Monday, July 18, 2011

Dissing dogs

In my last thread, I was lectured once again, about how there was 'no evidence' against America's Sweetheart, Casey Anthony. I am really tired of hearing this uninformed, ignorant bullshit, so let's address the subject head-on.

Why don't people believe the dogs in this case? More to the point, why do they believe them 99% of the time, but in this case say the dogs' alerting makes no difference? As of course you all know (and if you don't, have no business commenting on the case), two different trained cadaver dogs alerted to Caylee's decomposed remains, in the same two spots, including Casey Anthony's car trunk, where the disgusting stench was coming from. (The stench, too, was testified to by 10 different witnesses, including the tow-yard operator, who presumably had no ax to grind.)

Why is this not "evidence"? I would convict on manslaughter based on this fact alone. Whose car is it? Who is Caylee's mama? Bam.

And in the last thread, I asked one commenter:

Are you willing to suspend all drug-convictions based on canine evidence? We are talking thousands and thousands of cases... you are saying ALL of these cases are compromised and/or false convictions, since you say these two separate dogs couldn't properly alert on Caylee's decomposed remains? Does this mean you believe ALL canine-related evidence is wrong or flawed? How many cases would you throw out, based on this opinion? You do know that some defendants, particularly in drug cases, have ONLY had canine evidence against them? I take it you think this is wrong, always? Or just sometimes? What is the criteria you use for canine evidence?
I am interested in what other people think.

If you think the dogs are 'lying' and alerting where they should not, why would you trust them to do anything else? How many of these convictions do you believe are compromised? How many of these cases should be thrown out entirely and the convictions overturned? Or is it just Caylee's remains that the dogs are wrong about? And why would they do that? These dogs had never made errors before, as their records made clear.

Would you suspend the usage of dogs in law enforcement totally, since you think they are 'lying'? Or did the dogs just have something against America's Sweetheart?

NOTE: As in the last thread, Casey-humpers will be dealt with most severely, be advised.

8 comments:

Starla said...

*applause*

Sevesteen said...

There have been quite a few cases where drug dogs apparently alerted, the alert used as probable cause to search but no evidence of drugs was found. This doesn't necessarily mean that the handler is doing anything shady--the handler believes drugs to be in an area and wants to search, so the dog 'alerts' to please his handler, and the handler honestly believes this to be a true alert.

I think dogs can be very useful in law enforcement, but I am somewhat skeptical on their use even as probable cause let alone as direct evidence. I would expect to see corroboration by other means, whether the alert was for drugs, explosives or cadaver. (Maybe there was, I didn't follow the trial). I don't know how 'never made an error before' was determined--there's self-interest in a perfect record, and there really isn't anyone with the resources to challenge this claim. I doubt I would convict based on 'the dog alerted' without a human actually finding some drugs.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Sevesteen, but they have... would you throw out these convictions?

The dogs' record was that every time they had alerted in the past, bodies were found. This was the first time there was no body on the premises. One of the dog-handlers knew of the case, but the second was from a neighboring county and did not.

The blow-flies in the trunk (only live on dead tissue) would be corroboration enough for me. In fact, the scent of a dead body in the trunk might be enough for me, coupled with the length of time the child was missing, last person to see the child (Casey has never truthfully reported where she last *saw* the child, she has only repeated the nonexistent nanny info/lies)...etc. I would convict with all of these factors, and can't understand why anyone would come to any other conclusion.

Unless as I said, class, race, age, attractiveness, youth, are the other factors being taken into account...

Starla said...

The "senior" cadaver dog brought in on this case, Gerus, has NEVER had a false alert in his career as a k9 officer. It's protocol to call in a 2nd cadaver dog if the first one alerts, and the 2nd hit in the same spots (within about 6 feet of each other in the back yard) and in the trunk of Casey's car, also where the nasty blow flies were found that only eat rotting flesh. Everyone else smelled it too!- I don't see why people are so quick to discredit these dogs. I suppose bomb sniffing dogs, rescue dogs, drug dogs, and hell even seeing eye dogs are all liars too.

JoJo said...

What an interesting point you make and I do believe that the dogs' behavior and/or alerting should definitely be taken into consideration. For crying out loud that's what they are trained to do!

Sevesteen said...

I don't mean to sound like I'm defending Casey--I think this case is an illustration of the difference between innocent and not guilty. There must have been some pretty serious problems with the case though, since the jury came back so quickly with a unanimous verdict. I would rather Casey go free than have trials decided by the media, or based on improper evidence.

And what is the world coming to--I'm a gun toting NRA member arguing law and order with a hippie Deadhead...and it is the Deadhead on the law and order side?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Yeah, I've noticed this throughout the net, arguing about this. Strange bedfellows.

I think something primal and terrifying happens in our culture when we cannot protect children, when we WILL NOT protect children. It sends a certain electric shock through the body politic: Who's next? Is no one safe? For those of us who were neglected as children, it is an especially strong shock.

(Note: Politically speaking, its no accident this trial went on at the same time we are attempting to deny benefits to the most vulnerable in our society; it ratcheted everything up a notch. And when you cut benefits, children invariably suffer.)

This is what you are seeing in the fury over the verdict: primal emotion directed at one who has violated this rule of our common culture... and further, didn't even have to answer any questions about WHERE the child was... she is convicted of lying (well, duh) and the fact of the lie, that the child was taken by someone else and is now dead (whoops), could have been something said about US as children. There but for the grace of God.

And no one expects any answers now; no one holds her accountable at all. She doesn't even have to say where she last SAW her own child. That is just plain scary, that we now tolerate this behavior and call it "not guilty"--when it is plainly child abuse/neglect... this jury could have convicted on that, a simple child abuse charge, and did not even have the guts or courage to do something so simple. Only people with no morality can say a missing (and later dead) child, whose whereabouts right before death, her mother will not divulge, means "not guilty"... has everyone gone insane? NOT GUILTY?

But see, in fact, we don't tolerate it in EVERYONE (as I wrote) and that is another reason for the outrage.

I guess we will never know now, will we? And the jury decided she doesn't have to tell us. People who stupidly celebrate this verdict as a triumph of the jury system are waaaaaay out of touch with the people and the various primal terrors that the verdict has tapped into. (And in their personal lives, they probably wonder why nobody ever trusts them.)

sheila said...

Yep, we have not yet realized that our four legged friends can sniff out anything. For God's sake they can even detect cancer!

p.s. loved our last line "NOTE", LOL