Mark Redwine v 16 cadaver dogs

[Mr Gray]

Sort of a test trial,the judge obviously heard the arguments for and against at pre trial and is prepared to let a jury of peers hear for themselves.I doubt the prosecution is relying solely on the alerts but it must form a large basis, for the defence to try and get it ruled to be inadmissible.

Why do you think there is so much disagreement on this board re the validity of the alerts. If the value of the alerts was so clear cut...why dont we all agree

[Mr Gray]

Well it is now.

The alerts amay well be admissible ...doesnt mean they should be. The innocence project is looking at cadaver dog evidence with the aim of raising a challenge. This is what they did in 2009 to another type of canine alert evidence which had been ruled admissible...

Jeff Blackburn, head of the Innocence Project of Texas, has labeled the dog-scent evidence as "junk, not even junk science." He adds,


In mid-August, the Innocence Project of Texas plans to unveil a detailed study focusing primarily on the extensive work of one Texas dog handler whose use of scent-ID techniques is under fire in the federal courts. At the heart of the study is the work of Deputy Keith Pikett, a canine officer with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, just southwest of Houston. The first case studied involves Calvin Lee Miller, who was charged with robbery and sexual assault after Pikett's bloodhounds alerted police to a scent on sheets that Pikett said matched a scent swipe from Miller's cheek. DNA evidence later cleared Miller, but only after he served 62 days in jail. In a second case, former Victoria County Sheriff's Department Captain Michael Buchanek was named as a "person of interest" in a murder case after Pikett's bloodhounds sped 5.5 miles from a crime scene, tracking a scent to Buchanek's home. Another man later confessed to the murder.


Both cases have resulted in lawsuits seeking damages from the municipalities and law-enforcement agencies that used Pikett's work. They could be costly. In a separate case, a California man, Jeffrey Allen Grant, served three months in jail in 1999 after TinkerBelle, a bloodhound, mistakenly identified him in a rape case. He won $1.7 million in damages.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913987,00.html

[G-Unit]

Sort of a test trial,the judge obviously heard the arguments for and against at pre trial and is prepared to let a jury of peers hear for themselves.I doubt the prosecution is relying solely on the alerts but it must form a large basis, for the defence to try and get it ruled to be inadmissible.

It certainly seems to trigger panic in defence lawyers. In this particular case, however, the dogs don't seem to have as much credibilty as Grime's Morse had in the Lane trial. There seems to be a lack of training and oerformance records.

[barrier]

Why do you think there is so much disagreement on this board re the validity of the alerts. If the value of the alerts was so clear cut...why dont we all agree

Simples,no one understands,some'll try to convince others they do.

[Mr Gray]

from the same article


Dogs have proved their value to both the military and law enforcement, Hess says, detecting explosives, working with narcotics officers and locating missing persons and bodies. But the alleged misuse of dog-scent evidence could cast a shadow over its value to law enforcement. In the 1980s, polygraph tests came into fashion and were hailed as an important forensic tool, but their misuse and overuse prompted a negative public reaction; Mesloh fears the same could befall the use of scent evidence. "The hammer fell on polygraphy, and it never really recovered," Mesloh says. "Now, [for dog scent], the blood is in the water."

Charles Mesloh, a former canine officer and criminologist at Florida Gulf Coast University.

 Russ Hess, executive director of the U.S. Police Canine Association

[Mr Gray]

Simples,no one understands,some'll try to convince others they do.

we have been following the case and the dogs for 12 years and you say "we dont understand"......what chance of the Jury got of forming an undestanding in such a short time. You make a perfect case s to why the alerts should not be admissible

[barrier]

we have been following the case and the dogs for 12 years and you say "we dont understand"......what chance of the Jury got of forming an undestanding in such a short time. You make a perfect case s to why the alerts should not be admissible

Maybe the judge doesn't understand and is prepared for the experts to voice and let a jury of peers decide,like I say,I'm sure the prosecution is not reliant upon the alerts alone,we'll know in the fullness of time and its pointless to speculate on any outcome outwith the dog alerts.

[Mr Gray]

Simples,no one understands,some'll try to convince others they do.

Grime has produced a series of white pappers for stafford University outling the current thinking re detection dogs...this is supposed to be undergraduate material/ Im not on any course there but there is absolutely nothing in those papaers of any value that i havent seen or understood before.

speak for yourself if you dont understand the alerts....I certainly do.

[G-Unit]

The alerts amay well be admissible ...doesnt mean they should be. The innocence project is looking at cadaver dog evidence with the aim of raising a challenge. This is what they did in 2009 to another type of canine alert evidence which had been ruled admissible...

Jeff Blackburn, head of the Innocence Project of Texas, has labeled the dog-scent evidence as "junk, not even junk science." He adds,


In mid-August, the Innocence Project of Texas plans to unveil a detailed study focusing primarily on the extensive work of one Texas dog handler whose use of scent-ID techniques is under fire in the federal courts. At the heart of the study is the work of Deputy Keith Pikett, a canine officer with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, just southwest of Houston. The first case studied involves Calvin Lee Miller, who was charged with robbery and sexual assault after Pikett's bloodhounds alerted police to a scent on sheets that Pikett said matched a scent swipe from Miller's cheek. DNA evidence later cleared Miller, but only after he served 62 days in jail. In a second case, former Victoria County Sheriff's Department Captain Michael Buchanek was named as a "person of interest" in a murder case after Pikett's bloodhounds sped 5.5 miles from a crime scene, tracking a scent to Buchanek's home. Another man later confessed to the murder.


Both cases have resulted in lawsuits seeking damages from the municipalities and law-enforcement agencies that used Pikett's work. They could be costly. In a separate case, a California man, Jeffrey Allen Grant, served three months in jail in 1999 after TinkerBelle, a bloodhound, mistakenly identified him in a rape case. He won $1.7 million in damages.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913987,00.html

There are good trainers, handlers and dogs and bad ones. I have never said that all of them are good. What you and others are trying to do is argue that they're all bad.

It's clear to me that the day will come when they will all be required to meet certain standards. Until that time the only option is to judge them individually.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe the judge doesn't understand and is prepared for the experts to voice and let a jury of peers decide,like I say,I'm sure the prosecution is not reliant upon the alerts alone,we'll know in the fullness of time and its pointless to speculate on any outcome outwith the dog alerts.

the board is full of speculation. The problem is as YOU have pointed out is will teh jury be able to understand the alerts value

[barrier]

the board is full of speculation. The problem is as YOU have pointed out is will teh jury be able to understand the alerts value

You reckon you do so why shouldn't a jury,and why the shouting.

[Mr Gray]

There are good trainers, handlers and dogs and bad ones. I have never said that all of them are good. What you and others are trying to do is argue that they're all bad.

It's clear to me that the day will come when they will all be required to meet certain standards. Until that time the only option is to judge them individually.

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

[Mr Gray]

You reckon you do so why shouldn't a jury,and why the shouting.

m not average intelligence... I doubt the jury will have scientific background and training...and the ability to understand what is science and what is junk science...

[Robittybob1]

m not average intelligence... I doubt the jury will have scientific background and training...and the ability to understand what is science and what is junk science...

Below average .... post.

[Mr Gray]

Below average .... post.

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