Mark Redwine v 16 cadaver dogs

[Mr Gray]

How can a jury in a short space of time evaluate the canine evidence when posters here disagree so much on its value

[barrier]

How can a jury in a short space of time evaluate the canine evidence when posters here disagree so much on its value

That'll be your chance to write to the judge concerned to raise your concerns.

[Mr Gray]

That'll be your chance to write to the judge concerned to raise your concerns.

Perhaps I already have...perhaps Ive received a reply...lets just say...watch this space

[Eleanor]

That'll be your chance to write to the judge concerned to raise your concerns.

Judges aren't stupid you know.  They are there to direct The Jury when necessary, if this is possible.

[ShiningInLuz]

How can a jury in a short space of time evaluate the canine evidence when posters here disagree so much on its value

I don't think a jury in the Redwine case will be presented with anything coming from Mr Grime, Keela or Eddie, so your contention has no relevance whatsoever.

Misty's paper laid out clearly why the prosecution thought dog handler testimony should be permitted in this case.  It has nothing to do with a case in Portugal.  The judge appears to have agreed with the prosecution, based on US law.

At this point in time, I am not sure if the prosecution will call one or more dog handlers to testify.  Nor do I know the full extent of the evidence against Mr Redwine.

I just hope we will get some decent media trial coverage to find out more.

[G-Unit]

im not trying to show all trainers are bad....you are guilty of a false generalisation.

There are no recognised satndards. There are claims of scientific validation when non exists. judging them individually is subjective and not the only option. grime claimed he was part of a scientific training programme with Stockham....what hapened to it.

I like the quote...the alerts are junk...not even junk science .....from my link above

You certainly do try to generalise imo. Judging dogs individually isn't subjective at all. They should have records and it's those which demonstate the dog's abilties or lack of them.

[ShiningInLuz]

Judges aren't stupid you know.  They are there to direct The Jury when necessary, if this is possible.

In short, no.

Judges are not experts in cadaver dogs, CSI techniques, autopsy findings etc which is why trials haul in the relevant experts.

The judge will only rule on points of law, which is his area of expertise.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think a jury in the Redwine case will be presented with anything coming from Mr Grime, Keela or Eddie, so your contention has no relevance whatsoever.

Misty's paper laid out clearly why the prosecution thought dog handler testimony should be permitted in this case.  It has nothing to do with a case in Portugal.  The judge appears to have agreed with the prosecution, based on US law.

At this point in time, I am not sure if the prosecution will call one or more dog handlers to testify.  Nor do I know the full extent of the evidence against Mr Redwine.

I just hope we will get some decent media trial coverage to find out more.

I'm giving an opinion on a discussion forum...ad all of us do... In general I don't see the jury being able to reach a valid conclusion re the alerts when after 12 years the jury is still out here on the significance of the alerts.... It's an interesting point

[G-Unit]

That's your opinion... But its an absolute fact. I happen to know from personal experience it can be difficult getting the jury to understand the evidence. As I understand in complex fraud cases the case may be heard without a jury as the evidence is too complex for a jury to understand

I assume the jury disagreed with you? It seems to ne that in your opinion anyone doing that is automarically lacking in some way, becaise you're always right.

[Mr Gray]

In short, no.

Judges are not experts in cadaver dogs, CSI techniques, autopsy findings etc which is why trials haul in the relevant experts.

The judge will only rule on points of law, which is his area of expertise.

The judge can direct the jury to disregard any evidence he chooses

[Eleanor]

The judge can direct the jury to disregard any evidence he chooses

Thank You, Davel.

[Mr Gray]

I assume the jury disagreed with you? It seems to ne that in your opinion anyone doing that is automarically lacking in some way, becaise you're always right.

Nope it hasn't been heard yet. I have been advised by the police that juries in general can find it difficult to understand complex issues... That seem perfectly logical

[Mr Gray]

I assume the jury disagreed with you? It seems to ne that in your opinion anyone doing that is automarically lacking in some way, becaise you're always right.

And you would be wrong again

[G-Unit]

How can a jury in a short space of time evaluate the canine evidence when posters here disagree so much on its value

The same way they evaluate any other evidence.

[Mr Gray]

You certainly do try to generalise imo. Judging dogs individually isn't subjective at all. They should have records and it's those which demonstate the dog's abilties or lack of them.

of course its subjective because their records and testing is not carried out to any standardised norm....its anectdotal...the promised scientific standards dont seem to have arrived