Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Brietta]

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

Nothing hypothetical about it.  We have all watched the evidential video.  We have seen the dog 'toying' with the toy.  We have watched him walking past and ignoring it.  We have seen it taken from a cupboard and claimed as an 'alert' to cadaver scent.
If you think that is 'safe' ... I don't ... and neither did the PJ final report.

But you are correct ... evidence such as that would never get to court ... in my opinion because it would have been laughed out of court.

[Brietta]

Thank you.

All quite logical in my opinion when one thinks about it.

[Mr Gray]

Include such information as the court may need to decide whether the expert's opinion is sufficiently reliable to be admissible as evidence; For example, any material facts or matters that detract from the expert's opinions, and any points which should fairly be made against any opinions expressed in the report, should also be set out; See paragraph 33A.5 of the Criminal Practice Direction V PDF link to external website for examples of factors the court may take into account when deciding reliability..


http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/expert-report.htm

Grime has already stated the alerts have no evidential reliability

[G-Unit]

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

There's 'common sense and logic' and then, on the other hand, there are facts.

In a case where no tangible evidence is found, such as the Suzanne Pilley case, the dog handler's evidence can be admissible;

PC Thompson said the dog gave "positive indications" of a smell of decomposing human remains or blood in the building which housed IML during the probe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17270117

[Mr Gray]

There's 'common sense and logic' and then, on the other hand, there are facts.

In a case where no tangible evidence is found, such as the Suzanne Pilley case, the dog handler's evidence can be admissible;

PC Thompson said the dog gave "positive indications" of a smell of decomposing human remains or blood in the building which housed IML during the probe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17270117

it was admissable in that case...did the defence challenge it...we dont know..

What we do know is the facts on rule of evidence that I  have cited...have you read them.

grime says the alerts have no evidential relaibility and therefore on those grounds they would not be admissable

[Mr Gray]

There's 'common sense and logic' and then, on the other hand, there are facts.

In a case where no tangible evidence is found, such as the Suzanne Pilley case, the dog handler's evidence can be admissible;

PC Thompson said the dog gave "positive indications" of a smell of decomposing human remains or blood in the building which housed IML during the probe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17270117

you can only say that the alerts were admissable in the Pilley case....you cannot extrapolate that and say they would be admissable in other cases

[Sunny]

you can only say that the alerts were admissable in the Pilley case....you cannot extrapolate that and say they would be admissable in other cases

And you cannot say that the alerts were never used in UK cases as the Pilley case proves that to be incorrect Davel.

This statement by yourself is incorrect

As the alerts have never been used in the UK logic dictates the alerts don't satisfy them

[slartibartfast]

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

If you have proof of this please provide a cite.

[Mr Gray]

If you have proof of this please provide a cite.

I've cited the rules of evidence.... And it's clear the, alerts don't satisfy them

[slartibartfast]

Nothing hypothetical about it.  We have all watched the evidential video.  We have seen the dog 'toying' with the toy.  We have watched him walking past and ignoring it.  We have seen it taken from a cupboard and claimed as an 'alert' to cadaver scent.
If you think that is 'safe' ... I don't ... and neither did the PJ final report.

But you are correct ... evidence such as that would never get to court ... in my opinion because it would have been laughed out of court.

...and you are none of you expert dog handlers.

[Eleanor]

...and you are none of you expert dog handlers.

You don't have to be.

[slartibartfast]

You don't have to be.

If you are trying to contradict an expert witness, you need to be an expert.

[Eleanor]

If you are trying to contradict an expert witness, you need to be an expert.

Not on this occasion, I don't think.  Besides, Martin Grime did say that alerts need to be backed by Evidence.
There was none.
Or do you wish to argue that point?

[Mr Gray]

If you are trying to contradict an expert witness, you need to be an expert.

I'm actually agreeing with the expert...the alerts have no evidential reliability

[Mr Gray]

...and you are none of you expert dog handlers.

It's not necessary to be an expert to question the so called alert to CC