Aw, I love Rugby football; dislike soccer. It is on all damned day at our house; that, or rubbish game shows !
I am particularily good at dribbling .. a star!
... but then I am 75Only joking. Haven't reached that stage .... YET!
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Unsolved Madeleine McCann
- Thread starter Bunk Moreland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I am particularily good at dribbling .. a star!
... but then I am 75Only joking. Haven't reached that stage .... YET!
Aw, I love Rugby football; dislike soccer. It is on all damned day at our house; that, or rubbish game shows !
I am particularily good at dribbling .. a star!
Only joking. Haven't reached that stage .... YET!
Not Rugby either Sadie.... but glad to have another Swans fan all the same
Tony Bennett do you have a publisher or do you self publish?
Tony Bennett
Rookie
- Dec 19, 2012
- 45
- 3
- AFL Club
- Richmond
These are the titles of works which have an ISBN number, and of which I am either the author, or author/editor; all were self-published:
(1) Guide for Parents with Children in Care, subsequently re-published as Your Child and Social Services: A Guide to Your Rights (published in six separate editions (updated as the law changed), 1980 to 1993)
(2) NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away With Murder, (May 2007), ISBN 0-954-6949-1-0, 404pp
(3) What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted (December 2008), ISBN 978-0-9507954-7-8, 64pp - CURRENTLY OUT-OF-PRINT AND BANNED BY THE MCCANNS FOLLOWING A LIBEL CLAIM MADE IN NOVEMBER 2009
(4) The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1 (January 2010), ISBN 9787-0-9563351-1-1, 112pp - MAY END UP BEING BANNED AS A RESULT OF CURRENT LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
I am the author or joint author of several other publications which do not have an ISBN.
Tony Bennett has lost the rights to the Lubbock book
Not Rugby either Sadie.... but glad to have another Swans fan all the same
Tony Bennett do you have a publisher or do you self publish?
Well your Rugby Union side is getting rubbish...your cricket side rubbish, have you seen English football recently....Van Persie could have been killed...well according to his peed up manager anyway
One issue worthy of mention whilst on the subject of the dogs, is an error made in the translations of what Martin Grime said AFTER Keela had entered the McCanns hire car during the searches carried out on the 10 cars.
For some unknown reason the Portuguese translation of what Martin Grime supposedly said is actually the opposite of what he was captured saying on video.
There was indeed a translation error made by whoever (on behalf of the PJ) translated the transcript of what Grime actually said (in English) into Portuguese.
However, my recollection is that it is AFTER Eddie sniffed around the car and reacted to the driver door, but BEFORE the subsequent forensic examination, after which Keela was allowed in it.
The bottom line is still that Eddie never reacted to the boot, nor did he ever go in it.
Unfortunately, Tavares de Almeida, who signed the interim report, didn't seem to notice this translation error.... Even if he didn't understand English, he might have noticed that it didn't coincide with the video of Keela (as opposed to Eddie) in the boot.
This is to do with the case...It is the forthcoming libel trial on 29th January concerning Bennett and the McCann family
http://watchingthetrolls.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/bennett-attempting-to-get-out-of-court.html
http://watchingthetrolls.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/bennett-attempting-to-get-out-of-court.html
NO. You have still not answered the questions that I posed to you on the 20th December. I suggest that in fairness we answer one question each at a time and specify that question exactly. My first question that I asked over a week ago which you have still failed to answer can be paraphrased to:
What is the accuracy of the Dogs?
I believe that you claim that the dogs have never made an error and are 100% correct. Is that the
claim that you make?
If so, please specify what your support for that argument is, referencing some neutral and trustworthy sources.
Note that a series of peer reviewed papers giving answers that are well short of 100% accuracy are given in posts above. How do you explain this discrepancy?
Answer that question and then specify exactly which question you want me to answer, and I will then answer yours.
No obfuscation, or misdirection, simply an answer.
What is the accuracy of the Dogs?
I believe that you claim that the dogs have never made an error and are 100% correct. Is that the
claim that you make?
If so, please specify what your support for that argument is, referencing some neutral and trustworthy sources.
Note that a series of peer reviewed papers giving answers that are well short of 100% accuracy are given in posts above. How do you explain this discrepancy?
Answer that question and then specify exactly which question you want me to answer, and I will then answer yours.
No obfuscation, or misdirection, simply an answer.
This is my largely unanswered December 20th Post:
Please provide evidence that the Dogs have no positive or negative false responses as claimed so often.
Evidence from dog handlers has been admitted in courts in both the US and the UK, but the judges in the UK at least are required to warn that the reactions of the dogs do not necessarily confirm that which they are trained to indicate for, and such evidence cannot prove the presence of drugs, explosives, cadaver odour etc, only to suggest it as a possibility. No one has ever been convicted on the evidence of a dog handler alone.
Please show that you understand that because the way that Mr Grime works, (One dog detects only blood, the other detects blood and cadaver scent) the uncertainty is squared because of the statistics involved so that if we accept say a 90% correct rate (at the top end of any empirical study) that means an 80% rate; if 80% then 64, if 70% (at the low end of empirical study) then 49%.
Please show that you understand the concept of 'serial error'.
Please show that you understand the process of unconscious cuing.
How effective do you thnk the dogs are- what are their error rates? Do you have independent evidence of this rather than a collection of anecdotes?
(A note to the onlookers- asking these questions on JillHaverns results in an immediate ban before the questions can be addressed.)
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/madeleine-mccann.983295/page-8#post-26715454
Please provide evidence that the Dogs have no positive or negative false responses as claimed so often.
Evidence from dog handlers has been admitted in courts in both the US and the UK, but the judges in the UK at least are required to warn that the reactions of the dogs do not necessarily confirm that which they are trained to indicate for, and such evidence cannot prove the presence of drugs, explosives, cadaver odour etc, only to suggest it as a possibility. No one has ever been convicted on the evidence of a dog handler alone.
Please show that you understand that because the way that Mr Grime works, (One dog detects only blood, the other detects blood and cadaver scent) the uncertainty is squared because of the statistics involved so that if we accept say a 90% correct rate (at the top end of any empirical study) that means an 80% rate; if 80% then 64, if 70% (at the low end of empirical study) then 49%.
Please show that you understand the concept of 'serial error'.
Please show that you understand the process of unconscious cuing.
How effective do you thnk the dogs are- what are their error rates? Do you have independent evidence of this rather than a collection of anecdotes?
(A note to the onlookers- asking these questions on JillHaverns results in an immediate ban before the questions can be addressed.)
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/madeleine-mccann.983295/page-8#post-26715454
On previous experience he has no understanding either of statistics, scientific method or rules of evidence.
We shall see if he offers any kind of answer to my simple but essential question.
The Anti-McCann case depends on the Dogs being infallible. Those of us who understand statistics, scientific method and rules of evidence know that the dogs are far from infallible. But Anti-McCanns will never discuss this directly.
Explain why witnesses to this case are all attending on that date then Bennett? Maybe you should read letters addressed to yourself a little bit better, as the case is also listed for that date. You didn't even tell people on your site about the last court date until it was over
Contempt of court...for what..agreeing not to LIBEL the McCanns...
Edward Smethurst settled out of court for you claiming he was friends with paedophiles and such.
Time has run out for Barrymore in regards to the NotW and your book, but as you are now repeating those lies, he can now.
And why are you deflecting away from questions put to you Bennett...running scared as the proof has been posted that you have lied again
Since Tony Bennett is saying he wants things to be correct, lets see if he will wish to correct himself on some aspects of this case, I am happy to debate with him. Will have to do it one by one so posts don't get lost
1.... Do you accept that both dogs Keela and Eddie, alert to living human scents, ie..dried blood and body scents. Any alert by the dogs have to be backed up by FORENSIC EVIDENCE, and there were none where the dogs alerted.
The blood on the car key fob was Gerry McCanns...do you accept that.
1.... Do you accept that both dogs Keela and Eddie, alert to living human scents, ie..dried blood and body scents. Any alert by the dogs have to be backed up by FORENSIC EVIDENCE, and there were none where the dogs alerted.
The blood on the car key fob was Gerry McCanns...do you accept that.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
B - Pages 967-972 Processo vol 4.
At 11:00am on 4 May 2007 I, IT, assistant-specialist, began to examine the following location:
At apartment 5A, Ocean Club:
- Side of the patio door: One adequate print recovered but not matched to known persons.
- Outside of one patio door: Eight inadequate prints were recovered.- Outside of [the other] patio door: One inadequate print was recovered.- Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate
B - Pages 967-972 Processo vol 4.
At 11:00am on 4 May 2007 I, IT, assistant-specialist, began to examine the following location:
At apartment 5A, Ocean Club:
- Side of the patio door: One adequate print recovered but not matched to known persons.
- Outside of one patio door: Eight inadequate prints were recovered.- Outside of [the other] patio door: One inadequate print was recovered.- Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate
'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''
Cross-contamination is immediate.
'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think.
'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary.
From Martin Grimes http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htmCross-contamination is immediate.
'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think.
'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary.
I am not aware that Eddie and Keela react to 'body scents'. It is my understanding that Keela only reacts to dried blood (whether from a living or dead person) and that Eddie reacts to dried blood and the scent of human tissue and fluid deterioration. Neither react to fresh blood, nor ;body scents'.
During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
So evidence Tony about the dogs...care to explain now please and discuss
The PJ are wrong.. both dogs only alert to blood...so both dogs barking give a indication of...BLOOD only.. Eddie just barking means possibly a scent. In the videos and in the PJ files, both dogs bark at all scenes...TOGETHER
I am not referencing the PJ. Martin Grime confirms that both dogs react to dried blood and Eddie also reacts to 'cadaver odour'. If you are saying that they also alert to non-cadaver 'body scent', please provide a cite for this- I have never seen one.
It is in the files...think they have worded it wrong.. It is actually blood, but Grimes was selling them up
- Status
