Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

So they are not evidence of the past presence of a cadaver... Thanks

As mentioned previously a jury would decide their worth.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Nothing you could say would be too complicated for me to understand... The fact you try to imply it does shows your frustration... If you want to debate.. Behave and mind your manners.. I've not made one goading post to you... Try and reciprocate

With the greatest respect please answer my question then.
You have not made one goading post, Greggs? off the top of my head.

[Mr Gray]

As mentioned previously a jury would decide their worth.

Only if they were admitted... Doing a little work at the moment... Shouldn't take long

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Only if they were admitted... Doing a little work at the moment... Shouldn't take long

Well in the two cases we are discussing they were admitted that is a fact.

[Eleanor]

Well in the two cases we are discussing they were admitted that is a fact.

Were they actually admitted or were they just not challenged?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Were they actually admitted or were they just not challenged?

By the facts presented, they were admitted before court that is a truth as we can see it on film.
They were challenged by the defence counsel during the trial, but its not in the public domain if they were challenged pre trial.

[Mr Gray]

Well in the two cases we are discussing they were admitted that is a fact.

The fact that they were, admitted was accepted as fact about two hundred posts ago... The question is...why were they admitted... My contention is they are not admissible but simply weren't challenged. Based on that... Can we see that oart of the debate closed

[Mr Gray]

By the facts presented, they were admitted before court that is a truth as we can see it on film.
They were challenged by the defence counsel during the trial, but its not in the public domain if they were challenged pre trial.

Was their admissibility challenged... I don't believe it was

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The fact that they were, admitted was accepted as fact about two hundred posts ago... The question is...why were they admitted... My contention is they are not admissible but simply weren't challenged. Based on that... Can we see that oart of the debate closed

Not quite, the declaration of evidence to be inadmissible can only be undertaken by a judge. Even if there was a mistake by the defence ( and I'm not saying there was) no judge has declared them inadmissible. So they legally stand as admissible evidence.

We can leave that part there if you wish, but with respect I would still like an answer to my question that I proposed earlier.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Was their admissibility challenged... I don't believe it was

How can you know this?

[Mr Gray]

Not quite, the declaration of evidence to be inadmissible can only be undertaken by a judge. Even if there was a mistake by the defence ( and I'm not saying there was) no judge has declared them inadmissible. So they legally stand as admissible evidence.

We can leave that part there if you wish, but with respect I would still like an answer to my question that I proposed earlier.

I would say you are quite wrong... They are legally admiited
Evidence in this case... That certainly does not mean that all High court judges now consider alerts as legally admissible

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I would say you are quite wrong... They are legally admiited
Evidence in this case... That certainly does not mean that all High court judges now consider alerts as legally admissible

As I said I can't read the minds of all High court judges so I would never say all High Court judges consider alerts as legally admissible. Maybe they do. Who knows?

[Mr Gray]

How can you know this?

Deduction

Because if it had been properly challenged it would it would not have been admitted.. From what I understand

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Deduction

Because if it had been properly challenged it would it would not have been admitted.. From what I understand

Assumption.

On what legal grounds would it be deemed inadmissible.

[Mr Gray]

Assumption.

On what legal grounds would it be deemed inadmissible.

You need to ask Prof Cassella and Prof Angela Gallop for the precise reasons ...According to the SCcRC it was inadmissible... You could ask them too

And of course they have no evidential reliability or value