Mark Redwine v 16 cadaver dogs

[ShiningInLuz]

My backlog is already full, and I want to gets this parked now.

Mark Redwine is about to go to trial in September, for the 2012 murder of his 13 year old son Dylan, and disposing of the body, in Durango, Colorado.

A judge has listened to statements from 2 or more of the dog handlers, and Mary Cablk, who opined that cadaver odour would not be detected a week after removal of a body.  The judge has ruled that the cadaver dog alerts may be presented at trial.

https://durangoherald.com/articles/273928

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/judge-rules-cadaver-dog-evidence-to-be-allowed-in-redwine-murder-case/5427302/

I have no idea about the bulk of the facts in this case, so I am not predicting the outcome.

I am interested in finding out more about the evidence.  And how the prosecution decides to use the dog alerts.  And how defence expert Mary Cablk chooses to refute this.

What is the group name for 16 cadaver dogs?  A posse?

[Holly Goodhead]

Once again it seems to me that all concerned are unaware that the odour is capable of being transferred around on inanimate objects and that direct contact with a corpse is not necessary for the dogs to alert.

[jassi]

Once again it seems to me that all concerned are unaware that the odour is capable of being transferred around on inanimate objects and that direct contact with a corpse is not necessary for the dogs to alert.

Don't worry about it.
The McCann case is never going to be resolved, let alone brought to court, so what the dogs alerted to is of no consequence
IMO

[Mr Gray]

Once again it seems to me that all concerned are unaware that the odour is capable of being transferred around on inanimate objects and that direct contact with a corpse is not necessary for the dogs to alert.

imo thats absolute rubbsih....im sure all the experts involved are aware of that. grime mentioned cross contamination in his report..

Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred''

[Holly Goodhead]

imo thats absolute rubbsih....im sure all the experts involved are aware of that. grime mentioned cross contamination in his report

Davel you use the term "absolute rubbish" with such frequency I've become desensitized to it.

If your claim above is true perhaps you can explain why the PJ only investigated whether or not anyone died in 5A as opposed to whether or not any contaminated items were present or had at some time been present.

[Venturi Swirl]

Don't worry about it.
The McCann case is never going to be resolved, let alone brought to court, so what the dogs alerted to is of no consequence
IMO

You’re absolutely right to say the dog alerts are of no consequence, but I don’t think you can state with certainty that the case is never going to resolved, unless you are a time traveler visiting from the future.

[jassi]

You’re absolutely right to say the dog alerts are of no consequence, but I don’t think you can state with certainty that the case is never going to resolved, unless you are a time traveler visiting from the future.

Lets wait and see who is correct   

[Venturi Swirl]

Lets wait and see who is correct   

How many years have you got left?

[Eleanor]

Davel you use the term "absolute rubbish" with such frequency I've become desensitized to it.

If your claim above is true perhaps you can explain why the PJ only investigated whether or not anyone died in 5A as opposed to whether or not any contaminated items were present or had at some time been present.

Silly Question.  Davel can't do that.

[Holly Goodhead]

I've removed the last 2 posts: irrelevant to thread topic and goading. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Silly Question.  Davel can't do that.

I don't think it is a silly question.  I would suggest the reason is that those involved in 2007 were unaware of the potential for contamination via inanimate objects. 

The links I've posted re contamination are post 2007.

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

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

[Mr Gray]

Davel you use the term "absolute rubbish" with such frequency I've become desensitized to it.

If your claim above is true perhaps you can explain why the PJ only investigated whether or not anyone died in 5A as opposed to whether or not any contaminated items were present or had at some time been present.

as I have said before...the pj did not understand the nature of the alerts. I think most others did...that the alerts can be as  a result of cross contamination. The suggestion in the mathews case is nothing new to those who understand the alerts  I stand by my view that a false alert can always be explaiined way by unknown contamination...thats why its impossible to prove a false alert...except in the case of the coconut of course. ...but it could always be claimed the coconut had been in contact with a cadaver

[barrier]

Once again it seems to me that all concerned are unaware that the odour is capable of being transferred around on inanimate objects and that direct contact with a corpse is not necessary for the dogs to alert.

Something must have been in direct contact initially surely.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think it is a silly question.  I would suggest the reason is that those involved in 2007 were unaware of the potential for contamination via inanimate objects. 

The links I've posted re contamination are post 2007.

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

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

I absolutely gree ...the PJ were unaware of the possibility of cross contamination...grime wasnt ...he knew...hence his answer to this question in his rog.


Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred''...

Grime went on to eplain about cross contamination



.anyone who undersatnds the alerts knows about cross contamination...that doesnt include the initial PJ investigation unfortunately

[Mr Gray]

My backlog is already full, and I want to gets this parked now.

Mark Redwine is about to go to trial in September, for the 2012 murder of his 13 year old son Dylan, and disposing of the body, in Durango, Colorado.

A judge has listened to statements from 2 or more of the dog handlers, and Mary Cablk, who opined that cadaver odour would not be detected a week after removal of a body.  The judge has ruled that the cadaver dog alerts may be presented at trial.

https://durangoherald.com/articles/273928

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/judge-rules-cadaver-dog-evidence-to-be-allowed-in-redwine-murder-case/5427302/

I have no idea about the bulk of the facts in this case, so I am not predicting the outcome.

I am interested in finding out more about the evidence.  And how the prosecution decides to use the dog alerts.  And how defence expert Mary Cablk chooses to refute this.

What is the group name for 16 cadaver dogs?  A posse?

ive read alot about the case. The decision to admit the cadver dog evidence is based on the decision in other cases to allow tracker dog evidence...the same reasoning has been used . Theres a 35 page challenge to this which ive skimmed through....i can probably find it again at sometime