Author Topic: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.  (Read 13827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2013, 06:25:38 PM »
"Intelligence", this is how Prof Harrison qualified the dogs' alerts that no forensic corroborated.
Not "vague", nor "meaningless", nor "unreliable".

Offline Lace

Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2013, 06:28:13 PM »
Sorry I cannot find that article I was talking about at the moment Anne but this is a section from another article -


Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2013, 06:29:07 PM »
"Intelligence", this is how Prof Harrison qualified the dogs' alerts that no forensic corroborated.
Not "vague", nor "meaningless", nor "unreliable".

No evidential value is how grime described the alerts....that's pretty strong language..bit hard for you to accept

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2013, 06:40:06 PM »
Not at all, why should I reject that ?
I objected to your "vague", "meaningless", "unreliable", etc. that aren't in Mr Grime's nor in Prof Harrison's reports.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #49 on: August 29, 2013, 06:43:16 PM »
Not at all, why should I reject that ?
I objected to your "vague", "meaningless", "unreliable", etc. that aren't in Mr Grime's nor in Prof Harrison's reports.

They were in Stephens post and in my opinion accurately some up the dogs responses

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #50 on: August 29, 2013, 06:53:27 PM »
They were in Stephens post and in my opinion accurately some up the dogs responses

I didn't say 'unreliable', and the words 'vague and meaningless' are in response to you saying the scent(s) don't last long.

However, the forensics were inconclusive.

So it didn't rule out a body was or was not detected.

Offline Carana

Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #51 on: August 29, 2013, 07:00:10 PM »
The whole point is that there is no evidence to back up the dogs abilities
Grime has already stated that the dogs alert cannot be relied on without forensics
Isn't that plain enough


Both Grime and Harrison have stated this caveat... What's so difficult to understand?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 07:02:40 PM by Carana »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #52 on: August 29, 2013, 07:18:27 PM »
No, Carana, neither Mr Grime nor Prof Harrison said the alerts "could not be relied on without forensics", they said they couldn't be evidence and Prof Harrison said they only could be intelligence.
About the lack of forensic corroboration, nobody doubts there was none and nobody ever did.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 07:20:20 PM by AnneGuedes »

Offline Carana

Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #53 on: August 29, 2013, 07:41:33 PM »
No, Carana, neither Mr Grime nor Prof Harrison said the alerts "could not be relied on without forensics", they said they couldn't be evidence and Prof Harrison said they only could be intelligence.
About the lack of forensic corroboration, nobody doubts there was none and nobody ever did.


Anne, I seriously doubt that what you have said is what you intended to say.


AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #54 on: August 29, 2013, 07:53:57 PM »
Nobody will doubt there's an excess of negation. How could I affirm the contrary of what everybody knows ?

Offline Carana

Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2013, 08:10:04 PM »
No, Carana, neither Mr Grime nor Prof Harrison said the alerts "could not be relied on without forensics", they said they couldn't be evidence and Prof Harrison said they only could be intelligence.
About the lack of forensic corroboration, nobody doubts there was none and nobody ever did.
« Last Edit: Today at 07:20:20 PM by AnneGuedes »

- If Grime and Harrison had affirmed that the alerts could be valid without forensic evidence, surely this would have appeared in the files?

-If no one doubts the presence of forensic evidence, where is it it in the files?



ETA:Sorry, two mistakes to correct.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 08:15:44 PM by Carana »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
« Reply #56 on: August 29, 2013, 11:18:20 PM »
What a confusion !
Nobody claimed alerts could be evidence without forensic corroboration.
It is stated like this in Prof Harrison's report, so that's by default and doesn't have to be stated in the files.