Tavares Report wrongly claims EVRD Eddie alerted within the boot of the hire car

[Robittybob1]

Why do you ignore Grime on this point?

Grime says Eddie reacts to blood lost by living humans.

That is blood then that has decomposed I would imagine. You are right it doesn't imply the victim has died.  A vat full of blood will smell as bad as a vat of meat. So blood or meat are about the same.
I'll accept correction if required.

[Eleanor]

he is trained to react to cadaver odour only and the other dog, Keela, to dried blood.  It is a cunning combination.

This is totally incorrect.  Try doing more research.

[Robittybob1]

This is totally incorrect.  Try doing more research.

Well that is exactly how I understood it. I won't be that far out.  Not "totally incorrect" that is an exaggeration.

[Eleanor]

Well that is exactly how I understood it. I won't be that far out.  Not "totally incorrect" that is an exaggeration.

You stated that Eddie was trained to react to Cadaver Odour Only.  This is totally untrue.  Eddie also was trained to react to Dried Blood.  Exactly the opposite to what you have stated as fact.

[Robittybob1]

You stated that Eddie was trained to react to Cadaver Odour Only.  This is totally untrue.  Eddie also was trained to react to Dried Blood.  Exactly the opposite to what you have stated as fact.

Where did you get that from or what made you think that if it is your own deduction?

[Eleanor]

Where did you get that from or what made you think that if it is your own deduction?

Martin Grime stated it to be so.  Your re now boring me witless on this subject.

[Robittybob1]

Martin Grime stated it to be so.  Your re now boring me witless on this subject.

So that is like on a YouTube video is it?  I'll see if I can find it.

[pathfinder73]

No body ... neither was there cadaver scent contaminant inside the car.

We have seen Eddie 'alerting' outside the car and to this day many still believe he alerted as a result of Madeleine's defrosting remains having been conveyed in the non-existent wheel well in the boot of the Renault.

We have seen Eddie Alerting inside Haute de la Garenne in Jersey.  Some samples were recovered which justified his alerts ... but milk teeth do not evidence of mass murder make ... and that was the evidence that Lenny Harper was looking for.

We have seen Eddie 'alerting' in Luz ... and despite his handler's warning otherwise ... there are those who believe he was alerting to death.  Which without corroboration is untenable.  He may have alerted behind the couch and in the garage to a confirmed substance ... whatever else he barked at in Luz remains a mystery.

Perhaps more official effort should have been put into a Portuguese replication of the inquiry conducted into the failed Jersey inquiry which devoted a large part of its findings into the efforts of the cadaver dog and his handler.
The reluctance to sort it out may have been the ramifications of reviewing the conduct of the case in Luz and ignoring Figueira ... who knows?

However I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say "A body was not in the car."
Nor was there anything other than a key fob to which Eddie could react as per his early training to blood.

You don't know if a body had been in that car. There are hairs yet to be identified. Were these hairs from a cadaver or a living person?

Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm

[ferryman]

You don't know if a body had been in that car. There are hairs yet to be identified. Were these hairs from a cadaver or a living person?

Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm

Why indulge guesswork that a body had been in the car?

[Robittybob1]

Why indulge guesswork that a body had been in the car?

Why not?  If it is logically possible you have to keep that option open.

[ferryman]

Why not?  If it is logically possible you have to keep that option open.

It's not logically possible.

The car was hired 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared.

Why would Madeleine's scent be on the ignition key of a car hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's disappearance?

Particularly when DNA material from Madeleine's father (Gerry) was identified in a forensic laboratory (as the provenance of the scent that prompted both dogs' reactions).

[Brietta]

Why not?  If it is logically possible you have to keep that option open.

Because if you do ... you are on the wrong forum.  This one deals in facts which are capable of substantiation.  Sometimes members have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of those facts ... but I know of no other member who would consider substituting fact for guesswork and expect to get away with it.
Nor do I know of a member ~ yourself excluded ~ who does not carry out the modicum of research before hitting the keyboard.

There is no guesswork about the forensic results on the Renault returned from the FSS.  Please take note of that before cluttering up the thread with proposals to speculate on accredited forensic results of a standard which would have been acceptable for presentation to a court of law.

[Robittybob1]

Because if you do ... you are on the wrong forum.  This one deals in facts which are capable of substantiation.  Sometimes members have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of those facts ... but I know of no other member who would consider substituting fact for guesswork and expect to get away with it.
Nor do I know of a member ~ yourself excluded ~ who does not carry out the modicum of research before hitting the keyboard.

There is no guesswork about the forensic results on the Renault returned from the FSS.  Please take note of that before cluttering up the thread with proposals to speculate on accredited forensic results of a standard which would have been acceptable for presentation to a court of law.

we are talking in this thread about the dog alerts and their meaning not the lab analysis.  I don't seem to understand why you are so upset.

[Eleanor]

we are talking in this thread about the dog alerts and their meaning not the lab analysis.  I don't seem to understand why you are so upset.

If you persist in your unfounded speculation then I am going to have to remove your posts.

[ferryman]

we are talking in this thread about the dog alerts and their meaning not the lab analysis.  I don't seem to understand why you are so upset.

Without forensic corroboration dog alerts are meaningless.

Grime and Harrison both say so.