Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 166205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #375 on: January 12, 2020, 02:23:16 PM »
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

Obviously the alerts were admissible as they were admitted. The fact that they weren't challenged is another matter altogether.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline barrier

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #376 on: January 12, 2020, 02:30:40 PM »
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.


Nothing to do with defence that was forensics,what could not be determined was there any human remains,not all were determined, those being to small.The judge rightly pointed out at the start,defendants are innocent once charged until or unless proven guilty,that burden is on the prosecution to prove it'll not be known if the alerts had any sway on the jury in deciding the guilt.But guilty they were found.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 02:34:26 PM by barrier »
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline The General

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #377 on: January 12, 2020, 02:39:25 PM »
Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.

It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.
Davel is right, even when he's wrong - and in fact you will be wrong.
And he can see in to the future.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #378 on: January 12, 2020, 03:06:46 PM »
Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.

It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.

You need to define what you mean by admissible...in my view being admitted in two cases does not make them admissible ....

whether they are admissible has not been established as they have not been challenged
« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 05:18:20 PM by Davel »

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #379 on: January 12, 2020, 03:07:30 PM »

Nothing to do with defence that was forensics,what could not be determined was there any human remains,not all were determined, those being to small.The judge rightly pointed out at the start,defendants are innocent once charged until or unless proven guilty,that burden is on the prosecution to prove it'll not be known if the alerts had any sway on the jury in deciding the guilt.But guilty they were found.
So was it the defence or the prosecution who questioned the police officer about the bones discovered and established that they were from animals?
"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 Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #380 on: January 12, 2020, 03:37:55 PM »
Try supporting your postings of 'facts' by some evidence.

NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.



http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #381 on: January 12, 2020, 07:57:14 PM »
You need to define what you mean by admissible...in my view being admitted in two cases does not make them admissible ....

whether they are admissible has not been established as they have not been challenged

The judge decided that the evidence was admissible or in other words it was relevant and not excluded by any rules.

The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.

Therefore it cannot be said that the evidence was inadmissible, because if it was it wouldn't have been heard. Period.

Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #382 on: January 12, 2020, 08:07:50 PM »
The judge decided that the evidence was admissible or in other words it was relevant and not excluded by any rules.

The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.

Therefore it cannot be said that the evidence was inadmissible, because if it was it wouldn't have been heard. Period.

The evidence was admissible in that particular case bevause the defence didnt challenge it from what i can see. Had it been challenged on the basis that the alerts are not evidential.......then how can something that is not evidential be admitted as evidence

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #383 on: January 12, 2020, 08:42:38 PM »
In the Omagh bombing case... LCN DNA  was admitted untilnit was challenged... Once challenged it was ruled inadmissible and the trial stopped

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #384 on: January 12, 2020, 09:41:35 PM »
In the Omagh bombing case... LCN DNA  was admitted untilnit was challenged... Once challenged it was ruled inadmissible and the trial stopped

If this were true it would be quite correct to cancel the trial, but unfortunately it's not quite the truth.

The evidence wasn’t deemed to be inadmissible but was declared of an unsatisfactory quality, There were 3 strands to the prosecution's case
1. TPUs (time power units) were all linked to the accused by the prosecution.
2. Fibres on the TPUs were linked to the defendant.
3. LCN DNA linked to the defendant.

The judge ruled he wasn’t satisfied with all 3 strands of evidence and was particularly scathing of the LCN DNA evidence. He cleared the defendant of all charges, its a totally different legal declaration than declaring evidence inadmissible mid trial.


From the Irish Times Dec 21 2007
“In the case against Mr Hoey, said Mr Justice Weir, "the evidence against the accused in this case did not reach that immutable standard. Accordingly I find Mr Hoey not guilty of each of the remaining counts on the indictment".”


As a side note after the judges scathing declaration concerning the DNA evidence incidentally carried out by the FSS(yes the same ones who carried out the test on the Madeleine Mccann DNA) all trials with LCN evidence was suspended but resumed in 2008.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 09:52:34 PM by Icanhandlethetruth »

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #385 on: January 12, 2020, 09:55:06 PM »
The evidence was admissible in that particular case bevause the defence didnt challenge it from what i can see. Had it been challenged on the basis that the alerts are not evidential.......then how can something that is not evidential be admitted as evidence

I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.

Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #386 on: January 12, 2020, 10:00:39 PM »
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.

Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.

The phrase.. Not evidential... Is Mark Harrison's... Not mine

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #387 on: January 12, 2020, 10:03:54 PM »
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.

Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.
How do you decide which alerts are reliable and which are not in the absence of any forensic evidence?
"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 misty

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #388 on: January 12, 2020, 10:04:10 PM »
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.

Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.

The dogs are a tool which can help investigators find tangible evidence. Unless resultant evidence is found at the pace of the alert then the alert is worthless. When Luminol gives a positive result at a crime scene, it doesn't necessarily mean blood is present, let alone blood relating to a particular person. Further Forensic tests have to be carried out which may aid an investigation one way or the other - but the test results are what is scientifically acceptable to a court, not the Luminol test.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #389 on: January 12, 2020, 10:06:52 PM »
 of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.