UK Justice Forum

Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 11:29:38 AM

Title: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 11:29:38 AM
Hello everyone, new poster here. I thought it would be rude to just barge into the room unannounced so thought it best to start my own thread. I know it has been discussed previously and indeed currently here but I think etiquette requires me to introduce myself first.
I am quite new to the nuances of the case, only taking an active interest after the Netflix piece. Of course I knew of it before but never really had an opinion of what happened.  I still am not convinced about any of the theories so I hope I will keep an open mind.

One thing that seems to keep coming up on this forum is the dogs alerts are not evidence. I can't understand this reasoning as there are many cases that have gone through UK courts that have included uncorroborated evidence from dog alerts. This surely makes them evidence.  I know some will say, well Mr. Grime says they are not evidence but its not up to him to make that choice, it is surely up to the presiding judge to admit it as evidence or not. I can't see how its not evidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 09, 2020, 12:30:48 PM
Hi and welcome to the forum Icanhandlethetruth

Thanks for the intro.

I do not believe the dog alerts alone are evidence of anything evidenced by the police's strategic review of the Shannon Matthews case.  Please refer to page 25.  The dogs were alerting and we know SM was found very much alive.   

The odour is clearly transferrable on inanimate objects.  We know 5A was surrounded by death prior to MM's disappearance eg Mr Fenn died in 2003 and Mr McCann (previous owner of 5A and no relation to GM/KM) died late 2006.  The McCanns and members of T7 were medics and GM/KM were surrounding themselves with priests (robes) and churches. 

With regard to the hire car we would need a complete audit of who and what had been in the car to rule out contamination.  A hire car by definition will sustain a very high number of users.  Were the other cars in the car park hire cars or privately owned?  If the latter hardly a fair comparison. 

Maybe the alerts have been successfully used in other cases along with other supporting evidence which simply doesn't exist in this case. 



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
Hi and welcome to the forum Icanhandlethetruth

Thanks for the intro.

I do not believe the dog alerts alone are evidence of anything evidenced by the police's strategic review of the Shannon Matthews case.  Please refer to page 25.  The dogs were alerting and we know SM was found very much alive.   

The odour is clearly transferrable on inanimate objects.  We know 5A was surrounded by death prior to MM's disappearance eg Mr Fenn died in 2003 and Mr McCann (previous owner of 5A and no relation to GM/KM) died late 2006.  The McCanns and members of T7 were medics and GM/KM were surrounding themselves with priests (robes) and churches. 

With regard to the hire car we would need a complete audit of who and what had been in the car to rule out contamination.  A hire car by definition will sustain a very high number of users.  Were the other cars in the car park hire cars or privately owned?  If the latter hardly a fair comparison. 

Maybe the alerts have been successfully used in other cases along with other supporting evidence which simply doesn't exist in this case.

You have hit the nail on the head with reference to the value of dog alerts which are not in themselves evidence unless substantiated by evidence.

The value of the dog alerts in the garage is that the evidence given by them has absolutely nothing at all to do with Madeleine McCann.  The only alert given by the cadaver dog proved to be blood which was not Madeleine's.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 12:51:37 PM
Hello everyone, new poster here. I thought it would be rude to just barge into the room unannounced so thought it best to start my own thread. I know it has been discussed previously and indeed currently here but I think etiquette requires me to introduce myself first.
I am quite new to the nuances of the case, only taking an active interest after the Netflix piece. Of course I knew of it before but never really had an opinion of what happened.  I still am not convinced about any of the theories so I hope I will keep an open mind.

One thing that seems to keep coming up on this forum is the dogs alerts are not evidence. I can't understand this reasoning as there are many cases that have gone through UK courts that have included uncorroborated evidence from dog alerts. This surely makes them evidence.  I know some will say, well Mr. Grime says they are not evidence but its not up to him to make that choice, it is surely up to the presiding judge to admit it as evidence or not. I can't see how its not evidence.

I think you are misinformed...could you quote some of these many cases
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 01:16:33 PM
I think you are misinformed...could you quote some of these many cases

To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 09, 2020, 01:22:06 PM
This is what Harrison, the UK's national search advisor, recommended;

Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

Most of the arguments have focussed on the difference between 'evidential' and 'merely intelligence'. Those who wish to dismiss the dog alerts have concentrated on emphasising that alerts such as the ones to the McCann's clothes are not evidential. The argument is that they can therefore be ignored.

I argue that those alerts are still useful. Intelligence isn't something that can or should be ignored and what the alerts to the clothing tell us is that they are contaminated by the target scent. That needs to be accepted and explained.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 01:25:14 PM
To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.

The only one I'm aware of as being presented in court as evidence is Pillay.. At the appeal it was ruled that the alerts should have been inadmissible.  You claim there are many.... You are mistaken
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 09, 2020, 01:26:47 PM
You have hit the nail on the head with reference to the value of dog alerts which are not in themselves evidence unless substantiated by evidence.

The value of the dog alerts in the garage is that the evidence given by them has absolutely nothing at all to do with Madeleine McCann.  The only alert given by the cadaver dog proved to be blood which was not Madeleine's.

Don't worry. Smithman will corroborate them.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
This is what Harrison, the UK's national search advisor, recommended;

Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

Most of the arguments have focussed on the difference between 'evidential' and 'merely intelligence'. Those who wish to dismiss the dog alerts have concentrated on emphasising that alerts such as the ones to the McCann's clothes are not evidential. The argument is that they can therefore be ignored.

I argue that those alerts are still useful. Intelligence isn't something that can or should be ignored and what the alerts to the clothing tell us is that they are contaminated by the target scent. That needs to be accepted and explained.

You are absolutely 100% wrong.... Grime says it's possible the alert is to cadaver... Not that it is
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 01:58:18 PM
The only one I'm aware of as being presented in court as evidence is Pillay.. At the appeal it was ruled that the alerts should have been inadmissible.  You claim there are many.... You are mistaken

I struggle to understand how after evidence is found to be inadmissible no retrial was ordered. I have read the court notes and it makes no mention of the dogs alerts being inadmissible, maybe I missed it.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Look into the Margaret Fleming case, it was on BBC2 last night it will be on Iplayer at about 40 minutes is the testimony of the dog handler. "Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming Episode 1.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 09, 2020, 02:01:43 PM
You are absolutely 100% wrong.... Grime says it's possible the alert is to cadaver... Not that it is

Cuts both ways,so the dog alerts may be suggestive of cadaver ,there's nothing from the human prospective after nigh on 13 yrs of it not being cadaver alert , the human kind of alerts ie: witness's isn't advancing it much,cue you don't know what the current investigations are working on,blah,blah,blah.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 02:02:42 PM
I struggle to understand how after evidence is found to be inadmissible no retrial was ordered. I have read the court notes and it makes no mention of the dogs alerts being inadmissible, maybe I missed it.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Look into the Margaret Fleming case, it was on BBC2 last night it will be on Iplayer at about 40 minutes is the testimony of the dog handler. "Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming Episode 1.

No retrial was ordered because it was ruled that there was enough evidence without the dogs... That's what the apoeal court said

it was the SCCRC...i think thats right.....who said they should have been inadmissible...reported on a recent podcast
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 09, 2020, 02:03:19 PM
I struggle to understand how after evidence is found to be inadmissible no retrial was ordered. I have read the court notes and it makes no mention of the dogs alerts being inadmissible, maybe I missed it.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Look into the Margaret Fleming case, it was on BBC2 last night it will be on Iplayer at about 40 minutes is the testimony of the dog handler. "Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming Episode 1.

Of course M Fleming or her remains have never been found either.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 02:07:09 PM
To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.

Kate Prout's body was found.  The murderer was taken from prison where he was already serving his sentence for her murder to give the police assistance in finding her.

The convictions for murder by the perpetrators of the disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and Margaret Fleming had absolutely nothing to do with the testimony given by the dog handlers as part of the Crown Case (which in Margaret's case was broadcast by the BBC in a court recording of the event).
The convictions in both these cases was due to the weight of the evidence presented.  It is not a good idea to present it as anything other than that.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 02:09:51 PM
No retrial was ordered because it was ruled that there was enough evidence without the dogs... That's what the apoeal court said

Well one of us is reading the court papers wrong as in the paragraph attached the court reinforces the dogs as evidence against David Gilroy, unless I am reading it wrong please clarify.

[63] The court has had little hesitation in determining that, even if the statements had been ruled inadmissible, there is no real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict (Cadder v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 13, Lord Hope at para [64] applying McInnes v HM Advocate 2010 SC (UKSC) 28). In that regard, it is on the case which was presented at the trial that the court must concentrate (Fraser v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 113, Lord Hope at para [38]). If the statements, and in particular the first statement, had not been adduced in evidence, the appellant would effectively have had no defence at all to the Crown case other than to rely on the presumption of innocence. The case against him would have been overwhelming. There would have been evidence of: (a) the turbulent nature of his relationship with the deceased, involving intense jealousy in the context of expressed views from the deceased that their relationship was at an end; (b) the proximity of the arrivals of the deceased and the appellant at 11 Thistle Street on the morning of the disappearance; (c) the undoubtedly sinister cessation of text messages between the appellant and the deceased at about the time of her disappearance; (d) the appellant's strange demeanour on the morning of the disappearance and his sudden departure to collect his car on the pretext of having lost the minutes; (d) the cadaver dog's reaction to his car; (e) most significant, the state of the appellant's car upon his return from an unexpectedly long and sudden trip to Lochgilphead; and (f) the injuries on his hands, which he tried to conceal and which were characteristic of a reaction of someone being strangled.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 02:13:17 PM
Kate Prout's body was found.  The murderer was taken from prison where he was already serving his sentence for her murder to give the police assistance in finding her.

The convictions for murder by the perpetrators of the disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and Margaret Fleming had absolutely nothing to do with the testimony given by the dog handlers as part of the Crown Case (which in Margaret's case was broadcast by the BBC in a court recording of the event).
The convictions in both these cases was due to the weight of the evidence presented.  It is not a good idea to present it as anything other than that.

Its not my assertion that the dog handlers evidence sealed the case. The evidence of the dog handlers was presented to the jury and the jury weighed up the whole body of evidence before reaching their verdict. My only assertion is that such alerts are evidence as presented in a court of law.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 02:15:25 PM
Well one of us is reading the court papers wrong as in the paragraph attached the court reinforces the dogs as evidence against David Gilroy, unless I am reading it wrong please clarify.

[63] The court has had little hesitation in determining that, even if the statements had been ruled inadmissible, there is no real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict (Cadder v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 13, Lord Hope at para [64] applying McInnes v HM Advocate 2010 SC (UKSC) 28). In that regard, it is on the case which was presented at the trial that the court must concentrate (Fraser v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 113, Lord Hope at para [38]). If the statements, and in particular the first statement, had not been adduced in evidence, the appellant would effectively have had no defence at all to the Crown case other than to rely on the presumption of innocence. The case against him would have been overwhelming. There would have been evidence of: (a) the turbulent nature of his relationship with the deceased, involving intense jealousy in the context of expressed views from the deceased that their relationship was at an end; (b) the proximity of the arrivals of the deceased and the appellant at 11 Thistle Street on the morning of the disappearance; (c) the undoubtedly sinister cessation of text messages between the appellant and the deceased at about the time of her disappearance; (d) the appellant's strange demeanour on the morning of the disappearance and his sudden departure to collect his car on the pretext of having lost the minutes; (d) the cadaver dog's reaction to his car; (e) most significant, the state of the appellant's car upon his return from an unexpectedly long and sudden trip to Lochgilphead; and (f) the injuries on his hands, which he tried to conceal and which were characteristic of a reaction of someone being strangled.

that isnt the SCCRC report...remember you said many cases in the UK...perhaps you should alter your post

David Gilroy, 51, whose appeal was rejected by the Criminal Appeal Court in 2012, will have his case reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 09, 2020, 02:21:29 PM
that isnt the SCCRC report...remember you said many cases in the UK...perhaps you should alter your post

Did you ever find the SCCRC report?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 02:25:02 PM
Did you ever find the SCCRC report?

no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 02:26:15 PM
Its not my assertion that the dog handlers evidence sealed the case. The evidence of the dog handlers was presented to the jury and the jury weighed up the whole body of evidence before reaching their verdict. My only assertion is that such alerts are evidence as presented in a court of law.

The word you used in relation to the dog evidence provided was "uncorroborated" which is an absolute nonsense in my opinion in terms of evidence presented at trial. 
In Margaret's case, for example, the jury were told of numerous bone fragments found at the scene of the alerts which were too small for identification as either human or animal.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 02:30:21 PM
that isnt the SCCRC report...remember you said many cases in the UK...perhaps you should alter your post

David Gilroy, 51, whose appeal was rejected by the Criminal Appeal Court in 2012, will have his case reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

Maybe the question is which is the Higher Authority, An appeal in the High Court presided by Lord Brodie and Lord Wheatley or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review for which perhaps you would lead me to the notes prepared by such a body.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 02:32:06 PM
The word you used in relation to the dog evidence provided was "uncorroborated" which is an absolute nonsense in my opinion in terms of evidence presented at trial. 
In Margaret's case, for example, the jury were told of numerous bone fragments found at the scene of the alerts which were too small for identification as either human or animal.

So how is that corroboration. No human remains were identified. Please explain.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 09, 2020, 02:32:52 PM
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast

So you're relying on the family of the accused to tell you what the report said?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 02:35:40 PM
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast

So basically your information comes from family members and a podcast. Whereas I can show you the notes from the appeal that emphasises the appeal judges still consider the evidence of the cadaver dog to be valid in the conviction.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 02:37:36 PM
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast

For anyone interested ... http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp ...
I think there is also a link there to the podcast you mention, Davel.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 02:39:10 PM
Maybe the question is which is the Higher Authority, An appeal in the High Court presided by Lord Brodie and Lord Wheatley or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review for which perhaps you would lead me to the notes prepared by such a body.

you claimed the alerts ahve been admitted in many cases in the UK...absolute rubbish.....youve cited two in scotland.

In the Pillay case the SCCRC ruled the alerts should not have been admitted...the Judge in your other cases may well have erred.

You think youve made a case that the alerts are admissible evidence....I think youve failed miserably. lets see some more of these many case you claim
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 02:40:06 PM
So you're relying on the family of the accused to tell you what the report said?
try reading the post to the end of the sentence...it might help
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 02:43:53 PM
From the Gilroy family on the SCCRC verdict...

One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC.They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable. They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court. However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict. That verdict was by a majority so some jurors did not agree that the case against him had been proved

this was further confirmed by an independent recent podcast...sceptics can ignore the facts if they wish
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 02:46:46 PM
So basically your information comes from family members and a podcast. Whereas I can show you the notes from the appeal that emphasises the appeal judges still consider the evidence of the cadaver dog to be valid in the conviction.

the podcast contained live audio statements from real experts...not armchair  bloggers....LOL
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 02:47:26 PM
So how is that corroboration. No human remains were identified. Please explain.

You said "To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg568815#msg568815

There are very strict rules concerning what evidence can and cannot be presented to a jury.

Did you really miss the Judge's on camera reaction to the witness who changed his police statement on the witness stand at the trial which convicted Margaret's murderers?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 02:48:03 PM
you claimed the alerts ahve been admitted in many cases in the UK...absolute rubbish.....youve cited two in scotland.

In the Pillay case the SCCRC ruled the alerts should not have been admitted...the Judge in your other cases may well have erred.

You think youve made a case that the alerts are admissible evidence....I think youve failed miserably. lets see some more of these many case you claim

As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible. But in the spirit of fairness I know of 2 maybe that's not many but its enough. I over egged the pudding slightly.  Again who do you imagine has the higher authority the Court of Appeal in the High Court or the SCCRC.
And if dog alerts are inadmissible why were they allowed in the Margaret Fleming case in 2019.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible. But in the spirit of fairness I know of 2 maybe that's not many but its enough. I over egged the pudding slightly.  Again who do you imagine has the higher authority the Court of Appeal in the High Court or the SCCRC.
And if dog alerts are inadmissible why were they allowed in the Margaret Fleming case in 2019.

It seems gilroy based his, appeal on the way his statements were taken and didn't question the alerts... Thst would be why the appeal court didn't address them.

Why were they admitted in the Fleming case... Quite possibly failure for the defence to challenge them

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 09, 2020, 03:09:13 PM
As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible. But in the spirit of fairness I know of 2 maybe that's not many but its enough. I over egged the pudding slightly.  Again who do you imagine has the higher authority the Court of Appeal in the High Court or the SCCRC.
And if dog alerts are inadmissible why were they allowed in the Margaret Fleming case in 2019.

The significance of the dog alerts is, in my opinion, directly related to the amount of energy expended by those who claim they're not significant. No other subject brings forth so many exhibiting so much denial.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 03:26:35 PM
The significance of the dog alerts is, in my opinion, directly related to the amount of energy expended by those who claim they're not significant. No other subject brings forth so many exhibiting so much denial.
That's quite foolish imo..the alerts are what they are... Nothing here has any influence on that. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 04:09:42 PM
It seems gilroy based his, appeal on the way his statements were taken and didn't question the alerts... Thst would be why the appeal court didn't address them.

Why were they admitted in the Fleming case... Quite possibly failure for the defence to challenge them


Quick correction, the appeal court did address the alerts, to emphasise the evidence against Gilroy.
So you accept that uncorroborated dog alerts were allowed in the Fleming case which kind of agrees with my original post that uncorroborated dog alerts can be used as evidence in UK courts.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 04:23:21 PM


Quick correction, the appeal court did address the alerts, to emphasise the evidence against Gilroy.
So you accept that uncorroborated dog alerts were allowed in the Fleming case which kind of agrees with my original post that uncorroborated dog alerts can be used as evidence in UK courts.
The appeal court did not address the alerts... I don't believe they were, asked to.  The SCCRC did... And ruled them inadmissible..

Do you have a case from England... Anything in the last 20 years... No
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 04:40:40 PM
the podcast contained live audio statements from real experts...not armchair  bloggers....LOL

It matters not one bit if they are real experts, the only thing that matters is were they the presiding judges in both the original case and the 2012 appeal. I don't believe they were but maybe you can tell me differently.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 04:45:09 PM
It matters not one bit if they are real experts, the only thing that matters is were they the presiding judges in both the original case and the 2012 appeal. I don't believe they were but maybe you can tell me differently.

Judges make mistakes... The judge in the Gilroy case did.
The defence was poor... I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 04:49:42 PM
The appeal court did not address the alerts... I don't believe they were, asked to.  The SCCRC did... And ruled them inadmissible..

Do you have a case from England... Anything in the last 20 years... No

Read the bit I pasted again, the bit I put in bold where it says "the cadaver dogs reaction to his car" as further evidence that the appeal was unsuccessful. Again who is the Higher Authority the High Court or the SCCRC?
The SCCRC didn't really rule on anything, they shelved the case and never put it to appeal. They may have made a report that no-one has ever seen saying in their opinion that the dogs evidence should not have been admissable but again they don't get to make the final verdict on the evidence. I said in UK courts in my original post and Scotland the last time I checked is part of the UK.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 04:56:25 PM
Judges make mistakes... The judge in the Gilroy case did.
The defence was poor... I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible

I like the way you think you know more than a high court judge about what evidence should be allowed. What qualifies you to make this assumption.

Do you really believe in both cases the defence council never tried to get the dog evidence ruled as inadmissible.
Why would they not, that's ludicrous.

Do you think the presiding judge didn't take council from experts concerning the dog alerts and then form a judgement after deliberating on it.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 05:04:30 PM
I like the way you think you know more than a high court judge about what evidence should be allowed. What qualifies you to make this assumption.

Do you really believe in both cases the defence council never tried to get the dog evidence ruled as inadmissible.
Why would they not, that's ludicrous.

Do you think the presiding judge didn't take council from experts concerning the dog alerts and then form a judgement after deliberating on it.

If the judge had taken council from experts he wouldn't have admitted them. As I said in the Gilroy case they were later declared inadmissible.... But I've seen no evidence they were challenged
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 05:15:07 PM
If the judge had taken council from experts he wouldn't have admitted them. As I said in the Gilroy case they were later declared inadmissible.... But I've seen no evidence they were challenged

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?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 05:49:56 PM
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?

According  to the NCCRC.. the judge was wrong to admit the evidence... I would say Gilroys poor defence compounded the issue.. Did Gilroys defence call any witnesses to challenge the alerts... Based on the fact that every expert I've heard does not support uncorroborated alerts
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 09, 2020, 06:01:23 PM
Hello everyone, new poster here. I thought it would be rude to just barge into the room unannounced so thought it best to start my own thread. I know it has been discussed previously and indeed currently here but I think etiquette requires me to introduce myself first.
I am quite new to the nuances of the case, only taking an active interest after the Netflix piece. Of course I knew of it before but never really had an opinion of what happened.  I still am not convinced about any of the theories so I hope I will keep an open mind.

One thing that seems to keep coming up on this forum is the dogs alerts are not evidence. I can't understand this reasoning as there are many cases that have gone through UK courts that have included uncorroborated evidence from dog alerts. This surely makes them evidence.  I know some will say, well Mr. Grime says they are not evidence but its not up to him to make that choice, it is surely up to the presiding judge to admit it as evidence or not. I can't see how its not evidence.
What do you think the dog alerts in the McCann case are evidence of?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 06:04:06 PM
According  to the NCCRC.. the judge was wrong to admit the evidence... I would say Gilroys poor defence compounded the issue.. Did Gilroys defence call any witnesses to challenge the alerts... Based on the fact that every expert I've heard does not support uncorroborated alerts

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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 06:17:40 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 09, 2020, 06:25:46 PM
Was admitted but later ruled inadmissible
OK but did that change the jury verdict.  Is the person still found guilty?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 06:26:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 06:30:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 09, 2020, 06:36:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 06:41:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 09, 2020, 06:47:22 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on January 09, 2020, 07:07:02 PM
Quite right. It is for the Courts to decide what is admissible and what is not.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 07:26:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 08:07:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 08:11:09 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 08:15:05 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 08:18:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 08:24:44 PM
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...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 09, 2020, 08:29:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 08:30:46 PM
The significance of the dog alerts is, in my opinion, directly related to the amount of energy expended by those who claim they're not significant. No other subject brings forth so many exhibiting so much denial.

For as long as individuals present sometimes complete misunderstanding of dog alerts sometimes deliberate lies as fact, other individuals will set the record straight.  In my opinion that is the situation as far as your complaint is concerned.

As Alfie would say ~ Remember Zampo the Swedish cadaver dog and Thomas Quick the Swedish mass murderer who apparently was no such thing.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on January 09, 2020, 08:36:57 PM
For as long as individuals present sometimes complete misunderstanding of dog alerts sometimes deliberate lies as fact, other individuals will set the record straight.  In my opinion that is the situation as far as your complaint is concerned.

As Alfie would say ~ Remember Zampo the Swedish cadaver dog and Thomas Quick the Swedish mass murderer who apparently was no such thing.

What complaint is that ?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 08:38:27 PM
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...

I feel like I have stepped into the twilight zone here.
As I said its irrelevant if the defence challenged the alerts to my assertion that they were allowed in a UK court.
But if you can find that they didn't challenge the witness about the alerts then I will withdraw my belief that they did indeed challenge them.

Surely if I have shown that they were admitted in two case that they were admissible. I am confused. There are no serious doubts about the dogs in the Gilroy case. Show me one legal ruling that casts doubt on whether they should have been inadmissible.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 08:45:22 PM
I feel like I have stepped into the twilight zone here.
As I said its irrelevant if the defence challenged the alerts to my assertion that they were allowed in a UK court.
But if you can find that they didn't challenge the witness about the alerts then I will withdraw my belief that they did indeed challenge them.

Surely if I have shown that they were admitted in two case that they were admissible. I am confused. There are no serious doubts about the dogs in the Gilroy case. Show me one legal ruling that casts doubt on whether they should have been inadmissible.

I'm not confused.. The fact that they were admitted in two cases doesn't mean cadaver alerts are admissible evidence.  As you now accept their admission may not have been properly challenged and they were possibly admitted in error.  That would certainly be the opinion of the two experts on the recent podcast... One being professor Cassella.. A colleague of grime from staffs university
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 08:55:22 PM
I'm not confused.. The fact that they were admitted in two cases doesn't mean cadaver alerts are admissible evidence.  As you now accept their admission may not have been properly challenged and they were possibly admitted in error.  That would certainly be the opinion of the two experts on the recent podcast... One being professor Cassella.. A colleague of grime from staffs university

By the fact that they were heard in court in front of a judge and jury deems them to be admissible. There can be no other definition for them. How would you define them then? Admissible or inadmissible or some other word?

I don't accept that their admission was not properly challenged and were admitted in error.
A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 09, 2020, 08:59:11 PM

It was stated that the Police Dogs are trained on Dead Pig so those bits of bones could be Pig Bones.  Voila.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 09:02:09 PM
By the fact that were heard in court in front of a judge and jury deems them to be admissible. There can be no other definition for them. How would you define them then? Admissible or inadmissible or some other word?

I don't accept that their admission was not properly challenged and were admitted in error.
A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.
I would say they were admitted in that case... Whether that was a correct decision is open to question. ..according to the SCCRC  they should not have been admitted....
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on January 09, 2020, 09:05:29 PM
What a good thing we have an independent judiciary, whose opinion is ultimately supreme.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 09:06:17 PM
I would say they were admitted in that case... Whether that was a correct decision is open to question. ..according to the SCCRC  they should not have been admitted....

How would you define them. Admissable or inadmissable? One of those two words will do.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 09, 2020, 09:15:10 PM
How would you define them. Admissable or inadmissable? One of those two words will do.

Clearly inadmissible
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 09:26:25 PM
To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.

Please provide a cite substantiating your claim regarding Kate Prout as in my opinion you are entirely wrong on that one.


The situation regarding the evidence presented to the Margaret Fleming jury by dog handlers isn't as clear cut as you have intimated it is.

Given the claim that Margaret had run out of the back door as the police came in the front to start their investigation and the claim made by her carer that the police dogs would be unable to find her scent ...

Snip
Constable Kimberley Hill, a dog handler, was giving evidence at the trial of Edward Cairney, 77, and Avril Jones, 58, who deny murdering Margaret, when she was 19, at the home they shared at Seacroft, Main Road, Inverkip, between December 18, 1999 and January 5, 2000.

She told prosecutor Iain McSporran QC that she arrived at Seacroft at 8.30pm on October 28, 2016 and with her she had two German Shepherds, Roxy and Herbie, and a cocker spaniel named Bo.
________________________________________________


Mr McSporran asked: “What did you tell Mr Cairney and Miss Jones,” and the police officer replied: “I explained how a dog search works and the information I required.

"I had been informed Margaret made off through the back of the house by divisional officers.

“Mr Cairney said the dog won't find any scent.

"He said she might have gone round the back and swung out onto the main road.”

Mr McSporran said: “His first instinct was to say the dog wouldn't find any scent,” and she replied: “Yes.”
________________________________________________


Under cross examination by defence QC Thomas Ross, representing Cairney, Constable Hill admitted that there was only a limited time period for dogs to pick up scent.

Mr Ross said: “If Margaret had walked along a hard surface the scent would be gone by the time you got there,” and Constable Hill replied: “Yes.”

The court was told that the maximum time for scent to linger on grassy areas was about two hours.

The defence QC said: “There are some indications this happened at 5.40pm and you did not get there until 8.30pm, so Mr Cairney might have been correct when he said the dogs' chances of getting her was low,” and the police officer replied: “That's correct.”
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/margaret-fleming-carer-told-police-sniffer-dogs-would-not-find-her-scent/
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 09:26:36 PM
To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.

Snip
Almost 300 fragments of bone were discovered in the garden of the house where missing Margaret Fleming used to live, a murder trial has heard.

Analysis by Dr Helen Langstaff concluded that none of the fragments were recognisably human in origin.

Some were recognisable as animal, including deer, while most of the 298 fragments were too small to identify as anything other than bone.
________________________________________________

Dr Langstaff, a forensic anthropologist, told the trial that she examined fragments of bone taken from a blackened area of earth in the garden of the property.

They included part of a hind foot of a deer, which showed signs that it had been exposed to heat.

Prosecutor Iain McSporran QC asked Dr Langstaff: "Could they be human," and she replied: "They could be and could not be."

She added that 298 bone fragments were found - some were fish in origin and some were animal in origin.

"Most were too small and fragmented to identify as anything other than bone," she said. "No bone fragments were found that were recognisably human in origin."
________________________________________________

The jury heard that under the topsoil, a five-metre by four-metre area of blackened soil was found.

Under the blackened soil was a pile of rubble.

'No DNA obtained'
Ms Jones' QC Ian Duguid asked the anthropologist: "The rubble could have been created to burn things," and she replied: "It is not for me to say."

Dr Langstaff agreed with Mr Duguid that the bones could have been there for more than 20 years.

Forensic scientist Fiona McMahon said that she analysed the bone fragments but was unable to obtain any DNA from them.
________________________________________________

The jury heard that under the topsoil, a five-metre by four-metre area of blackened soil was found.

Under the blackened soil was a pile of rubble.

Ms Jones' QC Ian Duguid asked the anthropologist: "The rubble could have been created to burn things," and she replied: "It is not for me to say."

Dr Langstaff agreed with Mr Duguid that the bones could have been there for more than 20 years.

Forensic scientist Fiona McMahon said that she analysed the bone fragments but was unable to obtain any DNA from them.
________________________________________________

A former firefighter later told the court he smelled burning human flesh coming from a bonfire at the home of Mr Cairney and Ms Jones in 2008

Paul Neeson, 77, from Gourock, said the blaze lasted for days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48513981



A police dog found two "decomposing scents" in the garden of two carers accused of murdering a woman they were looking after.

PC Ryan Galloway was part of a dog unit searching the home of Edward Cairney and Avril Jones.
________________________________________________

PC Galloway, 42, said his black labrador Ollie found two possible decomposing scents in the garden close to the River Clyde.

This was in two cup-sized holes dug 18ins (46cm) apart and 24ins (61cm) deep.

PC Galloway said: "The dog's reaction was quite clear as his behaviour changed and he became more focused.

"He tilted his head back and started to bark.

"He is only trained to identify pig and human flesh."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48275280

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 09, 2020, 09:42:15 PM
For as long as individuals present sometimes complete misunderstanding of dog alerts sometimes deliberate lies as fact, other individuals will set the record straight.  In my opinion that is the situation as far as your complaint is concerned.

As Alfie would say ~ Remember Zampo the Swedish cadaver dog and Thomas Quick the Swedish mass murderer who apparently was no such thing.

It's a matter of opinion that the dog alerts have been misunderstood. Opinions don't set records straight, facts do that. The facts are that dog alerts can be used as evidence in courts. We know that because it's been done and convictions have been secured.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 09:50:46 PM
It's a matter of opinion that the dog alerts have been misunderstood. Opinions don't set records straight, facts do that. The facts are that dog alerts can be used as evidence in courts. We know that because it's been done and convictions have been secured.

It is a matter of fact that the Judicial Police in Portugal 2007 totally misunderstood the forensic evidence presented to them by the FSS:  to ignore that fact in my opinion invalidates any opinion you may express in the matter.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 09:59:11 PM
Clearly inadmissible

Lets take this in baby steps.

At pre-trial hearings behind closed doors the sitting judge will define which evidence will be admissible and which evidence will be inadmissible. Any evidence that is deemed inadmissible must not be presented before the court in any circumstances, It would trigger an immediate mistrial.
Any evidence that the judge deems admissible can be presented before the court.
As this evidence was presented before the court it can be nothing other than admissible evidence.

Please explain with the above in mind how the evidence can be clearly inadmissible.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 10:03:41 PM
It was stated that the Police Dogs are trained on Dead Pig so those bits of bones could be Pig Bones.  Voila.

In my opinion the reason for reliable cadaver dog handlers couching the dogs' findings in caveats is that it is impossible to be certain to what the dogs are alerting outwith a controlled environment and crime scenes do not come into that category.

It is perfectly possible the murderers had barbecued a pig in their fire pit ... that certainly would have provoked an alert from any British trained dog.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: carlymichelle on January 09, 2020, 10:04:05 PM
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.

hi  welcome to the forum imo there are some biased  people on here but you will get used to it
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 10:14:02 PM
Please provide a cite substantiating your claim regarding Kate Prout as in my opinion you are entirely wrong on that one.


The situation regarding the evidence presented to the Margaret Fleming jury by dog handlers isn't as clear cut as you have intimated it is.

Given the claim that Margaret had run out of the back door as the police came in the front to start their investigation and the claim made by her carer that the police dogs would be unable to find her scent ...

Snip
Constable Kimberley Hill, a dog handler, was giving evidence at the trial of Edward Cairney, 77, and Avril Jones, 58, who deny murdering Margaret, when she was 19, at the home they shared at Seacroft, Main Road, Inverkip, between December 18, 1999 and January 5, 2000.

She told prosecutor Iain McSporran QC that she arrived at Seacroft at 8.30pm on October 28, 2016 and with her she had two German Shepherds, Roxy and Herbie, and a cocker spaniel named Bo.
________________________________________________


Mr McSporran asked: “What did you tell Mr Cairney and Miss Jones,” and the police officer replied: “I explained how a dog search works and the information I required.

"I had been informed Margaret made off through the back of the house by divisional officers.

“Mr Cairney said the dog won't find any scent.

"He said she might have gone round the back and swung out onto the main road.”

Mr McSporran said: “His first instinct was to say the dog wouldn't find any scent,” and she replied: “Yes.”
________________________________________________


Under cross examination by defence QC Thomas Ross, representing Cairney, Constable Hill admitted that there was only a limited time period for dogs to pick up scent.

Mr Ross said: “If Margaret had walked along a hard surface the scent would be gone by the time you got there,” and Constable Hill replied: “Yes.”

The court was told that the maximum time for scent to linger on grassy areas was about two hours.

The defence QC said: “There are some indications this happened at 5.40pm and you did not get there until 8.30pm, so Mr Cairney might have been correct when he said the dogs' chances of getting her was low,” and the police officer replied: “That's correct.”
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/margaret-fleming-carer-told-police-sniffer-dogs-would-not-find-her-scent/

I believe I read somewhere that the dog evidence was raised in the Adrian Prout case but I am not sure so I am happy to drop any claim that the Adrian Prout case fits my assertion that uncorroborated evidence was used in this case.

On the Margret Fleming case my reference is to the testimony of PC Ryan Galloway not the live search dog handler. PC Ryan Galloway testified that his dog alerted but further forensic searches failed to locate any human remains.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 10:17:20 PM
Snip
Almost 300 fragments of bone were discovered in the garden of the house where missing Margaret Fleming used to live, a murder trial has heard.

Analysis by Dr Helen Langstaff concluded that none of the fragments were recognisably human in origin.

Some were recognisable as animal, including deer, while most of the 298 fragments were too small to identify as anything other than bone.
________________________________________________

Dr Langstaff, a forensic anthropologist, told the trial that she examined fragments of bone taken from a blackened area of earth in the garden of the property.

They included part of a hind foot of a deer, which showed signs that it had been exposed to heat.

Prosecutor Iain McSporran QC asked Dr Langstaff: "Could they be human," and she replied: "They could be and could not be."

She added that 298 bone fragments were found - some were fish in origin and some were animal in origin.

"Most were too small and fragmented to identify as anything other than bone," she said. "No bone fragments were found that were recognisably human in origin."
________________________________________________

The jury heard that under the topsoil, a five-metre by four-metre area of blackened soil was found.

Under the blackened soil was a pile of rubble.

'No DNA obtained'
Ms Jones' QC Ian Duguid asked the anthropologist: "The rubble could have been created to burn things," and she replied: "It is not for me to say."

Dr Langstaff agreed with Mr Duguid that the bones could have been there for more than 20 years.

Forensic scientist Fiona McMahon said that she analysed the bone fragments but was unable to obtain any DNA from them.
________________________________________________

The jury heard that under the topsoil, a five-metre by four-metre area of blackened soil was found.

Under the blackened soil was a pile of rubble.

Ms Jones' QC Ian Duguid asked the anthropologist: "The rubble could have been created to burn things," and she replied: "It is not for me to say."

Dr Langstaff agreed with Mr Duguid that the bones could have been there for more than 20 years.

Forensic scientist Fiona McMahon said that she analysed the bone fragments but was unable to obtain any DNA from them.
________________________________________________

A former firefighter later told the court he smelled burning human flesh coming from a bonfire at the home of Mr Cairney and Ms Jones in 2008

Paul Neeson, 77, from Gourock, said the blaze lasted for days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48513981



A police dog found two "decomposing scents" in the garden of two carers accused of murdering a woman they were looking after.

PC Ryan Galloway was part of a dog unit searching the home of Edward Cairney and Avril Jones.
________________________________________________

PC Galloway, 42, said his black labrador Ollie found two possible decomposing scents in the garden close to the River Clyde.

This was in two cup-sized holes dug 18ins (46cm) apart and 24ins (61cm) deep.

PC Galloway said: "The dog's reaction was quite clear as his behaviour changed and he became more focused.

"He tilted his head back and started to bark.

"He is only trained to identify pig and human flesh."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48275280

As i said PC Ryan Galloway testified that his dog alerted but no forensic evidence of any human remains were presented before the court.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 10:19:36 PM
hi  welcome to the forum  there are some biased  people on here but you will get used to it

Thanks for the welcome. Yeah, I feel a bit like I have fallen down a hole somewhere. I didn't think my original post was even debatable. All the facts are there.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 09, 2020, 10:35:40 PM
Thanks for the welcome. Yeah, I feel a bit like I have fallen down a hole somewhere. I didn't think my original post was even debatable. All the facts are there.

It gets a bit surreal here sometimes but some of us appreciate and agree with your posts. Keep up the good work because facts are what count imo.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 11:01:31 PM
It gets a bit surreal here sometimes but some of us appreciate and agree with your posts. Keep up the good work because facts are what count imo.

Thanks G-Unit.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 09, 2020, 11:13:06 PM
Thanks for the welcome. Yeah, I feel a bit like I have fallen down a hole somewhere. I didn't think my original post was even debatable. All the facts are there.
You started a thread about it, therefore you must have thought the subject was debatable, or did you expect only full agreement or complete silence?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 09, 2020, 11:43:56 PM
You started a thread about it, therefore you must have thought the subject was debatable, or did you expect only full agreement or complete silence?

Light debate then full agreement.
Do you agree that the uncorroborated dog alerts in the two cases are admissible evidence?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 09, 2020, 11:52:07 PM
As i said PC Ryan Galloway testified that his dog alerted but no forensic evidence of any human remains were presented before the court.

In my opinion the three quotes taken from reports on the trial illustrate the way in which all the evidence presented knits together into evidence which was enough to secure the conviction for murder of both accused.

Dogs don't go along and bark and that's it ~ job done.  I think it is incredible that there is any danger of that opinion becoming an accepted supposition.

The evidential clincher as far as I am concerned was the painstaking police search of the house which unearthed the evidence that the perpetrators were in London in the hotel at the time that letters had been posted purporting to be from Margaret but which her teacher attested could not have been written or dictated to another by her.

All the strands collected by the police and put together by the prosecution are what makes for a safe conviction.  In my opinion there is no room for stand alone evidence and it is not in line with our system of justice that we ever know what evidence carries weight with a jury.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 12:05:13 AM
In my opinion the three quotes taken from reports on the trial illustrate the way in which all the evidence presented knits together into evidence which was enough to secure the conviction for murder of both accused.

Dogs don't go along and bark and that's it ~ job done.  I think it is incredible that there is any danger of that opinion becoming an accepted supposition.

The evidential clincher as far as I am concerned was the painstaking police search of the house which unearthed the evidence that the perpetrators were in London in the hotel at the time that letters had been posted purporting to be from Margaret but which her teacher attested could not have been written or dictated to another by her.

All the strands collected by the police and put together by the prosecution are what makes for a safe conviction.  In my opinion there is no room for stand alone evidence and it is not in line with our system of justice that we ever know what evidence carries weight with a jury.

I am not arguing with anything above. Its not my point that the cadaver dogs handlers testimony was the crucial piece in the case, just that it was deemed admissible by the judge without any forensic evidence to proof the alert. I also think the evidence of the 2000 odd photos with was it only one or two of Margaret over 15 years was crucial also.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 12:08:15 AM
Light debate then full agreement.
Do you agree that the uncorroborated dog alerts in the two cases are admissible evidence?
I agree they were admitted in evidence, whether they should have been admissible  is a matter of opinion.  What one judge might admit, another might not.  It’s all opinion at the end of the day.  Is that light and agreeable enough for you?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 12:10:44 AM
I agree they were admitted in evidence, whether they should have been admissible  is a matter of opinion.  What one judge might admit, another might not.  It’s all opinion at the end of the day.  Is that light and agreeable enough for you?

Perfect.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: misty on January 10, 2020, 12:59:17 AM
I am not arguing with anything above. Its not my point that the cadaver dogs handlers testimony was the crucial piece in the case, just that it was deemed admissible by the judge without any forensic evidence to proof the alert. I also think the evidence of the 2000 odd photos with was it only one or two of Margaret over 15 years was crucial also.
Welcome "Col. Jessop"
You may find it useful to read Martin Grime's white paper, particularly pages 60+/187 which make reference to court evidence. http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
It's vital to understand that Grime himself now concedes dogs trained using decomposing pork as a substitute for human remains cannot be classed as human remains detection dogs (see page 10/187) therefore (imo) uncorroborated alerts should not be admitted as evidence of residual cadaver odour in UK courts.
In USA judges apply the Daubert test when asked to consider canine evidence in court. US dogs are trained on human remains - there is no cross-training on decomposing pork products. IMO Eddie/Grime would not have met the US standards required in 2007/8 and UK-trained VRD's, both past & present, would not meet admissibility criteria.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 08:12:23 AM
From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged. The SCCRC hs confirmed in the Gilroy case that the alerts were inadmissible. Why should the Judge think not to admit a statement by a police officer unless it was challenged.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 09:17:36 AM
From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged. The SCCRC hs confirmed in the Gilroy case that the alerts were inadmissible. Why should the Judge think not to admit a statement by a police officer unless it was challenged.

In the Fleming case the officer nor anyone else claimed it was human only that the dog alerted to decomposing scents,how can that be challenged? as another side note why on earth did the prosecution bring the ex fireman in.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 09:25:02 AM
In the Fleming case the officer nor anyone else claimed it was human only that the dog alerted to decomposing scents,how can that be challenged? as another side note why on earth did the prosecution bring the ex fireman in.

I haven't listened to it... I was led to believe it wad, an example of a cadaver alert admitted, as evidence of cadaver..
Fron what you've said it wasnt
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 09:30:44 AM
I haven't listened to it... I was led to believe it wad, an example of a cadaver alert admitted, as evidence of cadaver..
Fron what you've said it wasnt

No it wasn't.But that is without question what is without question is that the dogs alerted,that cannot be contested imo,forensics failed to turn up anything resembling human remains nor much else for that matter.Another conviction without a body!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 09:33:38 AM
No it wasn't.

So it seems from the initial claim of many... We, are, down to one.... And this one ..as far as I know... Was, later, determined inadmissible
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 10, 2020, 10:25:21 AM
So it seems from the initial claim of many... We, are, down to one.... And this one ..as far as I know... Was, later, determined inadmissible
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 10:28:54 AM
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.

Cadaver dog alerts have never been accepted in an English court and it seems only once in a scottish court where they were later ruled inadmissible
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 10:31:22 AM
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.

The McCann's lawyers used evidence from America when preparing to defend the McCanns. Unfortunately they chose to use the Zapata case as an example of the unreliability of cadaver dogs. The dogs were later shown to have been right.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 10, 2020, 10:39:04 AM
Cadaver dog alerts have never been accepted in an English court and it seems only once in a scottish court where they were later ruled inadmissible
Don't get your point. The precedent has been set. End of. The only reason why they haven't been considered more is purely down to opportunity. Reasons for lack of opportunity are numerous - sufficient physical evidence available, CPS decision, lack of dog handler units, lack of disappearances / deaths with circumstances requiring their use, the prevailing homicide rate, the other resources available to enforcement - guess what - vociferous, competent defence teams persuading a judge.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 10:43:51 AM
Cadaver dog alerts have never been accepted in an English court and it seems only once in a scottish court where they were later ruled inadmissible

Evidence from a VRD handler was heard in the Fleming case,it was not deemed inadmissible.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 10:46:10 AM
Evidence from a VRD handler was heard in the Fleming case,it was not deemed inadmissible.

First the dog cannot be classed as a vrd dog because he hasn't been trained exclusively on human remains.
..see Grimes white paper.. What evidence was presented
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 10:57:22 AM
First the dog cannot be classed as a vrd dog because he hasn't been trained exclusively on human remains.
..see Grimes white paper.. What evidence was presented

Best take it up with the courts and the beeb then,the handler described the dog as a VRD dog.He said the dog alerted in two areas,the court including the defence were happy to accept this,the forensic's failed to determine what the decomposing alert was of.Two areas of ground were searched where the dog alerted,these presented minute pieces of bone which could not be determined from whence they came,save possibly a fragment of deer bone.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 11:00:03 AM
Best take it up with the courts and the beeb then,the handler described the dog as a VRD dog.He said the dog alerted in two areas,the court including the defence were happy to accept this,the forensic's failed to determine what the decomposing alert was of.Two arees of ground were searched where the dog alerted,these presented minute pieces of bone which could not be determined from whence they came,save possibly a fragment of deer bone.

So it was presented as evidence of death

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 11:00:53 AM
Welcome "Col. Jessop"
You may find it useful to read Martin Grime's white paper, particularly pages 60+/187 which make reference to court evidence. http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
It's vital to understand that Grime himself now concedes dogs trained using decomposing pork as a substitute for human remains cannot be classed as human remains detection dogs (see page 10/187) therefore (imo) uncorroborated alerts should not be admitted as evidence of residual cadaver odour in UK courts.
In USA judges apply the Daubert test when asked to consider canine evidence in court. US dogs are trained on human remains - there is no cross-training on decomposing pork products. IMO Eddie/Grime would not have met the US standards required in 2007/8 and UK-trained VRD's, both past & present, would not meet admissibility criteria.


I don't believe what I just read.   Martin Grimes is saying that a dog trained on pig meat cannot be classed as a cadaver dog!!!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 11:03:34 AM
So it was presented as evidence of death

The dog alerted to the smell of decomposition,this was not challenged,one thing to add is that the camera's were given unprecedented access to the court proceeding's,I'm sure that the edited version would have been presented to the interested parties before screening,ie;judge,both defence teams and prosecution.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 11:06:40 AM

I don't believe what I just read.   Martin Grimes is saying that a dog trained on pig meat cannot be classed as a cadaver dog!!!

Cannot be classified as a human remains detector dog are his words
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 11:07:23 AM

I don't believe what I just read.   Martin Grimes is saying that a dog trained on pig meat cannot be classed as a cadaver dog!!!

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

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 11:07:55 AM
The dog alerted to the smell of decomposition,this was not challenged,one thing to add is that the camera's were given unprecedented access to the court proceeding's,I'm sure that the edited version would have been presented to the interested parties before screening,ie;judge,both defence teams and prosecution.

Smell of decomposition... Not specifically human
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 11:10:00 AM
Smell of decomposition... Not specifically human

This was not questioned,subsequent forensics failed to determine the source.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 11:21:35 AM
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

Eddie was initially trained using piglets so he isn't exclusively trained in human source
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 11:23:32 AM
Welcome "Col. Jessop"
You may find it useful to read Martin Grime's white paper, particularly pages 60+/187 which make reference to court evidence. http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
It's vital to understand that Grime himself now concedes dogs trained using decomposing pork as a substitute for human remains cannot be classed as human remains detection dogs (see page 10/187) therefore (imo) uncorroborated alerts should not be admitted as evidence of residual cadaver odour in UK courts.
In USA judges apply theDaubert test  when asked to consider canine evidence in court. US dogs are trained on human remains - there is no cross-training on decomposing pork products. IMO Eddie/Grime would not have met the US standards required in 2007/8 and UK-trained VRD's, both past & present, would not meet admissibility criteria.
Thank you for the link I will definitely give it read. My point is not whether the alerts should be admissible but that they have been admissible in the past in the High Courts in the UK.

Surely I should be Lt. Daniel Kafee not Jessop.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 10, 2020, 11:24:50 AM
Thank you for the link I will definitely give it read. My point is not whether the alerts should be admissible but that they have been admissible in the past in the High Courts in the UK.

Surely I should be Lt. Daniel Kafee not Jessop.
Or Sideshow Bob.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 10, 2020, 11:27:34 AM
Eddie was initially trained using piglets so he isn't exclusively trained in human source
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 11:27:45 AM
Just watched again,a VRD dog,it alerted to decomposition.The dog alerted at two probe holes that had been dug,the dog alerted by barking.The defence asked about the training,asking about just using pig carcass,the handler confirmed this adding that the dog had been rewarded operationally on human tissue,was he rewarded on this occasion(No he wasn't answered the handler) the defence asked because he wouldn't have been right and the jury will have to hear from other people to establish if the dog was successful in indicating decomposition in anything.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 11:29:02 AM
Eddie was initially trained using piglets so he isn't exclusively trained in human source

He was additionally trained.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 11:30:29 AM
From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged. The SCCRC hs confirmed in the Gilroy case that the alerts were inadmissible. Why should the Judge think not to admit a statement by a police officer unless it was challenged.

You are not the High Court judge, you don't get to decide if they were incorrectly admitted.
Please stop using the SCCRC reference, it carries no legal weight, no one has seen it, they shelved it, never publicly published it, its not even on their website and never put it to an appeal court.
The judge has at his discretion the ability to rule evidence inadmissible if he thinks it may prejudice a fair trial.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 11:32:44 AM
Or Sideshow Bob.

Or Bart Simpson in this case.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 11:38:30 AM
I haven't listened to it... I was led to believe it wad, an example of a cadaver alert admitted, as evidence of cadaver..
Fron what you've said it wasnt

Think about it. The dog handler can't say it was an alert to human decomposition in a High Court. He doesn't know that to be a truthful fact. He can just say his dog alerted to decomposition.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 11:38:39 AM
You are not the High Court judge, you don't get to decide if they were incorrectly admitted.
Please stop using the SCCRC reference, it carries no legal weight, no one has seen it, they shelved it, never publicly published it, its not even on their website and never put it to an appeal court.
The judge has at his discretion the ability to rule evidence inadmissible if he thinks it may prejudice a fair trial.

I'll continue to use the, SCCRC reference.  .it's not your place to tell me what or what not to use . Ive seen no evidence that the alert evidence was challenged and therefore no reason fir the judge to disallow it.  Had it been challenged it may we'll have been disallowed
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 11:39:52 AM
Think about it. The dog handler can't say it was an alert to human decomposition in a High Court. He doesn't know that to be a truthful fact. He can just say his dog alerted to decomposition.

So the alert wasn't used to support the detection of human remains.. As it was in the pillay case
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 11:41:10 AM
So it seems from the initial claim of many... We, are, down to one.... And this one ..as far as I know... Was, later, determined inadmissible

No still two.
For the umpteenth time it was never later determined inadmissible in a court of law. Please accept this as you keep repeating it.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 11:42:26 AM
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'?  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 11:44:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 11:46:10 AM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 11:48:35 AM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 11:52:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 11:56:10 AM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 11:59:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 12:05:10 PM
The FBI accepted Eddie's competence as did a US judge. Your opinion is irrelevant.

That's in the US... That's irrelevant
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 12:14:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 12:19:08 PM
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

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 12:23:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 12:25:01 PM
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. (&^&
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 10, 2020, 12:28:26 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 12:45:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 10, 2020, 12:45:46 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 12:47:58 PM
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

Fair enough, I apologise for any offence I may have caused. I don't want to be confrontational but boy its hard.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 12:49:17 PM
The FBI accepted Eddie's competence as did a US judge. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Why did Grime say that dogs trained on pig carcass cannot be classed as cadaver dogs?

What did Grime tell the FBI about Eddies training?   That he was an 'Enhanced'  cadaver dog?   Well he shouldn't have according to him.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 12:51:37 PM
Why did Grime say that dogs trained on pig carcass cannot be classed as cadaver dogs?

What did Grime tell the FBI about Eddies training?   That he was an 'Enhanced'  cadaver dog?   Well he shouldn't have according to him.

Enhanced was after training with human remains,not hard to understand.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 10, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Fair enough, I apologise for any offence I may have caused. I don't want to be confrontational but boy its hard.

Be as confrontational as you like within the rules and it is a wee while since we had a dedicated dog thread on the forum and thanks to you it seems we've obviously been missing one.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 01:00:21 PM
That's in the US... That's irrelevant

It may be irrelevant to you. I think it's a feather in the cap of the UK that one of their police dog trainers/handlers was so highly thought of by the FBI.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 01:03:55 PM
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

Clever Eddie was able to impress in North America as he scored very highly in their tests, despite his early training on piglets.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 01:07:29 PM
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.

No it doesn't. Eddie demonstrated his competence and once again, your opinion is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 01:10:06 PM
Why did Grime say that dogs trained on pig carcass cannot be classed as cadaver dogs?

What did Grime tell the FBI about Eddies training?   That he was an 'Enhanced'  cadaver dog?   Well he shouldn't have according to him.

Did he?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 01:19:52 PM
Be as confrontational as you like within the rules and it is a wee while since we had a dedicated dog thread on the forum and thanks to you it seems we've obviously been missing one.

Quite right,back to the thread title,I think it is evidence as can be seen in the recent docu talked about regarding M Fleming's murder,the handler described the alerts,the defence didn't question the veracity merely pointing out forensics would be showing their evidence,which it turned out could not confirm or either deny evidence of human remains but of remains.Whether the jury took this into consideration is only known to them.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 01:25:36 PM
Did he?

Yes
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 01:29:34 PM
Referring to the title of the thread.
The alerts have been admitted in two cases in Scotland... I maintain the SCCRC reviewed the evidence and said the alerts should not have been admitted.
Some posters believe the alerts, were admitted in merit... I think if they had been challenged they would not have been admitted... That's about it
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 10, 2020, 01:30:19 PM
It was stated that the Police Dogs are trained on Dead Pig so those bits of bones could be Pig Bones.  Voila.

Only in your dreams because a pig is not missing!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 01:31:13 PM
Clever Eddie was able to impress in North America as he scored very highly in their tests, despite his early training on piglets.

Any cadaver dog should score highly in simple tests.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 10, 2020, 01:32:23 PM
In my opinion the reason for reliable cadaver dog handlers couching the dogs' findings in caveats is that it is impossible to be certain to what the dogs are alerting outwith a controlled environment and crime scenes do not come into that category.

It is perfectly possible the murderers had barbecued a pig in their fire pit ... that certainly would have provoked an alert from any British trained dog.

More utter nonsense!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 01:36:42 PM
More utter nonsense!

There, a lot if it about
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 10, 2020, 01:42:39 PM
If that's the argument against specially trained dogs then it is really pathetic! These dogs are trained for one thing only in their life! To do their job right and are tested - the best do it every day. The dogs in this case don't alert over 10 times to a pig that doesn't exist! Of course the police think it's all related to the missing person and why so much time and resources have been spent on this case! SY bringing the dogs back to Luz was a clear message to naysayers!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 01:49:29 PM
Enhanced was after training with human remains,not hard to understand.

Eddie was trained using pig cadaver,   sorry a dog can't be trained again with something else,  how would the dog know to use the smell of human cadaver and not pig that he was trained on?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 01:50:47 PM
If that's the argument against specially trained dogs then it is really pathetic! These dogs are trained for one thing only in their life! To do their job right and are tested - the best do it every day. The dogs in this case don't alert over 10 times to a pig that doesn't exist! Of course the police think it's all related to the missing person and why so much time and resources have been spent on this case! SY bringing the dogs back to Luz was a clear message to naysayers!

Eddie could have been alerting to blood that had been on something and then taken away.   Other families stayed in 5a after the McCann's.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 01:52:27 PM
No it doesn't. Eddie demonstrated his competence and once again, your opinion is irrelevant.


Yes it does,  Grime has stated a dog trained on pig cannot be classed as a cadaver dog are you saying he is lying?

My opinion is as relevant as yours.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 01:59:36 PM
It may be irrelevant to you. I think it's a feather in the cap of the UK that one of their police dog trainers/handlers was so highly thought of by the FBI.

You think?  Martin Grime knew he wasn't going to be able to make a living in UK after The Jersey Debacle.  I wonder what The FBI thought of that?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 02:01:27 PM
I Have a question I have wondered about.
UK dogs are trained on piglets as the scent is so similar to human and is proved by the fact that many human bodies have been found by them
If the scent is so similar do US dogs have the ability to react to decomposing pig flesh also.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 02:04:06 PM
I Have a question I have wondered about.
UK dogs are trained on piglets as the scent is so similar to human and is proved by the fact that many human bodies have been found by them
If the scent is so similar do US dogs have the ability to react to decomposing pig flesh also.

A test was done, by Grime I do believe.  All of the American dogs reacted to Pig Cadaver Scent.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 02:07:53 PM
A test was done, by Grime I do believe.  All of the American dogs reacted to Pig Cadaver Scent.

So does that mean both UK and US dogs had the same level of competency in the field. ie both would react to the same types of scent. Surely that means any denigration of the UK dogs is unfounded.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 02:10:48 PM
I Have a question I have wondered about.
UK dogs are trained on piglets as the scent is so similar to human and is proved by the fact that many human bodies have been found by them
If the scent is so similar do US dogs have the ability to react to decomposing pig flesh also.

How many bodies have the dogs found... Again you say many... In his while career I believe eddie found 2
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 02:11:38 PM
How many bodies have the dogs found... Again you say many... In his while career I believe eddie found 2

Again one is enough.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 02:13:04 PM
How many bodies have the dogs found... Again you say many... In his while career I believe eddie found 2

And I wasn't specifying 1 particular dog. I was talking about all UK trained dogs.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 02:28:31 PM
And I wasn't specifying 1 particular dog. I was talking about all UK trained dogs.
Could you provide a cite for many bodies
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 02:32:36 PM
Could you provide a cite for many bodies

OK I have no idea how many bodies have been found by UK dogs. You gave me a figure of 2 for Eddie so lets use that. All of the UK dogs that have ever been employed in search for human remains have found at least 2 bodies. Happy.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 02:38:06 PM
OK I have no idea how many bodies have been found by UK dogs. You gave me a figure of 2 for Eddie so lets use that. All of the UK dogs that have ever been employed in search for human remains have found at least 2 bodies. Happy.
Happy... Is another personal comment... Try and post within the rules... I'm merely keeping to the facts...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 10, 2020, 02:38:31 PM
If that's the argument against specially trained dogs then it is really pathetic! These dogs are trained for one thing only in their life! To do their job right and are tested - the best do it every day. The dogs in this case don't alert over 10 times to a pig that doesn't exist! Of course the police think it's all related to the missing person and why so much time and resources have been spent on this case! SY bringing the dogs back to Luz was a clear message to naysayers!

There is no argument against specially trained K9s but there is a definite argument to be made about those who are past their prime or who never really had a prime to begin with.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 02:42:38 PM
Happy... Is another personal comment... Try and post within the rules... I'm merely keeping to the facts...

I apologise for enquiring if you were happy with my answer.
I will endeavour not to do so again.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 02:43:09 PM
And I wasn't specifying 1 particular dog. I was talking about all UK trained dogs.


Any dog would find a buried body,   a cadaver dog is trained on how to react when it finds one,  sit for example or bark. 

The problem arises when there is no body,  as in the McCann case.    Eddie would alert to blood.    I believe that Eddie alerted to something that had blood on it and had been taken away.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 02:48:01 PM

Any dog would find a buried body,   a cadaver dog is trained on how to react when it finds one,  sit for example or bark. 

The problem arises when there is no body,  as in the McCann case.    Eddie would alert to blood.    I believe that Eddie alerted to something that had blood on it and had been taken away.

You have a point. Eddies weakness was not that he was trained on piglets but that he was initially trained on blood.
Hence the need for 2 dogs at every search.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 02:55:20 PM
So does that mean both UK and US dogs had the same level of competency in the field. ie both would react to the same types of scent. Surely that means any denigration of the UK dogs is unfounded.

Apparently the scent is virtually identical.

I don't have quite the same faith in cadaver Dogs as some.

One American Dog Handler in The Casey Anthony Case said that if there is no Human Cadaver Scent then the dog will react to the next best thing, even Urine.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 02:56:49 PM
Again one is enough.

That one wasn't difficult since the suspect told them where he had buried the body.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 02:57:40 PM
I apologise for enquiring if you were happy with my answer.
I will endeavour not to do so again.

It was sarcasm but best left there
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 03:01:12 PM
Apparently the scent is virtually identical.

I don't have quite the same faith in cadaver Dogs as some.

One American Dog Handler in The Casey Anthony Case said that if there is no Human Cadaver Scent then the dog will react to the next best thing, even Urine.
To a dog or to human,if its a dog,who came up with that?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 03:03:40 PM
Eddie was trained using pig cadaver,   sorry a dog can't be trained again with something else,  how would the dog know to use the smell of human cadaver and not pig that he was trained on?

A cite to that effect please,old wives tale about teaching old dogs new tricks is not up to scratch with the modern world imo.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on January 10, 2020, 03:05:40 PM
To a dog or to human,if its a dog,who came up with that?

Interesting point.
If there is a device that can distinguish between human & porcine scents, who needs the dogs ?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 10, 2020, 03:11:09 PM
To a dog or to human,if its a dog,who came up with that?

Loads and loads of folks ... worth using an internet search engine to confirm that.

Snip
Animal analogues, such as pigs, are typically used as alternative training aids. This project aimed to compare the visual decomposition and volatile organic compound (VOC) profile of human and pig remains in an Australian environment, to determine the suitability of pig remains as human odour analogues for cadaver-detection dog training. Four human cadavers and four pig carcasses were placed in an outdoor environment at the Australian Facility for Taphonomic Experimental Research (AFTER) across two seasons. Decomposition was monitored progressively in summer and winter. VOCs were collected onto sorbent tubes and analysed using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography – time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Visual observations highlighted the differences in decomposition rates, with pig remains progressing through all stages of decomposition, and human remains undergoing differential decomposition and mummification. Chemical and statistical analysis highlighted variations in the composition ... ... ...
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/eArGTmb8E387RsWnn6VH/full
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on January 10, 2020, 03:12:48 PM
That only measures chemical composition, not actual scent.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 03:13:28 PM
Interesting point.
If there is a device that can distinguish between human & porcine scents, who needs the dogs ?

If  they're that similar,its no wonder OG said "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive"
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 03:15:23 PM
That only measures chemical composition, not actual scent.

I've not heard of a dog acquire its PHD in analytical chemistry yet,I'll ask some I know who is such whether she has.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 03:18:06 PM
Loads and loads of folks ... worth using an internet search engine to confirm that.

Snip
Animal analogues, such as pigs, are typically used as alternative training aids. This project aimed to compare the visual decomposition and volatile organic compound (VOC) profile of human and pig remains in an Australian environment, to determine the suitability of pig remains as human odour analogues for cadaver-detection dog training. Four human cadavers and four pig carcasses were placed in an outdoor environment at the Australian Facility for Taphonomic Experimental Research (AFTER) across two seasons. Decomposition was monitored progressively in summer and winter. VOCs were collected onto sorbent tubes and analysed using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography – time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Visual observations highlighted the differences in decomposition rates, with pig remains progressing through all stages of decomposition, and human remains undergoing differential decomposition and mummification. Chemical and statistical analysis highlighted variations in the composition ... ... ...
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/eArGTmb8E387RsWnn6VH/full

Talks of visual and chemical analysis,who came up with their decomposition scent is the same? it certainly wasn't a dog,so theres no way of telling just how much different it is.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 03:25:25 PM
To a dog or to human,if its a dog,who came up with that?

Ask a Dog Trainer.  I don't know.  But we are talking Cadaver here.  A Rotting Pig or a Rotting Human.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 03:38:29 PM
Ask a Dog Trainer.  I don't know.  But we are talking Cadaver here.  A Rotting Pig or a Rotting Human.

It would seem as if specific training would be required,which if I'm not mistaken Grime took Eddie to the states for that reason,so following that  with what could be described as logical thinking Eddie alerted to what he was trained for and apart from that what chance and unfathomable reason  would Redwood came up with "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive".
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 03:40:13 PM
It would seem as if specific training would be required,which if I'm not mistaken Grime took Eddie to the states for that reason,so following that  with what could be described as logical thinking Eddie alerted to what he was trained for and apart from that what chance and unfathomable reason  would Redwood came up with "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive".


It was suspected Maddie hadn't left the apartment alive before the dogs were brought in
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 03:44:32 PM
It would seem as if specific training would be required,which if I'm not mistaken Grime took Eddie to the states for that reason,so following that  with what could be described as logical thinking Eddie alerted to what he was trained for and apart from that what chance and unfathomable reason  would Redwood came up with "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive".

Grime did not take Eddie to America while he was still employed by The UK Police.  It would not have been allowed.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 04:22:09 PM
Grime did not take Eddie to America while he was still employed by The UK Police.  It would not have been allowed.

Then why does his statement dated 23/08/2007 indicate he did?




https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 04:28:49 PM
Then why does his statement dated 23/08/2007 indicate he did?




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

Could we have sight of this statement, please.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 04:30:35 PM

It was suspected Maddie hadn't left the apartment alive before the dogs were brought in

Operation Grange was not in operation then.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 04:31:50 PM
Could we have sight of this statement, please.

Just did.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 04:38:06 PM

It was suspected Maddie hadn't left the apartment alive before the dogs were brought in

What other plausible reason is there for Redwood DCI at the time to consider the operational reason behind the "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive".
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 04:40:11 PM
What other plausible reason is there for Redwood DCI at the time to consider the operational reason behind the "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive".
it was always an option from day one...thats why the dogs were brought in
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 04:44:20 PM
it was always an option from day one...thats why the dogs were brought in

It still is.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 04:51:01 PM
You are not the High Court judge, you don't get to decide if they were incorrectly admitted.
Please stop using the SCCRC reference, it carries no legal weight, no one has seen it, they shelved it, never publicly published it, its not even on their website and never put it to an appeal court.
The judge has at his discretion the ability to rule evidence inadmissible if he thinks it may prejudice a fair trial.
Any judge worth their salt would surely have to rule uncorroborated dog alerts as inadmissable.  I can’t see how they could possibly be considered evidence as there is no proof of what the dog alerted to.  It’s akin to witch drowning IMO.   
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 04:51:31 PM
it was always an option from day one...thats why the dogs were brought in

So the dogs must have had some kind of provenance to be brought in.I suspect I'm right in saying at the time the PJ never had such like,so some one recommended Grime and Harrison from the British side.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 04:55:02 PM
Enhanced was after training with human remains,not hard to understand.
How was Eddie trained NOT to alert to pigs after being trained to alert to them?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 10, 2020, 04:59:36 PM

How many pigs are missing from 5a?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:01:27 PM
How was Eddie trained NOT to alert to pigs after being trained to alert to them?

Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:02:11 PM
How many pigs are missing from 5a?

Too busy looking for Madeleine to have counted them.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 05:03:58 PM
So the dogs must have had some kind of provenance to be brought in.I suspect I'm right in saying at the time the PJ never had such like,so some one recommended Grime and Harrison from the British side.

i think it was more to see what the dogs could provide...according to the following it was  arelativley new process..

In 2005 it was realised that detection canines may be of assistance to the law enforcement investigation of homicide and allegations of abduction where the pace of investigations is of paramount importance. Innovative method and ‘out of the box thinking by the UK National Search Manager introduced Human Scent Trailing, Human Blood Detection and Victim Recovery Dogs (now collectively designated as Forensic Canines) within critical case investigations to ascertain whether or not they could provide case intelligence.


looks like it was in its infancy
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 05:04:01 PM
How many pigs are missing from 5a?
How many trolls does it take to change the subject?  There was tv footage shown recently of a UK police cadaver dog barking its head off on a search for human remains and its handler dismissing the alert because the dog had found a dead bird.  Was it a pig with wings, or are cadaver dogs prone to barking whenever they smell something a bit whiffy?  The handler rewarded the dog for its false alert too.   
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 05:04:47 PM
Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.
The term appears only ever to have been used by Grime about his own dog.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 10, 2020, 05:06:27 PM
How many trolls does it take to change the subject?  There was tv footage shown recently of a UK police cadaver dog barking its head off on a search for human remains and its handler dismissing the alert because the dog had found a dead bird.  Was it a pig with wings, or are cadaver dogs prone to barking whenever they smell something a bit whiffy?  The handler rewarded the dog for its false alert too.

What programme was that?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:08:10 PM
Makes one wonder what was said in the press conference @ 18:13 on the 19/03/2014 the Guardian reports

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.

later on the same day at 21:03

However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-breakthrough-attacks-family

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve


So unless OG actually went into 5a and there's no evidence they did apart from the dogs what else have they used?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 05:08:52 PM
What programme was that?
I can’t remember, someone else will know.  It was in the last year and discussed on here.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 05:10:15 PM
Makes one wonder what was said in the press conference @ 18:13 on the 19/03/2014 the Guardian reports

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.

later on the same day at 21:03

However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-breakthrough-attacks-family

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve


So unless OG actually went into 5a and there's no evidence they did apart from the dogs what else have they used?

Simple logic
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:10:33 PM
The term appears only ever to have been used by Grime about his own dog.

That is why I said its a question for Grime.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 05:10:50 PM

Executive Member
******
 
Posts: 11695
Total likes: 5502
Bitter, Jaundiced, Semi-Intelligible.
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: What evidence would confirm a cadaver dog alert?
« Reply #395 on: June 22, 2019, 05:47:31 PM »
QuoteModify
Watch this clever cadaver dog at 26 minutes in, with his handler

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0005ywg/murder-case-series-1-2-the-search-for-julie-reilly

Alerts to the presence of a dead body

Only one little problem...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:11:31 PM
Simple logic

Tells him what,
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 05:14:01 PM
Any judge worth their salt would surely have to rule uncorroborated dog alerts as inadmissable.  I can’t see how they could possibly be considered evidence as there is no proof of what the dog alerted to.  It’s akin to witch drowning IMO.

I don't 100% disagree with your view. However we should also realise it not just a case of a couple of doddery old judges who have made bad decisions, the absolute right to admit such evidence to a trial is not specifically precluded in the way something like polygraph tests are. So obviously at the current time the whole judiciary doesn't see it as a problem.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 05:16:08 PM
Just did.

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

That date in August 2007 is the date of the Portuguese Search Report.

Where does it say that Eddie was taken to America while Martin Grime was still employed by The UK Police?  And prior to August 2007.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 05:18:47 PM
Tells him what,
That death in the apt is an option
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:23:06 PM
That date in August 2007 is the date of the Portuguese Search Report.

Where does it say that Eddie was taken to America while Martin Grime was still employed by The UK Police?  And prior to August 2007.

Why would it say after? the report is about the search is it not,why would there be a need to embellish it with tales thereafter?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
That death in the apt is an option

Which as never been ruled out.Two options, left apartment alive or dead when she left,neither has been confirmed.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 05:26:15 PM
Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.

The E was added after Grime attempted to train Eddie on Pig Cadaver.  Until then Eddie was only trained on Blood.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 10, 2020, 05:27:09 PM
Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.

I think this below is Mr Grimes definition of the enhanced in EVRD. No contact scent. Corpses would indicate he is referencing human bodies. So basically yes


"The enhanced training of the dog involves the use of collection of 'Dead body scent' odour from corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact."
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 05:28:02 PM
Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.
Marketing.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:34:39 PM
Marketing.


For what purpose would marketing be involved in allowing his dogs to used in Luz?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:35:14 PM
The E was added after Grime attempted to train Eddie on Pig Cadaver.  Until then Eddie was only trained on Blood.


Cite?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Angelo222 on January 10, 2020, 05:38:34 PM
That date in August 2007 is the date of the Portuguese Search Report.

Where does it say that Eddie was taken to America while Martin Grime was still employed by The UK Police?  And prior to August 2007.

He states clearly in his statement of August 2007...

He (Eddie) has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 05:46:54 PM
The E was added after Grime attempted to train Eddie on Pig Cadaver.  Until then Eddie was only trained on Blood.

Nope.

The enhanced training of the dog involves the

use of collection of 'Dead body scent' odour from corpses using remote technical

equipment which does not contact.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 05:51:11 PM
He states clearly in his statement of August 2007...

He (Eddie) has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A.


Not before August 2007 it doesn't.  Eddie was taken to America after The Jersey Debacle.

Or was Martin Grime in contact with and employed by The FBI while still employed by The UK Police.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 05:56:06 PM
Not before August 2007 it doesn't.  Eddie was taken to America after The Jersey Debacle.

Or was Martin Grime in contact with and employed by The FBI while still employed by The UK Police.

Is there any thing to suggest he was employed by the FBI at the time of being employed by the UK Police,training would not mean he was employed in the US.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 10, 2020, 05:58:42 PM
Is there any thing to suggest he was employed by the FBI at the time of being employed by the UK Police,training would not mean he was employed in the US.

It says so in that link you posted.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 05:59:48 PM

For what purpose would marketing be involved in allowing his dogs to used in Luz?
Eh?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 06:18:30 PM
It says so in that link you posted.

In association with the FBI,doesn't mean he was employed by them.It doesn't make clear he was employed by any force at the time of the dogs in Luz,only saying dog trainer.

Mark Harrison.July 2007.
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 06:28:56 PM
How many pigs are missing from 5a?

You don't get it do you?   Eddie wasn't trained using human cadaver he was trained using pig cadaver.  So when he searched 5a he didn't smell human cadaver or pig cadaver and that is why he trotted off out of the bedroom to be called back numerous times.   Poor Eddie I think he just had another sniff and thought 'I think I can smell blood' and barked.

How would that search happen outside where Grime wouldn't know where a cadaver was buried?   He wouldn't have been able to call Eddie back to every bush and tree to keep sniffing at them would he?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 10, 2020, 06:30:57 PM
In association with the FBI,doesn't mean he was employed by them.It doesn't make clear he was employed by any force at the time of the dogs in Luz,only saying dog trainer.

Mark Harrison.July 2007.
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

ANY dog would find a buried body.    ANY dog would smell a body in water too.


Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 06:39:48 PM
ANY dog would find a buried body.    ANY dog would smell a body in water too.

They can? blooming dogs must be a nightmare in churchyards.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 06:53:24 PM
They can? blooming dogs must be a nightmare in churchyards.
Dogs should not be taken for walks in churchyards to piss and poo all over graves.  A mark of extreme disrespect imo.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 10, 2020, 07:18:15 PM
You don't get it do you?   Eddie wasn't trained using human cadaver he was trained using pig cadaver.  So when he searched 5a he didn't smell human cadaver or pig cadaver and that is why he trotted off out of the bedroom to be called back numerous times.   Poor Eddie I think he just had another sniff and thought 'I think I can smell blood' and barked.

How would that search happen outside where Grime wouldn't know where a cadaver was buried?   He wouldn't have been able to call Eddie back to every bush and tree to keep sniffing at them would he?

IYO
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 07:37:25 PM
I think Grime is wrong when he says Eddie only barks when he detects target scent... I think he barks when he think... I've had enough of this I want to go home
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 07:43:08 PM
I think Grime is wrong when he says Eddie only barks when he detects target scent... I think he barks when he think... I've had enough of this I want to go home

That is clearly untrue because he didn't get to stop after barking, he had to carry on the search.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 07:44:38 PM
That is clearly untrue because he didn't get to stop after barking, he had to carry on the search.

He knew he wasn't going to get out of 5a without barking... He was repeatedly called back...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 10, 2020, 07:48:38 PM
That is clearly untrue because he didn't get to stop after barking, he had to carry on the search.

He was jet lagged.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: carlymichelle on January 10, 2020, 07:51:53 PM
That is clearly untrue because he didn't get to stop after barking, he had to carry on the search.

dogs are smarter then humans  give them  credit  for my  sister and brother both have dogs and their  dogs    can sense i have type one diabetes  and other  disabilities  xxx
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 10, 2020, 07:54:30 PM
You don't get it do you?   Eddie wasn't trained using human cadaver he was trained using pig cadaver.  So when he searched 5a he didn't smell human cadaver or pig cadaver and that is why he trotted off out of the bedroom to be called back numerous times.   Poor Eddie I think he just had another sniff and thought 'I think I can smell blood' and barked.

How would that search happen outside where Grime wouldn't know where a cadaver was buried?   He wouldn't have been able to call Eddie back to every bush and tree to keep sniffing at them would he?

Nonsense. They only alert when they find what they are trained to find.

McCann's Apartment.

The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.

The proven capability of the EVRD is to:

Search to locate very small samples of human remains, body fluids and blood in any environment or terrain.

Identify sub-surface depositions to a depth of approximately one metre below the surface of the ground, depending on the scent permeability of the ground. This depth is increased substantially when the ground is “vented” prior to deployment.

Locate and give an alert to cross contamination by a cadaver. This is particularly valuable when the dog is used to assist in searches where the discovery of a body has prompted the investigation. The dog may locate secondary deposition sites and any areas of contamination, e.g. items of vehicles used to transport the body.


https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 10, 2020, 08:17:49 PM
dogs are smarter then humans give them  credit  for my  sister and brother both have dogs and their  dogs    can sense i have type one diabetes  and other  disabilities  xxx
@)(++(*. Some humans, maybe...  Was the dog able to diagnose your diabetes, or did a human train it to alert to the smell of your diabetes? 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 10, 2020, 08:33:21 PM
Grime did not take Eddie to America while he was still employed by The UK Police.  It would not have been allowed.

Police dog sniffs out huge salary - 30 December 2005

Keela the police dog is so brilliant at her job that she earns more than the top policeman in her area.
The 16-month-old springer spaniel can sniff out the smallest samples of human blood - even after items have been cleaned or washed many times.

The South Yorkshire police dog has already helped forces solve crimes across the country.

And now Keela will be travelling to America in the New Year to assist with two murder inquiries.

Keela's keen nose is hired out at £530 per day, plus expenses.

If she worked every day of the year, she would earn almost £200,000 - around £70,000 more than South Yorkshire's Chief Constable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4560000/newsid_4569800/4569868.stm

Keela, the second dog used in the search, was a human blood detection dog that was trained to
detect the odor of human blood, but not its residual odor. Stockham testified that her proficiency
was “exceptional.”

Stockham testified that he developed a cadaver dog program for the FBI starting in
2005. While developing this program, he met Martin Grime, a National Homicide Search
Advisor in the United Kingdom who worked with cadaver dogs. In 2010 or 2011, Grime started
to work with the FBI to help develop its program. The program started seeing improved results
after Grime’s involvement. Since the program’s establishment in 2005, Stockham had directed
hundreds of crime scenes using cadaver dogs.


http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0140174.pdf
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 08:37:54 PM
He knew he wasn't going to get out of 5a without barking... He was repeatedly called back...

You are not an expert on how to use these dogs, so your opinion is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 10, 2020, 08:40:14 PM
You are not an expert on how to use these dogs, so your opinion is irrelevant.
I might be absolutely right... Can you prove I'm not
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2020, 10:43:01 PM
I might be absolutely right... Can you prove I'm not

I don't need to prove anything. If you make claims it's up to you to convince people that you know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 09:23:44 AM
They can? blooming dogs must be a nightmare in churchyards.


Do you think if you were walking your dog and a newly dead person had been buried near by,   your dog wouldn't go off and sniff at the newly buried cadaver?  Of course it would it would be able to smell the cadaver,   the cadaver dog however would give an alert either by sitting by it or by barking.

As for the water any dog would know there was a dead body in the water,  the only difference is a trained cadaver dog is meant to give an alert to it.

When Eddie alerted to the body buried,  how long at the person been dead?   If Madeleine had died in 5a, she wouldn't have been left there long enough to give off any cadaver scent.   IMO
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 09:28:42 AM

Do you think if you were walking your dog and a newly dead person had been buried near by,   your dog wouldn't go off and sniff at the newly buried cadaver?  Of course it would it would be able to smell the cadaver,   the cadaver dog however would give an alert either by sitting by it or by barking.

As for the water any dog would know there was a dead body in the water,  the only difference is a trained cadaver dog is meant to give an alert to it.

When Eddie alerted to the body buried,  how long at the person been dead?   If Madeleine had died in 5a, she wouldn't have been left there long enough to give off any cadaver scent.   IMO

So you agree they would need additional training.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 11, 2020, 10:09:31 AM
So you agree they would need additional training.

The training used triggers a Pavlovian response. Cadaver dogs are conditioned to signal when they detect that which they are trained to detect. They don't choose to respond or even think about it; it's not voluntary.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 10:11:24 AM
The training used triggers a Pavlovian response. Cadaver dogs are conditioned to signal when they detect that which they are trained to detect. They don't choose to respond or even think about it; it's not voluntary.

You don't know it's that precise....
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 11, 2020, 10:18:55 AM
You don't know it's that precise....

You want to spend pages arguing about Pavlovian conditioning?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 10:24:02 AM
You want to spend pages arguing about Pavlovian conditioning?

You should know that I don't.  I don't accept the alerts as being totally accurate and neither does Prof Casselles who write the forward, to Grimes white, paper
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 10:27:21 AM
You should know that I don't.  I don't accept the alerts as being totally accurate and neither does Prof Casselles who write the forward, to Grimes white, paper


There's only one person missing from 5a in as yet unexplained circumstances,the only apartment where the dogs alert,tis some coincidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 10:28:47 AM
You want to spend pages arguing about Pavlovian conditioning?

I wonder if you ir Grime understand what a, pavlonian response is.  It involves a neutral paired stimulus. .so what is the neutral paired stimulus in this case
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 10:29:13 AM
How many pigs are missing from 5a?


They could of course have played this little piggy went to market,might go to some way of an explanation.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 10:29:41 AM

There's only one person missing from 5a in as yet unexplained circumstances,the only apartment where the dogs alert,tis some coincidence.

It might seem a coincidence to those who don't understand  the true facts
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 10:32:09 AM
It might seem a coincidence ti those who don't understand  the true facts

Which is very very limited,so much as to not be able to come up with a definite theory.

Rowley:So, you’ll understand from your experience, the way murder investigations work, detectives will
start off with various hypotheses, about what’s happened in a murder, what has happened in a
missing person’s investigation, whether someone has been abducted. All those different possibilities
will be worked through. This case is no different from that but the evidence is limited at the moment to be cast iron as to which one of those hypotheses we should follow. So we have to keep an open
mind. As I said we have some critical lines of enquiry, those linked to particular lines of enquiry, but
I’m not going to discuss them today because they are very much live investigations.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 10:36:24 AM
Which is very very limited,so much as to not be able to come up with a definite theory.

Rowley:So, you’ll understand from your experience, the way murder investigations work, detectives will
start off with various hypotheses, about what’s happened in a murder, what has happened in a
missing person’s investigation, whether someone has been abducted. All those different possibilities
will be worked through. This case is no different from that but the evidence is limited at the moment to
be cast iron as to which one of those hypotheses we should follow. So we have to keep an open
mind. As I said we have some critical lines of enquiry, those linked to particular lines of enquiry, but
I’m not going to discuss them today because they are very much live investigations.


There's plenty of facts relating to the alerts by the dogs

Grines statement that he didn't realise the car, plastered with posters belonged to the mccanns takes some explaining
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 10:37:12 AM
There's plenty of facts relating to the alerts by the dogs

Grines statement that he didn't realise the car, plastered with posters belonged to the mccanns takes some explaining

The dog couldn't read them though.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 10:38:33 AM
The dog couldn't read them though.

Perhaps that's why he ignored the car until being called back
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 10:46:27 AM
The training used triggers a Pavlovian response. Cadaver dogs are conditioned to signal when they detect that which they are trained to detect. They don't choose to respond or even think about it; it's not voluntary.

Oh dear -

In fact, when looking at the similarities between the chemicals emitted from human remains and those of three other animals (pig, cow, and chicken), it was the chicken’s mix of chemicals that was closest to those of human remains and the pig was the least similar 7 . Each animal appears to have its own unique combination of chemicals, none of which is a match for the chemical mixture that is emitted from human remains 7 .
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 10:48:58 AM
https://www.murderscience.com/articles/2018/1/29/cadaver-dogs-
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 11:22:42 AM
Perhaps that's why he ignored the car until being called back

The problem with that being?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 11:26:17 AM
The problem with that being?

The problem being that in Grimes statement he says in passing the car the dog showed a particular interest in it... He didn't... He ignored it.. What's your explanation
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 11:31:41 AM
https://www.murderscience.com/articles/2018/1/29/cadaver-dogs-


Another paper with an interesting conclusion.

http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=ant_facpub
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 11:33:22 AM
The problem being that in Grimes statement he says in passing the car the dog showed a particular interest in it... He didn't... He ignored it.. What's your explanation

Still don't understand your issue.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 11:35:09 AM
Still don't understand your issue.

No problem... I'm sure others, do... Hers the actual quote..


When passing a
vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family,
the dog's behaviour changed substantially.


Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 11:37:44 AM
No problem... I'm sure others, do... Hers the actual quote..


When passing a
vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family,
the dog's behaviour changed substantially.

Ok,lets try another way,are there set parameters that a dog handler must adhere to,if so can you post it to let us cross reference and see where the issue is.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 11:41:43 AM
Ok,lets try another way,are there set parameters that a dog handler must adhere to,if so can you post it to let us cross reference and see where the issue is.
My issue is Grimes statement doesn't tally with the facts... I'm sure that's a reasonable explanation I just can't see it
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 11, 2020, 11:47:09 AM
The problem being that in Grimes statement he says in passing the car the dog showed a particular interest in it... He didn't... He ignored it.. What's your explanation

So Grime's opinion is that the dog's behavour changed significantly as he passed the McCann's hire car. Your opinion is that it didn't. Grime spent years training and working with Eddie, so we can assume he would notice things that might not be obvious or significant to others. Others like you, for example.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 11:52:21 AM
So Grime's opinion is that the dog's behavour changed significantly as he passed the McCann's hire car. Your opinion is that it didn't. Grime spent years training and working with Eddie, so we can assume he would notice things that might not be obvious or significant to others. Others like you, for example.

That's your explanation... It doesn't really fit imo.
The dog simply toddled straight past the, car showing no interest at all... And needed to be called back.. Have you watched the video
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 11:56:42 AM
So Grime's opinion is that the dog's behavour changed significantly as he passed the McCann's hire car. Your opinion is that it didn't. Grime spent years training and working with Eddie, so we can assume he would notice things that might not be obvious or significant to others. Others like you, for example.

Yet Grine didn't notice all the posters of Maddie on the car... Strange isn't it
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 11, 2020, 12:08:21 PM
Yet Grine didn't notice all the posters of Maddie on the car... Strange isn't it

He approached the car from the front. How many posters were there and were there any on the windscreen?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 12:15:33 PM
He approached the car from the front. How many posters were there and were there any on the windscreen?
He said he.. Now knows.... Must have seen the posters at the time. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 12:17:50 PM
Being considered an expert is no guarantee of anything... We should still question .
Look at all those experts telling people to stay in their burning apartments in Grenfell
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 11, 2020, 12:33:40 PM
That's your explanation... It doesn't really fit imo.
The dog simply toddled straight past the, car showing no interest at all... And needed to be called back.. Have you watched the video

The video clearly shows what happens. A little summary:

52:22 - MG calling Eddie back to a car

52:32 - MG calling Eddie back to the next car

53:12 - Eddie's behaviour changes at the hire car and he is then seen chasing a scent. MG now starts to investigate the source of that scent. Eddie positively alerts at the hire car.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 01:04:41 PM
The video clearly shows what happens. A little summary:

52:22 - MG calling Eddie back to a car

52:32 - MG calling Eddie back to the next car

53:12 - Eddie's behaviour changes at the hire car and he is then seen chasing a scent. MG now starts to investigate the source of that scent. Eddie positively alerts at the hire car.


Yes thanks for that.  .the video I posted clearly shows eddie passing the car with no change in behaviour... Then being called back... Perhaps it's the act of calling back that triggers the alert..
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 11, 2020, 01:27:38 PM
Yes thanks for that.  .the video I posted clearly shows eddie passing the car with no change in behaviour... Then being called back... Perhaps it's the act of calling back that triggers the alert..

He called Eddie back to the first 2 cars as I've pointed out in my post. Eddie will not alert unless he finds what he is trained to find. The source of that scent was coming from inside the hire car.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 01:58:48 PM
Another paper with an interesting conclusion.

http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=ant_facpub

Yes,  very interesting barrier,  but those dogs were trained with human cadaver.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 02:01:52 PM
Yes,  very interesting barrier,  but those dogs were trained with human cadaver.

Which Eddie was.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 02:02:50 PM
He called Eddie back to the first 2 cars as I've pointed out in my post. Eddie will not alert unless he finds what he is trained to find. The source of that scent was coming from inside the hire car.

Scent of what was coming from inside the car?  Nothing found except a soup of up to five peoples DNA.   Taking into account it was a rental car the DNA could have come from anyone.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 02:05:17 PM
Which Eddie was.

No he was trained with pig flesh,  you can't train a dog to alert to a different scent having trained him from a pup to alert to pigs flesh.   Pig has been found to smell differently from human cadaver. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on January 11, 2020, 02:07:54 PM
No he was trained with pig flesh,  you can't train a dog to alert to a different scent having trained him from a pup to alert to pigs flesh.  Pig has been found to smell differently from human cadaver.

I wonder how that was determined.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 02:09:35 PM
No he was trained with pig flesh,  you can't train a dog to alert to a different scent having trained him from a pup to alert to pigs flesh.   Pig has been found to smell differently from human cadaver.

No matter how many times you try to ignore it,Eddie received additional training with human cadaver.It's all documented.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 02:10:56 PM
No he was trained with pig flesh,  you can't train a dog to alert to a different scent having trained him from a pup to alert to pigs flesh.  Pig has been found to smell differently from human cadaver.

No point in having dogs not trained on human cadaver then.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 02:18:23 PM
No point in having dogs not trained on human cadaver then.

This from a woman who has trained cadaver dogs -   They'd been using pigs as training aids for years. But as Cablk points out, "If you have a dog trained on pigs, then you have a dog trained to find dead pigs."
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 02:24:06 PM
This from a woman who has trained cadaver dogs -   They'd been using pigs as training aids for years. But as Cablk points out, "If you have a dog trained on pigs, then you have a dog trained to find dead pigs."

Which makes it obvious why Grime took Eddie to the US to train using human cadaver,one step ahead it would seem.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2020, 02:46:13 PM
Which makes it obvious why Grime took Eddie to the US to train using human cadaver,one step ahead it would seem.

Does anyone believe that The UK Police allowed one of their Dog Handlers to take one of their Dogs to America to engage in practices that are Illegal and Unethical in Britain even to this day. 

Martin Grime did not own Eddie at the time.  So who paid for this expensive exercise, which incidentally will not have eradicated Eddie's training in Blood and later Pig Cadaver?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 02:48:58 PM
Does anyone believe that The UK Police allowed one of their Dog Handlers to take one of their Dogs to America to engage in practices that are Illegal and Unethical in Britain even to this day. 

Martin Grime did not own Eddie at the time.  So who paid for this expensive exercise, which incidentally will not have eradicated Eddie's training in Blood and later Pig Cadaver?


How about Portugal?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 02:51:36 PM
Does anyone believe that The UK Police allowed one of their Dog Handlers to take one of their Dogs to America to engage in practices that are Illegal and Unethical in Britain even to this day. 

Martin Grime did not own Eddie at the time.  So who paid for this expensive exercise, which incidentally will not have eradicated Eddie's training in Blood and later Pig Cadaver?

Enhanced is the qualifier.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2020, 02:57:20 PM

How about Portugal?

Martin Grime had already retired by then and was given Eddie to take with him into retirement,  to do with as he pleased.  Besides, he wasn't engaged in Illegal Practices in Portugal.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2020, 02:58:31 PM
Enhanced is the qualifier.

A title bestowed on Eddie by Martin Grime.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 03:06:17 PM
Martin Grime had already retired by then and was given Eddie to take with him into retirement,  to do with as he pleased.  Besides, he wasn't engaged in Illegal Practices in Portugal.

So using EVRD's in Portugal is ok but you surmise it is and wouldn't be in the UK?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2020, 03:11:38 PM
So using EVRD's in Portugal is ok but you surmise it is and wouldn't be in the UK?

This is not logical. 

The Illegal Act would have been in taking the dog to America to engage in something that is Illegal in Britain while owned by The UK Police.  They simply would not have given permission while the dog belonged to them.

What a private citizen does is a different matter.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 03:23:41 PM
This is not logical. 

The Illegal Act would have been in taking the dog to America to engage in something that is Illegal in Britain while owned by The UK Police.  They simply would not have given permission while the dog belonged to them.

What a private citizen does is a different matter.

Then what is the issue?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 05:15:55 PM
He called Eddie back to the first 2 cars as I've pointed out in my post. Eddie will not alert unless he finds what he is trained to find. The source of that scent was coming from inside the hire car.

Grime called eddie back three times to the car that clearly belonged to the McCanns
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Angelo222 on January 11, 2020, 05:18:09 PM
Not before August 2007 it doesn't.  Eddie was taken to America after The Jersey Debacle.

Or was Martin Grime in contact with and employed by The FBI while still employed by The UK Police.

If this claim was made in August 2007 then Eddie was given 'Enhanced' training in the US using human cadavers prior to both PdL and Jersey.  Thus the designation EVRD
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Angelo222 on January 11, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
You don't get it do you?   Eddie wasn't trained using human cadaver he was trained using pig cadaver.  So when he searched 5a he didn't smell human cadaver or pig cadaver and that is why he trotted off out of the bedroom to be called back numerous times.   Poor Eddie I think he just had another sniff and thought 'I think I can smell blood' and barked.

How would that search happen outside where Grime wouldn't know where a cadaver was buried?   He wouldn't have been able to call Eddie back to every bush and tree to keep sniffing at them would he?

You are mistaken Lace. Eddie received specialist training in America use human cadavers prior to being deployed in PdL.

So when Eddie alerted in 5a it might well have been to a human cadaver scent.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 11, 2020, 05:23:32 PM
Which makes it obvious why Grime took Eddie to the US to train using human cadaver,one step ahead it would seem.

Or  a dead pig was placed behind a curtain, in a cupboard, in a car all belonging to the McCanns where a child disappeared.   Perhaps the previous occupants could explain this. what the hell were they doing with a dead pig- which let's face it, can't be hidden very well. I mean someone would notice surely. And of course we have to facto in the dead pig wearing soiled nappies...  Just to make THAT story stick.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 05:29:24 PM
Or  a dead pig was placed behind a curtain, in a cupboard, in a car all belonging to the McCanns where a child disappeared.   Perhaps the previous occupants could explain this. what the hell were they doing with a dead pig- which let's face it, can't be hidden very well. I mean someone would notice surely. And of course we have to facto in the dead pig wearing soiled nappies...  Just to make THAT story stick.

we saw eddie called back 3 times to the car....and according to the PJ Eddie was repeatedly called back to places he had previously ignored in the mccanns apartment. Thats the reason for the alerts imo
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2020, 05:32:30 PM
You are mistaken Lace. Eddie received specialist training in America use human cadavers prior to being deployed in PdL.

So when Eddie alerted in 5a it might well have been to a human cadaver scent.

So The UK Police authorised this trip and paid for it, did they?  The dog did not belong to Martin Grime until he retired.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 05:34:30 PM
So The UK Police authorised this trip and paid for it, did they? The dog did not belong to Martin Grime until he retired.


Who else did?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2020, 05:42:04 PM

Who else did?

Who else did what?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 05:44:34 PM
Who else did what?

Paid and authorised Grime and his dogs.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 11, 2020, 05:45:52 PM
Which makes it obvious why Grime took Eddie to the US to train using human cadaver,one step ahead it would seem.
So then you have a dog that alerts to blood and pigs and humans?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 11, 2020, 05:50:35 PM
Well, the fact is they never did find a dead pig or a human. Mind you the blood found behind the curtain wasn't from a lone pig on the loose...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 11, 2020, 05:51:37 PM
Well, the fact is they never did find a dead pig or a human. Mind you the blood found behind the curtain wasn't from a lone pig on the loose...
Was it Madeleine’s?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 05:56:38 PM
You are mistaken Lace. Eddie received specialist training in America use human cadavers prior to being deployed in PdL.

So when Eddie alerted in 5a it might well have been to a human cadaver scent.

So how would Martin Grime train Eddie to ignore the smell of pig and alert to the smell of human cadaver?  Eddie had been trained on pig from a puppy,   so how could a dog suddenly not alert to what it had been trained on from a puppy and revert to alerting to human cadaver?   I have posted links to where it is said that there is a difference the smell of human cadaver and pig flesh.   Poor Eddie would not be able to stop what he had previously be trained to alert to.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2020, 06:00:51 PM
Paid and authorised Grime and his dogs.

Eddie was owned by The South Yorkshire Police.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 11, 2020, 06:01:30 PM
Or  a dead pig was placed behind a curtain, in a cupboard, in a car all belonging to the McCanns where a child disappeared.   Perhaps the previous occupants could explain this. what the hell were they doing with a dead pig- which let's face it, can't be hidden very well. I mean someone would notice surely. And of course we have to facto in the dead pig wearing soiled nappies...  Just to make THAT story stick.

Now you are being facetious.  Obviously there was no dead pig in these areas, neither was there cadaver scent IMO In the bedroom Eddie dismissed the room and walked away,  if it hadn't been for Martin Grime calling him back he wouldn't have alerted to the room.  IMO Eddie smelt something probably blood that been on something and had then been removed.   Or he decided to bark so that he could put an end to the search.

Eddie alerted to the exact spot that Keela did behind the sofa,  so there again Eddie alerted to blood.

There were families in 5a after the McCann's.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 11, 2020, 06:03:18 PM
Something else which is worth a read imo.

https://archive.org/details/Cadaver_Dog_Handbook_2000_Forensic_Training_Tactics_for_the_Recovery_of_Human_Re/page/n11

An important snippet substitute road kill to pig and it can be seen the dog can be trained to ignore its initial training.


(https://i.imgur.com/Cvj34hU.png)
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 11, 2020, 07:05:34 PM
This from a woman who has trained cadaver dogs -   They'd been using pigs as training aids for years. But as Cablk points out, "If you have a dog trained on pigs, then you have a dog trained to find dead pigs."

ALL cadaver dogs alert to pig so you are not making a point here.

In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 07:08:33 PM
ALL cadaver dogs alert to pig so you are not making a point here.

In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium.

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

This is the problem from a scientific point of view. What else would these dogs alert to ...what have they been tested on. Dogs that have been trained on humans alerting to pig denotes  a flaw imo
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 11, 2020, 07:12:23 PM
The only dead animal they alert to is pig.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 07:13:31 PM
The only dead animal they alert to is pig.

who said so
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 07:19:14 PM
The dogs alert to the odour of decomposition...how does that odour vary from animal to animal. have ther ebeen any tests done
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 11, 2020, 07:24:38 PM
They have been tested and SY did not search Luz for a dead pig.


Pigs and primates may be closer than we thought

https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/similarities-between-humans-and-pigs
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 11, 2020, 07:27:41 PM
Now you are being facetious.  Obviously there was no dead pig in these areas, neither was there cadaver scent IMO In the bedroom Eddie dismissed the room and walked away,  if it hadn't been for Martin Grime calling him back he wouldn't have alerted to the room.  IMO Eddie smelt something probably blood that been on something and had then been removed.   Or he decided to bark so that he could put an end to the search.

Eddie alerted to the exact spot that Keela did behind the sofa,  so there again Eddie alerted to blood.

There were families in 5a after the McCann's.


" Obviously there was no dead pig in these areas, neither was there cadaver scent IMO"



Obviously?  in your opinion?  well there you have it. Evidence would be better than your opinion.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 07:29:42 PM
They have been tested and SY did not search Luz for a dead pig.


Pigs and primates may be closer than we thought

https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/similarities-between-humans-and-pigs

the question you cnnot answer is...have the dogs been tested on other decomposing animals.....I cant see taht they have.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 07:30:37 PM

" Obviously there was no dead pig in these areas, neither was there cadaver scent IMO"



Obviously?  in your opinion?  well there you have it. Evidence would be better than your opinion.

even grime only says cadaver scent is a possibility
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 11, 2020, 07:32:31 PM
Ask the experts. It is well known that they only alert to pig.

Would you accept a pig's heart?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140508-would-you-accept-a-pigs-heart
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 07:34:12 PM
Ask the experts. It is well known that they only alert to pig.

Would you accept a pig's heart?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140508-would-you-accept-a-pigs-heart

Im happy to accept they alert to pigs...Do thye alert to a dead bird...have they been tested ....NO
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 11, 2020, 07:44:42 PM
Im happy to accept they alert to pigs...Do thye alert to a dead bird...have they been tested ....NO

Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.

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

However, the key to training a search dog is the ball. Swindells said: "We use this desire for the ball to teach the dog to find drugs, explosives, forensic markers, anything.

"Because these dogs have such a high drive, they'll work all day and all they want is the ball."

https://www.forces.net/feature/dogs-trained-find-bodies
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 07:46:56 PM
Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.

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

ive never alerted to roadkill either..........where are the tests...where is the science. There is none...no one knows for ceratin what these dogs will alert to
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 11, 2020, 07:55:12 PM
Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval. Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI<3h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination). The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51385143_Cadaver_dogs_-_A_study_on_detection_of_contaminated_carpet_squares
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 11, 2020, 07:57:18 PM
Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval. Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI<3h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination). The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51385143_Cadaver_dogs_-_A_study_on_detection_of_contaminated_carpet_squares

 you miss teh point...and actually make my point for me
we all know cadaver dogs detect cadaver.....but what else do they react to
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: carlymichelle on January 11, 2020, 09:18:08 PM
dogs used  at airports alert to 100s of  things     
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 11, 2020, 09:27:53 PM
dogs used  at airports alert to 100s of  things     

They are also used to identify cancer in humans. 

Amazing dog story- Indulge me.

My friend was told many years ago she could not have children- she and her husband got a dog. a spaniel as a pup. 10 years after being told about her childless state. her pup began to act very strange.  He barked at anyone including her husband who went near her, he became very possessive ,followed her everywhere-which was a complete change in his personality- they took him to the vet, thinking he may have head tumor or something- however the vet told my friend should go to the Doctors as the dog senses something- being terrified but going. a week later the results were she was three months pregnant! when baby was born healthy,  the dog became very possessive about the baby!  like a nanny.

Dogs have all the senses we may have lost over the years. Including the 6th!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 11, 2020, 11:43:00 PM
They are also used to identify cancer in humans. 

Amazing dog story- Indulge me.

My friend was told many years ago she could not have children- she and her husband got a dog. a spaniel as a pup. 10 years after being told about her childless state. her pup began to act very strange.  He barked at anyone including her husband who went near her, he became very possessive ,followed her everywhere-which was a complete change in his personality- they took him to the vet, thinking he may have head tumor or something- however the vet told my friend should go to the Doctors as the dog senses something- being terrified but going. a week later the results were she was three months pregnant! when baby was born healthy,  the dog became very possessive about the baby!  like a nanny.

Dogs have all the senses we may have lost over the years. Including the 6th!

I saw a TV programme which showed an Australian aborigine man fishing with his fairly young children. When asked if it was safe as there were crocodiles in the river he said they used their sixth sense. According to him he knew whether he was in danger at any point and he had taught his children to be aware just as he was. He said everyone has the ability but most of us don't use it any more.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 11, 2020, 11:49:35 PM
Was it Madeleine’s?

Was there even any blood there?  I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got it wrong but wasn't the only blood found on the tiles from one of the PJ guys who lifted the tiles after both dogs had done what they were trained to do in that area of the room?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on January 12, 2020, 12:03:22 AM
I saw a TV programme which showed an Australian aborigine man fishing with his fairly young children. When asked if it was safe as there were crocodiles in the river he said they used their sixth sense. According to him he knew whether he was in danger at any point and he had taught his children to be aware just as he was. He said everyone has the ability but most of us don't use it any more.

Perhaps this man was just very lucky to have retained his 6th sense if you use an internet search engine you will find that very many indigenous people in Australia have fallen prey to crocodiles.

Snip
A 12-year-old boy is thought to have been eaten by a crocodile in Australia's Northern Territories, in the second fatal attack to take place in two weeks, reports the BBC.

The youngster, who is thought to have come from a Aboriginal community near Port Bradshaw in East Arnhem Land, was swimming with a group of family and friends when he was attacked by the reptile.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-12-02/crocodile-devours-12-year-old-australian-boy-second-fatal-attack-two-weeks
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 12:07:19 AM
I saw a TV programme which showed an Australian aborigine man fishing with his fairly young children. When asked if it was safe as there were crocodiles in the river he said they used their sixth sense. According to him he knew whether he was in danger at any point and he had taught his children to be aware just as he was. He said everyone has the ability but most of us don't use it any more.
I expect their olfactory senses are just as good as dogs as well.  Sadly it seems their are losing their 6th sense when it comes to the crocs though... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/14/fatal-crocodile-attacks-rising-in-northern-territory-data-shows
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 12:10:12 AM
Perhaps this man was just very lucky to have retained his 6th sense if you use an internet search engine you will find that very many indigenous people in Australia have fallen prey to crocodiles.

Snip
A 12-year-old boy is thought to have been eaten by a crocodile in Australia's Northern Territories, in the second fatal attack to take place in two weeks, reports the BBC.

The youngster, who is thought to have come from a Aboriginal community near Port Bradshaw in East Arnhem Land, was swimming with a group of family and friends when he was attacked by the reptile.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-12-02/crocodile-devours-12-year-old-australian-boy-second-fatal-attack-two-weeks
ooh, snap!  (Sorry, that was a bit tasteless in the circs).
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 12, 2020, 08:44:28 AM
ALL cadaver dogs alert to pig so you are not making a point here.

In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium.

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

Decomposing pig,   Madeleine wouldn't have been decomposing that's my point,  any dog would alert to decomposing pig as there is a gas which smells like human cadaver when the pig is at a stage of decomposition.  Madeleine wouldn't have been at this stage.   Those cadaver dogs as I have said would alert to a buried body or pig as would Eddie as would any dog as the smell of decomposing is strong,  there was no body in 5a and if Madeleine had died there she wouldn't have been left to decompose.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 12, 2020, 08:56:08 AM
There are only  seven compounds that  pig and a human both  share and they are only memitted when the pig or human are in the late stages of decomposition.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 09:05:54 AM
I saw a TV programme which showed an Australian aborigine man fishing with his fairly young children. When asked if it was safe as there were crocodiles in the river he said they used their sixth sense. According to him he knew whether he was in danger at any point and he had taught his children to be aware just as he was. He said everyone has the ability but most of us don't use it any more.

Just because this man thinks he has a sixth sense... Does that make it true.... You seem to accept things without question
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 12, 2020, 09:34:04 AM
There are only  seven compounds that  pig and a human both  share and they are only memitted when the pig or human are in the late stages of decomposition.

What of early stages then?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 10:02:54 AM
Decomposing pig,   Madeleine wouldn't have been decomposing that's my point,  any dog would alert to decomposing pig as there is a gas which smells like human cadaver when the pig is at a stage of decomposition.  Madeleine wouldn't have been at this stage.   Those cadaver dogs as I have said would alert to a buried body or pig as would Eddie as would any dog as the smell of decomposing is strong,  there was no body in 5a and if Madeleine had died there she wouldn't have been left to decompose.

I thought decomposition began immediately?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 10:05:25 AM
I thought decomposition began immediately?

It isn't detectable by dogs immediately
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 10:12:23 AM
It isn't detectable by dogs immediately

How do you know?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 10:38:31 AM
How do you know?

I think that's quite a silly question
This us one area where there has been some scientific research... Try and Google to find it
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 11:10:15 AM
I think that's quite a silly question
This us one area where there has been some scientific research... Try and Google to find it

Try supporting your postings of 'facts' by some evidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 11:12:48 AM
Try supporting your postings of 'facts' by some evidence.
Has it not been long accepted when discussing this case that it takes at least 90 minutes (though two hours seems the more accepted time) before a body emits an odour detectable to thr dogs?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 11:45:05 AM
Has it not been long accepted when discussing this case that it takes at least 90 minutes (though two hours seems the more accepted time) before a body emits an odour detectable to thr dogs?

Accepted by whom? You?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on January 12, 2020, 11:48:32 AM
It isn't detectable by dogs immediately

Seems it is.

https://www.aftermath.com/content/body-decomposition-smell/


Answering the question, “what does a dead body smell like?” can be difficult if you have never been around a dead body before. However, some people compare the putrid stench of a decomposing body to that of rotting fruit. When someone dies, the body immediately begins the decomposition process and the smell of death begins. Microorganisms create and emit various gases during the stages of human decomposition, which all combine to cause the smell of a cadaver.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 11:50:08 AM
Try supporting your postings of 'facts' by some evidence.

why should i bother...from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you...even if its overwhelming
the thread title...according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 12, 2020, 11:53:11 AM
why should i bother...from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you...even if its overwhelming
the thread title...according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence
You've just spent a week arguing that the alerts were inadmissible as evidence, not inadmissible as intelligence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 11:56:15 AM
You've just spent a week arguing that the alerts were inadmissible as evidence, not inadmissible as intelligence.

Not to mention the fact that it's the judge who decides what's admissible in a case; there are no 'rules' about admissibility.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 12:12:12 PM
Accepted by whom? You?
Those who discuss this case, sceptic and supporter alike, I guess this is news to you?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 12:14:04 PM
Seems it is.

https://www.aftermath.com/content/body-decomposition-smell/


Answering the question, “what does a dead body smell like?” can be difficult if you have never been around a dead body before. However, some people compare the putrid stench of a decomposing body to that of rotting fruit. When someone dies, the body immediately begins the decomposition process and the smell of death begins. Microorganisms create and emit various gases during the stages of human decomposition, which all combine to cause the smell of a cadaver.
Do you have a cite to support your contention that dogs can detect a cadaver that has been in situ for less than 90 minutes?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 12:24:34 PM
why should i bother...from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you...even if its overwhelming
the thread title...according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence

"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"

Is this irony?
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 12:35:24 PM
"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"

Is this irony.
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?

I've already posted this... Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact
My opinion is that they should not have been and if properly challenged would not be.. In the gilroy case I have seen evidence that the SCCRC decided they should not have been admitted

Your opinion is that they are admissible... Mine is that they are not.  Don't misrepresent my posts
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 12:37:52 PM
"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"

Is this irony?
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?

How can they be evidence when Grime and Harrisin refer to them as intelligence with no evidential reliability or value
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 12, 2020, 12:40:08 PM
Was there even any blood there?  I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got it wrong but wasn't the only blood found on the tiles from one of the PJ guys who lifted the tiles after both dogs had done what they were trained to do in that area of the room?

The FBI said Keela was Exceptional. As she only alerts to blood I think the police will know what she alerted to in this case.

Keela, the second dog used in the search, was a human blood detection dog that was trained to
detect the odor of human blood, but not its residual odor. Stockham testified that her proficiency
was “exceptional.”


http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0140174.pdf
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 12:42:27 PM
I've already posted this... Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact
My opinion is that they should not have been and if properly challenged would not be.. In the gilroy case I have seen evidence that the SCCRC decided they should not have been admitted

Your opinion is that they are admissible... Mine is that they are not.  Don't misrepresent my posts

Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.

It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 12:45:05 PM
Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.

It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.
Davel has written "Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact" he just doesn't think they should be so what are you struggling to understand? 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 12:45:13 PM
How can they be evidence when Grime and Harrisin refer to them as intelligence with no evidential reliability or value

They can be evidence as they have been presented before a court of law in the UK on at least 2 occasions previously.
Grime and Harrison aren't the deciding opinion on what is admissible evidence or not. I have already explained this.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 12:47:31 PM
They can be evidence as they have been presented before a court of law in the UK on at least 2 occasions previously.
Grime and Harrison aren't the deciding opinion on what is admissible evidence or not. I have already explained this.
The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 12:51:13 PM
Davel has written "Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact" he just doesn't think they should be so what are you struggling to understand?

No he still believes dog alerts with no corroborating forensic evidence are inadmissible in a court of law.
Quote from today at 11:50

".according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence "

Lets not mess around with semantics, they are either admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence there is no third way. Not that they have been admitted previously in two cases. I am not arguing if they should or not only that they are.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 12:51:32 PM
They can be evidence as they have been presented before a court of law in the UK on at least 2 occasions previously.
Grime and Harrison aren't the deciding opinion on what is admissible evidence or not. I have already explained this.
The fact that they were admitted on these two occasions does not mean they are admissible...the judge may have erred..

Mark Harrison says the alerts are not evidential... They are intelligence.
Fir evidence to be admissible they have to have a level of reliability... That is the rule if law.  So how does the judge asses the reliability of the alerts... He listens to the experts
As the alerts do not sem to have been challenged they were wrongly admitted imo.. And that of the experts.
You seem to incorrectly think their admission in these two cases sets some kind of precedent.. It doesnt
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 12:53:32 PM
The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.

The worth of the alerts can only be measured by how the jury viewed them.You or I don't know what weight the jury applied to the testimony of PC Ryan Galloway. Unless you were there.
Were you?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 12, 2020, 12:53:50 PM
The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.

Never the less irrespective of your opinion they were not deemed inadmissible which is Davel's contention.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 12:53:53 PM
No he still believes dog alerts with no corroborating forensic evidence are inadmissible in a court of law.
Quote from today at 11:50

".according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence "

Lets not mess around with semantics, they are either admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence there is no third way. Not that they have been admitted previously in two cases. I am not arguing if they should or not only that they are.

Repeat... Just because they were admitted in these two cases does not set a precedent... The jusges were wring imi... As evidenced by the SCCRCand Harrison and Grime
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 12:55:02 PM
Never the less irrespective of your opinion they were not deemed inadmissible which is Davel's contention.

Rubbish.  They were deemed admissible.... An error imo
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 12:58:44 PM
Rubbish.  They were deemed admissible.... An error imo

Whether its an error or not, who knows but you first words are true they were deemed admissible.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 01:02:37 PM
The worth of the alerts can only be measured by how the jury viewed them.You or I don't know what weight the jury applied to the testimony of PC Ryan Galloway. Unless you were there.
Were you?
I saw it presented on the TV documentary and no body in their right mind would have drawn the conclusion that the dog discovered any human remains, unless they left the bit out where he revealed that a bit of Margaret's skeleton was discovered?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 01:05:03 PM
I saw it presented on the TV documentary and no body in their right mind would have drawn the conclusion that the dog discovered any human remains, unless they left the bit out where he revealed that a bit of Margaret's skeleton was discovered?

But that not my assertion,my assertion only that it was admitted. And that is a empirical truth not my opinion.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 12, 2020, 01:11:22 PM
Rubbish.  They were deemed admissible.... An error imo

Correct they were deemed admissible,your opinion counts for nothing,The Judge,the defence allowed them,one defence lawyer never even questioned the handler.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 01:11:55 PM
But that not my assertion,my assertion only that it was admitted. And that is a empirical truth not my opinion.

there can be no denial it was admitted...that is a fact...Ive stated that several times
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 01:13:26 PM
Correct they were deemed admissible,your opinion counts for nothing,The Judge,the defence allowed them,one defence lawyer never even questioned the handler.

we are getting somewhere...they were admitted...but it seems not challenged. As I understand there were two dogs and only one alerted....that is strange in itself
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 01:14:40 PM
But that not my assertion,my assertion only that it was admitted. And that is a empirical truth not my opinion.
I'm not disputing that, but I was giving my opinion, and you questioned my opinion, to which I gave an answer.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 12, 2020, 01:17:01 PM
we are getting somewhere...they were admitted...but it seems not challenged. As I understand there were two dogs and only one alerted....that is strange in itself

If we're talking of the Margaret Fleming murder trial,I don't recall talk of two dogs.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 01:21:41 PM
If we're talking of the Margaret Fleming murder trial,I don't recall talk of two dogs.

Gilroy
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 01:22:40 PM
I'm not disputing that, but I was giving my opinion, and you questioned my opinion, to which I gave an answer.

 I don't remember asking your opinion if the evidence had any worth. In this thread I am only interested in the truth that alerts are admissible. I am not saying your opinion is of no interest to me just that in this matter I didn't seek it.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 01:27:39 PM
I don't remember asking your opinion if the evidence had any worth. In this thread I am only interested in the truth that alerts are admissible. I am not saying your opinion is of no interest to me just that in this matter I didn't seek it.

the fact that the alerts were admitted does not make them admissible as they were not challenged.
had the alerts been challenged and experts called...it would be a total diferrent scenario
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 01:28:11 PM
I don't remember asking your opinion if the evidence had any worth. In this thread I am only interested in the truth that alerts are admissible. I am not saying your opinion is of no interest to me just that in this matter I didn't seek it.
I don't care if you sought it or not, nor do I care if you're interested in it or not.  I will say it again.  The dog evidence in the Margaret Fleming case had no worth as evidence and should not have been entered.  IMO.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 01:39:16 PM
I don't care if you sought it or not, nor do I care if you're interested in it or not.  I will say it again.  The dog evidence in the Margaret Fleming case had no worth as evidence and should not have been entered.  IMO.

I apologise if I offended you, it wasn't my intention all. I was pointing out was that I don't remember asking for it in this matter. Even though you say you don't care if I am interested or not in your opinion I assure you I am as your opinions seem reasoned and thought out.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 12, 2020, 01:43:17 PM
"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"

Is this irony?
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?

Without anything else, yep, Moi.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 01:52:05 PM
Without anything else, yep, Moi.

When I say uncorroborated by forensic evidence I refer to forensic evidence that confirms the alert, ie human remains not other evidence such as witness statements that don't concern the dog alert.

I am not saying dog alerts should be the basis and only evidence used to prosecute anyone.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 02:01:03 PM
I apologise if I offended you, it wasn't my intention all. I was pointing out was that I don't remember asking for it in this matter. Even though you say you don't care if I am interested or not in your opinion I assure you I am as your opinions seem reasoned and thought out.
Flattery will get you everywhere!  8((()*/
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 12, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
When I say uncorroborated by forensic evidence I refer to forensic evidence that confirms the alert, ie human remains not other evidence such as witness statements that don't concern the dog alert.

I am not saying dog alerts should be the basis and only evidence used to prosecute anyone.

In the Fleming case it can't be known what notice was taken of the dog alerts when the jury deliberated,what was of note was the defence at no time tried to rubbish the dog alerts,merely to question what rewards were given to positive results and were they rewarded in this case.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 02:06:49 PM
In the Fleming case it can't be known what notice was taken of the dog alerts when the jury deliberated,what was of note was the defence at no time tried to rubbish the dog alerts,merely to question what rewards were given to positive results and were they rewarded in this case.
I think the defence very effectively rubbished the dog alerts - the bones uncovered as a result of the elerts were belonging to a deer and a fish as I recall.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 02:23:16 PM
the fact that the alerts were admitted does not make them admissible as they were not challenged.
had the alerts been challenged and experts called...it would be a total diferrent scenario

Obviously the alerts were admissible as they were admitted. The fact that they weren't challenged is another matter altogether.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 12, 2020, 02:30:40 PM
I think the defence very effectively rubbished the dog alerts - the bones uncovered as a result of the elerts were belonging to a deer and a fish as I recall.


Nothing to do with defence that was forensics,what could not be determined was there any human remains,not all were determined, those being to small.The judge rightly pointed out at the start,defendants are innocent once charged until or unless proven guilty,that burden is on the prosecution to prove it'll not be known if the alerts had any sway on the jury in deciding the guilt.But guilty they were found.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 12, 2020, 02:39:25 PM
Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.

It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.
Davel is right, even when he's wrong - and in fact you will be wrong.
And he can see in to the future.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 03:06:46 PM
Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.

It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.

You need to define what you mean by admissible...in my view being admitted in two cases does not make them admissible ....

whether they are admissible has not been established as they have not been challenged
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 03:07:30 PM

Nothing to do with defence that was forensics,what could not be determined was there any human remains,not all were determined, those being to small.The judge rightly pointed out at the start,defendants are innocent once charged until or unless proven guilty,that burden is on the prosecution to prove it'll not be known if the alerts had any sway on the jury in deciding the guilt.But guilty they were found.
So was it the defence or the prosecution who questioned the police officer about the bones discovered and established that they were from animals?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 03:37:55 PM
Try supporting your postings of 'facts' by some evidence.

NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.



http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 07:57:14 PM
You need to define what you mean by admissible...in my view being admitted in two cases does not make them admissible ....

whether they are admissible has not been established as they have not been challenged

The judge decided that the evidence was admissible or in other words it was relevant and not excluded by any rules.

The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.

Therefore it cannot be said that the evidence was inadmissible, because if it was it wouldn't have been heard. Period.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 08:07:50 PM
The judge decided that the evidence was admissible or in other words it was relevant and not excluded by any rules.

The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.

Therefore it cannot be said that the evidence was inadmissible, because if it was it wouldn't have been heard. Period.

The evidence was admissible in that particular case bevause the defence didnt challenge it from what i can see. Had it been challenged on the basis that the alerts are not evidential.......then how can something that is not evidential be admitted as evidence
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 08:42:38 PM
In the Omagh bombing case... LCN DNA  was admitted untilnit was challenged... Once challenged it was ruled inadmissible and the trial stopped
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 09:41:35 PM
In the Omagh bombing case... LCN DNA  was admitted untilnit was challenged... Once challenged it was ruled inadmissible and the trial stopped

If this were true it would be quite correct to cancel the trial, but unfortunately it's not quite the truth.

The evidence wasn’t deemed to be inadmissible but was declared of an unsatisfactory quality, There were 3 strands to the prosecution's case
1. TPUs (time power units) were all linked to the accused by the prosecution.
2. Fibres on the TPUs were linked to the defendant.
3. LCN DNA linked to the defendant.

The judge ruled he wasn’t satisfied with all 3 strands of evidence and was particularly scathing of the LCN DNA evidence. He cleared the defendant of all charges, its a totally different legal declaration than declaring evidence inadmissible mid trial.


From the Irish Times Dec 21 2007
“In the case against Mr Hoey, said Mr Justice Weir, "the evidence against the accused in this case did not reach that immutable standard. Accordingly I find Mr Hoey not guilty of each of the remaining counts on the indictment".”


As a side note after the judges scathing declaration concerning the DNA evidence incidentally carried out by the FSS(yes the same ones who carried out the test on the Madeleine Mccann DNA) all trials with LCN evidence was suspended but resumed in 2008.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 09:55:06 PM
The evidence was admissible in that particular case bevause the defence didnt challenge it from what i can see. Had it been challenged on the basis that the alerts are not evidential.......then how can something that is not evidential be admitted as evidence

I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.

Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 10:00:39 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.

Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.

The phrase.. Not evidential... Is Mark Harrison's... Not mine
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 12, 2020, 10:03:54 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.

Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.
How do you decide which alerts are reliable and which are not in the absence of any forensic evidence?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: misty on January 12, 2020, 10:04:10 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.

Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.

The dogs are a tool which can help investigators find tangible evidence. Unless resultant evidence is found at the pace of the alert then the alert is worthless. When Luminol gives a positive result at a crime scene, it doesn't necessarily mean blood is present, let alone blood relating to a particular person. Further Forensic tests have to be carried out which may aid an investigation one way or the other - but the test results are what is scientifically acceptable to a court, not the Luminol test.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 10:06:52 PM
 of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 10:12:59 PM
of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.

 And yet the indications have been used as evidence in two High Court murder trials.  Maybe the High Court judge is the higher authority than Mark Harrison. What do you think?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 10:15:21 PM
And yet the indications have been used as evidence in two High Court murder trials.  Maybe the High Court judge is the higher authority than Mark Harrison. What do you think?

It's been used because it hasn't been challenged.. Is the judge an authority on cadaver dog alerts... What knowledge does he have
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 10:21:52 PM
It's been used because it hasn't been challenged.. Is the judge an authority on cadaver dog alerts... What knowledge does he have

You do realise that if any evidence used in any trial was thought to inadmissible and admitted in error by a judge,the judiciary would order retrials immediately. The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High court judges of such alerts. You are just in denial.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 10:28:18 PM
You do realise that if any evidence used in any trial was thought to inadmissible and admitted in error by a judge,the judiciary would order retrials immediately. The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High court judges of such alerts. You are just in denial.

Can you provide a cite for..

The whole of the UK judiciary having no problem with the acceptance of these alerts..

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 10:31:30 PM
Can you provide a cite for..

The whole of the UK judiciary having no problem with the acceptance of these alerts..

Yes by the fact the judgements stand.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 12, 2020, 10:38:25 PM
Yes by the fact the judgements stand.
Pathetic..
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 12, 2020, 10:38:53 PM
Pathetic..

What is?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2020, 10:51:19 PM
How do you decide which alerts are reliable and which are not in the absence of any forensic evidence?

The training, assessing and operational records of the team should be available. They indicate the skills and reliability of the team. A team with a good record is likely to be correct when the dog alerts.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: misty on January 12, 2020, 11:31:28 PM
The training, assessing and operational records of the team should be available. They indicate the skills and reliability of the team. A team with a good record is likely to be correct when the dog alerts.

The dogs in the cases of Laci Peterson & Dylan Redwine tend to contradict such assertions. IMO.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 13, 2020, 12:05:36 AM
The training, assessing and operational records of the team should be available. They indicate the skills and reliability of the team. A team with a good record is likely to be correct when the dog alerts.
What constitutes a good record, and who independently tests and verifies any dog team’s reliability?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 13, 2020, 01:02:24 AM
Past cases where the dogs have proven their skills, records, tests etc.

"We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent."

http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 13, 2020, 07:09:12 AM
What is?
You winning the argument,it would seem.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 07:32:31 AM
Pathetic..
Stings, doesn't it. Being wrong and admitting it to yourself. That's the hard part.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 07:48:33 AM
Stings, doesn't it. Being wrong and admitting it to yourself. That's the hard part.
I'm absolutely correct
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 07:53:51 AM
You do realise that if any evidence used in any trial was thought to inadmissible and admitted in error by a judge,the judiciary would order retrials immediately. The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High court judges of such alerts. You are just in denial.

Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible is palinly absurd....and you can of course supply no evidence to support it...how could you...its a totally ridiculous claim...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 07:55:08 AM
I'm absolutely correct
See.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 13, 2020, 08:08:52 AM
What of early stages then?

Pig doesn't emit the same smell as humans during the other stages only at the final stages  -

After we die, our rotting bodies release specific types of gases into the environment. When a body goes missing, dogs can sniff for these gases to track it down. But forensic scientists are still trying to nail down the exact “smell of death” that is unique to humans. Now, a team in Belgium has identified seven compounds that only pigs and people produce late into decomposition.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 13, 2020, 08:14:22 AM
dogs used  at airports alert to 100s of  things     

I hear this argument a lot.   Yes dogs at airports can alert to bombs and drugs etc.   but the handlers of these dogs can produce drugs and bombs for these dogs to get acquainted with the smell of these items,  the handlers of cadaver dogs can't get hold of a dead body to train the cadaver dog so easily.   Scientists are still trying to find out exactly what a cadaver smells like.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 08:16:53 AM
Stings, doesn't it. Being wrong and admitting it to yourself. That's the hard part.

Unlesss you or others can show that every high court judge in the UK regards the alerts as admissible evidence...then I've plainly won the argumnet
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 08:40:57 AM
Unlesss you or others can show that every high court judge in the UK regards the alerts as admissible evidence...then I've plainly won the argumnet
So you've decided to forget about the 'admissibility' aspect as a concept, as you know you've lost that battle, and decided to winkle out a blanket statement that you're pretty sure is unverifiable; attack from that angle. Nice strategy, but utterly transparent and futile.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 08:46:54 AM
So you've decided to forget about the 'admissibility' aspect as a concept, as you know you've lost that battle, and decided to winkle out a blanket statement that you're pretty sure is unverifiable; attack from that angle. Nice strategy, but utterly transparent and futile.

No.. I've answered the point raised... If the claim is unverifiable which you have confirmed... It should be withdrawn.  Your continued pathetic personal attacks show I'm clearly winning the argument
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 08:54:33 AM
No.. I've answered the point raised... If the claim is unverifiable which you have confirmed... It should be withdrawn.  Your continued pathetic personal attacks show I'm clearly winning the argument

Pathetic..

Hmmmm. Awkward.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 08:56:19 AM
Hmmmm. Awkward.

You agree the the point is unverifiable yet the poster compounded it by claiming his pathetic response was a cite.
What's the problem with that
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 09:35:08 AM
You agree the the point is unverifiable yet the poster compounded it by claiming his pathetic response was a cite.
What's the problem with that
I do agree that throwaway remark is unverifiable; a fact which I'm pretty sure the poster was aware of.
He / she is probably unaware of the pedantic nature of some. He / she is now.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
I do agree that throwaway remark is unverifiable; a fact which I'm pretty sure the poster was aware of.
He / she is probably unaware of the pedantic nature of some. He / she is now.

It wasn't a throw away remark... If it was the poster, wouldnt have tried to provide a cite
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 13, 2020, 09:59:32 AM
Seems it is.

https://www.aftermath.com/content/body-decomposition-smell/


Answering the question, “what does a dead body smell like?” can be difficult if you have never been around a dead body before. However, some people compare the putrid stench of a decomposing body to that of rotting fruit. When someone dies, the body immediately begins the decomposition process and the smell of death begins. Microorganisms create and emit various gases during the stages of human decomposition, which all combine to cause the smell of a cadaver.
"the body immediately begins the decomposition process"  but is not immediately detectable from the evidence I've seen.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 10:03:59 AM
"the body immediately begins the decomposition process"  but is not immediately detectable from the evidence I've seen.

And also from the evidence/cite provided
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 13, 2020, 10:07:55 AM
"the body immediately begins the decomposition process"  but is not immediately detectable from the evidence I've seen.

It is only at the later stages of decomposition that the compounds in a rotting pig emits a gas that smells like the gas of a human cadaver also in the later stages of decomposition.   Therefore Eddie didn't scent cadaver in 5a as no way if Madeleine had died in 5a would she have been in the later stages of decomposition before removed from 5a.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 10:09:54 AM
It is only at the later stages of decomposition that the compounds in a rotting pig emits a gas that smells like the gas of a human cadaver also in the later stages of decomposition.   Therefore Eddie didn't scent cadaver in 5a as no way if Madeleine had died in 5a would she have been in the later stages of decomposition before removed from 5a.

Absolutely ...that's why sceptics try to say it's detectable immediately
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 13, 2020, 10:10:19 AM
"the body immediately begins the decomposition process"  but is not immediately detectable from the evidence I've seen.

As dogs can smell things that humans can't, it's possible that dogs can detect the scent immediately.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 10:11:00 AM
As dogs can smell things that humans can't, it's possible that dogs can detect the scent immediately.

Didn't you read the cite you asked for
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 13, 2020, 10:35:19 AM
It is only at the later stages of decomposition that the compounds in a rotting pig emits a gas that smells like the gas of a human cadaver also in the later stages of decomposition.   Therefore Eddie didn't scent cadaver in 5a as no way if Madeleine had died in 5a would she have been in the later stages of decomposition before removed from 5a.

Not necessarily. It was only in the later stages that scientists were able to isolate certain compounds that the cadavers have in common. Obviously dogs have alerted to places from which relatively fresh cadavers were removed. How about Suzanne Pilley?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 10:37:24 AM
Not necessarily. It was only in the later stages that scientists were able to isolate certain compounds that the cadavers have in common. Obviously dogs have alerted to places from which relatively fresh cadavers were removed. How about Suzanne Pilley?

Oh dear... Prof Cassesella questioned the validity if the alerts
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 13, 2020, 11:12:04 AM
As dogs can smell things that humans can't, it's possible that dogs can detect the scent immediately.

Eddie wouldn't have as Eddie was trained on dead pig.    Don't tell me that Eddie could miraculously be changed from detecting dead pig to suddenly be able to detect a human cadaver,  the only way that would happen is if the human cadaver is in the final stages of decomposition.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 11:17:22 AM
Oh dear... Prof Cassesella questioned the validity if the alerts
Did he though? He confirms that they're widely used (Ep7 - 06.30), confirms that they're alerting to whatever it is their trained to alert to (07.47), then accepts that a conclusion must be drawn (08.42), where they are to be trusted or is the dog 'having a bad day'.
At no point does he question their validity - he suggests the enforcing authority must draw that conclusion. But bear in mind, they had reason to bring them in the first instance, then they do indeed provide an 'alert' in the place they suspect, in this case all parties - police, procurator fiscal, prosecution, judge and jury all drew their conclusions independently, as John suggested they do. Et petit pois, bonjour.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 13, 2020, 11:18:38 AM
Oh dear... Prof Cassesella questioned the validity if the alerts

There are people who question the validity of dog alerts and people who support their validity. It must be a source of annoyance in my opinion that forensic scientists can't explain how these dogs do it.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 11:23:11 AM
There are people who question the validity of dog alerts and people who support their validity. It must be a source of annoyance in my opinion that forensic scientists can't explain how these dogs do it.
I think you are in total denial.... It's the experts.. Prof Cassella... Mark Harrison... Martin Grime ...who have questioned the validity of the alerts
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 13, 2020, 12:49:55 PM
Eddie wouldn't have as Eddie was trained on dead pig.    Don't tell me that Eddie could miraculously be changed from detecting dead pig to suddenly be able to detect a human cadaver,  the only way that would happen is if the human cadaver is in the final stages of decomposition.

More nonsense because all cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver. If you think SY murder team are investigating a missing pig then dream on.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 13, 2020, 03:18:24 PM
More nonsense because all cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver. If you think SY murder team are investigating a missing pig then dream on.


All cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver only in the last stages of decomposition.    Madeleine if she had died in 5a wouldn't have been left on the floor until she was in the last stages of decomposition.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 03:36:17 PM

All cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver only in the last stages of decomposition.    Madeleine if she had died in 5a wouldn't have been left on the floor until she was in the last stages of decomposition.
So the dogs must have alerted to........the rotting carcasses of pigs - only in 5a apartment.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 13, 2020, 03:54:44 PM
So the dogs must have alerted to........the rotting carcasses of pigs - only in 5a apartment.

No, Eddie just wanted his tea,behind the sofa, in the closet, in the hire care & on some clothes.

He wasn't hungry anywhere else.

The GNR's sniffer dogs on the other hand, they are infallible, they're the ones you should have total faith in.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 04:13:21 PM
So the dogs must have alerted to........the rotting carcasses of pigs - only in 5a apartment.

It's much simpler than that... It seems the dogs alert when called back three times....
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 04:35:25 PM
It's much simpler than that... It seems the dogs alert when called back three times....
So are you suggesting that Martin Grime is a fraud?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 04:49:08 PM
So are you suggesting that Martin Grime is a fraud?
Absolutely  not I think I understand exactly why he did it
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 13, 2020, 05:09:37 PM
Absolutely  not I think I understand exactly why he did it
I don't think he did do it. I think you're exaggerating.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 13, 2020, 05:36:07 PM
I don't think he did do it. I think you're exaggerating.

He called the dog back to the car three times and there is a reference in the files by the PJ who were perplexed that the dogs alerted in the apartment  after being called back more than once to places they had previously ignored
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 13, 2020, 05:49:26 PM
As dogs can smell things that humans can't, it's possible that dogs can detect the scent immediately.
Although we’ve never seen their wings, it’s possible that dogs are just keeping them hidden from us and could fly if they wanted to.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 13, 2020, 06:34:00 PM

I think the fact that Melanie is living with a German couple & that SY currently have her under surveillance until she turns 18, just goes to show how incredibly unreliable cadaver dogs are.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/psychic-claims-madeleine-mccann-living-21264766
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 13, 2020, 08:05:04 PM

All cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver only in the last stages of decomposition.    Madeleine if she had died in 5a wouldn't have been left on the floor until she was in the last stages of decomposition.

But how good are dogs at detecting a skeleton from which all the flesh has fallen away? The anthropologist Keith Jacobi of the University of Alabama has investigated this at a police-dog training facility, where human remains ranging from fresh to skeletonised have been buried (the remains were bequeathed by donors).

In one study involving four dogs and their handlers, Jacobi says the dogs were able to detect remains at all stages of decomposition. Performance varied between dogs, but some could locate skeletonised remains buried in an area of 300ft by 150ft. "The few single human vertebrae I used in the study were well over 25 years old, and dry bone," Jacobi says. "This made the discovery of one of these vertebrae, which we buried in dense woods 2ft deep, by a cadaver dog pretty remarkable."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10746261_Cadaver_dog_and_handler_team_capabilities_in_the_recovery_of_buried_human_remains_in_the_SE_United_States

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 13, 2020, 10:21:16 PM
Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible is palinly absurd....and you can of course supply no evidence to support it...how could you...its a totally ridiculous claim...

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

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


This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be (all of the points raised below)

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

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

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 14, 2020, 08:10:45 AM
I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

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


This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

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

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.
If “The UK Judiciary means High Court Judges only”, as you say then your statement “The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts” basically means what what Davel said it means,ie  “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible” unless I’m missing something?  .
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 14, 2020, 08:35:08 AM
Although we’ve never seen their wings, it’s possible that dogs are just keeping them hidden from us and could fly if they wanted to.
Pigs do the same.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 08:51:43 AM
I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

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


This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

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

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

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.



Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 10:04:08 AM
I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

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


This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

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

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 14, 2020, 10:22:09 AM
Some people think that cadaver dog handlers shouldn't be allowed to testify in criminal trials. I think it's up to the prosecution which evidence they use. As with any of the evidence it's up to the defence to refute it or cast doubt upon it.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 14, 2020, 10:30:24 AM
Some people think that cadaver dog handlers shouldn't be allowed to testify in criminal trials. I think it's up to the prosecution which evidence they use. As with any of the evidence it's up to the defence to refute it or cast doubt upon it.


As we noted in Police and Military Dogs, the work of cadaver dogs is relatively infrequently questioned in court because a cadaver is found and identified by DNA, dental comparison, or other procedures.  The work of the dog becomes historical to the case, and does not receive more than a brief mention in a judicial opinion.  Nevertheless, this study may have an impact on future prosecutions where a body has not been found and the dog’s alert is taken as proof that the suspected decedent was present at a location, or in cases where the body has been found and the prosecution’s problem is to establish that it was in the defendant’s car or house or at some other specific location (consider the recent Casey Anthony prosecution involving a car trunk).  If the defense can make a plausible argument that a dead pig or other animal might have been at the location, and establish that the dog’s training aids included swine remains, a court may have to consider the implications of this research. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on January 14, 2020, 10:32:03 AM
https://doglawreporter-bay-net.blogspot.com/2012/04/training-cadaver-dogs-on-pig-remains.html
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 10:42:27 AM
Some people think that cadaver dog handlers shouldn't be allowed to testify in criminal trials. I think it's up to the prosecution which evidence they use. As with any of the evidence it's up to the defence to refute it or cast doubt upon it.

That's not how the system works... Not just in the UK but worldwide.  Evidence can be ruled inadmissible. It's up to the defence to challenge evidence they consider to be inadmissible but it seems that didn't happen in this case.  If evidence is challenged ...and the area is outside the expertise of the judge. then expert opinion is sought and the judge makes a decision based on the expert opinion.... which imo would have ruled the alerts inadmissible... As confirmed  by the SCCRC
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 14, 2020, 12:18:48 PM
That's not how the system works... Not jut in the UK but worldwide.  Evidence can be ruled inadmissible. It's up to the defence to challenge evidence they consider to be inadmissible but it seems that didn't happen in this case.  If evidence is challenged then expert opinion is sought which imo would have ruled the alerts inadmissible... As confirmed  by the SCCRC

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.


Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 14, 2020, 12:35:03 PM

As we noted in Police and Military Dogs, the work of cadaver dogs is relatively infrequently questioned in court because a cadaver is found and identified by DNA, dental comparison, or other procedures.  The work of the dog becomes historical to the case, and does not receive more than a brief mention in a judicial opinion.  Nevertheless, this study may have an impact on future prosecutions where a body has not been found and the dog’s alert is taken as proof that the suspected decedent was present at a location, or in cases where the body has been found and the prosecution’s problem is to establish that it was in the defendant’s car or house or at some other specific location (consider the recent Casey Anthony prosecution involving a car trunk).  If the defense can make a plausible argument that a dead pig or other animal might have been at the location, and establish that the dog’s training aids included swine remains, a court may have to consider the implications of this research.

Nobody will believe a pig cadaver was in a boot if a person is missing under suspicious circumstances  @)(++(* That's as dumb as Davel saying it's possible she was abducted by aliens  *%87 Nobody will believe it!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 01:07:55 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 14, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 01:23:38 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on January 14, 2020, 01:53:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 01:59:53 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 14, 2020, 03:06:30 PM
The evidence wasn't properly challenged

That was up to the defence lawyers.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on January 14, 2020, 03:16:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 03:44:35 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 03:45:23 PM
That was up to the defence lawyers.

That's the point I was making... Once again you agree with me
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:04:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
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!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:11:22 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:11:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:17:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:18:59 PM
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.


Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:22:57 PM
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?

the use of the word seem by you means its your opinnion...not fact. As I have said I understand perfectly what the "Judicial" system means....its an adjective relating to judges....with a latin root
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:24:04 PM
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.

There seems to be some confusion about my post from last night. I have clarified it with the words in brackets.

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

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

This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be (all of the points raised below)

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

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

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:27:11 PM
the use of the word seem by you means its your opinnion...not fact. As I have said I understand perfectly what the "Judicial" system means....its an adjective relating to judges....with a latin root

Thats what \I just posted, there is no ambiguity after post #83 it would seem.

"In this case it is only my opinion not a fact. But the word seem suggests this anyway doesn't it?"
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:27:35 PM
There seems to be some confusion about my post from last night. I have clarified it with the words in brackets.

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

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

This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be (all of the points raised below)

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

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

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

doesnt really change anything does it...Ive answered the points you've raised.....


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

which supports everything i've posted from day one on this thread...the defence didnt challenge it...so the judge automatically admitted it.



Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:32:32 PM
the use of the word seem by you means its your opinnion...not fact. As I have said I understand perfectly what the "Judicial" system means....its an adjective relating to judges....with a latin root

From previous quotes you took my reference to the UK Judiciary to mean only High court judges (see post #404).
I have never claimed that "Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible"
unless you can show where I claimed that. I'll wait.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:34:49 PM
From previous quotes you took my reference to the UK Judiciary to mean only High court judges (see post #404).
I have never claimed that "Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible"
unless you can show where I claimed that. I'll wait.


You are making another assumption....the Judiciary includes every high court judge....so what you are claiming is inclusive of every high court judge..

you only had to wait less than two minutes...thats typing and thinking time combined
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:43:13 PM
doesnt really change anything does it...Ive answered the points you've raised.....


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

which supports everything i've posted from day one on this thread...the defence didnt challenge it...so the judge automatically admitted it.

Please read the post again. My understanding is the exact opposite to If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it. I was stating what you have said previously on this thread.

" I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible" Post #37

And this is my post #64

A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:46:21 PM
Please read the post again. My understanding is the exact opposite to If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it. I was stating what you have said previously on this thread.

" I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible" Post #37

And this is my post #64

A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.

Quite simply...why would a judge not admit the testimony of a serving police officer unless it was challenged. IMO.....the judge had little knowledge of cadaver dog alerts and therefore automatically admitted it...accepting the policeman to be the guardian of his own testimony......
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 06:46:43 PM

You are making another assumption....the Judiciary includes every high court judge....so what you are claiming is inclusive of every high court judge..

you only had to wait less than two minutes...thats typing and thinking time combined

Yes and also every magistrate, district judge, recorders, circuit judges, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor among others. As I said High court judges comprise 6% of the judiciary why didn't you choose the other 94%. Ony one minute.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:50:34 PM
Yes and also every magistrate, district judge, recorders, circuit judges, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor among others. As I said High court judges comprise 6% of the judiciary why didn't you choose the other 94%. Ony one minute.

why should I....I chose the most qualified....your claim includes ...ALL High Court Judges
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:54:24 PM
Yes and also every magistrate, district judge, recorders, circuit judges, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor among others. As I said High court judges comprise 6% of the judiciary why didn't you choose the other 94%. Ony one minute.

it wasnt one minute...look at the timing of the posts...it was around 12
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 06:58:14 PM
Please read the post again. My understanding is the exact opposite to If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it. I was stating what you have said previously on this thread.

" I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible" Post #37

And this is my post #64

A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.

so tell me...does a judge look through every piece of evidence pre trial and decide if its admissible..before allowing it...or does he rely on the defence to raise any questions re the admissibility of evidence
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 14, 2020, 07:20:42 PM
That's the point I was making... Once again you agree with me

Where you are wrong is when you say that a challenge by defence lawyers would lead to the evidence being ruled inadmissible. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the challenge could be unsuccessful.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: carlymichelle on January 14, 2020, 07:21:55 PM
Where you are wrong is when you say that a challenge by defence lawyers would lead to the evidence being ruled inadmissible. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the challenge could be unsuccessful.

some people   take  things literal    dont they??
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 07:25:05 PM
Where you are wrong is when you say that a challenge by defence lawyers would lead to the evidence being ruled inadmissible. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the challenge could be unsuccessful.

have a look at what this post related to....it was the fact that it was up to the defence lawyers to challenge the evidence...my post is absolutely correct....we both agree on that..

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg569920#msg569920

in my posts I say that from the evidence ive seen...the alerts would be excluded...thats opinion
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 07:47:59 PM
so tell me...does a judge look through every piece of evidence pre trial and decide if its admissible..before allowing it...or does he rely on the defence to raise any questions re the admissibility of evidence

Ultimately a judge is responsible for any evidence presented before a court. He has to decide what is admissible or inadmissible not the defence counsel, prosecution or anybody else. There is no responsibility on the defence counsel to ensure that inadmissible evidence is not presented before court. As the case proceeds the judge at any point before it is presented can rule evidence inadmissible if he feels it may prejudice the trial.

Say, at the pre hearing the judge noticed there was some hearsay testimony that is inadmissible, he wouldn’t say to himself “If the defence don’t raise this I am going to allow it”
Or on day 4 some evidence is going to be presented that would reference something that has already been excluded he would rule that inadmissible also.  The onus is on the Judge.

Surely this make sense ?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 07:57:13 PM
Ultimately a judge is responsible for any evidence presented before a court. He has to decide what is admissible or inadmissible not the defence counsel, prosecution or anybody else. There is no responsibility on the defence counsel to ensure that inadmissible evidence is not presented before court. As the case proceeds the judge at any point before it is presented can rule evidence inadmissible if he feels it may prejudice the trial.

Say, at the pre hearing the judge noticed there was some hearsay testimony that is inadmissible, he wouldn’t say to himself “If the defence don’t raise this I am going to allow it”
Or on day 4 some evidence is going to be presented that would reference something that has already been excluded he would rule that inadmissible also.  The onus is on the Judge.

Surely this make sense ?

In actual fact inadmissible evidence was presented at the trial... the full written pathologist report. The Judge told the jury simply to ignore it.



Nothing you have posted can show my claim that had the alerts been challenged ...then they would not have been admitted. This therefore shows tht the fact they were admitted makes them evidence simply your opinion.

Your claim that The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts,  belongs in the nearest bin.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 08:14:24 PM
 ]
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 08:16:11 PM
In actual fact inadmissible evidence was presented at the trial... the full written pathologist report. The Judge told the jury simply to ignore it.



Nothing you have posted can show my claim that had the alerts been challenged ...then they would not have been admitted. This therefore shows tht the fact they were admitted makes them evidence simply your opinion.

Your claim that The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts,  belongs in the nearest bin.

This is very true, it happens very often in court cases that the judge will ask the jury to disregard some evidence or testimony. After all he can’t foresee what a witness is going to testify later that day or even one of the counsels may say when questioning a witness. Its a very live process a judge has to react to a fluid moving situation.
That said, in either case we are talking about did the judge ask the jury to disregard the dog alert evidence ?

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 08:20:17 PM
This is very true, it happens very often in court cases that the judge will ask the jury to disregard some evidence or testimony. After all he can’t foresee what a witness is going to testify later that day or even one of the counsels may say when questioning a witness. Its a very live process a judge has to react to a fluid moving situation.
That said, in either case we are talking about did the judge ask the jury to disregard the dog alert evidence ?

No because it wasn't challenged..
You did previously post that if inadmissible evidence was admitted... The judge would order a retrial... You've obviously  abandoned  that one now
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 08:39:32 PM
No because it wasn't challenged..
You did previously post that if inadmissible evidence was admitted... The judge would order a retrial... You've obviously  abandoned  that one now

There was no way the judge could know that the following was going to happen to rule it as inadmissible could he.
He didn't judge it serious enough to desert the trial diet. I haven't abandoned anything if a serious piece of inadmissible evidence arose a judge would order a retrial. If its minor he won't. I didn't think I would have to describe every nuance of court proceedings.

From the High court papers not from a podcast.

"Three unedited copies of the report were given to the jury in error. Although the pathologist gave oral evidence in respect of all four conclusions, his testimony did not cover the italicised sections set out above. The jury noticed the discrepancy in their copies and brought it to the court's attention on the following day. A motion to desert was made, but the trial judge refused that in favour of a direction to the jury to disregard the matters not covered by the pathologist in the witness box"

So it wasn't really challenged at the time by the defence either.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 08:52:03 PM
There was no way the judge could know that the following was going to happen to rule it as inadmissible could he.
He didn't judge it serious enough to desert the trial diet. I haven't abandoned anything if a serious piece of inadmissible evidence arose a judge would order a retrial. If its minor he won't. I didn't think I would have to describe every nuance of court proceedings.

From the High court papers not from a podcast.

"Three unedited copies of the report were given to the jury in error. Although the pathologist gave oral evidence in respect of all four conclusions, his testimony did not cover the italicised sections set out above. The jury noticed the discrepancy in their copies and brought it to the court's attention on the following day. A motion to desert was made, but the trial judge refused that in favour of a direction to the jury to disregard the matters not covered by the pathologist in the witness box"

So it wasn't really challenged at the time by the defence either.

I'm referring to the alerts as not being challenged
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 08:57:09 PM
I'm referring to the alerts as not being challenged

Well why do you think that they weren't challenged. Twice. By two different legal teams.
What reason?
If they were so inadmissible did the defence counsel not notice that they were being presented before the court in front of their very eyes.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 14, 2020, 09:04:40 PM
Well why do you think that they weren't challenged. Twice. By two different legal teams.
What reason?
If they were so inadmissible did the defence counsel not notice that they were being presented before the court in front of their very eyes.
Poor defence
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 09:12:20 PM
Poor defence

Poor Defence? So now you're an expert defence counsel who knows more about court proceedings than 2 defence counsels in a High Court trial.

You couldn't make it up.

Stop it my sides are hurting.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 14, 2020, 09:49:40 PM
Poor Defence? So now you're an expert defence counsel who knows more about court proceedings than 2 defence counsels in a High Court trial.

You couldn't make it up.

Stop it my sides are hurting.
Come on, uncorroborated dog alerts admitted in evidence that weren’t challenged by the defence?  I’d say that was pretty poor. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 10:19:26 PM
Come on, uncorroborated dog alerts admitted in evidence that weren’t challenged by the defence?  I’d say that was pretty poor.

In the Gilroy case only the sentencing was broadcast so I can't say how the dog handler was examined, but in the Margaret Fleming case the trial was. So you can see the defence question the evidence presented by the dog handler. Of course we don't know how hard the defence petitioned for the evidence to be excluded pre trial but as the history tells us the judge ruled it admissible. That's the fact.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 14, 2020, 10:46:13 PM
In the Gilroy case only the sentencing was broadcast so I can't say how the dog handler was examined, but in the Margaret Fleming case the trial was. So you can see the defence question the evidence presented by the dog handler. Of course we don't know how hard the defence petitioned for the evidence to be excluded pre trial but as the history tells us the judge ruled it admissible. That's the fact.

What is clear is that it can no longer be said that cadaver dog alerts aren't evidence because they have been used in court as evidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 14, 2020, 10:48:18 PM
In the Gilroy case only the sentencing was broadcast so I can't say how the dog handler was examined, but in the Margaret Fleming case the trial was. So you can see the defence question the evidence presented by the dog handler. Of course we don't know how hard the defence petitioned for the evidence to be excluded pre trial but as the history tells us the judge ruled it admissible. That's the fact.
Davel’s contention is that the defence did not try hard enough or at all to petition for the evidence to be excluded as it should have been.  This is opinion now, to which we are all entitled and which you asked Davel to express and laughed so hard your sides ached when he did as you asked.  But really it was a valid opinion, so no need for the sarky comment IMO.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 11:00:32 PM
Davel’s contention is that the defence did not try hard enough or at all to petition for the evidence to be excluded as it should have been.  This is opinion now, to which we are all entitled and which you asked Davel to express and laughed so hard your sides ached when he did as you asked.  But really it was a valid opinion, so no need for the sarky comment IMO.

 I am sorry, please forgive me, but I find it really funny that Davel thinks he knows the intricacies of the legal process better than 2 defence counsels that have both studied law for many years. That he can judge their performance to be poor, based on what experience exactly. I have only be here a few days but it is awash with sarky comments so don't be so precious. IMO
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 11:01:50 PM
What is clear is that it can no longer be said that cadaver dog alerts aren't evidence because they have been used in court as evidence.

And that G-Unit is all I have been arguing for, as it has been pushed as inadmissible or irrelevant for many years on this forum.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 14, 2020, 11:06:26 PM
Dare I say that The Fleming Case appeared to be a shambles.  Much more relaxed than an English Court of Law.  And I have spent some time in English Courts.  Although I don't suppose it made much difference in the long run.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 14, 2020, 11:10:53 PM
Dare I say that The Fleming Case appeared to be a shambles.  Much more relaxed than an English Court of Law.  And I have spent some time in English Courts.  Although I don't suppose it made much difference in the long run.

I guess all cases are different, it depends on the personalities involved. Maybe the way it was edited and presented on TV could also be a factor. But yes I did like the bit where Cairney told the prosecutor to "away and boil yer head".
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 14, 2020, 11:14:21 PM
I guess all cases are different, it depends on the personalities involved. Maybe the way it was edited and presented on TV could also be a factor. But yes I did like the bit where Cairney told the prosecutor to "away and boil yer head".

Yer, that bit made me laugh.  But it was the actual Trial, although perhaps not all of it.

Can't wait for the next bit.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 14, 2020, 11:25:19 PM
I am sorry, please forgive me, but I find it really funny that Davel thinks he knows the intricacies of the legal process better than 2 defence counsels that have both studied law for many years. That he can judge their performance to be poor, based on what experience exactly. I have only be here a few days but it is awash with sarky comments so don't be so precious. IMO
Don’t tell me what to do, precious. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 14, 2020, 11:31:34 PM
Yer, that bit made me laugh.  But it was the actual Trial, although perhaps not all of it.

Can't wait for the next bit.
There’s more??
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 14, 2020, 11:39:19 PM
There’s more??

Isn't there a Part Two?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 14, 2020, 11:56:06 PM
Isn't there a Part Two?
I think I watched both parts in one go.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 14, 2020, 11:58:30 PM
And that G-Unit is all I have been arguing for, as it has been pushed as inadmissible or irrelevant for many years on this forum.

No doubt that will continue, but it can and should be refuted. Well done!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 15, 2020, 12:22:24 AM
I think I watched both parts in one go.

Oh.  I shall have to watch it again.  But it will be worth it for the laugh.

By the way, I think they done it.  Although The Dog Evidence was absolutely useless.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on January 15, 2020, 06:57:55 AM
Oh.  I shall have to watch it again.  But it will be worth it for the laugh.

By the way, I think they done it.  Although The Dog Evidence was absolutely useless.
Bit off topic but where the house and land the killers lived I see someone according to an article in the Mail yesterday is now planning to build there.I thought the location was stunning.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7886891/Property-developers-build-two-homes-site-teen-murdered.html
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 07:59:33 AM
Poor Defence? So now you're an expert defence counsel who knows more about court proceedings than 2 defence counsels in a High Court trial.

You couldn't make it up.

Stop it my sides are hurting.

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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 08:12:35 AM
What is clear is that it can no longer be said that cadaver dog alerts aren't evidence because they have been used in court as evidence.

Thats your opinion and as you are an anonymous poster on the net its worth little or nothing..I prefer the opinions of Prof Cassella and Prof Angela Gallop, both experts in forensic science . Both concur that the alerts are not evidence and that there is no evidence Suzzanne Pillay died in the basement
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 08:17:23 AM
And that G-Unit is all I have been arguing for, as it has been pushed as inadmissible or irrelevant for many years on this forum.

I think its clear that you havent changed anyones mind here and the only posters who agree with you are those that have always thought the alerts were evidence
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 15, 2020, 10:20:23 AM
I think its clear that you havent changed anyones mind here and the only posters who agree with you are those that have always thought the alerts were evidence

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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 10:25:44 AM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 15, 2020, 11:09:55 AM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 11:14:29 AM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 11:17:38 AM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 15, 2020, 11:52:24 AM
That would make a lie detector evidence... But not admissable evidence

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

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 11:56:33 AM
Lie detector tests aren't admissible, but cadaver dog handler's evidence is.

They have been admitted in error... Not just my opinion
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 12:19:31 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 12:29:59 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 15, 2020, 12:38:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 12:41:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 12:45:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 12:49:19 PM

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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 12:51:00 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 12:51:27 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 12:55:56 PM
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
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 12:56:46 PM
So they are not evidence of the past presence of a cadaver... Thanks

As mentioned previously a jury would decide their worth.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 12:58:32 PM
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

With the greatest respect please answer my question then.
You have not made one goading post, Greggs? off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 01:08:30 PM
As mentioned previously a jury would decide their worth.

Only if they were admitted... Doing a little work at the moment... Shouldn't take long
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 01:13:22 PM
Only if they were admitted... Doing a little work at the moment... Shouldn't take long

Well in the two cases we are discussing they were admitted that is a fact.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 15, 2020, 01:25:58 PM
Well in the two cases we are discussing they were admitted that is a fact.

Were they actually admitted or were they just not challenged?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 01:35:17 PM
Were they actually admitted or were they just not challenged?

By the facts presented, they were admitted before court that is a truth as we can see it on film.
They were challenged by the defence counsel during the trial, but its not in the public domain if they were challenged pre trial.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 01:37:25 PM
Well in the two cases we are discussing they were admitted that is a fact.

The fact that they were, admitted was accepted as fact about two hundred posts ago... The question is...why were they admitted... My contention is they are not admissible but simply weren't challenged. Based on that... Can we see that oart of the debate closed
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 01:38:40 PM
By the facts presented, they were admitted before court that is a truth as we can see it on film.
They were challenged by the defence counsel during the trial, but its not in the public domain if they were challenged pre trial.

Was their admissibility challenged... I don't believe it was
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 01:43:07 PM
The fact that they were, admitted was accepted as fact about two hundred posts ago... The question is...why were they admitted... My contention is they are not admissible but simply weren't challenged. Based on that... Can we see that oart of the debate closed

Not quite, the declaration of evidence to be inadmissible can only be undertaken by a judge. Even if there was a mistake by the defence ( and I'm not saying there was) no judge has declared them inadmissible. So they legally stand as admissible evidence.

We can leave that part there if you wish, but with respect I would still like an answer to my question that I proposed earlier.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 01:43:28 PM
Was their admissibility challenged... I don't believe it was

How can you know this?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 01:44:06 PM
Not quite, the declaration of evidence to be inadmissible can only be undertaken by a judge. Even if there was a mistake by the defence ( and I'm not saying there was) no judge has declared them inadmissible. So they legally stand as admissible evidence.

We can leave that part there if you wish, but with respect I would still like an answer to my question that I proposed earlier.
I would say you are quite wrong... They are legally admiited
Evidence in this case... That certainly does not mean that all High court judges now consider alerts as legally admissible
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 01:50:30 PM
I would say you are quite wrong... They are legally admiited
Evidence in this case... That certainly does not mean that all High court judges now consider alerts as legally admissible

As I said I can't read the minds of all High court judges so I would never say all High Court judges consider alerts as legally admissible. Maybe they do. Who knows?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 02:04:22 PM
How can you know this?

Deduction

Because if it had been properly challenged it would it would not have been admitted.. From what I understand
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 02:08:22 PM
Deduction

Because if it had been properly challenged it would it would not have been admitted.. From what I understand

Assumption.

On what legal grounds would it be deemed inadmissible.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 02:11:26 PM
Assumption.

On what legal grounds would it be deemed inadmissible.

You need to ask Prof Cassella and Prof Angela Gallop for the precise reasons ...According to the SCcRC it was inadmissible... You could ask them too

And of course they have no evidential reliability or value
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 15, 2020, 02:14:34 PM
By the facts presented, they were admitted before court that is a truth as we can see it on film.
They were challenged by the defence counsel during the trial, but its not in the public domain if they were challenged pre trial.

Thank You.

It sounds as though Davel is right.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 02:20:31 PM
You need to ask Prof Cassella and Prof Angela Gallop for the precise reasons ...According to the SCcRC it was inadmissible... You could ask them too

And of course they have no evidential reliability or value

OK you keep using this references so back it up.
The General already questioned you if Prof Cassella did say that back in his post #447 so please provide the cite where he says dog alerts are inadmissible in court. And as you persist in using  the SCCRC please provide the report that they produced stating this. Not hearsay from family members of the man convicted of the murder but the report.
And while you are at it please with respect answer my previous question, you know the one.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 02:20:52 PM
Thank You.

It sounds as though Davel is right.

 How so?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 02:37:35 PM
OK you keep using this references so back it up.
The General already questioned you if Prof Cassella did say that back in his post #447 so please provide the cite where he says dog alerts are inadmissible in court. And as you persist in using  the SCCRC please provide the report that they produced stating this. Not hearsay from family members of the man convicted of the murder but the report.
And while you are at it please with respect answer my previous question, you know the one.

Which question.....ive been at work so my full attention hasnt been on posting.
Two journalist spent two years researching the Gilroy case and produced a podcast available on amazon, its quite interesting. The Gilroy family claimed the SCCRC ruled the alerts indmissible.....then in the podcast it again mentioned the SCCRC decision....it also said when Prof Cassella was asked he confirmed the alerts were inadmissible.....thats reasonable evidence...more reliable than the alerts imo.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 02:39:50 PM
Which question.....ive been at work so my full attention hasnt been on posting.
Two journalist spent two years researching the Gilroy case and produced a podcast available on amazon, its quite interesting. The Gilroy family claimed the SCCRC ruled the alerts indmissible.....then in the podcast it again mentioned the SCCRC decision....it also said when Prof Cassella was asked he confirmed the alerts were inadmissible.....thats reasonable evidence...more reliable than the alerts imo.

The question was

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?.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 02:42:03 PM
The question was

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?.

Simple question.. They would be if properly challenged
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 15, 2020, 02:43:51 PM
How so?

Someone snuck them in while no one was watching.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 02:50:21 PM
Simple question.. They would be if properly challenged

With respect you are not being clear with your answer.

To the question

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?.


It surely must be either Yes, No or I don't know. I think you are saying that there are not treated the same way as a polygraph as it doesn't matter if a polygraph is challenged or not, it would never be allowed. Are you saying this ? Its not clear to me.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 02:51:17 PM
Someone snuck them in while no one was watching.

That would an answer I would agree with.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 02:55:06 PM
This is interesting re admissibility..

4. The expert's evidence is reliable

There should be a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the expert evidence or it must be part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience.

The reliability of the opinion evidence will also take into account the methods used in reaching that opinion, such as validated laboratory techniques and technologies, and whether those processes are recognised as providing a sufficient scientific basis upon which the expert's conclusions can be reached. The expert must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions.



Grime has told us the dogs are validated anectdotally...the opposite of scientific
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 15, 2020, 02:59:48 PM
This is interesting re admissibility..

4. The expert's evidence is reliable

There should be a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the expert evidence or it must be part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience.

The reliability of the opinion evidence will also take into account the methods used in reaching that opinion, such as validated laboratory techniques and technologies, and whether those processes are recognised as providing a sufficient scientific basis upon which the expert's conclusions can be reached. The expert must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions.



Grime has told us the dogs are validated anectdotally...the opposite of scientific

I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 03:21:11 PM
I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.

What evidence do you have that the judges considered the alerts had sufficient scientific basis or whether he just blindly accepted them
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 15, 2020, 03:29:08 PM
I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.
On what grounds could they possibly have come to that conclusion?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 04:06:00 PM
I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.

I don't see the judge gave any consideration to reliability of the evidence... I think it was blindly accepted
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 04:33:09 PM
From the CPS website re  new or Novel tecniques...remnant scent seem to have come into play according to grimes white paper in 2005 so its realtively new...only 2 cases involved in court proceedings..



1, Whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested;
2.Whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review and publication;
3The known or potential rate of error or the existence of standards; and
4 Whether the theory or technique used has been generally accepted.


grime has told us unconfirmed alerts cannot be tested...so no to 1
there is no peer review or publication re unconfirmed alerts...so no to 2
as it cant be tested there is no known rate of error...no to 3
alerts are not generally accepted as a reliable indicator of residual scent...so no to 4

The alerts fail pretty well every test
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 15, 2020, 04:37:31 PM
Which question.....ive been at work so my full attention hasnt been on posting.
Two journalist spent two years researching the Gilroy case and produced a podcast available on amazon, its quite interesting. The Gilroy family claimed the SCCRC ruled the alerts indmissible.....then in the podcast it again mentioned the SCCRC decision....it also said when Prof Cassella was asked he confirmed the alerts were inadmissible.....thats reasonable evidence...more reliable than the alerts imo.

The podcast you mention is in 10 episodes. I have listened to episode 7, where Cassella speaks. He doesn't use the word inadmissible. Who did use that word, and in which episode?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 04:43:14 PM
The podcast you mention is in 10 episodes. I have listened to episode 7, where Cassella speaks. He doesn't use the word inadmissible. Who did use that word, and in which episode?
what did you hear Cassella say re the dogs
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 05:19:56 PM
Taken from epidode 8...the trial  prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs


We spoke to Prof  John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and  their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him


Further on the Narrator says....David aplied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't  admissible.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 15, 2020, 08:33:38 PM
Taken from epidode 8...the trial  prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs


We spoke to Prof  John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and  their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him


Further on the Narrator says....David aplied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't  admissible.

So Cassella didn't say admissible or inadmissible?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 08:36:23 PM
So Cassella didn't say admissible or inadmissible?
  according to the two reporters he said inadmissable. Ive provided quite  a bit of evidence there but you can ignore it all if you wish,...doesnt really make any diference

what is noticeable...is that Cassella is saying exactly what Grime and Harrison said in 2007...did you notice that...do you think that is of any significance
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 15, 2020, 08:59:42 PM
  according to the two reporters he said inadmissable. Ive provided quite  a bit of evidence there but you can ignore it all if you wish,...doesnt really make any diference

what is noticeable...is that Cassella is saying exactly what Grime and Harrison said in 2007...did you notice that...do you think that is of any significance

I noticed the reporters mentioned the Zapata case where the judge said the alerts were no better than tossing a coin. They didn't, however, mention that the dogs in that case were later found to be correct. Naughty!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 15, 2020, 09:03:26 PM
I noticed the reporters mentioned the Zapata case where the judge said the alerts were no better than tossing a coin. They didn't, however, mention that the dogs in that case were later found to be correct. Naughty!

 If the dogs are taken to potential homicide cites and they alert...its not surpridsing that sometimes the site relates to a murder..
that does not mean the dogs alert was correct... Derek Acorah probably has a much higher success rate than the dogs
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 15, 2020, 10:41:00 PM
If the dogs are taken to potential homicide cites and they alert...its not surpridsing that sometimes the site relates to a murder..
that does not mean the dogs alert was correct... Derek Acorah probably has a much higher success rate than the dogs
Googling Derek Acorah "The TV mystic Derek Acorah has died aged 69, his wife has said.

The self-styled spiritual medium, whose real name is Derek Johnson, appeared on Celebrity Big Brother in 2017 and launched the paranormal reality TV series Most Haunted in 2001."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/tv-mystic-derek-acorah-dies-aged-69
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on January 16, 2020, 12:57:43 AM
I’m afraid due to increasing work commitments I will have to step back from the forum for a few weeks, I learned to my cost today that when you plan to log on for 10 mins at lunch you can get sidetracked for a couple of hours. It’s very addictive arguing with someone you have never met over the internet but I just don’t have the spare time at the moment.

So hopefully I can leave it like this for now.

I contend that there have been two cases where dog alerts have been admitted in the UK courts.
Davel contends that had they been challenged they would have been ruled inadmissible

I think that covers it.
Good luck everybody.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 16, 2020, 07:48:28 AM
I’m afraid due to increasing work commitments I will have to step back from the forum for a few weeks, I learned to my cost today that when you plan to log on for 10 mins at lunch you can get sidetracked for a couple of hours. It’s very addictive arguing with someone you have never met over the internet but I just don’t have the spare time at the moment.

So hopefully I can leave it like this for now.

I contend that there have been two cases where dog alerts have been admitted in the UK courts.
Davel contends that had they been challenged they would have been ruled inadmissible

I think that covers it.
Good luck everybody.

thank you.  Come back soon.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 16, 2020, 01:14:41 PM
I’m afraid due to increasing work commitments I will have to step back from the forum for a few weeks, I learned to my cost today that when you plan to log on for 10 mins at lunch you can get sidetracked for a couple of hours. It’s very addictive arguing with someone you have never met over the internet but I just don’t have the spare time at the moment.

So hopefully I can leave it like this for now.

I contend that there have been two cases where dog alerts have been admitted in the UK courts.
Davel contends that had they been challenged they would have been ruled inadmissible

I think that covers it.
Good luck everybody.

Cheers  8((()*/

Ok just to pick up on the above for those still here I'm not really sure what point Icanhandlethetruth was endeavoring to make?

Dog alerts are clearly capable of being used in court otherwise the police wouldn't deploy them.  But an alert is just a tiny piece of potential evidence that only has value if supported by other pieces of evidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 16, 2020, 01:46:29 PM
Cheers  8((()*/

Ok just to pick up on the above for those still here I'm not really sure what point Icanhandlethetruth was endeavoring to make?

Dog alerts are clearly capable of being used in court otherwise the police wouldn't deploy them.  But an alert is just a tiny piece of potential evidence that only has value if supported by other pieces of evidence.

I think it's clear what point he was making.  According to the experts there is no evidence if death in the basement in the Pillay case... That's, none... Not even a, tiny piece.  But what would the experts know
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 16, 2020, 01:47:28 PM
Cheers  8((()*/

Ok just to pick up on the above for those still here I'm not really sure what point Icanhandlethetruth was endeavoring to make?

Dog alerts are clearly capable of being used in court otherwise the police wouldn't deploy them.  But an alert is just a tiny piece of potential evidence that only has value if supported by other pieces of evidence.

The Police would deploy them if they couldn't be used In Court.  Court isn't what it's all about.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 16, 2020, 01:57:26 PM
I think it's clear what point he was making.  According to the experts there is no evidence if death in the basement in the Pillay case... That's, none... Not even a, tiny piece.  But what would the experts know

According to the experts, who are forensic scientists, there's no forensic evidence, which is true. No-one ever claimed there was. The whole case rested on circumstantial evidence, as the prosecutor acknowledged. The Proculator Fiscal scrutinised the evidence and decided to go ahead with a prosecution, and Gilroy was convicted.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 16, 2020, 02:03:03 PM
According to the experts, who are forensic scientists, there's no forensic evidence, which is true. No-one ever claimed there was. The whole case rested on circumstantial evidence, as the prosecutor acknowledged. The Proculator Fiscal scrutinised the evidence and decided to go ahead with a prosecution, and Gilroy was convicted.

The point is... No evidence of death in the basement
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on January 16, 2020, 02:13:58 PM
The point is... No evidence of death in the basement

No forensic evidence is the point. There was none in Gilroy's car boot either. The case was brought using only circumstantial evidence, which the jury decided was enough.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 16, 2020, 02:18:58 PM
No forensic evidence is the point. There was none in Gilroy's car boot either. The case was brought using only circumstantial evidence, which the jury decided was enough.
What evidence us there that Suzanne was murdered in the basement... There's evidence incriminating Gilroy... But no evidence of murder in the basement
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 16, 2020, 02:20:27 PM
I think the cadaver dog alerts prove that Suzanne Pilley was abducted, just like Maddie & Jeanette Zapata.

I hope they all get found safe & well soon.  &%54%
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on January 16, 2020, 02:27:36 PM
I think the cadaver dog alerts prove that Suzanne Pilley was abducted, just like Maddie & Jeanette Zapata.

I hope they all get found safe & well soon.  &%54%
No reported deaths at Haute De Laurenne... But 11 alerts
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 16, 2020, 02:43:19 PM
No reported deaths at Haute De Laurenne... But 11 alerts

It was a children's home, it probably reeked of old piss.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 16, 2020, 03:35:11 PM
I think the cadaver dog alerts prove that Suzanne Pilley was abducted, just like Maddie & Jeanette Zapata.

I hope they all get found safe & well soon.  &%54%

And I hope that you do one in a minute.  Unless you can think of something sensible to say.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on January 16, 2020, 05:08:55 PM
What evidence us there that Suzanne was murdered in the basement... There's evidence incriminating Gilroy... But no evidence of murder in the basement
Let's brek it brek it doowwwwnn.
Do you think she was in the basement that morning with Gilroy? (Off topic, but humour me)
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 16, 2020, 05:48:56 PM
And I hope that you do one in a minute.  Unless you can think of something sensible to say.

I forgot Bianca Jones.

Let's pray for her safe return too.

 &%54%
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 16, 2020, 05:51:25 PM
I forgot Bianca Jones.

Let's pray for her safe return too.

 &%54%
I’m praying you grow up and start acting like a decent human being.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on January 16, 2020, 05:52:25 PM
I forgot Bianca Jones.

Let's pray for her safe return too.

 &%54%

If only you were as stupid as you pretend to be then you might at least have a saving grace.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 16, 2020, 08:17:31 PM
I think it's clear what point he was making.  According to the experts there is no evidence if death in the basement in the Pillay case... That's, none... Not even a, tiny piece.  But what would the experts know

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that she was dead in that basement.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 22, 2020, 07:15:13 PM
Interesting collaboration between Professor Casella and Mark Harrison in the attached, in regard to soil analysis post discovery of a cadaver.
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/ (http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/)
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on February 22, 2020, 09:10:40 PM
Interesting collaboration between Professor Casella and Mark Harrison in the attached, in regard to soil analysis post discovery of a cadaver.
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/ (http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/)

Why would you think it would be extraordinary for analysis of the soil surrounding a grave site where a body had decomposed and remains still in situ for traces of decomposition to be found?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 22, 2020, 09:14:08 PM
Why would you think it would be extraordinary for analysis of the soil surrounding a grave site where a body had decomposed and remains still in situ for traces of decomposition to be found?
I don't.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 22, 2020, 09:15:40 PM
Interesting collaboration between Professor Casella and Mark Harrison in the attached, in regard to soil analysis post discovery of a cadaver.
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/ (http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/)

eddie alerted to soil in the floer bed...why was no sample taken
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 22, 2020, 09:17:58 PM
eddie alerted to soil in the floer bed...why was no sample taken
A least you asked a sensible question.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 22, 2020, 09:19:23 PM
A least you asked a sensible question.

I ask a lot of sensible questions
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 22, 2020, 09:20:57 PM
I ask a lot of sensible questions
Maybe the technology was in its infancy, or unknown.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 22, 2020, 09:22:25 PM
Maybe the technology was in its infancy, or unknown.

excuses imo...cuddle cat wasnt taken either
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 22, 2020, 09:27:05 PM
excuses imo...cuddle cat wasnt taken either
It's not excuses. I think you jumped on the defensive too quickly. I don't know, so I'm throwing something out there.
Bearing in mind this paper was only published 2 years ago, suggests further research is ongoing.

But there's a wee something else in there that I know you didn't miss.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on February 22, 2020, 09:33:24 PM
I don't.

Then what was the point of the link you posted - http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/ - hadn't you bothered to read it?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 22, 2020, 09:38:16 PM
Then what was the point of the link you posted - http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/ - hadn't you bothered to read it?
Bless you, always thinking superficially. We do need people like you; thinking in simple terms.
Keep up the excellent posts.

Go on, delete the bits you don't like........
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 22, 2020, 09:38:51 PM
It's not excuses. I think you jumped on the defensive too quickly. I don't know, so I'm throwing something out there.
Bearing in mind this paper was only published 2 years ago, suggests further research is ongoing.

But there's a wee something else in there that I know you didn't miss.

ive seen nothing there that alters my opinion in the slightest
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 22, 2020, 09:41:21 PM
ive seen nothing there that alters my opinion in the slightest
Which opinion?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 22, 2020, 09:45:46 PM
Which opinion?

My opinion
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 22, 2020, 09:50:41 PM
My opinion
What about?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on February 22, 2020, 11:07:07 PM
Bless you, always thinking superficially. We do need people like you; thinking in simple terms.
Keep up the excellent posts.

Go on, delete the bits you don't like........

For many years vegetation growth has been used as an indicator of clandestine grave sites and to that end many studies have been carried out re nutrients in the surrounding soil.  I believe it is why aerial surveys are undertaken when a body is being looked for.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on February 24, 2020, 02:23:58 PM
This was posted on the ZAMPO thread but probably more relevent posted here.  No-one seems to be interested in Zampo no more if they ever were in the first instance.  I am still mightily puzzled why it was opened and then ignored, but there you are ...

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission closed David Gilroy’s case for a miscarriage of justice part of the basis for which was as follows ...

One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC.
They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court.
However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on February 24, 2020, 04:56:40 PM
This was posted on the ZAMPO thread but probably more relevent posted here.  No-one seems to be interested in Zampo no more if they ever were in the first instance.  I am still mightily puzzled why it was opened and then ignored, but there you are ...

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission closed David Gilroy’s case for a miscarriage of justice part of the basis for which was as follows ...

One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC.
They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court.
However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp

I am sorry if I started a topic that nobody had any interest in the first instance. I thought, try a topic that hadn’t been raised before see what happens. The first reply wasn’t about Zampo but about the training in general of dogs and that’s the way the discussion went. I can do nothing about that.

I do find it harsh that as probably the newest member here I am being passively criticised by a Senior Moderator for starting a topic of no interest and then not being able to keep it on topic.

I will certainly think twice about starting a new topic again. 

Boy, this place is hard to like sometimes.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on February 24, 2020, 04:59:36 PM

Any Topic I start descends into Insults and Punch Ups so try not to take it too personally.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on February 24, 2020, 05:09:53 PM
Any Topic I start descends into Insults and Punch Ups so try not to take it too personally.


Thank you Eleanor, Wise words.
I can take the punch ups and insults but some of the other stuff gets under my skin.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 24, 2020, 06:08:07 PM

Thank you Eleanor, Wise words.
I can take the punch ups and insults but some of the other stuff gets under my skin.
Perhaps you should consider a name change then?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 24, 2020, 06:15:58 PM
Perhaps you should consider a name change then?

Very good
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on February 24, 2020, 06:21:51 PM
There is Debate and there is Bullying.  Let's not do the latter.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 24, 2020, 10:08:09 PM
I've posted this before..but to remind those who may have forgotten..


Taken from epidode 8...the trial  prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs


We spoke to Prof  John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and  their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him


Further on the Narrator says....David applied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't  admissible
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 08:07:09 AM
I've posted this before..but to remind those who may have forgotten..


Taken from epidode 8...the trial  prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs


We spoke to Prof  John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and  their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him


Further on the Narrator says....David aplied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't  admissible
This is the same Professor John Cassella who is more than happy for VRD dogs to find the grave that he used for his recent chemical analyses of soil and water for the location of a buried body.
So there's two premise at play here - there's the validity and reliability of the dogs, then there's the 'admissibility' in 'UK only' courts.
If we take each in isolation, using Cassella - he states that he used the dogs to find the subject grave for his paper that some of you read, but few understood - so check the first test off your list - he finds them reliable enough to be able to assist, nay, find his subject grave site. So irrespective of the legal standing, which is not in contention in this point, we have confirmation that, in Professor Cassella's opinion, the dogs are reliable enough and has witnessed their abilities first hand and endorsed them in the paper and credited Mark Harrison.
Now for the sticky bit - Davel does not attack the premise of admissibility, as the dog alert evidence has been permitted at least once before. No, he has brought a new concept in to the discussion; the concept of whether they should have been allowed. I contend that this is rendered moot, as, surely we are in agreement that, if we use the tenets of UK civil law, precedents are presided over by an appointed judge and this is then the standard thereafter until challenged (e.g. Lord Atkins presiding over the 'snail in the bottle' case of 1932 and for the first time defining 'care for thy neighbour')
If we use the example of the Gilroy case and explore further, yesterday's contention that the prosecution in the case were somehow remiss in their including the dog alert evidence. I would contend that the decision was probably ruminated over for some time, given the admittedly contentious nature of the evidence and the fact that they would be breaking new ground. To suggest that the prosecution team, after months of building a case, would jeopardise it with the introduction of superfluous evidence on a whim is in my opinion plainly incorrect.
More likely, and I say that because I wasn't there, but a reasonable man would be right to assume that they realised that they were building a case purely on circumstantial evidence, therefore the weight  and volume of that evidence was of importance. Combine that with their failure to get the silver bullet of definitive CCTV footage of Susan Pilley entering her work, they knew that more was more.
As with all evidence, as I discussed yesterday, they have to apply the three tests of relevance; admissibility; and weight. This evidence is presented at pre-trial and disclosed to the other side (rules of disclosure: Disclosure is providing the defence with copies or access to all material that is capable of undermining the prosecution case and/or assisting the defence.) There's no doubt, in my most humble opinion, that both sides looked upon the dog alert evidence in total contrast - the prosecution would have laid out their case for admissibility and presented as such, hoping to add further weight of 'overwhelming' circumstantial evidence to sway the jury. The defence would, in all likelihood, have not contended its admissibility as perhaps they saw it as shaky ground. Bearing in mind the quality and veracity of the defence team is not a factor here.

So, in summary, yes, Cassella likes the dogs and is happy to use their services and has first hand accounts of them being successful.
Yes, dog evidence has been used, successfully (to date).
The concept of whether they should have been used, irrespective of the opinion of great scientific luminaries (not legal), is rendered irrelevant, because they have. If convicted murderer David Gilroy would like to employ the services of Professor Cassella at his next appeal to repeat his assertion that, in this instance, they should not have been admitted, then he should reach out. I would rather suggest that a man who spent a lifetime trying to assist in furthering post mortem science and thereby assisting law enforcement, would baulk at such a suggestion.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 25, 2020, 08:20:10 AM
It’s all very well using dogs to find grave sites in experiments. If they alert to the wrong place first and take a couple of goes to find the right place then no harm done and noone’s liberty is at stake.  However using the bark of a dog with no supporting evidence to condemn a man to life imprisonment is quite another matter and closely akin to throwing witches in rivers to see if they float, a method which also called it correctly on numerous occasions when perfectly innocent women were cleared of the charges as they drowned.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 08:38:59 AM
It’s all very well using dogs to find grave sites in experiments. If they alert to the wrong place first and take a couple of goes to find the right place then no harm done and noone’s liberty is at stake.  However using the bark of a dog with no supporting evidence to condemn a man to life imprisonment is quite another matter and closely akin to throwing witches in rivers to see if they float, a method which also called it correctly on numerous occasions when perfectly innocent women were cleared of the charges as they drowned.
Disappointed. I didn't even go there. That's another step and not what was being discussed.
Besides, if we extend your point out, for 'the bark of a dog' read 'low copy number DNA' 10 years ago, or 'cellular mast triangulation' 20 years ago, or 'muzzle flash analysis at close quarters' 50 years ago, or 'Harry Jackson's fingerprints' 1902, or matching paper fragments in Edwards Culshaw's skull in 1784. All groundbreaking, all with someone's 'liberty at stake'.

Your 'drowning witches' analogy is odd, given that these same people used to treat syphylis with mercury and clergy practiced necromancy. But I will concede that drowning witches is now generally frowned upon.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 25, 2020, 08:53:21 AM
Disappointed. I didn't even go there. That's another step and not what was being discussed.
Besides, if we extend your point out, for 'the bark of a dog' read 'low copy number DNA' 10 years ago, or 'cellular mast triangulation' 20 years ago, or 'muzzle flash analysis at close quarters' 50 years ago, or 'Harry Jackson's fingerprints' 1902, or matching paper fragments in Edwards Culshaw's skull in 1784. All groundbreaking, all with someone's 'liberty at stake'.

Your 'drowning witches' analogy is odd, given that these same people used to treat syphylis with mercury and clergy practiced necromancy. But I will concede that drowning witches is now generally frowned upon.
What is being discussed is whether dog barks alone have and /or should be used in evidence.  I think my post addresses that point.  Also, I think your analogies are odd.  Excusing miscarriages of justice based on possible historical miscarriages of justice is not a valid point imo.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 09:20:03 AM
What is being discussed is whether dog barks alone have and /or should be used in evidence.  I think my post addresses that point.  Also, I think your analogies are odd.  Excusing miscarriages of justice based on possible historical miscarriages of justice is not a valid point imo.
Who's excusing what? I'm pointing out that 'evidence' has evolved over time and will continue to do so.
What is admissible today would have seemed science fiction in the past, or, dare I say it, witchcraft.
And you're generalising again. I'm discussing the Gilroy case independently, exploring the concept of establishment of precedent (albeit criminal as opposed to civil) and Davros' assertion that the evidence should not have been permitted. Just because Cassella, a scientist, states that opinion, doesn't and didn't make any difference.
The concept of reliability is for another day.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 25, 2020, 09:27:48 AM
Who's excusing what? I'm pointing out that 'evidence' has evolved over time and will continue to do so.
What is admissible today would have seemed science fiction in the past, or, dare I say it, witchcraft.
And you're generalising again. I'm discussing the Gilroy case independently, exploring the concept of establishment of precedent (albeit criminal as opposed to civil) and Davros' assertion that the evidence should not have been permitted. Just because Cassella, a scientist, states that opinion, doesn't and didn't make any difference.
The concept of reliability is for another day.
You introduced the concept of reliability when you kicked off your “thesis” with a discussion about the alleged reliability of the dogs in Cassella’s own experiments.  But I do agree, there can be no doubt that in the Gilroy case the dog alerts were entered in evidence, I don’t think that means we are not allowed to question whether or not it should have been though does it?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 09:31:01 AM
This is the same Professor John Cassella who is more than happy for VRD dogs to find the grave that he used for his recent chemical analyses of soil and water for the location of a buried body.
So there's two premise at play here - there's the validity and reliability of the dogs, then there's the 'admissibility' in 'UK only' courts.
If we take each in isolation, using Cassella - he states that he used the dogs to find the subject grave for his paper that some of you read, but few understood - so check the first test off your list - he finds them reliable enough to be able to assist, nay, find his subject grave site. So irrespective of the legal standing, which is not in contention in this point, we have confirmation that, in Professor Cassella's opinion, the dogs are reliable enough and has witnessed their abilities first hand and endorsed them in the paper and credited Mark Harrison.
Now for the sticky bit - Davil does not attack the premise of admissibility, as the dog alert evidence has been permitted at least once before. No, he has brought a new concept in to the discussion; the concept of whether they should have been allowed. I contend that this is rendered moot, as, surely we are in agreement that, if we use the tenets of UK civil law, precedents are presided over by an appointed judge and this is then the standard thereafter until challenged (e.g. Lord Atkins presiding over the 'snail in the bottle' case of 1932 and for the first time defining 'care for thy neighbour')
If we use the example of the Gilroy case and explore further, yesterday's contention that the prosecution in the case were somehow remiss in their including the dog alert evidence. I would contend that the decision was probably ruminated over for some time, given the admittedly contentious nature of the evidence and the fact that they would be breaking new ground. To suggest that the prosecution team, after months of building a case, would jeopardise it with the introduction of superfluous evidence on a whim is in my opinion plainly incorrect.
More likely, and I say that because I wasn't there, but a reasonable man would be right to assume that they realised that they were building a case purely on circumstantial evidence, therefore the weight  and volume of that evidence was of importance. Combine that with their failure to get the silver bullet of definitive CCTV footage of Susan Pilley entering her work, they knew that more was more.
As with all evidence, as I discussed yesterday, they have to apply the three tests of relevance; admissibility; and weight. This evidence is presented at pre-trial and disclosed to the other side (rules of disclosure: Disclosure is providing the defence with copies or access to all material that is capable of undermining the prosecution case and/or assisting the defence.) There's no doubt, in my most humble opinion, that both sides looked upon the dog alert evidence in total contrast - the prosecution would have laid out their case for admissibility and presented as such, hoping to add further weight of 'overwhelming' circumstantial evidence to sway the jury. The defence would, in all likelihood, have not contended its admissibility as perhaps they saw it as shaky ground. Bearing in mind the quality and veracity of the defence team is not a factor here.

So, in summary, yes, Cassella likes the dogs and is happy to use their services and has first hand accounts of them being successful.
Yes, dog evidence has been used, successfully (to date).
The concept of whether they should have been used, irrespective of the opinion of great scientific luminaries (not legal), is rendered irrelevant, because they have. If convicted murderer David Gilroy would like to employ the services of Professor Cassella at his next appeal to repeat his assertion that, in this instance, they should not have been admitted, then he should reach out. I would rather suggest that a man who spent a lifetime trying to assist in furthering post mortem science and thereby assisting law enforcement, would baulk at such a suggestion.

To suggest others don't understand something uis rather foolish when imo its you who clearly doesn't understand...let me explain.

First..you seem to claim the dogs are reliable....reliable at what....again let me explain.

The dogs ARE reliable at finding cadaver odour...no question about that. That's why cassellla uses them for what tehy are trained for. To detect physically recoverable traces of cadaver..grime concurs that this is what he tarins the dogs to do. So no problem with Cassella using them for what they are trained for.

second...are the alerts reliable...ie ...a reliable indicator of cadaver contaminent...the answer is no...that's why there alerts are deemed inadmissible.

You then go on to claim that because the prosecution presents them...they must be admissible...this shows you clearly don't understand. Im sure there are many many incidents of prosecution presented evidence which is not admitted...not admitted when its challenged ….In the Gilroy case it appears it wasn't challenged and ive supplied evidence that had it been challenged it would have been thrown out..

I think its very clear who understands and who doesnt
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 09:49:44 AM
Who's excusing what? I'm pointing out that 'evidence' has evolved over time and will continue to do so.
What is admissible today would have seemed science fiction in the past, or, dare I say it, witchcraft.
And you're generalising again. I'm discussing the Gilroy case independently, exploring the concept of establishment of precedent (albeit criminal as opposed to civil) and Davros' assertion that the evidence should not have been permitted. Just because Cassella, a scientist, states that opinion, doesn't and didn't make any difference.
The concept of reliability is for another day.

What you need to understand is it's not just Cassella questioning their reliability...it's just about everyone who matters...read Grimes statement

Cassella happens to be a professor of forensic science who wrote the introduction to Grimes white paper...to dismiss his opinion is to dismiss the truth
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 10:02:16 AM
To suggest others don't understand something uis rather foolish when imo its you who clearly doesn't understand...let me explain.

First..you seem to claim the dogs are reliable....reliable at what....again let me explain.

The dogs ARE reliable at finding cadaver odour...no question about that. That's why cassellla uses them for what tehy are trained for. To detect physically recoverable traces of cadaver..grime concurs that this is what he tarins the dogs to do. So no problem with Cassella using them for what they are trained for.

second...are the alerts reliable...ie ...a reliable indicator of cadaver contaminent...the answer is no...that's why there alerts are deemed inadmissible.

You then go on to claim that because the prosecution presents them...they must be admissible...this shows you clearly don't understand. Im sure there are many many incidents of prosecution presented evidence which is not admitted...not admitted when its challenged ….In the Gilroy case it appears it wasn't challenged and ive supplied evidence that had it been challenged it would have been thrown out..

I think its very clear who understands and who doesnt
You stated that I don't understand about 6 times there, a record even for you who's mantra is 'you don't understand'.
Once again, they are admissible, because they have been admissible. Whether it's a mistake, or an oversight, or Mr. Spock himself finds it illogical, or you simply don't think so......they have been admissible.
Moreover, they will become commonplace, contrary to the naysayers and Luddites, not only because 'testing' will be enhanced, but training will progress, utilising AI and other technological advances.

I love how you take offence at 'don't understand', as if it's an affront to your supposed intellect, yet when you cough and hack it out with impunity it's apparently not an affront at all, merely a statement of fact.

However, you don't understand. Your lack of understanding is laughable, to coin your phrase.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 10:05:09 AM
What you need to understand is it's not just Cassella questioning their reliability...it's just about everyone who matters...read Grimes statement

Cassella happens to be a professor of forensic science who wrote the introduction to Grimes white paper...to dismiss his opinion is to dismiss the truth
And this.........'just about everyone else who matters'. What is that? That's the sort of comment a primary school kid would spout in a temper......'yeh well, everyone hates you, we had a vote!'.
Feel free to provide a list of 'everyone else' by way of a cite, not including Joey Essex or Barry off Eastenders.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 10:07:29 AM
And this.........'just about everyone else who matters'. What is that? That's the sort of comment a primary school kid would spout in a temper......'yeh well, everyone hates you, we had a vote!'.
Feel free to provide a list of 'everyone else' by way of a cite, not including Joey Essex or Barry off Eastenders.

What a pathetic childish reply....you obviously know little about the dogs and the alerts.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 10:11:06 AM
You introduced the concept of reliability when you kicked off your “thesis” with a discussion about the alleged reliability of the dogs in Cassella’s own experiments.  But I do agree, there can be no doubt that in the Gilroy case the dog alerts were entered in evidence, I don’t think that means we are not allowed to question whether or not it should have been though does it?
You can discuss it, obviously, but you can't state that they're inadmissible, because they have been admitted. It's a fact. Additionally, discussing the merits of whether the prosecution erred in some way is also equally moot. It's irrelevant. The dog alerts comprised part of a body of circumstantial evidence in a successful prosecution of a murderer in the UK. That's it.
However, if Mr Gilroy successfully argues that they shouldn't have been admissible in a subsequent appeal, I'll concede the point.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 10:12:20 AM
What a pathetic childish reply....you obviously know little about the dogs and the alerts.
Come on Davel, I expected a fight at least, not capitulation directly to ad hom, as is your wont.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on February 25, 2020, 10:19:54 AM
And this.........'just about everyone else who matters'. What is that? That's the sort of shit a primary school kid would spout in a temper......'yeh well, everyone hates you, we had a vote!'.
Feel free to provide a list of 'everyone else' by way of a cite, not including Joey Essex or Barry off Eastenders.


Just jolly well cut out accusing me of deleting every deleted comment ever.  Or else I could get really cross.

I happen to believe that you could be a useful member of this Forum if only you were not so intent on causing dissent for some obscure reason.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 10:31:43 AM
Come on Davel, I expected a fight at least, not capitulation directly to ad hom, as is your wont.

Thing is I'm not a schoolkid and I'm not angry....I wouldn't bother trying to convince a Jehovah's witness they were wrong about their faith and that's why I feel debate here is often pointless...it's the same mindset
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on February 25, 2020, 10:50:40 AM

Any further use of the name Davros will result in the entire comment being deleted.

Although not necessarily by me.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on February 25, 2020, 11:01:07 AM
Thing is I'm not a schoolkid and I'm not angry....I wouldn't bother trying to convince a Jehovah's witness they were wrong about their faith and that's why I feel debate here is often pointless...it's the same mindset

In my opinion your assumption that you are always right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong makes debate pointless.

You quote the opinions of those who agree with you, and ignore the opinions of those who don't. In the Gilroy case the opinions which count are those of the police, the COPFS and the trial judge. The first two decided to include the dog alerts in the evidence they used against Gilroy and the judge allowed the evidence to be included.

If you wish to castigate anyone, then Gilroy's defense team are the ones who failed him. Jack Davidson QC was an experienced criminal barrister whose sole argument seems to have been that the jury shouldn't convict Gilroy because the evidence was circumstantial. He was correct, but as the The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allegedly reported, there was enough there to convict Gilroy without the evidence of the dog alerts.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 11:11:07 AM
In my opinion your assumption that you are always right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong makes debate pointless.

You quote the opinions of those who agree with you, and ignore the opinions of those who don't. In the Gilroy case the opinions which count are those of the police, the COPFS and the trial judge. The first two decided to include the dog alerts in the evidence they used against Gilroy and the judge allowed the evidence to be included.

If you wish to castigate anyone, then Gilroy's defense team are the ones who failed him. Jack Davidson QC was an experienced criminal barrister whose sole argument seems to have been that the jury shouldn't convict Gilroy because the evidence was circumstantial. He was correct, but as the The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allegedly reported, there was enough there to convict Gilroy without the evidence of the dog alerts.

I'm afraid you are wrong again ...if you correct a fool he will be angry with you but if you correct s wise man he will thank you.

The problem for you and others is I'm right most of the time.. particularly re the dogs
I think it's clear the alerts are not admissible and I've never supported his defence counsel in fact I think they were particularly poor...only a few witnesses called in defence and all over in half a day. Had he been more proficient he would have challenged the alerts and they probably would not have been admitted.
The mistake he made was he thought the circumstantial evidence alone was not enough to convict...I agree with the SCSRC....the alerts should not have been admitted but there was sufficient evidence anyway. Had there not been the verdict could well have been overturned
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 11:23:28 AM

You quote the opinions of those who agree with you, and ignore the opinions of those who don't. In the Gilroy case the opinions which count are those of the police, the COPFS and the trial judge. The first two decided to include the dog alerts in the evidence they used against Gilroy and the judge allowed the evidence to be included.

If you wish to castigate anyone, then Gilroy's defense team are the ones who failed him. Jack Davidson QC was an experienced criminal barrister whose sole argument seems to have been that the jury shouldn't convict Gilroy because the evidence was circumstantial. He was correct, but as the The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allegedly reported, there was enough there to convict Gilroy without the evidence of the dog alerts.

You are wrong on a second point...the prosecution and the judge probably know little about cadaver dogs. I wonder if when the evidence was presented it was explained bto the judge and the jury that the alerts are not confirmation of cadaver odour
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on February 25, 2020, 11:30:54 AM
I'm afraid you are wrong again ...if you correct a fool he will be angry with you but if you correct s wise man he will thank you.

The problem for you and others is I'm right most of the time.. particularly re the dogs
I think it's clear the alerts are not admissible and I've never supported his defence counsel in fact I think they were particularly poor...only a few witnesses called in defence and all over in half a day. Had he been more proficient he would have challenged the alerts and they probably would not have been admitted.
The mistake he made was he thought the circumstantial evidence alone was not enough to convict...I agree with the SCSRC....the alerts should not have been admitted but there was sufficient evidence anyway. Had there not been the verdict could well have been overturned

The problem isn't that you're right most of the time, it's that you think you're right most of the time. I agree with The General; as time goes by dog alerts will feature in more cases because they can add weight to cases where it's obvious what happened but definitive evidence is lacking. Where a dog has a well documented history of reliability there's really no reason why their alerts should be rejected.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on February 25, 2020, 11:41:04 AM
The problem isn't that you're right most of the time, it's that you think you're right most of the time. I agree with The General; as time goes by dog alerts will feature in more cases because they can add weight to cases where it's obvious what happened but definitive evidence is lacking. Where a dog has a well documented history of reliability there's really no reason why their alerts should be rejected.

Not if there is no evidence or proof of what the dog alerted to.  To think otherwise would be some form of insanity.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 11:41:40 AM
Thing is I'm not a schoolkid and I'm not angry....I wouldn't bother trying to convince a Jehovah's witness they were wrong about their faith and that's why I feel debate here is often pointless...it's the same mindset

What a pathetic childish reply....you obviously know little about the dogs and the alerts.

Hmmmm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 11:47:14 AM
Not if there is no evidence or proof of what the dog alerted to.  To think otherwise would be some form of insanity.
So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on February 25, 2020, 11:48:52 AM
So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.

You are misrepresenting the facts again.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 11:51:56 AM
You are misrepresenting the facts again.
Again?
When was the first time?
And where is this 2nd occasion?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 11:52:37 AM
So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.

It shouldn't have helped convict anyone according to the experts I've quoted
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Admin on February 25, 2020, 11:52:44 AM
Can posters please refrain from calling members by anything other than their proper user names.

I won't post a second warning!!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 12:08:41 PM
It shouldn't have helped convict anyone according to the experts I've quoted
Again, that's irrelevant. It happened.
Also again, Casella is a subject matter expert - a scientist. He is in no way placed to make a legal determination. He can proffer an informed opinion, which he has.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 12:24:04 PM
Again, that's irrelevant. It happened.
Also again, Casella is a subject matter expert - a scientist. He is in no way placed to make a legal determination. He can proffer an informed opinion, which he has.

you are quoting your opinion as fact...it isnt...this ia  fact..

its the Judge who makes the legal determination...based on the opinion of the subject matter expert....that makes Cassella's opinion far from irrelevant
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 12:25:50 PM
Can posters please refrain from calling members by anything other than their proper user names.

I won't post a second warning!!

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

Duly noted.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Admin on February 25, 2020, 12:28:40 PM
The disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and the later conviction of David Gilroy is certainly an interesting case which does not as yet have its own board.  Until this can be put into place here is some further information.

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Body-of-Proof-Audiobook/B07WPCMH3C?qid=1567762245&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=S162NY60Q5NKMG0MWWBJ&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1


"The podcast touches on what it sees at some failings of the UK / Scottish justice system, namely the adversarial nature of it - accused is presumed innocent, prosecution makes their case, defence critiques the prosecution's case, jury decides essentially which side they believe is more plausible - the failings are seen to be that the truth falls by the wayside, and compelling stories from both sides are preferred.

Without irony, the podcast then ignores objective truth, forgets to ever mention large swathes of charges that were also levied against Gilroy at his initial trial - offences of violence towards his wife and children, (we never hear that these allegations include brandishing a knife at his wife, hitting her with a frying pan, threatening his children with violence - all dropped after his wife refused to take the stand). We never here about previous breach of the peace incidents at Crieff hydro. We never hear that Gilroy assaulted and threatened to stab and kill a neighbour of Suzanne's and brandished a fishut upl of car keys at him when he'd appeared concerned after overhearing an argument at her flat.

We never hear that David purchased a quantity of charcoal at a petrol station on his travels to / from Lochgilphead that were claimed to be for a BBQ. We never hear that his wife and children no longer stand by him, and have dropped the Gilroy name."
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 12:29:39 PM
you are quoting your opinion as fact...it isnt...this ia  fact..

its the Judge who makes the legal determination...based on the opinion of the subject matter expert....that makes Cassella's opinion far from irrelevant
I didn't say that, please accept my apologies for the confusion my dear Davel.
I was referring to your assertion that it 'shouldn't have helped to convict anyone'. This may be the case - but I contend that, in this case, it's irrelevant. It's happened.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 12:32:17 PM
The disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and the later conviction of David Gilroy is certainly an interesting case which does not as yet have its own board.  Until this can be put into place here is some further information.

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Body-of-Proof-Audiobook/B07WPCMH3C?qid=1567762245&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=S162NY60Q5NKMG0MWWBJ&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1
Yes, Davel and I have both listened and , I think I can be permitted to speak for us both, found it most entertaining and informative.
I would be most interested in participating in such a board.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 12:38:01 PM
I didn't say that, please accept my apologies for the confusion my dear Davel.
I was referring to your assertion that it 'shouldn't have helped to convict anyone'. This may be the case - but I contend that, in this case, it's irrelevant. It's happened.

and i say its not irrelevant...because his opinion ...and the opinion of others ...has affected past cases and will affect future cases
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 12:43:42 PM
and i say its not irrelevant...because his opinion ...and the opinion of others ...has affected past cases and will affect future cases
And I contend that his opinion is rendered useless in this instance (not meaningless; the man's preeminent in his field, as I have stated before and his credentials unquestioned), unless he assists in an appeal in this case or a subsequent similar one.
Future cases, indeed. Get Casella in early doors and give it to 'em straight.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 12:49:42 PM
And I contend that his opinion is rendered useless in this instance (not meaningless; the man's preeminent in his field, as I have stated before and his credentials unquestioned), unless he assists in an appeal in this case or a subsequent similar one.
Future cases, indeed. Get Casella in early doors and give it to 'em straight.

this is the first instance you have added the caveat of "in this instance" to your claim his opinion is irrelevant....we now agree...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on February 25, 2020, 12:54:34 PM
Not if there is no evidence or proof of what the dog alerted to.  To think otherwise would be some form of insanity.

The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 12:58:32 PM
this is the first instance you have added the caveat of "in this instance" to your claim his opinion is irrelevant....we now agree...
I've stated that all along. I've caveated everything with 'in this instance' or 'in this case'.
We are in agreement regarding the concept; that preeminent authorities should be consulted and, given their acknowledged expertise, their opinion should lend weight to any argument.
But your argument is essentially that, because a brilliant man said some evidence shouldn't have been admissible after the fact, it shouldn't have been admissible, ergo, that one successful conviction shouldn't have been.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 01:04:19 PM
I've stated that all along. I've caveated everything with 'in this instance' or 'in this case'.
We are in agreement regarding the concept; that preeminent authorities should be consulted and, given their acknowledged expertise, their opinion should lend weight to any argument.
But your argument is essentially that, because a brilliant man said some evidence shouldn't have been admissible after the fact, it shouldn't have been admissible, ergo, that one successful conviction shouldn't have been.
Oh dear... Gilroy seems to be as guilty as hell..
And you haven't caveated
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Admin on February 25, 2020, 01:08:48 PM
Uncorroborated evidence gleamed from cadaver and CSI dogs is admissible in Scottish courts so I see no reason why it shouldn't have been provided by the prosecution at Gilroy`s trial. However, I also believe the jury should have been informed of Gilroy`s predisposition towards domestic violence too.

There are snippets about the case on the forum which can be found using a quick search.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 01:14:35 PM
Uncorroborated evidence gleamed from cadaver and CSI dogs is admissible in Scottish courts so I see no reason why it shouldn't have been provided by the prosecution at Gilroy`s trial. However, I also believe the jury should have been informed of Gilroy`s predisposition towards domestic violence too.

There are snippets about the case on the forum which can be found using a quick search.
According to the SCCRC the alerts should not have been admitted...what other cases are there where the alerts have been admitted...I haven't seen any
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 01:17:25 PM
The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.

The informed decision is the one made by grime...he said it's possible the alert is to cadaver that's all...and had no evidential reliability
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 01:19:08 PM
The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.

That's your opinion stated as fact again...and imo...based on all the evidence...absolute rubbish.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 01:22:34 PM
The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.

I think it's totally unreasonable to decide Eddie alerted to cadaver contaminant in luz. And is testament to your understanding of the issue. Grime said it may be cadaver scent...but you think you know better
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 25, 2020, 01:37:09 PM
That's because the blood dog didn't alert on many so it is elementary why Grime's professional opinion was alerts to cadaver scent from a cadaver dog  @)(++(*


'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Admin on February 25, 2020, 01:39:44 PM
Yes, Davel and I have both listened and , I think I can be permitted to speak for us both, found it most entertaining and informative.
I would be most interested in participating in such a board.

I haven't listened to it as yet so it would be helpful if you could list the arguments which claim to lend support to Gilroy.
   
These can then be used to start a new thread.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
That's because the blood dog didn't alert on many so it is elementary why Grime's professional opinion was alerts to cadaver scent from a cadaver dog  @)(++(*


'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training.

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

That doesn't mean Eddie has never given a false alert...you and others have misunderstood it
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 01:47:27 PM
That's because the blood dog didn't alert on many so it is elementary why Grime's professional opinion was alerts to cadaver scent from a cadaver dog  @)(++(*


'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training.

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

Grime never said his opinion was that the alerts were to cadaver scent
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 01:53:14 PM
I haven't listened to it as yet so it would be helpful if you could list the arguments which claim to lend support to Gilroy.
   
These can then be used to start a new thread.
I'd have to review it. I binge listened about 3 months ago.
You're right though, the podcast never really mentioned his 'violent past'. He comes across as very convincing. There's hours of phone interviews with him and he's very eloquent and assertive.
The podcast, in my opinion, as per the current trend, attempts to inject some suspense to the narrative for the unwitting listener.

From memory, the main crux of the defence is the lack of 'definitive' CCTV, a 'speeding car' leaving the scene at almost exactly the same time frame, the total lack of forensics in the basement, the dog alerts uncorroborated (despite the car being given the Domestos treatment) and the apparent corroboration in regard to his movements to the school in the afternoon and the reason for him going home to pick something up.

The fella narrator has an annoying voice too.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 01:59:18 PM
I'd have to review it. I binge listened about 3 months ago.
You're right though, the podcast never really mentioned his 'violent past'. He comes across as very convincing. There's hours of phone interviews with him and he's very eloquent and assertive.
The podcast, in my opinion, as per the current trend, attempts to inject some suspense to the narrative for the unwitting listener.

From memory, the main crux of the defence is the lack of 'definitive' CCTV, a 'speeding car' leaving the scene at almost exactly the same time frame, the total lack of forensics in the basement, the dog alerts uncorroborated (despite the car being given the Domestos treatment) and the apparent corroboration in regard to his movements to the school in the afternoon and the reason for him going home to pick something up.

The fella narrator has an annoying voice too.

There was a total lack of forensics in the whole basement....having said that the rest of the real evidence was enough to convict
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 25, 2020, 02:01:29 PM
That doesn't mean Eddie has never given a false alert...you and others have misunderstood it

He made many alerts not one and if you think they are all false then keep living in fantasyland!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 02:12:19 PM
He made many alerts not one and if you think they are all false then keep living in fantasyland!
I think none are to cadaver...just like in Jersey...just like the alert to Cuddle Cat...no real alerts.....
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 25, 2020, 02:18:35 PM
The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.
You can’t identify an absent cadaver by the bark of a dog.  If Shannon Matthews had been sold into white slavery never to be seen again a jury might conclude she’d been murdered in some grotty flat in Dewsbury, and was not out there somewhere in the big wide world waiting to be rescued.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 02:24:50 PM
There was a total lack of forensics in the whole basement....having said that the rest of the real evidence was enough to convict
That's what I said.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 02:32:13 PM
You can’t identify an absent cadaver by the bark of a dog.  If Shannon Matthews had been sold into white slavery never to be seen again a jury might conclude she’d been murdered in some grotty flat in Dewsbury, and was not out there somewhere in the big wide world waiting to be rescued.
I reckon the bark of a dog can. Woof!
....and wasn't the dog right in the Shannon Matthews case? The couch had a dead dude on it and was 2nd hand? Not sure about the case, so......
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 02:48:50 PM
That's what I said.

you did...and teh conclusion was how could someone be violently mudered in a basement...a body dragged 70 ft...yet not one piece of forensic evidence,. Did you mention there were two cadaver dogs and only one alerted
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 03:00:27 PM
you did...and teh conclusion was how could someone be violently mudered in a basement...a body dragged 70 ft...yet not one piece of forensic evidence,. Did you mention there were two cadaver dogs and only one alerted
500 gauge visqueen, a roll of gaffer tape and a predilection for violence. The scratches on the back of his hands give away the method, which also explains the lack of DNA.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 25, 2020, 03:10:39 PM
I reckon the bark of a dog can. Woof!
....and wasn't the dog right in the Shannon Matthews case? The couch had a dead dude on it and was 2nd hand? Not sure about the case, so......
I think you've missed the point.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: John on February 25, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
You can’t identify an absent cadaver by the bark of a dog.  If Shannon Matthews had been sold into white slavery never to be seen again a jury might conclude she’d been murdered in some grotty flat in Dewsbury, and was not out there somewhere in the big wide world waiting to be rescued.

Every situation is different. In the Suzanne Pilley case the circumstantial evidence is compelling even without the alerts by the cadaver dog in the office cellar and in the boot of David Gilroy's car. The fact that there were over one hundred miles unaccounted for in his trip up to the Scottish Highlands and that his car had three cracked coil springs and moss and soil clinging to its underside is imo pretty damning.  Gilroy obviously told a pack of lies to the police investigators and subsequently refused to give evidence on his own behalf, an indicator of guilt in most situations.

IMO, honest people have nothing to fear by taking the stand.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 25, 2020, 03:43:46 PM
500 gauge visqueen, a roll of gaffer tape and a predilection for violence. The scratches on the back of his hands give away the method, which also explains the lack of DNA.

With 500 gauge there would be no cadaver odour in the car
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 03:48:13 PM
With 500 gauge there would be no cadaver odour in the car
That cannot be ascertained.
Apart from the dog alert.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 25, 2020, 04:23:58 PM
Every situation is different. In the Suzanne Pilley case the circumstantial evidence is compelling even without the alerts by the cadaver dog in the office cellar and in the boot of David Gilroy's car. The fact that there were over one hundred miles unaccounted for in his trip up to the Scottish Highlands and that his car had three cracked coil springs and moss and soil clinging to its underside is imo pretty damning.  Gilroy obviously told a pack of lies to the police investigators and subsequently refused to give evidence on his own behalf, an indicator of guilt in most situations.

IMO, honest people have nothing to fear by taking the stand.
As the owner of the Miscarriage of Justice Forum who claims to have suffered his own miscarriage of justice I find your last sentence quite odd.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 08:17:39 PM
As the owner of the Miscarriage of Justice Forum who claims to have suffered his own miscarriage of justice I find your last sentence quite odd.
Maybe it's a reflective and philosophical....
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 25, 2020, 09:03:03 PM
Maybe it's a reflective and philosophical....
what?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 25, 2020, 09:21:19 PM
what?
Maybe he's come to terms with his particular injustice and is reflecting.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 25, 2020, 10:16:14 PM
Maybe he's come to terms with his particular injustice and is reflecting.
Maybe we should just wait and see what John has to say about it rather than guessing.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 26, 2020, 07:33:16 AM
Maybe we should just wait and see what John has to say about it rather than guessing.
Yeh, maybe, and maybe if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle, but she hasn't, so she's not.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 26, 2020, 08:05:37 AM
Yeh, maybe, and maybe if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle, but she hasn't, so she's not.
What a stupid response, imo.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on February 26, 2020, 08:15:18 AM
What a stupid response, imo.

Thank you.
.....yeeeeeeanyway, back on topic.
Dogs, right? Amiright? Evidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on February 29, 2020, 03:55:40 PM
How accurate are they,oh they're pretty much on top of it,99% of the time.


https://www.fox23.com/news/cadaver-dogs-help-with-search-human-remains-rogers-county/PVHIKGJRYXOSP3PG2CKPBUL4XA/
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on February 29, 2020, 03:58:15 PM
How accurate are they,oh they're pretty much on top of it,99% of the time.


https://www.fox23.com/news/cadaver-dogs-help-with-search-human-remains-rogers-county/PVHIKGJRYXOSP3PG2CKPBUL4XA/

I presume you are saying they will identify cadaver ...if it's present. ...to an accuracy of 99%.

What happens if it's not present and what other substances will the dog alert to
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 01, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
I presume you are saying they will identify cadaver ...if it's present. ...to an accuracy of 99%.

What happens if it's not present and what other substances will the dog alert to
You should know the answer to this by now.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on March 01, 2020, 02:42:32 PM
You should know the answer to this by now.

No one seems to know the answer...they might think they do
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on March 01, 2020, 04:02:18 PM
No one seems to know the answer...they might think they do
Apparently 'dogs don't lie' ... the problem is they don't communicate in English and neither do we speak Dog.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 01, 2020, 04:16:02 PM
Apparently 'dogs don't lie' ... the problem is they don't communicate in English and neither do we speak Dog.

I take it you don't have a dog.

My dog communicates in perfect English.

And yes I speak Dog.

 &^^&*
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on March 01, 2020, 05:42:33 PM
What a coincidence!  My cat is fluent in Portuguese and English and he told me he could have done a better job at translating those files.  It might be an idle boast though, he is a bit up himself.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on March 01, 2020, 06:39:19 PM
I've got a German shepherd...I'm sure he can speak English but he refuses...he insists I speak German
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on March 01, 2020, 06:53:25 PM
I take it you don't have a dog.

My dog communicates in perfect English.

And yes I speak Dog.

 &^^&*

You know I have a dog ... there have always been dogs in my family ... and I know it is a fallacy that 'dogs don't lie'.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 01, 2020, 06:53:55 PM
I've got a German shepherd...I'm sure he can speak English but he refuses...he insists I speak German
German Shepard = Deutscher Schäferhund in Germany.  Did he tell you that?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 01, 2020, 07:19:52 PM
You know I have a dog ... there have always been dogs in my family ... and I know it is a fallacy that 'dogs don't lie'.

Nope.  I don't have enough lifetime left to track which forum members have which kind of pets.

I do have a 4 year old grandson.  So I speak to him in 4 year old.

KISS

My doggie is mithering me to say he wants din-dins.  Maybe my dog speaks to me more than yours did to you.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on March 01, 2020, 07:50:58 PM
Nope.  I don't have enough lifetime left to track which forum members have which kind of pets.

I do have a 4 year old grandson.  So I speak to him in 4 year old.

KISS

My doggie is mithering me to say he wants din-dins.  Maybe my dog speaks to me more than yours did to you.

Obviously my powers of recall are superior to yours as I can clearly remember your reply to my post regarding my little cadaver dog.
I agree, certainly not worth looking for - except I was pleasantly surprised that your reply was couched in reasonable terms and minus what I find are the expected acerbic put downs to my posts; which I found extraordinary and quite refreshing.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on March 02, 2020, 02:27:04 AM
I take it you don't have a dog.

My dog communicates in perfect English.

And yes I speak Dog.

 &^^&*
e


You have got to be nuts.  My dogs never speak anything at all.  But then I never needed them to do so.  I have always known anyway.

All of my dogs could have found a dead body if there ever was one.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on March 02, 2020, 08:54:40 AM
e


You have got to be nuts.  My dogs never speak anything at all.  But then I never needed them to do so.  I have always known anyway.

All of my dogs could have found a dead body if there ever was one.

Where? in the McCann case seeing as its the McCann board?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 02, 2020, 03:42:11 PM
Obviously my powers of recall are superior to yours as I can clearly remember your reply to my post regarding my little cadaver dog.
I agree, certainly not worth looking for - except I was pleasantly surprised that your reply was couched in reasonable terms and minus what I find are the expected acerbic put downs to my posts; which I found extraordinary and quite refreshing.

To reiterate "Nope.  I don't have enough lifetime left to track which forum members have which kind of pets."

We could pass each other whilst dog-walking and I wouldn't be able to tell you apart from Eve.

And a month down the line I will have forgotten that you have a dog.

It's all to do with Simple Minds.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on March 03, 2020, 10:43:43 AM
I presume you are saying they will identify cadaver ...if it's present. ...to an accuracy of 99%.

What happens if it's not present and what other substances will the dog alert to

I don't know why the keep showing these video's of cadaver dogs alerting to the smell of cadaver,  that is what they are trained to alert to unlike Eddie who was trained with pig.   Any dog will find a decomposing body,  the whole idea of cadaver dogs is that they will alert to the body instead of digging it up and damaging the evidence.

The problem is with Eddie having been trained on pig decomposing flesh,  he will only alert when the flesh is in its last stages of decomposition as this is the time when a pig will give off the same gas as a human cadaver.

Eddie wouldn't have been alerting to cadaver scent in 5a as there is no way Madeleine would have been left to decompose to the state that Eddie would alert to.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on March 03, 2020, 11:10:31 AM
I don't know why the keep showing these video's of cadaver dogs alerting to the smell of cadaver,  that is what they are trained to alert to unlike Eddie who was trained with pig.   Any dog will find a decomposing body,  the whole idea of cadaver dogs is that they will alert to the body instead of digging it up and damaging the evidence.

The problem is with Eddie having been trained on pig decomposing flesh,  he will only alert when the flesh is in its last stages of decomposition as this is the time when a pig will give off the same gas as a human cadaver.

Eddie wouldn't have been alerting to cadaver scent in 5a as there is no way Madeleine would have been left to decompose to the state that Eddie would alert to.
I mean, where do you start? Can you provide cites for any of the many assumptions / assertions in this post?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on March 03, 2020, 11:55:18 AM
I don't know why the keep showing these video's of cadaver dogs alerting to the smell of cadaver,  that is what they are trained to alert to unlike Eddie who was trained with pig.   Any dog will find a decomposing body,  the whole idea of cadaver dogs is that they will alert to the body instead of digging it up and damaging the evidence.

The problem is with Eddie having been trained on pig decomposing flesh,  he will only alert when the flesh is in its last stages of decomposition as this is the time when a pig will give off the same gas as a human cadaver.

Eddie wouldn't have been alerting to cadaver scent in 5a as there is no way Madeleine would have been left to decompose to the state that Eddie would alert to.

Eddie alerted to the scent of Attracta Harron's remains in a bedroom. She was there for one hour after being killed and before being disposed of. She was in the very early stages of decomposition, so you appear to have been misinformed.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on March 03, 2020, 12:00:13 PM
Eddie alerted to the scent of Attracta Harron's remains in a bedroom. She was there for one hour after being killed and before being disposed of. She was in the very early stages of decomposition, so you appear to have been misinformed.

utter speculation.....cite for this...i think you are the one who is mistaken
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on March 03, 2020, 12:11:32 PM
Eddie alerted to the scent of Attracta Harron's remains in a bedroom. She was there for one hour after being killed and before being disposed of. She was in the very early stages of decomposition, so you appear to have been misinformed.
I have seen it recorded that Eddie alerted to blood in a burnt out vehicle ... do you have a cite for the alert in the bedroom in what from the details given in court was a violent and bloody crime?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on March 03, 2020, 12:15:10 PM
Hang on, I asked for cites first. Get in line.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on March 03, 2020, 12:16:22 PM
utter speculation.....cite for this...i think you are the one who is mistaken

Further searches identified a location where the EVRD alerted in the front bedroom of the offender's empty next door dwelling house.
When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had laid in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on March 03, 2020, 12:18:22 PM
Further searches identified a location where the EVRD alerted in the front bedroom of the offender's empty next door dwelling house.
When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had laid in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
What a good boy. Eddie, not Martin. No, to hell with it, Martin too. Good boys.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on March 03, 2020, 12:23:50 PM
Further searches identified a location where the EVRD alerted in the front bedroom of the offender's empty next door dwelling house.
When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had laid in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

two points....it says the body lay there for an hour...doesnt say she was murdered there
eddie could have reacted to her blood ...not cadaver
the scent could have been later contamination by the murderer

this alert does not confirm any reliable evidence of PM interval
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on March 03, 2020, 12:31:39 PM
Further searches identified a location where the EVRD alerted in the front bedroom of the offender's empty next door dwelling house.
When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had laid in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

There was no mention of this 'alert' in court unlike the alert in the vehicle because there were no forensics to verify it.

Mrs Harron's death was violent and bloody enough to leave physical trace in a burnt out vehicle.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on March 03, 2020, 12:41:07 PM
There was no mention of this 'alert' in court unlike the alert in the vehicle because there were no forensics to verify it.

Mrs Harron's death was violent and bloody enough to leave physical trace in a burnt out vehicle.

It still happened and the suspect confirmed the body had been there.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on March 03, 2020, 01:01:54 PM
It still happened and the suspect confirmed the body had been there.

But there was no evidence that Mrs Harron's body had lain there ... therefore that alleged alert was not presented in court.

Interestingly the court was told that Mrs Harron's murderer refused to divulge any crime details during police interviews.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on March 03, 2020, 01:03:00 PM
Eddie alerted to the scent of Attracta Harron's remains in a bedroom. She was there for one hour after being killed and before being disposed of. She was in the very early stages of decomposition, so you appear to have been misinformed.

Eddie alerted to the scent of Attracta Harron's remains in a bedroom?  You know this do you,  did Eddie tell you?  Eddie alerts to BLOOD too remember. 

I have been misinformed,  well tell that to the scientists who did the experiments.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on March 03, 2020, 01:05:21 PM
I mean, where do you start? Can you provide cites for any of the many assumptions / assertions in this post?

I have given the cites before.

There are stages of decomposition.   Gases are given off in each one of the stages.   Each stage smells differently.

So how long had the piglets that Grime trained Eddie with been dead?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on March 03, 2020, 01:06:08 PM
But there was no evidence that Mrs Harron's body had lain there ... therefore that alleged alert was not presented in court.

Interestingly the court was told that Mrs Harron's murderer refused to divulge any crime details during police interviews.

ferryman showed another claim in Eddies CV was false. Something to do with a button in another case
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 03, 2020, 01:28:33 PM
The second witness was Martin Grime of the United Kingdom. He is occasionally contracted by the U.S. government and is a qualified expert in cadaver dogs.

Grime displayed five videos of his search dog “Eddie,” trained to search for human decomposition. The videos, filmed at the LaFayette Police Department during September 2007, displayed the dog’s ability to pick up on alert scents


There is a lot of documented footage showcasing Eddie's skills so no need to worry when this case goes to trial  ?{)(**
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on March 03, 2020, 01:33:44 PM
The second witness was Martin Grime of the United Kingdom. He is occasionally contracted by the U.S. government and is a qualified expert in cadaver dogs.

Grime displayed five videos of his search dog “Eddie,” trained to search for human decomposition. The videos, filmed at the LaFayette Police Department during September 2007, displayed the dog’s ability to pick up on alert scents


There is a lot of documented footage showcasing Eddie's skills so no need to worry when this case goes to trial  ?{)(**

We've seen him in action in the field.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: G-Unit on March 03, 2020, 01:40:28 PM
I have given the cites before.

There are stages of decomposition.   Gases are given off in each one of the stages.   Each stage smells differently.

So how long had the piglets that Grime trained Eddie with been dead?

As I understand it scientists are unable to identify the substances emitted by dead bodies. If they could they'd be able to reproduce the scents. The scientist you quoted identified only 8, I think. Additionally, the dogs are trained initially on pig cadavers. As they work they learn more about the target scents. Eddie was a very experienced dog.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on March 03, 2020, 01:47:15 PM
As I understand it scientists are unable to identify the substances emitted by dead bodies. If they could they'd be able to reproduce the scents. The scientist you quoted identified only 8, I think. Additionally, the dogs are trained initially on pig cadavers. As they work they learn more about the target scents. Eddie was a very experienced dog.

eddie found one or two cadavers in operations.....was used in 37 cases over 5 or six years. I dont seetaht as particularly experienced
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 05, 2020, 01:39:02 PM
rose, edwards, harron, collier are 4 for starters.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on March 05, 2020, 03:09:55 PM
rose, edwards, harron, collier are 4 for starters.
Link for Rose and Collier
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 05, 2020, 07:51:31 PM
In March, 2002, they played a major role in locating the body of Barnsley murder victim 21-year-old Shane Collier. Even though his body had been cut up into parts and buried five months earlier, the dogs found them in a remote woodland in Cumbria. The South Yorkshire police dogs Frankie and Eddie and their handlers now work as part of the special search unit operation by the National Crime and Operations Faculty.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/whats-on/out-and-about/dogs-find-body-parts-of-murder-victim-1-320914
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.com/2010/06/eddie-and-martin-grime.html

FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow he and his springer spaniels Eddie, Keela and Morse were called in by police in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on the island of Sanday last June.

Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies and was used in the McCann case and the Soham murders inquiry, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick on June 24.

Mr Grime said: "His normal reaction is to bark. On this occasion he started to dig."

The body of "Black Bob" Rose was later found at the spot.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sniffer-dog-used-in-search-for-madeleine-1050817
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on March 06, 2020, 04:31:52 PM
Murder 24/7 episodes 4 and 5,this week,blooming blood dogs only went and found blood.

Dog handler:Our dogs can find blood that we can never see.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on March 06, 2020, 04:36:30 PM
Murder 24/7 episodes 4 and 5,this week,blooming blood dogs only went and found blood.

so they found actual evidence....doing what they are trained for and are very good at
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: The General on April 21, 2020, 03:41:39 PM
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/medical-detection-dogs-coronavirus-covid19-18118124 (https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/medical-detection-dogs-coronavirus-covid19-18118124)
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on April 21, 2020, 04:13:45 PM
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/medical-detection-dogs-coronavirus-covid19-18118124 (https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/medical-detection-dogs-coronavirus-covid19-18118124)

As i understand dogs can catch covid.....and therefore if infected could pass it on whilst asymptomatic....before dying of covid..on a more serious note..

if you read the article they wont be taking the dogs bark for it.....any positive alert from eddie needs to be confirmed by a medical test
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 01:58:36 PM
As i understand dogs can catch covid.....and therefore if infected could pass it on whilst asymptomatic....before dying of covid..on a more serious note..

if you read the article they wont be taking the dogs bark for it.....any positive alert from eddie needs to be confirmed by a medical test

In the McCann case the alerts were backed up by the bodily fluids collected.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 07, 2020, 02:09:55 PM
In the McCann case the alerts were backed up by the bodily fluids collected.

believe whay you like ..it doesnt make  a scrap of difference...grime doesnt agree with you..read his report
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 07, 2020, 02:10:27 PM
In the McCann case the alerts were backed up by the bodily fluids collected.

What Body Fluids?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 03:51:14 PM
What Body Fluids?

The ones that were found to be “inconclusive” in relation to a match to MM’s DNA when tested in the UK. Hopefully someone will take Perlin’s offer up now we have a “new suspect”
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 07, 2020, 03:59:30 PM
The ones that were found to be “inconclusive” in relation to a match to MM’s DNA when tested in the UK. Hopefully someone will take Perlin’s offer up now we have a “new suspect”

"Inconclusive."  I see.  That would have been a laugh and a half in A Court of Law.

Actually, there were No Body Fluids collected.  Unless you can produce evidence that there were.

A Cite would be good.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on June 07, 2020, 04:10:52 PM
The ones that were found to be “inconclusive” in relation to a match to MM’s DNA when tested in the UK. Hopefully someone will take Perlin’s offer up now we have a “new suspect”

Took the words right out my fingers - you would have thought it would have been took up.

A surly if not done - they would have to do it now, with a suspect.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 07, 2020, 04:13:56 PM
Took the words right out my fingers - you would have thought it would have been took up.

A surly if not done - they would have to do it now, with a suspect.

There were No Body Fluids found.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 07, 2020, 04:16:26 PM
You will know there is a cover up if there aren't new tests on crime scene evidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on June 07, 2020, 04:17:18 PM
There were No Body Fluids found.

But they had DNA
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 07, 2020, 04:20:46 PM
But they had DNA

What DNA?  Could we have a Cite please?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on June 07, 2020, 05:05:50 PM
What DNA?  Could we have a Cite please?

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on June 07, 2020, 08:05:27 PM
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm

Hi Kizzy.  Sorry you may have to help me out a bit  here.  The file you provided - what is it showing in terms of The DNA found. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 08:06:37 PM
Granted I should have used the term human cellular material rather than bodily fluids (but that's another debate). I seriously can't believe any posters here are oblivious to the DNA evidence tested by the UK Forensic Science Service. This is from an email before the full report:

Quote
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why - ...

Well lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

This inconclusive analysis is exactly why the evidence should be tested by Perlin who has reportedly already helped the UK Police and claims he may be able to reach a more conclusive analysis with better scientific methods / equipment.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 07, 2020, 08:12:24 PM
Granted I should have used the term human cellular material rather than bodily fluids (but that's another debate). I seriously can't believe any posters here are oblivious to the DNA evidence tested by the UK Forensic Science Service. This is from an email before the full report:

This inconclusive analysis is exactly why the evidence should be tested by Perlin who has already helped the UK Police and claims he may be able to reach a more conclusive analysis with better scientific methods / equipment.

Could you tell us when he has already helped the Uk police
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 08:17:32 PM
From the PJ....

Quote
In order to carry out the determined by the 4.a Brigada of Departamento of Investiga?o Criminal of Policia Judici?ia, concerning the process number 201/07.OGALGS, between 15:00h of 4th August, 2007, and 06:30h of 5th August, 2007, were recovered the following evidences in the living room of the apartment 5A, Ocean Club Villas, Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal, where it is possible may have occurred a crime of homicide, by the Crime Scene Investigators Fernando Jos?da Silva Viegas and Bruno Jorge Possid?io Mendes Antunes:-

I A - Stain on the floor recovered with a Dry swab;
1 B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water;
2A - Stain on the floor recovered with a Dry swab;
2B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water:
3A - Stain on the floor recovered with a Dry swab;
3B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water;
4A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
4B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
5A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
5B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
6A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
6B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
7A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
7B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
8A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
8B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
9A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
9B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
10A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
10B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;



Page 2207 :

11IA - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
11 B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
12A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
12B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
13A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
13B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
14A - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with a Dry swab;
14B - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with swab with distilled water;
15A - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with a Dry swab;
15B - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with swab with distilled water;
16 - Blue curtain;
16B - White curtain behind blue curtain and armband.

All these evidences were delivered to the Forensic Science Laboratory - Birmingham Laboratory, Priory House, Gooch Street North, Birmingham, B56QQ, on the 7th August, 2007.-

Birmingham, 7th August, 2007

Who delivers - Illegible, (to me), handwritten Signature.

Who received - S NIBLETTS, FSS Birmingham ( plus handwritten Signature)

Dated 07 August 2007



I understand some of this evidence has since been destroyed (but not all of it). Surely if as is now a growing consensus that Madeleine is dead then all the more reason for re-analysis. Perhaps there's a link to some of the human DNA and the German criminal, perhaps there is evidence that a death occurred in the appartment. Let's have the DNA analysed again. The dog alert is suggestive that some of this DNA comes from blood cells.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on June 07, 2020, 08:26:07 PM
Thanks for this.  That’s helpful even in an ‘elimination’ way - so no evidential dna found then.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 08:40:13 PM
Thanks for this.  That’s helpful even in an ‘elimination’ way - so no evidential dna found then.

Quite the opposite. Where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted human cellular material was collected. Dr Perlin has offered to analyse these samples and believes he may well be able to obtain some conclusive information. This offer must be taken up imo.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on June 07, 2020, 09:08:13 PM
Quite the opposite. Where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted human cellular material was collected. Dr Perlin has offered to analyse these samples and believes he may well be able to obtain some conclusive information. This offer must be taken up imo.

I’m inclined to agree - the statistical technique does seem to be a new development.  So thank you for raising this.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 09:11:25 PM
Quite the opposite. Where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted human cellular material was collected. Dr Perlin has offered to analyse these samples and believes he may well be able to obtain some conclusive information. This offer must be taken up imo.

Please give a list of "human cellular material" excluding the Renault key fob, exactly where it was found and which dog alerted.  Thank you
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 09:13:09 PM
There were No Body Fluids found.

Granted “human cellular” material was found (where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted). Furthermore Some of the samples were taken from “stains” reportedly. Stains generally implies the source is some kind of fluid.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 09:14:45 PM
Please give a list of "human cellular material" excluding the Renault key fob, exactly where it was found and which dog alerted.  Thank you

What’s in the public domain is available in the PJ files that were released.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 07, 2020, 09:18:25 PM
What’s in the public domain is available in the PJ files that were released.
Could you tell us when he has already helped the Uk police....i think youve made that up
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 09:18:54 PM
What’s in the public domain is available in the PJ files that were released.

You are making the claim ... it is up to you to say where you came by it when requested.  Thank you
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 10:09:03 PM
Could you tell us when he has already helped the Uk police....i think youve made that up

I fixed my post I added "reportedly". That's not the key issue though is it. The blood and cadaver dogs alerted at locations in 5A and human cellular material was taken (some from "stains"). UK analysis was inconclusive as to whether some of the samples may have originated from Madeleine McCann.

What did Gerry say about the possibility that Madeleine was injured in the apartment?

Quote
When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.

Some time after his solicitor wanted a question about blood asking again (Gerry by then apparently did have a comment)...

Quote
The lawyer for the defence says he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn't know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

Both quotes from Processos Vol X
Page 2577
Policia Judiciaria
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 10:14:32 PM
You are making the claim ... it is up to you to say where you came by it when requested.  Thank you

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/FORENSIC_INDEX.htm

4 MADELINE PHOTOS EXPERT EXAMINATION
59-DA-27
5A FORENSICS 04-05-07
5A PHOTOS TAKEN BY JOAO BARREIRAS
5A SAMPLES INDICATED BY EDDIE & KEELA
ANALYSIS REPORT FIRST 11 VOLUMES
BLOOD SPOT TRACES
CASA LILIANA
CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO RENTAL CARS AND BLUE MINI
DEPOSITION MADELEINE'S HAIR A L PALMER
DOG INSPECTION PHOTOS
DOGS INSPECTION SITES
EDDIE & KEELA REPORT
FINGERPRINTS PHOTOS
FRANCES KENNAH HEAD UK CENTRAL AUTHORITY
FORENSIC CLOTHING PHOTOS
GERRY MCCANN'S ARGUIDO STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007
GERRY MCCANN RENTED LAP TOP 13 SEP 07
G.N.R HAIR SAMPLES
INTERCALARY REPORT BY INSPECTOR JOAO CARLOS 31-01-2008
INSPECTOR RICARDO PAIVA
INVOICES RELATING TO DNA ANALYSIS
JOSE CARLOS LEAL PIMENTAL G.N.R
JUDICIAL SECRECY VARIOUS LETTERS
KATE MCCANN'S STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007
LETTERS FROM LAWYERS ACTING FOR UK POLICE
LEGAL SUMMARY PRIOR & LOWE ARCHIVING
PORTUGUESE FORENSIC INSTITUTE TESTS
P.J.FINAL REPORT
P.J.SERVICE INFORMATION 13 SEP 2007
JOHN ROBERT LOWE F.S.S REPORT
MADELEINE'S DNA
MARK HARRISON ASSESSMENT OF GNR SEARCHES AND KRUGEL
MARTIN GRIME EDDIE & KEELA  REPORT
MARTIN GRIME PERSONAL PROFILE
MARTIN GRIME ROGATORY LETTERS
TAVARES DE ALMEIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR
OTHER DISAPPEARANCES INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLE LINKS
RESPONSES ROGATORY LETTERS OF REQUEST
VIDEO TAPES & MEMORY CARDS FORENSIC SOFTWARE
QUINTA SALSALITO SEARCHES BURGAU



Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 07, 2020, 10:26:15 PM
I fixed my post I added "reportedly". That's not the key issue though is it. The blood and cadaver dogs alerted at locations in 5A and human cellular material was taken (some from "stains"). UK analysis was inconclusive as to whether some of the samples may have originated from Madeleine McCann.

What did Gerry say about the possibility that Madeleine was injured in the apartment?

Some time after his solicitor wanted a question about blood asking again (Gerry by then apparently did have a comment)...

Both quotes from Processos Vol X
Page 2577
Policia Judiciaria

So where was it reported.. I reckon you've made that up as well
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 10:31:00 PM
So where was it reported.. I reckon you've made that up as well

Believe what you like Dave. I could waste 20 minutes finding the report but it's not the issue is it.

Human cellular material was found in areas where the dogs alerted. DNA testing was inconclusive. Going back to the thread title ~Dog Alerts - are they evidence?". The answer is no. The evidence is the human material collected from the places the dogs alerted.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 07, 2020, 10:35:10 PM
Believe what you like Dave. I could waste 20 minutes finding the report but it's not the issue is it.

Human cellular material was found in areas where the dogs alerted. DNA testing was inconclusive. Going back to the thread title ~Dog Alerts - are they evidence?". The answer is no. The evidence is the human material collected from the places the dogs alerted.

There is no report... You've made it up.
I see Perlin trying to promote his own business making claims that quite possibly have no basis.  I m happy to leave it to SY to decide what they need....
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 10:49:48 PM
There is no report... You've made it up.
I see Perlin trying to promote his own business making claims that quite possibly have no basis.  I m happy to leave it to SY to decide what they need....

The Queen V Shivers & Duffy was one UK case that he worked on...  but that's not the point is it, Dave?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 07, 2020, 11:09:30 PM
The Queen V Shivers & Duffy was one UK case that he worked on...  but that's not the point is it, Dave?

Interesting... Perlins dna evidence was admitted but both suspects aquitted
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 07, 2020, 11:14:15 PM
Interesting... Perlins dna evidence was admitted but both suspects aquitted

Nice of you to concede that I didn’t “make it up”.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 01:35:56 AM
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/FORENSIC_INDEX.htm

4 MADELINE PHOTOS EXPERT EXAMINATION
59-DA-27
5A FORENSICS 04-05-07
5A PHOTOS TAKEN BY JOAO BARREIRAS
5A SAMPLES INDICATED BY EDDIE & KEELA
ANALYSIS REPORT FIRST 11 VOLUMES
BLOOD SPOT TRACES
CASA LILIANA
CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO RENTAL CARS AND BLUE MINI
DEPOSITION MADELEINE'S HAIR A L PALMER
DOG INSPECTION PHOTOS
DOGS INSPECTION SITES
EDDIE & KEELA REPORT
FINGERPRINTS PHOTOS
FRANCES KENNAH HEAD UK CENTRAL AUTHORITY
FORENSIC CLOTHING PHOTOS
GERRY MCCANN'S ARGUIDO STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007
GERRY MCCANN RENTED LAP TOP 13 SEP 07
G.N.R HAIR SAMPLES
INTERCALARY REPORT BY INSPECTOR JOAO CARLOS 31-01-2008
INSPECTOR RICARDO PAIVA
INVOICES RELATING TO DNA ANALYSIS
JOSE CARLOS LEAL PIMENTAL G.N.R
JUDICIAL SECRECY VARIOUS LETTERS
KATE MCCANN'S STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007
LETTERS FROM LAWYERS ACTING FOR UK POLICE
LEGAL SUMMARY PRIOR & LOWE ARCHIVING
PORTUGUESE FORENSIC INSTITUTE TESTS
P.J.FINAL REPORT
P.J.SERVICE INFORMATION 13 SEP 2007
JOHN ROBERT LOWE F.S.S REPORT
MADELEINE'S DNA
MARK HARRISON ASSESSMENT OF GNR SEARCHES AND KRUGEL
MARTIN GRIME EDDIE & KEELA  REPORT
MARTIN GRIME PERSONAL PROFILE
MARTIN GRIME ROGATORY LETTERS
TAVARES DE ALMEIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR
OTHER DISAPPEARANCES INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLE LINKS
RESPONSES ROGATORY LETTERS OF REQUEST
VIDEO TAPES & MEMORY CARDS FORENSIC SOFTWARE
QUINTA SALSALITO SEARCHES BURGAU

You were asked to substantiate your claim ...
Snip
Quite the opposite. Where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted human cellular material was collected. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg597566#msg597566


In my opinion the above singularly fails on all points and is actually quite insulting to the forum which has an ethos of using only accurate information. The fact you cannot or will not back up your statement calls the accuracy of your post into question. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 08, 2020, 01:49:10 AM
You were asked to substantiate your claim ...
Snip
Quite the opposite. Where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted human cellular material was collected. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg597566#msg597566


In my opinion the above singularly fails on all points and is actually quite insulting to the forum which has an ethos of using only accurate information. The fact you cannot or will not back up your statement calls the accuracy of your post into question.

Have you read those links? Apartment 5A is an example of "where the dogs alerted and human cellular material (some from "stains") was collected." I don't think this is a up for debate. The debate centres on the analysis of the DNA from the evidence collected.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 02:30:40 AM
Have you read those links? Apartment 5A is an example of "where the dogs alerted and human cellular material (some from "stains") was collected." I don't think this is a up for debate. The debate centres on the analysis of the DNA from the evidence collected.

In my opinion you obviously do not have a clue exactly what you are posting about and you prove that with your inability to back up your assertions with an appropriate cite.
I asked you to "Please give a list of "human cellular material" excluding the Renault key fob, exactly where it was found and which dog alerted.  Thank you"http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg597582#msg597582 which you have singularly failed to do.

You are correct when you say this is not up for debate since until you are able to explain exactly what it is you propose DNA analysis should be carried out on ... there is no debate possible.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 08, 2020, 08:40:21 AM
In my opinion you obviously do not have a clue exactly what you are posting about and you prove that with your inability to back up your assertions with an appropriate cite.
I asked you to "Please give a list of "human cellular material" excluding the Renault key fob, exactly where it was found and which dog alerted.  Thank you"http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg597582#msg597582 which you have singularly failed to do.

You are correct when you say this is not up for debate since until you are able to explain exactly what it is you propose DNA analysis should be carried out on ... there is no debate possible.

I said human cellular samples were collected in areas where the dogs alerted (5A being one example where both dogs alerted). The exact details of the alerts and where samples were taken are in the files released by the PJ and I posted the  links.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 09:00:42 AM
I said human cellular samples were collected in areas where the dogs alerted (5A being one example where both dogs alerted). The exact details of the alerts and where samples were taken are in the files released by the PJ and I posted the  links.

As you have indicated ... no point in 'debating' and I have agreed there is no point in a debate based on information you are unable to substantiate for the simple reason it is inaccurate.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 08, 2020, 12:52:18 PM
As you have indicated ... no point in 'debating' and I have agreed there is no point in a debate based on information you are unable to substantiate for the simple reason it is inaccurate.

Both dogs marked "an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road". (Provided for you in the links earlier - specifically from the PJ Report dated July 31st 2007).
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 12:56:33 PM
Both dogs marked "an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road". (Provided for you in the links earlier - specifically from the PJ Report dated July 31st 2007).

Human cellular samples springs into memory ... care to nip into the forensic report and detail what was found there.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 08, 2020, 05:01:49 PM
Human cellular samples springs into memory ... care to nip into the forensic report and detail what was found there.

Why don’t you? I stated that the PJ files confirm that human cellular material was collected from an area where both a blood and cadaver dog alerted. Why is that so hard to accept? It doesn’t implicate any particular suspect. Evidence found there could lend weight to the possibility that a corpse had been present in apartment 5A. If the human cellular material was blood it could have come from one of MM’s nosebleeds that GM reportedly couldn’t remember if she had or not. The British Lab was unable to say if it was blood or other human cellular material not was DNA analysis conclusive . All the more reason for further testing imo. It might turn up a vital link to the German sex offender.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 08, 2020, 05:45:26 PM
Both dogs alerting in the same place is significant to the police regardless of what naysayers think!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Erngath on June 08, 2020, 05:53:29 PM
Both dogs alerting in the same place is significant to the police regardless of what naysayers think!

Significant to which police?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2020, 05:57:20 PM
Significant to which police?
Pathfinder hasn’t realised it’s not 2007 anymore.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 08, 2020, 06:21:23 PM
Significant to which police?

Significant to any police in an unsolved case.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2020, 06:50:31 PM
Significant to any police in an unsolved case.
German police don’t seem too interested.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 07:02:17 PM
Why don’t you? I stated that the PJ files confirm that human cellular material was collected from an area where both a blood and cadaver dog alerted. Why is that so hard to accept? It doesn’t implicate any particular suspect. Evidence found there could lend weight to the possibility that a corpse had been present in apartment 5A. If the human cellular material was blood it could have come from one of MM’s nosebleeds that GM reportedly couldn’t remember if she had or not. The British Lab was unable to say if it was blood or other human cellular material nor was DNA analysis conclusive . All the more reason for further testing imo. It might turn up a vital link to the German sex offender.

I have read the files.  Apparently you have not or you would be capable of providing a cite to back up your claims re "cellular material".  I await with little interest to see on exactly what you are basing your assertions.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 08, 2020, 07:03:53 PM
Significant to any police in an unsolved case.

Operation Grange is shameful for not considering the alerts and pushing for a new analysis of the human cellular material found where the dogs alerted.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2020, 07:23:50 PM
Operation Grange is shameful for not considering the alerts and pushing for a new analysis of the human cellular material found where the dogs alerted.
What was stopping the Portuguese investigation doing that?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 07:36:55 PM
What was stopping the Portuguese investigation doing that?
As we were onetime constantly told ... 'this is a Portuguese investigation.  The PJ have primacy.'  Interesting times with the advent of the Germans.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 08, 2020, 07:38:54 PM
Operation Grange is shameful for not considering the alerts and pushing for a new analysis of the human cellular material found where the dogs alerted.

SY understand the value of the alerts...zero
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 07:48:58 PM
SY understand the value of the alerts...zero

Even Sandra Felgueiras  understood the value of them when she read the released files and realised she had been fed a pack of lies about the dogs and much else.  She wasn't best pleased.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 12:32:24 AM
I have read the files.  Apparently you have not or you would be capable of providing a cite to back up your claims re "cellular material".  I await with little interest to see on exactly what you are basing your assertions.

Email From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Op Task - In Confidence

".......An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid........"

Swab 3a was taken from under a tile behind the sofa in Apartment 5A. This was an area where both the blood and cadaver dogs alerted.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2020, 07:15:02 AM
Time to let the dog alerts lie.  They are no longer relevant (and haven’t been for years).
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 09:58:27 AM
Time to let the dog alerts lie.  They are no longer relevant (and haven’t been for years).

That’s nonsense. They are suggestive that a dead body has been present in apartment 5A. Any missing persons enquiry should investigate the suggestive alerts. Perhaps a German sex offender can be linked too? There’s DNA from “more than one person” in the human cellular material that was examined from swab 3a (taken from under the tiles near the sofa where both blood and cadaver dogs alerted).
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 09, 2020, 10:11:34 AM
Just suppose that perpetrator admitted to killing Madeleine in 5A, would it then be accepted that the alerts were correct?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 10:15:17 AM
That’s nonsense. They are suggestive that a dead body has been present in apartment 5A. Any missing persons enquiry should investigate the suggestive alerts. Perhaps a German sex offender can be linked too? There’s DNA from “more than one person” in the human cellular material that was examined from swab 3a (taken from under the tiles near the sofa where both blood and cadaver dogs alerted).

how suggestive...why are they only suggestive
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 09, 2020, 10:22:19 AM
That’s nonsense. They are suggestive that a dead body has been present in apartment 5A. Any missing persons enquiry should investigate the suggestive alerts. Perhaps a German sex offender can be linked too? There’s DNA from “more than one person” in the human cellular material that was examined from swab 3a (taken from under the tiles near the sofa where both blood and cadaver dogs alerted).

Nothing to do with Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 09, 2020, 10:25:48 AM
Just suppose that perpetrator admitted to killing Madeleine in 5A, would it then be accepted that the alerts were correct?

How could they be?  There wasn't time.  Unless you are suggesting that Kate McCann came back at 10pm and found her daughter murdered and then disposed of the body.
And of course Gerry and Matt didn't even notice this dead body lying around.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 09, 2020, 10:30:39 AM
How could they be?  There wasn't time.  Unless you are suggesting that Kate McCann came back at 10pm and found her daughter murdered and then disposed of the body.
And of course Gerry and Matt didn't even notice this dead body lying around.

That would be the conundrum wouldn't it ?

I suppose it would all depend upon the details in any confession.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 09, 2020, 10:34:56 AM
That would be the conundrum wouldn't it ?

I suppose it would all depend upon the details in any confession.

Bruckner isn't going to confess.  Unless perhaps to say that he sold a live Madeleine.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 09, 2020, 10:36:09 AM
Bruckner isn't going to confess.  Unless perhaps to say that he sold a live Madeleine.

I'm sure you are right,
although I said perpetrator, rather than CB
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 10:37:57 AM
That’s nonsense. They are suggestive that a dead body has been present in apartment 5A. Any missing persons enquiry should investigate the suggestive alerts. Perhaps a German sex offender can be linked too? There’s DNA from “more than one person” in the human cellular material that was examined from swab 3a (taken from under the tiles near the sofa where both blood and cadaver dogs alerted).

Grime didn't say they were suggestive of a dead body having been in 5a
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 09, 2020, 11:06:50 AM
I'm sure you are right,
although I said perpetrator, rather than CB

Okay.  Then No One is going to confess.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 09, 2020, 11:14:29 AM
Okay.  Then No One is going to confess.

Well maybe, maybe not.
One can never be sure what might happen in the future.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Gertrude on June 09, 2020, 11:14:53 AM
How could they be?  There wasn't time.  Unless you are suggesting that Kate McCann came back at 10pm and found her daughter murdered and then disposed of the body.
And of course Gerry and Matt didn't even notice this dead body lying around.

Juvenile remains do compose quicker than adult remains.

'Spicka et al. [25] found that carcass mass below 20 kg decomposed more rapidly than those above 20 kg and released a lower concentration of ninhydrin-reactive nitrogen over time into the grave soil than larger mass carcasses suggesting that mass does play an influential role in decomposition rates.''

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374967/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374967/)
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 09, 2020, 11:43:52 AM
Juvenile remains do compose quicker than adult remains.

'Spicka et al. [25] found that carcass mass below 20 kg decomposed more rapidly than those above 20 kg and released a lower concentration of ninhydrin-reactive nitrogen over time into the grave soil than larger mass carcasses suggesting that mass does play an influential role in decomposition rates.''

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374967/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374967/)

How long then, would you say?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 09, 2020, 12:12:11 PM
Nothing to do with Madeleine McCann.

Go back to sleep. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann..
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 12:48:30 PM
Grime didn't say they were suggestive of a dead body having been in 5a

Go back and watch the video.
He rightly points out that it suggests that the area might yield forensic evidence - which it did. It’s the analysis of that evidence that is “inconclusive”. To quote the report: “ The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.”
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Gertrude on June 09, 2020, 01:47:15 PM
How long then, would you say?

I will concede I am not a scientist working on the paper so happy to admit I don't know. The point is neither do any of the people claiming cadaver scent could not possibly have had the time to develop.

 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 02:22:52 PM
Go back and watch the video.
He rightly points out that it suggests that the area might yield forensic evidence - which it did. It’s the analysis of that evidence that is “inconclusive”. To quote the report: “ The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.”

You need to read what Grime says in his statement..

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 09, 2020, 02:37:25 PM
You need to read what Grime says in his statement..

I think you have the patience of a saint considering the present day irrelevance of the subject matter.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Gertrude on June 09, 2020, 02:37:59 PM
You need to read what Grime says in his statement..

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.


They can be corroborated by other evidence Davel which is something also said by Martin Grime . Witness Testimony is evidence. Doesn't have to be forensics.

Edit sorry to jump in, I see you weren't replying to me!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 02:42:09 PM
They can be corroborated by other evidence Davel which is something also said by Martin Grime . Witness Testimony is evidence. Doesn't have to be forensics.

Edit sorry to jump in, I see you weren't replying to me!

Not according  to Grime in his statements at PDL... He does seem to have changed his tune recently which makes him an inconsistent witness. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 03:29:42 PM
You need to read what Grime says in his statement..

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.


Yes but you need to watch what he says about Eddie’s alert in the Police videos.

He is always consistent with regards to the need for corroborative evidences. That’s why they use the two dogs together and try to locate blood for DNA analysis from the white blood cells. If Eddie’s alerts are not to cadaverine then you must concede it is likely that he’s alerting to blood. There’s too many alerts and only in relation to one specific family to dismiss the need for further DNA analysis of the evidence collected, IMO. As the sample from swab 3a contains DNA from more than one person this could be vital to establishing a link to the German sex offender, perhaps.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 03:33:07 PM
Not according  to Grime in his statements at PDL... He does seem to have changed his tune recently which makes him an inconsistent witness.

Have you got a link to his recent comments?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 03:33:22 PM
Yes but you need to watch what he says about Eddie’s alert in the Police videos.

He is always consistent with regards to the need for corroborative evidences. That’s why they use the two dogs together and try to locate blood for DNA analysis from the white blood cells. If Eddie’s alerts are not to cadaverine then you must concede it is likely that he’s alerting to blood. There’s too many alerts and only in relation to one specific family to dismiss the need for further DNA analysis of the evidence collected, IMO. As the sample from swab 3a contains DNA from more than one person this could be vital to establishing a link to the German sex offender, perhaps.

The most likely place they might find dna of the offender would be on the bedsheets... But they were sent to the laundry and not kept.. I think the alerts are a total red herring... As were the 11 alerts in Jersey
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 03:38:28 PM
Have you got a link to his recent comments?

Google grime white paper staffs university... And you may find it. 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 09, 2020, 04:11:29 PM
The most likely place they might find dna of the offender would be on the bedsheets... But they were sent to the laundry and not kept.. I think the alerts are a total red herring... As were the 11 alerts in Jersey

None of the dogs alerted in that bedroom and the bed was tidy. We know where they alerted and that is what to re-test.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 04:17:37 PM
None of the dogs alerted in that bedroom and the bed was tidy. We know where they alerted and that is what to re-test.

The dogs arrived in August... Those were not the sheets that had been on maddies bed.. Im talking about possible perps dna
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 09, 2020, 04:43:50 PM
Yes and it could be behind that sofa if he entered and met Maddy out of bed as some reports claimed.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 04:49:49 PM
Yes and it could be behind that sofa if he entered and met Maddy out of bed as some reports claimed.

Time to bring in Dr Perlin. No stone unturned.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2020, 04:54:52 PM
Just suppose that perpetrator admitted to killing Madeleine in 5A, would it then be accepted that the alerts were correct?
Not unless it can be proved that a child’s body emits cadaver odour almost straight away, no.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 09, 2020, 04:55:25 PM
Time to bring in Dr Perlin. No stone unturned.

I fancy Dr Perlin's services will not be called for fear of what might be revealed.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2020, 04:57:02 PM
I fancy Dr Perlin's services will not be called for fear of what might be revealed.
And what might that be?  Are you another one still convinced the parents hid the body?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 09, 2020, 04:57:30 PM
Not unless it can be proved that a child’s body emits cadaver odour almost straight away, no.
But has been suggested above, he might stay with the body and carry out activities that are not allowed to be mentioned here.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2020, 04:57:37 PM
I fancy Dr Perlin's services will not be called for fear of what might be revealed.

Couple of questions on that,are the samples still being held,if so where?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2020, 04:58:26 PM
And what might that be?  Are you another one still convinced the parents hid the body?

Where's the evidence any one did?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 09, 2020, 04:59:38 PM
Couple of questions on that,are the samples still being held,if so where?

Not sure . FSS was privatised so may have been mislaid or lost with time.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2020, 05:00:53 PM
But has been suggested above, he might stay with the body and carry out activities that are not allowed to be mentioned here.
Wow, he really was a risk taker then.  Remember the Tapas staff statements that the parents were coming and going all evening - where do you suppose they were really going, if not to do checks on their kids?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2020, 05:04:21 PM
Not sure . FSS was privatised so may have been mislaid or lost with time.

Clearly there's no forensics to link the German,
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 09, 2020, 05:10:05 PM
Clearly there's no forensics to link the German,

That would be a bit of a bummer for the police.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 05:11:36 PM
Not sure . FSS was privatised so may have been mislaid or lost with time.

The PJ files mention which samples are destroyed and which must be retained and for how many years.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 09, 2020, 05:16:37 PM
The PJ files mention which samples are destroyed and which must be retained and for how many years.

Could you tell us which they are, please?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 05:26:24 PM
You need to read what Grime says in his statement..

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.


Finally found what Martin Grime said in relation to the alerts behind the
“It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent'
contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence“.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 06:28:13 PM
Finally found what Martin Grime said in relation to the alerts behind the
“It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent'
contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence“.

Yes I know... So in this statement he days it's possible... Not probable.  Elsewhere he talks of physically recoverable forensic evidence.  It isn't just Grime... Harrison and Grimes academic superior Professor Cassella say the same thing
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 06:43:34 PM
I fancy Dr Perlin's services will not be called for fear of what might be revealed.

So the portuguese who have primacy...the Germans who may now have jurisdiction are ignoring Perlin...I wonder why.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 06:46:09 PM
Finally found what Martin Grime said in relation to the alerts behind the
“It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent'
contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence“.

Note Grime said cadaver scent contaminant...not a cadaver. sceptics almost all read this as cadaver...they are wrong
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 09, 2020, 07:06:53 PM
Yes I know... So in this statement he days it's possible... Not probable.  Elsewhere he talks of physically recoverable forensic evidence.  It isn't just Grime... Harrison and Grimes academic superior Professor Cassella say the same thing

Yes this is the point. It’s “possible”. That’s why analysts of the evidence collected is absolutely crucial.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 07:16:57 PM
Yes this is the point. It’s “possible”. That’s why analysts of the evidence collected is absolutely crucial.
i would rather leave it to SY...the German and portuguese police...none seem to agree with you
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Gertrude on June 09, 2020, 10:03:11 PM
Not according  to Grime in his statements at PDL... He does seem to have changed his tune recently which makes him an inconsistent witness.

IMO he has never changed his tune. I would say you are misunderstanding his words. You quote the 2008 report where he says the alerts need to be 'corroborated'. It does not specify that corroboration needs to be forensic. So he is not unreliable.

If there is no testimony in the investigation supporting the alerts it's not really anything to do with Grime. He can't assess something that doesn't exist. His later White paper states;

'The use of this type of detection canine always require interpretation of results as to the weight of case intelligence and corroboration via scientific means or anecdotal witness evidence.'

'They are not considered quantitative, and responses require corroboration, either instrumentally, visually, or by anecdotal witness testimony.'

 The 2008 report concluded the alerts couldn't be corroborated at that time. It doesn't mean they can never be either as Grime says by instrumentally or witness testimony. If for instance a witness came forward who had seen a death in 5a.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 09, 2020, 10:08:00 PM
IMO he has never changed his tune. I would say you are misunderstanding his words. You quote the 2008 report where he says the alerts need to be 'corroborated'. It does not specify that corroboration needs to be forensic. So he is not unreliable.

If there is no testimony in the investigation supporting the alerts it's not really anything to do with Grime. He can't assess something that doesn't exist. His later White paper states;

'The use of this type of detection canine always require interpretation of results as to the weight of case intelligence and corroboration via scientific means or anecdotal witness evidence.'

'They are not considered quantitative, and responses require corroboration, either instrumentally, visually, or by anecdotal witness testimony.'

 The 2008 report concluded the alerts couldn't be corroborated at that time. It doesn't mean they can never be either as Grime says by instrumentally or witness testimony. If for instance a witness came forward who had seen a death in 5a.

We've been through this before.. In 2007 Grime, said the alert needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 10, 2020, 12:17:36 AM
Note Grime said cadaver scent contaminant...not a cadaver. sceptics almost all read this as cadaver...they are wrong

We all know that a cadaver wasn't in Apartment 5A at the time the dogs were used. The issue is where did the cadaverine originate. The Police use a second dog (when there is no body) in an attempt to pinpoint areas where it may be possible to find human blood. Keela if you read the report was incredibly accurate in relation to finding the exact spot where swab 3A yielded human cellular material. To the point where they removed an extra tile to find tiny traces of human cellular material in the area where the dog alerted.

To quote Martin Grime "The second dog that we've seen work today is the crime scene dog Keela. She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that's historically very old and she will find anybody's blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows. The fact that there is other scientific methods being used may stop you recovering any DNA but if you try we'll see what happens. But she is very, very good and when she indicates there is always blood there"

And to quote from the PJ Files: 12 Volume XII pages 3195 to 3206.
Expert Examination 200711732-CR/L
Requester: DIC Portimao Policia Judiciaria
Case: 201/07.0GALGS
Fax: 638 dated 10 August 2007
Examination date: 1 August 2007

"Subsequently it was asked of the undersigned that they watched the films of the searches performed by the dog specialised in detection of human blood so that they obtained an understanding of the area from where the tiles should be collected and how many tiles they should collect.

After seeing the images and in agreement with the officers of DIC of Portimao it was defined that the undersigned should proceed with the recovery of four tiles. It was also defined that this operation of recovery of the tiles would also be filmed.

When looking at the images referred to above it was observed that the floor tiles to be recovered were situated in an area of the living room next to a window where there was a sofa and that the tiles referred to were underneath that sofa.

Detailed shots of the living room area and floor area from which the tiles should be collected.
As requested by investigating officers of the DIC of Portimao it was performed the lifting and respective recovery of the four tiles and of the skirting board next to them (they being identified with numbers 1 to 4) using a tile trimmer, a flat chisel and a hammer.

After the recovery of the four tiles and the skirting board the dog specialised in the detection of traces of human blood was put into the area from where the tiles had been recovered, the English police officer who coordinated the movement of the dog, Martin Grime, having informed the undersigned that they should proceed with the recovery of another piece of tile that was close to the area from where the tile identified as number 1 had been lifted, that terminating the recovery of the tiles signalled by the dog. As requested the undersigned performed the lifting of and the recovery of the piece of tile indicated."

Both dogs did the job they were trained to do. There is nothing they added to the investigation to prove a corpse had been in the apartment but the cadaverine contaminant has come from somewhere and something only the McCann's had contact with. It wasn't from nappies or rotting meat - could it have been the post mortem's Kate reportedly attended? I work in a hospital and have never been aware of a GP or anaesthetist having direct contact with a corpse during a PM - but it's worthy of further investigation. Particularly given there is a missing person whose chances of now being alive are statistically very unlikely in my opinion.

Also given the dogs 90% - 95% accuracy the chances of both of them mistakenly alerting to items belonging to only one family are miniscule. Far from being "irrelevant" it throws up incredibly serious scientific questions.


Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 10, 2020, 07:14:40 AM
If Martin Grime and his dogs are the pinnacle of excellence I trust they will soon be seen running round properties belonging to Christian Bruckner.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 10, 2020, 08:42:45 AM
If Martin Grime and his dogs are the pinnacle of excellence I trust they will soon be seen running round properties belonging to Christian Bruckner.
Let's hope so.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 10, 2020, 09:16:25 AM
If Martin Grime and his dogs are the pinnacle of excellence I trust they will soon be seen running round properties belonging to Christian Bruckner.

Bet he's keeping his head down.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 10, 2020, 10:55:22 AM
Bet he's keeping his head down.

He has no need to and I’m sure dogs will be used in any search of land associated with the possibility that the body of Madeleine McCann has been concealed.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 10, 2020, 11:05:08 AM
He has no need to and I’m sure dogs will be used in any search of land associated with the possibility that the body of Madeleine McCann has been concealed.

Quite likely.  But poor old Eddie was flawed, although not his fault.  And of course, there was No Body.

The principle is good, but the dog needs to be restricted between Body Fluids and Actual Cadavers.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Gertrude on June 10, 2020, 01:22:08 PM
We've been through this before.. In 2007 Grime, said the alert needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence...

Sorry don't agree but you know that. IMO He's talking about what's happening in that particular investigation at that time with the evidence they have, ie. they 'may become corroborated' by the forensics
he is not excluding them ever being corroborated by other means.



 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 10, 2020, 01:45:06 PM
Sorry don't agree but you know that. IMO He's talking about what's happening in that particular investigation at that time with the evidence they have, ie. they 'may become corroborated' by the forensics
he is not excluding them ever being corroborated by other means.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.


You seem to be in denial...the meaning is quite clear that the only alerts that may become corroborated are the CSI..

hes talking about this case
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on June 10, 2020, 02:02:06 PM
We've been through this before.. In 2007 Grime, said the alert needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence...

Yes it needed to be corroborated - so he did find something, not nothing as you like to make out.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 10, 2020, 02:11:48 PM
Yes it needed to be corroborated - so he did find something, not nothing as you like to make out.

what was found did not corroborate the Cadave alerts...are you reading the psots. grime makes it CLEAR the cadaver alerts are NOT corroborated

see post 822
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 10, 2020, 02:14:18 PM
Sorry don't agree but you know that. IMO He's talking about what's happening in that particular investigation at that time with the evidence they have, ie. they 'may become corroborated' by the forensics
he is not excluding them ever being corroborated by other means.

From Mark Harrisons report...


After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.



thats physical evidence in case you missed it.


Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on June 10, 2020, 02:30:22 PM
From Mark Harrisons report...


After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.



thats physical evidence in case you missed it.

So obviously imo that meant Maddie's body - not just anybody.

So they must have had something they thought was connected to Maddie but - needed further proof.
 
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 10, 2020, 02:33:00 PM
So obviously imo that meant Maddie's body - not just anybody.

So they must have had something they thought was connected to Maddie but - needed further proof.

thats your opinion...im quoting what Grime says...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Angelo222 on June 10, 2020, 04:03:24 PM
So obviously imo that meant Maddie's body - not just anybody.

So they must have had something they thought was connected to Maddie but - needed further proof.

I agree, finding her remains would have established the cause of her demise and very probably provided pointers as to who was involved.  One must remember that at that time the parents were suspected of being involved in her disappearance given the evidence.

As it stands presently, the Portuguese courts have stated that Kate and Gerry have NOT been cleared.

The Germans will have to bring in those special CSI dogs again once the digs begin.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 10, 2020, 04:12:16 PM
So obviously imo that meant Maddie's body - not just anybody.

So they must have had something they thought was connected to Maddie but - needed further proof.

Problem is that there might not be a body any more.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2020, 04:30:47 PM
I believe if there is one to be found it's probably inside a bag at the bottom of the Barragem da Bravura that has never been searched. They can get cadaver dogs in boats and see if they give an alert.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 10, 2020, 04:39:05 PM
I agree, finding her remains would have established the cause of her demise and very probably provided pointers as to who was involved.  One must remember that at that time the parents were suspected of being involved in her disappearance given the evidence.

As it stands presently, the Portuguese courts have stated that Kate and Gerry have NOT been cleared.

The Germans will have to bring in those special CSI dogs again once the digs begin.

Do go away, Lovey.  You are a busted flush on this one.

Please feel free to delete my comment.  Do you think I don't know that you do this?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: kizzy on June 10, 2020, 04:47:03 PM
Problem is that there might not be a body any more.

I don't think there is - and hasn't been from Maddie disappearing.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 10, 2020, 04:51:44 PM
I agree, finding her remains would have established the cause of her demise and very probably provided pointers as to who was involved.  One must remember that at that time the parents were suspected of being involved in her disappearance given the evidence.

As it stands presently, the Portuguese courts have stated that Kate and Gerry have NOT been cleared.

The Germans will have to bring in those special CSI dogs again once the digs begin.

You really are living in the past... No evidence against the parents... There never was any real evidence and in this situation the parents are always suspects
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2020, 06:01:58 PM
They haven't released details on their final lead so you don't know who they are investigating. Police usual practice is to not make it known until they have sufficient evidence to charge and successfully convict!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 10, 2020, 06:04:52 PM
They haven't released details on their final lead so you don't know who they are investigating. Police usual practice is to not make it known until they have sufficient evidence to charge and successfully convict!
The MET have always been at pains to state they will not give a running commentary,nothing's changed imo,this German is a potential important witness imo.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2020, 06:07:50 PM
Yes and there's good reason for it!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 10, 2020, 06:46:09 PM
I agree, finding her remains would have established the cause of her demise and very probably provided pointers as to who was involved.  One must remember that at that time the parents were suspected of being involved in her disappearance given the evidence.

As it stands presently, the Portuguese courts have stated that Kate and Gerry have NOT been cleared.

The Germans will have to bring in those special CSI dogs again once the digs begin.
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Gertrude on June 10, 2020, 09:08:54 PM
From Mark Harrisons report...


After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.





thats physical evidence in case you missed it.

Yes Harrison seems to think it has to be physical, Grime is not recorded as saying that, ever.

Grime uses the the word 'corroborate' or phrase 'corroborating evidence' 6 times in his report and never once attaches the word physical.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 10, 2020, 09:28:29 PM
Yes Harrison seems to think it has to be physical, Grime is not recorded as saying that, ever.

Grime uses the the word 'corroborate' or phrase 'corroborating evidence' 6 times in his report and never once attaches the word physical.

read it again more carefully..

 GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 10, 2020, 09:42:55 PM
Yes Harrison seems to think it has to be physical, Grime is not recorded as saying that, ever.

Grime uses the the word 'corroborate' or phrase 'corroborating evidence' 6 times in his report and never once attaches the word physical.

try this one from Grime..

'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 11, 2020, 12:05:15 AM
try this one from Grime..

'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof.


Forensic evidence was collected. Here's how Lowe reported on it:"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 11, 2020, 01:08:28 AM
Forensic evidence was collected. Here's how Lowe reported on it:"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."
This is what I'd imagine Perlin wants to get his hands on if it's still in existence.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on June 12, 2020, 02:12:47 PM
Forensic evidence was collected. Here's how Lowe reported on it:"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."

Problem is Madeleine would have components that matched her mother and father,  also they could match a strangers.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 12, 2020, 02:26:52 PM
Problem is Madeleine would have components that matched her mother and father,  also they could match a strangers.

And her Brother and Sister.  Such ignorance must be bliss.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 12, 2020, 02:35:07 PM
However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann

That is the name and she is the victim!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 12, 2020, 04:05:49 PM
However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann

That is the name and she is the victim!
did they match her siblings too
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 12, 2020, 04:23:57 PM
Problem is Madeleine would have components that matched her mother and father,  also they could match a strangers.

Yes I agree... which is why it's time to see if Dr Perlin can help with this.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 12, 2020, 04:24:53 PM
did they match her siblings too

Let's put that question to Dr Perlin.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 12, 2020, 04:27:24 PM
Let's put that question to Dr Perlin.
We don't need to.. The FSS would know
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 12, 2020, 04:31:19 PM
We don't need to.. The FSS would know


Science moves on dear friend - techniques and analysis can become far more sophisticated. Forensic science has made huge advances.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 12, 2020, 04:36:40 PM

Science moves on dear friend - techniques and analysis can become far more sophisticated. Forensic science has made huge advances.

Yes, that why so many cold cases have been cleared up through the re-evaluation of DNA samples.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 12, 2020, 05:44:13 PM

Science moves on dear friend - techniques and analysis can become far more sophisticated. Forensic science has made huge advances.

If the pj had kept the bedsheets instead of sending them to the laundry there may be something useful to test
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 12, 2020, 06:05:58 PM
If the pj had kept the bedsheets instead of sending them to the laundry there may be something useful to test

Do you think it likely that an abductor would have hung around spilling their dna all over Maddies bed sheets?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 12, 2020, 06:11:00 PM
If the pj had kept the bedsheets instead of sending them to the laundry there may be something useful to test

What would you expect to be left behind in seconds?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 12, 2020, 06:12:21 PM
What would you expect to be left behind in seconds?

we dont know...there could possibly have been dna
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: jassi on June 12, 2020, 06:12:56 PM
What would you expect to be left behind in seconds?

Perhaps he was on a hair trigger  8(0(*
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 12, 2020, 07:11:32 PM
What would you expect to be left behind in seconds?
Funny, it’s the exact same argument for an abductor entering/leaving via the window.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 12, 2020, 08:08:28 PM
If the pj had kept the bedsheets instead of sending them to the laundry there may be something useful to test

Swab 3a may be useful to re-test,
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 12, 2020, 08:12:02 PM
Swab 3a may be useful to re-test,

Why ?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 12, 2020, 08:30:46 PM
It is crime scene evidence
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on June 13, 2020, 12:01:17 PM
Yes I agree... which is why it's time to see if Dr Perlin can help with this.


In what way can he help?   Do you think he will be able to say if the components are definitely Madeleine's?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 13, 2020, 12:03:29 PM
 (&^&

In what way can he help?   Do you think he will be able to say if the components are definitely Madeleine's?

He claims he may be able to do that. Then GM can be pressed on whether he does remember a nosebleed or not.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 13, 2020, 12:06:45 PM
And furthermore it would strengthen the suspicion that she died in the apartment since both dogs alerted.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on June 13, 2020, 12:07:32 PM
(&^&
He claims he may be able to do that. Then GM can be pressed on whether he does remember a nosebleed or not.


What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on June 13, 2020, 12:08:35 PM
That is what Amaral didn't understand,  he said they were definitely Madeleine's  when there was no proof at all.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on June 13, 2020, 12:10:27 PM
And furthermore it would strengthen the suspicion that she died in the apartment since both dogs alerted.


What Eddie alerted to wasn't determined.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: faithlilly on June 13, 2020, 01:38:00 PM

What Eddie alerted to wasn't determined.

It was suggestive of cadaver odour.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 13, 2020, 05:59:47 PM
It was suggestive of cadaver odour.

Who's missing presumed dead,well according to the German's?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 13, 2020, 07:41:35 PM

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Things have moved on scientifically - that is the point. Dr Perlin is claiming he may now be able to determine 3 individual people (i.e 3 x 19 components). What have we got to lose if he is at least allowed to try?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 13, 2020, 09:49:45 PM

What Eddie alerted to wasn't determined.

He alerts to cadaver odour or human blood. In some areas where he alerted human cellular material was found ("stains" are referred to - though the FSS say they couldn't say from which body fluid the sample(s) came from. Where Eddie alerted and there was no blood then (according to forensic science journal research) we can be 90 - 95% sure the alert is to cadaver odour.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 13, 2020, 10:02:48 PM
He alerts to cadaver odour or human blood. In some areas where he alerted human cellular material was found ("stains" are referred to - though the FSS say they couldn't say from which body fluid the sample(s) came from. Where Eddie alerted and there was no blood then (according to forensic science journal research) we can be 90 - 95% sure the alert is to cadaver odour.

That isnt true you are under a misaprehension. First Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras eddie alerts to blood that has not dried in situ....see Grimes witness statemnet..... so eddie alerts to blood that keela may not alert too. Secondly we simply don't know how accurate the alerts are. The dogs have never been properly tested in the field. Do you really beleive the debacle that was the alert to cuddle cat is reliable.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 13, 2020, 10:06:40 PM
That isnt true you are under a misaprehension. First Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras eddie alerts to blood that has not dried in situ....see Grimes witness statemnet..... so eddie alerts to blood that keela may not alert too. Secondly we simply don't know how accurate the alerts are. The dogs have never been properly tested in the field. Do you really beleive the debacle that was the alert to cuddle cat is reliable.

I believe in the forensic science journal research into the accuracy of such dogs. If they "yap all over the place" as someone suggested the alerts wouldn't be confined to items only belonging to one family in this case.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 13, 2020, 10:13:32 PM
I believe in the forensic science journal research into the accuracy of such dogs. If they "yap all over the place" as someone suggested the alerts wouldn't be confined to items only belonging to one family in this case.

perhasp you can link us to the science journal that sstates this. there is  avery simple raeson the dogs only alerted to things McCann and that is the dog handler. Eddie trotted straight past the renault a she did the other cars...but he was called back . He wasnt called back to the other cars. he showed no interest again in the renault but wa scalled back again ...when he alerted.
If you read the files the PJ found it strange a similar thing happenned in the apartment. Eddie alerting to places he initially showed no interest in. In the other apartments when eddie showed no interest he was sent to the next apartment, not told to have another go.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 13, 2020, 10:16:39 PM
perhasp you can link us to the science journal that sstates this. there is  avery simple raeson the dogs only alerted to things McCann and that is the dog handler. Eddie trotted straight past the renault a she did the other cars...but he was called back . He wasnt called back to the other cars. he showed no interest again in the renault but wa scalled back again ...when he alerted.
If you read the files the PJ found it strange a similar thing happenned in the apartment. Eddie alerting to places he initially showed no interest in. In the other apartments when eddie showed no interest he was sent to the next apartment, not told to have another go.

I don't share your opinion. I've watched all the searches. I believe Martin Grime acted professionally. I have already shared the forensic science research journals with you before.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 13, 2020, 10:30:33 PM
I don't share your opinion. I've watched all the searches. I believe Martin Grime acted professionally. I have already shared the forensic science research journals with you before.

i'm not staing opinion i'm staing fact..car ...eddie called back twice....apartmnet ...according to Pj ...similar actions.
ther have never been any tests to see how the dogs alert in the field. There was one study..on explosives  as i recall ...where dog handlers were asked to locate two areas in a hose wher eexplosives had been. several dogs alerted. in fact there were never any explosives in the house . the handlers cued the dogs.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 13, 2020, 10:39:20 PM
i'm not staing opinion i'm staing fact..car ...eddie called back twice....apartmnet ...according to Pj ...similar actions.
ther have never been any tests to see how the dogs alert in the field. There was one study..on explosives  as i recall ...where dog handlers were asked to locate two areas in a hose wher eexplosives had been. several dogs alerted. in fact there were never any explosives in the house . the handlers cued the dogs.

That wasn't the journal research I shared with you.

I've seen the videos and I believe MG acted professionally. If you seriously believe he was attempting to pervert the course of justice I suggest you make a complaint to the appropriate authorities.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 13, 2020, 11:04:34 PM
That wasn't the journal research I shared with you.

I've seen the videos and I believe MG acted professionally. If you seriously believe he was attempting to pervert the course of justice I suggest you make a complaint to the appropriate authorities.

I dont believe he was as Ive explained before... I think he was desperately trying to find some useful evidence....nothing wrong with that...but he didnt find any. .....and hes explained the alerts have no evidential reliability...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 13, 2020, 11:54:05 PM
That isnt true you are under a misaprehension. First Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras eddie alerts to blood that has not dried in situ....see Grimes witness statemnet..... so eddie alerts to blood that keela may not alert too. Secondly we simply don't know how accurate the alerts are. The dogs have never been properly tested in the field. Do you really beleive the debacle that was the alert to cuddle cat is reliable.

What are you on about? Both dogs alert to blood.

A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 12:00:16 AM
What are you on about? Both dogs alert to blood.

A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I'm qoting from Grimes statement... If you don't understand it that's your problem.  Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ.. So an alert by only Eddie could still be blood
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 12:07:37 AM
I'm qoting from Grimes statement... If you don't understand it that's your problem.  Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ.. So an alert by only Eddie could still be blood

But then you'd expect to find the said blood - plus you'd have to explain why Keela missed it.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2020, 12:13:20 AM
I'm qoting from Grimes statement... If you don't understand it that's your problem.  Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ.. So an alert by only Eddie could still be blood

Eddie finds the source of scent and that includes blood. All blood is dried in situ months later when they come to investigate a suspected murder crime scene. Keela only alerts to blood so that is why she is used after Eddie to confirm if there is blood. No Keela alert they rule out blood as being the scent. The other scent Eddie alerts to is cadaver.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 10:07:17 AM
Eddie finds the source of scent and that includes blood. All blood is dried in situ months later when they come to investigate a suspected murder crime scene. Keela only alerts to blood so that is why she is used after Eddie to confirm if there is blood. No Keela alert they rule out blood as being the scent. The other scent Eddie alerts to is cadaver.

All blood is not dried in situ...you are wrong. For someone.. along with Billy....who continually go on about the alerts you dont seem to have read what Grime says in the files. Do I need to quote it for you. I would have thought after all these years you would be aware of what Grime says...unfortunately you are not.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 10:13:11 AM
All blood is not dried in situ.

What do you mean? That some stays fluid rather than coagulating??? Or that it dries somewhere then moves to a different site? Or that it could be suspended in another fluid???
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 10:19:03 AM
What do you mean? That some stays fluid rather than coagulating??? Or that it dries somewhere then moves to a different site? Or that it could be suspended in another fluid???

Its not what I mean..its what Grime means..its in the files with the statements  he gave to the PJ. As ive said if you are going to continually bang on about the alerts you could at least read and undersatnd what Grime says...as you are having to ask me...its clear you havent
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 10:22:20 AM
Its not what I mean..its what Grime means..its in the files with the statements  he gave to the PJ. As ive said if you are going to continually bang on about the alerts you could at least read and undersatnd what Grime says...as you are having to ask me...its clear you havent

And what does Grime mean when he says "all blood is not dried in situ"?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 10:25:38 AM
And what does Grime mean when he says "all blood is not dried in situ"?
as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 10:36:03 AM
as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.

I have read and re-read what he said. If blood is "diluted" with rain (or as Grime says . chemical cleaning materials) Grime doesn't say Eddie would alert to "diluted" blood but Keela would not. Unless I'm not reading the same statement you are:


......"How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog''
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary
.".....
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 10:39:54 AM
as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.

Blood cells are either there or not. The remnant scent in question is cadaver odour (which isn't the same chemically as blood (from a living person) diluted by rain or chemical cleaning.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 10:40:09 AM
I have read and re-read what he said. If blood is "diluted" with rain (or as Grime says . chemical cleaning materials) Grime doesn't say Eddie would alert to "diluted" blood but Keela would not. Unless I'm not reading the same statement you are:


......"How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog''
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary
.".....

Have you not read all the information re the dogs Grime contributed to the files..grime says exactly what ive said


Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 10:41:04 AM
Blood cells are either there or not. The remnant scent in question is cadaver odour (which isn't the same chemically as blood (from a living person) diluted by rain or chemical cleaning.

No it isnt...not according Grime
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 10:43:25 AM
Have you not read all the information re the dogs Grime contributed to the files..grime says exactly what ive said

I can't find him saying "all blood is not dried in situ" anywhere, sorry.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 10:45:29 AM
No it isnt...not according Grime

It would be easier if you just linked the bit of his report(s) you are referring to. Or quote his exact words so I can find it myself.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 10:47:10 AM
It would be easier if you just linked the bit of his report(s) you are referring to. Or quote his exact words so I can find it myself.

im just pointing out there are gaps in your knowledge and that of pathfinder...from his profile supplied to the PJ...

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide

intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 10:55:00 AM
im just pointing out there are gaps in your knowledge and that of pathfinder...from his profile supplied to the PJ...

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide

intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime


Yes I accept all that. So are you suggesting that all Eddie's alerts were to blood cells? It's possible certainly.

Thanks so much for posting the relevant section, btw.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 10:57:51 AM
Yes I accept all that. So are you suggesting that all Eddie's alerts were to blood cells? It's possible certainly.

Thanks so much for posting the relevant section, btw.

what im suggesting is we dont know....thats just one more uncertainty into the mix
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 14, 2020, 11:35:49 AM
what im suggesting is we dont know....thats just one more uncertainty into the mix

I agree with you on that. I don't agree with people who pass the alerts off as "the dogs yap all over the place". We need more than the alerts and swab 3a being re-analysed to get anywhere near to a more certain conclusion.

I'm beginning to doubt we'll ever have a conclusion in this case.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2020, 05:30:41 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/2vXHPnB/1592152070850.jpg)

http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 06:52:22 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/2vXHPnB/1592152070850.jpg)

http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf

So Grime is contradicting himself... Not a good sign
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2020, 08:39:31 PM
What contradiction?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 14, 2020, 09:09:47 PM
What contradiction?

ive expalined it about 20 times...Billy understands
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2020, 11:39:08 PM
You've explained nothing but nonsense!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 15, 2020, 12:21:52 AM
So Grime is contradicting himself... Not a good sign

I don't think he contradicts himself. Your earlier quote and Pathfiner's are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 15, 2020, 12:38:41 AM
So for example if Eddie alerts and Keela does not it's likely that the alert is to cadaver odour and not blood... in this scenario, as I stated earlier, doubters (of the source being cadaverine) would have to explain why Keela has not alerted (i.e missed the blood).
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 15, 2020, 07:37:54 AM
What contradiction?
Eddie reacts to blood that has not dried in situ.. Keela, doesn't.  So an alert from Eddie and none from Keela could be blood or cadaver odour... Or of course neither
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Lace on June 15, 2020, 09:02:33 AM
What are you on about? Both dogs alert to blood.

A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm



Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.


Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 15, 2020, 09:08:29 AM
What are you on about? Both dogs alert to blood.

A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

keela only alertsto blood dried in situ...you need to try and understand this...eddie will alert to blood taht has not dried in situ. Grime exoalins it very clearly.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 15, 2020, 01:42:45 PM
Cite?

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 15, 2020, 01:49:18 PM
Cite?

ive already given it once....did you not understand it. from grimes profile to the PJ...have you not raed it..


In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide

intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 15, 2020, 04:05:38 PM
ive already given it once....did you not understand it. from grimes profile to the PJ...have you not raed it..


In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide

intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime

Wow, that is a good cite D.  Dried blood picked up by Dog 1 (CSI) or if it doesn't dry and soaks in picked up by Dog 2 (EVRD).   
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: faithlilly on June 15, 2020, 08:11:48 PM
Cite?

I don’t think cites are needed anymore...it seems the forum is now an evidence-free zone.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 15, 2020, 08:17:17 PM
I don’t think cites are needed anymore...it seems the forum is now an evidence-free zone.

as i had already provided the cite the post is certainly is a zone free of something...but not evidence in my case
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 15, 2020, 08:32:23 PM
as i had already provided the cite the post is certainly is a zone fee of something...but not evidence in my case

Excellent.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 15, 2020, 11:42:07 PM


Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.

The report states however that for the sample on swab 3a (also taken from under the floor tile): "An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 15, 2020, 11:53:02 PM
as i had already provided the cite the post is certainly is a zone free of something...but not evidence in my case

Both dogs alert to blood. If Eddie alerts and Keela doesn't it is not for blood. Simple not complicated!
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 16, 2020, 12:25:19 AM
Both dogs alert to blood. If Eddie alerts and Keela doesn't it is not for blood. Simple not complicated!
Still incorrect IMO.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2020, 12:46:47 AM
Why? They both were trained to alert to human blood. They both recognise that scent!

Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 16, 2020, 09:44:01 AM
Why? They both were trained to alert to human blood. They both recognise that scent!

Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood

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

Because...for the tenth time...cite provided three times....Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras Eddie will alert to blood not dried in situ...so Eddie will alert to blood that keela may have missed
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 16, 2020, 10:14:32 AM

Eddie was originally trained as a Victim Recovery Dog.  Sometimes in accidents victims are still alive and bleeding Blood.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Carana on June 16, 2020, 05:06:02 PM
Because...for the tenth time...cite provided three times....Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras Eddie will alert to blood not dried in situ...so Eddie will alert to blood that keela may have missed

Hmmm. That's not quite my understanding, Davel. According to Grime, both dogs would react to dried blood (he even said that no such dogs would react to fresh - presumably meaning still wet - blood. However, he made a point of stating that Keela would only react to its physical presence, whereas he said no such thing about Eddie.

The nuance being, IMO, that Eddie could have reacted to a lingering scent of blood on any kind of - ideally - permeable object (innocent or not), whereas Keela wouldn't have done. A plaster left on a sock stuffed in the cupboard, a nicked finger in the boot...

Plus, the tenants prior to the dog searches had only left the week before, yet I've never found any witness statement from any of those who'd occupied the flat post-disappearance.



Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Brietta on June 16, 2020, 05:28:24 PM
Hmmm. That's not quite my understanding, Davel. According to Grime, both dogs would react to dried blood (he even said that no such dogs would react to fresh - presumably meaning still wet - blood. However, he made a point of stating that Keela would only react to its physical presence, whereas he said no such thing about Eddie.

The nuance being, IMO, that Eddie could have reacted to a lingering scent of blood on any kind of - ideally - permeable object (innocent or not), whereas Keela wouldn't have done. A plaster left on a sock stuffed in the cupboard, a nicked finger in the boot...

Plus, the tenants prior to the dog searches had only left the week before, yet I've never found any witness statement from any of those who'd occupied the flat post-disappearance.

That is surely a critical period.  Post disappearance ... pre dog inspection.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 16, 2020, 06:22:09 PM
Hmmm. That's not quite my understanding, Davel. According to Grime, both dogs would react to dried blood (he even said that no such dogs would react to fresh - presumably meaning still wet - blood. However, he made a point of stating that Keela would only react to its physical presence, whereas he said no such thing about Eddie.

The nuance being, IMO, that Eddie could have reacted to a lingering scent of blood on any kind of - ideally - permeable object (innocent or not), whereas Keela wouldn't have done. A plaster left on a sock stuffed in the cupboard, a nicked finger in the boot...

Plus, the tenants prior to the dog searches had only left the week before, yet I've never found any witness statement from any of those who'd occupied the flat post-disappearance.

What i'm saying is absolutely true...it's what Grime said in his profile to the PJ...i've quoted it here at least twice in the last two days. It actually destroys the myth about using the dogs in tandem to confirm cadaver odour...


This is what Grime said..

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 16, 2020, 07:28:59 PM
What i'm saying is absolutely true...it's what Grime said in his profile to the PJ...i've quoted it here at least twice in the last two days. It actually destroys the myth about using the dogs in tandem to confirm cadaver odour...


This is what Grime said..

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.


It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime

You should have made it clear that  In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.
applies to the CSI dog only.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Carana on June 16, 2020, 09:38:56 PM
What i'm saying is absolutely true...it's what Grime said in his profile to the PJ...i've quoted it here at least twice in the last two days. It actually destroys the myth about using the dogs in tandem to confirm cadaver odour...


This is what Grime said..

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime


Ÿes, I know. But that passage refers to Keela, except for the last sentence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

He said this about Keela:

She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there *physically* for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

He didn't say the same about Eddie who could apparently sniff residual scent - hence my oft-asked question as to whether any of the previous occupants could have left something with a bit of blood on it, which could have been thrown away by a cleaning lady prior to the dogs' arrival.

As they don't appear to have been questioned, I guess we'll never know.



Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 16, 2020, 09:42:32 PM
Ÿes, I know. But that passage refers to Keela, except for the last sentence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

He said this about Keela:

She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there *physically* for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

He didn't say the same about Eddie who could apparently sniff residual scent - hence my oft-asked question as to whether any of the previous occupants could have left something with a bit of blood on it, which could have been thrown away by a cleaning lady prior to the dogs' arrival.

As they don't appear to have been questioned, I guess we'll never know.

Are you suggesting Eddie would not react to dried blood...exactly as Keela would.. I'm sure you are quite wrong.

Where have you got the information Eddie reacts to the remnant scent of blood... I've never seen that
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Carana on June 16, 2020, 09:52:37 PM
Are you suggesting Eddie would not react to dried blood...exactly as Keela would.. I'm sure you are quite wrong

No, not at all.

I presume that he would indeed react to dried blood, if any was physically there. My point is that Grime stressed that Keela would only react to a physical presence of it, whereas he didn't say the same about Eddie.

Anyway, the bottom line is still that the dog alerts were intelligence assets to assist in finding evidence... but in this case there wasn't any.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2020, 09:55:58 PM
Identify the EXACT location of blood so small in size that when forensically recovered will NOT provide a full DNA strand despite low copy DNA analysis.

(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME_IXprocesso_2266.jpg)

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 16, 2020, 10:03:34 PM
No, not at all.

I presume that he would indeed react to dried blood, if any was physically there. My point is that Grime stressed that Keela would only react to a physical presence of it, whereas he didn't say the same about Eddie.

Anyway, the bottom line is still that the dog alerts were intelligence assets to assist in finding evidence... but in this case there wasn't any.

If you read my cite as to what Grime said... It's possible that a n alert from Eddie but no alert from Keela could still be blood. That is what is surprising...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Carana on June 16, 2020, 10:43:35 PM
If you read my cite as to what Grime said... It's possible that a n alert from Eddie but no alert from Keela could still be blood. That is what is surprising...

Yes, hence my query about previous occupants / cleaning staff post-disappearance who weren't questioned. There might be a very simple explanation that had nothing to do with Madeleine.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Carana on June 16, 2020, 10:45:48 PM
Identify the EXACT location of blood so small in size that when forensically recovered will NOT provide a full DNA strand despite low copy DNA analysis.

(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME_IXprocesso_2266.jpg)

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

Not very helpful in terms of locating verifiable evidence, though, is it?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2020, 11:43:08 PM
Not very helpful in terms of locating verifiable evidence, though, is it?

That is by Martin Grime - he is the expert who trained the dogs so he will know what they can do and Eddie can discover very hard to find evidence that forensics can miss!

The search of a suspect's 'totally burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence.
A 'one minute' search by the EVRD identified a position in the rear passenger footwell where the dog alerted to the presence of human material.
A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim's DNA.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 17, 2020, 12:16:01 AM
No, not at all.

I presume that he would indeed react to dried blood, if any was physically there. My point is that Grime stressed that Keela would only react to a physical presence of it, whereas he didn't say the same about Eddie.

Anyway, the bottom line is still that the dog alerts were intelligence assets to assist in finding evidence... but in this case there wasn't any.

Of course there was evidence. Many samples from "stains" were collected.  Swab 3a contained DNA from three people and all the DNA markers for MM were present. However the FSS were unable or unwilling to try to separate out the three contributors thus 19 out of 37 markers is "inconclusive" - between them the three contributors could also have possibly had all of the 19 markers unique to MM.

What surprised me at the time was why K and G immediately attempted to rubbish the dogs rather than accepting that somehow someone may have been injured in the apartment.

Dr Perlin claims he has the technology to better analyse swab 3a and separate out the individual contributors.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Carana on June 17, 2020, 08:55:26 AM
Of course there was evidence. Manner samples from "stains" were collected.  Swab 3a contained DNA from three people and all the DNA markers for MM were present. However the FSS were unable or unwilling to try to separate out the three contributors thus 19 out of 37 markers is "inconclusive" - between them the three contributors could also have possibly had all of the 19 markers unique to MM.

What surprised me at the time was why K and G immediately attempted to rubbish the dogs rather than accepting that somehow someone may have been injured in the apartment.

Dr Perlin claims he has the technology to better analyse swab 3a and separate out the individual contributors.

Oh no, not Perlin again.

And I think you're confusing the flat and the car.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 17, 2020, 10:13:17 PM
Oh no, not Perlin again.

And I think you're confusing the flat and the car.


I don’t think so. Swab 3a is from the flat and had 19 DNA markers in common with MM... As far as I can remember one swab from the boot of the car had 15 DNA markers in common with MM.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 17, 2020, 10:40:16 PM

I don’t think so. Swab 3a is from the flat and had 19 DNA markers in common with MM... As far as I can remember one swab from the boot of the car had 15 DNA markers in common with MM.
You need to check your facts Billy.  Your numbers are misleading IMO.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 17, 2020, 11:29:53 PM
You need to check your facts Billy.  Your numbers are misleading IMO.

Yeah sorry...

Swab 3a from under the tile: "An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.

And swab from boot of Renault: A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why - ...

Well lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match"


I'm not sure why 37 markers means there must ne at least three contributors - rather than at least two... but that's an aside. I was attempting to dispel the forum myth that "no evidence was collected". The fact is that evidence was collected and tested. The results inconclusive.... but many years down the line and we have an offer from Dr Perlin who appears to believe he can make a conclusive analysis and separate out the individual contributors.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 18, 2020, 04:20:30 AM
Billy there can only be a max of 2 alleles per loci, so if on testing there were 4 alleles identified that could be four or three individuals or two persons if they found two from each of them.  You can only be sure if there are 20 alleles from the 10 sites (2 per each) and that would be 1 person identified.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 08:05:51 AM
Yeah sorry...

Swab 3a from under the tile: "An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.

And swab from boot of Renault: A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why - ...

Well lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match"


I'm not sure why 37 markers means there must ne at least three contributors - rather than at least two... but that's an aside. I was attempting to dispel the forum myth that "no evidence was collected". The fact is that evidence was collected and tested. The results inconclusive.... but many years down the line and we have an offer from Dr Perlin who appears to believe he can make a conclusive analysis and separate out the individual contributors.

i seem to remembe rther ecould have been up to 5 contributors and according to the report some of Madeleines markers were quite common and shared by many people. we also have the added complication that the mix could contain DNA from her family that could potentially include all her markers.

we also have the situation now where the portuguese are refusing to allow retesting of dna by the other two investigating police forces
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Carana on June 18, 2020, 08:31:46 AM

I don’t think so. Swab 3a is from the flat and had 19 DNA markers in common with MM... As far as I can remember one swab from the boot of the car had 15 DNA markers in common with MM.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Re the car, one trace did have 15 alleles, but in a mixed sample of 37 from 3-5 contributors, in a vehicle rented several weeks after she'd disappeared.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 18, 2020, 06:28:29 PM
Billy there can only be a max of 2 alleles per loci, so if on testing there were 4 alleles identified that could be four or three individuals or two persons if they found two from each of them.  You can only be sure if there are 20 alleles from the 10 sites (2 per each) and that would be 1 person identified.

Thanks 😊
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 18, 2020, 07:18:16 PM
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Re the car, one trace did have 15 alleles, but in a mixed sample of 37 from 3-5 contributors, in a vehicle rented several weeks after she'd disappeared.

Indeed - the evidence that was collected was found to be "inconclusive" in terms of identifying for sure the DNA of MM. Science moves forward though and we do now have claims that a conclusive analysis is attainable.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 07:26:42 PM
Indeed - the evidence that was collected was found to be "inconclusive" in terms of identifying for sure the DNA of MM. Science moves forward though and we do now have claims that a conclusive analysis is attainable.

yes it seems the portuguese police dont want to release any samples they hold
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 18, 2020, 07:28:53 PM
yes it seems the portuguese police dont want to release any samples they hold

Are there any still held in the UK?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 07:45:55 PM
Are there any still held in the UK?

it seems both Uk and German police want to retest samples held by the Portuguese but the portuguese have refused permission
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 18, 2020, 07:49:35 PM
yes it seems the portuguese police dont want to release any samples they hold

The fss tested them did they not,is the FSS being called into question ?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 18, 2020, 08:26:25 PM
The fss tested them did they not,is the FSS being called into question ?

Probably. And now what?  Do at least come up with something that nails The McCanns.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 08:29:03 PM
The fss tested them did they not,is the FSS being called into question ?

from what ive read..if Im not banned from posting for being a dick head....its the portuguese who hold the samples wanted by the Germans and SY
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 18, 2020, 08:36:25 PM
"When the dog indicates in the field, it will either be, human decomposition or human blood.

Human decomposition is very persistent, very pungent, to the point where we've been able to locate, in blind searches, graves 40 years after the body has been removed and the body was only there for a short period of time.

With blood, crime investigators have been to the house and somebody has cleaned the blood up to the point where nobody can see it, that doesn't mean there isn't any there to find. With floorboards, some blood might drip through the gap and run around the back of the floorboard which won't be able to be seen but it will still be there. But odour will still be coming through the gap in the floorboards and the dog will be pick it up and be able to respond to it.

The FBI invited me over to America and we assisted with the development of their canine program and they were quite sceptical about the blood dog at the time. And they got 12 identical pieces of cloth and they put a tiny spot of blood in the centre of one of the cloths. They washed it 3 times I think and they put them in a line out for me when I got there and said, tell us which one it is? Keela went up the line and not only identified the right cloth but the exact spot."

 Martin Grime

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 08:40:12 PM
"When the dog indicates in the field, it will either be, human decomposition or human blood.

Human decomposition is very persistent, very pungent, to the point where we've been able to locate, in blind searches, graves 40 years after the body has been removed and the body was only there for a short period of time.

With blood, crime investigators have been to the house and somebody has cleaned the blood up to the point where nobody can see it, that doesn't mean there isn't any there to find. With floorboards, some blood might drip through the gap and run around the back of the floorboard which won't be able to be seen but it will still be there. But odour will still be coming through the gap in the floorboards and the dog will be pick it up and be able to respond to it.

The FBI invited me over to America and we assisted with the development of their canine program and they were quite sceptical about the blood dog at the time. And they got 12 identical pieces of cloth and they put a tiny spot of blood in the centre of one of the cloths. They washed it 3 times I think and they put them in a line out for me when I got there and said, tell us which one it is? Keela went up the line and not only identified the right cloth but the exact spot."

 Martin Grime

you may have taken this out of context otherwise its BS if grime is claiming the dogs are 100% accurtate...do you have alink to the full article
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 18, 2020, 08:41:24 PM
Yes it's a video

https://twitter.com/Babs108164110/status/1273617664213204993
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 08:50:25 PM
Yes it's a video

https://twitter.com/Babs108164110/status/1273617664213204993

i dont think he is saying what you think hes saying...it is total bs to claim 100% reliablity. I would say he means its a cadaver or blood alert ...nothing more.. with the usual caveat
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 18, 2020, 09:06:35 PM
from what ive read..if Im not banned from posting for being a dick head....its the portuguese who hold the samples wanted by the Germans and SY

No one gets banned for being a Dick Head.  Otherwise we would all be banned.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 09:09:06 PM
He is saying it - it's a transcript of the video you plonker!

There's only one plonker here Rodney.. And I think we all know who that is
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 18, 2020, 09:09:22 PM
you may have taken this out of context otherwise its BS if grime is claiming the dogs are 100% accurtate...do you have alink to the full article

Why do you bother to answer this?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 09:15:45 PM
Why do you bother to answer this?

Are you now telling me what posts I can and cannot respond to...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 18, 2020, 09:36:46 PM
Are you now telling me what posts I can and cannot respond to...

Oh, for heaven's sake.  are you completely incapable of accepting any criticism?
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 09:38:44 PM
Oh, for heaven's sake.  are you completely incapable of accepting any criticism?

Only when it's due..
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 09:45:17 PM
Oh, for heaven's sake.  are you completely incapable of accepting any criticism?

You have the damn cheek to give me warning points, when yoy insult me and are obviously drunk..

John can ban me  ...I don't give a toss..
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 18, 2020, 09:58:28 PM
You have the damn cheek to give me warning points, when yoy insult me and are obviously drunk.. You can stick your warning points up your arse.  .

John can ban me  ...I don't give a toss..
;

I am not responsible for your Warning Points.  Jesus Bloody Christ.  Why do you think it was me?

Did you get a bit cross because you weren't able to bully someone else?  So blame me for doing for Gertrude what I would have done for you.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 10:07:12 PM
;

I am not responsible for your Warning Points.  Jesus Bloody Christ.  Why do you think it was me?

Did you get a bit cross because you weren't able to bully someone else?  So blame me for doing for Gertrude what I would have done for you.

You have called me a dickhead and a bully... I am none of these and I take exception to you calling me such.  You need to behave yourself before trying to lecture others.  There are no other mods, about so unless it was you I don't see who it could be... Perhaps you can tell me... I don't see why any mod should be shy
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 10:10:15 PM
It's OK I've sorted it.. Slarti... One post in 4 months but feels he has the right to moderate.. What a laugh
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 18, 2020, 10:13:11 PM
;

I am not responsible for your Warning Points.  Jesus Bloody Christ.  Why do you think it was me?

Did you get a bit cross because you weren't able to bully someone else?  So blame me for doing for Gertrude what I would have done for you.

I've posted here in good faith today but if I'm called a bully and a, Dick head ..then given 25 points by someone who doesn't post on the forum I really can't be bothered posting..
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 18, 2020, 10:23:50 PM
Okay, John.  I have had enough of this.  I am not taking anymore shit from anyone. Least of all from my own kind.  Should there be such a thing.

I got sweet b....r all help when I was last attacked, so I expect some help now.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Eleanor on June 18, 2020, 11:01:13 PM
It's OK I've sorted it.. Slarti... One post in 4 months but feels he has the right to moderate.. What a laugh

But you decided that it was me.  Have you any idea of how offensive that was?

I thought it was a good discussion before you went  a bit too far, but that was neither here nor there to me.  I don't actually care anyway. I only ever defend when I feel the need.  I don't go around Deleting and issuing Warning Points on a perfectly logical discussion, which I  thought is was, despite the fact that you and I did not agree.  You should have known this, as should everyone else.  THIS IS NOT MY BAG AND NEVER HAS BEEN.

Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 19, 2020, 06:15:48 AM
from what ive read..if Im not banned from posting for being a dick head....its the portuguese who hold the samples wanted by the Germans and SY
But which tests were inconclusive for to be retested? it not the bed spread sample that result is known,just cause it's in the press don't make it true.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 19, 2020, 08:03:57 AM
But which tests were inconclusive for to be retested? it not the bed spread sample that result is known,just cause it's in the press don't make it true.

as far as SY are concerned it seems its some recovered hair strands still held by the portuguese
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: barrier on June 19, 2020, 08:23:58 AM
as far as SY are concerned it seems its some recovered hair strands still held by the portuguese

If SY have all the files then why should it not have all the results of any forensics, if this German matched to any that were unidentified  then it would be a slam dunk,this is not the case imo.
Despite the headlines I'll venture there is  cooperation going on ,its just that the rabid brit press isn't in on it, nor should it be and it rankles.

imo of course.
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 19, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
If SY have all the files then why should it not have all the results of any forensics, if this German matched to any that were unidentified  then it would be a slam dunk,this is not the case imo.
Despite the headlines I'll venture there is  cooperation going on ,its just that the rabid brit press isn't in on it, nor should it be and it rankles.

imo of course.

the problem is can we believe anything in the press...I would think some of it is true. having said that some posters here have spent years criticising the McCanns based on stories in the press, even when the stories have been retracted
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Carana on June 19, 2020, 08:28:47 AM
But you decided that it was me.  Have you any idea of how offensive that was?

I thought it was a good discussion before you went  a bit too far, but that was neither here nor there to me.  I don't actually care anyway. I only ever defend when I feel the need.  I don't go around Deleting and issuing Warning Points on a perfectly logical discussion, which I  thought is was, despite the fact that you and I did not agree.  You should have known this, as should everyone else.  THIS IS NOT MY BAG AND NEVER HAS BEEN.

I, for one, have found you to be fair to everyone, even if you disagree with them.

Maybe it's the COVID-19 full moon that's getting people more irrascible than usual...
Title: Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
Post by: Davel on June 19, 2020, 08:31:18 AM