Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

Opinions are fine, but they can't compete with facts. The facts are that dog alerts have been used as evidence so anyone saying they're not evidence is denying the truth.

The fact they have been used doesn't make them evidence....
You are mistaken

[G-Unit]

The fact they have been used doesn't make them evidence....
You are mistaken

Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion. If dog alerts have been used in that way they're evidence whether you agree or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

[Mr Gray]

Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion. If dog alerts have been used in that way they're evidence whether you agree or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

So in this case what are the alerts evidence of.. What assertion do they support

[Mr Gray]

Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion. If dog alerts have been used in that way they're evidence whether you agree or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

That would make a lie detector evidence... But not admissable evidence

[G-Unit]

That would make a lie detector evidence... But not admissable evidence

Lie detector tests aren't admissible, but cadaver dog handler's evidence is.

[Mr Gray]

Lie detector tests aren't admissible, but cadaver dog handler's evidence is.

They have been admitted in error... Not just my opinion

[Mr Gray]

Lie detector tests aren't admissible, but cadaver dog handler's evidence is.

Are you under the false impression that all the UK Judiciary... All the high court judges recognise the alerts as admissable evidence

[Mr Gray]

Lie detector tests aren't admissible, but cadaver dog handler's evidence is.

Second time as you are unable to answer.. What are alerts evidence of... The experts do not agree with you

[G-Unit]

Are you under the false impression that all the UK Judiciary... All the high court judges recognise the alerts as admissable evidence

The only claim I'm making is that the alerts have been used as evidence in a court of law. That's a matter of fact. I'm not really interested in discussing whether they should have been used because that's just a matter of opinion.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

what i know is that professionals make mistakes. I once sued a solicitor...after 3 years the barrister told me i hadnt got acase...I over rode his decision.....and I was successful. The well trained barrister was wrong.

Every profession has its mistakes...look at doctors. IMO anyone who thinks there are not mistakes in the justice system and they are all perfect is a bit of a fool

Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?. If not what criteria makes them admissible?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Second time as you are unable to answer.. What are alerts evidence of... The experts do not agree with you

The same answer as post #47


The dogs alerts are evidence that the dogs alerted in the garden where a missing person was supposed to have lived.
Nothing more than that.

[Mr Gray]

Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?. If not what criteria makes them admissible?

The criteria is according to experts they have no evidential value.  This doesn't seem to have been tested by the courts, as yet... The judge is not in a position to decide himself...if the alerts wdre challenged and they should have been the judge would listen to expert opinion and then decide

[Mr Gray]

The same answer as post #47


The dogs alerts are evidence that the dogs alerted in the garden where a missing person was supposed to have lived.
Nothing more than that.

So they are not evidence of the past presence of a cadaver... Thanks

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The criteria is according to experts they have no evidential value.  This doesn't seem to have been tested by the courts, as yet... The judge is not in a position to decide himself...if the alerts wdre challenged and they should have been the judge would listen to expert opinion and then decide

That doesn't answer my question maybe it was too complicated, let me break it up.

Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.
Modify message

[Mr Gray]

That doesn't answer my question maybe it was too complicated, let me break it up.

Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.
Modify message

Nothing you could say would be too complicated for me to understand... The fact you try to imply it does shows your frustration... If you want to debate.. Behave and mind your manners.. I've not made one goading post to you... Try and reciprocate