Wandering Off Topic

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

The case you referenced today from Exhibit A was evidence of a dog alert that was forensically uncorroborated as was the Margaret Fleming from Scotland that I gave you the link for earlier.
As I said pretty much the same as the defence lawyer in the Margaret Fleming case, question the training of the dogs, question the lack of forensic evidence.. What about you what would you ask?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

Well I didn't bring it up, take it up with Davel, he said SY and BKK are prepared to totally ignore the alerts.
Not good practice imo.

[Carana]

Just a thought:

If a dog and his handler had led to fiinding a body in the alert location... is there any reason why the handler would be needed in court?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well I didn't bring it up, take it up with Davel, he said SY and BKK are prepared to totally ignore the alerts.
Not good practice imo.

At what point in the investigation do you think it might be acceptable to discard the dog alerts as evidence, if ever?  For example, if CB confessed to taking Madeleine would it be ok then to ignore them or not?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Just a thought:

If a dog and his handler had led to fiinding a body in the alert location... is there any reason why the handler would be needed in court?

I believe the handlers still testify in that situation.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

At what point in the investigation do you think it might be acceptable to discard the dog alerts as evidence, if ever?  For example, if CB confessed to taking Madeleine would it be ok then to ignore them or not?

At the point where it has been proved that the alerts can't be relied upon as satisfactory evidence, ie other stronger evidence counters it. We are not at that point yet imo, it may come but just not yet.

[Carana]

I believe the handlers still testify in that situation.

Why?

A dog alerts. A body is found. DNA identifies the body. What's the point of a dog handler testifying (whose dogs' reactions were intelligence leading to the finding)?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Why?

A dog alerts. A body is found. DNA identifies the body. What's the point of a dog handler testifying (whose dogs' reactions were intelligence leading to the finding)?

In the same way that a police office who say, found the murder weapon at the scene will testify, They are testifying to an event during the investigation.

[kizzy]

What did the dogs alert to then?

Maybe the dogs are the reason wolt thinks Maddie is dead. in ma op

[Carana]

In the same way that a police office who say, found the murder weapon at the scene will testify, They are testifying to an event during the investigation.

Ok. but that seems different.

Perhaps a different example could be: someone is on trial for a kidnap and murder in situ. An officer testifies at what might have been a whiff of gunsmoke in the vicinity (3 months after the fact). No weapon was found, let alone one identified by forensic evidence as being the weapon potentially in question, yet no trace of the victim.

[Carana]

Maybe the dogs are the reason wolt thinks Maddie is dead. in ma op

I somewhat doubt that.

[Carana]

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

Ah. Many thanks, will watch.

[Vertigo Swirl]

At the point where it has been proved that the alerts can't be relied upon as satisfactory evidence, ie other stronger evidence counters it. We are not at that point yet, it may come but just not yet.

Can I ask how you know this for a fact?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Maybe the dogs are the reason wolt thinks Maddie is dead. in ma op

Wolt (as you matily refer to him) seems pretty sure Madeleine died at the hands of CB - so how would the dog alerts feature in such a scenario?

[Vertigo Swirl]

In the same way that a police office who say, found the murder weapon at the scene will testify, They are testifying to an event during the investigation.

A murder weapon is something tangible, which can be matched to wounds, blood etc.  What can a dog's bark be matched to?