Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 169133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #630 on: February 25, 2020, 11:52:37 AM »
So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.

It shouldn't have helped convict anyone according to the experts I've quoted

Offline Admin

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #631 on: February 25, 2020, 11:52:44 AM »
Can posters please refrain from calling members by anything other than their proper user names.

I won't post a second warning!!

Offline The General

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #632 on: February 25, 2020, 12:08:41 PM »
It shouldn't have helped convict anyone according to the experts I've quoted
Again, that's irrelevant. It happened.
Also again, Casella is a subject matter expert - a scientist. He is in no way placed to make a legal determination. He can proffer an informed opinion, which he has.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #633 on: February 25, 2020, 12:24:04 PM »
Again, that's irrelevant. It happened.
Also again, Casella is a subject matter expert - a scientist. He is in no way placed to make a legal determination. He can proffer an informed opinion, which he has.

you are quoting your opinion as fact...it isnt...this ia  fact..

its the Judge who makes the legal determination...based on the opinion of the subject matter expert....that makes Cassella's opinion far from irrelevant

Offline The General

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #634 on: February 25, 2020, 12:25:50 PM »
Can posters please refrain from calling members by anything other than their proper user names.

I won't post a second warning!!

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

Duly noted.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Admin

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #635 on: February 25, 2020, 12:28:40 PM »
The disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and the later conviction of David Gilroy is certainly an interesting case which does not as yet have its own board.  Until this can be put into place here is some further information.

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Body-of-Proof-Audiobook/B07WPCMH3C?qid=1567762245&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=S162NY60Q5NKMG0MWWBJ&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1


"The podcast touches on what it sees at some failings of the UK / Scottish justice system, namely the adversarial nature of it - accused is presumed innocent, prosecution makes their case, defence critiques the prosecution's case, jury decides essentially which side they believe is more plausible - the failings are seen to be that the truth falls by the wayside, and compelling stories from both sides are preferred.

Without irony, the podcast then ignores objective truth, forgets to ever mention large swathes of charges that were also levied against Gilroy at his initial trial - offences of violence towards his wife and children, (we never hear that these allegations include brandishing a knife at his wife, hitting her with a frying pan, threatening his children with violence - all dropped after his wife refused to take the stand). We never here about previous breach of the peace incidents at Crieff hydro. We never hear that Gilroy assaulted and threatened to stab and kill a neighbour of Suzanne's and brandished a fishut upl of car keys at him when he'd appeared concerned after overhearing an argument at her flat.

We never hear that David purchased a quantity of charcoal at a petrol station on his travels to / from Lochgilphead that were claimed to be for a BBQ. We never hear that his wife and children no longer stand by him, and have dropped the Gilroy name."
« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 12:31:52 PM by Admin »

Offline The General

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #636 on: February 25, 2020, 12:29:39 PM »
you are quoting your opinion as fact...it isnt...this ia  fact..

its the Judge who makes the legal determination...based on the opinion of the subject matter expert....that makes Cassella's opinion far from irrelevant
I didn't say that, please accept my apologies for the confusion my dear Davel.
I was referring to your assertion that it 'shouldn't have helped to convict anyone'. This may be the case - but I contend that, in this case, it's irrelevant. It's happened.

The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline The General

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #637 on: February 25, 2020, 12:32:17 PM »
The disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and the later conviction of David Gilroy is certainly an interesting case which does not as yet have its own board.  Until this can be put into place here is some further information.

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Body-of-Proof-Audiobook/B07WPCMH3C?qid=1567762245&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=S162NY60Q5NKMG0MWWBJ&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1
Yes, Davel and I have both listened and , I think I can be permitted to speak for us both, found it most entertaining and informative.
I would be most interested in participating in such a board.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #638 on: February 25, 2020, 12:38:01 PM »
I didn't say that, please accept my apologies for the confusion my dear Davel.
I was referring to your assertion that it 'shouldn't have helped to convict anyone'. This may be the case - but I contend that, in this case, it's irrelevant. It's happened.

and i say its not irrelevant...because his opinion ...and the opinion of others ...has affected past cases and will affect future cases

Offline The General

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #639 on: February 25, 2020, 12:43:42 PM »
and i say its not irrelevant...because his opinion ...and the opinion of others ...has affected past cases and will affect future cases
And I contend that his opinion is rendered useless in this instance (not meaningless; the man's preeminent in his field, as I have stated before and his credentials unquestioned), unless he assists in an appeal in this case or a subsequent similar one.
Future cases, indeed. Get Casella in early doors and give it to 'em straight.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #640 on: February 25, 2020, 12:49:42 PM »
And I contend that his opinion is rendered useless in this instance (not meaningless; the man's preeminent in his field, as I have stated before and his credentials unquestioned), unless he assists in an appeal in this case or a subsequent similar one.
Future cases, indeed. Get Casella in early doors and give it to 'em straight.

this is the first instance you have added the caveat of "in this instance" to your claim his opinion is irrelevant....we now agree...

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #641 on: February 25, 2020, 12:54:34 PM »
Not if there is no evidence or proof of what the dog alerted to.  To think otherwise would be some form of insanity.

The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.
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 The General

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #642 on: February 25, 2020, 12:58:32 PM »
this is the first instance you have added the caveat of "in this instance" to your claim his opinion is irrelevant....we now agree...
I've stated that all along. I've caveated everything with 'in this instance' or 'in this case'.
We are in agreement regarding the concept; that preeminent authorities should be consulted and, given their acknowledged expertise, their opinion should lend weight to any argument.
But your argument is essentially that, because a brilliant man said some evidence shouldn't have been admissible after the fact, it shouldn't have been admissible, ergo, that one successful conviction shouldn't have been.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #643 on: February 25, 2020, 01:04:19 PM »
I've stated that all along. I've caveated everything with 'in this instance' or 'in this case'.
We are in agreement regarding the concept; that preeminent authorities should be consulted and, given their acknowledged expertise, their opinion should lend weight to any argument.
But your argument is essentially that, because a brilliant man said some evidence shouldn't have been admissible after the fact, it shouldn't have been admissible, ergo, that one successful conviction shouldn't have been.
Oh dear... Gilroy seems to be as guilty as hell..
And you haven't caveated

Offline Admin

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #644 on: February 25, 2020, 01:08:48 PM »
Uncorroborated evidence gleamed from cadaver and CSI dogs is admissible in Scottish courts so I see no reason why it shouldn't have been provided by the prosecution at Gilroy`s trial. However, I also believe the jury should have been informed of Gilroy`s predisposition towards domestic violence too.

There are snippets about the case on the forum which can be found using a quick search.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 01:12:50 PM by Admin »