I repeat, you are not a cadaver or any other police dog handler, or Eddies handler, it really is that simple, and it matters not that you have had a dog and it did what you said, or that Eleanor had one who pissed as she said on her carpet, we all know what your games are by now...discredit either the dog or the handler, introduce pathetically spurious reasons for the alerts, whichever is easiest at any given time, admit it, you don't like the fact that a cadaver dog alerted at the last place a missing child was seen, that's the nub....it may be, in a month of Sunday's probably though, that the alerts meant nothing at all, but your approach sure doesn't do much to convince, it actually has the opposite effect, unfortunately for you
May I recommend Mr Grime's comments to you ...
**Snip
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm... ... and we do KNOW (or at least those of us who have been reading the posts on this thread with a modicum of understanding) that rather spectacular alert was to cellular material on the key fob of the Renault deposited by a living breathing human being.
Therefore ... corroboration that Eddie did not alert to cadaver scent in the Renault.
What he may have alerted to in apartment 5A is anyone's guess but as his false alert in the Renault attests ... it could have been anything at all which emits the VOCs he was trained to recognise.
I find it amazing that there are so many people around absolutely determined that a little girl died in the apartment that night without a shred of evidence to support their aspirations.