The dreaded cadaver scent

[ferryman]

I'm not entering in a discussion whatever anyone considers to be evidence or not. I am pointing out what Grime himself has stated in the official files.

Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.


He's the supposed expert on his own dogs, one assumes, so I'd go with what the man himself says.

That refers to "evidence of DNA, etc". A dog alert alone may also be evidence (not very convincing but evidence all the same.)

I know that's your opinion, I just don't share it.

Not opinion. Fact. Evidence is any fact that can be brought to bear on a matter. Dog alerts have been admitted in UK and US courts.

Fact in Scotland (that uncorroborated dog alerts are admissible in court as evidence); fiction in England.

[Mrs. B]

That's why I would qualify it as only possible evidence.  Certainly not absolute evidence. 

Not by a long chalk. 

Therefore unsafe.

Yes, in general, but a key part of what is considered "admissible" evidence is weight, which is explained as:

The "weight" of the evidence is the reliance that can properly be placed on it by the court.


In THIS particular case, we've got Eddie. Reliance? Mmm....no, I think not.

[debunker]

Fact in Scotland (that uncorroborated dog alerts are admissible in court as evidence); fiction in England.

I gave a cite for two cases where dog evidence was accepted in England. My statement is correct. You are yet to prove that all dog alerts save those by Eddie are acceptable in English Courts. You cannot do this becasue there is no rule excluding such evidence and the English rules of evidence are that no evidence can be omitted without cause. I used to believe what you believe, but someone better versed than I was explained the Laws of Evidence better than I had understood them. There is still a chance that you too could learn that you are not keeping to the truth.

[gilet]

That's why I would qualify it as only possible evidence.  Certainly not absolute evidence. 

Not by a long chalk. 

Therefore unsafe.

Yes, in general, but a key part of what is considered "admissible" evidence is weight, which is explained as:

The "weight" of the evidence is the reliance that can properly be placed on it by the court.


In THIS particular case, we've got Eddie. Reliance? Mmm....no, I think not.

I don't just think there can be no reliance on the dogs' unconfirmed alerts. I actually know that as a fact.

And how do I know that?

Well Mr. Grime told us that,

...no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2477

[ferryman]

I don't just think there can be no reliance on the dogs' unconfirmed alerts. I actually know that as a fact.

And how do I know that?

Well Mr. Grime told us that,

...no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2477

Also Mark Harrison (sic)

The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.

But our arch promoter of truth in all matters will no doubt continue insisting till hell freezes over that an alert by a dog of a completely different discipline "proves" uncorroborated cadaver dog alerts are admissible as evidence in court ....

[debunker]

Also Mark Harrison (sic)

The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.

But our arch promoter of truth in all matters will no doubt continue insisting till hell freezes over that an alert by a dog of a completely different discipline "proves" uncorroborated cadaver dog alerts are admissible as evidence in court ....

Dog evidence has been admitted in UK courts.

Rules of evidence allow all information to be put before a court that has not been excluded for casue.

Cadaver Dog evidence has never been formally excluded.

Therefore until there is a formal decision that cadaver dog evidence is excluded, it remains admissible.

If you think that it is inadmissible but other scent dog evidence is admissible, please cite where in case law this addition to rules of evidence has been made.

[Mrs. B]

Also Mark Harrison (sic)

The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.

But our arch promoter of truth in all matters will no doubt continue insisting till hell freezes over that an alert by a dog of a completely different discipline "proves" uncorroborated cadaver dog alerts are admissible as evidence in court ....

Well, that remains to be seen in any real case, in THIS case, however, the dog alerts would not pass the test of admissible evidence IMO, as their RELIANCE has been put in serious doubt on several (highly publicized) occasions.

[ferryman]

Well, that remains to be seen in any real case, in THIS case, however, the dog alerts would not pass the test of admissible evidence IMO, as their RELIANCE has been put in serious doubt on several (highly publicized) occasions.

In this case they definitely wouldn't from the car because Eddie didn't react to the boot, only Keela did (blood but not cadaver scent); and Eddie's reaction to the ignition key was to Gerry's blood (not incriminating).

All the other reactions were either in places where Madeleine lived (no surprise to find her DNA there) or in places Madeleine is known, definitely, never to have gone near (no chance of finding Madeleine's DNA).

[debunker]

Well, that remains to be seen in any real case, in THIS case, however, the dog alerts would not pass the test of admissible evidence IMO, as their RELIANCE has been put in serious doubt on several (highly publicized) occasions.

In your opinion, fine. But it remains a FACT that there is currently no impediment in English law to exclude cadaver dog evidence. Unless you can prove this wrong by any cite

[Mr Gray]

What is the evidence to support the cadaver dog evidence?

[debunker]

Any information is evidence unless excluded for cause.

[ferryman]

In your opinion, fine. But it remains a FACT that there is currently no impediment in English law to exclude cadaver dog evidence. Unless you can prove this wrong by any cite

Let's see, we've produced cites of two former serving UK police officers and 1 case of where an uncorroborated cadaver dog alert was excluded.

You've produced a case where an alert by a sniffer dog of a completely different discipline (not a cadaver dog) was accepted in court and your own word.

That's it.

[debunker]

Let's see, we've produced cites of two former serving UK police officers and 1 case of where an uncorroborated cadaver dog alert was excluded.

You've produced a case where an alert by a sniffer dog of a completely different discipline (not a cadaver dog) was accepted in court and your own word.

That's it.

Run the trial cite by me again- specifically where it is recorded as a formal decision on admissibility and reasons for the exclusion.

[ferryman]

Run the trial cite by me again- specifically where it is recorded as a formal decision on admissibility and reasons for the exclusion.

The fact that it "emerged" a year after the trial that a cadaver dog had alerted ...

The alert was excluded from the trial.

That's why it "emerged" a year later.

[debunker]

The fact that it "emerged" a year after the trial that a cadaver dog had alerted ...

The alert was excluded from the trial.

That's why it "emerged" a year later.

Logical flaw there. No connection between the FACT that the evidence was not used and any suggestion that it was excluded by the judge.

I think we may have to agree that as it currently stands, although cadaver dog evidence has not yet been used in an English court (although it has in other Common Law Systems), there is no ruling extant to exclude it (unless you have a cite.)