Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[barrier]

Let’s look at it this way. If OG do not believe the dog alerts are in any way significant then there’s nothing to worry about but if they do, as the police in the Pilley and Bianca Jones’s cases did, then it will lead them to more difficult questions. Is that clear enough ?

The only thing that OG don't believe in was Tannerman,nothing else has got a mention.

[faithlilly]

Do you have a link to verify the claim that every police authority has "faith" in cadaver dogs and their indications?
Again you seem to be discerning coded messages from the police through their actions or, in this case, inactions.

If you like I could give you case upon case where cadaver dogs have been used. Why would police authorities use them if they had no confidence in their abilities?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Let’s look at it this way. If OG do not believe the dog alerts are in any way significant then there’s nothing to worry about but if they do, as the police in the Pilley and Bianca Jones’s cases did, then it will lead them to more difficult questions. Is that clear enough ?

Are you therefore retracting your claim that it is a "certainty" that the police in this case have given the alerts "due weight"?  That would make things crystal clear thank you.

[faithlilly]

Are you therefore retracting your claim that it is a "certainty" that the police in this case have given the alerts "due weight"?  That would make things crystal clear thank you.

I think I said ‘the weight they deserve’ .

[Vertigo Swirl]

If you like I could give you case upon case where cadaver dogs have been used. Why would police authorities use them if they had no confidence in their abilities?

I think this has been explained time and time again but I can have another go at it if you like?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think I said ‘the weight they deserve’ .

subjective.  The weight they deserve according to whom? What weight?  Great or little?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think I said ‘the weight they deserve’ .

What you actually said:

"I said nothing about statistics. Logic dictates that if a cadaver dog alerts in a certain location and in that location a child has gone missing then the two are more probably than not linked. There may be no collectible forensics to prove that the death occurred but the alert is nonetheless indicative and will certainly be given its due weight by any investigating police force".

[faithlilly]

I think this has been explained time and time again but I can have another go at it if you like?

Whatever pleases you. Please include though why dog trainers are asked to give evidence in court in cases where there is no body.

[faithlilly]

subjective.  The weight they deserve according to whom? What weight?  Great or little?

According to the investigating authority, that will be up to them, no idea.

[faithlilly]

What you actually said:

"I said nothing about statistics. Logic dictates that if a cadaver dog alerts in a certain location and in that location a child has gone missing then the two are more probably than not linked. There may be no collectible forensics to prove that the death occurred but the alert is nonetheless indicative and will certainly be given its due weight by any investigating police force".

The ‘due weight’ is whatever the investigating authority feels is appropriate.

You will get the same answer no matter how many ways you couch your question.

[Mr Gray]

If you like I could give you case upon case where cadaver dogs have been used. Why would police authorities use them if they had no confidence in their abilities?

I doubt you can and I doubt you can give any case where the alert has been accepted  as evidence of death.... They certainly are not in the McCann case

[Vertigo Swirl]

Faithlilly, are you aware of the 2011 report by the National Policing Improvements Agency which found that the use of sniffer dogs can actually hinder police work and which called for better training and standards in this area, a recommendation which the Association Of Chief Police Officers promised they would be acting on by introducing improved standards?
https://news.sky.com/story/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work-10488976
This would seem to indicate IMO that there is an understanding amongst the police themselves that dog work is not a completely reliable method of ascertaining what has happened in a crime scene where no body or actual forensic evidence is present.  Would you not agree?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Whatever pleases you. Please include though why dog trainers are asked to give evidence in court in cases where there is no body.

The prosecution calls all sorts of people (witnesses, experts, etc) to give evidence if they think their testimony will help build a case against the accused and convince the jury, just as the defence will have their own witnesses and experts to dismantle that testimony.

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly, are you aware of the 2011 report by the National Policing Improvements Agency which found that the use of sniffer dogs can actually hinder police work and which called for better training and standards in this area, a recommendation which the Association Of Chief Police Officers promised they would be acting on by introducing improved standards?
https://news.sky.com/story/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work-10488976
This would seem to indicate IMO that there is an understanding amongst the police themselves that dog work is not a completely reliable method of ascertaining what has happened in a crime scene where no body or actual forensic evidence is present.  Would you not agree?

This report was 7 years ago and actually proved how reliable the dog alerts were as the alerts were always prompted by furniture which was linked to a dead body. That this hindered the investigating authorities as it was the wrong body does not prove, in itself , that the dogs were unreliable. They detected what they were trained to detect.

If you have something more up to date about the use of cadaver dogs that would be great and, while you’re having a google, if you could find proof that any of the fixtures and fittings in 5a had any connection to a dead body that would be great too.

[Vertigo Swirl]

This report was 7 years ago and actually proved how reliable the dog alerts were as the alerts were always prompted by furniture which was linked to a dead body. That this hindered the investigating authorities as it was the wrong body does not prove, in itself , that the dogs were unreliable. They detected what they were trained to detect.

If you have something more up to date about the use of cadaver dogs that would be great and, while you’re having a google, if you could find proof that any of the fixtures and fittings in 5a had any connection to a dead body that would be great too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the dog alerts in this case occurred in 2007, the NPIA report which found that sniffer dogs could actually hamper police work occured in 2011, so why do you require more recent reports, do you think there is one which contradicts the findings of the NPIA?  If there is then by all means post it yourself.   I have not made any claim about fixtures and fittings in 5a so am at a loss as to why you would require me to find proof that they did have a connection to a dead body, though if I may I would like to ask the question - was the provenance of each stick of furniture in that apartment traced, and if not, why not?