Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 166209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline barrier

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #360 on: January 12, 2020, 01:11:22 PM »
Rubbish.  They were deemed admissible.... An error imo

Correct they were deemed admissible,your opinion counts for nothing,The Judge,the defence allowed them,one defence lawyer never even questioned the handler.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #361 on: January 12, 2020, 01:11:55 PM »
But that not my assertion,my assertion only that it was admitted. And that is a empirical truth not my opinion.

there can be no denial it was admitted...that is a fact...Ive stated that several times

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #362 on: January 12, 2020, 01:13:26 PM »
Correct they were deemed admissible,your opinion counts for nothing,The Judge,the defence allowed them,one defence lawyer never even questioned the handler.

we are getting somewhere...they were admitted...but it seems not challenged. As I understand there were two dogs and only one alerted....that is strange in itself

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #363 on: January 12, 2020, 01:14:40 PM »
But that not my assertion,my assertion only that it was admitted. And that is a empirical truth not my opinion.
I'm not disputing that, but I was giving my opinion, and you questioned my opinion, to which I gave an answer.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline barrier

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #364 on: January 12, 2020, 01:17:01 PM »
we are getting somewhere...they were admitted...but it seems not challenged. As I understand there were two dogs and only one alerted....that is strange in itself

If we're talking of the Margaret Fleming murder trial,I don't recall talk of two dogs.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #365 on: January 12, 2020, 01:21:41 PM »
If we're talking of the Margaret Fleming murder trial,I don't recall talk of two dogs.

Gilroy

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #366 on: January 12, 2020, 01:22:40 PM »
I'm not disputing that, but I was giving my opinion, and you questioned my opinion, to which I gave an answer.

 I don't remember asking your opinion if the evidence had any worth. In this thread I am only interested in the truth that alerts are admissible. I am not saying your opinion is of no interest to me just that in this matter I didn't seek it.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #367 on: January 12, 2020, 01:27:39 PM »
I don't remember asking your opinion if the evidence had any worth. In this thread I am only interested in the truth that alerts are admissible. I am not saying your opinion is of no interest to me just that in this matter I didn't seek it.

the fact that the alerts were admitted does not make them admissible as they were not challenged.
had the alerts been challenged and experts called...it would be a total diferrent scenario
« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 01:33:25 PM by Davel »

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #368 on: January 12, 2020, 01:28:11 PM »
I don't remember asking your opinion if the evidence had any worth. In this thread I am only interested in the truth that alerts are admissible. I am not saying your opinion is of no interest to me just that in this matter I didn't seek it.
I don't care if you sought it or not, nor do I care if you're interested in it or not.  I will say it again.  The dog evidence in the Margaret Fleming case had no worth as evidence and should not have been entered.  IMO.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #369 on: January 12, 2020, 01:39:16 PM »
I don't care if you sought it or not, nor do I care if you're interested in it or not.  I will say it again.  The dog evidence in the Margaret Fleming case had no worth as evidence and should not have been entered.  IMO.

I apologise if I offended you, it wasn't my intention all. I was pointing out was that I don't remember asking for it in this matter. Even though you say you don't care if I am interested or not in your opinion I assure you I am as your opinions seem reasoned and thought out.


Offline Eleanor

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #370 on: January 12, 2020, 01:43:17 PM »
"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"

Is this irony?
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?

Without anything else, yep, Moi.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #371 on: January 12, 2020, 01:52:05 PM »
Without anything else, yep, Moi.

When I say uncorroborated by forensic evidence I refer to forensic evidence that confirms the alert, ie human remains not other evidence such as witness statements that don't concern the dog alert.

I am not saying dog alerts should be the basis and only evidence used to prosecute anyone.


Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #372 on: January 12, 2020, 02:01:03 PM »
I apologise if I offended you, it wasn't my intention all. I was pointing out was that I don't remember asking for it in this matter. Even though you say you don't care if I am interested or not in your opinion I assure you I am as your opinions seem reasoned and thought out.
Flattery will get you everywhere!  8((()*/
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline barrier

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #373 on: January 12, 2020, 02:05:15 PM »
When I say uncorroborated by forensic evidence I refer to forensic evidence that confirms the alert, ie human remains not other evidence such as witness statements that don't concern the dog alert.

I am not saying dog alerts should be the basis and only evidence used to prosecute anyone.

In the Fleming case it can't be known what notice was taken of the dog alerts when the jury deliberated,what was of note was the defence at no time tried to rubbish the dog alerts,merely to question what rewards were given to positive results and were they rewarded in this case.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #374 on: January 12, 2020, 02:06:49 PM »
In the Fleming case it can't be known what notice was taken of the dog alerts when the jury deliberated,what was of note was the defence at no time tried to rubbish the dog alerts,merely to question what rewards were given to positive results and were they rewarded in this case.
I think the defence very effectively rubbished the dog alerts - the bones uncovered as a result of the elerts were belonging to a deer and a fish as I recall.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly