A Simple Question.

[Mr Gray]

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.

cite....dont get VRD confused with the scent of death alerts

[G-Unit]

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

If anyone misunderstands anything it's you in my opinion. So much so that I see no point whatsoever in continuing to discuss the subject with you.

[Mr Gray]

If anyone misunderstands anything it's you in my opinion. So much so that I see no point whatsoever in continuing to discuss the subject with you.

you have claimed...

Grimes opinion ws that the alers were triggered by cadaver

that the dogs were scientifically tested

the alerts in the gilroy case have be corroborated..


there is no evidence to support any of these claims so im not surprised you wish to give up

[Miss Taken Identity]

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

The owners /Trainers can!  there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence which can be brought to court and discussed and weighted.  But you know that anyhow.

Re the OP. Ther are  two things to think about,
1.  We were told The parents were NOT  suspects in an abduction..,
2. we were also told that they had  accepted the PJ's investigation regarding the parents so felt no need to re interview them.

What do we take from that?  Do they believe the PJ theory or parts of it, and that the parents were culpable in some way. leaving the children alone, leaving door unlocked kind of thing?.  Do they accept that Kate's version  about jemmied windows etc was a load of ole bulllonie ?and what do they believe the reason for this time wasting episode by the parents  was?


I am just asking questions... no need to delete.

[Mr Gray]

The owners /Trainers can!  there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence which can be brought to court and discussed and weighted.  But you know that anyhow.

Re the OP. Ther are  two things to think about,
1.  We were told The parents were NOT  suspects in an abduction..,
2. we were also told that they had  accepted the PJ's investigation regarding the parents so felt no need to re interview them.

What do we take from that?  Do they believe the PJ theory or parts of it, and that the parents were culpable in some way. leaving the children alone, leaving door unlocked kind of thing?.  Do they accept that Kate's version  about jemmied windows etc was a load of ole bulllonie ?and what do they believe the reason for this time wasting episode by the parents  was?


I am just asking questions... no need to delete.

getting a bit manic!!!!!!!!!

[Miss Taken Identity]

getting a bit manic!!!!!!!!!

Well go lie down in a dark room...

[Mr Gray]

Well go lie down in a dark room...

Im referring to you dear

[Miss Taken Identity]

Im referring to you dear

Oh so the personal insults are allowed again are they?  Thanks John  we all missed this sh'iteé

So what was it specifically about my posts you didn't like to gie such a educated response Davel dearest.

[Mr Gray]

Oh so the personal insults are allowed again are they?  Thanks John  we all missed this sh'iteé

So what was it specifically about my posts you didn't like to gie such a educated response Davel dearest.

I found it a little manic...with so many points raised....difficult to know where to start ..dont take offence...some of the most interesting people I know are quite manic

[Alice Purjorick]

All a bit hypothetical, but anyway.

If the McCanns had been tried in PT, would Grime and Harrison have had to testify in person? Or would the rogs have sufficed (it must be somewhere in the articles I posted earlier, but I haven't actually read it all yet).

Next question: if they had to testify in person, who would have been competent to question whether corroborative / physical / forensic evidence was necessary? The didn't have such dogs in PT, so there would have been no precedent.

OK lets play “What Would Have Happened If The Titanic Had Radar”!

1)The expert witness submits a report to the court to whom he has strict obligations . He does not of necessity have to appear in court in UK. What Germanic Law says I do not know.

The CPS says:
The first question for prosecutors to consider is always going to be:
Is expert evidence needed in this case? If a bench or jury is going to be able to decide upon the case by listening to or viewing the evidence and bringing to bear their own senses, knowledge and experience, then no expert is needed. In many cases, prosecutors can prove the point in issue by reference to other evidence where unnecessary use of experts may result in confusion.
And:
Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states that an expert's report is admissible as evidence of fact and opinion, whether or not the expert attends court to give oral evidence, but if it is not proposed to call the expert witness, the leave of the court must obtained prior to introducing it.
and:

For expert opinion to be admissible it must be able to provide the court with information which is likely to be outside a judge’s or a jury's knowledge and experience, but it must also be evidence which gives the court the help it needs in forming its conclusions.

The role of the expert is to give their opinion based on their analysis of the available evidence. The Bench or jury is not bound by that opinion, but can  take it into consideration in determining the facts in issue.
If the expert is seeking to advance an opinion which is not relevant to an issue in the case or which might be deemed a matter of common sense upon which the jury could reach its own conclusions, then the opinion of an expert will be inadmissible.

2) One presumes the prosecutor would make application to the court to accept case law from other countries. I don't see that posing a problem were that other country an EU member state
but that is mere supposition on my part.

Mr Justice Cresswell ruled:
An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in
relation to matters within his expertise (see Polivitte Ltd. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.
Plc., [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 379 at p. 386 per Mr. Justice Garland and Re J, [1990] F.
C.R. 193 per Mr. Justice Cazalet). An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate. [/b]

There are about 68 pages of the CPS doc if you want it.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I found it a little manic...with so many points raised....difficult to know where to start ..dont take offence...some of the most interesting people I know are quite manic

Yes so many points. I should have just stuck to the one, had I known you would be so confused.  I took no offence  I wouldn't know how to.

I was just showing off. calling you and your mod supporters who are easily offended, about a little ikey bity hypocrisy.

sheesh.

[Mr Gray]

Yes so many points. I should have just stuck to the one, had I known you would be so confused.  I took no offence  I wouldn't know how to.

I was just showing off. calling you and your mod supporters who are easily offended, about a little ikey bity hypocrisy.

sheesh.

Still a bit manic for meaningful discussion

[Miss Taken Identity]

Still a bit manic for meaningful discussion

could you provide a cite for your meaningful discussions on this board.  yeah just one.

Alice, you do know someone,  somewhere is going to tell you the dogs can't give evidence.. even after all you have typed. hahaha

[barrier]

A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.

If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?

Bet you don't think the questions so simple now.

[G-Unit]

could you provide a cite for your meaningful discussions on this board.  yeah just one.

Alice, you do know someone,  somewhere is going to tell you the dogs can't give evidence.. even after all you have typed. hahaha

Yes, right up there with the 'dogs don't lie' soundbite.

I found a very interesting article by an American law firm who found themselves having to learn about dogs, handlers and evidence for one of their cases. They discuss all the drawbacks and conclude that each dog is unique and therefore generalisations aren't possible. What is relevant in a case is the experience, track record and qualifications of the particular dog and handler team used.

The evidence is given by the handler, of course. If qualified, the handler can testify about their own qualifications and those of their dog. They can say, for example, that they trained the dog in question; that the dog was trained to alert; to what the dog was trained to alert; what the dog’s history of searches has been. They may testify about what they observed about the dog’s behaviour during the search in question, including whether the dog alerted.

Only if their qualifications allow it can handlers give an opinion about what an alert means.

Although it's American, I think it's enlightening.

https://hbslawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/best-in-show-110919.pdf