Casey Anthony trial - Page 1

The defense is stating that just because a cadaver dog indicated and hit on the trunk of her car means nothing.  They are stating that the dog can not be trusted and that it is evidence that should not be admitted. 

What do you guys think.  Is the K9 reliable to use in a murder trial?

Well, typically a defense lawyer's primary job, is to discredit evidence that corroborates or supports any evidence their client committed a crime. In a case like this, no doubt the handler would have to procure their log/training book to the court, detailing what exactly the K9 does (it's trained alert basically), when it detects human remains. I absolutely believe K9's are a reliable source in a murder trial. Of course, the training/age/experience of the K9 will come into question in the trial. A seasoned cadaver dog, trained on a wide spectrum of human remains (from fresh blood, throughout the various stages of decomp, all the way to disarticulated remains), shouldn't have an issue detecting.

I think using a dog in the field to help is one thing but I think bringing it into a court room is another.  There are times when the dog misses in training and there are times when the dog alerts to something that isnt there in training.  Basicly the dog can have a bad day.  Although it is rare it happens.  With that being said I think that it is difficult to say it didnt make the mistake on that day. 

JWalker,
You obviously don't train or work dogs or understand what is involved in testifying in court.  It would be too difficult to explain the process to you.

Jim

Sorry to point this out to you JWalker....but you contradict yourself, when you say "I think using a dog in the field to help is one thing but I think bringing it into a court room is another". When K9's are used in the "field" such as this case...it is precisely, to bring it into court. Tasking agencies typically don't do this, just because they think it's fun. They do it, because they know the diversity of a good cadaver dog's nose. If there's any doubts in anyone's mind, then a second dog + handler team is brought in.

+1 Slamdunc.

I was simply playing devils advocate.  I understand how it works.  I was just wanting to get some of your opinions.

Devil's advocate?  I don't think so.....

I think using a dog in the field to help is one thing but I think bringing it into a court room is another. There are times when the dog misses in training and there are times when the dog alerts to something that isnt there in training. Basicly the dog can have a bad day. Although it is rare it happens. With that being said I think that it is difficult to say it didnt make the mistake on that day. 


You are simply misinformed.  I think you do not understand the proper training of working dogs and detection dogs. 

I don't understand the original post.   Isn't evidence found by a K9 used all the time in trials?  In fact aren't there specific rules and  procedures in place, like accreditation of handler/dog teams and carefully kept  records of same,  because the police are dealing with evidence which almost always ends up in a trial?    Don't defense attorneys always try to discredit evidence found pretty much regardless of who finds it?  What is the point of this thread?  What am I missing here, are the circumstances in this particular case different ?

I don't think this is a hit on Police K9 training and/or their works. It's more of a science of the existance of chloroform, what produces chloroform and the type of chloroform the dogs actually found in the trunk of the car. With todays hearing I learned chloroform is produced by all decomposing things. This is what one of the defense attorneys said in an interview shortly after closing out the days hearing.

So, I think it's not what or how about the dog. It's more a what type chloroform was found in the trunk of the car. The K9's found chloroform yes, but can it be used in a trial is the debate.

JMO.

BE,
A human body decomposing is chemically /biologically different than other animals decomposing.  A trained dog can tell the difference and alert on only the human cadaver scent. and disregard animal scent.  I have not been following this trial but I do train with SAR and cadaver dogs and if the dog alerted I'd bet a body was there at some point.  The handler will need to be able to articulate the alert and his dogs actions well enough for a jury to understand and believe.

I testified at a Jury trial last Thursday on a home invasion, armed robbery case where Boomer tracked two suspects and located all of the evidence.  We recovered clothing, the firearms and items that had been dropped in water.  Boomer alerted to the submersed items and we recovered several items the suspects had thrown in the water, I never would have found them with out his alerts.  The defense attorneys really could not argue with what the dog had done.  One defendant plead guilty at the end of the trial the other was found guilty.  Both will be gone for a long time.

Jim