A fresh look at Eddie the cadaver dog and those alerts.

[Mr Gray]

Why?
Judges in this country have allowed dog alerts as evidence.
I posted about it several months ago on here with appropriate links etc.

so you maintain the alerts are evidence which contradicts the experts......i havent seen waht you claim

[ferryman]

Why?
Judges in this country have allowed dog alerts as evidence.
I posted about it several months ago on here with appropriate links etc.

Cadaver-dog alerts are not evidence, unless there is corroborating forensic evidence found in the wake of the dogs' alerts.

[Alice Purjorick]

so you maintain the alerts are evidence which contradicts the experts......i havent seen waht you claim

I am just reporting what one judge said at a case over which he presided.
I seem to recall you replied to the original post.
Were the experts that knowledgable of the laws of evidence I guess they would be sitting where the judge does.

[Alice Purjorick]

Cadaver-dog alerts are not evidence, unless there is corroborating forensic evidence found in the wake of the dogs' alerts.

Here we go again. As I recall that is what you said first time out.
I'll reply as I did at that time:
"Show us in judges rules etc where there is a delineation of dogs"

[ferryman]

Here we go again. As I recall that is what you said first time out.
I'll reply as I did at that time:
"Show us in judges rules etc where there is a delineation of dogs"

Judges rules?

Harrison and Grime both state that uncorroborated cadaver-dog alerts are intelligence, not evidence.

That'll do.

[Alice Purjorick]

Judges rules?

Harrison and Grime both state that uncorroborated cadaver-dog alerts are intelligence, not evidence.

That'll do.

So a couple of expert witnesses can overrule a judge?
Now that is an interesting proposition.

[ferryman]

So a couple of expert witnesses can overrule a judge?
Now that is an interesting proposition.

Go away.

I know what you're talking about.

You pulled up some example of where the alert of a tracker dog was admissible as evidence in court.

Completely different sniffer-dog discipline than that of a cadaver dog.

In the Kate Prout case, the cadaver-dog alert was not used as evidence in court, because there was no corroborating evidence.

That is the position in English Courts.

Long has been ....

[Alice Purjorick]

Go away.

I know what you're talking about.

You pulled up some example of where the alert of a tracker dog was admissible as evidence in court.

Completely different sniffer-dog discipline than that of a cadaver dog.

In the Kate Prout case, the cadaver-dog alert was not used as evidence in court, because there was no corroborating evidence.

That is the position in English Courts.

Long has been ....

Why should I ?.
You have yet to show where there is discrimination of dogs in English Law.

[ferryman]

Why should I ?.
You have yet to show where there is discrimination of dogs in English Law.

I have.

Unless you think Harrison and Grime neither know what they are talking about?

[slartibartfast]

I have.

Unless you think Harrison and Grime neither know what they are talking about?

Harrison and Grime as arbiters of English Law, hmmm.

[ferryman]

Harrison and Grime as arbiters of English Law, hmmm.

arbiter?

Person empowered to judge in a dispute?

No.

They just happen to know what English law says about uncorroborated cadaver-dog alerts.

That's all.

[Robittybob1]

at least everyone has to accept that the alerts are not evidence

The tricky thing is even if there are 19 incidences of dog alerts (as claimed by HiDeHo) that still doesn't turn the dog alert intelligence into evidential fact.  I have trouble saying that but what I'm trying to say, is that these 19 alerts, by Eddie and Keela, can't be turned around and used as "proof" that Madeleine died in the apartment, that the parents and friends hid the body and that Madeleine's cadaver was moved in the hire car months later.

[ferryman]

The tricky thing is even if there are 19 incidences of dog alerts (as claimed by HiDeHo) that still doesn't turn the dog alert intelligence into evidential fact.  I have trouble saying that but what I'm trying to say, is that these 19 alerts, by Eddie and Keela, can't be turned around and used as "proof" that Madeleine died in the apartment, that the parents and friends hid the body and that Madeleine's cadaver was moved in the hire car months later.

There is a wealth of additional background information that could be added to that.

But it's broadly right.

[Robittybob1]

Why?
Judges in this country have allowed dog alerts as evidence.
I posted about it several months ago on here with appropriate links etc.

If you could find that again that would be very useful, for it would be further evidence that a lot of important players have made the same error.  It is very tempting to turn the number of alerts, and their distribution (behind sofa, cupboards, gardens, cars and clothing), even if the distribution seems to tell a story, you can't make it into a factual story.  OK it can be a hypothesis, I have no problem about that, but that hypothesis needs corroborating evidence to back it up.

[sadie]

I have.

Unless you think Harrison and Grime neither know what they are talking about?

Harrison and Grime independently, and together, should understand what dog alerts mean better than any Judge .... especially Harrison

FGS, a Judge spends seconds/minutes, perhaps a little longer, looking at each aspect of a case. 

We all know how long it has taken us to understand what the alerts do and do not mean ... it has taken us months /years

And it seems that Amaral NEVER understood what they meant. 
If he does now, he should own up and apologise.

He will not, of course