I never said there was furniture from a dead person in Apt 5A. You have misread my post. I used that other example to indicate the fact that NO body need have been in Apt 5A for cadaver scent to be present.
That remains the case.
Not only is there no indication as to who the cadaver odour originally came from but there is no indication that it ever came from a body that was present in the apartment. It could have been taken there on any manner of objects; clothes, luggage etc.
This is true, and also if the dogs had been made the spend the same amount of time in the other apartments and the other cars - then if their abilities were as good as their handler claimed (which we have no reason to disbelieve ) - then it is highly likely they would have alerted in some of those other places too.
As a reminder:
A cadaver dog cannot say who the scent belonged to.
It cannot say how long the scent had been there - whether recent or from decades ago.
It cannot say whether the scent had been transferred there from an outside source.
It canot say whether the scent is from above ground or underground.
It cannot say whether the scent is from a cadaver, or from fingernails, teeth, hair or other bodily fluids from living human beings.
It cannot say whether the scent was originally at that spot, or whether it had drifted there from elsewhere.
------
It is for the above reasons that people who claim 'someone must have died in 5A' are completely wrong and why Martin Grime repeatedly points out that without corroborating evidence - the alerts cannot be regarded as evidence of the presence of a cadaver.
