Wandering Off Topic

[kizzy]

I somewhat doubt that.

Why, you don't know every thing C. You can doubt it but you don't know.

[Brietta]

I think there are people who have spent 14 years trying to convince themselves and everyone else that alerts by police dogs aren't evidence. Convictions have been achieved using such evidence, so their claims are obviously wrong.

Not on their own they don't ... unless you have an instance you would care to share.

[kizzy]

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?

Oi, I can matily refer to him any way I want its not up to you.

Its when I came him wally it - would be fair to comment.

[Brietta]

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.

That is interesting.

All that a dog handler can confirm is that the trained working dog has reacted in a certain way.  No assurance can be given either to who or to what


Margaret Fleming trial: Police search dog 'found decomposing scents'
Published14 May 2019

PC Galloway, 42, said his black labrador Ollie found two possible decomposing scents in the garden close to the River Clyde.

This was in two cup-sized holes dug 18ins (46cm) apart and 24ins (61cm) deep.

PC Galloway said: "The dog's reaction was quite clear as his behaviour changed and he became more focused.

"He tilted his head back and started to bark.

"He is only trained to identify pig and human flesh."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48275280


We are now being fed misinformation a cadaver dog 'solved' Margaret's case.  It did not.  No trace whatsoever of Margaret was ever found.
It was police work that provided the evidence to enable a sound conviction.

We are being fed the misinformation that Suzanne Pilley's murder was 'solved' by cadaver dogs.  No trace whatsoever of Suzanne was ever found.
It was police work that provided the evidence to enable a sound conviction.

We are being misinformed that cadaver dogs 'solved' the murder of Emma Faulds.  Emma's body was found by trained dogs once intensive police work had pin-pointed the most likely deposition site.
Yet again it was police work which provided the evidence which enabled a sound conviction.

Dogs are another tool in the box ~ they indicate where evidence might be found but quite often nothing is found as in Margaret's or Suzanne's cases and they found Emma when the groundwork was done to tell them where to look.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

That is interesting.

All that a dog handler can confirm is that the trained working dog has reacted in a certain way.  No assurance can be given either to who or to what


Margaret Fleming trial: Police search dog 'found decomposing scents'
Published14 May 2019

PC Galloway, 42, said his black labrador Ollie found two possible decomposing scents in the garden close to the River Clyde.

This was in two cup-sized holes dug 18ins (46cm) apart and 24ins (61cm) deep.

PC Galloway said: "The dog's reaction was quite clear as his behaviour changed and he became more focused.

"He tilted his head back and started to bark.

"He is only trained to identify pig and human flesh."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48275280


We are now being fed misinformation a cadaver dog 'solved' Margaret's case.  It did not.  No trace whatsoever of Margaret was ever found.
It was police work that provided the evidence to enable a sound conviction.

We are being fed the misinformation that Suzanne Pilley's murder was 'solved' by cadaver dogs.  No trace whatsoever of Suzanne was ever found.
It was police work that provided the evidence to enable a sound conviction.

We are being misinformed that cadaver dogs 'solved' the murder of Emma Faulds.  Emma's body was found by trained dogs once intensive police work had pin-pointed the most likely deposition site.
Yet again it was police work which provided the evidence which enabled a sound conviction.

Dogs are another tool in the box ~ they indicate where evidence might be found but quite often nothing is found as in Margaret's or Suzanne's cases and they found Emma when the groundwork was done to tell them where to look.

Who has claimed that a cadaver dog solved any of these cases you list?
Name the poster who is spreading misinformation.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Oi, I can matily refer to him any way I want its not up to you.

Its when I came him wally it - would be fair to comment.

I didn’t say you couldn’t refer to him matily but I do regret providing you with a handy deflection excuse for ignoring my point entirely.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Can I ask how you know this for a fact?

As I am sure you don't believe I am part of the BKA investigation or indeed Operation Grange, I would have thought it would be a reasonable assumption that it was just my opinion. Fret not, I will amend my post to avoid any doubt.

[Vertigo Swirl]

As I am sure you don't believe I am part of the BKA investigation or indeed Operation Grange, I would have thought it would be a reasonable assumption that it was just my opinion. Fret not, I will amend my post to avoid any doubt.

Them’s the rules mate, G-Unit is a stickler for them and you wouldn’t want to get on her bad side.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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

If you read the history behind the post it was a conversation between myself and Carana regarding the similarity of evidence between a murder weapon and a cadaver that was located by a VRD. So both cases of tangible evidence

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Them’s the rules mate, G-Unit is a stickler for them and you wouldn’t want to get on her bad side.

Well rest assured its done. All is well with the universe again.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well rest assured its done. All is well with the universe again.

Good, make sure it doesn’t happen again.

[G-Unit]

Not on their own they don't ... unless you have an instance you would care to share.

I don't think I said anything about 'on their own'. Imo it would be rare to convict on one piece of evidence only; unless you know of such a case?

[Carana]

In this instance investigative intelligence.

What is investigative intelligence worth if it doesn't lead anywhere?

OK. Let's change scenario. Someone was burgled. The victim remembered seeing someone with a grey hoodie. A witness saw an identifiable person with a grey hoodie around the vicinity at the time.

Then what?

[Brietta]

I don't think I said anything about 'on their own'. Imo it would be rare to convict on one piece of evidence only; unless you know of such a case?

Memo:
I think there are people who have spent 14 years trying to convince themselves and everyone else that alerts by police dogs aren't evidence. Convictions have been achieved using such evidence, so their claims are obviously wrong.    Gu

You think there are people who cannot differentiate between an indication and evidence.
I think of which you are a prime example.

You think "convictions have been achieved using such evidence"
I think you are way off the mark there ... unless you can provide an accredited example which substantiates your claim, which is of course impossible for the simple reason you've got it wrong 😁

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Memo:
I think there are people who have spent 14 years trying to convince themselves and everyone else that alerts by police dogs aren't evidence. Convictions have been achieved using such evidence, so their claims are obviously wrong.    Gu

You think there are people who cannot differentiate between an indication and evidence.
I think of which you are a prime example.

You think "convictions have been achieved using such evidence"
I think you are way off the mark there ... unless you can provide an accredited example which substantiates your claim, which is of course impossible for the simple reason you've got it wrong 😁

I think I finally have worked out your reluctance to accept that a forensically uncorroborated  cadaver dog alert can be used as evidence in a UK court.
You have seen with your own eyes PC Ryan Galloway giving such evidence in a murder case in 2019 so I always struggled to understand how you could say it was not evidence.
But I now believe you think we are suggesting that the convictions were achieved almost only because of the dog alert evidence. I am certainly not suggesting that and I don’t believe G-Unit is.
In all 3 cases you refer to, all the evidence was circumstantial, the dog alerts were a part of these circumstantial cases certainly not defining evidence just a strand of the whole part of the case. The only people who know the worth of the dog alert evidence are the 15 jurors who weighed up the evidence in these cases, maybe they were dismissed as insignificant and maybe they weren’t. But the fact is they were heard as evidence.