Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Eleanor]

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

Or that it did.

[faithlilly]

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

Of course the defence would challenge the evidence....that’s what they do.

Obviously that challenge was thought to have no merit as the evidence was deemed admissible

[Mr Gray]

Of course the defence would challenge the evidence....that’s what they do.

Obviously that challenge was thought to have no merit as the evidence was deemed admissible

You don't know it was challenged

[slartibartfast]

This thread appears to be being used for the ongoing bashing of the dog alerts. As we know, a load of convoluted words won't do.

[Brietta]

Of course the defence would challenge the evidence....that’s what they do.

Obviously that challenge was thought to have no merit as the evidence was deemed admissible

Having followed the trial reports of the proceedings and reading about the evidence presented I actually fail to see why the prosecution introduced the dog alerts into evidence in the first case.

In my opinion the accused was well and truly nailed by the evidence meticulously gathered by the police.  Maybe they just wanted to 'mak siccar'.

It would be interesting to know what the jury made of it ... I would have tended to disregard the dog indications had I been a juror, going instead with the evidence given of the purchase of cleaning materials and the evidence of the witness who testified to the noticeable fresh fragrance and cleanliness of the boot of the car when it was opened for inspection.

[Brietta]

This thread appears to be being used for the ongoing bashing of the dog alerts. As we know, a load of convoluted words won't do.

Do you know if Zapata's wife's remains, or any physical traces of her remains were recovered from any one of the numerous locations where the cadaver dogs alerted?

[faithlilly]

Having followed the trial reports of the proceedings and reading about the evidence presented I actually fail to see why the prosecution introduced the dog alerts into evidence in the first case.

In my opinion the accused was well and truly nailed by the evidence meticulously gathered by the police.  Maybe they just wanted to 'mak siccar'.

It would be interesting to know what the jury made of it ... I would have tended to disregard the dog indications had I been a juror, going instead with the evidence given of the purchase of cleaning materials and the evidence of the witness who testified to the noticeable fresh fragrance and cleanliness of the boot of the car when it was opened for inspection.

The buying of cleaning products and a fresh boot does not a prosecution make. It was the dog alerts that gave the other evidence context.

[faithlilly]

Do you know if Zapata's wife's remains, or any physical traces of her remains were recovered from any one of the numerous locations where the cadaver dogs alerted?

Isn’t Zapata’s confession coupled with the dog’s alerts enough ?

[Brietta]

Isn’t Zapata’s confession coupled with the dog’s alerts enough ?

In my opinion ... no.  But I take from your answer that no remains were recovered ... is that correct?

[Brietta]

The buying of cleaning products and a fresh boot does not a prosecution make. It was the dog alerts that gave the other evidence context.

LOL ... do you know the case?
In my opinion the fresh smelling boot and the purchase of cleaning products are infinitesimally tiny components of the painstakingly amassed body of evidence the police were able to present to the procurator fiscal's office which enabled Gilroy's prosecution.

He may have known how to forensically clean out a car boot ... but he seems to have neglected any consideration of the vehicle's undercarriage.  I think something similar may have happened in the Soham murders of Holly and Jessica.

[Mr Gray]

This thread appears to be being used for the ongoing bashing of the dog alerts. As we know, a load of convoluted words won't do.

The alerts don't need bashing... They have no evidential value...

[G-Unit]

The alerts don't need bashing... They have no evidential value...

Except sometimes they can be used in court, even when no forensic evidence is found.

[Mr Gray]

Except sometimes they can be used in court, even when no forensic evidence is found.

It seems you have found one case in the UK where they have been used... Just one.... Perhaps the defence team didn't understand the alerts... The alerts in this case have been described as having no evidential reliability so would therefore not comply with the rules of evidence

[Eleanor]

Except sometimes they can be used in court, even when no forensic evidence is found.

I don't think so.  Unless you have a Cite for that.

[Robittybob1]

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

I think in a case where there was sufficient circumstantial evidence any cadaver alerts would or could be part of the circumstantial evidence presented.