Zampo - The Full Story?

[The General]

What you fail to understand is that it's what science backs the so called evidence to decide if it's admissible ..why are lie detectors not admissible...because the law listens to the scientific argument..

....and the law duly considered the scientific merits of the dog alerts in the Gilroy case and admitted it. End of.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

What you fail to understand is that it's what science backs the so called evidence to decide if it's admissible ..why are lie detectors not admissible...because the law listens to the scientific argument..

So as per my unanswered question on the other thread:

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]

So as per my unanswered question on the other thread:

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?.

I only know of one case where tracker dog evidence was attempted to be introduced in the UK...but was deemed inadmissible. It was discussed in this forum. Alerts have never been admitted in England sfaiaa...my argument is they don't pass the evidence test from what I can see...and from what Cassella said in the podcast

[Mr Gray]

....and the law duly considered the scientific merits of the dog alerts in the Gilroy case and admitted it. End of.

They were accepted because they were not challenged..imo

[Brietta]

....and the law duly considered the scientific merits of the dog alerts in the Gilroy case and admitted it. End of.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission closed David Gilroy’s case for a miscarriage of justice part of the basis for which was as follows ...

One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC.
They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court.
However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp

Seems clear enough.  Now we shall see which precedent will be followed in the Scottish courts.

[The General]

They were accepted because they were not challenged..imo

Even if that were the case it's utterly irrelevant. Angry from Doncaster might have an opinion and nip up and picket the chambers in a Batman costume holding a placard - it's in the book, to use the cricket analogy. Check the scorecard: D Gilory, Bowled HMA, 0

[Mr Gray]

Even if that were the case it's utterly irrelevant. Angry from Doncaster might have an opinion and nip up and picket the chambers in a Batman costume holding a placard - it's in the book, to use the cricket analogy. Check the scorecard: D Gilory, Bowled HMA, 0

But it's Professor Cassella...and just about every other expert having the same opinion.....in the Gilroy case there was lots of other evidence to prove guilt...if there had not been then a retrial may well have been on the cards

[The General]

But it's Professor Cassella...and just about every other expert having the same opinion.....in the Gilroy case there was lots of other evidence to prove guilt...if there had not been then a retrial may well have been on the cards

Quite. But the prosecution, despite the profusion of circumstantial evidence at their disposal, still deemed the dog evidence was required. They almost certainly were aware that this additional evidence was contentious and its utilisation may be grounds for a retrial if found to be 'unreliable'. No self respecting prosecution team would gamble in such a manner, breaking new evidential ground, given the gravity of the offence and the profile of the case.

[Mr Gray]

Quite. But the prosecution, despite the profusion of circumstantial evidence at their disposal, still deemed the dog evidence was required. They almost certainly were aware that this additional evidence was contentious and its utilisation may be grounds for a retrial if found to be 'unreliable'. No self respecting prosecution team would gamble in such a manner, breaking new evidential ground, given the gravity of the offence and the profile of the case.

Perhaps they just didn't realise...they simply accepted the testimony of a policeman...

[The General]

Perhaps they just didn't realise...they simply accepted the testimony of a policeman...

I doubt it. You know the rigour employed in the investigation as well as I do.
The test is always the same: relevance, admissibility and weight. There's no doubt they laboured over its inclusion and used the test accordingly. Same for any other evidence. I'm sure they discarded loads, but the dogs stayed in.

[G-Unit]

What you fail to understand is that it's what science backs the so called evidence to decide if it's admissible ..why are lie detectors not admissible...because the law listens to the scientific argument..

There are different kinds of evidence and not all of them are scientific.

[Mr Gray]

There are different kinds of evidence and not all of them are scientific.

Really...lol

[Mr Gray]

I doubt it. You know the rigour employed in the investigation as well as I do.

Prosecutors are the same as any professionals...some are good..some aren't

[The General]

Prosecutors are the same as any professionals...some are good..some aren't

Maybe, but they use the same tests every time - relevance, admissibility and weight. Failure to do so would jeopardise their case.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe, but they use the same tests every time - relevance, admissibility and weight. Failure to do so would jeopardise their case.

Why did the Omagh bomb trial collapse