Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 78377 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2020, 02:13:17 PM »
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.

Its not my assertion that the dog handlers evidence sealed the case. The evidence of the dog handlers was presented to the jury and the jury weighed up the whole body of evidence before reaching their verdict. My only assertion is that such alerts are evidence as presented in a court of law.

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2020, 02:15:25 PM »
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.

that isnt the SCCRC report...remember you said many cases in the UK...perhaps you should alter your post

David Gilroy, 51, whose appeal was rejected by the Criminal Appeal Court in 2012, will have his case reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2020, 02:22:25 PM by Davel »

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2020, 02:21:29 PM »
that isnt the SCCRC report...remember you said many cases in the UK...perhaps you should alter your post

Did you ever find the SCCRC report?
England - good effort

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2020, 02:25:02 PM »
Did you ever find the SCCRC report?

no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast

Offline Brietta

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2020, 02:26:15 PM »
Its not my assertion that the dog handlers evidence sealed the case. The evidence of the dog handlers was presented to the jury and the jury weighed up the whole body of evidence before reaching their verdict. My only assertion is that such alerts are evidence as presented in a court of law.

The word you used in relation to the dog evidence provided was "uncorroborated" which is an absolute nonsense in my opinion in terms of evidence presented at trial. 
In Margaret's case, for example, the jury were told of numerous bone fragments found at the scene of the alerts which were too small for identification as either human or animal.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2020, 02:30:21 PM »
that isnt the SCCRC report...remember you said many cases in the UK...perhaps you should alter your post

David Gilroy, 51, whose appeal was rejected by the Criminal Appeal Court in 2012, will have his case reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

Maybe the question is which is the Higher Authority, An appeal in the High Court presided by Lord Brodie and Lord Wheatley or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review for which perhaps you would lead me to the notes prepared by such a body.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2020, 02:32:06 PM »
The word you used in relation to the dog evidence provided was "uncorroborated" which is an absolute nonsense in my opinion in terms of evidence presented at trial. 
In Margaret's case, for example, the jury were told of numerous bone fragments found at the scene of the alerts which were too small for identification as either human or animal.

So how is that corroboration. No human remains were identified. Please explain.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2020, 02:32:52 PM »
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast

So you're relying on the family of the accused to tell you what the report said?
England - good effort

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2020, 02:35:40 PM »
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast

So basically your information comes from family members and a podcast. Whereas I can show you the notes from the appeal that emphasises the appeal judges still consider the evidence of the cadaver dog to be valid in the conviction.

Offline Brietta

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2020, 02:37:36 PM »
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast

For anyone interested ... http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp ...
I think there is also a link there to the podcast you mention, Davel.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2020, 02:39:10 PM »
Maybe the question is which is the Higher Authority, An appeal in the High Court presided by Lord Brodie and Lord Wheatley or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review for which perhaps you would lead me to the notes prepared by such a body.

you claimed the alerts ahve been admitted in many cases in the UK...absolute rubbish.....youve cited two in scotland.

In the Pillay case the SCCRC ruled the alerts should not have been admitted...the Judge in your other cases may well have erred.

You think youve made a case that the alerts are admissible evidence....I think youve failed miserably. lets see some more of these many case you claim

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2020, 02:40:06 PM »
So you're relying on the family of the accused to tell you what the report said?
try reading the post to the end of the sentence...it might help

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2020, 02:43:53 PM »
From the Gilroy family on the SCCRC verdict...

One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC.They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable. They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court. However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict. That verdict was by a majority so some jurors did not agree that the case against him had been proved

this was further confirmed by an independent recent podcast...sceptics can ignore the facts if they wish

Offline Davel

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2020, 02:46:46 PM »
So basically your information comes from family members and a podcast. Whereas I can show you the notes from the appeal that emphasises the appeal judges still consider the evidence of the cadaver dog to be valid in the conviction.

the podcast contained live audio statements from real experts...not armchair  bloggers....LOL

Offline Brietta

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2020, 02:47:26 PM »
So how is that corroboration. No human remains were identified. Please explain.

You said "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." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg568815#msg568815

There are very strict rules concerning what evidence can and cannot be presented to a jury.

Did you really miss the Judge's on camera reaction to the witness who changed his police statement on the witness stand at the trial which convicted Margaret's murderers?
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"