Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[G-Unit]

Then enlighten us... Tell us what type of evidence the alerts are... Seeing as they have  no reliability or value as evidence and no inference can be drawn from them..

I see no difference between a trained dog's alert and a statement by a person. Both exist, both express opinions and both can be proved right or wrong by other evidence.

[Mr Gray]

I see no difference between a trained dog's alert and a statement by a person. Both exist, both express opinions and both can be proved right or wrong by other evidence.

You might not but a court does... On the basis a human can be Cross examined but a dog can't... More evidence you do not understand  the evidence

[faithlilly]

To say the alerts are the same as DNA is patently ridiculous and proves my point

Dna proves the presence of the suspects dna but does not explain how it got their

The alert isn't even evidence of cadaver odour

Context is everything. DNA is not always evidence of guilt but in a circumstantial case where there is other evidence supporting it it can be. Cadaver dog alerts are similar as in the case of Suzanne Pilley. There was no body to prove Miss Pilley was dead but together with other evidence a case was built which was strong enough to prove David Gilroy’s guilt.


THE man accused of murdering Suzanne Pilley had scratches that could have been from “grappling” with someone, a court heard yesterday.

Consultant pathologist Dr Nathaniel Cary said David Gilroy’s injuries could have been caused by fingernails.

Dr Cary studied photos taken of Gilroy by police in the days after bookkeeper Suzanne, 38, went missing.

The witness thought a “skin tone substance” had been used on one of Gilroy’s injuries.

Yesterday, a police officer told the trial a sniffer dog gave “a full blown ­positive ­indication” that he could smell human remains or blood on the outside of Gilroy’s car.

South Yorkshire PC Simone Thompson’s dog Buster was used in the search for Suzanne.
The animal ­also indicated he could smell human remains in the boot, PC Thompson said.
Another cop told how Gilroy’s ­Vauxhall Vectra looked like it may have been driven in “off-road” conditions.

PC Alastair Bain said he found “vegetative” matter on the underside of the car. PC Bain also said three of the car’s four coil suspension springs were fractured.

The trial earlier heard how Gilroy drove to Lochgilphead in Argyll the day after Suzanne was last seen. Asked by prosecution QC Alex Prentice if he would have made that journey with the car in such a condition, PC Bain replied: “No.”

Gilroy, 49, of Silverknowes, Edinburgh, denies murdering ex-lover Suzanne on May 4, 2010. He denies trying to defeat the ends of justice by applying make-up to disguise the extent of his injuries.

[Mr Gray]

Context is everything. DNA is not always evidence of guilt but in a circumstantial case where there is other evidence supporting it it can be. Cadaver dog alerts are similar as in the case of Suzanne Pilley. There was no body to prove Miss Pilley was dead but together with other evidence a case was built which was strong enough to prove David Gilroy’s guilt.


THE man accused of murdering Suzanne Pilley had scratches that could have been from “grappling” with someone, a court heard yesterday.

Consultant pathologist Dr Nathaniel Cary said David Gilroy’s injuries could have been caused by fingernails.

Dr Cary studied photos taken of Gilroy by police in the days after bookkeeper Suzanne, 38, went missing.

The witness thought a “skin tone substance” had been used on one of Gilroy’s injuries.

Yesterday, a police officer told the trial a sniffer dog gave “a full blown ­positive ­indication” that he could smell human remains or blood on the outside of Gilroy’s car.

South Yorkshire PC Simone Thompson’s dog Buster was used in the search for Suzanne.
The animal ­also indicated he could smell human remains in the boot, PC Thompson said.
Another cop told how Gilroy’s ­Vauxhall Vectra looked like it may have been driven in “off-road” conditions.

PC Alastair Bain said he found “vegetative” matter on the underside of the car. PC Bain also said three of the car’s four coil suspension springs were fractured.

The trial earlier heard how Gilroy drove to Lochgilphead in Argyll the day after Suzanne was last seen. Asked by prosecution QC Alex Prentice if he would have made that journey with the car in such a condition, PC Bain replied: “No.”

Gilroy, 49, of Silverknowes, Edinburgh, denies murdering ex-lover Suzanne on May 4, 2010. He denies trying to defeat the ends of justice by applying make-up to disguise the extent of his injuries.

Cadaver alert no evidential value.... Are you suggesting DNA has no evidential value... To suggest they are similar is ridiculous

[faithlilly]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CA-C-2yU2D0

‘The key evidence came from police dogs’

[faithlilly]

Cadaver alert no evidential value.... Are you suggesting DNA has no evidential value... To suggest they are similar is ridiculous

Without context DNA has no evidential value.

[Carana]

So, as far as you are aware, Grime has never claimed that Eddie alerts to only the residual scent of blood. Is that correct ?

What I said is that Grime stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood. He never stated that Eddie would only react to the physical presence.

I find it therefore possible that Eddie could react to a residual scent of blood in the absence of any physical presence.

Whether that's what happened or not... no one knows.

My main point being  that the "matrix" of possibilities is simplstic and flawed, yet still touted by some - a decade later - as the (presumably undeniable) "truth".

IMO, it's not an undeniable "truth", even if I don't discount the possibility that she may indeed have died there.

[Lace]

What like, find the body - prove we killed her.

Do you think that is what Gerry meant when he said 'show us the body'?     In my opinion he meant show us the body to prove Madeleine is dead,  as Gerry said unless there was proof they would go on beleiving Madeleine was alive.

[Lace]

I see no difference between a trained dog's alert and a statement by a person. Both exist, both express opinions and both can be proved right or wrong by other evidence.

How can a trained dog be proved right or wrong,  when there is no body?

[Mr Gray]

Without context DNA has no evidential value.

Again you are, trying to compare DNA, to alerts

Dna always, has evidential value

[Angelo222]

The point is as shown by spam is that [posters are using the alerts as evidence in their thought process to decide that madeleine died in teh aprtment when the FACT is taht according to the experts the alerts should not be used as evidence...therefore these posters do not understand what the evidence is

The alerts are merely suggestive of cadaver odour but can also be suggestive of many other things too.  I don't see what's hard to understand about that?   

[Angelo222]

Again you are, trying to compare DNA, to alerts

Dna always, has evidential value

I agree on that one, DNA is unique to the individual with only a few exceptions.

[faithlilly]

What I said is that Grime stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood. He never stated that Eddie would only react to the physical presence.

I find it therefore possible that Eddie could react to a residual scent of blood in the absence of any physical presence.

Whether that's what happened or not... no one knows.

My main point being  that the "matrix" of possibilities is simplstic and flawed, yet still touted by some - a decade later - as the (presumably undeniable) "truth".

IMO, it's not an undeniable "truth", even if I don't discount the possibility that she may indeed have died there.

So Grime, through all his correspondence and statements, has never said that Eddie reacts only to the residual scent of blood.

[kizzy]

Do you think that is what Gerry meant when he said 'show us the body'?     In my opinion he meant show us the body to prove Madeleine is dead,  as Gerry said unless there was proof they would go on beleiving Madeleine was alive.

I am not on about what [you] thought he meant, its what he said. - you are twisting it.

your opinion is wrong - on what you thought he meant.

He challenged the police, find the body prove we killed her.

[faithlilly]

I agree on that one, DNA is unique to the individual with only a few exceptions.

I’m not arguing that but often finding DNA, such as when someone is known to have lived at the property, is not evidence.