Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

It doesn't matter what the SCCRC may have decided, they are not the deciding opinion. The deciding opinion will always be the rule of law. No court or decree has ever ruled the dog in the Gilroy case that gave an alert as inadmissible. They may in the future, who knows? But currently the facts stand that uncorroborated evidence from cadaver dogs have been allowed in a UK court. Can you not agree on that?

It doesn't matter if Gilroys defence called any witness to rebut the evidence of the dog, because my point is that it was allowed as evidence in the first place. But you have got to imagine they did don't you.

Was admitted but later ruled inadmissible

[Robittybob1]

Was admitted but later ruled inadmissible

OK but did that change the jury verdict.  Is the person still found guilty?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

What do you think the dog alerts in the McCann case are evidence of?

The dogs alerts are evidence that the dogs alerted in the flat where a missing child was last seen.
Nothing more than that.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Was admitted but later ruled inadmissible

Please re read my post.

No court or decree has ever ruled the dog in the Gilroy case that gave an alert as inadmissible.
If you have proof that a legal body has ruled the alerts as inadmissible please produce it.
It is the opinion of the SCCRC, it carries no legal weight. I can't explain it any other way.

[Venturi Swirl]

The dogs alerts are evidence that the dogs alerted in the flat where a missing child was last seen.
Nothing more than that.

So what would be their worth as evidence in trying to gain a conviction in a court of law, if they are only evidence of themselves?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

So what would be their worth as evidence in trying to gain a conviction in a court of law, if they are only evidence of themselves?

Who knows.  That's how they were used in the cases of Suzzanne Piley and Margaret Fleming.
A jury would decide their worth.

[Venturi Swirl]

Who knows.  That's how they were used in the cases of Suzzanne Piley and Margaret Fleming.
A jury would decide their worth.

I don’t think we need to put it to the jury to see why dog alerts should not be treated as evidence on their own. 

[jassi]

Quite right. It is for the Courts to decide what is admissible and what is not.

[Mr Gray]

So the judge just decided to just wing it? Without expert advice? Do you know how much a case costs financially? To risk a case collapsing because a High Court judge decided to not take advice on evidence presented is beyond absurd.
They were never declared inadmissible by a court of law, never.
Do you mean challenged in court or challenged during pre-trial hearings? Because of course they were challenged by the defence during the trial, but is it your belief that the defence never tried to get the evidence ruled as inadmissible pre-trial?

Could you provide a cite for your claim that the alerts were challenged by the defence during the trial...what experts were called to challenge them.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I don’t think we need to put it to the jury to see why dog alerts should not be treated as evidence on their own.

Your or my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the presiding judge.

[Mr Gray]

Your or my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the presiding judge.

if the jusge isnt presented with the proper evidence he cannot make a correct decision

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Could you provide a cite for your claim that the alerts were challenged by the defence during the trial...what experts were called to challenge them.

You can't be serious that you want me to find a cite for the defence challenging the testimony of the dog handler.
Do you think he stayed in his seat and said "No questions for this witness". Does that sound logical in anyway.
It doesn't matter anyway as my point is not that it was challenged but that it was presented before the court.
Take a step back and read my postings, all I am saying is that uncorroborated dog alerts have been presented as evidence before a court in the UK. I make no judgement if they should or not only, that they have.   

[Icanhandlethetruth]

if the jusge isnt presented with the proper evidence he cannot make a correct decision

Again you think you know better than a sitting high court judge. He was presented with the evidence and deemed it to be admissible. I don't understand your reluctance to accept that uncorroborated dog alerts have been presented before a court in the UK on at least two occasions that I am aware of.

[Mr Gray]

You can't be serious that you want me to find a cite for the defence challenging the testimony of the dog handler.
Do you think he stayed in his seat and said "No questions for this witness". Does that sound logical in anyway.
It doesn't matter anyway as my point is not that it was challenged but that it was presented before the court.
Take a step back and read my postings, all I am saying is that uncorroborated dog alerts have been presented as evidence before a court in the UK. I make no judgement if they should or not only, that they have.

you claimed the alerts were challenged yet you can supply no evidence to support taht statement.

what you stated was...
As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible.


you havent shown alerts are admissible...you have shown they were admitted in two cases..this doesnt mean alerts are admissible. Ive shown serious doubts against one.

imo they were admitted because they were not properly challenged...

[The General]

you claimed the alerts were challenged yet you can supply no evidence to support taht statement.

what you stated was...
As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible.


you havent shown alerts are admissible...you have shown they were admitted in two cases..this doesnt mean alerts are admissible. Ive shown serious doubts against one.

imo they were admitted because they were not properly challenged...

Isn't that the case in every trial? I've seen LA Law, they agree on the frames of reference, disclose what eachother has got, then scrap it out to let the judge determine what's admissible.