Submitted by OutsideObserver2 t3_1241qxq in news
QuintoBlanco t1_je4unl4 wrote
Reply to comment by pipocaQuemada in N.Y. to pay $5.5 million to man exonerated in writer Alice Sebold rape case by OutsideObserver2
The real problem is that there is no objective way to determine whether or not a dog has smelled a particular thing, has missed a smell, or has recognized a smell, outside of a controlled experiment.
This means that the problem cannot be fixed because there is no way to verify if the handler has done a good job outside of controlled experiments, which means that the handlers can just make stuff up.
In the Netherlands hundreds of dog tests have been falsified because the police wanted a result, not because the handlers made mistakes.
The investigating officers would tell the officers who handled the dogs which result they wanted.
Of course outside of law enforcement, this is far less of an issue.
89141 t1_je5oki3 wrote
Did you make all that up just now?
QuintoBlanco t1_je6t0v7 wrote
No. Unfortunately I made nothing of that up.
Why do you think I made that up?
I genuinely am very interested to know why you think I would make something like that up, this is not a rhetorical question.
Here is a link and a a translation of part of the article:
"From an old research report, it now appears that the smell test has been manipulated for decades in order to get the suspect convicted. At the time, the Public Prosecution Service did not see this, or did not want to see it. Nevertheless, a scent dog had identified a suspect as the perpetrator several times, although it was later proven that he could not have committed the crime."
"The police officers who admitted in 2006 to the court in Leeuwarden that they never conducted a blind scent test consistently wrote in all official reports that they had done so."
"We already knew long before 1997 that police dog handler Kobus S. could guarantee a positive result," says former detective Jan Paalman. "Kobus could turn a weak case into a strong one."
89141 t1_je6w9z0 wrote
That’s their opinion. There’s more that disagree.
QuintoBlanco t1_je6ytmn wrote
No, that is not 'their' opinion.
Four police officers were convicted in a court of law and six others were fired.
Dutch prosecutors no longer use odor tests by dogs as evidence because of this case.
Several convictions based on odor tests were overturned.
So I have to ask you again, why is this so hard for you to believe?
Do you watch a lot of procedural dramas?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments