Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 78354 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #45 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

Offline Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25057
  • Total likes: 4303
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #46 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?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #47 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.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #48 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.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #49 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?
ANGER MAKES US AWARE OF INJUSTICE
We often experience anger when we are denied rights or when faced with insults, disrespect, injustice, or exploitation. Anger serves as an internal guidance system that indicates something is not quite right, that someone has treated us unjustly or unfairly. Anger helps communicate to others: “You’d better treat me fairly; otherwise, you’ll pay a high cost.” On a global level, standing up for a lack of fairness can prevent people from taking advantage of others. This type of anger can bring about positive change in society and increase the social cost of misbehaving.
The value of anger https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/value-of-anger-16-reasons-its-good-to-get-angry-0313175

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #50 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.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #51 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. 
ANGER MAKES US AWARE OF INJUSTICE
We often experience anger when we are denied rights or when faced with insults, disrespect, injustice, or exploitation. Anger serves as an internal guidance system that indicates something is not quite right, that someone has treated us unjustly or unfairly. Anger helps communicate to others: “You’d better treat me fairly; otherwise, you’ll pay a high cost.” On a global level, standing up for a lack of fairness can prevent people from taking advantage of others. This type of anger can bring about positive change in society and increase the social cost of misbehaving.
The value of anger https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/value-of-anger-16-reasons-its-good-to-get-angry-0313175

Offline jassi

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2020, 07:07:02 PM »
Quite right. It is for the Courts to decide what is admissible and what is not.
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 the foreseeable future

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #53 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.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #54 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.

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #55 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

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #56 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.   

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #57 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.

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #58 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...

Offline The General

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #59 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.
Youngest Member of the Forum