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.