There was a link given on this board way back to all the people (besides Mr Gordon) who did, or might have, bled in apartment 5a.
The miracle is that, apparently, no one bled in any of the other apartments ....
For you ferryman and those others who ignore evidence, knowledge and logic which doesn't suit your agenda.
' Specialist dogs are demonstrably reliable.
In the Oesterhelweg et al 1998 study, it was demonstrated that the overall accuracy of the dogs they tested was 98%
Controlled studies like these are important as they are able, amongst other things, to identify false negatives and positives, something which is very difficult to do in the field. In the Zapata case, for example, the judge originally excluded the dog evidence as he decided that in tests conducted, where no alert had been signalled by the dog, no human had gone over the ground and checked there was nothing there for the dog to find. He therefore declared these ''false negatives'', which is nonsense. Hence studies which identify genuine false positives and negatives are vital.
Dogs trained to detect chemical changes in urine consistent with bladder cancer are able to do so with greater accuracy than laboratory tests, a pattern repeated with dogs trained to detect other medical problems. Dogs can alert to the presence of numerous malignant changes, possibly as a result of necrosis associated with the tumour, and can even signal to people with epilepsy that a seizure is imminent.
Humans do have these abilities - they are just nowhere near as pronounced as in dogs. Experienced nurses quickly learn to detect certain bacterial wound infections by their distinctive odour, for example.
If a dog gives an alert, it is alerting to the scent. The scent may be residual, and there may be no remains present to find, but is that a false alert? No, of course it isn't. It is alerting to something which was present and has now gone.
Because it is not possible to completely eliminate the risk of false positive alerts and unconscious signalling by handlers, an uncorroborated alert is unlikely to be considered sufficient to present in evidence, but may still add to the weight of circumstantial evidence.
The twisting and whining by McCann supporters, and by the McCanns themselves who have made some outrageous statements about Cadaver dogs in general and Mr Grime in particular, does them no favours.
The 'coconut shell' debacle is another example of this hysteria. ''Eddie found a coconut!'' they shriek.
No.
Eddie alerted to the ground. A forensic anthropologist identified a piece of what looked like it might be human skull. This is not uncommon, as if you field walk any ploughed field in the uk you are likely to find two things - medieval pottery and pieces of ancient human bone. Subsequent tests suggested it was probably a piece of seed pod or shell, but Eddie alerted to the ground, or earth adherent to the shell, not the shell itself.
The dog alerts in PdL provided what Redwood would have called ''an investigative opportunity''
It will be interesting to see if, should another suspect ever emerge, the McCann supporters will be so keen to dismiss multiple uncorroborated alerts from their property '
