Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[barrier]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[barrier]

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!

[Mr Gray]

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

[The General]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[G-Unit]

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.

[The General]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[barrier]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Lace]

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!!!

[barrier]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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