Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

I don't think he did do it. I think you're exaggerating.

He called the dog back to the car three times and there is a reference in the files by the PJ who were perplexed that the dogs alerted in the apartment  after being called back more than once to places they had previously ignored

[Vertigo Swirl]

As dogs can smell things that humans can't, it's possible that dogs can detect the scent immediately.

Although we’ve never seen their wings, it’s possible that dogs are just keeping them hidden from us and could fly if they wanted to.

[Wonderfulspam]

I think the fact that Melanie is living with a German couple & that SY currently have her under surveillance until she turns 18, just goes to show how incredibly unreliable cadaver dogs are.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/psychic-claims-madeleine-mccann-living-21264766

[pathfinder73]

All cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver only in the last stages of decomposition.    Madeleine if she had died in 5a wouldn't have been left on the floor until she was in the last stages of decomposition.

But how good are dogs at detecting a skeleton from which all the flesh has fallen away? The anthropologist Keith Jacobi of the University of Alabama has investigated this at a police-dog training facility, where human remains ranging from fresh to skeletonised have been buried (the remains were bequeathed by donors).

In one study involving four dogs and their handlers, Jacobi says the dogs were able to detect remains at all stages of decomposition. Performance varied between dogs, but some could locate skeletonised remains buried in an area of 300ft by 150ft. "The few single human vertebrae I used in the study were well over 25 years old, and dry bone," Jacobi says. "This made the discovery of one of these vertebrae, which we buried in dense woods 2ft deep, by a cadaver dog pretty remarkable."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10746261_Cadaver_dog_and_handler_team_capabilities_in_the_recovery_of_buried_human_remains_in_the_SE_United_States

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible is palinly absurd....and you can of course supply no evidence to support it...how could you...its a totally ridiculous claim...

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.

This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be (all of the points raised below)

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.

This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

If “The UK Judiciary means High Court Judges only”, as you say then your statement “The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts” basically means what what Davel said it means,ie  “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible” unless I’m missing something?  .

[Robittybob1]

Although we’ve never seen their wings, it’s possible that dogs are just keeping them hidden from us and could fly if they wanted to.

Pigs do the same.

[Mr Gray]

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.

This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

You posted


This is what I posted

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.



What evidence do you have on the opinion of the whole of the UK Judiciary on the acceptance of the alerts.  Have you contacted each one.. Your claim is absurd.

[Mr Gray]

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.

This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

note the red highlight..


it seems the alerts were not challenged so were automatically admitted...not admitted on merit. Had they been challenged the defence could have called a suitable expert to educate the judge...and according to Prof Cassella.an expert in this area..the alerts should not have been admitted.

pop down to Greggs and get yourself a large portion of Humble Pie

[G-Unit]

Some people think that cadaver dog handlers shouldn't be allowed to testify in criminal trials. I think it's up to the prosecution which evidence they use. As with any of the evidence it's up to the defence to refute it or cast doubt upon it.

[Lace]

Some people think that cadaver dog handlers shouldn't be allowed to testify in criminal trials. I think it's up to the prosecution which evidence they use. As with any of the evidence it's up to the defence to refute it or cast doubt upon it.

As we noted in Police and Military Dogs, the work of cadaver dogs is relatively infrequently questioned in court because a cadaver is found and identified by DNA, dental comparison, or other procedures.  The work of the dog becomes historical to the case, and does not receive more than a brief mention in a judicial opinion.  Nevertheless, this study may have an impact on future prosecutions where a body has not been found and the dog’s alert is taken as proof that the suspected decedent was present at a location, or in cases where the body has been found and the prosecution’s problem is to establish that it was in the defendant’s car or house or at some other specific location (consider the recent Casey Anthony prosecution involving a car trunk).  If the defense can make a plausible argument that a dead pig or other animal might have been at the location, and establish that the dog’s training aids included swine remains, a court may have to consider the implications of this research. 

[Lace]

https://doglawreporter-bay-net.blogspot.com/2012/04/training-cadaver-dogs-on-pig-remains.html

[Mr Gray]

Some people think that cadaver dog handlers shouldn't be allowed to testify in criminal trials. I think it's up to the prosecution which evidence they use. As with any of the evidence it's up to the defence to refute it or cast doubt upon it.

That's not how the system works... Not just in the UK but worldwide.  Evidence can be ruled inadmissible. It's up to the defence to challenge evidence they consider to be inadmissible but it seems that didn't happen in this case.  If evidence is challenged ...and the area is outside the expertise of the judge. then expert opinion is sought and the judge makes a decision based on the expert opinion.... which imo would have ruled the alerts inadmissible... As confirmed  by the SCCRC

[G-Unit]

That's not how the system works... Not jut in the UK but worldwide.  Evidence can be ruled inadmissible. It's up to the defence to challenge evidence they consider to be inadmissible but it seems that didn't happen in this case.  If evidence is challenged then expert opinion is sought which imo would have ruled the alerts inadmissible... As confirmed  by the SCCRC

Bringing in other experts may or may not lead to the testimony of the dog handler being ruled inadmissible. As you have pointed out, in your opinion it would have, but that's just your opinion, it's not a fact.

[pathfinder73]

As we noted in Police and Military Dogs, the work of cadaver dogs is relatively infrequently questioned in court because a cadaver is found and identified by DNA, dental comparison, or other procedures.  The work of the dog becomes historical to the case, and does not receive more than a brief mention in a judicial opinion.  Nevertheless, this study may have an impact on future prosecutions where a body has not been found and the dog’s alert is taken as proof that the suspected decedent was present at a location, or in cases where the body has been found and the prosecution’s problem is to establish that it was in the defendant’s car or house or at some other specific location (consider the recent Casey Anthony prosecution involving a car trunk).  If the defense can make a plausible argument that a dead pig or other animal might have been at the location, and establish that the dog’s training aids included swine remains, a court may have to consider the implications of this research.

Nobody will believe a pig cadaver was in a boot if a person is missing under suspicious circumstances  That's as dumb as Davel saying it's possible she was abducted by aliens  Nobody will believe it!