Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[G-Unit]

Which question.....ive been at work so my full attention hasnt been on posting.
Two journalist spent two years researching the Gilroy case and produced a podcast available on amazon, its quite interesting. The Gilroy family claimed the SCCRC ruled the alerts indmissible.....then in the podcast it again mentioned the SCCRC decision....it also said when Prof Cassella was asked he confirmed the alerts were inadmissible.....thats reasonable evidence...more reliable than the alerts imo.

The podcast you mention is in 10 episodes. I have listened to episode 7, where Cassella speaks. He doesn't use the word inadmissible. Who did use that word, and in which episode?

[Mr Gray]

The podcast you mention is in 10 episodes. I have listened to episode 7, where Cassella speaks. He doesn't use the word inadmissible. Who did use that word, and in which episode?

what did you hear Cassella say re the dogs

[Mr Gray]

Taken from epidode 8...the trial  prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs


We spoke to Prof  John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and  their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him


Further on the Narrator says....David aplied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't  admissible.

[G-Unit]

Taken from epidode 8...the trial  prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs


We spoke to Prof  John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and  their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him


Further on the Narrator says....David aplied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't  admissible.

So Cassella didn't say admissible or inadmissible?

[Mr Gray]

So Cassella didn't say admissible or inadmissible?

  according to the two reporters he said inadmissable. Ive provided quite  a bit of evidence there but you can ignore it all if you wish,...doesnt really make any diference

what is noticeable...is that Cassella is saying exactly what Grime and Harrison said in 2007...did you notice that...do you think that is of any significance

[G-Unit]

  according to the two reporters he said inadmissable. Ive provided quite  a bit of evidence there but you can ignore it all if you wish,...doesnt really make any diference

what is noticeable...is that Cassella is saying exactly what Grime and Harrison said in 2007...did you notice that...do you think that is of any significance

I noticed the reporters mentioned the Zapata case where the judge said the alerts were no better than tossing a coin. They didn't, however, mention that the dogs in that case were later found to be correct. Naughty!

[Mr Gray]

I noticed the reporters mentioned the Zapata case where the judge said the alerts were no better than tossing a coin. They didn't, however, mention that the dogs in that case were later found to be correct. Naughty!

 If the dogs are taken to potential homicide cites and they alert...its not surpridsing that sometimes the site relates to a murder..
that does not mean the dogs alert was correct... Derek Acorah probably has a much higher success rate than the dogs

[Robittybob1]

If the dogs are taken to potential homicide cites and they alert...its not surpridsing that sometimes the site relates to a murder..
that does not mean the dogs alert was correct... Derek Acorah probably has a much higher success rate than the dogs

Googling Derek Acorah "The TV mystic Derek Acorah has died aged 69, his wife has said.

The self-styled spiritual medium, whose real name is Derek Johnson, appeared on Celebrity Big Brother in 2017 and launched the paranormal reality TV series Most Haunted in 2001."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/tv-mystic-derek-acorah-dies-aged-69

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I’m afraid due to increasing work commitments I will have to step back from the forum for a few weeks, I learned to my cost today that when you plan to log on for 10 mins at lunch you can get sidetracked for a couple of hours. It’s very addictive arguing with someone you have never met over the internet but I just don’t have the spare time at the moment.

So hopefully I can leave it like this for now.

I contend that there have been two cases where dog alerts have been admitted in the UK courts.
Davel contends that had they been challenged they would have been ruled inadmissible

I think that covers it.
Good luck everybody.

[Eleanor]

I’m afraid due to increasing work commitments I will have to step back from the forum for a few weeks, I learned to my cost today that when you plan to log on for 10 mins at lunch you can get sidetracked for a couple of hours. It’s very addictive arguing with someone you have never met over the internet but I just don’t have the spare time at the moment.

So hopefully I can leave it like this for now.

I contend that there have been two cases where dog alerts have been admitted in the UK courts.
Davel contends that had they been challenged they would have been ruled inadmissible

I think that covers it.
Good luck everybody.

thank you.  Come back soon.

[Holly Goodhead]

I’m afraid due to increasing work commitments I will have to step back from the forum for a few weeks, I learned to my cost today that when you plan to log on for 10 mins at lunch you can get sidetracked for a couple of hours. It’s very addictive arguing with someone you have never met over the internet but I just don’t have the spare time at the moment.

So hopefully I can leave it like this for now.

I contend that there have been two cases where dog alerts have been admitted in the UK courts.
Davel contends that had they been challenged they would have been ruled inadmissible

I think that covers it.
Good luck everybody.

Cheers 

Ok just to pick up on the above for those still here I'm not really sure what point Icanhandlethetruth was endeavoring to make?

Dog alerts are clearly capable of being used in court otherwise the police wouldn't deploy them.  But an alert is just a tiny piece of potential evidence that only has value if supported by other pieces of evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Cheers 

Ok just to pick up on the above for those still here I'm not really sure what point Icanhandlethetruth was endeavoring to make?

Dog alerts are clearly capable of being used in court otherwise the police wouldn't deploy them.  But an alert is just a tiny piece of potential evidence that only has value if supported by other pieces of evidence.

I think it's clear what point he was making.  According to the experts there is no evidence if death in the basement in the Pillay case... That's, none... Not even a, tiny piece.  But what would the experts know

[Eleanor]

Cheers 

Ok just to pick up on the above for those still here I'm not really sure what point Icanhandlethetruth was endeavoring to make?

Dog alerts are clearly capable of being used in court otherwise the police wouldn't deploy them.  But an alert is just a tiny piece of potential evidence that only has value if supported by other pieces of evidence.

The Police would deploy them if they couldn't be used In Court.  Court isn't what it's all about.

[G-Unit]

I think it's clear what point he was making.  According to the experts there is no evidence if death in the basement in the Pillay case... That's, none... Not even a, tiny piece.  But what would the experts know

According to the experts, who are forensic scientists, there's no forensic evidence, which is true. No-one ever claimed there was. The whole case rested on circumstantial evidence, as the prosecutor acknowledged. The Proculator Fiscal scrutinised the evidence and decided to go ahead with a prosecution, and Gilroy was convicted.

[Mr Gray]

According to the experts, who are forensic scientists, there's no forensic evidence, which is true. No-one ever claimed there was. The whole case rested on circumstantial evidence, as the prosecutor acknowledged. The Proculator Fiscal scrutinised the evidence and decided to go ahead with a prosecution, and Gilroy was convicted.

The point is... No evidence of death in the basement