Wandering Off Topic

[Carana]

Absolutely, 100% agree.

I wasn't expecting you to agree with me. lol

If you were a defense lawyer, what would you want to check? Or, as a barrister, what questions would you ask?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I wasn't expecting you to agree with me. lol

If you were a defense lawyer, what would you want to check? Or, as a barrister, what questions wou.ld you ask?

Everything you said made perfect sense, and is factual, dog handlers testify as expert witness' thats a fact.

A good example of courtroom interaction is the Margaret Fleming case which is on BBC player. It shows both the prosecution and defence questioning of the dog handler, I think that's pretty much how it would go in most cases.

[Carana]

OTOH, I find it a waste of money to admit evidence, whatever the nature, when either its nature or the expert in question doesn't have a proven record of accuracy.

Otherwise, people could be convicted on the basis of clairvoyants... who then "move on".

[Icanhandlethetruth]

OTOH, I find it a waste of money to admit evidence, whatever the nature, when either it's nature or the expert in question doesn't have a proven record of accuracy.

Otherwise, people could be convicted on the basis of clairvoyants... who then "move on".

I agree, a line has to be drawn on what evidence is admissible and I would definitely include clairvoyants on that list.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

What did the dogs alert to then?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

OK, so the police shouldn't ignore the dog alerts.  How should they investigate them further then?  What would you do if you were in charge of the investigation wrt to the dog alerts?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

OK, so the police shouldn't ignore the dog alerts.  How should they investigate them further then?  What would you do if you were in charge of the investigation wrt to the dog alerts?

I will leave all that to the investigating forces. All I am saying is that an investigation should not ignore any evidence. It should be assessed to see how it fits into the current line of investigation. Do you believe any evidence should be ignored then?

[Carana]

Everything you said made perfect sense, and is factual, dog handlers testify as expert witness' thats a fact.

A good example of courtroom interaction is the Margaret Fleming case which is on BBC player. It shows both the prosecution and defence questioning of the dog handler, I think that's pretty much how it would go in most cases.

I'll have a look to see if it's on YT.

"I think that's pretty much how it would go in most cases." - In which jurisdictions? I don't know how familiar you may be with the Cipriano case (which didn't involve dogs), but my jaw dropped to my feet on that one, both in terms of the investigation (or lack thereof) and in the court case.

[Carana]

I will leave all that to the investigating forces. All I am saying is that an investigation should not ignore any evidence. It should be assessed to see how it fits into the current line of investigation. Do you believe any evidence should be ignored then?

By "evidence", do you mean investigative intelligence or courtroom evidence by expert witnesses?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I'll have a look to see if it's on YT.

"I think that's pretty much how it would go in most cases." - In which jurisdictions? I don't know how familiar you may be with the Cipriano case (which didn't involve dogs), but my jaw dropped to my feet on that one, both in terms of the investigation (or lack thereof) and in the court case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7wADZlR3vs
Dog testimony at 43:50

I can't comment on the Cipriano case as I know only the basics

[Icanhandlethetruth]

By "evidence", do you mean investigative intelligence or courtroom evidence by expert witnesses?

In this instance investigative intelligence.

[Carana]

I will leave all that to the investigating forces. All I am saying is that an investigation should not ignore any evidence. It should be assessed to see how it fits into the current line of investigation. Do you believe any evidence should be ignored then?

IMO, in abstract terms, probably not, but in reality, I can think of numerous factors as to whether certain types of "evidence" or certain "expert witnesses" should be allowed.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

IMO, in abstract terms, probably not, but in reality, I can think of numerous factors as to whether certain types of "evidence" or certain "expert witnesses" should be allowed.

 I agree, that what the framework of the law permits. Some evidence is deemed admissible and some not.
What we must surely agree on is that currently in certain countries, USA, Canada, UK forensically uncorroborated VRD dog alerts are allowed to be used as evidence in a court of law.

[Carana]

I agree, that what the framework of the law permits. Some evidence is deemed admissible and some not.
What we must surely agree on is that currently in certain countries, USA, Canada, UK forensically uncorroborated VRD dog alerts are allowed to be used as evidence in a court of law.

I haven't followed as to whether uncorroborated VRD alerts are admitted as current practice or not, nor where. IIRC, some countries don't even allow lie detector tests (or have stopped them).

I'm interested in what you would seek to find out as a defense lawyer / questions to ask as a barrister.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I will leave all that to the investigating forces. All I am saying is that an investigation should not ignore any evidence. It should be assessed to see how it fits into the current line of investigation. Do you believe any evidence should be ignored then?

No and I don’t believe anyone has ignored the dog evidence, quite the reverse in fact, I believe they were given far too much credence in the initial investigation to the exclusion of pretty much everything else.