Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Brietta]

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.

[carlymichelle]

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

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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?

[Brietta]

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.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[misty]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.