Sniffer dog

[Blodwynflower]

Good afternoon all

Was a sniffer dog actually taken into White house farm? It has probably been discussed here before (sorry if it has).

I know it has been discussed  here that Jeremy was checked by one outside.

Thankyou.

[Blodwynflower]

Wouldn't a sniffer dog have detected the location of a silencer, especially if it had been used?

[Newbury1]

Hi Blodwynflower, although a  police dog handler and police dog attended the scene it has never been clear (to me) if the dog was actually trained for sniffing out gun shot residue. The dog may have just been trained to "bring down" escapee criminals or "intimidate" aggressive criminals.

I also don't believe the police dog ever entered whf, as EP were not looking for a silencer at the time and therefore there was no need for the dog to try and find one!

Personally I think whf was such a mess after EP had stormed it, throwing a police dog in would have added to the chaos.


 

[vidvic]

Is there actually any evidence that this dog ever got anywhere near bamber? And if it did, why did the defence not mention this at trial as bamber surely would have remembered a close encounter of the canine kind?

[ngb1066]

Is there actually any evidence that this dog ever got anywhere near bamber? And if it did, why did the defence not mention this at trial as bamber surely would have remembered a close encounter of the canine kind?

I do not remember seeing a witness statement relating to this.  Maybe Mike will be able to help.

 

[Nuala]

Is there actually any evidence that this dog ever got anywhere near bamber? And if it did, why did the defence not mention this at trial as bamber surely would have remembered a close encounter of the canine kind?

The sniffer dog's negative response was far from the only evidence that the defence failed to use. If you read Rivlin's statement here, concerning the substantial amount of evidence that was withheld from the defence, it's not hard to see why this was so. The defence were allowed such a prejudicial, cherry picked selection of the evidence that they can be forgiven for being utterly confused about what really happened at WHF.

By witholding evidence, EP not only denied Jeremy Bamber a fair trial, they also denied Jeremy an adequately informed defence.

"Another incident occurred that morning which never saw the light of day. PC Mercer (dog handler) had brought with him to the farm his Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm. The police would claim Jeremy – only a few hours earlier – had discharged twenty-five rounds and reloaded at least twice during the attack. The sniffer dog approached Jeremy and carried out his trained role without a positive result."

Innocent Man
David Shaw

[Roch]

"Another incident occurred that morning which never saw the light of day. PC Mercer (dog handler) had brought with him to the farm his Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm. The police would claim Jeremy – only a few hours earlier – had discharged twenty-five rounds and reloaded at least twice during the attack. The sniffer dog approached Jeremy and carried out his trained role without a positive result."

Innocent Man
David Shaw

Am I right in thinking that ordinarily, from the outset, Mercer would not have been asked to provide a statement regarding his role or involvement at the scene?  Is it also correct to assume that since the defence would not have known of this incident, no attempt was subsequently made to obtain a statement from Mercer?  Jeremy Bamber may or may not have recalled the incident.  If Jeremy Bamber was in shock, I would not expect him to necessarily recall the incident or its significance.  Is it known whether the dog's function was explained to him when he was checked?  If not, I cannot imagine why a quick sniff from a dog at the scene would have retained any significance in the mind of Bamber.

[Newbury1]

Am I right in thinking that ordinarily, from the outset, Mercer would not have been asked to provide a statement regarding his role or involvement at the scene?  Is it also correct to assume that since the defence would not have known of this incident, no attempt was subsequently made to obtain a statement from Mercer?  Jeremy Bamber may or may not have recalled the incident.  If Jeremy Bamber was in shock, I would not expect him to necessarily recall the incident or its significance.  Is it known whether the dog's function was explained to him when he was checked?  If not, I cannot imagine why a quick sniff from a dog at the scene would have retained any significance in the mind of Bamber.

Quote "Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm."

Is there any proof from a more official document that the dog was trained this way?

Quoting David Shaw is not a particularly reliable source of information, and could be considered by some as bias!

It may have been a non-point to JB and his defence as the dog, and the dogs actual abilities, made no difference at the time as to whether JB had fired a gun or not!

[Nuala]

Quote "Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm."

Is there any proof from a more official document that the dog was trained this way?

Quoting David Shaw is not a particularly reliable source of information, and could be considered by some as bias!

It may have been a non-point to JB and his defence as the dog, and the dogs actual abilities, made no difference at the time as to whether JB had fired a gun or not!

David Shaw is at least as reliable as Wikipedia and probably a lot more reliable than this. However, I accept your point about his book, Nick. The problem with Shaw is that we don't know what the source of his information is. yet isn't this true of all of the WHF murders authors? All we have are their claims to have interviewed various persons involved, extended family, EP officers and so on. What tends to happen in practice is that antis tend to accept the views of Colin Caffell and of those authors who extensively interviewed Jeremy's extended family, whereas pros tend to accept the views of those who claim to have extensively interviewed police officers.

[ngb1066]

David Shaw is at least as reliable as Wikipedia and probably a lot more reliable than this. However, I accept your point about his book, Nick. The problem with Shaw is that we don't know what the source of his information is. yet isn't this true of all of the WHF murders authors? All we have are their claims to have interviewed various persons involved, extended family, EP officers and so on. What tends to happen in practice is that antis tend to accept the views of Colin Caffell and of those authors who extensively interviewed Jeremy's extended family, whereas pros tend to accept the views of those who claim to have extensively interviewed police officers.

I think that is a very fair summary of the position Keira. 

[Blodwynflower]

Hi Blodwynflower, although a  police dog handler and police dog attended the scene it has never been clear (to me) if the dog was actually trained for sniffing out gun shot residue. The dog may have just been trained to "bring down" escapee criminals or "intimidate" aggressive criminals.

I also don't believe the police dog ever entered whf, as EP were not looking for a silencer at the time and therefore there was no need for the dog to try and find one!

Personally I think whf was such a mess after EP had stormed it, throwing a police dog in would have added to the chaos.

Many thanks for your reply Nick.

[Blodwynflower]

If a sniffer dog HAD indeed gone into the farm though, wouldn't it have led the police to any guns, silencer, ammunition?

[Newbury1]

If a sniffer dog HAD indeed gone into the farm though, wouldn't it have led the police to any guns, silencer, ammunition?

If the sniffer dog was specially trained to sniff out gun shot residue, explosives etc.  then I assume it would have lead the police to the silencer; however the police, it would appear, thought that when they found SC with the one gun they had it sown up!

But as we don't really know what the dog was trained in, this will, amongst all the other things, remain a mystery!

[Newbury1]

David Shaw is at least as reliable as Wikipedia and probably a lot more reliable than this. However, I accept your point about his book, Nick. The problem with Shaw is that we don't know what the source of his information is. yet isn't this true of all of the WHF murders authors? All we have are their claims to have interviewed various persons involved, extended family, EP officers and so on. What tends to happen in practice is that antis tend to accept the views of Colin Caffell and of those authors who extensively interviewed Jeremy's extended family, whereas pros tend to accept the views of those who claim to have extensively interviewed police officers.

Choc, I have only used Wiki as a point of reference to others for information, or to discuss the uncorroborated statements they have made! - and stating that David Shaw (DS) is probably a lot more reliable than Wiki is very subjective.

Wiki's narrative is very brief, whereas the "novel" produced by DS could contain far more misleading statements than Wiki.

I have also not built Wiki statements into my posts in order to support them, as you have done with David Shaw's uncorroborated account of the sniffer dog.

It's difficult enough to believe the official EP documents presented on the forum, never mind the various books. I have read Roger Wilkes and found that reasonably non bias.

[Nuala]

Choc, I have only used Wiki as a point of reference to others for information, or to discuss the uncorroborated statements they have made! - and stating that David Shaw (DS) is probably a lot more reliable than Wiki is very subjective.

Wiki's narrative is very brief, whereas the "novel" produced by DS could contain far more misleading statements than Wiki.

I have also not built Wiki statements into my posts in order to support them, as you have done with David Shaw's uncorroborated account of the sniffer dog.

It's difficult enough to believe the official EP documents presented on the forum, never mind the various books. I have read Roger Wilkes and found that reasonably non bias.

Nick,

Your comment,


"Thanks for your reply Grahame. I was just interested as some of the comments (While in NZ......) clearly refer again to the darker side of JB!"


contradicts your claims above. This comment represents use of uncorroborated, unverified and unattributed claims that could have been posted to Wikipedia by anyone, including those desperate to keep Jeremy in prison, to craftily blacken Jeremy's reputation here.

This comment is implicitly subjective and biased.