Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Hello everyone, new poster here. I thought it would be rude to just barge into the room unannounced so thought it best to start my own thread. I know it has been discussed previously and indeed currently here but I think etiquette requires me to introduce myself first.
I am quite new to the nuances of the case, only taking an active interest after the Netflix piece. Of course I knew of it before but never really had an opinion of what happened.  I still am not convinced about any of the theories so I hope I will keep an open mind.

One thing that seems to keep coming up on this forum is the dogs alerts are not evidence. I can't understand this reasoning as there are many cases that have gone through UK courts that have included uncorroborated evidence from dog alerts. This surely makes them evidence.  I know some will say, well Mr. Grime says they are not evidence but its not up to him to make that choice, it is surely up to the presiding judge to admit it as evidence or not. I can't see how its not evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi and welcome to the forum Icanhandlethetruth

Thanks for the intro.

I do not believe the dog alerts alone are evidence of anything evidenced by the police's strategic review of the Shannon Matthews case.  Please refer to page 25.  The dogs were alerting and we know SM was found very much alive.   

The odour is clearly transferrable on inanimate objects.  We know 5A was surrounded by death prior to MM's disappearance eg Mr Fenn died in 2003 and Mr McCann (previous owner of 5A and no relation to GM/KM) died late 2006.  The McCanns and members of T7 were medics and GM/KM were surrounding themselves with priests (robes) and churches. 

With regard to the hire car we would need a complete audit of who and what had been in the car to rule out contamination.  A hire car by definition will sustain a very high number of users.  Were the other cars in the car park hire cars or privately owned?  If the latter hardly a fair comparison. 

Maybe the alerts have been successfully used in other cases along with other supporting evidence which simply doesn't exist in this case. 



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Brietta]

Hi and welcome to the forum Icanhandlethetruth

Thanks for the intro.

I do not believe the dog alerts alone are evidence of anything evidenced by the police's strategic review of the Shannon Matthews case.  Please refer to page 25.  The dogs were alerting and we know SM was found very much alive.   

The odour is clearly transferrable on inanimate objects.  We know 5A was surrounded by death prior to MM's disappearance eg Mr Fenn died in 2003 and Mr McCann (previous owner of 5A and no relation to GM/KM) died late 2006.  The McCanns and members of T7 were medics and GM/KM were surrounding themselves with priests (robes) and churches. 

With regard to the hire car we would need a complete audit of who and what had been in the car to rule out contamination.  A hire car by definition will sustain a very high number of users.  Were the other cars in the car park hire cars or privately owned?  If the latter hardly a fair comparison. 

Maybe the alerts have been successfully used in other cases along with other supporting evidence which simply doesn't exist in this case.

You have hit the nail on the head with reference to the value of dog alerts which are not in themselves evidence unless substantiated by evidence.

The value of the dog alerts in the garage is that the evidence given by them has absolutely nothing at all to do with Madeleine McCann.  The only alert given by the cadaver dog proved to be blood which was not Madeleine's.

[Mr Gray]

Hello everyone, new poster here. I thought it would be rude to just barge into the room unannounced so thought it best to start my own thread. I know it has been discussed previously and indeed currently here but I think etiquette requires me to introduce myself first.
I am quite new to the nuances of the case, only taking an active interest after the Netflix piece. Of course I knew of it before but never really had an opinion of what happened.  I still am not convinced about any of the theories so I hope I will keep an open mind.

One thing that seems to keep coming up on this forum is the dogs alerts are not evidence. I can't understand this reasoning as there are many cases that have gone through UK courts that have included uncorroborated evidence from dog alerts. This surely makes them evidence.  I know some will say, well Mr. Grime says they are not evidence but its not up to him to make that choice, it is surely up to the presiding judge to admit it as evidence or not. I can't see how its not evidence.

I think you are misinformed...could you quote some of these many cases

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I think you are misinformed...could you quote some of these many cases

To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.

[G-Unit]

This is what Harrison, the UK's national search advisor, recommended;

Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

Most of the arguments have focussed on the difference between 'evidential' and 'merely intelligence'. Those who wish to dismiss the dog alerts have concentrated on emphasising that alerts such as the ones to the McCann's clothes are not evidential. The argument is that they can therefore be ignored.

I argue that those alerts are still useful. Intelligence isn't something that can or should be ignored and what the alerts to the clothing tell us is that they are contaminated by the target scent. That needs to be accepted and explained.

[Mr Gray]

To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.

The only one I'm aware of as being presented in court as evidence is Pillay.. At the appeal it was ruled that the alerts should have been inadmissible.  You claim there are many.... You are mistaken

[pathfinder73]

You have hit the nail on the head with reference to the value of dog alerts which are not in themselves evidence unless substantiated by evidence.

The value of the dog alerts in the garage is that the evidence given by them has absolutely nothing at all to do with Madeleine McCann.  The only alert given by the cadaver dog proved to be blood which was not Madeleine's.

Don't worry. Smithman will corroborate them.

[Mr Gray]

This is what Harrison, the UK's national search advisor, recommended;

Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

Most of the arguments have focussed on the difference between 'evidential' and 'merely intelligence'. Those who wish to dismiss the dog alerts have concentrated on emphasising that alerts such as the ones to the McCann's clothes are not evidential. The argument is that they can therefore be ignored.

I argue that those alerts are still useful. Intelligence isn't something that can or should be ignored and what the alerts to the clothing tell us is that they are contaminated by the target scent. That needs to be accepted and explained.

You are absolutely 100% wrong.... Grime says it's possible the alert is to cadaver... Not that it is

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The only one I'm aware of as being presented in court as evidence is Pillay.. At the appeal it was ruled that the alerts should have been inadmissible.  You claim there are many.... You are mistaken

I struggle to understand how after evidence is found to be inadmissible no retrial was ordered. I have read the court notes and it makes no mention of the dogs alerts being inadmissible, maybe I missed it.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Look into the Margaret Fleming case, it was on BBC2 last night it will be on Iplayer at about 40 minutes is the testimony of the dog handler. "Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming Episode 1.

[barrier]

You are absolutely 100% wrong.... Grime says it's possible the alert is to cadaver... Not that it is

Cuts both ways,so the dog alerts may be suggestive of cadaver ,there's nothing from the human prospective after nigh on 13 yrs of it not being cadaver alert , the human kind of alerts ie: witness's isn't advancing it much,cue you don't know what the current investigations are working on,blah,blah,blah.

[Mr Gray]

I struggle to understand how after evidence is found to be inadmissible no retrial was ordered. I have read the court notes and it makes no mention of the dogs alerts being inadmissible, maybe I missed it.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Look into the Margaret Fleming case, it was on BBC2 last night it will be on Iplayer at about 40 minutes is the testimony of the dog handler. "Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming Episode 1.

No retrial was ordered because it was ruled that there was enough evidence without the dogs... That's what the apoeal court said

it was the SCCRC...i think thats right.....who said they should have been inadmissible...reported on a recent podcast

[barrier]

I struggle to understand how after evidence is found to be inadmissible no retrial was ordered. I have read the court notes and it makes no mention of the dogs alerts being inadmissible, maybe I missed it.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Look into the Margaret Fleming case, it was on BBC2 last night it will be on Iplayer at about 40 minutes is the testimony of the dog handler. "Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming Episode 1.

Of course M Fleming or her remains have never been found either.

[Brietta]

To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.

Kate Prout's body was found.  The murderer was taken from prison where he was already serving his sentence for her murder to give the police assistance in finding her.

The convictions for murder by the perpetrators of the disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and Margaret Fleming had absolutely nothing to do with the testimony given by the dog handlers as part of the Crown Case (which in Margaret's case was broadcast by the BBC in a court recording of the event).
The convictions in both these cases was due to the weight of the evidence presented.  It is not a good idea to present it as anything other than that.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

No retrial was ordered because it was ruled that there was enough evidence without the dogs... That's what the apoeal court said

Well one of us is reading the court papers wrong as in the paragraph attached the court reinforces the dogs as evidence against David Gilroy, unless I am reading it wrong please clarify.

[63] The court has had little hesitation in determining that, even if the statements had been ruled inadmissible, there is no real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict (Cadder v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 13, Lord Hope at para [64] applying McInnes v HM Advocate 2010 SC (UKSC) 28). In that regard, it is on the case which was presented at the trial that the court must concentrate (Fraser v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 113, Lord Hope at para [38]). If the statements, and in particular the first statement, had not been adduced in evidence, the appellant would effectively have had no defence at all to the Crown case other than to rely on the presumption of innocence. The case against him would have been overwhelming. There would have been evidence of: (a) the turbulent nature of his relationship with the deceased, involving intense jealousy in the context of expressed views from the deceased that their relationship was at an end; (b) the proximity of the arrivals of the deceased and the appellant at 11 Thistle Street on the morning of the disappearance; (c) the undoubtedly sinister cessation of text messages between the appellant and the deceased at about the time of her disappearance; (d) the appellant's strange demeanour on the morning of the disappearance and his sudden departure to collect his car on the pretext of having lost the minutes; (d) the cadaver dog's reaction to his car; (e) most significant, the state of the appellant's car upon his return from an unexpectedly long and sudden trip to Lochgilphead; and (f) the injuries on his hands, which he tried to conceal and which were characteristic of a reaction of someone being strangled.