Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[G-Unit]

So are you introducing reasonable doubt as the alerts are equally likely to be dead piglets? As a supposedly rational thinker, are you proposing that? You've already tacitly agreed that it's one of the two, by referring to the training methods.

I find it hard to believe that there had been dead piglets in 5A, but perhaps I need to learn to think 'outside the box'? 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

So the alert wasn't used to support the detection of human remains.. As it was in the pillay case

Of course it was.  The police witness was VRD dog handler. He wasn't testifying that his dog detected fish was he. Come on.
Take 10 minutes and watch the testimony of the dog handler on iplayer then we know we are all at the same level.

[Lace]

Eddie was trained with human remains making him a EVRD.

He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Sorry but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.   Eddie was trained using pig meat,  that is the training he had,
  to   then to try and introduce him to a new scent is cross training in my opinion and Eddie was too old to be introduced to a new scent and to disregard what he had been trained on.  IMO

[Mr Gray]

Of course it was.  The police witness was VRD dog handler. He wasn't testifying that his dog detected fish was he. Come on.
Take 10 minutes and watch the testimony of the dog handler on iplayer then we know we are all at the same level.

Doesn't really matter.. An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo and would not have been allowed if challenged

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Doesn't really matter.. An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo and would not have been allowed if challenged

You hit the nail on the head.

"An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo"

Your opinion is irrelevant in this matter. You are not a High Court Judge, unless you can tell me differently.
Please accept that it has been accepted in a High Court in the UK on at least two previous occasions.

[Mr Gray]

You hit the nail on the head.

"An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo"

Your opinion is irrelevant in this matter. You are not a High Court Judge, unless you can tell me differently.
Please accept that it has been accepted in a High Court in the UK on at least two previous occasions.

I don't see my opinion and irrelevant  ..I've supplied a reason why I think they were admitted.  Nothing posted in this or any other forum has any importance... Perhaps you don't realise that..

Of course I accept they were admitted in these two cases... I'm saying that's because they weren't challenged

[G-Unit]

Sorry but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.   Eddie was trained using pig meat,  that is the training he had,
  to   then to try and introduce him to a new scent is cross training in my opinion and Eddie was too old to be introduced to a new scent and to disregard what he had been trained on.  IMO

The FBI accepted Eddie's competence as did a US judge. Your opinion is irrelevant.

[Mr Gray]

The FBI accepted Eddie's competence as did a US judge. Your opinion is irrelevant.

That's in the US... That's irrelevant

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I don't see my opinion and irrelevant  ..I've supplied a reason why I think they were admitted.  Nothing posted in this or any other forum has any importance... Perhaps you don't realise that..

Of course I accept they were admitted in these two cases... I'm saying that's because they weren't challenged

Again you make an assumption that they weren't challenged, where is this information from please share it with us.
I realise there is no importance in posting in a forum but I have posted 39 times you have post 35597 times, Maybe you should reflect on your own words above.

[Mr Gray]

Again you make an assumption that they weren't challenged, where is this information from please share it with us.
I realise there is no importance in posting in a forum but I have posted 39 times you have post 35597 times, Maybe you should reflect on your own words above.

And you make the assumption they were challenged

As to why I post.   That's my business and none if yours

[barrier]

Sorry but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.   Eddie was trained using pig meat,  that is the training he had,
  to   then to try and introduce him to a new scent is cross training in my opinion and Eddie was too old to be introduced to a new scent and to disregard what he had been trained on.  IMO

I'm sure there's a scientific paper to back that up.

[barrier]

I find it hard to believe that there had been dead piglets in 5A, but perhaps I need to learn to think 'outside the box'? 

It was bound to have been farmland before it was built on,permeating scent and all that.

[Brietta]

I'll bet there are an equal number of cases of admissible and inadmissible in North America and across Europe where dog evidence is used. There'll be dozens we don't now about both ways.
So we can be sure that the uncorroborated or corroborated evidence through alerts is routinely considered as a viable means of bolstering a case either way, although, obviously, usually in favour of the prosecution.

Although, let's not forget, a strategy, albeit a risky one, for a defence to use would be to allow the alerts, then bring their reliability in to question, thereby providing reasonable doubt. But tellingly, you don't hear too much of that going on.

Bearing in mind that in North America there are States where K9 trainers are allowed to have access to human remains for training purposes and the dogs are trained solely on human remains and residual scent.

Even so there are stringent criteria in place for handlers and their dogs training and expertise before the handlers are allowed to testify about alerts in a case involving residual scent.

British dogs are trained using pigs.

I think Misty may have touched on the theme http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg568943#msg568943 but I've not yet had time to read the link she provided at  http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf

[Lace]

I find it hard to believe that there had been dead piglets in 5A, but perhaps I need to learn to think 'outside the box'? 

It makes you question whether Eddie could alert to human cadaver though doesn't it?   In my opinion the only thing he could alert to was blood,  and unlike Keela he could alert to the scent of blood that had been on something which was then taken away.

[Brietta]

Back on topic, please.

Members are asked to refrain from questioning why other members post here.  In my opinion that is no-one's business but their own.  TY