Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think that's how it works with just about any piece of evidence, introduce it to support your case, whether you are prosecuting a case or defending a case.

I disagree - some evidence is irrefutably tangible evidence of a link between an individual and another individual, place or object.  A phone call or a piece of CCTV footage, a fingerprint on a bullet casing, a pubic hair from a stranger in a rape victim's bed etc.  A dog's bark is what exactly? 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I disagree - some evidence is irrefutably tangible evidence of a link between an individual and another individual, place or object.  A phone call or a piece of CCTV footage, a fingerprint on a bullet casing, a pubic hair from a stranger in a rape victim's bed etc. A dog's bark is what exactly?

Evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Evidence.

Could you explain how in this case the alerts could be introduced when the two experts involved with the dogs have said they have no evidential value or reliability

[Vertigo Swirl]

Evidence.

Very weak evidence that may or may not signify the possible presence of a body (unnamed) at some point in time (unknown).  Big wow.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Could you explain how in this case the alerts could be introduced when the two experts involved with the dogs have said they have no evidential value or reliability

That would be for Grime to explain when questioned by defence counsel. He has already testified a few times in the US, was he questioned on his words during those trials? I don't know but you would think defence counsels would look into Grimes past testimonies to see if something would help their client.
But my point is not whether Grime or Harrison would make good expert witness or not but the fact that they could testify, ergo, dog alerts are evidence. Something you still deny to this day despite the evident evidence that exists. That I don't understand.

[Mr Gray]

That would be for Grime to explain when questioned by defence counsel. He has already testified a few times in the US, was he questioned on his words during those trials? I don't know but you would think defence counsels would look into Grimes past testimonies to see if something would help their client.
But my point is not whether Grime or Harrison would make good expert witness or not but the fact that they could testify, ergo, dog alerts are evidence. Something you still deny to this day despite the evident evidence that exists. That I don't understand.

I dont really have time today..the only time its been admirtted in the UK is in thje pillay case where as I understand both the SCCRC and Prof John cassella said it should not have been admitted

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I dont really have time today..the only time its been admirtted in the UK is in thje pillay case where as I understand both the SCCRC and Prof John cassella said it should not have been admitted

Rubbish!
Cairney & Jones trial
Gilroy Trial
Willox Trial.
I listened to the Pillay podcast, if you base your beliefs on that absolute biased piece of journalism then I don't know what to say.
You have never seen the SCCRC report, and Cassella never actually said it, the reporters quoted him as saying it, he was quite forthcoming with his own voice on a multitude of other evidential instances but when it came to that bit the journalists quoted him. But it doesn't matter what Cassella and the SCCRC believe, they don't make the law.

[Carana]

Has anyone watched Exhbit A on Netflix on the US Bianca case? Irrespective of other aspects of the case, some of which I didn't notice being mentioned, Grime is interviewed ~ 27.40 ish.

Grime:

"There's a lot of people who [turn around?) and say no one should be convicted on the say-so of a dog. I think everyone agrees to that. But it doesn't matter what I say, I can turn around and say my dog responded there.

'What's your dog trained to respond to?'

'Human decomposition'.

Yeah?

I will always believe my dog's right, otherwise there's no point in me doing this job. I will always say I think my dog's right, unless he was absolutely wrong, yeah, but that's unlikely, but I can't go into court and say there was a dead body, that's up to somebody else to say.

And if the court decides that I may be of some use to the court in a case and they say, 'Mr Grime, we want you to come to court and explain to us what you did', etc., I will do that. Everyone has their job to do. But, to turn around and say, dogs are always right or dogs are always wrong, we don't know. But we move on.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Has anyone watched Exhbit A on Netflix on the US Bianca case? Irrespective of other aspects of the case, some of which I didn't notice being mentioned, Grime is interviewed ~ 27.40 ish.

Grime:

"There's a lot of people who [turn around?) and say no one should be convicted on the say-so of a dog. I think everyone agrees to that. But it doesn't matter what I say, I can turn around and say my dog responded there.

'What's your dog trained to respond to?'

'Human decomposition'.

Yeah?

I will always believe my dog's right, otherwise there's no point in me doing this job. I will always say I think my dog's right, unless he was absolutely wrong, yeah, but that's unlikely, but I can't go into court and say there was a dead body, that's up to somebody else to say.

And if the court decides that I may be of some use to the court in a case and they say, 'Mr Grime, we want you to come to court and explain to us what you did', etc., I will do that. Everyone has their job to do. But, to turn around and say, dogs are always right or dogs are always wrong, we don't know. But we move on.

I have seen it, and to me what it shows is the jury are the only people who decide the worth of the alerts, there was very little other evidence in the case but still a guilty verdict was reached. But can anyone say the dogs are always 100% correct, no, no one can say that. But no one can say they cannot be used as evidence in law courts around the world, oh wait......

[G-Unit]

That would be for Grime to explain when questioned by defence counsel. He has already testified a few times in the US, was he questioned on his words during those trials? I don't know but you would think defence counsels would look into Grimes past testimonies to see if something would help their client.
But my point is not whether Grime or Harrison would make good expert witness or not but the fact that they could testify, ergo, dog alerts are evidence. Something you still deny to this day despite the evident evidence that exists. That I don't understand.

The voice of reason imo.

[Mr Gray]

Rubbish!
Cairney & Jones trial
Gilroy Trial
Willox Trial.
I listened to the Pillay podcast, if you base your beliefs on that absolute biased piece of journalism then I don't know what to say.
You have never seen the SCCRC report, and Cassella never actually said it, the reporters quoted him as saying it, he was quite forthcoming with his own voice on a multitude of other evidential instances but when it came to that bit the journalists quoted him. But it doesn't matter what Cassella and the SCCRC believe, they don't make the law.

Rubbish...the FACT of the matter is that both SY and BKK are prepared to totally ignore the alerts...the ony police force who took them seriously......unlike SY and BKK ..they have no knowledge or expeience of cadaver dogs

[kizzy]

If the dog had not alerted would that mean that an expert could draw the conclusion that a body had never laid there?

If the dog had not alerted



But the dogs did alert.

Also said previously ...not anywhere else but mccs apartment and belongings.

Their apartment - and it was their child who was missing.

M.G. had no reason whatsoever not to do his job and the dogs to the absolute best of his ability.

[Carana]

I have seen it, and to me what it shows is the jury are the only people who decide the worth of the alerts, there was very little other evidence in the case but still a guilty verdict was reached. But can anyone say the dogs are always 100% correct, no, no one can say that. But no one can say they cannot be used as evidence in law courts around the world, oh wait......

"Around the world" might be slightly over-egging the argument. ;)

I don't have a problem with a dog handler being brought in as an expert witness (the per diem puts butter on the table, after all), provided that there is a robust defense asking appropriate questions. And it may also depend on the extent of questioning allowed (adversarial or not).

[Icanhandlethetruth]

"Around the world" might be slightly over-egging the argument. ;)

I don't have a problem with a dog handler being brought in as an expert witness (the per diem puts butter on the table, after all), provided that there is a robust defense asking appropriate questions. And it may also depend on the extent of questioning allowed (adversarial or not).

Absolutely, 100% agree.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Rubbish...the FACT of the matter is that both SY and BKK are prepared to totally ignore the alerts...the ony police force who took them seriously......unlike SY and BKK ..they have no knowledge or expeience of cadaver dogs

That is a different argument, not pertaining to whether dog alerts are evidence or not. I don't have an inside track on any of the investigations so don't know what evidence they are evaluating, but I suggest they shouldn't ignore any evidence. Not good practice I would say.