Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[Brietta]

I wonder if that stuff will defeat a cadaver dog?

No idea as far as residual scent is concerned ... which definitely does dissipate after a time anyway.

[Sunny]

How does that answer the question posed by Misty?
Misty asked "Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?"

I see what Misty is saying but as I am not a expert with cadaver dogs I don't think I can say much. Grime had worked with Eddie for years, he would know what Eddie was alerting to. Was Misty referring to Eddie's nose before he went around the back of the sofa or whilst he was behind it? If it was before he went around the back it may simply be that the scent was pooling behind the sofa and was therefore stronger at the bottom of the sofa where there would be a gap between this and the floor. Therefore Eddie's nose would point to the bottom of the sofa.  I have seen the video but I haven't yet managed to see what Misty means.

[G-Unit]

That depends on how light the scent is. Do you have to use a special detergent to launder your clothes after you've visited a deceased person in the chapel of rest or morgue?
If clothes smell of smoke & they are hung next to other clothes does the smell not transfer at all?

If you have no evidence how washing and storing clothes affects any cadaver scent attached to them why ask the question? Perhaps washing and storing have no effect on the scent at all.

#380

What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?

[G-Unit]

On the part of the video available to the public I cannot see that Keela is given the opportunity to screen the sofa. Neither is there any mention Keela indicated to the stains on the back of the sofa. Much would depend on the amount of any recoverable forensics to determine if it was consistent with evidence of a crime against Madeleine but the opportunity was lost.

An opportunity was lost in your opinion. It hasn't been shown to be a fact.

[G-Unit]

I see what Misty is saying but as I am not a expert with cadaver dogs I don't think I can say much. Grime had worked with Eddie for years, he would know what Eddie was alerting to. Was Misty referring to Eddie's nose before he went around the back of the sofa or whilst he was behind it? If it was before he went around the back it may simply be that the scent was pooling behind the sofa and was therefore stronger at the bottom of the sofa where there would be a gap between this and the floor. Therefore Eddie's nose would point to the bottom of the sofa.  I have seen the video but I haven't yet managed to see what Misty means.

Grime watched and listened. He described Eddie as 'scenting'. He seems to have meant that Eddie sniffed more robustly in certain spots than in others. So it was where he sniffed that counted with Grime, not where his nose pointed when he alerted.

[Venturi Swirl]

If you have no evidence how washing and storing clothes affects any cadaver scent attached to them why ask the question? Perhaps washing and storing have no effect on the scent at all.

#380

What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?

Should questions only be asked if you already know the answers?

[Venturi Swirl]

Grime watched and listened. He described Eddie as 'scenting'. He seems to have meant that Eddie sniffed more robustly in certain spots than in others. So it was where he sniffed that counted with Grime, not where his nose pointed when he alerted.

It’s all frightfully inexact isn’t it?

[G-Unit]

Should questions only be asked if you already know the answers?

Some questions aren't really questions. They're speculations presented in the form of questions.

[Venturi Swirl]

Some questions aren't really questions. They're speculations presented in the form of questions.

I think they were good questions, and if there is no answer readily available then again it shows how under-researched and i exact the art of cadaver dog alerts to non-existent bodies really is.

[slartibartfast]

I think they were good questions, and if there is no answer readily available then again it shows how under-researched and i exact the art of cadaver dog alerts to non-existent bodies really is.

One set of armchair detectives questioning the actions of an expert to another set of armchair detectives doesn’t really increase the knowledge of the expert.

[G-Unit]

It’s all frightfully inexact isn’t it?

Perhaps it seems like it to those with no knowledge of how it works. The police forces who continue to fund the training and upkeep of these dogs seem to think it's worthwhile though. 

[Venturi Swirl]

One set of armchair detectives questioning the actions of an expert to another set of armchair detectives doesn’t really increase the knowledge of the expert.

Indeed, perhaps it is time to shut down the forum completely, after all isn’t that all this forum is about really?

[Venturi Swirl]

Perhaps it seems like it to those with no knowledge of how it works. The police forces who continue to fund the training and upkeep of these dogs seem to think it's worthwhile though.

If it’s been said once it’s been said a thousand times - the dogs are a tool, they are great for finding bodies and bits of body, but when they give us only barks at seemingly nothing, it’s impossible to know precisely what they are barking at, whose body they think they have sniffed, and precisely where this odour has contaminated.  Now, if I’m wrong in my assessment, kindly provide the cites to prove it.

[slartibartfast]

If it’s been said once it’s been said a thousand times - the dogs are a tool, they are great for finding bodies and bits of body, but when they give us only barks at seemingly nothing, it’s impossible to know precisely what they are barking at, whose body they think they have sniffed, and precisely where this odour has contaminated.  Now, if I’m wrong in my assessment, kindly provide the cites to prove it.

That is a fairly accurate summary of the dogs. The problem arises when some supporters say that the alerts are unimportant and some sceptics say it is proof of Madeleine’s death. The alerts add to the sum of all knowledge it is just not sure how yet.

[G-Unit]

I think they were good questions, and if there is no answer readily available then again it shows how under-researched and i exact the art of cadaver dog alerts to non-existent bodies really is.

A good question is 'Does washing eliminate cadaver scent from clothing'? A bad question is 'What are the odds that a cadaver dog will alert to clothing which has been washed?'

The first is an honest question asking for information. The second is designed to suggest that washing clothes does indeed get rid of cadaver scent.