Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

Bringing in other experts may or may not lead to the testimony of the dog handler being ruled inadmissible. As you have pointed out, in your opinion it would have, but that's just your opinion, it's not a fact.

ICHTT seems to think its simply up to the judge with no expert input....good to see you disagree with him and agree with me. The fact is that both Prof Cassella and prof Angela Gallop say the alerts should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case...is there an expert who supports them...it seems not

[G-Unit]

ICHTT seems to think its simply up to the judge with no expert input....good to see you disagree with him and agree with me. The fact is that both Prof Cassella and prof Angela Gallop say the alerts should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case...is there an expert who supports them...it seems not

You need to realise that the police are experts too. Experts in the training and handling of cadaver dogs. There was expert input.

[Mr Gray]

You need to realise that the police are experts too. Experts in the training and handling of cadaver dogs. There was expert input.

The evidence wasn't properly challenged

[kizzy]

The evidence wasn't properly challenged

Surely not to say - a piglet died in 5a

Had its throat cut - and finally ran behind the sofa to die.

[Mr Gray]

Surely not to say - a piglet died in 5a

Had its throat cut - and finally ran behind the sofa to die.

do you understand what is being discussed here...the evidence admitted in the Gilroy case....i dont believe there were any alerts to cadaver in 5a...no expert has said there was

[G-Unit]

The evidence wasn't properly challenged

That was up to the defence lawyers.

[kizzy]

do you understand what is being discussed here...the evidence admitted in the Gilroy case....i dont believe there were any alerts to cadaver in 5a...no expert has said there was

Looking back - it looks like both.imo

Yes, I understand D - That you have no right to tell me what I can and can't post.

[Mr Gray]

Looking back - it looks like both.imo

Yes, I understand D - That you have no right to tell me what I can and can't post.

You can post that you like but just pointing out replying to me with a post about pigs... Isn't relevant to my post

[Mr Gray]

That was up to the defence lawyers.

That's the point I was making... Once again you agree with me

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You posted


This is what I posted

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.



What evidence do you have on the opinion of the whole of the UK Judiciary on the acceptance of the alerts.  Have you contacted each one.. Your claim is absurd.

It’s like we are speaking different languages..

My reference to the UK Judiciary refers to the whole collective body of the UK Justice system.Not individual High Court Judges. There are approximately 1800 judges in the UK. of this number 108 are High court judges. High Court judges comprise only 6 % of all judges in the Judiciary.

As I mentioned previously, I have no knowledge of the opinions of individual High Court judges. I can not read minds

Regarding the line that seems to be a bone of contention with you.

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.

As there is currently no active motions to quash the verdicts, order retrials or any other legal recourse in either of these two completed murder trials that would indicate the legal process have no issue with them.

I concede and have never denied  that individual judges may consider the evidence of dog alerts that are uncorroborated by forensics to be inadmissible but the facts are two High Court judges allowed the evidence to be presented before the court =  admissible evidence.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

note the red highlight..


it seems the alerts were not challenged so were automatically admitted...not admitted on merit. Had they been challenged the defence could have called a suitable expert to educate the judge...and according to Prof Cassella.an expert in this area..the alerts should not have been admitted.

pop down to Greggs and get yourself a large portion of Humble Pie

Read the line 3 lines up “ Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be.”

All of the points below this line to the end of the post refer to this line. Maybe its not clear I will edit it so there is no doubt about the meaning.

I went to Greggs, but they were out of humble pie, so I had a sausage roll instead. Very nice!

[Mr Gray]

Read the line 3 lines up “ Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be.”

All of the points below this line to the end of the post refer to this line. Maybe its not clear I will edit it so there is no doubt about the meaning.

I went to Greggs, but they were out of humble pie, so I had a sausage roll instead. Very nice!

The line has no validity because you use the word seem......I understand what the Judicial system is...nothing to do with academic professors....even if they are experts in the field of crime and forensics

[Icanhandlethetruth]

ICHTT seems to think its simply up to the judge with no expert input....good to see you disagree with him and agree with me. The fact is that both Prof Cassella and prof Angela Gallop say the alerts should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case...is there an expert who supports them...it seems not

In post 41 I replied

"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."

That doesn't mean he is obligated to take advice. The responsibility rest on his shoulders alone.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The line has no validity because you use the word seem......I understand what the Judicial system is...nothing to do with academic professors....even if they are experts in the field of crime and forensics

Seem is a valid word, it means

"give the impression of being something or having a particular quality."

From your posts you have given the impression that all the points below the line are your interpretation of the legal process.  In this case it is only my opinion not a fact. But the word seem suggests this anyway doesn't it?

[Mr Gray]

In post 41 I replied

"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."

That doesn't mean he is obligated to take advice. The responsibility rest on his shoulders alone.

youve answered this question yourself last night....this is what you said and I agree..


If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.