Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 73536 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #60 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.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline jassi

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #61 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 ?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for this season.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #62 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.


Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #63 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

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #64 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.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2020, 09:00:04 PM by Icanhandlethetruth »

Online Eleanor

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #65 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.

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #66 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....

Offline jassi

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #67 on: January 09, 2020, 09:05:29 PM »
What a good thing we have an independent judiciary, whose opinion is ultimately supreme.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for this season.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #68 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.

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #69 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

Offline Brietta

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #70 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/
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Brietta

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #71 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

The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #72 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.
England - good effort

Offline Brietta

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #73 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.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #74 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.