Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"

Is this irony?
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?

How can they be evidence when Grime and Harrisin refer to them as intelligence with no evidential reliability or value

[pathfinder73]

Was there even any blood there?  I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got it wrong but wasn't the only blood found on the tiles from one of the PJ guys who lifted the tiles after both dogs had done what they were trained to do in that area of the room?

The FBI said Keela was Exceptional. As she only alerts to blood I think the police will know what she alerted to in this case.

Keela, the second dog used in the search, was a human blood detection dog that was trained to
detect the odor of human blood, but not its residual odor. Stockham testified that her proficiency
was “exceptional.”

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0140174.pdf

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I've already posted this... Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact
My opinion is that they should not have been and if properly challenged would not be.. In the gilroy case I have seen evidence that the SCCRC decided they should not have been admitted

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

Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.

It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.

[Venturi Swirl]

Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.

It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.

Davel has written "Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact" he just doesn't think they should be so what are you struggling to understand? 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

How can they be evidence when Grime and Harrisin refer to them as intelligence with no evidential reliability or value

They can be evidence as they have been presented before a court of law in the UK on at least 2 occasions previously.
Grime and Harrison aren't the deciding opinion on what is admissible evidence or not. I have already explained this.

[Venturi Swirl]

They can be evidence as they have been presented before a court of law in the UK on at least 2 occasions previously.
Grime and Harrison aren't the deciding opinion on what is admissible evidence or not. I have already explained this.

The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Davel has written "Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact" he just doesn't think they should be so what are you struggling to understand?

No he still believes dog alerts with no corroborating forensic evidence are inadmissible in a court of law.
Quote from today at 11:50

".according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence "

Lets not mess around with semantics, they are either admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence there is no third way. Not that they have been admitted previously in two cases. I am not arguing if they should or not only that they are.

[Mr Gray]

They can be evidence as they have been presented before a court of law in the UK on at least 2 occasions previously.
Grime and Harrison aren't the deciding opinion on what is admissible evidence or not. I have already explained this.

The fact that they were admitted on these two occasions does not mean they are admissible...the judge may have erred..

Mark Harrison says the alerts are not evidential... They are intelligence.
Fir evidence to be admissible they have to have a level of reliability... That is the rule if law.  So how does the judge asses the reliability of the alerts... He listens to the experts
As the alerts do not sem to have been challenged they were wrongly admitted imo.. And that of the experts.
You seem to incorrectly think their admission in these two cases sets some kind of precedent.. It doesnt

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.

The worth of the alerts can only be measured by how the jury viewed them.You or I don't know what weight the jury applied to the testimony of PC Ryan Galloway. Unless you were there.
Were you?

[barrier]

The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.

Never the less irrespective of your opinion they were not deemed inadmissible which is Davel's contention.

[Mr Gray]

No he still believes dog alerts with no corroborating forensic evidence are inadmissible in a court of law.
Quote from today at 11:50

".according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence "

Lets not mess around with semantics, they are either admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence there is no third way. Not that they have been admitted previously in two cases. I am not arguing if they should or not only that they are.

Repeat... Just because they were admitted in these two cases does not set a precedent... The jusges were wring imi... As evidenced by the SCCRCand Harrison and Grime

[Mr Gray]

Never the less irrespective of your opinion they were not deemed inadmissible which is Davel's contention.

Rubbish.  They were deemed admissible.... An error imo

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Rubbish.  They were deemed admissible.... An error imo

Whether its an error or not, who knows but you first words are true they were deemed admissible.

[Venturi Swirl]

The worth of the alerts can only be measured by how the jury viewed them.You or I don't know what weight the jury applied to the testimony of PC Ryan Galloway. Unless you were there.
Were you?

I saw it presented on the TV documentary and no body in their right mind would have drawn the conclusion that the dog discovered any human remains, unless they left the bit out where he revealed that a bit of Margaret's skeleton was discovered?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I saw it presented on the TV documentary and no body in their right mind would have drawn the conclusion that the dog discovered any human remains, unless they left the bit out where he revealed that a bit of Margaret's skeleton was discovered?

But that not my assertion,my assertion only that it was admitted. And that is a empirical truth not my opinion.