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

[muratfan]

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

And now, no doubt you will provide us with the evidence which backs up the dogs barking/alert that ythe scent was from Madeleine McCann,

[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.

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

It was not an alert to a dead body. That is stretching the evidence further than Mr Grime would allow. It is an alert which is dependent on further evidence which has not been produced.

It is only likely to be right eight times in ten- two of every ten reactions will be to false scent or some other error.

Would you eat food that had a 20% chance of being laced with poison?

[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

It was not an alert to a dead body. That is stretching the evidence further than Mr Grime would allow. It is an alert which is dependent on further evidence which has not been produced.

It is only likely to be right eight times in ten- two of every ten reactions will be to false scent or some other error.

Would you eat food that had a 20% chance of being laced with poison?

There you go with your statistics again

"The basic rule of statistics is that statistical prediction does not apply to individual cases - there are always exceptions and outliers"

You'll agree with that I know

You must  ...  it's your quote

[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.

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

It was not an alert to a dead body. That is stretching the evidence further than Mr Grime would allow. It is an alert which is dependent on further evidence which has not been produced.

It is only likely to be right eight times in ten- two of every ten reactions will be to false scent or some other error.

Would you eat food that had a 20% chance of being laced with poison?

There you go with your statistics again

"The basic rule of statistics is that statistical prediction does not apply to individual cases - there are always exceptions and outliers"

You'll agree with that I know

You must  ...  it's your quote

Agreed. But the confidence in any single result is only 80% for cadaver and 90% for blood.

Statistics cannot give a definite answer, but they can tell you what confidence to place in the result.

You really should not play with stats if you do not understand them.

[AnneGuedes]

In fairy tales ugly toads are changed in charming princes when innocent girls have mercy upon them. But fairy tales are for kids. So when we grow up what are we left with?  Urban legends and other collective beliefs. As dogs are the man's best friend, they're not easy to disqualify. So better attack the handler. First let's suggest he's disreputable, then that what he says has no legitimacy. And that's it !

[debunker]

In fairy tales ugly toads are changed in charming princes when innocent girls have mercy upon them. But fairy tales are for kids. So when we grow up what are we left with?  Urban legends and other collective beliefs. As dogs are the man's best friend, they're not easy to disqualify. So better attack the handler. First let's suggest he's disreputable, then that what he says has no legitimacy. And that's it !

No where have I said that Mr Grime is disreputable. All I have done is produce evidence that his dogs are possibly not as good as he claims they are.

[AnneGuedes]

In fairy tales ugly toads are changed in charming princes when innocent girls have mercy upon them. But fairy tales are for kids. So when we grow up what are we left with?  Urban legends and other collective beliefs. As dogs are the man's best friend, they're not easy to disqualify. So better attack the handler. First let's suggest he's disreputable, then that what he says has no legitimacy. And that's it !

Evidence ?
No where have I said that Mr Grime is disreputable. All I have done is produce evidence that his dogs are possibly not as good as he claims they are.

[debunker]

In fairy tales ugly toads are changed in charming princes when innocent girls have mercy upon them. But fairy tales are for kids. So when we grow up what are we left with?  Urban legends and other collective beliefs. As dogs are the man's best friend, they're not easy to disqualify. So better attack the handler. First let's suggest he's disreputable, then that what he says has no legitimacy. And that's it !

Evidence ?
No where have I said that Mr Grime is disreputable. All I have done is produce evidence that his dogs are possibly not as good as he claims they are.

It is up to you to produce the evidence to back up your accusation.

Otherwise we shall just laugh at your inability to debate properly.

[AnneGuedes]

In fairy tales ugly toads are changed in charming princes when innocent girls have mercy upon them. But fairy tales are for kids. So when we grow up what are we left with?  Urban legends and other collective beliefs. As dogs are the man's best friend, they're not easy to disqualify. So better attack the handler. First let's suggest he's disreputable, then that what he says has no legitimacy. And that's it !

Evidence ?
No where have I said that Mr Grime is disreputable. All I have done is produce evidence that his dogs are possibly not as good as he claims they are.

It is up to you to produce the evidence to back up your accusation.

Otherwise we shall just laugh at your inability to debate properly.

Nurse Debunker, argumentio ad hominem  again ! Aren't you tired of this ?

[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

It was not an alert to a dead body. That is stretching the evidence further than Mr Grime would allow. It is an alert which is dependent on further evidence which has not been produced.

It is only likely to be right eight times in ten- two of every ten reactions will be to false scent or some other error.

Would you eat food that had a 20% chance of being laced with poison?

There you go with your statistics again

"The basic rule of statistics is that statistical prediction does not apply to individual cases - there are always exceptions and outliers"

You'll agree with that I know

You must  ...  it's your quote

Agreed. But the confidence in any single result is only 80% for cadaver and 90% for blood.

Statistics cannot give a definite answer, but they can tell you what confidence to place in the result.

You really should not play with stats if you do not understand them.

And you really should not dismiss statistics when they do not support your arguement ,  and present them as relevent when they do

"Statistics is the collection of many facts ( each statistic is a single fact ) and then drawing general conclusions from that collection of facts. Statistical prediction is broad brush and ignores specifics"

... another of your quotes

[Redblossom]

I USED to think debunker was just that, a debunker, annoying but honest, but he is obviously a man witha mission and amccann agenda

[icabodcrane]

I USED to think debunker was just that, a debunker, annoying but honest, but he is obviously a man witha mission and amccann agenda

I wouldn't say so

The agenda is entirely self absorbed  and narcissistic ,  as I see it

That poor  little girl,  who's smiling face haunts most of us ,    matters not a jot  to this character

[debunker]

In fairy tales ugly toads are changed in charming princes when innocent girls have mercy upon them. But fairy tales are for kids. So when we grow up what are we left with?  Urban legends and other collective beliefs. As dogs are the man's best friend, they're not easy to disqualify. So better attack the handler. First let's suggest he's disreputable, then that what he says has no legitimacy. And that's it !

Evidence ?
No where have I said that Mr Grime is disreputable. All I have done is produce evidence that his dogs are possibly not as good as he claims they are.

It is up to you to produce the evidence to back up your accusation.

Otherwise we shall just laugh at your inability to debate properly.

Nurse Debunker, argumentio ad hominem  again ! Aren't you tired of this ?

Not ad hominem at all - you do not understand the concept.

Pointing out that it is up to the asserter to produce evidence or not be taken seriously is clearly a rational argument.

If you insist that something is so, you must produce the evidence or be ssen to be a fool or a liar.

[debunker]

I USED to think debunker was just that, a debunker, annoying but honest, but he is obviously a man witha mission and amccann agenda

WHich shows how limited your ability to understand information is.

The Pros on here will (as they have done several times already) support my contention that I have never argued for the McCanns as individuals, only that their rights be respected. I am currently arguing against the inclusion of it being a myth that there is evidence against the McCanns. It is a Pro myth (ind=credibly now accepted by John) that there is no evidence against the McCanns. It is a FACT that there is evidence against them according to the legal definition of evidence. There is just inadequate evidence to bring a case. They at least had opportunity and means to harm Madeleine and there are supporting nuggets of information (evidence) available in the world.

It is a myth to say that there is No Evidence against the McCanns- the board has got this myth upside down.

I also argue strongly that the McCanns have not 'been cleared', much to the consternation of Pros- and these two arguments got me banned from a Pro board.

But don't let facts get in your way- they don't seem to have done so with the rest of your reasoning.

[Angelo222]

Can we keep to topic peeps.

There is a thread where you can discuss alleged evidence against the Tapas 9 and if you want to discuss debunkers agenda start a new thread.