Wandering Off Topic

[Icanhandlethetruth]

No we don't, but the dog alerted and that's evidence that the dog alerted so what can we deduce from that?

I always feel that your questions are trying to catch me out. Maybe its just me.
If it came to a trial its how the evidence is presented to the jury, or maybe it would not be introduced by the prosecution at all. That's generally how it works.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

That's all well and good but surely as part of the judicial process in deciding whether or not dog alerts should be admissable these have to be subjected to scientific testing or at least expert opinion as judges and legal bods are not usually well versed in canine olfactory science or the art of search dog handling, so do they not have to seek advice from erm...people like Martin Grime?

As you are probably aware English and Scottish law are different. In Scottish law the dog handlers are called as competent and expert witness’s to an event that happened during the investigation, there is not so much of an onus on the scientific part of the evidence as there is in England hence all of the UK cases are in Scotland. That's not to say it is expressly inadmissible as evidence in the way say a polygraph test is, but its a much bigger hurdle in England than Scotland.

[Mr Gray]

I always feel that your questions are trying to catch me out. Maybe its just me.
If it came to a trial its how the evidence is presented to the jury, or maybe it would not be introduced by the prosecution at all. That's generally how it works.

In the McCsnn case I can only see it presented as having no evidential value or reliability

[Icanhandlethetruth]

In the McCsnn case I can only see it presented as having no evidential value or reliability

The worth of the alerts would only be how they were presented and received by a jury. But they will never be heard as evidence by the prosecution in court IMO. Possibly by the defence in a case but not prosecution.

[Brietta]

I always feel that your questions are trying to catch me out. Maybe its just me.
If it came to a trial its how the evidence is presented to the jury, or maybe it would not be introduced by the prosecution at all. That's generally how it works.

In both the Scottish cases to which you refer it was introduced by the prosecution.  Similarly there is at least one other case where cadaver dog evidence was also led by the prosecution.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

In both the Scottish cases to which you refer it was introduced by the prosecution.  Similarly there is at least one other case where cadaver dog evidence was also led by the prosecution.

I was referring specifically to the McCann case. I imagine its pretty rare for the defence to introduce cadaver dog evidence.

[Brietta]

The worth of the alerts would only be how they were presented and received by a jury. But they will never be heard as evidence by the prosecution in court IMO. Possibly by the defence in a case but not prosecution.

They would only be introduced if they had evidential value ... there was no evidential value assigned to the dog alerts in Luz.  That is agreed by all concerned with the exception of Amaral who also believes that Calpol kills children.

[Brietta]

I was referring specifically to the McCann case. I imagine its pretty rare for the defence to introduce cadaver dog evidence.

I believe the Portuguese investigators of the time were unfamiliar with the concept.  Which may be why so many elementary mistakes and misunderstandings initially occurred.

[jassi]

I was referring specifically to the McCann case. I imagine its pretty rare for the defence to introduce cadaver dog evidence.

Yes, I would think it pretty much a prosecution thing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I always feel that your questions are trying to catch me out. Maybe its just me.
If it came to a trial its how the evidence is presented to the jury, or maybe it would not be introduced by the prosecution at all. That's generally how it works.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be saying the dog alerts can mean whatever the legal tem introducing them to the jury want them to mean. 

[Eleanor]

Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be saying the dog alerts can mean whatever the legal tem introducing them to the jury want them to mean.

That's what I thought.

Oh for the days when Dogs were just a tool.

[jassi]

That's what I thought.

Oh for the days when Dogs were just a tool.

Is that not how a prosecution works - they put forward their interpretation of evidence and it is up to the judge to decide if it is legally acceptable ?

[barrier]

Without details of the tests its impossible to judge how reliable they are.

Does anyone know what Eddie alerted to in PDL....

Wolters may have the answer.

[Eleanor]

Is that not how a prosecution works - they put forward their interpretation of evidence and it is up to the judge to decide if it is legally acceptable ?

I have no idea.  But a Trial often helps, or not, as the case may be.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is that not how a prosecution works - they put forward their interpretation of evidence and it is up to the judge to decide if it is legally acceptable ?

Only up to a point.  I mean, the suspect’s finger print on a gun means it’s very likely he handled it, a victim’s DNA on a suspect unquestionably links the two individual’s together, what does a cadaver dog’s bark tell us evidentially?