I was reading a book on John Wayne Gacy and this came up with his last victim Robert Piest.
After the boy Piest disappeared Gacy was remembered as one of the last people seen talking to him.
Gacy when questioned denied ever talking to the boy. Of course the cops went looking for the missing kid and they used dogs.
The boy was last seen at a pharmacy, which Gacy was doing some reconstruction work for.
When they went to question Gacy he was near his truck and as the cops questioned Gacy the dogs immediately went to Gacy’s truck and hopped into the front seat. It was open and Gacy was being casually questioned by the cops as to when he’d last seen the boy. He was still denying it and the cops hadn’t placed him as a suspect yet but at that time wanted to know if he’d seen anything.
So I was wondering how definate is a dogs evidence. Gacy later admitted he took the boy in his truck, though he had first denied it and the dogs clearly were able to tell the boy’s sent in the truck.
But let’s say absent such other evidence as a body or witness or any DNA how reliable is a dog’s nose for evidence. I would probably think not a lot legally.