Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

The trainer/handler's evidence is allowed in court, as are the dog's operational and training records. All evidence which could be used to demonstrate the likelihood of the reliability of the alerts.

In this instance the trainer has said the alerts have no evidential reliability si that would make the statements useless... Do you have a cite, where the alerts have been allowed in a UK or Portuguese court..

It seems a bit pointless presenting the alerts, as evidence then having the expert say they have no evidential value... Sounds ridiculous

[jassi]

The trainer/handler's evidence is allowed in court, as are the dog's operational and training records. All evidence which could be used to demonstrate the likelihood of the reliability of the alerts.

Exactly. It is a court that will decide what is acceptable.

[Mr Gray]

The only provenance we have on the value if the alerts is the trainer... And he has, stated clearly they have ni evidential  value... So some sceptics still don't understand  the evidence imo

[faithlilly]

In this instance the trainer has said the alerts have no evidential reliability si that would make the statements useless... Do you have a cite, where the alerts have been allowed in a UK or Portuguese court..

It seems a bit pointless presenting the alerts, as evidence then having the expert say they have no evidential value... Sounds ridiculous

Suzanne Pilley and Bob Rose.

[Mr Gray]

Suzanne Pilley and Bob Rose.

In the Bob rise case Eddie found the body... Hardly an unconfirmed  alert

[G-Unit]

In this instance the trainer has said the alerts have no evidential reliability si that would make the statements useless... Do you have a cite, where the alerts have been allowed in a UK or Portuguese court..

It seems a bit pointless presenting the alerts, as evidence then having the expert say they have no evidential value... Sounds ridiculous

It's perfectly correct to say that the alerts in themselves have no evidential reliability. When they are used as part of a body of evidence, however, they can add weight to an argument as they did in the Prout case.

[faithlilly]

In the Bob rise case Eddie found the body... Hardly an unconfirmed  alert

You asked for examples of dog alerts being allowed in court. I gave you two examples.

[Mr Gray]

You asked for examples of dog alerts being allowed in court. I gave you two examples.

So they can be mentioned in court if, a body is found...

[G-Unit]

The only provenance we have on the value if the alerts is the trainer... And he has, stated clearly they have ni evidential  value... So some sceptics still don't understand  the evidence imo

The dogs have operational and test records which can be used as evidence when evaluating their alerts. In my opinion you have misunderstood what Grime meant.

In my opinion he meant the alerts alone don't prove anything. In this case only Keela's alerts could have been confirmed by the scientists, but they would still have proved nothing.

[Mr Gray]

The dogs have operational and test records which can be used as evidence when evaluating their alerts. In my opinion you have misunderstood what Grime meant.

In my opinion he meant the alerts alone don't prove anything. In this case only Keela's alerts could have been confirmed by the scientists, but they would still have proved nothing.

I don't misunderstand anything.... Harrison went further and said no inferences could be drawn from the alerts..
I know, what no evidential  value or reliability mean

[kizzy]

I don't misunderstand anything.... Harrison went further and said no inferences could be drawn from the alerts..
I know, what no evidential  value or reliability mean

That was an educated guess - because there was no body.


Definitions of
inference
1
n the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation

[Carana]

The dogs have operational and test records which can be used as evidence when evaluating their alerts. In my opinion you have misunderstood what Grime meant.

In my opinion he meant the alerts alone don't prove anything. In this case only Keela's alerts could have been confirmed by the scientists, but they would still have proved nothing.

I disagree - depending on where she alerted in a crime scene, her alerts could have been confirmed and might have been found to be crucial.

As it happens, there was nothing of forensic significance in this case.

[Mr Gray]

That was an educated guess - because there was no body.


Definitions of
inference
1
n the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation

So no inference

[faithlilly]

So they can be mentioned in court if, a body is found...

And Suzanne Pilley ? We were told on Crimewartch that the dog alerts were crucial in gaining a conviction without a body.

[kizzy]

So no inference

During a 2009 television interview with Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueira, Gerry McCann was asked about the cadaver dogs alerting to the scent of a dead body in apartment 5A and their rental car.

"I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they're incredibly unreliable," McCann replied

seems gmccann agrees with you.



In one of his preliminary reports, Harrison said any alerts by the dogs may suggest that a body had been in the property and then removed. He added "no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence".



https://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/20/14/18/madeleine-mccann-cadaver-sniffer-dogs-reaction-apartment-car-didnt-make-sense


interesting comment

CORRECTION: On March 21 this article was changed to reflect that 'arguido' status was lifted (instead of 'cleared') from Kate and Gerry McCann.