I've posted this before..but to remind those who may have forgotten..
Taken from epidode 8...the trial prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs
We spoke to Prof John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him
Further on the Narrator says....David aplied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't admissible
This is the same Professor John Cassella who is more than happy for VRD dogs to find the grave that he used for his recent chemical analyses of soil and water for the location of a buried body.
So there's two premise at play here - there's the validity and reliability of the dogs, then there's the 'admissibility' in 'UK only' courts.
If we take each in isolation, using Cassella - he states that he used the dogs to find the subject grave for his paper that some of you read, but few understood - so check the first test off your list - he finds them reliable enough to be able to assist, nay, find his subject grave site. So irrespective of the legal standing, which is not in contention in this point, we have confirmation that, in Professor Cassella's opinion, the dogs are reliable enough and has witnessed their abilities first hand and endorsed them in the paper and credited Mark Harrison.
Now for the sticky bit - Davel does not attack the premise of admissibility, as the dog alert evidence has been permitted at least once before. No, he has brought a new concept in to the discussion; the concept of whether they
should have been allowed. I contend that this is rendered moot, as, surely we are in agreement that, if we use the tenets of UK civil law, precedents are presided over by an appointed judge and this is then the standard thereafter until challenged (e.g. Lord Atkins presiding over the 'snail in the bottle' case of 1932 and for the first time defining 'care for thy neighbour')
If we use the example of the Gilroy case and explore further, yesterday's contention that the prosecution in the case were somehow remiss in their including the dog alert evidence. I would contend that the decision was probably ruminated over for some time, given the admittedly contentious nature of the evidence and the fact that they would be breaking new ground. To suggest that the prosecution team, after months of building a case, would jeopardise it with the introduction of superfluous evidence on a whim is in my opinion plainly incorrect.
More likely, and I say that because I wasn't there, but a reasonable man would be right to assume that they realised that they were building a case purely on circumstantial evidence, therefore the weight and volume of that evidence was of importance. Combine that with their failure to get the silver bullet of definitive CCTV footage of Susan Pilley entering her work, they knew that more was more.
As with all evidence, as I discussed yesterday, they have to apply the three tests of relevance; admissibility; and weight. This evidence is presented at pre-trial and disclosed to the other side (rules of disclosure: Disclosure is providing the defence with copies or access to all material that is capable of undermining the prosecution case and/or assisting the defence.) There's no doubt, in my most humble opinion, that both sides looked upon the dog alert evidence in total contrast - the prosecution would have laid out their case for admissibility and presented as such, hoping to add further weight of 'overwhelming' circumstantial evidence to sway the jury. The defence would, in all likelihood, have not contended its admissibility as perhaps they saw it as shaky ground. Bearing in mind the quality and veracity of the defence team is not a factor here.
So, in summary, yes, Cassella likes the dogs and is happy to use their services and has first hand accounts of them being successful.
Yes, dog evidence has been used, successfully (to date).
The concept of whether they should have been used, irrespective of the opinion of great scientific luminaries (not legal), is rendered irrelevant, because they have. If convicted murderer David Gilroy would like to employ the services of Professor Cassella at his next appeal to repeat his assertion that, in this instance, they should not have been admitted, then he should reach out. I would rather suggest that a man who spent a lifetime trying to assist in furthering post mortem science and thereby assisting law enforcement, would baulk at such a suggestion.
