Casey Anthony trial - Page 5

Good point Slamdunc,

I think that your are absolutly correct. 

* " I love the armchair forensic and legal experts. " *

-- Jim, are you saying people shouldn't be discussing this on an open forum unless an expert ? If so, maybe you should mention this to a Mod.

You really are beside yourself sometimes.

BE,

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you.  I thought it was clear where my comments were directed.  I suppose that comment should have been clearer and singular.  I found your posts interesting.

Jim

It's nice that individuals can talk about subjects, like this one. And express "layman terms" along with opinions. Some individuals have the "knowledge. experience and training" (KET) in these fields or like. I have no knowledge of this case, when the crime took place, the charges etc., etc. Seen enough crime, death etc. that this stuff unfortunately is every day.

On that note individuals, LEO, dog handlers, lawyers, courts and so on..... This is their job, what they do for a living and what they do daily! We need to understand that a crime here (?state) might be under different criteria then over there (?state) For the attorney (past) and a couple others: I'm not telling you something you don't already know. This will take a while but I'll try and break it down. Can't answer all. But JWALKER, "evidence" falls under what is called "Rules of Evidence & Procedures" and everything is outlined there. If by chance I use the wrong phrase or word(s) you can correct me (you know who you are). For a forum or topic like this it's nice that one is allowed thoughts and opinions...... In a court room it's not that way. Without knowing the questioning: The Defense Attorney's only purpose is to keep his/her client from being found "GUILTY" and whatever way possible (as long as legal, ethical and falls into their guidelines) If he/she is making someone on the prosecution team look stupid then that team better find a better way to do their job. For crimes, depending on the crime THINGS NEED TO BE PRESENT! No exceptions. Hair follicles by the shaft can determine a timetable. Pull a strand of hair out of your head. Now take a look at the shaft. the part that came from your head. Now look at the white/clear substance (can't remember proper name?) now grab your wife's/girlfriends' hair brush and pull a strand of "old" hair. That substance isn't there. BUT enough information can be retrieved from that hair sample. Hence an animal hair will be different from a humans, a child's from an adult and so on.

For the dog handlers (detection) out there, we already know about the STEW THEORY" and how the dog breaks down smells into even smaller categories of scent. For the one handler, your comments reiterate one of my first posts. For any attorney/court/Judge to question a K9's capability or "history" is almost a futile attempt. Not saying it won'tbe tried. But people-once you understand, once you see (in court) that the K9 team has "established credibility" not many will "challenge findings" What the "everyday person" is not seeing or possibly forgetting is this: If I pull over a violator for speeding, subject comes back suspended (driving privileges), now searching his vehicle I find a loaded pistol. Now he's under arrest. I've done my job. I have dotted my "I's" and crossed my "T's". Now two months later we're in court and defendant gets off on either a technicality or his family is friends with the Judges' family. THAT IS OUT OF MY HANDS,OUT OF MY CONTROL! Now I did my job and put the bad guy in jail. If the judge or whoever changes the outcome I have no control. AND LIFE GOES ON.

It's been a while since I practiced criminal law,but I can't think of a single time that the K9 was not credited. The breathalyzer and the speed gun,yes. But, never the K9! :-)

Excellent point made, about the fact that the prosecution knows more than they are divulging. They no doubt have some aces up their sleeve, which are not being put out there for public consumption. As well, the point above, about K9's being credited. I don't know much about US law, but up here in Canada...*sadly*, cadaver dogs aren't much "quoted" per se.

Basically, the ingredient is a consistent dog with an air-tight alert. There will be the skeptics. But, I will say this...the Sandy Marie Anderson's of the world don't help the cadaver dog's cause. This hurts efforts of those real dog teams, that mean well, have no nefarious intent, and do things by the book. There will always be posers, who show up at a search, completely un-prepared, ill-equipped, and play  "pretend".

 

Good points made here in this thread.

The handler that handled the cadaver dog does not have a up to date training log.  His log has not been updated since 2006.  He said that he did training in 2008 but did not log it. 

The judge is going to end up striking the dog from being used as evidence. 

 

 

 Walker:"

"The handler that handled the cadaver dog does not have a up to date training log.  His log has not been updated since 2006.  He said that he did training in 2008 but did not log it. 

The judge is going to end up striking the dog from being used as evidence." 

Shades of the OJ trial.

 

 

I think the prosecution has plenty of evidence against Ms Anthony without the cadaver dog's "testimony".  She's sunk.

 

m

NOT GUILTY