UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Icanhandlethetruth on February 20, 2020, 12:35:08 PM
-
I have noticed that on a lot of threads about the dog alerts that Zampo comes up often but do we know the whole story?
Zampo was an Australian kelpie breed dog and was trained in 1990 by John Sjoberg. He was trained to find drowned victims underwater. His trainer qualified as a military dog handler but he was self taught in the methods that he trained Zampo. From 1993 to spring of 1996 the police used a variety of police cadaver dogs from Norway and Finland. In this period none of these dogs alerted and the police were perplexed why the dogs weren’t confirming the very accurate confessions by Thomas Quick. Enter Zampo and straight away he started alerting. In fact on his first search he alerted to a place Quick had said he had buried two Somali teenagers but even before the search, it was confirmed that the two teenagers were in fact still alive. In spite of this the police kept using Zampo and he kept alerting everywhere. The police even set up a test for him with a pit with human remains and one without any and he failed this test also but still they kept using him.
Also Zampo never actually marked a point that Quick indicated as a site where a body had been. Quick never specified an exact location, Zampo was sent to search in the broad area Quick had suggested and after he alerted, the police officers would then tell Quick where the alert occurred and then the fantasy would continue. The police were so convinced by Quick's confessions that they almost turned a blind eye to Zampo's failings.
Make of this what you will but for me the point of all this is that not all cadaver dogs are of equal ability.
-
I have noticed that on a lot of threads about the dog alerts that Zampo comes up often but do we know the whole story?
Zampo was an Australian kelpie breed dog and was trained in 1990 by John Sjoberg. He was trained to find drowned victims underwater. His trainer qualified as a military dog handler but he was self taught in the methods that he trained Zampo. From 1993 to spring of 1996 the police used a variety of police cadaver dogs from Norway and Finland. In this period none of these dogs alerted and the police were perplexed why the dogs weren’t confirming the very accurate confessions by Thomas Quick. Enter Zampo and straight away he started alerting. In fact on his first search he alerted to a place Quick had said he had buried two Somali teenagers but even before the search, it was confirmed that the two teenagers were in fact still alive. In spite of this the police kept using Zampo and he kept alerting everywhere. The police even set up a test for him with a pit with human remains and one without any and he failed this test also but still they kept using him.
Also Zampo never actually marked a point that Quick indicated as a site where a body had been. Quick never specified an exact location, Zampo was sent to search in the broad area Quick had suggested and after he alerted, the police officers would then tell Quick where the alert occurred and then the fantasy would continue. The police were so convinced by Quick's confessions that they almost turned a blind eye to Zampo's failings.
Make of this what you will but for me the point of all this is that not all cadaver dogs are of equal ability.
Which begs the question- who independently tests and monitors the abilities of dogs and handlers to ensure they are performing to the required standard?
-
Which begs the question- who independently tests and monitors the abilities of dogs and handlers to ensure they are performing to the required standard?
Grime did his own checks. He said so.
-
I have noticed that on a lot of threads about the dog alerts that Zampo comes up often but do we know the whole story?
Zampo was an Australian kelpie breed dog and was trained in 1990 by John Sjoberg. He was trained to find drowned victims underwater. His trainer qualified as a military dog handler but he was self taught in the methods that he trained Zampo. From 1993 to spring of 1996 the police used a variety of police cadaver dogs from Norway and Finland. In this period none of these dogs alerted and the police were perplexed why the dogs weren’t confirming the very accurate confessions by Thomas Quick. Enter Zampo and straight away he started alerting. In fact on his first search he alerted to a place Quick had said he had buried two Somali teenagers but even before the search, it was confirmed that the two teenagers were in fact still alive. In spite of this the police kept using Zampo and he kept alerting everywhere. The police even set up a test for him with a pit with human remains and one without any and he failed this test also but still they kept using him.
Also Zampo never actually marked a point that Quick indicated as a site where a body had been. Quick never specified an exact location, Zampo was sent to search in the broad area Quick had suggested and after he alerted, the police officers would then tell Quick where the alert occurred and then the fantasy would continue. The police were so convinced by Quick's confessions that they almost turned a blind eye to Zampo's failings.
Make of this what you will but for me the point of all this is that not all cadaver dogs are of equal ability.
Thanks for that Ichtt.
I knew about Zampo and his exploits as it has been brought to the forum before but I didn't research his handler's background as you have, which is really quite an impressive one https://www.spek-9services.com/index.html
So quite obviously something went seriously wrong when this particular team were deployed on this particular investigation.
It is weird that the penny didn't drop when previous inspections had failed but suddenly hits started being scored when Zampo arrived on the scene.
I think good practice should have been the reverse. The VRD alerts ... and that alert is verified or not by another dog or dogs or the recovery of physical evidence at the alert scene. I don't think an alert in the field by one dog is sufficient no matter the success rate in training.
I believe it is one of the main weaknesses of Eddie's so called alerts in Portugal and in Jersey that there was neither confirmation either forensically or by another dog.
In Zampo's case I think Quick was quite discommoded that it was eventually proved that Zampo did not back up his claims to be a mass murderer. In the McCann case that most certainly would not have been the reaction of the falsely accused.
The effort by the PJ to convict based on the uncorroborated dog alerts if successful would have been one of the greatest miscarriages ever. A dog barking is never enough not even if like Zampo and Eddie they have been trained by recognised experts in their field.
-
Icanhandlethetruth's statement is valid, if a little obvious;
snip/
Make of this what you will but for me the point of all this is that not all cadaver dogs are of equal ability.
It isn't just the dog's abilities of course, it's those of the trainer and the handler too. In the Quick case none of the police-trained dogs gave false alerts.
-
Icanhandlethetruth's statement is valid, if a little obvious;
snip/
Make of this what you will but for me the point of all this is that not all cadaver dogs are of equal ability.
It isn't just the dog's abilities of course, it's those of the trainer and the handler too. In the Quick case none of the police-trained dogs gave false alerts.
No one knows how many alerts in Luz and Jersey are false..
Eleven alerts in Jersey yet like the Zampo case there are no records of any deaths
-
I think there is a potential for more comparison between the Thomas Quick affair and the Kate McCann affair than Zampo and Eddie.
I think there may be a whole belief system of officialdom in play of which Zampo and Eddie were but bit part players.
The Swedish ‘confessions’ made by a perhaps at the time mentally ill but certainly a drug fuelled individual to a small cog in the system which believed and wanted to believe his guilt, is mirrored in my opinion, by the small group which fervently wanted to believe in the guilt of the mother and pulled out all the stops to that end.
Both in Sweden and in Portugal that limited vision of the investigators was detrimental to getting to the root of finding out what actually happened to the victims of the alleged crimes by taking the focus off the actual perpetrators for many years.
Thomas Quick claimed to have murdered Therese Johannessen who he described as having shoulder length blonde hair; perhaps that description should have rung the warning bell for investigators and interrogators.
Despite the Nordic sounding name Therese’s country of origin was Pakistan and her hair was short and dark.
Quick might have believed his confessions having been softened up by psychoanalysis and powerful drugs and those who had invested in his confessions wanted to believe too.
I doubt if the Policia Judiciaria would have investigated any more than the Swedish police did if Kate’s interrogation had resulted in similar nonsense and other anomalies as Quirk’s had.
In Portugal as in Sweden they wanted to believe and dropped analytical skills which prevented anyone voicing a note of caution or taking a step back to think about it - and in such a mindset are Miscarriages of Justice fostered.
-
I think there is a potential for more comparison between the Thomas Quick affair and the Kate McCann affair than Zampo and Eddie.
I think there may be a whole belief system of officialdom in play of which Zampo and Eddie were but bit part players.
The Swedish ‘confessions’ made by a perhaps at the time mentally ill but certainly a drug fuelled individual to a small cog in the system which believed and wanted to believe his guilt, is mirrored in my opinion, by the small group which fervently wanted to believe in the guilt of the mother and pulled out all the stops to that end.
Both in Sweden and in Portugal that limited vision of the investigators was detrimental to getting to the root of finding out what actually happened to the victims of the alleged crimes by taking the focus off the actual perpetrators for many years.
Thomas Quick claimed to have murdered Therese Johannessen who he described as having shoulder length blonde hair; perhaps that description should have rung the warning bell for investigators and interrogators.
Despite the Nordic sounding name Therese’s country of origin was Pakistan and her hair was short and dark.
Quick might have believed his confessions having been softened up by psychoanalysis and powerful drugs and those who had invested in his confessions wanted to believe too.
I doubt if the Policia Judiciaria would have investigated any more than the Swedish police did if Kate’s interrogation had resulted in similar nonsense and other anomalies as Quirk’s had.
In Portugal as in Sweden they wanted to believe and dropped analytical skills which prevented anyone voicing a note of caution or taking a step back to think about it - and in such a mindset are Miscarriages of Justice fostered.
Are you suggesting that Mark Harrison and Martin Grime collaborated with the PJ to fit up the McCanns?
-
Are you suggesting that Mark Harrison and Martin Grime collaborated with the PJ to fit up the McCanns?
You still don't understand do you... How could Grime fit up the McCanns .. He said the alerts weren't evidence unless forensic evidence was found
-
Which begs the question- who independently tests and monitors the abilities of dogs and handlers to ensure they are performing to the required standard?
In the case of Zampo, there seemed to be no monitoring or testing of his abilities independent or otherwise.
But we do know that UK dogs and trainers have to be licensed and verified by ACPO annually in a 6 month rolling program.
-
In the case of Zampo, there seemed to be no monitoring or testing of his abilities independent or otherwise.
But we do know that UK dogs and trainers have to be licensed and verified by ACPO annually in a 6 month rolling program.
Do you know what that licensing entails... It's not a lot. You've made several claims about Zampo but not provided any links to support them
It's quite obvious your sole aim here is to try and show the alerts are something they are not. Grime said they needed to be confirmed with forensic evidence. They weren't.
-
Do you know what that licensing entails... It's not a lot. You've made several claims about Zampo but not provided any links to support them
It's quite obvious your sole aim here is to try and show the alerts are something they are not. Grime said they needed to be confirmed with forensic evidence. They weren't.
It seems you know what the ACPO licensing involves, I am always up for education so please enlighten me.
-
It seems you know what the ACPO licensing involves, I am always up for education so please enlighten me.
It's been discussed before... Anecdotal evidence...
-
It's been discussed before... Anecdotal evidence...
I was expecting a bit more than that.
I really would like to learn exactly how the whole process is administered.
I am genuinely interested
-
I was expecting a bit more than that.
I really would like to learn exactly how the whole process is administered.
I am genuinely interested
So what you are, saying is that you are citing Acpo licensing as being some sort of guarantee but don't know what it entails
-
So what you are, saying is that you are citing Acpo licensing as being some sort of guarantee but don't know what it entails
For somethings I have to place trust in the regulatory bodies that govern the areas of their responsibilities.
In this case I have to hold ACPO as a reliable verifier of competence in this matter.
Are you saying you don't hold them as reliable, if so why?
-
For somethings I have to place trust in the regulatory bodies that govern the areas of their responsibilities.
In this case I have to hold ACPO as a reliable verifier of competence in this matter.
Are you saying you don't hold them as reliable, if so why?
You've started two threads on the dogs... Have you read Martin Grimes statement... Might be a good place to start.
I don't blindly place trust in any regulatory body... I like to have an opinion based on evidence... Not trust
Seeing the word anectdotal... Doesn't give me any trust.
-
You've started two threads on the dogs... Have you read Martin Grimes statement... Might be a good place to start.
I don't blindly place trust in any regulatory body... I like to have an opinion based on evidence... Not trust
So you do or don't trust ACPO? Any others goverment bodies that you don't trust,maybe DVLA or The Land Registry.
You posted as if you knew what licencing entails, you seem to have a lot of knowledge, please impart some on me so I can learn. I know what I know from Google but you may have some information I am unaware of.
-
So you do or don't trust ACPO? Any others goverment bodies that you don't trust,maybe DVLA or The Land Registry.
You posted as if you knew what licencing entails, you seem to have a lot of knowledge, please impart some on me so I can learn. I know what I know from Google but you may have some information I am unaware of.
Have you read Martin Grimes statement.... You really should if you are going to post about the dogs
-
Are you suggesting that Mark Harrison and Martin Grime collaborated with the PJ to fit up the McCanns?
Please refrain from this habit you have adopted of putting your absolute fantasy into my mouth.
Did I mention Martin Grime in this post ... NO! I did not.
Did I mention Mark Harrison ... NO! I did not.
Did I say they collaborated with the PJ to 'fit up' the McCanns ... NO! I did not particularly since I mentioned not both but Kate alone.
You really are going to have to stop and take a good look at this style of posting which you have adopted of fantasy misquoting another poster ... in my opinion you are breaking forum rules by your inaccurate and apparently disingenuous questions.
This is the last time I will complain to you about what you are doing ... future like infringements will be taken up the line.
-
Have you read Martin Grimes statement.... You really should if you are going to post about the dogs
Yes I have read Martin Grime's statements. But they won't help me to glean the information you hold about APCO licencing that you deem them to be of a low standard. Please educate me
-
Yes I have read Martin Grime's statements. But they won't help me to glean the information you hold about APCO licencing that you deem them to be of a low standard. Please educate me
The information is in his statement... The word anecdotal is in his statement... Did you not see it
-
Yes I have read Martin Grime's statements. But they won't help me to glean the information you hold about APCO licencing that you deem them to be of a low standard. Please educate me
I rather think that the question arises to what Zampo's training and that of his trainer might have been to remain within the context of the thread title.
To that end I have posted one link in a previous post.
-
I rather think that the question arises to what Zampo's training and that of his trainer might have been to remain within the context of the thread title.
To that end I have posted one link in a previous post.
The Sture Bergwell (Thomas Quick) case is surely one of the strangest around. It was a catalogue of errors and good intentions gone wrong from the beginning. The searches were more like an exercise in regression therapy with more psychiatrists and psychoanalysts present than police and investigators.
My own supposition on how Zampo became involved was that previously they had drained an entire lake in Norway looking for body parts of the 7 year old girl you mentioned previously and found nothing. After doing this they heard of the abilities of Zampo to find dead bodies beneath many metres of water and surmised that if he can smell a body through water imagine how good he would be to find bodies through a few inches of soil.
The problem with this was there were very few opportunities to false alert to other mammals and birds whilst searching a river or lake but when in a woodland the smell of dead animals was pervasive. His training wasn’t good enough to differentiate the odours he was locating and so alerted almost everywhere. I have no proof that this is what happen but it seems logical to me.
-
I have noticed that on a lot of threads about the dog alerts that Zampo comes up often but do we know the whole story?
Zampo was an Australian kelpie breed dog and was trained in 1990 by John Sjoberg. He was trained to find drowned victims underwater. His trainer qualified as a military dog handler but he was self taught in the methods that he trained Zampo. From 1993 to spring of 1996 the police used a variety of police cadaver dogs from Norway and Finland. In this period none of these dogs alerted and the police were perplexed why the dogs weren’t confirming the very accurate confessions by Thomas Quick. Enter Zampo and straight away he started alerting. In fact on his first search he alerted to a place Quick had said he had buried two Somali teenagers but even before the search, it was confirmed that the two teenagers were in fact still alive. In spite of this the police kept using Zampo and he kept alerting everywhere. The police even set up a test for him with a pit with human remains and one without any and he failed this test also but still they kept using him.
Also Zampo never actually marked a point that Quick indicated as a site where a body had been. Quick never specified an exact location, Zampo was sent to search in the broad area Quick had suggested and after he alerted, the police officers would then tell Quick where the alert occurred and then the fantasy would continue. The police were so convinced by Quick's confessions that they almost turned a blind eye to Zampo's failings.
Make of this what you will but for me the point of all this is that not all cadaver dogs are of equal ability.
its quite simple....according to the experts...the alerts themselves should never be taken as evidence of anything....thats where the PJ went wrong
-
The information is in his statement... The word anecdotal is in his statement... Did you not see it
IMO you have misinterpreted this paragraph from Martin Grime.
“Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a daily
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.”
He doesn’t say anecdotal evidence he says anecdotal cases, i.e. they re-enact scenarios derived from anecdotal cases over the period of a week. They also do continuation training daily. They do this twice annually.
It doesn't mean they sit around and discuss anecdotes and then grant the licence for another year.
-
IMO you have misinterpreted this paragraph from Martin Grime.
“Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a daily
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.”
He doesn’t say anecdotal evidence he says anecdotal cases, i.e. they re-enact scenarios derived from anecdotal cases over the period of a week. They also do continuation training daily. They do this twice annually.
It doesn't mean they sit around and discuss anecdotes and then grant the licence for another year.
he doesnt say they re enact anything...you are making it up.
-
he doesnt say they re enact anything...you are making it up.
Please read it again “derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based”.
You re-enact a scenario in a training exercise.
If I’m wrong how in your opinion do you imagine they do it based on the word anecdotal that you like to keep referencing.
-
IMO you have misinterpreted this paragraph from Martin Grime.
“Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a daily
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.”
He doesn’t say anecdotal evidence he says anecdotal cases, i.e. they re-enact scenarios derived from anecdotal cases over the period of a week. They also do continuation training daily. They do this twice annually.
It doesn't mean they sit around and discuss anecdotes and then grant the licence for another year.
Exactly what is going on here? You don't seem to be too keen on discussing the topic of the thread which you initiated on Zampo.
From now on if there is no sensible or appropriate mention of Zampo ... I think it would be in order to deem posts Off Topic.
-
Exactly what is going on here? You don't seem to be too keen on discussing the topic of the thread which you initiated on Zampo.
From now on if there is no sensible or appropriate mention of Zampo ... I think it would be in order to deem posts Off Topic.
Brietta, with respect I posted a long post about Zampo less than an hour ago.
The other poster has hardly referenced the case, and indeed thinks I may have a hidden agenda on these boards . A bit of fairness please.
-
Brietta, with respect I posted a long post about Zampo less than an hour ago.
The other poster has hardly referenced the case, and indeed thinks I may have a hidden agenda on these boards . A bit of fairness please.
Afaiaa. You have started two threads... Both about cadaver dogs.. I haven't suggested you have a hidden agenda... It's quite clear what your interest is. The problem is the dogs have been discussed at length. Grime has made it clear they are not evidence.. As has Harrison... As has Prof Cassella
-
The Sture Bergwell (Thomas Quick) case is surely one of the strangest around. It was a catalogue of errors and good intentions gone wrong from the beginning. The searches were more like an exercise in regression therapy with more psychiatrists and psychoanalysts present than police and investigators.
My own supposition on how Zampo became involved was that previously they had drained an entire lake in Norway looking for body parts of the 7 year old girl you mentioned previously and found nothing. After doing this they heard of the abilities of Zampo to find dead bodies beneath many metres of water and surmised that if he can smell a body through water imagine how good he would be to find bodies through a few inches of soil.
The problem with this was there were very few opportunities to false alert to other mammals and birds whilst searching a river or lake but when in a woodland the smell of dead animals was pervasive. His training wasn’t good enough to differentiate the odours he was locating and so alerted almost everywhere. I have no proof that this is what happen but it seems logical to me.
Why very few opportunities to falsely alert while searching a river or lake but loads in a forest? Don’t animals die in rivers and lakes?
-
Interesting
https://www.policeprofessional.com/news/inconsistencies-highlighted-in-training-of-cadaver-dogs/
Inconsistencies highlighted in training of cadaver dogs
The operational practice and training involved with victim recovery dogs is inconsistent and national standards should be implemented across the UK, a University of Huddersfield study has concluded.
Oct 7, 2015
By Chris Allen
The operational practice and training involved with victim recovery dogs is inconsistent and national standards should be implemented across the UK, a University of Huddersfield study has concluded.
The study into how dogs recognise the smell of a decomposing body discovered inconsistencies in how police forces use the animals, known as cadaver dogs, and train handlers.
There are 70 cadaver dogs currently active across the country, with around one in three UK forces using them.
The claims have been made six years after a review of their use highlighted similar issues. The National Policing Improvement Agency – now part of the College of Policing – reviewed the use of the dogs in 2009 and concluded there was inconsistency in how and why they were deployed.
It also said there were no national standards for accrediting dogs and handlers and no records were kept of the success rate they achieved.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) then created national guidance on how police dogs are trained and used in 2011, but researchers claim it does not include sufficient detail on the use of cadaver dogs and the way forces train and use them and that this leads to variations in effectiveness.
During the study by the University of Huddersfield, conducted by PhD student Lorna Irish, the individual components of decomposition odour were presented to a wide variety of dogs from forces across the UK to see which elements of the scent they responded to.
It found that all of the dogs involved, even those trained in the same way, responded completely differently.
The study also identified the following discrepancies in training standards:
•There is nothing within the ACPO manual stating that pig remains – which are similar to human flesh and therefore the best training aid – must be used as an analogue for human remains. Forces have gravitated naturally towards pig meat, but some use only whole pigs, while others will only use bits of pork from a butcher;
•Forces will use meat at different states of decomposition as training aids – meaning the meat will have a slightly different odour and that as a result some dogs will be more effective than others;
•The manual is guidance only – meaning instructors can have very different interpretations of it;
•Grave specifications in the manual are vague and it only states they should vary in depth, age (ranging from three to 12 months) and terrain. No other direction is given – again this results in variable detection standards across the country;
•Refresher training is meant to be designed to “challenge” the dogs – however, no further direction is given and this therefore varies by force;
•There is no specification in the manual for the use of distractor scents or controls within training searches. In contrast, in the US dogs have to show that they can deal with distractor scents; and
•There is no specification in the manual for negative or blind searches during training, as there is in the US.
“There should be a national standard, everybody has their own different interpretation and there isn’t much communication between forces – you see good and bad things all over the place, as they have interpreted the guidance differently,” Ms Irish explained.
National policing lead for police dogs, Deputy Chief Constable Gareth Wilson, said: “Clear standards for training victim detection dogs throughout England and Wales are laid out in a national manual to ensure high standards are followed.
“These guidelines involve clear instructions on how training is carried out, which locations are used, and which materials can be legally used to ensure the best results for their essential work.”
The College of Policing would not comment on the research findings, but said that victim recovery training is a success and the guidance is always being reviewed and updated.
-
Please read it again “derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based”.
You re-enact a scenario in a training exercise.
If I’m wrong how in your opinion do you imagine they do it based on the word anecdotal that you like to keep referencing.
grime used the word anectdotal........(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
does that instil you with confidence
-
I have noticed that on a lot of threads about the dog alerts that Zampo comes up often but do we know the whole story?
Zampo was an Australian kelpie breed dog and was trained in 1990 by John Sjoberg. He was trained to find drowned victims underwater. His trainer qualified as a military dog handler but he was self taught in the methods that he trained Zampo. From 1993 to spring of 1996 the police used a variety of police cadaver dogs from Norway and Finland. In this period none of these dogs alerted and the police were perplexed why the dogs weren’t confirming the very accurate confessions by Thomas Quick. Enter Zampo and straight away he started alerting. In fact on his first search he alerted to a place Quick had said he had buried two Somali teenagers but even before the search, it was confirmed that the two teenagers were in fact still alive. In spite of this the police kept using Zampo and he kept alerting everywhere. The police even set up a test for him with a pit with human remains and one without any and he failed this test also but still they kept using him.
Also Zampo never actually marked a point that Quick indicated as a site where a body had been. Quick never specified an exact location, Zampo was sent to search in the broad area Quick had suggested and after he alerted, the police officers would then tell Quick where the alert occurred and then the fantasy would continue. The police were so convinced by Quick's confessions that they almost turned a blind eye to Zampo's failings.
Make of this what you will but for me the point of all this is that not all cadaver dogs are of equal ability.
do you have a cite for this claim
-
do you have a cite for this claim
What difference does it make? Surely the most salient point is the police discarded a plethora of competent dogs trained exactly to find human remains that may have been buried in earth because they didn’t alert where the police wanted and replaced them with a dog who was trained to locate cadavers under deep water but used him in an area he was untrained for because he kept alerting so confirming their entrenched beliefs.
-
What difference does it make? Surely the most salient point is the police discarded a plethora of competent dogs trained exactly to find human remains that may have been buried in earth because they didn’t alert where the police wanted and replaced them with a dog who was trained to locate cadavers under deep water but used him in an area he was untrained for because he kept alerting so confirming their entrenched beliefs.
the difference is can we believe everything you are saying .... without a cite the answer is no.
-
the difference is can we believe everything you are saying .... without a cite the answer is no.
So the actual information that you requested is unimportant. The importance is to see if you can catch me out making up untrue stories. What if I told you I didn't make it up, would that do?
-
So the actual information that you requested is unimportant. The importance is to see if you can catch me out making up untrue stories. What if I told you I didn't make it up, would that do?
No it wouldnt do... You've made a claim now you need to show how reliable that claim is... Is it from a reliable source. That's how this forum has always worked... So where does that information come from.. Simple question
-
So the actual information that you requested is unimportant. The importance is to see if you can catch me out making up untrue stories. What if I told you I didn't make it up, would that do?
That would be good.
-
So the actual information that you requested is unimportant. The importance is to see if you can catch me out making up untrue stories. What if I told you I didn't make it up, would that do?
This isnt correct so youve made it up
-
This isnt correct so youve made it up
What isn't correct?
This is what I posted
"So the actual information that you requested is unimportant. The importance is to see if you can catch me out making up untrue stories."
Are you saying the information is important to you and you place no importance to trying to catch me making up a story.
-
What isn't correct?
This is what I posted
"So the actual information that you requested is unimportant. The importance is to see if you can catch me out making up untrue stories."
Are you saying the information is important to you and you place no importance to trying to catch me making up a story.
even that's not correct...I asked for a cite because i want to know how reliable the information you've posted is...
-
So the actual information that you requested is unimportant. The importance is to see if you can catch me out making up untrue stories. What if I told you I didn't make it up, would that do?
All statements purporting to be factual require a cite. It is as simple as that.
-
What isn't correct?
This is what I posted
"So the actual information that you requested is unimportant. The importance is to see if you can catch me out making up untrue stories."
Are you saying the information is important to you and you place no importance to trying to catch me making up a story.
Please desist from deflection.
You chose the topic ... please endeavour to stick to it. Thank you
-
even that's not correct...I asked for a cite because i want to know how reliable the information you've posted is...
I give up. You've worn me down.
"Zampo's ability was tested. In Örjeskogen, charcoal, burnt and unburned human bones, burnt human intestines and an animal bone were excavated. In addition, an empty pit was again filled. Zampo searched and marked on all the pits with human tissue, but also on the empty pit and on it with charcoal. The test report was thus a disaster. But the investigators wanted to trust Zampo. The report was buried in the preliminary examination material and the dog continued to be used."
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/0EgQqE/granskningen-som-fick-lambertz-att-erkanna-sitt-fel
-
I give up. You've worn me down.
"Zampo's ability was tested. In Örjeskogen, charcoal, burnt and unburned human bones, burnt human intestines and an animal bone were excavated. In addition, an empty pit was again filled. Zampo searched and marked on all the pits with human tissue, but also on the empty pit and on it with charcoal. The test report was thus a disaster. But the investigators wanted to trust Zampo. The report was buried in the preliminary examination material and the dog continued to be used."
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/0EgQqE/granskningen-som-fick-lambertz-att-erkanna-sitt-fel
Two points...first we dont know how accurate that article is..
Second... the jersey childrens home was reputed to be the site of child murder...Eddie alerted 11 times. none of these alerts were confirmed and it was later confirmed there was no history of missing children. Doesnt that make Zampo's performance similar to Eddie's.
-
Two points...first we dont know how accurate that article is..
Second... the jersey childrens home was reputed to be the site of child murder...Eddie alerted 11 times. none of these alerts were confirmed and it was later confirmed there was no history of missing children. Doesnt that make Zampo's performance similar to Eddie's.
I knew I was on a hiding to nothing providing you with a cite, because I knew you would just say we don’t know how reliable it is. But IMO you really didn’t want to check if the information was correct, just to check my integrity.
Regarding Zampo and Eddie, Zampo alerted 59 times at 20 odd disparate sites. Excavations were carried out some as large as football pitches but not one single human bone or fragment were ever found.
In Jersey Eddie searched one site, Haut De La Garenne where on excavation human bones and milk teeth were found.
-
I knew I was on a hiding to nothing providing you with a cite, because I knew you would just say we don’t know how reliable it is. But IMO you really didn’t want to check if the information was correct, just to check my integrity.
Regarding Zampo and Eddie, Zampo alerted 59 times at 20 odd disparate sites. Excavations were carried out some as large as football pitches but not one single human bone or fragment were ever found.
In Jersey Eddie searched one site, Haut De La Garenne where on excavation human bones and milk teeth were found.
Grime said in his whitepaper there would be no alerts to teeth....i dont think any of the bones were confirmed as human ......I dont see eddie being that superior to zampo.....How many actual remains has eddie found...not a lot
-
I knew I was on a hiding to nothing providing you with a cite, because I knew you would just say we don’t know how reliable it is. But IMO you really didn’t want to check if the information was correct, just to check my integrity.
Regarding Zampo and Eddie, Zampo alerted 59 times at 20 odd disparate sites. Excavations were carried out some as large as football pitches but not one single human bone or fragment were ever found.
In Jersey Eddie searched one site, Haut De La Garenne where on excavation human bones and milk teeth were found.
A request for a Cite is not a question of integrity.
-
A request for a Cite is not a question of integrity.
I did say IMO that it was and I stand by my statement.
It was an irrelevant cite, what would have been proved if it had been proved to be incorrect?
-
I did say IMO that it was and I stand by my statement.
It was an irrelevant cite, what would have been proved if it had been proved to be incorrect?
I wasnt questioning your integrity i was questioning the source of the information....so unfortunately you are wrong there too......
-
I wasnt questioning your integrity i was questioning the source of the information....so unfortunately you are wrong there too......
But why were you questioning the source, what would it have changed if it was incorrect?
-
But why were you questioning the source, what would it have changed if it was incorrect?
If you don't understand it's a waste of time me trying to explain....
-
If you don't understand it's a waste of time me trying to explain....
It would have been easier to actually explain what would have changed than type that last statement. I am sure you have the time to indulge me with an explanation.
-
Please let's not turn this into an argument. Neither of you are at fault as far as I can see.
-
Please let's not turn this into an argument. Neither of you are at fault as far as I can see.
OK Eleanor, I respect your input and I will leave it there.
-
I give up. You've worn me down.
"Zampo's ability was tested. In Örjeskogen, charcoal, burnt and unburned human bones, burnt human intestines and an animal bone were excavated. In addition, an empty pit was again filled. Zampo searched and marked on all the pits with human tissue, but also on the empty pit and on it with charcoal. The test report was thus a disaster. But the investigators wanted to trust Zampo. The report was buried in the preliminary examination material and the dog continued to be used."
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/0EgQqE/granskningen-som-fick-lambertz-att-erkanna-sitt-fel
That’s not quite the same as what you wrote ie “ The police even set up a test for him with a pit with human remains and one without any and he failed this test”. He did alert to the pits with human remains, but also alerted to the pits without. Sounds like a typical cadaver dog to me.
-
That’s not quite the same as what you wrote ie “ The police even set up a test for him with a pit with human remains and one without any and he failed this test”. He did alert to the pits with human remains, but also alerted to the pits without. Sounds like a typical cadaver dog to me.
Do you believe I was trying to mislead anyone? I am and was aware he alerted on both pits but as he alerted on the pit with no human remains that would be a fail wouldn't it.
-
Do you believe I was trying to mislead anyone? I am and was aware he alerted on both pits but as he alerted on the pit with no human remains that would be a fail wouldn't it.
No I don’t believe you are trying to mislead anyone, just from what you wrote it sounded to me like Zampo failed to alert to a pit full of human remains.
-
No I don’t believe you are trying to mislead anyone, just from what you wrote it sounded to me like Zampo failed to alert to a pit full of human remains.
OK fair enough, as I said it was just a passing point in the narrative I didn’t deem it to be pivotal, but I can see how you came to your judgement.
-
OK fair enough, as I said it was just a passing point in the narrative I didn’t deem it to be pivotal, but I can see how you came to your judgement.
The thing with VRD dogs is that they are trained to find human remains. Had Zampo found human remains as he did in the experiment then he would have fulfilled his function perfectly, so what if there were a few false alerts along the way. Where it becomes more problematic is when using dogs to discover if a body had ever been in a location, there the training and the assessment of the efficacy of the dogs is wide open for debate imo.
-
The thing with VRD dogs is that they are trained to find human remains. Had Zampo found human remains as he did in the experiment then he would have fulfilled his function perfectly, so what if there were a few false alerts along the way. Where it becomes more problematic is when using dogs to discover if a body had ever been in a location, there the training and the assessment of the efficacy of the dogs is wide open for debate imo.
I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.
-
I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.
Often incorrectly.
-
Often incorrectly.
Perhaps, I suppose it depends which side of the fence you are sitting on.
-
Perhaps, I suppose it depends which side of the fence you are sitting on.
Oh, absolutely. But what has that got to do with anything?
-
I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.
yes, opinions were formed in the case of Thomas Quick and look where that led.
-
I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.
dog alerts are not EVIDENCE of anything and any conclusion based on the false assumption they are is flawed...thts not opinion its fact
-
I can’t disagree with anything you have written. I realise that dog alert without a body is not proof of anything but opinions can be formed by such alerts.
I think taking it as intelligence indicating the need for further investigation is fine. Taking it as opinion forming is naive and unprofessional, in my opinion.
-
I think taking it as intelligence indicating the need for further investigation is fine. Taking it as opinion forming is naive and unprofessional, in my opinion.
Agreed.
-
dog alerts are not EVIDENCE of anything and any conclusion based on the false assumption they are is flawed...thts not opinion its fact
Davel, I have already given up trying to convince you that dog alerts are evidence on the other thread. I realised it was a futile task akin to Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill. I know that whatever I have ever said, or whatever I will ever say you will never accept that dog alerts are used as evidence in a Court of Law.
Even if by some black magic I found video footage of Martin Grime giving evidence in a US court in 2012 concerning uncorroborated alerts by one of his VRD dogs in a murder case you would counter that they are still not to be used as evidence as Martin Grime said this to be so in 2007.
So I won’t try to persuade you that they are evidence and you really don’t need to try and persuade me. But I can’t stop you of course.
-
Davel, I have already given up trying to convince you that dog alerts are evidence on the other thread. I realised it was a futile task akin to Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill. I know that whatever I have ever said, or whatever I will ever say you will never accept that dog alerts are used as evidence in a Court of Law.
Even if by some black magic I found video footage of Martin Grime giving evidence in a US court in 2012 concerning uncorroborated alerts by one of his VRD dogs in a murder case you would counter that they are still not to be used as evidence as Martin Grime said this to be so in 2007.
So I won’t try to persuade you that they are evidence and you really don’t need to try and persuade me. But I can’t stop you of course.
You say the dog alerts are used as evidence in a court of law... I would say that is a misleading statement and suggest you know that.
I believe Grime has appeared once in court Re the alerts..
I believe they have been oredented once in Scotland as evidence... And later the SCCRC said they.should not have been admitted. That does not fit your description so my claim that you are trying to mislead is valid.
According to Grime and Harrison and Cassella the alerts are not evidence unless corroborated. I could go into detail about why they were admitted in the US.... Again in error imo...
They are being challenged again in the Redwine case
-
Davel, I have already given up trying to convince you that dog alerts are evidence on the other thread. I realised it was a futile task akin to Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill. I know that whatever I have ever said, or whatever I will ever say you will never accept that dog alerts are used as evidence in a Court of Law.
Even if by some black magic I found video footage of Martin Grime giving evidence in a US court in 2012 concerning uncorroborated alerts by one of his VRD dogs in a murder case you would counter that they are still not to be used as evidence as Martin Grime said this to be so in 2007.
So I won’t try to persuade you that they are evidence and you really don’t need to try and persuade me. But I can’t stop you of course.
The reason you have had difficulty is because the alerts are not evidence... Simple
-
You say the dog alerts are used as evidence in a court of law... I would say that is a misleading statement and suggest you know that.
I believe Grime has appeared once in court Re the alerts..
I believe they have been oredented once in Scotland as evidence... And later the SCCRC said they.should not have been admitted. That does not fit your description so my claim that you are trying to mislead is valid.
According to Grime and Harrison and Cassella the alerts are not evidence unless corroborated. I could go into detail about why they were admitted in the US.... Again in error imo...
They are being challenged again in the Redwine case
Mark Redwine will be convicted and the dog evidence will be corroborated. He will never confess like Eugene Zapata.
-
The reason you have had difficulty is because the alerts are not evidence... Simple
That's one way of looking at it, another would be that you have such an entrenched and dogmatic belief that dog alerts are not evidence that you are prepared to ignore and disregard the empirical evidence that exists.
-
You say the dog alerts are used as evidence in a court of law... I would say that is a misleading statement and suggest you know that.
I believe Grime has appeared once in court Re the alerts..
I believe they have been oredented once in Scotland as evidence... And later the SCCRC said they.should not have been admitted. That does not fit your description so my claim that you are trying to mislead is valid.
According to Grime and Harrison and Cassella the alerts are not evidence unless corroborated. I could go into detail about why they were admitted in the US.... Again in error imo...
They are being challenged again in the Redwine case
OK, you have piqued my interest, you have mentioned the SCCRC report many times so I would like to educate myself about their findings. Did they find the evidence inadmissible or just unreliable ? What criteria did they use to form this opinion? Which cases did they use as leading cases? I have seen the reference to the report on the website dedicated to the innocence of Mr Gilroy but it doesn’t tell me much and I think I need more info than the 25 odd words pasted below.
“They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable. They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court”
Please provide a link to the actual report so I can read it and see if I can come round to your beliefs about dog alert evidence.
Much appreciated.
P.S. I can reciprocate with a link to the judgement in the 2012 High Court Appeal if you want it. It’s a good read. Point 63 d reaffirms that the cadaver dogs alert evidence helped in the original conviction. Just ask and I will provide it.
-
That's one way of looking at it, another would be that you have such an entrenched and dogmatic belief that dog alerts are not evidence that you are prepared to ignore and disregard the empirical evidence that exists.
What do you think no evidential reliability or value means. I think it's quite clear in it's meaning.
It's the evidence you think exists that supports your belief
-
What do you think no evidential reliability or value means. I think it's quite clear in it's meaning.
It's the evidence you think exists that supports your belief
And yet the empirical evidence exists that dog alerts have been used in courts before.
What a conundrum.
-
And yet the empirical evidence exists that dog alerts have been used in courts before.
What a conundrum.
No conundrum whatsoever as I've explained ..
Would you like to tell us how many times in the last 50 years these alerts have been used in court in the UK
-
No conundrum whatsoever as I've explained ..
Would you like to tell us how many times in the last 50 years these alerts have been used in court in the UK
Well according to your post only once. David Gilroy
Which is wrong. Twice. David Gilroy and Margaret Fleming.
Many more in the USA.
As I have mentioned there only needs to be one instance to confirm.
I only need to see the moon once to know it exists.
-
Well according to your post only once. David Gilroy
Which is wrong. Twice. David Gilroy and Margaret Fleming.
Many more in the USA.
As I have mentioned there only needs to be one instance to confirm.
I only need to see the moon once to know it exists.
You made a claim that the, whole if the judiciary accepted the alerts, which is clearly rubbish.... Just because they've sneaked under the, radar twice means nothing as you should realise. Do you remember what Prof Cassella said about them
-
You made a claim that the, whole if the judiciary accepted the alerts, which is clearly rubbish.... Just because they've sneaked under the, radar twice means nothing as you should realise. Do you remember what Prof Cassella said about them
You can’t sneak under the radar with High Court murder cases. Do you realise how much scrutiny is applied before during and after these cases. There already has been a full appeal denied to Gilroy, where the dogs alerts were not even grounds for the appeal. And you still don’t understand what I posted about the judiciary as a whole having no issue with the 2 cases that have ended with safe convictions for the accused.
-
You can’t sneak under the radar with High Court murder cases. Do you realise how much scrutiny is applied before during and after these cases. There already has been a full appeal denied to Gilroy, where the dogs alerts were not even grounds for the appeal. And you still don’t understand what I posted about the judiciary as a whole having no issue with the 2 cases that have ended with safe convictions for the accused.
Yoy believe what you wish. .your belief is of no importance, whatsoever
-
Yoy believe what you wish. .your belief is of no importance, whatsoever
I am just a small cog in a big machine.
That report, any luck?
-
I am just a small cog in a big machine.
That report, any luck?
You are not even a cog... Do you think it's just me who hasn't been swayed by your arguments... No one has. On the whole sceptics believe the alerts, are evidence... Supporters don't. Your posts don't make the slightest difference
-
You are not even a cog... Do you think it's just me who hasn't been swayed by your arguments... No one has. On the whole sceptics believe the alerts, are evidence... Supporters don't. Your posts don't make the slightest difference
Er, the report?
-
Er, the report?
What's the point... I could make a FOi request.... I could email Cassella... Why should I bother... I know the truth.. You and your views, are just not important
You think you're a cog in a big machine... It's laughable
-
What's the point... I could make a FOi request.... I could email Cassella... Why should I bother... I know the truth.. You and your views, are just not important
So you have never even seen the report?
And I said a small cog.
-
So you have never even seen the report?
Read the above post
-
Read the above post
I've read it but it doesn't tell me if you have read the report or not.
-
I've read it but it doesn't tell me if you have read the report or not.
Tough... As I said your views are of no importance to me.... What difference does it make. You are, sounding quite desperate... It's quite funny
-
Tough... As I said your views are of no importance to me.... What difference does it make. You are, sounding quite desperate... It's quite funny
Desperate to find out if you have read the report you have quoted so many times. Yes I am
I am on tenterhooks.
-
You can’t sneak under the radar with High Court murder cases. Do you realise how much scrutiny is applied before during and after these cases. There already has been a full appeal denied to Gilroy, where the dogs alerts were not even grounds for the appeal. And you still don’t understand what I posted about the judiciary as a whole having no issue with the 2 cases that have ended with safe convictions for the accused.
Do you think the convictions in the Fleming case are safe? The dog didn't find any identifiable human bones, only fish & deer bones.
-
Desperate to find out if you have read the report you have quoted so many times. Yes I am
I am on tenterhooks.
I can read you like a book... If I produced the report.. If I had an email from Cassella... You would simply say they carry no legal weight... Admit it... I'm absolutely right am I not
-
Do you think the convictions in the Fleming case are safe? The dog didn't find any identifiable human bones, only fish & deer bones.
The jury found them guilty and there doesn't seem to be any reason for a retrial that I can see. There were no procedural errors. A body of circumstantial evidence can easily persuade a jury. Do you think they din't kill her?
-
I can read you like a book... If I produced the report.. If I had an email from Cassella... You would simply say they carry no legal weight... Admit it... I'm absolutely right am I not
Not at all. I really would like to read it to see the criteria that was used to reach the decision. But I do agree with you it does not carry any legal weight whatsoever.
-
Not at all. I really would like to read it to see the criteria that was used to reach the decision. But I do agree with you it does not carry any legal weight whatsoever.
You don't seem to understand the written word.. It's not me you are, agreeing with it's, yourself
-
You don't seem to understand the written word.. It's not me you are, agreeing with it's, yourself
So it is your opinion that the SCCRC report that was shelved, never brought before any court in the land carries legal weight?
-
So it is your opinion that the SCCRC report that was shelved, never brought before any court in the land carries legal weight?
According to you I've already expressed that opinion ...so you are now backtracking..
I'm off now
-
According to you I've already expressed that opinion ...so you are now backtracking..
I'm off now
No backtracking, you have just never admitted that it carries no legal weight.
Nite, Nite.
-
The jury found them guilty and there doesn't seem to be any reason for a retrial that I can see. There were no procedural errors. A body of circumstantial evidence can easily persuade a jury. Do you think they din't kill her?
I think any conviction without a body & confession is potentially unsafe. It's hard to know what to think in the Fleming case, based on the lack of people who cared about Margaret's well-being.
-
I think any conviction without a body & confession is potentially unsafe. It's hard to know what to think in the Fleming case, based on the lack of people who cared about Margaret's well-being.
It could be potentially unsafe I agree. Cairney has already served notice to appeal so we have to wait and see. All the evidence was circumstantial but I would be surprised if they (or he) didn't kill her 20 odd years ago.
But as you say for nearly 20 years nobody took any interest in Margaret Fleming. Such a shame.
-
What's the point... I could make a FOi request.... I could email Cassella... Why should I bother... I know the truth.. You and your views, are just not important
You think you're a cog in a big machine... It's laughable
Refusing to provide a cite is against forum rules, did you know that?
-
Refusing to provide a cite is against forum rules, did you know that?
There is a limit to how far any member has to go to get a Cite.
let's have a bit of common sense, please.
-
Refusing to provide a cite is against forum rules, did you know that?
You have failed to provide a cute on the other thread. I have already explained what my claim is based on. The report from the family and from the podcast featuring Prof Cassella
-
You have failed to provide a cute on the other thread. I have already explained what my claim is based on. The report from the family and from the podcast featuring Prof Cassella
So what is the text of the Casella quote? I think I've debunked this once before, but I'm happy to do it again.
As a minimum, you failed to provide context, if memory serves.
-
So what is the text of the Casella quote? I think I've debunked this once before, but I'm happy to do it again.
As a minimum, you failed to provide context, if memory serves.
The difference is I'm quite happy that others don't accept my views...I'm convinced the alerts were deemed inadmissible by the SCRCC....if others don't want to accept it that's fine...it's not important at all. ICHtt thinks he's a cog in a big machine...more of a sock in a washing machine...that sounds more than a bit odd and misguided to me
-
There is a limit to how far any member has to go to get a Cite.
let's have a bit of common sense, please.
If someone quotes a report common sense suggests they've read it. If they've read it then a cite shouldn't be beyond their ability to find.
-
So what is the text of the Casella quote? I think I've debunked this once before, but I'm happy to do it again.
As a minimum, you failed to provide context, if memory serves.
Casella is a forensic expert, not a legal expert so his views on what should be used in evidence are immaterial.
-
Casella is a forensic expert, not a legal expert so his views on what should be used in evidence are immaterial.
his opinion as to what is reliable forensic evidence is totally valid....judges dont decide themselves...they take the advice of experts...you are totally mistaken. Who decided DNA was acceptable....the judge would take the advice of the scientists
-
The difference is I'm quite happy that others don't accept my views...I'm convinced the alerts were deemed inadmissible by the SCRCC....if others don't want to accept it that's fine...it's not important at all. ICHtt thinks he's a cog in a big machine...more of a sock in a washing machine...that sounds more than a bit odd and misguided to me
LOL, you even misrepresent my idioms.
A small cog in a big machine doesn’t mean I think I am important it means the opposite.
From Longman Dictionary
"someone who only has a small unimportant job in a large organization"
The big machine is the world and I am an incidental small cog that has little significance to it. At least I recognize this fact, maybe some others don’t.
-
LOL, you even misrepresent my idioms.
A small cog in a big machine doesn’t mean I think I am important it means the opposite.
From Longman Dictionary
"someone who only has a small unimportant job in a large organization"
The big machine is the world and I am an incidental small cog that has little significance to it. At least I recognize this fact, maybe some others don’t.
We have no significance in this case but I agree some think they do
-
his opinion as to what is reliable forensic evidence is totally valid....judges dont decide themselves...they take the advice of experts...you are totally mistaken. Who decided DNA was acceptable....the judge would take the advice of the scientists
Dog alerts are nothing to do with forensic evidence unless they find something which the scientists can test. The experts on dog alerts are those who train and handle the dogs.
-
Dog alerts are nothing to do with forensic evidence unless they find something which the scientists can test. The experts on dog alerts are those who train and handle the dogs.
So you don't include Harrison... absolutely laughable
-
So you don't include Harrison... absolutely laughable
Including Casella is what is laughable.
-
Including Casella is what is laughable.
Cassella is an expert on forensic evidence. He's a scientist...he understands what passes the test for evidence...Grime is a dog handler...and he is subject to confirmation bias.
-
Cassella is an expert on forensic evidence. He's a scientist...he understands what passes the test for evidence...Grime is a dog handler...and he is subject to confirmation bias.
What you always seem to ignore is that it is a matter of law what evidence is deemed to be admissible. It’s not the decision of police officers or University professors.
-
Cassella is an expert on forensic evidence. He's a scientist...he understands what passes the test for evidence...Grime is a dog handler...and he is subject to confirmation bias.
Casella continues to use Harrison to collaborate on his studies, including using VRD dogs to successfully uncover a hitherto unidentified grave, the soil from which he used to conduct analysis.
So this pre-eminent scientist, as you quite rightly point out, is happy to include VRD dog handler techniques in the body of his soil sample reports, despite their apparent human shortcomings.
-
What you always seem to ignore is that it is a matter of law what evidence is deemed to be admissible. It’s not the decision of police officers of University professors.
What you fail to understand is that it's what science backs the so called evidence to decide if it's admissible ..why are lie detectors not admissible...because the law listens to the scientific argument..
-
Casella continues to use Harrison to collaborate on his studies, including using VRD dogs to successfully uncover a hitherto unidentified grave, the soil from which he used to conduct analysis.
So this pre-eminent scientist, as you quite rightly point out, is happy to include VRD dog handler techniques in the body of his soil sample reports, despite their apparent human shortcomings.
Of course he is...why ever should he not...cadaver dogs have an important role to play...but it's not the role most sceptics seem to think
-
What you fail to understand is that it's what science backs the so called evidence to decide if it's admissible ..why are lie detectors not admissible...because the law listens to the scientific argument..
....and the law duly considered the scientific merits of the dog alerts in the Gilroy case and admitted it. End of.
-
What you fail to understand is that it's what science backs the so called evidence to decide if it's admissible ..why are lie detectors not admissible...because the law listens to the scientific argument..
So as per my unanswered question on the other thread:
Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.
-
So as per my unanswered question on the other thread:
Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.
I only know of one case where tracker dog evidence was attempted to be introduced in the UK...but was deemed inadmissible. It was discussed in this forum. Alerts have never been admitted in England sfaiaa...my argument is they don't pass the evidence test from what I can see...and from what Cassella said in the podcast
-
....and the law duly considered the scientific merits of the dog alerts in the Gilroy case and admitted it. End of.
They were accepted because they were not challenged..imo
-
....and the law duly considered the scientific merits of the dog alerts in the Gilroy case and admitted it. End of.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission closed David Gilroy’s case for a miscarriage of justice part of the basis for which was as follows ...
One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC.
They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court.
However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp
Seems clear enough. Now we shall see which precedent will be followed in the Scottish courts.
-
They were accepted because they were not challenged..imo
Even if that were the case it's utterly irrelevant. Angry from Doncaster might have an opinion and nip up and picket the chambers in a Batman costume holding a placard - it's in the book, to use the cricket analogy. Check the scorecard: D Gilory, Bowled HMA, 0
-
Even if that were the case it's utterly irrelevant. Angry from Doncaster might have an opinion and nip up and picket the chambers in a Batman costume holding a placard - it's in the book, to use the cricket analogy. Check the scorecard: D Gilory, Bowled HMA, 0
But it's Professor Cassella...and just about every other expert having the same opinion.....in the Gilroy case there was lots of other evidence to prove guilt...if there had not been then a retrial may well have been on the cards
-
But it's Professor Cassella...and just about every other expert having the same opinion.....in the Gilroy case there was lots of other evidence to prove guilt...if there had not been then a retrial may well have been on the cards
Quite. But the prosecution, despite the profusion of circumstantial evidence at their disposal, still deemed the dog evidence was required. They almost certainly were aware that this additional evidence was contentious and its utilisation may be grounds for a retrial if found to be 'unreliable'. No self respecting prosecution team would gamble in such a manner, breaking new evidential ground, given the gravity of the offence and the profile of the case.
-
Quite. But the prosecution, despite the profusion of circumstantial evidence at their disposal, still deemed the dog evidence was required. They almost certainly were aware that this additional evidence was contentious and its utilisation may be grounds for a retrial if found to be 'unreliable'. No self respecting prosecution team would gamble in such a manner, breaking new evidential ground, given the gravity of the offence and the profile of the case.
Perhaps they just didn't realise...they simply accepted the testimony of a policeman...
-
Perhaps they just didn't realise...they simply accepted the testimony of a policeman...
I doubt it. You know the rigour employed in the investigation as well as I do.
The test is always the same: relevance, admissibility and weight. There's no doubt they laboured over its inclusion and used the test accordingly. Same for any other evidence. I'm sure they discarded loads, but the dogs stayed in.
-
What you fail to understand is that it's what science backs the so called evidence to decide if it's admissible ..why are lie detectors not admissible...because the law listens to the scientific argument..
There are different kinds of evidence and not all of them are scientific.
-
There are different kinds of evidence and not all of them are scientific.
Really...lol
-
I doubt it. You know the rigour employed in the investigation as well as I do.
Prosecutors are the same as any professionals...some are good..some aren't
-
Prosecutors are the same as any professionals...some are good..some aren't
Maybe, but they use the same tests every time - relevance, admissibility and weight. Failure to do so would jeopardise their case.
-
Maybe, but they use the same tests every time - relevance, admissibility and weight. Failure to do so would jeopardise their case.
Why did the Omagh bomb trial collapse
-
Why did the Armagh bomb trial collapse
Omagh? Well......funny you should say that. I recently read Kevin Fulton's account and Sean O' Driscoll's book on David Rupert on the subject.
The whole thing is extremely complicated with various IRA factions warring, the intervention of everyone from Clinton, to Blair, to Noraid, to Gadaffi of all people. Plus, there's still a school of thought that McKevitt himself was an MI5 operative and possibly even Daly.
Terrible times and an horrific account.
-
Omagh? Well......funny you should say that. I recently read Kevin Fulton's account and Sean O' Driscoll's book on David Rupert on the subject.
The whole thing is extremely complicated with various IRA factions warring, the intervention of everyone from Clinton, to Blair, to Noraid, to Gadaffi of all people. Plus, there's still a school of thought that McKevitt himself was an MI5 operative and possibly even Daly.
Terrible times and an horrific account.
The trial collapsed because evidence that had previously been admissible was robustly challenged
-
The trial collapsed because evidence that had previously been admissible was robustly challenged
Daly's trial collapsed due to apparently unreliable witnesses.
-
Daly's trial collapsed due to apparently unreliable witnesses.
sorry...Omagh bombings...Sean Hoey
-
Do you know what that licensing entails... It's not a lot. You've made several claims about Zampo but not provided any links to support them
It's quite obvious your sole aim here is to try and show the alerts are something they are not. Grime said they needed to be confirmed with forensic evidence. They weren't.
Swab 3a was confirmatory forensic evidence. We know it contained human DNA. The fact that both dogs alerted suggest the source was human blood.
-
Swab 3a was confirmatory forensic evidence. We know it contained human DNA. The fact that both dogs alerted suggest the source was human blood.
Billy is even better at analysis than the FSS!
-
Billy is even better at analysis than the FSS!
Billys not been disbanded either.