Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[gilet]

Put it this way.  If Madeleine is found dead in or near Praia da Luz are you really telling us that the dog alerts won't take on a whole new meaning?  The deployment of the dogs is now evidence in itself in this case whether you like it or not.  Why do you think Martin Grime cannot comment on this case while it is a live investigation?  Do you not understand the meaning of the term 'evidence'?

Deployment of dogs is never evidence. That is plainly untrue.

Alerts may indicate something which becomes evidence.

No matter what happens the dog alerts are not much use without real evidence.

[Estuarine]

its no wonder there are so many posts on the dogs when after seven years posters still dont understand the basics

Explain it to us then. Preferably in more than one sentence that does not end in wrong or fool.
Come on surprise us and give us the benefit of your vast wealth of knowledge. Sight of your credentials in matters EVRD might be handy too. Just to give weight to your opinion.

[ferryman]

Deployment of dogs is never evidence. That is plainly untrue.

Alerts may indicate something which becomes evidence.

No matter what happens the dog alerts are not much use without real evidence.

True in England

In Scotland, uncorroborated dog alerts are allowed as evidence.

[Mr Moderator]

Deployment of dogs is never evidence. That is plainly untrue.

Alerts may indicate something which becomes evidence.

No matter what happens the dog alerts are not much use without real evidence.

Why spend £000's on them then?  How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict?  Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.

[Mr Gray]

Explain it to us then. Preferably in more than one sentence that does not end in wrong or fool.
Come on surprise us and give us the benefit of your vast wealth of knowledge. Sight of your credentials in matters EVRD might be handy too. Just to give weight to your opinion.

Will do tomorrow

[Mr Moderator]

You can claim what you like but it is NOT what grime said...I'll will stick with grime. Remember SY have also said that maddie may still be alive...which contradicts YOUR statement re tha dogs

You still haven't grasped the difference between evidence and evidential value.

[ferryman]

Why spend £000's on them then?  How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict?  Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.

In the Adrian Prout murder trial, a cadaver dog (Eddie, as it happens) alerted.

But the alert was never used as evidence in court.

[Mr Gray]

Why spend £000's on them then?  How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict?  Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.

You tell us.....how many timrs  has uncorroborated dogs evidence led to a conviction

[Mr Gray]

You still haven't grasped the difference between evidence and evidential value.

Explain it then.....there is none

[ferryman]

Explain it then.....there is none

I'm with Dave on that.

Evidence is either evidence or it isn't.

If it isn't, it's worthless.

[gilet]

An interesting conversation I had today elicited a response that working dogs react to the owner in various ways.
One of those ways is that they realise that they are about to work when put in certain situations, given certain commands and this is the relevant part when their handler wears his uniform.

It got me thinking and yes dogs are able to recognise a working mode by virtue of the uniform worn by their handler.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/04/02/3976966.htm

That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode.

When Grime worked for South Yorkshire Police he would have been required to wear a uniform to identify him and would have also been expected to wear forensic coveralls in certain situations. Eddie and Keela would have worked with Grime for years with this uniform being worn.

However when Grime was working in PDL he didn't wear a uniform and only on one occasion wore coveralls.

There was no time for Eddie and Keela to be retrained in the few days prior to their work in PDL (whether Grime had retired or not).

So I am wondering is this another reason why the reliability of these dogs  and their alerts in PDL should be questioned.

[gilet]

Why spend £000's on them then?  How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict?  Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.

Alerts can indicate potential evidence or back up evidence but are not evidential in themselves as Martin Grime tells us.

They do on occasion actually find bodies or live persons, or drugs or firearms (depending on what kind of training they have had) but the alert to that person or object is still an indicator, nor evidential in itself.

[gilet]

You still haven't grasped the difference between evidence and evidential value.

The most basic grasp of the English language tells us that something has to have evidential value even to be considered as evidence otherwise what the hell is the point?

And Martin Grime was perfectly clear that dog alerts have no evidential value.

We were told by the poster who is on sick leave at the moment that Grime's hand was forced and he had never had to put anything in a report before about evidential value but for some reason that "first-hand" knowledge has been whooshed by mods and/or admin here. I wonder what inference we are supposed to take from that whooshing.

Anyway sticking to good old basic understanding of English. It has to have evidential value to be evidence.

[gilet]

In the Adrian Prout murder trial, a cadaver dog (Eddie, as it happens) alerted.

But the alert was never used as evidence in court.

Hardly surprising really as the dog alert was at a place where nobody was suggesting the body had lain. And the dog failed to alert at the place where the body was found.

[Mr Moderator]

Explain it then.....there is none

Evidential Value...

Value of records given as or in support of evidence, but not the evidence itself.