Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[barrier]

The Redwine case is the latest in the US to allow alert evidence...starts in september. should be interesting as there is a real scientist giving evidence for the defence.

An expert for the defense, Mary Cablk, has testified that dogs can be unreliable and removed remains should not be detectable after one week.


It would be interseting to see on what evidence her claims are made ......the alerts in Luz were  after 3 months

Seems she gave evidence in a pre trial hearing(has being the qualifying word) and the judge decided to let a jury decide.

[Robittybob1]

I think you've totally missed the point...why not allow the flip of a coin...it's 50/50..or thereabouts..

Flippant answer.
How about answering: "How reliable are the statements?  How reliable are eyewitness identifications, how reliable are DNA results?"

[Robittybob1]

if you read the post you might see I never claimed to be...Im talking about the defence expert witness..read the post and you will understand

Well at least we have established that you are no expert.

[Mr Gray]

Well at least we have established that you are no expert.

Ive never claimed to be....but at least I can read a post properly

might be best to cut the sniping

[Mr Gray]

Flippant answer.
How about answering: "How reliable are the statements?  How reliable are eyewitness identifications, how reliable are DNA results?"

because I think most poeple know the answer...what we dont know is how relaible the alerts are

[Robittybob1]

because I think most poeple know the answer...what we dont know is how relaible the alerts are

Haven't you read.  I'm not sure why there is a range quoted but it was something like 90 - 100%.

"because I think most people know the answer."  Are you conceding these other accepted evidences are even less reliable than that? 

[Mr Gray]

Haven't you read.  I'm not sure why there is a range quoted but it was something like 90 - 100%.

thats in a very specific situation.....specific circumstances. are you trying to suggest that reflects the accuracy of the alerts in 5a

[Robittybob1]

thats in a very specific situation.....specific circumstances. are you trying to suggest that reflects the accuracy of the alerts in 5a

I don't see why not.   

[Mr Gray]

Haven't you read.  I'm not sure why there is a range quoted but it was something like 90 - 100%.

"because I think most people know the answer."  Are you conceding these other accepted evidences are even less reliable than that?

according to Grime...they have no evidential relaibility..

[Mr Gray]

I don't see why not.

I do...grime says they have no evidential reliability,....hardly the  case if something has a 90% relaibilty

hopefully we will see what a real scientific expert says at the Redwine trial in september

[Robittybob1]

I do...grime sdays they have no evidential reliability,....hardly the  case if something has a 90% relaibilty

They are two different things.

You know in training Eddie was 90-100% accurate at finding the test sample.
Did Eddie ever on one occasion say who was the source of the cadaver odour?

So you can have a high reliability of finding odour  with "no evidential reliability".

[Robittybob1]

Here is the debate:
"You know in training Eddie was 90-100% accurate at finding the test sample.
Did Eddie ever on one occasion say who was the source of the cadaver odour?

So you can have a high reliability of finding odour  with "no evidential reliability"."

[barrier]

I do...grime says they have no evidential reliability,....hardly the  case if something has a 90% relaibilty

hopefully we will see what a real scientific expert says at the Redwine trial in september

She contradicts herself,saying there are no published studies to show how long human remains linger (cadaver smell?) whilst saying maybe detected for no longer than a week.

She argued the organic compounds that emanate the odor of human remains are volatile and may be detected “for no more than one week,” court documents show. She said there are no published studies about how long human remains linger.

https://the-journal.com/articles/145858

[Mr Gray]

She contradicts herself,saying there are no published studies to show how long human remains linger (cadaver smell?) whilst saying maybe detected for no longer than a week.

She argued the organic compounds that emanate the odor of human remains are volatile and may be detected “for no more than one week,” court documents show. She said there are no published studies about how long human remains linger.

https://the-journal.com/articles/145858

you should look at my previous post on this where I predicted this is exactly what she would argue...You havent shown she has contradicted herself as she said MAY not be detected...she is not quoting fact


this was my previous post...

It will..but she is a real scientist. Remember it's the dog handler making the claim so it is up to the prosecution to show the scent would last ...for a year I believe is the claim..

She may just show there's no evidence to support that claim

looks like I was bang on again...what a prediction

[barrier]

you should look at my previous post on this where I predicted this is exactly what she would argue...You havent shown she has contradicted herself as you havent seen her full quote...I predict she hasnt

You need to read what she says,"may be detected for no more than one week" then goes onto say,no published studies into how long human remains linger.Its an opinion it seems.