Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Mr Gray]

Then we have Grime himself... And every other handler I've heard say the alerts need to be confirmed with physical evidence... Where the, alerts have been accepted by court I would question the defence lawyers in not sufficiently challenging the evidence

[G-Unit]

IMO, there should be one rule for all when it comes to cadaver dog evidence in a court room situation.  It is either deemed reliable and therefore acceptable to be presented before the court or it is not.  Is it?  Should it?

Those decisions are made on a case by case basis by the judge in charge. They decide which evidence is admissible in each case. As far as I know there are no 'rules' which apply to all cases.

[Mr Gray]

Those decisions are made on a case by case basis by the judge in charge. They decide which evidence is admissible in each case. As far as I know there are no 'rules' which apply to all cases.

I would have thought there are rules relating to evidence in general and the alerts don't satisfy them

[barrier]

I wod have thought there are rules relating to evidence in general and the alerts don't satisfy them

Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?

[Eleanor]

Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?

They need Evidence.  There isn't any.

[barrier]

I wod have thought there are rules relating to evidence in general and the alerts don't satisfy them

Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?

They need Evidence.  There isn't any.

Doesn't answer my question to davel's post does it?

[Robittybob1]

From what I can see the Zapata case has nothing to do with cadaver dogs being unreliable, apart from a judge who deemed them no more reliable at that time than a toss of a coin.  He was wrong and Zapata was a murderer IMO.

Gerry McCann chose to use this case to claim that all cadaver dogs were "unreliable". Again he was wrong IMO.

OK - that was your opinion but the judge in the Zapata case dismissed the dog evidence as it appeared to him some scientific experiment showed they were on average approx 70% reliable. 
Whether those results are available to us I'm not sure.  I'm unaware of the actual report of the test.

[Brietta]

Does anyone think Grimes assertion that Eddie alerted to CC should be accepted by any court

Didn't the Policia Judiciaria inspector question why the dog had walked past the toy more than once, alerting to it only when it had been placed in a cupboard?

If the PJ questioned the accuracy of the alert ... is there the slightest probability any court would ignore that assessment after watching the video confirming it?

[barrier]

Didn't the Policia Judiciaria inspector question why the dog had walked past the toy more than once, alerting to it only when it had been placed in a cupboard?

If the PJ questioned the accuracy of the alert ... is there the slightest probability any court would ignore that assessment after watching the video confirming it?

All hypothetical imo, it'll never get to court,  again imo.

[Mr Gray]

Didn't the Policia Judiciaria inspector question why the dog had walked past the toy more than once, alerting to it only when it had been placed in a cupboard?

If the PJ questioned the accuracy of the alert ... is there the slightest probability any court would ignore that assessment after watching the video confirming it?

The PJ questioned why the dog passed by several times and did not alert to several sites before eventually alerting.... I have posted the cite from the files to confirm this several times

[Mr Gray]

Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?

Do judges decide by there own value, what constitutes  evidence or have they been given training and guidelines... Rules..... To guide them... Logic would say this is the case...
As the alerts have never been used in the UK logic dictates the alerts don't satisfy them

[Brietta]

Doesn't answer my question to davel's post does it?

It is in my opinion a bit of a cop out to indulge in catch all questioning of a post without making your own case in a counter argument.
I think that is the essence of meaningful debate as apposed to obfuscation,

[barrier]

It is in my opinion a bit of a cop out to indulge in catch all questioning of a post without making your own case in a counter argument.
I think that is the essence of meaningful debate as apposed to obfuscation,

Davel made an assertion I'm trying to forward the discussion on by finding out what rules Davel is referring to and how the alerts don't satisfy them.Simple really.

[Mr Gray]

Which rules are they and why don't alerts satisfy them?

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence",[1] which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.



The rules of evidence referred to here.... I didn't have s cite when I made my post but it's clear to me.... That there would have to be rules


so those rules....and as grime has sated the alerts have no evidential reliabilty...thats why they would not satisfy the rules.


its all common sense and logical to me...Im surprised ..or not...that some posters cant see that

[barrier]

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence",[1] which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.



The rules of evidence referred to here.... I didn't have s cite when I made my post but it's clear to me.... That there would have to be rules

Thank you.