Wandering Off Topic

[Eleanor]

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?

Not a lot.

[Mr Gray]

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?

Depends how much DNA... If it's LCN DNAit doesn't necessarily make a link

[jassi]

Not a lot.

That's the purpose of a trial. Prosecution puts forward it's evidence to make a case, defence does it's best to refute it and and ultimately a decision is made.

It doesn't matter what outsiders think of the evidence, only those invbolved in the trial process.

[Eleanor]

That's the purpose of a trial. Prosecution puts forward it's evidence to make a case, defence does it's best to refute it and and ultimately a decision is made.

It doesn't matter what outsiders think of the evidence, only those invbolved in the trial process.

All a matter of opinion ultimately.

[kizzy]

As soon as I read that in my morning paper I absolutely knew that "the dogs don't lie" brigade would have a field day with it and I have not been disappointed.

Emma's body was transported and dumped in a forest some distance away from her home.  The accused was seen driving her car by a witness.  The accused's DNA was found in the vehicle at the driver's seat where it had no right to be.  It is highly likely that the dog's indications signal that Emma's remains were transported to the deposition site in her vehicle.

The prosecution is building a case here to present to the jury, which was NEVER the situation in Luz.

, which was NEVER the situation in Luz.


Over egging my comment a bit there B - I don't know what you think gives you the right to claim you know what happened in LUZ.

You don't know what happened - your constant caricature of posts seems to me the best form of defence is attack

You must remember first and foremost you are just a poster with an opinion ...like anyone else is.

IMO should stop ridiculing any post that does not fit in with your agenda,

[Brietta]

, which was NEVER the situation in Luz.


Over egging my comment a bit there B - I don't know what you think gives you the right to claim you know what happened in LUZ.

You don't know what happened - your constant caricature of posts seems to me the best form of defence is attack

You must remember first and foremost you are just a poster with an opinion ...like anyone else is.

IMO should stop ridiculing any post that does not fit in with your agenda,

I have a fair idea what happened in Luz fourteen years ago but I do know what did not happen and that is agreed with the police investigators of three different countries whose concentration is now firmly fixed on the prime suspect Brueckner.

[G-Unit]

, which was NEVER the situation in Luz.


Over egging my comment a bit there B - I don't know what you think gives you the right to claim you know what happened in LUZ.

You don't know what happened - your constant caricature of posts seems to me the best form of defence is attack

You must remember first and foremost you are just a poster with an opinion ...like anyone else is.

IMO should stop ridiculing any post that does not fit in with your agenda,

What is clear is that the Scottish police and courts are prepared to allow dog handlers to give evidence in criminal trials.

[Eleanor]

What is clear is that the Scottish police and courts are prepared to allow dog handlers to give evidence in criminal trials.

The day on which someone is convicted on the bark of a dog will be a very sad day.  And probably grounds for appeal.

[Mr Gray]

What is clear is that the Scottish police and courts are prepared to allow dog handlers to give evidence in criminal trials.

Perhaps I should make a FOI to see if the SCRCC did day ss is claimed that the dog evidence should not have been admitted.  The problem in Luz is that both Harrison snd Grime said the alerts had no evidential value or reliability

[kizzy]

I have a fair idea what happened in Luz fourteen years ago but I do know what did not happen and that is agreed with the police investigators of three different countries whose concentration is now firmly fixed on the prime suspect Brueckner.

I have a fair idea of what happened too.

As for the police forces working together ...are they really.

When it seems they have different ideas wether Maddie is still alive or not.

You would think also if the germans were as credible as you seem to think
.

The mccs would be on board with them.... with an appeal for info ...at least.

Still not as cut and dried as you like to make out B IMO.

[Mr Gray]

I have a fair idea of what happened too.

As for the police forces working together ...are they really.

When it seems they have different ideas wether Maddie is still alive or not.

You would think also if the germans were as credible as you seem to think
.

The mccs would be on board with them.... with an appeal for info ...at least.

Still not as cut and dried as you like to make out B IMO.

The police forces as I see it are in agreement and the McCanns totally understand the situation. The McCanns latest medsage confirms they accept Maddie may well be dead

[Brietta]

What is clear is that the Scottish police and courts are prepared to allow dog handlers to give evidence in criminal trials.

They always have but usually as a result of a body or parts of a body having been found.  Advances in forensic science have made the intelligence underlying dog searches admissible for consideration by the courts in particular circumstances but it most definitely not as 'stand alone' evidence.

For example in Emma's case there is

• no doubt that the accused was seen driving her vehicle after the police had determined when she was last known to have been seen alive, using evidence such as the distressed barking of her dog which was alone in the house
• testimony has been heard in court that the accused's DNA was located on the seat adjustment lever located under Emma's car seat
  ( i ) it can be assumed that the accused was the last person to adjust the position of the seat since his was the only DNA recovered
  (ii ) differences in driver height would have required such an adjustment to be made for driving out and return
  (iii) confirmed by the witness who saw him driving Emma's vehicle at a time determined by the police that she was missing
• in my opinion the fact that the dog alerted to the car boot means nothing on its own without the other evidence supporting the fact of Emma's likely death at the time the accused was seen driving her vehicle

It will be interesting to see how the judge sums it up when instructing the jury before they retire to consider their verdict.

[Brietta]

I have a fair idea of what happened too.

As for the police forces working together ...are they really.

When it seems they have different ideas wether Maddie is still alive or not.

You would think also if the germans were as credible as you seem to think
.

The mccs would be on board with them.... with an appeal for info ...at least.

Still not as cut and dried as you like to make out B IMO.

No-one knows what the investigators are presently doing except that they are concentrating on finding out what happened to Madeleine which is as it should be on both counts.

[G-Unit]

They always have but usually as a result of a body or parts of a body having been found.  Advances in forensic science have made the intelligence underlying dog searches admissible for consideration by the courts in particular circumstances but it most definitely not as 'stand alone' evidence.

For example in Emma's case there is

• no doubt that the accused was seen driving her vehicle after the police had determined when she was last known to have been seen alive, using evidence such as the distressed barking of her dog which was alone in the house
• testimony has been heard in court that the accused's DNA was located on the seat adjustment lever located under Emma's car seat
  ( i ) it can be assumed that the accused was the last person to adjust the position of the seat since his was the only DNA recovered
  (ii ) differences in driver height would have required such an adjustment to be made for driving out and return
  (iii) confirmed by the witness who saw him driving Emma's vehicle at a time determined by the police that she was missing
• in my opinion the fact that the dog alerted to the car boot means nothing on its own without the other evidence supporting the fact of Emma's likely death at the time the accused was seen driving her vehicle

It will be interesting to see how the judge sums it up when instructing the jury before they retire to consider their verdict.

You seem to be denying something which hasn't been claimed.

[kizzy]

The police forces as I see it are in agreement and the McCanns totally understand the situation. The McCanns latest medsage confirms they accept Maddie may well be dead

McCanns totally understand the situation.

Is that your opinion ...or do you know that to be a fact.

It seems to me they know the germans are appealing for info ....yet don't seem to get involved.

Considering they want every stone unturned the mccs seem to be very quiet on the appealing for info or to even look as if they are backing the germans up.

IMO there silence seems to be they have no faith in the german investigation.