http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... =12284.135
OK lets look at these,
We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen..
4 times in UK. Your one piece of "evidence" to support this assertion is questionable hearsay evidence from the family of a man spending life in prison, so lets leave Gilroy case to one side. Where is your evidence that in the cases of Ian Stewart, Edward Cairney , Avril Jones and Ross Willox the evidence wasn’t robustly challenged.
We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged
I will repeat there is no evidence that they weren’t robustly challenged, even the hearsay evidence doesn’t say they weren’t robustly challenged. I don't know where you got this idea from.
We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..
I have no idea if they said it or not, you seem to believe it because the parents of the convicted man said it was so, you have never seen hide nor hair of the SCCRC report.
Why do you place so much weight on the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder?
Mark Harrison is clear that at least cadaver dog alerts are inadmissible as evidence in English
Scotland has a separate legislature from England.
(more in an edit).....
Not evidential; merely intelligence
he property has been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however the house and gardens may benefit from a fully invasive specialist search to preclude the presence of Madeleine McCann.
A method previously employed on similar cases has been to use the below assets.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
It took me ages to work out the difference between 'evidence' and 'intelligence', but I think I finally got there.
is anything, in the course of a criminal enquiry, that can give rise to further lines of enquiry but cannot be used as evidence in court.
Before witnessing events, Harrison stated in the above that an alert by Eddie might prove the catalyst for further lines of enquiry, but would not, in and of itself, provide anything usable in court.
Then Harrison witnessed Grime in action and tried to make a bad smell go away.
He is retrospectively very clear that no alert by either dog is remotely evidential or suggestive of any presence of a corpse.
The late blogger Steel Magnolia alleged Grime had a mega-hissy fit when leaned on by a British official, unnamed, but certainly Harrison, if true, to write in his reports that cadaver dog alerts uncorroborated by physical forensic evidence are unusable and inadmissible in English
I believe that's true. Beyond doubt, Grime issued no such caveat in Jersey and Haut de la Garenne, where it was left to Wiltshire Police, conducting their own independent enquiry, to establish the point from the Policing Improvement Agency, for which Harrison used to work.
ETA: Scotland and England have separate legislatures, therefore it is not helpful to cite Scottish case law as a guide to what might, or might not, apply in England.