Hello to everyone.
In theory - I think any alert by Eddie alone could be suggestive of cadaver odour.
However, without evidence being found which can be forensically tested then .....
No-one can say whether the alert was to a recent or ancient deposit - so it cannot be 'dated'.
No-one can say whether the alert was from odour emanating from above or below the ground - or even if it had drifted there from another source.
No-one can say whether it was an odour left by direct contact with a cadaver or an odour innocently transferred to that same place from elsewhere by any number of people or objects.
No-one can say whether the original source was decomposed pigmeat or human remains as the dogs cannot differentiate between the two.
No-one can say for sure that the dog had alerted in error or whether it was a genuine alert.
No-one can say for sure that the dog had alerted as a result of unconscious cueing - or not.
I have always presumed that it is because of these numerous variables that physical evidence capable of being forensically tested is absolutely essential - in order for the 'alerts' to be regarded as evidence. If nothing is found to corroberrate the alerts - then any of the above 'possibilities' could be the reason for an alert.
Hmmmm!
In Praia da Luz, we know that both dogs erred.
We know that Eddie either failed to alert to a scent on cuddle-cat, or 'alerted' when there was nothing to alert to
We know that Keela alerted to the boot of the Renault but Eddie didn't. Since material was recovered from the boot, that is most likely to be Eddie's error.
We know that Keela alerted to curtain, sent to the FSS, where no trace of blood could be found.
We know that Eddie alerted in an apartment where a man who cut himself shaving paced the apartment for 45 minutes trying to stem the flow of blood.
Why should we infer anything incriminating, or even indicative, from any of these alerts?
