Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[barrier]

I don't believe what I just read.   Martin Grimes is saying that a dog trained on pig meat cannot be classed as a cadaver dog!!!

Eddie was trained with human remains making him a EVRD.

He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Mr Gray]

The dog alerted to the smell of decomposition,this was not challenged,one thing to add is that the camera's were given unprecedented access to the court proceeding's,I'm sure that the edited version would have been presented to the interested parties before screening,ie;judge,both defence teams and prosecution.

Smell of decomposition... Not specifically human

[barrier]

Smell of decomposition... Not specifically human

This was not questioned,subsequent forensics failed to determine the source.

[Mr Gray]

Eddie was trained with human remains making him a EVRD.

He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Eddie was initially trained using piglets so he isn't exclusively trained in human source

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Welcome "Col. Jessop"
You may find it useful to read Martin Grime's white paper, particularly pages 60+/187 which make reference to court evidence. http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
It's vital to understand that Grime himself now concedes dogs trained using decomposing pork as a substitute for human remains cannot be classed as human remains detection dogs (see page 10/187) therefore (imo) uncorroborated alerts should not be admitted as evidence of residual cadaver odour in UK courts.
In USA judges apply theDaubert test  when asked to consider canine evidence in court. US dogs are trained on human remains - there is no cross-training on decomposing pork products. IMO Eddie/Grime would not have met the US standards required in 2007/8 and UK-trained VRD's, both past & present, would not meet admissibility criteria.

Thank you for the link I will definitely give it read. My point is not whether the alerts should be admissible but that they have been admissible in the past in the High Courts in the UK.

Surely I should be Lt. Daniel Kafee not Jessop.

[The General]

Thank you for the link I will definitely give it read. My point is not whether the alerts should be admissible but that they have been admissible in the past in the High Courts in the UK.

Surely I should be Lt. Daniel Kafee not Jessop.

Or Sideshow Bob.

[The General]

Eddie was initially trained using piglets so he isn't exclusively trained in human source

So are you introducing reasonable doubt as the alerts are equally likely to be dead piglets? As a supposedly rational thinker, are you proposing that? You've already tacitly agreed that it's one of the two, by referring to the training methods.

[barrier]

Just watched again,a VRD dog,it alerted to decomposition.The dog alerted at two probe holes that had been dug,the dog alerted by barking.The defence asked about the training,asking about just using pig carcass,the handler confirmed this adding that the dog had been rewarded operationally on human tissue,was he rewarded on this occasion(No he wasn't answered the handler) the defence asked because he wouldn't have been right and the jury will have to hear from other people to establish if the dog was successful in indicating decomposition in anything.

[barrier]

Eddie was initially trained using piglets so he isn't exclusively trained in human source

He was additionally trained.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged. The SCCRC hs confirmed in the Gilroy case that the alerts were inadmissible. Why should the Judge think not to admit a statement by a police officer unless it was challenged.

You are not the High Court judge, you don't get to decide if they were incorrectly admitted.
Please stop using the SCCRC reference, it carries no legal weight, no one has seen it, they shelved it, never publicly published it, its not even on their website and never put it to an appeal court.
The judge has at his discretion the ability to rule evidence inadmissible if he thinks it may prejudice a fair trial.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Or Sideshow Bob.

Or Bart Simpson in this case.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I haven't listened to it... I was led to believe it wad, an example of a cadaver alert admitted, as evidence of cadaver..
Fron what you've said it wasnt

Think about it. The dog handler can't say it was an alert to human decomposition in a High Court. He doesn't know that to be a truthful fact. He can just say his dog alerted to decomposition.

[Mr Gray]

You are not the High Court judge, you don't get to decide if they were incorrectly admitted.
Please stop using the SCCRC reference, it carries no legal weight, no one has seen it, they shelved it, never publicly published it, its not even on their website and never put it to an appeal court.
The judge has at his discretion the ability to rule evidence inadmissible if he thinks it may prejudice a fair trial.

I'll continue to use the, SCCRC reference.  .it's not your place to tell me what or what not to use . Ive seen no evidence that the alert evidence was challenged and therefore no reason fir the judge to disallow it.  Had it been challenged it may we'll have been disallowed

[Mr Gray]

Think about it. The dog handler can't say it was an alert to human decomposition in a High Court. He doesn't know that to be a truthful fact. He can just say his dog alerted to decomposition.

So the alert wasn't used to support the detection of human remains.. As it was in the pillay case

[Icanhandlethetruth]

So it seems from the initial claim of many... We, are, down to one.... And this one ..as far as I know... Was, later, determined inadmissible

No still two.
For the umpteenth time it was never later determined inadmissible in a court of law. Please accept this as you keep repeating it.