Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Brietta]

It seems as if you would prefer the past to be forgotten, but it isn't going to happen.

Don't be silly.  The past is the past and cannot be changed.  But it is there to be learned from to reduce the same errors being made time and time again.  Some have made that progression some have remained firmly fixed in events of 2007 without recognising or even acknowledging that mistakes were made.

None more so than the initial Portuguese expectations of Martin Grimes dogs despite his clear caveat to the contrary which he clearly stated and which can be read in the files.

[Brietta]

The dog alerts in this case were consigned to the dustbin of history by those currently investigating Madeleine's abduction so it would seem you are wrong in this instance.

Proper investigation and interpretation by Rebelo's team consigned them to the dustbin of history PDQ.

[G-Unit]

Proper investigation and interpretation by Rebelo's team consigned them to the dustbin of history PDQ.

Attitudes towards the evidence of dog handlers has changed since 2007. Specifically courts in the USA and Scotland have gradually accepted over time that this evidence can be a useful part of a prosecution case. Cadaver dogs are no longer seen as 'incredibly unreliable', and their alerts are no longer seen as useless without forensic corroberation.

[Venturi Swirl]

Attitudes towards the evidence of dog handlers has changed since 2007. Specifically courts in the USA and Scotland have gradually accepted over time that this evidence can be a useful part of a prosecution case. Cadaver dogs are no longer seen as 'incredibly unreliable', and their alerts are no longer seen as useless without forensic corroberation.

Says who?

[Eleanor]

Attitudes towards the evidence of dog handlers has changed since 2007. Specifically courts in the USA and Scotland have gradually accepted over time that this evidence can be a useful part of a prosecution case. Cadaver dogs are no longer seen as 'incredibly unreliable', and their alerts are no longer seen as useless without forensic corroberation.

So what use are they exactly?

[Brietta]

Attitudes towards the evidence of dog handlers has changed since 2007. Specifically courts in the USA and Scotland have gradually accepted over time that this evidence can be a useful part of a prosecution case. Cadaver dogs are no longer seen as 'incredibly unreliable', and their alerts are no longer seen as useless without forensic corroberation.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'attitudes' and all to do with police doing what they are trained to do which is to observe and evaluate.

Rebelo's team observed the video of the dogs working and alerting and their evaluation consigned it to the dustbin of history as far as evidence was concerned.

I would really like to see the original official police video rather than the one copyrighted by Levy which was bad and bad enough.

[Eleanor]

Absolutely nothing to do with 'attitudes' and all to do with police doing what they are trained to do which is to observe and evaluate.

Rebelo's team observed the video of the dogs working and alerting and their evaluation consigned it to the dustbin of history as far as evidence was concerned.

I would really like to see the original official police video rather than the one copyrighted by Levy which was bad and bad enough.

I would like to know who paid the bill for the dogs and who received the money.

[G-Unit]

Says who?

Courts which have allowed dog handlers to testify as to what their dogs alerted to.

[Eleanor]

Courts which have allowed dog handlers to testify as to what their dogs alerted to.

What exactly did the dogs alert to in the absence of Forensics?

[G-Unit]

What exactly did the dogs alert to in the absence of Forensics?

That which they have been trained to find.

[Eleanor]

That which they have been trained to find.

Not good enough I'm afraid.  You might as well give up on The Law and leave it to the bark of a dog.  Such a pity they can't talk don't you think?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

What exactly did the dogs alert to in the absence of Forensics?

It’s not just the actual alert that is evidence though, the main evidence is the interpretation of the alert by the deemed competent and expert witness, in this case PC Gunderson. He said

PC Gunderson said to him it was "clear" Max was giving "an indication".
Mr Kearney went on to ask: "Do you have any doubt of it being a positive indication from your dog in what he is trained to find?"
PC Gunderson: "I have no doubt whatsoever."

Think of the dog handler giving evidence as akin to a handwriting expert, or a voice recognition expert giving evidence, in that in their opinion the voice or handwriting matches the accused.

[Eleanor]

It’s not just the actual alert that is evidence though, the main evidence is the interpretation of the alert by the deemed competent and expert witness, in this case PC Gunderson. He said

PC Gunderson said to him it was "clear" Max was giving "an indication".
Mr Kearney went on to ask: "Do you have any doubt of it being a positive indication from your dog in what he is trained to find?"
PC Gunderson: "I have no doubt whatsoever."

Think of the dog handler giving evidence as akin to a handwriting expert, or a voice recognition expert giving evidence, in that in their opinion the voice or handwriting matches the accused.

There are Dog Handlers and Dog Handlers, some of whom might be more competent than others.  But we don't really know do we as we only have their own word for how competent they think they are.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

There are Dog Handlers and Dog Handlers, some of whom might be more competent than others.  But we don't really know do we as we only have their own word for how competent they think they are.

The same for handwriting experts, voice recognition experts, bite mark experts, gait analysis experts and other other types of expert witnesses that give evidence.
But they have to be deemed by the court before giving evidence to be competent and expert in their field.

[Eleanor]

The same for handwriting experts, voice recognition experts, bite mark experts, gait analysis experts and other other types of expert witnesses that give evidence.
But they have to be deemed by the court before giving evidence to be competent and expert in their field.

How does The Court do that?  Especially when Expert Witnesses disagree?