THAT goes without saying
Stop being facetious
This is a case of REMNANT body scent
I wasn't being facetious, merely pointing out the error in your statement.
Without concrete evidence such as body parts or a cadaver there is no way of knowing for sure what the dog was alerting to. We know that cadaver dogs have given multiple false alerts before and so it is possible that the dog falsely alerted in this case. There is no reason to suppose that Eddie was in some way superior to all other dogs that have ever existed before - the say-so of his owner and chief beneficiary is not sufficient proof of his superiority. The dog may have been alerting to a cadaver, but then again maybe not. Who knows? This can be argued about for the next 100 years but doing so will achieve nothing of any merit whatsoever.
Now, these are factual statements and you can huff and puff until you're blue in the face, nothing will alter the veracity of what I have just written. Ta ta.