I'm confused Davel.
You acknowledge that cadaver scent exists but then dismiss the dogs findings because along with the cadaver scent there is no corroboration. That is an argument at this moment in time for a court of law. Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody as yet has been charged with any offence in relation to a dead body. Neither has anyone on this forum suggested that anybody should be charged with any offence in relation to a dead body. They merely argue it's an indication that a dead body was present although who's dead body it is yet to be determined but given that a young child disappeared in the same apartment it's A BLOODY BIG CLUE!
On this basis.......what the hell are you still banging on about evidence for?
Any future trial which he doesnt think will happen anyway

where mr grime will not be called as a witness
Cos he already gave a statement and in davels feelings he doesnt think he can add anything to it
Eta but of course a cadaver dog alerting to the last place a missing child was seen means nothing for so many so many excuses made why it cant have been to a body of that child, quite sad really if you think about it
and of course no one can come up with any example of eddie the cadaver dog having alerted anywhere for a missing person and them turning up alive! Pretty slam dunk to me
mind you, though, perhaps people did turn up and testify they had bled, stunk of BO, bitten and spat out their their nails, lost their teeth, left condoms on the floor of 5a, had a miscarriage, or hid pork chops in the wardrobe
Might be in the hidden parts of the PJ files
>@@(*&)
Lets not forget the Mccanns tried to trash the dogs for some reason from day one and forever with lies and libel, hmmm, why would anyone want to do that