Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Mr Gray]

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?

As I recall Grime actually refers to physical evidence

[Mr Gray]

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

I will change that to England...the alerts have never been accepted as evidence in england.....it would be interesting to see the arguments used in the pillay case re the dog evidence...was it challenged by the defence...we dont know

[Brietta]

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

I disagree with you.

In my opinion expert witnesses like the alerts of cadaver dogs are not infallible and in court one expert witness may well be produced to argue the case made by another.

Experts, Liars, and Guns for Hire:
A Different Perspective on the
Qualification of Technical Expert Witnesses

Snip
Frequently, our legal system relies on expert witnesses to enlighten and elucidate the fact-finder as to otherwise arcane topics.

This reliance on expert testimony causes several problems.
First, reliability problems follow from the need to use experts: Experts can be the source of questionable evidence;'they are free to reach conclusions based on extra-record evidence;and they can deter a meaningful evaluation of non-opinion evidence when the trier of fact overvalues expert testimony

Second, the bar and bench often do not select and qualify experts so as to minimize the negative effects of expert testimony If an expert is able to assist the trier of fact in understanding technological evidence," the question still remains whether that expert should be an engineer or a technically-skilled witness.
This Note argues-in the context of the Federal Rules of Evidence-that practitioners and judges need to make a distinction between engineers and other technically-skilled witnesses, that harm to litigants follows from failing
to do so, and that a process by which such distinction could be discerned can alleviate that harm. When the distinction is made, some of the problems associated with expert testimony are alleviated.

Part One of this Note investigates the extent of the qualification problem.
It exposes possible mistakes in the qualification of technical experts through a critical examination of trial and appellate opinions from federal courts and those state courts that utilize a Federal Rules counterpart.
Part One demonstrates that errors are consistently the result of a misunderstanding of the roles of the various technical experts.
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1588&context=ilj

[faithlilly]

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?

And the alert in the bedroom? Was that questioned by a police force with no experience of using cadaver dogs ?

From Grime’s rogatory:


'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''


The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy

[Mr Gray]

And the alert in the bedroom? Was that questioned by a police force with no experience of using cadaver dogs ?

From Grime’s rogatory:


'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''


The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy

Grime didnt answer the question... I wonder why

I don't have the link to the files at hand.... The PJ questioned several of the alerts as I recall

[slartibartfast]

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

Of course you do, just because you don’t recognise the change in behaviour in the dog, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

[slartibartfast]

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

So are you agreeing with the expert or not?

[Mr Gray]

So are you agreeing with the expert or not?

Of course... Eddie alerted to CC according to Grime... Shows how useless the alerts are according to me

[Mr Gray]

Of course you do, just because you don’t recognise the change in behaviour in the dog, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

It doesn't tell us what the change in behaviour was due to

[G-Unit]

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

Grime was, of course, pointing out that dog alerts couldn't be used as evidence on their own. We know that they can be used as part of a body of evidence though, don't we?

[Mr Gray]

Grime was, of course, pointing out that dog alerts couldn't be used as evidence on their own. We know that they can be used as part of a body of evidence though, don't we?

No we don't... Grime never mentions a body of evidence... He is crystal clear.... No evidential reliability. You really are making things up

Cite for... They can be used as part of a body of evidence

[G-Unit]

No we don't... Grime never mentions a body of evidence... He is crystal clear.... No evidential reliability. You really are making things up

I don't make things up. I have quoted two cases where dog alerts formed part of a body of evidence; Suzanne Pilley and  Bianca Jones.

[Mr Gray]

I don't make things up. I have quoted two cases where dog alerts formed part of a body of evidence; Suzanne Pilley and  Bianca Jones.

You are making things up... You cannot assume they can be used in such a manner based on 2 cases in the entire world

[faithlilly]

You are making things up... You cannot assume they can be used in such a manner based on 2 cases in the entire world

But the two cases prove that they are used in such a manner.

[Mr Gray]

But the two cases prove that they are used in such a manner.

They prove that they have been used..one case in the UK and we don't know if it was challenged by the defence