interested if there had been a more inclusive title over potential misunderstandings of evidence.

Im looking to address  very important point....in a genral discussion this pt would have   been lost.I understand why sceptics are uncomfortable discussing it