Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Eleanor]

By the facts presented, they were admitted before court that is a truth as we can see it on film.
They were challenged by the defence counsel during the trial, but its not in the public domain if they were challenged pre trial.

Thank You.

It sounds as though Davel is right.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You need to ask Prof Cassella and Prof Angela Gallop for the precise reasons ...According to the SCcRC it was inadmissible... You could ask them too

And of course they have no evidential reliability or value

OK you keep using this references so back it up.
The General already questioned you if Prof Cassella did say that back in his post #447 so please provide the cite where he says dog alerts are inadmissible in court. And as you persist in using  the SCCRC please provide the report that they produced stating this. Not hearsay from family members of the man convicted of the murder but the report.
And while you are at it please with respect answer my previous question, you know the one.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Thank You.

It sounds as though Davel is right.

 How so?

[Mr Gray]

OK you keep using this references so back it up.
The General already questioned you if Prof Cassella did say that back in his post #447 so please provide the cite where he says dog alerts are inadmissible in court. And as you persist in using  the SCCRC please provide the report that they produced stating this. Not hearsay from family members of the man convicted of the murder but the report.
And while you are at it please with respect answer my previous question, you know the one.

Which question.....ive been at work so my full attention hasnt been on posting.
Two journalist spent two years researching the Gilroy case and produced a podcast available on amazon, its quite interesting. The Gilroy family claimed the SCCRC ruled the alerts indmissible.....then in the podcast it again mentioned the SCCRC decision....it also said when Prof Cassella was asked he confirmed the alerts were inadmissible.....thats reasonable evidence...more reliable than the alerts imo.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Which question.....ive been at work so my full attention hasnt been on posting.
Two journalist spent two years researching the Gilroy case and produced a podcast available on amazon, its quite interesting. The Gilroy family claimed the SCCRC ruled the alerts indmissible.....then in the podcast it again mentioned the SCCRC decision....it also said when Prof Cassella was asked he confirmed the alerts were inadmissible.....thats reasonable evidence...more reliable than the alerts imo.

The question was

Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.

[Mr Gray]

The question was

Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.

Simple question.. They would be if properly challenged

[Eleanor]

How so?

Someone snuck them in while no one was watching.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Simple question.. They would be if properly challenged

With respect you are not being clear with your answer.

To the question

Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.

It surely must be either Yes, No or I don't know. I think you are saying that there are not treated the same way as a polygraph as it doesn't matter if a polygraph is challenged or not, it would never be allowed. Are you saying this ? Its not clear to me.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Someone snuck them in while no one was watching.

That would an answer I would agree with.

[Mr Gray]

This is interesting re admissibility..

4. The expert's evidence is reliable

There should be a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the expert evidence or it must be part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience.

The reliability of the opinion evidence will also take into account the methods used in reaching that opinion, such as validated laboratory techniques and technologies, and whether those processes are recognised as providing a sufficient scientific basis upon which the expert's conclusions can be reached. The expert must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions.


Grime has told us the dogs are validated anectdotally...the opposite of scientific

[Icanhandlethetruth]

This is interesting re admissibility..

4. The expert's evidence is reliable

There should be a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the expert evidence or it must be part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience.

The reliability of the opinion evidence will also take into account the methods used in reaching that opinion, such as validated laboratory techniques and technologies, and whether those processes are recognised as providing a sufficient scientific basis upon which the expert's conclusions can be reached. The expert must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions.


Grime has told us the dogs are validated anectdotally...the opposite of scientific

I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.

[Mr Gray]

I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.

What evidence do you have that the judges considered the alerts had sufficient scientific basis or whether he just blindly accepted them

[Vertigo Swirl]

I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.

On what grounds could they possibly have come to that conclusion?

[Mr Gray]

I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.

I don't see the judge gave any consideration to reliability of the evidence... I think it was blindly accepted

[Mr Gray]

From the CPS website re  new or Novel tecniques...remnant scent seem to have come into play according to grimes white paper in 2005 so its realtively new...only 2 cases involved in court proceedings..



1, Whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested;
2.Whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review and publication;
3The known or potential rate of error or the existence of standards; and
4 Whether the theory or technique used has been generally accepted.

grime has told us unconfirmed alerts cannot be tested...so no to 1
there is no peer review or publication re unconfirmed alerts...so no to 2
as it cant be tested there is no known rate of error...no to 3
alerts are not generally accepted as a reliable indicator of residual scent...so no to 4

The alerts fail pretty well every test