Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

The definition of evidence is not vague

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

If a dog handler testifies that his dog alerted to what he was trained to find this is evidence just as a witness may claim a window was open, or a handwriting expert testifies that in his belief the letter was written by so and so

Why in the MM case do the alerts not support the premise that Maddie died in the apartment?

You are looking at things simplistically.

They are not evidence in the defined sense because they do not give any weight to the theory Maddie died in the apartment. That's because Grime and Harrison said they have no evidential reliability or value.
If a psychic claimed Maddie died in the apartment... Would that be evidence

[Icanhandlethetruth]

As you claim I've repeated a mantra could you provide some cites. It's Grime and Harrison who said they had no evidential reliability or value

You think youve made a case that the alerts are admissible evidence....I think youve failed miserably. lets see some more of these many case you claim Post 25

The fact that they were admitted in two cases doesn't mean cadaver alerts are admissible evidence.  Post 63

Clearly inadmissible Post 69

From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged Post 89

Doesn't really matter.. An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo and would not have been allowed if challenged post 124

Your opinion is that they are admissible... Mine is that they are not.  Don't misrepresent my posts post 344

Is that enough I am sure there are many more on other threads.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

They are not evidence in the defined sense because they do not give any weight to the theory Maddie died in the apartment. That's because Grime and Harrison said they have no evidential reliability or value.
If a psychic claimed Maddie died in the apartment... Would that be evidence

They are evidence in the defined sense because the testimony of the dog handler would give weight to the premise that Maddie died in the apt. That's exactly how they are currently used.
You keep repeated Grime saying that but how many times has he testified as an expert witness concerning his dogs alerts.
Physics ramblings are generally not accepted as evidence of anything in the eyes of the law.

[Mr Gray]

You think youve made a case that the alerts are admissible evidence....I think youve failed miserably. lets see some more of these many case you claim Post 25

The fact that they were admitted in two cases doesn't mean cadaver alerts are admissible evidence.  Post 63

Clearly inadmissible Post 69

From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged Post 89

Doesn't really matter.. An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo and would not have been allowed if challenged post 124

Your opinion is that they are admissible... Mine is that they are not.  Don't misrepresent my posts post 344

Is that enough I am sure there are many more on other threads.

You claim I've repeatedly claimed the alerts are not evidence then provided cites showing I'm referring to admissible evidence.. Note the word admissible. The admissibility of the alerts is a highly contentious issue. Just because they have been admitted in a handful of cases does not mean they are deemed admissible generally. Kate statement of course would be admissible in any court.. What does that tell you

[Mr Gray]

They are evidence in the defined sense because the testimony of the dog handler would give weight to the premise that Maddie died in the apt. That's exactly how they are currently used.
You keep repeated Grime saying that but how many times has he testified as an expert witness concerning his dogs alerts.
Physics ramblings are generally not accepted as evidence of anything in the eyes of the law.

You tell me how many times in his career spanning say 20 years.. Grime has testified with his alerts. Is it into double figures... Very unconvincing
 Are the defence lawyers aware of Grime's.. And Harrison.. Contradictory statements

[Wonderfulspam]

You claim I've repeatedly claimed the alerts are not evidence then provided cites showing I'm referring to admissible evidence.. Note the word admissible. The admissibility of the alerts is a highly contentious issue. Just because they have been admitted in a handful of cases does not mean they are deemed admissible generally. Kate statement of course would be admissible in any court.. What does that tell you

Sharia?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You claim I've repeatedly claimed the alerts are not evidence then provided cites showing I'm referring to admissible evidence.. Note the word admissible. The admissibility of the alerts is a highly contentious issue. Just because they have been admitted in a handful of cases does not mean they are deemed admissible generally. Kate statement of course would be admissible in any court.. What does that tell you

Well the premise of this thread was whether dog alerts were admissible in court of law, They clearly are and have been heard many times. I will repeat there is no explicit law which deems dog alerts to be inadmissible, a judge may decree they are on an individual case but he could rule any piece of evidence to be inadmissible including witness statements.
So spell it out, are they evidence, are they admissable evidence because you are giving mixed messages.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You tell me how many times in his career spanning say 20 years.. Grime has testified with his alerts. Is it into double figures... Very unconvincing
 Are the defence lawyers aware of Grime's.. And Harrison.. Contradictory statements

It only has to be once but I know of at least four. Defence teams tend to do very extensive discovery process before trials, if we know about Grime maybe they do too.

[Mr Gray]

Well the premise of this thread was whether dog alerts were admissible in court of law, They clearly are and have been heard many times. I will repeat there is no explicit law which deems dog alerts to be inadmissible, a judge may decree they are on an individual case but he could rule any piece of evidence to be inadmissible including witness statements.
So spell it out, are they evidence, are they admissable evidence because you are giving mixed messages.

You say dog alerts are clearly admissible.. That is not true.. . Its also not true they have been used in many cases.. You seem to have a problem with the truth.

The alerts in the MM case give absolutely no support to the idea Maddie died in the apartment.. According to Harrison Grime told the PJ no inference could be drawn from them... That's NO INFERENCE.. How does that support death in the apartment

[Mr Gray]

It only has to be once but I know of at least four. Defence teams tend to do very extensive discovery process before trials, if we know about Grime maybe they do too.

And maybe they don't

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You say dog alerts are clearly admissible.. That is not true.. . Its also not true they have been used in many cases.. You seem to have a problem with the truth.

The alerts in the MM case give absolutely no support to the idea Maddie died in the apartment.. According to Harrison Grime told the PJ no inference could be drawn from them... That's NO INFERENCE.. How does that support death in the apartment

If they have been heard in a court then they are admissible. They have been heard in at least England, Scotland and the USA. If they were inadmissible they would not be heard in any court ever just like types of hearsay, clairvoyants or psychics.  You seem to have a problem with the truth.
I am not going over the meaning of inference again, just look up the meaning.

[Mr Gray]

If they have been heard in a court then they are admissible. They have been heard in at least England, Scotland and the USA. If they were inadmissible they would not be heard in any court ever just like types of hearsay, clairvoyants or psychics.  You seem to have a problem with the truth.
I am not going over the meaning of inference again, just look up the meaning.

If they were admissible there would be no grounds to  challenge them.. They are potentially admissible.

In 2005 Grime said Harrison came up with the idea of using the alerts as intelligence... I wonder if Harrison agrees where Grime has taken this. It will be interesting to see what happens if Wolters shows Maddie did not die in the apartment

[Icanhandlethetruth]

If they were admissible there would be no grounds to  challenge them.. They are potentially admissible.

In 2005 Grime said Harrison came up with the idea of using the alerts as intelligence... I wonder if Harrison agrees where Grime has taken this. It will be interesting to see what happens if Wolters shows Maddie did not die in the apartment

Every piece of evidence is potentially admissible. A judge could exclude any evidence he believes is of poor quality or prejudicial.
I will leave the hypotheticals until they are realised but of course the alerts could be wrong. I accept that.

[Mr Gray]

Every piece of evidence is potentially admissible. A judge could exclude any evidence he believes is of poor quality or prejudicial.
I will leave the hypotheticals until they are realised but of course the alerts could be wrong. I accept that.

And I accept that if everything Grime has said about the dogs is true... They couldn't be wrong..