What is a pro or an anti?

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 team’s 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.

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 team’s 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 team’s 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!

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 team’s 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!

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 team’s 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 team’s 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!

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 team’s 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.

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 team’s 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 – 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.

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 team’s 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 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 team’s 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 – 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.

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 team’s 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.

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 team’s 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 – 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.

AnnaEsse wrote:What is a pro or an anti?

Anyone? Any more ideas on the topic?

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.

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 team’s 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 – 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.

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........................

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........................

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.

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 – 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.

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)....

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 team’s 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 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.

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 team’s 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.

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.

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?