The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.

[AnneGuedes]

I love Icabodcrane's posts. He's the most subtle poster of all.

[Mr Gray]

I love Icabodcrane's posts. He's the most subtle poster of all.

it comes as no surprise that posters love the posts that support their own views...this type of support really counts for nothing

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thanks for defending my post Anne  (  much appreciated  )

The  'cute'  flim flam'  expression was related to davel's use of that well worn propaganda technique, Antirationalism 

 ... promoting the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts, or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions

It is a dodge  to avoid the truth that,  yes ...  we  can   know some things for sure

My apologies icabod for riding roughshod over the subtleties. I do very much appreciate this important point.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I love Icabodcrane's posts. He's the most subtle poster of all.

In a class of his own.

[Cariad]

it comes as no surprise that posters love the posts that support their own views...this type of support really counts for nothing

I disagree with this. I often appreciate Sherlock's posts, although I disagree with her point of view. I find she's usually polite and articulate in a way that isn't rude or doesn't attack another poster's opinion. We don't have to all agree to be able to communicate with each other in a manner befitting of intelligent adults.

In fact this forum would be a boring place without different opinions! I don't want or need someone patting me on the back telling me how right I am, I appreciate people pointing out where my thinking isn't making sense. Sometimes I'll adjust my opinions, sometimes I won't.

I've seen sites where everyone has the same thoughts and they're a waste of time imo. There's no debate, just a bunch of like minded people complaining about the other side and congratulating themselves on being clever enough to see through the rubbish that the other guys have fallen for.

That's both pro and anti sites alike.

[EnolaStraight]

What, other than cadaver scent, does a cadaver dog alert to ?

[slartibartfast]

What, other than cadaver scent, does a cadaver dog alert to ?

Two dogs...

Dog A alerts to cadaver scent and blood.
Dog B alerts to blood.

If both dogs alert then blood.

If dog A alerts and dog B doesn't then cadaver scent.

[EnolaStraight]

Two dogs...

Dog A alerts to cadaver scent and blood.
Dog B alerts to blood.

If both dogs alert then blood.

If dog A alerts and dog B doesn't then cadaver scent.

That sounds very complicated and fraught with potential errors. Not as simple as a single observation. Doesn't that depend tremendously on individual interpretation of positive and negative reactions. What is a negative reaction?

[slartibartfast]

That sounds very complicated and fraught with potential errors. Not as simple as a single observation. Doesn't that depend tremendously on individual interpretation of positive and negative reactions. What is a negative reaction?

Not really. With regard to interpretation, think of it in a similar way to sonar operators on warships, they are able to interpret the subtle difference in sounds to identify size and type of target. For the dogs, the handler recognises the alerts the dogs give and gives his opinion accordingly.

To save davel time, this cannot be used as evidence without forensic corroboration.

[EnolaStraight]

Not really. With regard to interpretation, think of it in a similar way to sonar operators on warships, they are able to interpret the subtle difference in sounds to identify size and type of target. For the dogs, the handler recognises the alerts the dogs give and gives his opinion accordingly.

To save davel time, this cannot be used as evidence without forensic corroboration.

So it relies on guesswork that cannot be confirmed scientifically. There must be a problem with how biased and how accurate the handler is. I am not surprised that it is not primary evidence.

[Lace]

Not at all.  It's dealing with the fabrication in Amaral's book that Eddie only alerted to cadaverscent.  He appears to be the one suffering from 'wishful thinking' in that respect.

It's unbelievable that he states that in his book isn't it?     Martin Grime makes it perfectly clear that Eddie also alerts to blood.   

[Mr Gray]

Not really. With regard to interpretation, think of it in a similar way to sonar operators on warships, they are able to interpret the subtle difference in sounds to identify size and type of target. For the dogs, the handler recognises the alerts the dogs give and gives his opinion accordingly.

To save davel time, this cannot be used as evidence without forensic corroboration.

Nothing like sonar which is evidenced based...there is a very good reason its not allowed as evidence...there is no science behind it..it has no validity. The EVRD is talented...but the clue is in what EVRD means...there was absolutely no forensic corroboration of the EVRD dog...as Grime says the alerts an be the results of several different scenaios...amaral got it wrong and a lot on this forum have it wrong

[Carew]

It's unbelievable that he states that in his book isn't it?     Martin Grime makes it perfectly clear that Eddie also alerts to blood.

In which case it is fair to wonder why blood in other apartments/venues/vehicles were not alerted to by Eddie.

[Benice]

What, other than cadaver scent, does a cadaver dog alert to then?

Dried blood from living people - according to Grime.

[EnolaStraight]

In which case it is fair to wonder why blood in other apartments/venues/vehicles were not alerted to by Eddie.

That is a very good question. Given that there were no forensics found at all from what I can see, how can the dogs have reacted so clearly in the apartment used by the McCanns with no evidence. Did the handler know which apartment was the McCanns and which were not- do we know. I would suspect handler contamination in this scenario.