A Simple Question.

[Alice Purjorick]

I wasn't suggesting that, Alice.

I'm just offering my opinion, I'm not expecting anyone to necesarily agree with it.

I've listened to statements made on TV, supposedly verbatim quotes from pressers, and I've read several strategic debriefs.

I hope you'd consider those sources as possibly more reliable than a number of tabloid stories churned out in the early media frenzy that some still seem fond of regurgitating as gospel?

ETA: And my comment had 3 aspects to it:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9247.msg451169#msg451169

I was doing the same.
I thought my opinion of the press was well known?
Best summed up by paraphrasing Stokeley Carmichael in another connexion but "The punk's lying, period"
I did not comment on the Shannon case because I don't know enough about it.
The police and the media? . IMO the police use the media to their own ends and don't much care about how they go about it within limits. They will cast a little bread upon the water where it is beneficial to them [the police]; overall a kind of mutualism.
The last bit falls into the second guessing category in my book.
If there is anything else you want clarified just yell out...

[Mr Gray]

As I have repeatedly said Messrs Grime and Harrison may say what they like out of court.
In court they simply would not be allowed to say "The alerts have no evidential  reliability" as that is assuming a power they do not have. They may well be correct but that would not be the point should it wind up in court. In that case it would be up to the judge to direct and the judges and jury [if any] to decide the weighting if any given.

So what precise information with impeccable sources do you have to offer?
The case extends somewhat further than a pair of dogs, their handler and his boss.

as I have pointed out before...both grimes and harrisons statemnts are evidence that could be presented in court...are you suggesting that the alerts could be presented to a jury and the evidence of grime and harrisson witheld.......absolute rubbish

[Carana]

I was doing the same.
I thought my opinion of the press was well known?
Best summed up by paraphrasing Stokeley Carmichael in another connexion but "The punk's lying, period"
I did not comment on the Shannon case because I don't know enough about it.
The police and the media? . IMO the police use the media to their own ends and don't much care about how they go about it within limits. They will cast a little bread upon the water where it is beneficial to them [the police]; overall a kind of mutualism.
The last bit falls into the second guessing category in my book.
If there is anything else you want clarified just yell out...

I agree with the bit in bold. That was also a consideration in the Shannon debrief (you don't actually have to know that much about the case, just a skim will flag the media issues).

I find the debriefs interesting as they give an insight into police strategy, although obviously couched in the inevitable diplobabbly consultancyspeak.

[Mr Gray]

As I have repeatedly said Messrs Grime and Harrison may say what they like out of court.
In court they simply would not be allowed to say "The alerts have no evidential  reliability" as that is assuming a power they do not have. They may well be correct but that would not be the point should it wind up in court. In that case it would be up to the judge to direct and the judges and jury [if any] to decide the weighting if any given.

So what precise information with impeccable sources do you have to offer?
The case extends somewhat further than a pair of dogs, their handler and his boss.

you also posted..
Expert evidence will only be admissible where it will assist the court in
reaching its conclusions and is given by an expert who is impartial and
sufficiently qualified in a field of expertise, which itself is considered to be
reliable.

so the cort would first need to be satisfied taht the alerts are relaible... according to grime and harrison they are not

[Robittybob1]

you also posted..
Expert evidence will only be admissible where it will assist the court in
reaching its conclusions and is given by an expert who is impartial and
sufficiently qualified in a field of expertise, which itself is considered to be
reliable.

so the cort would first need to be satisfied taht the alerts are relaible... according to grime and harrison they are not

I am sure you are wrong when you say that " according to grime and harrison they are not" reliable.  They need corroborating evidence, that does not imply they are themselves unreliable. 

[Mr Gray]

I am sure you are wrong when you say that " according to grime and harrison they are not" reliable.  They need corroborating evidence, that does not imply they are themselves unreliable.

the  fact that they cannot be relied upon without corroboration..makes them....unreliable...both grime and Harrison use the words ...no reliability....

[Vertigo Swirl]

What the job of a journalist?  So can you give me an example please?

What are you asking for exactly? 

[Mr Gray]

deleted

[Robittybob1]

the  fact that they cannot be relied upon without corroboration..makes them....unreliable...both grime and Harrison use the words ...no reliability....

The point of corroboration is that the combination becomes stronger evidence,  the initial initial evidence plus the corroborating evidence work together.

[Mr Gray]

The point of corroboration is that the combination becomes stronger evidence,  the initial initial evidence plus the corroborating evidence work together.

the initial alert has no evidential value ...thats none...zero ....without corroboration....th corroboration is what is mportant...it really is quite simple

[Robittybob1]

the initial alert has no evidential value ...thats none...zero ....without corroboration....th corroboration is what is mportant...it really is quite simple

Well if I understand it correctly they work hand in hand.

[G-Unit]

as I have pointed out before...both grimes and harrisons statemnts are evidence that could be presented in court...are you suggesting that the alerts could be presented to a jury and the evidence of grime and harrisson witheld.......absolute rubbish

Witnesses in court are questioned by both prosecution and defence. Judges and Juries then decide what value their evidence has, not the witnesses.

[Mr Gray]

Well if I understand it correctly they work hand in hand.

then you dont understand...how can they work hand in hand if there is no corroboration...the sound of one hand clapping

[Mr Gray]

Witnesses in court are questioned by both prosecution and defence. Judges and Juries then decide what value their evidence has, not the witnesses.

you raelly do not understand the alert evidence,...the whole point is the dogs cannot be cross examined

[Alice Purjorick]

you also posted..
Expert evidence will only be admissible where it will assist the court in
reaching its conclusions and is given by an expert who is impartial and
sufficiently qualified in a field of expertise, which itself is considered to be
reliable.

so the cort would first need to be satisfied taht the alerts are relaible... according to grime and harrison they are not

You seem to think Mr Grime and Mr Harrison are the only arbiters of this "science".
It was at least 30 years old at the time MBM disappeared.