No, that is not what it means. He does not say that unless forensic corroboration is found then the alert means nothing and could be from an *innocent* source. He is saying forensic corroboration is needed to put more weight behind the find, because obviously a dogs barks cantbe taken as evidence on their own.
Corroboration in this case comes from Keela, ie blood. (as no physical remains were found there or anywhere else that connected the two). Keela did find blood, so for starters your argument that no forensics was found falls down.
Now, we have the possibility, that Eddie was right in his alert to cadaver scent, and Keela was right in her scent of blood, but that could mean blood shed innocently was found in the same place, so in this scenario, the corroboration still might not be evidence, if you see what I mean.
IN the same way no corroboration AND corroboration can never prove if it was innocent, in itself alone, that is, its a TOOL, but a very useful one, and cant be derided, treated with contempt or dismissed with NO evidence, as to why, rest my case.......
Red, as you know - both dogs alerted to blood.
The only corroberration Keela can give is to confirm that Eddie alerted to blood - and that is what Grime claims when both dogs alert at the same place. This is because Keela ONLY alerts to blood.
But both Eddie and Keela also alerted to blood from living people. i.e. innocent sources. So without corroberrating evidence to prove otherwise, all their 'dual' alerts indicate is that someone bled in the apartment - but whether it was from a simple injury or whether it was from someone who died - no-one can say.
With regard to Eddie alone - there are also the other 'number of given scenarios' which Grime mentions - i.e. the possibilty of an ancient deposit being alerted to, cross contamination from an outside source, body 'bits' from live people etc etc . All of which prevent the conclusion from being made that Madeleine's body or anyone's body was ever at the places where Eddies alerts were made. If those are not the 'given scenarios' that Grime is referring to below then WHAT scenarios is he alluding to?
Grimes said
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect
as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios End Quote
My statement that in Eddie's case there were no forensics is based on what Grime says here:
Grime states
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located
, the only alert indications that may become corroborated
are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
END QUOTE
Therefore IMO it is correct to say no forensic evidence was found as a result of alerts made only by Eddie.
You will notice in the videos that when Keela and Eddie both alert - Grime says 'this is indicative of the detection of blood'. However, when Eddie alerts on his own, Grime is very careful
not to say 'this is an alert to a cadaver'. Instead he says Eddie has alerted to 'the things he has been trained to find'. This is because Grime knows that an alert by Eddie does not necessarily prove that a cadaver was ever in that spot - which is why he keeps emphasing in his reports that the alerts have no evidential value unless they are corroberrated. ( i.e. with a cadaver.)
The dogs are excellent tools but that is all they are.
