Are the cadaver alerts evidence

[Robittybob1]

If you read the post it says the alerts are reasonable suspicion
Which I agree with
Doesn't say they are evidence because they are not

Here is the whole quote "Now, the (peace) Police officer in
charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to
develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality of
circumstances known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have
concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a
crime."
These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial
evidence.
The bottom line to a human scent K-9 handler is this; the dog alert must be
corroborated by other evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Here is the whole quote "Now, the (peace) Police officer in
charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to
develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality of
circumstances known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have
concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a
crime."
These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial
evidence.
The bottom line to a human scent K-9 handler is this; the dog alert must be
corroborated by other evidence.

Read the last 3 lines again

[Robittybob1]

Read the last 3 lines again

Key words other evidence: "other evidence" can be other "reasonable suspicion indicators" that are not evidence of themselves either but added together they can form a case.

[Mr Gray]

other evidence can be other "reasonable suspicion indicators" that are not evidence on themselves either but added together they can.

Like what

[Brietta]

In the Suzanne Pilley murder trial evidence was led which indicated that dogs had identified three areas of interest which supported the prosecution case of murder.


On 23 February 2012, the advocate depute led evidence from a Lothian and Borders Police constable who told the court that they had enlisted the help of specially trained cadaver dogs from South Yorkshire Police to search the offices where David Gilroy and Suzanne Pilley worked. The dogs were specially trained to smell for blood and human remains. The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley

[Robittybob1]

Like what

Fingerprints, DNA, access to weapons, motive, weak alibi etc .... too many to list.

[Mr Gray]

Fingerprints, DNA, access to weapons, motive, weak alibi etc .... too many to list.

You just believe what you want to believe
It is of no importance

[Robittybob1]

In the Suzanne Pilley murder trial evidence was led which indicated that dogs had identified three areas of interest which supported the prosecution case of murder.


On 23 February 2012, the advocate depute led evidence from a Lothian and Borders Police constable who told the court that they had enlisted the help of specially trained cadaver dogs from South Yorkshire Police to search the offices where David Gilroy and Suzanne Pilley worked. The dogs were specially trained to smell for blood and human remains. The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley

The prosecution case was quite detailed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley#Prosecution_case

The dog "reasonable suspicion indicator", "evidence" if you like, helped tie it all together.

You just believe what you want to believe
It is of no importance

Why say that I'm talking in a general sense.  I wasn't talking specifically about the McCann case.

[Brietta]

The prosecution case was quite detailed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley#Prosecution_case

The dog "reasonable suspicion indicator", "evidence" if you like, helped tie it all together.
Why say that I'm talking in a general sense.  I wasn't talking specifically about the McCann case.

The dog indications by no stretch of the imagination "helped tie it all together".  Their alerts were one consideration amongst many.
Being presented with the overall picture enabled the jury to be convinced of Gilroy's guilt in Suzanne's murder ... not one single component on its own.

That is the problem with the alerts in Praia da Luz ... they were stand alone and were supported by not a shred of supporting evidence.

[Robittybob1]

The dog indications by no stretch of the imagination "helped tie it all together".  Their alerts were one consideration amongst many.
Being presented with the overall picture enabled the jury to be convinced of Gilroy's guilt in Suzanne's murder ... not one single component on its own.

That is the problem with the alerts in Praia da Luz ... they were stand alone and were supported by not a shred of supporting evidence.

Are you saying in that example the dog alerts didn't help to tie things together?

Reading it again it connects the basement and the boot of the car which appears to be used in the crime. "The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra.[14]"

In Praia da Luz the PJ might have noted discrepancies in their statements and furniture being moved around to make it look like staging of an abduction scene. No evidence of breakin is quoted often.  Partial match of the DNA in the car  was a hopeful one.  So they had  a few things but not enough.

[Robittybob1]

From the legal summary:

"These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dogs, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory.

Martin Grime, the dogs' instructor himself [20], mentions in his report: "Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations"; or scientist Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that the FSS has no scientific support about the use of the dogs as a fundament for the collection of biological residues and that normally take the handler's word for certification, that asserts that the dogs are more sensitive than any chemical technique or other techniques that are normally used by crime scene sector experts.

In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII - FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid)."

What I notice they don't admit that a speck of blood even if it was confirmed to be from Madeleine would NOT indicate that any crime has been committed.

[Robittybob1]

From the Martin Grime report "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

He certainly makes the point enough times: "no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence".

[Brietta]

Are you saying in that example the dog alerts didn't help to tie things together?

Reading it again it connects the basement and the boot of the car which appears to be used in the crime. "The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra.[14]"

In Praia da Luz the PJ might have noted discrepancies in their statements and furniture being moved around to make it look like staging of an abduction scene. No evidence of breakin is quoted often.  Partial match of the DNA in the car  was a hopeful one.  So they had  a few things but not enough.

They had NOTHING Robitty but my goodness didn't they make hay with all that nothingness.  Resulting in deflecting attention from Madeleine McCann and what actually happened to her and directing all the energy to witch hunting her parents instead.

There can be no comparison with the manner in which the work of the dogs was evaluated within the legal framework of Suzanne Pilley's case in Edinburgh and the sensationalism and misrepresentation the investigators introduced in Madeleine's case in Praia da Luz.

How far do you think Gilroy's case would have got if the Scottish investigators had implemented the loose technique in detective work we have seen demonstrated in Portugal.  Where everything was predicated on stand alone dog alerts which jumped the gun when used before the final forensic results had been delivered and understood.

Please try to make comparisons in the way in which the dog alerts were used in the Scottish case and the Portuguese case.
The alerts in the Scottish case were a very small part of the whole case against Gilroy ... there was a great deal more incriminating evidence than that introduced in court.
The alerts made up all of the Portuguese case against Madeleine's parents ... there was nothing else. 

[Robittybob1]

They had NOTHING Robitty but my goodness didn't they make hay with all that nothingness.  Resulting in deflecting attention from Madeleine McCann and what actually happened to her and directing all the energy to witch hunting her parents instead.

There can be no comparison with the manner in which the work of the dogs was evaluated within the legal framework of Suzanne Pilley's case in Edinburgh and the sensationalism and misrepresentation the investigators introduced in Madeleine's case in Praia da Luz.

How far do you think Gilroy's case would have got if the Scottish investigators had implemented the loose technique in detective work we have seen demonstrated in Portugal.  Where everything was predicated on stand alone dog alerts which jumped the gun when used before the final forensic results had been delivered and understood.

Please try to make comparisons in the way in which the dog alerts were used in the Scottish case and the Portuguese case.
The alerts in the Scottish case were a very small part of the whole case against Gilroy ... there was a great deal more incriminating evidence than that introduced in court.
The alerts made up all of the Portuguese case against Madeleine's parents ... there was nothing else.

Being in NZ we had never heard of the Gilroy case, but I have just watched a Crimewatch excerpt on the case and it appears well researched yet Gilroy keeps on appealing the verdict.  It would be hard to imagine what else could have happened also resulting in the same situation that is evident with all the cctv footage. 

With the case in PDL - no cctv, hardly any evidence.  No comparison.

[stephen25000]

The indications of the dogs in this case, are evidence.

However, not corroborated or dismissed by the forensic analysis.