How many episodes of dog alerts were suggestive of cadaver odor?

[Redblossom]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

The slight difficulty, here, is that Keela was used as the indicator of precision; Eddie as the broadbrush indicator.

That is to say that Eddie did not inspect specific spots in any of the areas where he was deployed; Keela did.

So the source of any Eddie's reactions might have been completely different from those of Keela's ...

No, Keela was sent into the whole area that Eddie alerted  to pinpoint the place

She pinpointed the area behind the sofa but didnt pinpoint the place in the parents bedroom

[debunker]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

The slight difficulty, here, is that Keela was used as the indicator of precision; Eddie as the broadbrush indicator.

That is to say that Eddie did not inspect specific spots in any of the areas where he was deployed; Keela did.

So the source of any Eddie's reactions might have been completely different from those of Keela's ...

That is a misinterpretation of how they work when looking for cadaver odor.

[debunker]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

Stop misquoting me.

You are not reading the words I am using.



So we start from the possibility that blood OR cadaver is present.

Why ? 

What is the scientific rule that dictates when both dogs alert it must be one and the same element they are alerting to ?

Why will you not accept that when the cadaver dog and the blood dog both alerted behind that sofa,  it is entirely  possible that they did so because both blood and cadaver odour  was present ?

Read my actual words rather than the ones you want to see. You are making the same error as the one where you had eventually to apologise.

It is entirely possible that one may be reacting to blood and the other to cadaver, but we have mo means of knowing that to be the case.

[icabodcrane]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

Stop misquoting me.

You are not reading the words I am using.



So we start from the possibility that blood OR cadaver is present.

Why ? 

What is the scientific rule that dictates when both dogs alert it must be one and the same element they are alerting to ?

Why will you not accept that when the cadaver dog and the blood dog both alerted behind that sofa,  it is entirely  possible that they did so because both blood and cadaver odour  was present ?

It is entirely possible that one may be reacting to blood and the other to cadaver, but we have mo means of knowing that to be the case.

We are agreed then 

Every time the cadaver dog alerted in the McCann case it is possible that he was alerting to the scent of a dead body ...  every single time

[ferryman]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

The slight difficulty, here, is that Keela was used as the indicator of precision; Eddie as the broadbrush indicator.

That is to say that Eddie did not inspect specific spots in any of the areas where he was deployed; Keela did.

So the source of any Eddie's reactions might have been completely different from those of Keela's ...

That is a misinterpretation of how they work when looking for cadaver odor.

Misinterpretation how?

[debunker]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

Stop misquoting me.

You are not reading the words I am using.



So we start from the possibility that blood OR cadaver is present.

Why ? 

What is the scientific rule that dictates when both dogs alert it must be one and the same element they are alerting to ?

Why will you not accept that when the cadaver dog and the blood dog both alerted behind that sofa,  it is entirely  possible that they did so because both blood and cadaver odour  was present ?

It is entirely possible that one may be reacting to blood and the other to cadaver, but we have mo means of knowing that to be the case.

We are agreed then 

Every time the cadaver dog alerted in the McCann case it is possible that he was alerting to the scent of a dead body ...  every single time

And the corollary is that everywhere he was not deployed he was possibly missing cadaver scent.

Although he 'might' be reacting to cadaver, his reaction does not indicate this and does not add to our knowledge. Until blood is excluded we have no additional knowledge about the presence of cadaver odor.

[icabodcrane]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

Stop misquoting me.

You are not reading the words I am using.



So we start from the possibility that blood OR cadaver is present.

Why ? 

What is the scientific rule that dictates when both dogs alert it must be one and the same element they are alerting to ?

Why will you not accept that when the cadaver dog and the blood dog both alerted behind that sofa,  it is entirely  possible that they did so because both blood and cadaver odour  was present ?

It is entirely possible that one may be reacting to blood and the other to cadaver, but we have mo means of knowing that to be the case.

We are agreed then 

Every time the cadaver dog alerted in the McCann case it is possible that he was alerting to the scent of a dead body ...  every single time

And the corollary is that everywhere he was not deployed he was possibly missing cadaver scent.

Although he 'might' be reacting to cadaver, his reaction does not indicate this and does not add to our knowledge. Until blood is excluded we have no additional knowledge about the presence of cadaver odor.

What I was interested in establishing ...  as fact ...  is that the alerts by  both dogs  behind the sofa could be an indication that the missing child bled and died there

[debunker]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

Stop misquoting me.

You are not reading the words I am using.



So we start from the possibility that blood OR cadaver is present.

Why ? 

What is the scientific rule that dictates when both dogs alert it must be one and the same element they are alerting to ?

Why will you not accept that when the cadaver dog and the blood dog both alerted behind that sofa,  it is entirely  possible that they did so because both blood and cadaver odour  was present ?

It is entirely possible that one may be reacting to blood and the other to cadaver, but we have mo means of knowing that to be the case.

We are agreed then 

Every time the cadaver dog alerted in the McCann case it is possible that he was alerting to the scent of a dead body ...  every single time

And the corollary is that everywhere he was not deployed he was possibly missing cadaver scent.

Although he 'might' be reacting to cadaver, his reaction does not indicate this and does not add to our knowledge. Until blood is excluded we have no additional knowledge about the presence of cadaver odor.

What I was interested in establishing ...  as fact ...  is that the alerts by  both dogs  behind the sofa could be an indication that the missing child bled and died there

It would not have been necessary for Madeleine to have bled.

And if both dogs alert then all we know is th ere is a 90% chance of blood; it tells us nothing about cadaver odor.

[AnneGuedes]

Eddie's first finding was in the bedroom corner. Then he was interested in going behind the sofa and found something there. Blood ? Not sure he was alerting to it, even if Keela found some tiny bits.
Anyhow this blood wasn't Madeleine's. Conclusion : in any case Madeleine didn't bleed behind the sofa. But it's possible her body was deposited there for a short while.
The alerts in the flat are, everybody will admit it, impressive, though "it's not evidential merely intelligence" as MH would say.
Unless one believes or wants to believe that M. Grime for some obscure reason tricked the flat alerts, it seems likely there was a scent of death in that flat.

[muratfan]

If both dogs alerted then it is a high probability it was blood.

However as Eddie alerts to LIVE HUMAN scent from their blood and other fluid matter, you cannot say it was a death scent, not without proof or evidence to back it up

[icabodcrane]

If both dogs alerted then it is a high probability it was blood.

However as Eddie alerts to LIVE HUMAN scent from their blood and other fluid matter, you cannot say it was a death scent, not without proof or evidence to back it up

'Probability'  is not what is measured

What is measured is suggestiveness  ...  both dogs alerting is  'suggestive'  of blood almost certainly  being present

Whether cadaver odour is also present is always a possibility

[muratfan]

If both dogs alerted then it is a high probability it was blood.

However as Eddie alerts to LIVE HUMAN scent from their blood and other fluid matter, you cannot say it was a death scent, not without proof or evidence to back it up

'Probability'  is not what is measured

What is measured is suggestiveness  ...  both dogs alerting is  'suggestive'  of blood almost certainly  being present

Whether cadaver odour is also present is always a possibility

Blood or scent....still need the evidence to back it up

[debunker]

Eddie's first finding was in the bedroom corner. Then he was interested in going behind the sofa and found something there. Blood ? Not sure he was alerting to it, even if Keela found some tiny bits.
Anyhow this blood wasn't Madeleine's. Conclusion : in any case Madeleine didn't bleed behind the sofa. But it's possible her body was deposited there for a short while.
The alerts in the flat are, everybody will admit it, impressive, though "it's not evidential merely intelligence" as MH would say.
Unless one believes or wants to believe that M. Grime for some obscure reason tricked the flat alerts, it seems likely there was a scent of death in that flat.

The alerts in the flat are not really impressive. Some indications of blood and one 80% reliable indication of possible cadaver odor.

[icabodcrane]

Eddie's first finding was in the bedroom corner. Then he was interested in going behind the sofa and found something there. Blood ? Not sure he was alerting to it, even if Keela found some tiny bits.
Anyhow this blood wasn't Madeleine's. Conclusion : in any case Madeleine didn't bleed behind the sofa. But it's possible her body was deposited there for a short while.
The alerts in the flat are, everybody will admit it, impressive, though "it's not evidential merely intelligence" as MH would say.
Unless one believes or wants to believe that M. Grime for some obscure reason tricked the flat alerts, it seems likely there was a scent of death in that flat.

The alerts in the flat are not really impressive. Some indications of blood and one 80% reliable indication of possible cadaver odor.

Just  ONE alert to a dead body,  with an  80% accuracy rating,  in a flat where a missing child was last seen is more  than  'impressive'  ....  it is devasting  in it's implication

[registrar]

Eddie's first finding was in the bedroom corner. Then he was interested in going behind the sofa and found something there. Blood ? Not sure he was alerting to it, even if Keela found some tiny bits.
Anyhow this blood wasn't Madeleine's. Conclusion : in any case Madeleine didn't bleed behind the sofa. But it's possible her body was deposited there for a short while.
The alerts in the flat are, everybody will admit it, impressive, though "it's not evidential merely intelligence" as MH would say.
Unless one believes or wants to believe that M. Grime for some obscure reason tricked the flat alerts, it seems likely there was a scent of death in that flat.

The alerts in the flat are not really impressive. Some indications of blood and one 80% reliable indication of possible cadaver odor.

Just  ONE alert to a dead body,  with an  80% accuracy rating,  in a flat where a missing child was last seen is more  than  'impressive'  ....  it is devasting  in it's implication

Devastating is a 100% failure rate of Grime in Jersey

unless you like Bounty Bars