Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

And this.........'just about everyone else who matters'. What is that? That's the sort of comment a primary school kid would spout in a temper......'yeh well, everyone hates you, we had a vote!'.
Feel free to provide a list of 'everyone else' by way of a cite, not including Joey Essex or Barry off Eastenders.

What a pathetic childish reply....you obviously know little about the dogs and the alerts.

[The General]

You introduced the concept of reliability when you kicked off your “thesis” with a discussion about the alleged reliability of the dogs in Cassella’s own experiments.  But I do agree, there can be no doubt that in the Gilroy case the dog alerts were entered in evidence, I don’t think that means we are not allowed to question whether or not it should have been though does it?

You can discuss it, obviously, but you can't state that they're inadmissible, because they have been admitted. It's a fact. Additionally, discussing the merits of whether the prosecution erred in some way is also equally moot. It's irrelevant. The dog alerts comprised part of a body of circumstantial evidence in a successful prosecution of a murderer in the UK. That's it.
However, if Mr Gilroy successfully argues that they shouldn't have been admissible in a subsequent appeal, I'll concede the point.

[The General]

What a pathetic childish reply....you obviously know little about the dogs and the alerts.

Come on Davel, I expected a fight at least, not capitulation directly to ad hom, as is your wont.

[Eleanor]

And this.........'just about everyone else who matters'. What is that? That's the sort of shit a primary school kid would spout in a temper......'yeh well, everyone hates you, we had a vote!'.
Feel free to provide a list of 'everyone else' by way of a cite, not including Joey Essex or Barry off Eastenders.

Just jolly well cut out accusing me of deleting every deleted comment ever.  Or else I could get really cross.

I happen to believe that you could be a useful member of this Forum if only you were not so intent on causing dissent for some obscure reason.

[Mr Gray]

Come on Davel, I expected a fight at least, not capitulation directly to ad hom, as is your wont.

Thing is I'm not a schoolkid and I'm not angry....I wouldn't bother trying to convince a Jehovah's witness they were wrong about their faith and that's why I feel debate here is often pointless...it's the same mindset

[Eleanor]

Any further use of the name Davros will result in the entire comment being deleted.

Although not necessarily by me.

[G-Unit]

Thing is I'm not a schoolkid and I'm not angry....I wouldn't bother trying to convince a Jehovah's witness they were wrong about their faith and that's why I feel debate here is often pointless...it's the same mindset

In my opinion your assumption that you are always right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong makes debate pointless.

You quote the opinions of those who agree with you, and ignore the opinions of those who don't. In the Gilroy case the opinions which count are those of the police, the COPFS and the trial judge. The first two decided to include the dog alerts in the evidence they used against Gilroy and the judge allowed the evidence to be included.

If you wish to castigate anyone, then Gilroy's defense team are the ones who failed him. Jack Davidson QC was an experienced criminal barrister whose sole argument seems to have been that the jury shouldn't convict Gilroy because the evidence was circumstantial. He was correct, but as the The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allegedly reported, there was enough there to convict Gilroy without the evidence of the dog alerts.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion your assumption that you are always right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong makes debate pointless.

You quote the opinions of those who agree with you, and ignore the opinions of those who don't. In the Gilroy case the opinions which count are those of the police, the COPFS and the trial judge. The first two decided to include the dog alerts in the evidence they used against Gilroy and the judge allowed the evidence to be included.

If you wish to castigate anyone, then Gilroy's defense team are the ones who failed him. Jack Davidson QC was an experienced criminal barrister whose sole argument seems to have been that the jury shouldn't convict Gilroy because the evidence was circumstantial. He was correct, but as the The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allegedly reported, there was enough there to convict Gilroy without the evidence of the dog alerts.

I'm afraid you are wrong again ...if you correct a fool he will be angry with you but if you correct s wise man he will thank you.

The problem for you and others is I'm right most of the time.. particularly re the dogs
I think it's clear the alerts are not admissible and I've never supported his defence counsel in fact I think they were particularly poor...only a few witnesses called in defence and all over in half a day. Had he been more proficient he would have challenged the alerts and they probably would not have been admitted.
The mistake he made was he thought the circumstantial evidence alone was not enough to convict...I agree with the SCSRC....the alerts should not have been admitted but there was sufficient evidence anyway. Had there not been the verdict could well have been overturned

[Mr Gray]

You quote the opinions of those who agree with you, and ignore the opinions of those who don't. In the Gilroy case the opinions which count are those of the police, the COPFS and the trial judge. The first two decided to include the dog alerts in the evidence they used against Gilroy and the judge allowed the evidence to be included.

If you wish to castigate anyone, then Gilroy's defense team are the ones who failed him. Jack Davidson QC was an experienced criminal barrister whose sole argument seems to have been that the jury shouldn't convict Gilroy because the evidence was circumstantial. He was correct, but as the The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allegedly reported, there was enough there to convict Gilroy without the evidence of the dog alerts.

You are wrong on a second point...the prosecution and the judge probably know little about cadaver dogs. I wonder if when the evidence was presented it was explained bto the judge and the jury that the alerts are not confirmation of cadaver odour

[G-Unit]

I'm afraid you are wrong again ...if you correct a fool he will be angry with you but if you correct s wise man he will thank you.

The problem for you and others is I'm right most of the time.. particularly re the dogs
I think it's clear the alerts are not admissible and I've never supported his defence counsel in fact I think they were particularly poor...only a few witnesses called in defence and all over in half a day. Had he been more proficient he would have challenged the alerts and they probably would not have been admitted.
The mistake he made was he thought the circumstantial evidence alone was not enough to convict...I agree with the SCSRC....the alerts should not have been admitted but there was sufficient evidence anyway. Had there not been the verdict could well have been overturned

The problem isn't that you're right most of the time, it's that you think you're right most of the time. I agree with The General; as time goes by dog alerts will feature in more cases because they can add weight to cases where it's obvious what happened but definitive evidence is lacking. Where a dog has a well documented history of reliability there's really no reason why their alerts should be rejected.

[Eleanor]

The problem isn't that you're right most of the time, it's that you think you're right most of the time. I agree with The General; as time goes by dog alerts will feature in more cases because they can add weight to cases where it's obvious what happened but definitive evidence is lacking. Where a dog has a well documented history of reliability there's really no reason why their alerts should be rejected.

Not if there is no evidence or proof of what the dog alerted to.  To think otherwise would be some form of insanity.

[The General]

Thing is I'm not a schoolkid and I'm not angry....I wouldn't bother trying to convince a Jehovah's witness they were wrong about their faith and that's why I feel debate here is often pointless...it's the same mindset

What a pathetic childish reply....you obviously know little about the dogs and the alerts.

Hmmmm

[The General]

Not if there is no evidence or proof of what the dog alerted to.  To think otherwise would be some form of insanity.

So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.

[Eleanor]

So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.

You are misrepresenting the facts again.

[The General]

You are misrepresenting the facts again.

Again?
When was the first time?
And where is this 2nd occasion?