Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

What is a pro or an anti?

Page 5 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  marxman on Wed 18 Jan - 21:25

jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:'insufficient'....very significant word, jodel.....whilst you walk back to the dark side perhaps you could pass your Findings to your mates and stipulate that 'insufficient' doesnt mean 'no evidence'.

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

the case of Attracta Harron 2004 springers to mind!

marxman
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Male
Number of posts : 1122
Location : In the dog house
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed 18 Jan - 21:28

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

I can only quote what is laid down in the police standards which I presume is law as I haven't followed any other cases, however if I'm not mistaken the report by Martin Grimes does state cases where the dogs detections have led to crimminal convictions.

If those police standards state that something may become evidence, that is enough. There is no need then to find individual cases.

This is how myths and misunderstandings start- partial and biased interpretation. The statement above does not say that dog reactions can be used as evidence.

What it says exactly is:

"The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility."

It says that the evidence of the dogs' training and licensing may be produced in court to evidence their reliability in indicating evidence.

It does not say that a dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court. That has never happened and would not be legal.

What this says is that evidence of, say, the training and reliability of a drugs dog can be quoted in court to give credence to the subsequent discovery of drugs in a building etc.

I will accept that dog's direct indications of anything may be part of a trial in the UK if ANY such reference from a newspaper or other court report is produced showing that such dog evidence has ever been admitted into a UK court. Should be easy to find- if it exists!


The point is detections in previous cases must have been used as evidence otherwise how could anyone have ever been found guilty in the past Ė again Martin Grimes quotes specific cases. Any conviction would be dependant on whether or not the prosecution brought a strong enough case against someone and that depends on the evidence which should include the experience and reliability of the canine team.

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 21:32

marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:'insufficient'....very significant word, jodel.....whilst you walk back to the dark side perhaps you could pass your Findings to your mates and stipulate that 'insufficient' doesnt mean 'no evidence'.

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

the case of Attracta Harron 2004 springers to mind!

Undoubtedly the dogs found the position of the cadaver. Once the police had the cadaver, the dogs could do nothing to add to the case. Had they just reacted to a cadaver odour and no body had been found, their 'evidence' could not have been admitted in court.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed 18 Jan - 21:33

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

I can only quote what is laid down in the police standards which I presume is law as I haven't followed any other cases, however if I'm not mistaken the report by Martin Grimes does state cases where the dogs detections have led to crimminal convictions.

If those police standards state that something may become evidence, that is enough. There is no need then to find individual cases.

This is how myths and misunderstandings start- partial and biased interpretation. The statement above does not say that dog reactions can be used as evidence.

What it says exactly is:

"The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility."

It says that the evidence of the dogs' training and licensing may be produced in court to evidence their reliability in indicating evidence.

It does not say that a dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court. That has never happened and would not be legal.

What this says is that evidence of, say, the training and reliability of a drugs dog can be quoted in court to give credence to the subsequent discovery of drugs in a building etc.

I will accept that dog's direct indications of anything may be part of a trial in the UK if ANY such reference from a newspaper or other court report is produced showing that such dog evidence has ever been admitted into a UK court. Should be easy to find- if it exists!

You're sounding more and more like someone who has been here before. Eddie and Keela have over 200 successful missions to their credit. That is what matters. Since they cannot speak, their findings have to be backed up with forensic evidence, which of course is not always possible. Odours linger, even for us humans, long after their source has gone. And EVRD canines are trained to detect odour, just that. Cadaver odour can linger years after a body has been in a place and that's where those dogs come into their own.

Having said that, we do have new members, from time to time, who seem to home in on anything to do with those dogs. I'm not sure why.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18459
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed 18 Jan - 21:35

jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

the case of Attracta Harron 2004 springers to mind!

Undoubtedly the dogs found the position of the cadaver. Once the police had the cadaver, the dogs could do nothing to add to the case. Had they just reacted to a cadaver odour and no body had been found, their 'evidence' could not have been admitted in court.

But at least the police had good reason to believe that they were then looking for a body when Eddie reacted to the odour in a burnt out vehicle.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18459
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 21:35

ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

I can only quote what is laid down in the police standards which I presume is law as I haven't followed any other cases, however if I'm not mistaken the report by Martin Grimes does state cases where the dogs detections have led to crimminal convictions.

If those police standards state that something may become evidence, that is enough. There is no need then to find individual cases.

This is how myths and misunderstandings start- partial and biased interpretation. The statement above does not say that dog reactions can be used as evidence.

What it says exactly is:

"The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility."

It says that the evidence of the dogs' training and licensing may be produced in court to evidence their reliability in indicating evidence.

It does not say that a dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court. That has never happened and would not be legal.

What this says is that evidence of, say, the training and reliability of a drugs dog can be quoted in court to give credence to the subsequent discovery of drugs in a building etc.

I will accept that dog's direct indications of anything may be part of a trial in the UK if ANY such reference from a newspaper or other court report is produced showing that such dog evidence has ever been admitted into a UK court. Should be easy to find- if it exists!


The point is detections in previous cases must have been used as evidence otherwise how could anyone have ever been found guilty in the past Ė again Martin Grimes quotes specific cases. Any conviction would be dependant on whether or not the prosecution brought a strong enough case against someone and that depends on the evidence which should include the experience and reliability of the canine team.

Martin Grime is quite specific- dogs indicate evidence but do not provide it. He repeats such a mantra repeatedly in his interviews.

Dog evidence has never been accepted in any British trial process. In the USA it has been accepted in some jurisdictions but such practices have been regularly struck down by higher courts.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed 18 Jan - 21:37

jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

the case of Attracta Harron 2004 springers to mind!

Undoubtedly the dogs found the position of the cadaver. Once the police had the cadaver, the dogs could do nothing to add to the case. Had they just reacted to a cadaver odour and no body had been found, their 'evidence' could not have been admitted in court.

It sounds to me as though you are saying that there needs to be a body ?

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed 18 Jan - 21:38

jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
ELI wrote:

I can only quote what is laid down in the police standards which I presume is law as I haven't followed any other cases, however if I'm not mistaken the report by Martin Grimes does state cases where the dogs detections have led to crimminal convictions.

If those police standards state that something may become evidence, that is enough. There is no need then to find individual cases.

This is how myths and misunderstandings start- partial and biased interpretation. The statement above does not say that dog reactions can be used as evidence.

What it says exactly is:

"The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility."

It says that the evidence of the dogs' training and licensing may be produced in court to evidence their reliability in indicating evidence.

It does not say that a dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court. That has never happened and would not be legal.

What this says is that evidence of, say, the training and reliability of a drugs dog can be quoted in court to give credence to the subsequent discovery of drugs in a building etc.

I will accept that dog's direct indications of anything may be part of a trial in the UK if ANY such reference from a newspaper or other court report is produced showing that such dog evidence has ever been admitted into a UK court. Should be easy to find- if it exists!


The point is detections in previous cases must have been used as evidence otherwise how could anyone have ever been found guilty in the past Ė again Martin Grimes quotes specific cases. Any conviction would be dependant on whether or not the prosecution brought a strong enough case against someone and that depends on the evidence which should include the experience and reliability of the canine team.

Martin Grime is quite specific- dogs indicate evidence but do not provide it. He repeats such a mantra repeatedly in his interviews.

Dog evidence has never been accepted in any British trial process. In the USA it has been accepted in some jurisdictions but such practices have been regularly struck down by higher courts.

The dogs do not indicate 'evidence.' They alert to the odours they are trained to detect. A dog doesn't know what evidence is.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18459
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 21:38

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

I can only quote what is laid down in the police standards which I presume is law as I haven't followed any other cases, however if I'm not mistaken the report by Martin Grimes does state cases where the dogs detections have led to crimminal convictions.

If those police standards state that something may become evidence, that is enough. There is no need then to find individual cases.

This is how myths and misunderstandings start- partial and biased interpretation. The statement above does not say that dog reactions can be used as evidence.

What it says exactly is:

"The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility."

It says that the evidence of the dogs' training and licensing may be produced in court to evidence their reliability in indicating evidence.

It does not say that a dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court. That has never happened and would not be legal.

What this says is that evidence of, say, the training and reliability of a drugs dog can be quoted in court to give credence to the subsequent discovery of drugs in a building etc.

I will accept that dog's direct indications of anything may be part of a trial in the UK if ANY such reference from a newspaper or other court report is produced showing that such dog evidence has ever been admitted into a UK court. Should be easy to find- if it exists!

You're sounding more and more like someone who has been here before. Eddie and Keela have over 200 successful missions to their credit. That is what matters. Since they cannot speak, their findings have to be backed up with forensic evidence, which of course is not always possible. Odours linger, even for us humans, long after their source has gone. And EVRD canines are trained to detect odour, just that. Cadaver odour can linger years after a body has been in a place and that's where those dogs come into their own.

Having said that, we do have new members, from time to time, who seem to home in on anything to do with those dogs. I'm not sure why.

I have not been 'here' before but I have read the files in some detail. I also know a little criminal law and Judges Rules do not allow canine indications to be used in evidence in British Courts.

I am willing to withdraw this assertion if anyone can produce Evidence of dog's reactions being admitted as evidence in UK courts- fair enough?

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 21:41

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

If those police standards state that something may become evidence, that is enough. There is no need then to find individual cases.

This is how myths and misunderstandings start- partial and biased interpretation. The statement above does not say that dog reactions can be used as evidence.

What it says exactly is:

"The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility."

It says that the evidence of the dogs' training and licensing may be produced in court to evidence their reliability in indicating evidence.

It does not say that a dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court. That has never happened and would not be legal.

What this says is that evidence of, say, the training and reliability of a drugs dog can be quoted in court to give credence to the subsequent discovery of drugs in a building etc.

I will accept that dog's direct indications of anything may be part of a trial in the UK if ANY such reference from a newspaper or other court report is produced showing that such dog evidence has ever been admitted into a UK court. Should be easy to find- if it exists!


The point is detections in previous cases must have been used as evidence otherwise how could anyone have ever been found guilty in the past Ė again Martin Grimes quotes specific cases. Any conviction would be dependant on whether or not the prosecution brought a strong enough case against someone and that depends on the evidence which should include the experience and reliability of the canine team.

Martin Grime is quite specific- dogs indicate evidence but do not provide it. He repeats such a mantra repeatedly in his interviews.

Dog evidence has never been accepted in any British trial process. In the USA it has been accepted in some jurisdictions but such practices have been regularly struck down by higher courts.

The dogs do not indicate 'evidence.' They alert to the odours they are trained to detect. A dog doesn't know what evidence is.

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed 18 Jan - 21:41

What is a pro or an anti?

Anyone? Any more ideas on the topic?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18459
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 21:44

AnnaEsse wrote:What is a pro or an anti?

Anyone? Any more ideas on the topic?

A Pro is someone convinced of the McCanns innocence without adequate evidence,
An Anti is someone convinced of the McCanns guilt without adequate evidence.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  flower on Wed 18 Jan - 21:48

The indisputable fact is that there is a Missing Child. I can think of only 3 reasons why this child is missing:

a) Madeleine was abducted. b) Madeleine woke and wandered. c) Madeleine met with an untimely death that was covered up. IMO if (B) had occurred she would have been found. That leaves (in my mind) (A) & (C) - I have yet to be convinced that (A) happened and so long as that is the case then (C) must also be a credible alternative and at this moment in time there is more evidence for (C) than (A) so I would welcome comments that might convince me that (A) is the stronger option........................

flower
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 678
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-02

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed 18 Jan - 21:49

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:What is a pro or an anti?

Anyone? Any more ideas on the topic?

A Pro is someone convinced of the McCanns innocence without adequate evidence,
An Anti is someone convinced of the McCanns guilt without adequate evidence.

To me, those labels always sound as though they were made up by an adolescent somewhere. It's a bit like playground games, where people choose teams, or some playground argument where kids have to be on one side or the other. For me, most people who could be called 'anti,' are just folks who are looking for justice for Madeleine McCann. They're not 'anti,' anything. They're for justice and they come with a wide range of opinions on the subject.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18459
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed 18 Jan - 21:51

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

This is how myths and misunderstandings start- partial and biased interpretation. The statement above does not say that dog reactions can be used as evidence.

What it says exactly is:

"The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility."

It says that the evidence of the dogs' training and licensing may be produced in court to evidence their reliability in indicating evidence.

It does not say that a dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court. That has never happened and would not be legal.

What this says is that evidence of, say, the training and reliability of a drugs dog can be quoted in court to give credence to the subsequent discovery of drugs in a building etc.

I will accept that dog's direct indications of anything may be part of a trial in the UK if ANY such reference from a newspaper or other court report is produced showing that such dog evidence has ever been admitted into a UK court. Should be easy to find- if it exists!


The point is detections in previous cases must have been used as evidence otherwise how could anyone have ever been found guilty in the past Ė again Martin Grimes quotes specific cases. Any conviction would be dependant on whether or not the prosecution brought a strong enough case against someone and that depends on the evidence which should include the experience and reliability of the canine team.

Martin Grime is quite specific- dogs indicate evidence but do not provide it. He repeats such a mantra repeatedly in his interviews.

Dog evidence has never been accepted in any British trial process. In the USA it has been accepted in some jurisdictions but such practices have been regularly struck down by higher courts.

The dogs do not indicate 'evidence.' They alert to the odours they are trained to detect. A dog doesn't know what evidence is.

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 21:54

flower wrote:The indisputable fact is that there is a Missing Child. I can think of only 3 reasons why this child is missing:

a) Madeleine was abducted. b) Madeleine woke and wandered. c) Madeleine met with an untimely death that was covered up. IMO if (B) had occurred she would have been found. That leaves (in my mind) (A) & (C) - I have yet to be convinced that (A) happened and so long as that is the case then (C) must also be a credible alternative and at this moment in time there is more evidence for (C) than (A) so I would welcome comments that might convince me that (A) is the stronger option........................

I agree that they are the major possibilities open to us (there are others but most too weird to consider). I can see no adequate evidence to make a decision one way or another.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Oldartform on Wed 18 Jan - 21:56

flower wrote:The indisputable fact is that there is a Missing Child. I can think of only 3 reasons why this child is missing:

a) Madeleine was abducted. b) Madeleine woke and wandered. c) Madeleine met with an untimely death that was covered up. IMO if (B) had occurred she would have been found. That leaves (in my mind) (A) & (C) - I have yet to be convinced that (A) happened and so long as that is the case then (C) must also be a credible alternative and at this moment in time there is more evidence for (C) than (A) so I would welcome comments that might convince me that (A) is the stronger option........................

So, to answer the OP, a Pro is someone who believes Maddie was abducted, and an Anti is someone who believes Maddie met with an untimely death which was covered up.

Oldartform
Forum Addict
Forum Addict

Number of posts : 625
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  flower on Wed 18 Jan - 21:57

jodel wrote:
flower wrote:The indisputable fact is that there is a Missing Child. I can think of only 3 reasons why this child is missing:

a) Madeleine was abducted. b) Madeleine woke and wandered. c) Madeleine met with an untimely death that was covered up. IMO if (B) had occurred she would have been found. That leaves (in my mind) (A) & (C) - I have yet to be convinced that (A) happened and so long as that is the case then (C) must also be a credible alternative and at this moment in time there is more evidence for (C) than (A) so I would welcome comments that might convince me that (A) is the stronger option........................

I agree that they are the major possibilities open to us (there are others but most too weird to consider). I can see no adequate evidence to make a decision one way or another.

Thank you for your answer jodel. Can I ask if you could convince me that (A) happened as opposed to (C)....

flower
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 678
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-02

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 21:59

ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:


The point is detections in previous cases must have been used as evidence otherwise how could anyone have ever been found guilty in the past Ė again Martin Grimes quotes specific cases. Any conviction would be dependant on whether or not the prosecution brought a strong enough case against someone and that depends on the evidence which should include the experience and reliability of the canine team.

Martin Grime is quite specific- dogs indicate evidence but do not provide it. He repeats such a mantra repeatedly in his interviews.

Dog evidence has never been accepted in any British trial process. In the USA it has been accepted in some jurisdictions but such practices have been regularly struck down by higher courts.

The dogs do not indicate 'evidence.' They alert to the odours they are trained to detect. A dog doesn't know what evidence is.

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 22:00

flower wrote:
jodel wrote:
flower wrote:The indisputable fact is that there is a Missing Child. I can think of only 3 reasons why this child is missing:

a) Madeleine was abducted. b) Madeleine woke and wandered. c) Madeleine met with an untimely death that was covered up. IMO if (B) had occurred she would have been found. That leaves (in my mind) (A) & (C) - I have yet to be convinced that (A) happened and so long as that is the case then (C) must also be a credible alternative and at this moment in time there is more evidence for (C) than (A) so I would welcome comments that might convince me that (A) is the stronger option........................

I agree that they are the major possibilities open to us (there are others but most too weird to consider). I can see no adequate evidence to make a decision one way or another.

Thank you for your answer jodel. Can I ask if you could convince me that (A) happened as opposed to (C)....

I cannot convince myself of that. How then could I convince you?

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  marxman on Wed 18 Jan - 22:00

jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

the case of Attracta Harron 2004 springers to mind!

Undoubtedly the dogs found the position of the cadaver. Once the police had the cadaver, the dogs could do nothing to add to the case. Had they just reacted to a cadaver odour and no body had been found, their 'evidence' could not have been admitted in court.

If only dogs could talk, but they can't! so this is your argument. These highly trained
dogs can 'indicate' cadaver existence and occurence without actually finding a cadaver
which may have been destroyed beyond trace. So, dog's work can contribute to forming
evidence that can add to a case, and be admitted in court.
Of course, other substantive evidence would also be required in addition to the
contributary and insightful evidence from the dogs.

marxman
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Male
Number of posts : 1122
Location : In the dog house
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed 18 Jan - 22:01

jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:

Martin Grime is quite specific- dogs indicate evidence but do not provide it. He repeats such a mantra repeatedly in his interviews.

Dog evidence has never been accepted in any British trial process. In the USA it has been accepted in some jurisdictions but such practices have been regularly struck down by higher courts.

The dogs do not indicate 'evidence.' They alert to the odours they are trained to detect. A dog doesn't know what evidence is.

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

Oh dear! Pity the police chose FSS, which is being closed down. Quite a few police authorities started using other labs and FSS has been shown to miss vital evidence.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18459
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed 18 Jan - 22:01

marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine teamís reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

the case of Attracta Harron 2004 springers to mind!

Undoubtedly the dogs found the position of the cadaver. Once the police had the cadaver, the dogs could do nothing to add to the case. Had they just reacted to a cadaver odour and no body had been found, their 'evidence' could not have been admitted in court.

If only dogs could talk, but they can't! so this is your argument. These highly trained
dogs can 'indicate' cadaver existence and occurence without actually finding a cadaver
which may have been destroyed beyond trace. So, dog's work can contribute to forming
evidence that can add to a case, and be admitted in court.
Of course, other substantive evidence would also be required in addition to the
contributary and insightful evidence from the dogs.

Ignoring the heavy sarcasm- Yes. The dog's reactions alone are inadmissible, anything their reactions reveal may be admissible.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed 18 Jan - 22:02

jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:

Martin Grime is quite specific- dogs indicate evidence but do not provide it. He repeats such a mantra repeatedly in his interviews.

Dog evidence has never been accepted in any British trial process. In the USA it has been accepted in some jurisdictions but such practices have been regularly struck down by higher courts.

The dogs do not indicate 'evidence.' They alert to the odours they are trained to detect. A dog doesn't know what evidence is.

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

It was not up to the FSS to bring anything to court, they proved the evidence was exclusive and as stated what appears to be a partial DNA match which can be used in court proceedings as evidence. The person who could have brought the evidence to court decided in his wisdom that he didn't have a clue what happened to Madeleine and shelved the case.

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  flower on Wed 18 Jan - 22:03

jodel wrote:
flower wrote:
jodel wrote:
flower wrote:The indisputable fact is that there is a Missing Child. I can think of only 3 reasons why this child is missing:

a) Madeleine was abducted. b) Madeleine woke and wandered. c) Madeleine met with an untimely death that was covered up. IMO if (B) had occurred she would have been found. That leaves (in my mind) (A) & (C) - I have yet to be convinced that (A) happened and so long as that is the case then (C) must also be a credible alternative and at this moment in time there is more evidence for (C) than (A) so I would welcome comments that might convince me that (A) is the stronger option........................

I agree that they are the major possibilities open to us (there are others but most too weird to consider). I can see no adequate evidence to make a decision one way or another.

Thank you for your answer jodel. Can I ask if you could convince me that (A) happened as opposed to (C)....

I cannot convince myself of that. How then could I convince you?

I appreciate that - but any discussions regarding how the 'Abduction' could have occured I think would be welcome on this forum..............

flower
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 678
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-02

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Sponsored content Today at 20:37


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum