The dogs.....

[Eleanor]

It is also possible that it had been contaminated by a cadaver or items which had been in contact with one.

Then it should have been investigated further.  It wasn't.

[Mr Gray]

Grime does not say that the alerts prove the presence of cadaver odour....he says that they are suggestive....

[Carew]

Grime does not say that the alerts prove the presence of cadaver odour....he says that they are suggestive....

Who has said otherwise?

[Mr Gray]

Who has said otherwise?

So you accept that there may have been no cadaver in the apartment

[Carew]

From Martin Grime`s search results report summary......

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is  suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant "

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

As far as I know, "proof" has not been established since the forensic results were inconclusive.

[Mr Gray]

From Martin Grime`s search results report summary......

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is  suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant "

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

As far as I know, "proof" has not been established since the forensic results were inconclusive.

Does anyone know what Grime means by that...the unanswered question is how suggestive

[Brietta]

I believe on occasion such an alert can be proved forensically if minute traces can be harvested from the spot, but as that is not applicable in 5a or anywhere else associated with Eddie's alerts.

Eddie did not find a body so his alerts are technically a false positive.
In the absence of a body being found Eddie did not show that anyone died in the room.

It is impossible to know if the alert was a true positive (person deceased and gone) or a false positive without prior knowledge.
As we all should know by now the dog itself alerting is not evidence; the alert is not “proof” in a legal sense – or in a scientific sense, due to false positives; and the only way to know for sure if the dog is actually alerting to cadaver is if you know the cadaver or material used in training was there. 

[faithlilly]

I believe on occasion such an alert can be proved forensically if minute traces can be harvested from the spot, but as that is not applicable in 5a or anywhere else associated with Eddie's alerts.

Eddie did not find a body so his alerts are technically a false positive.
In the absence of a body being found Eddie did not show that anyone died in the room.

It is impossible to know if the alert was a true positive (person deceased and gone) or a false positive without prior knowledge.
As we all should know by now the dog itself alerting is not evidence; the alert is not “proof” in a legal sense – or in a scientific sense, due to false positives; and the only way to know for sure if the dog is actually alerting to cadaver is if you know the cadaver or material used in training was there.

A false positive could only be proved if the dog had alerted to a cadaver and the missing person was found alive.

That Eddie's alert was scientifically uncorroborated does not make it a false positive.

[Mr Gray]

A false positive could only be proved if the dog had alerted to a cadaver and the missing person was found alive.

That Eddie's alert was scientifically uncorroborated does not make it a false positive.

#

wrong again..if the dog alerted and the victim was found alive this does not prove  a false alert...the dog might be alerting to another source...furniture or another source of contamination

what this amounts to is that it is impossible to prove a false alert

[faithlilly]

#

wrong again..if the dog alerted and the victim was found alive this does not prove  a false alert...the dog might be alerting to another source...furniture or another source of contamination

what this amounts to is that it is impossible to prove a false alert

The dog would not have alerted to a cadaver therefore it would be a false positive.

[Mr Gray]

The dog would not have alerted to a cadaver therefore it would be a false positive.

#you don't seem to understand...the alert is not to a cadaver but to cadaverine contaminant...according to Grime

[faithlilly]

#you don't seem to understand...the alert is not to a cadaver but to cadaverine contaminant...according to Grime

It is you who doesn't understand Dave.

[Mr Gray]

It is you who doesn't understand Dave.

no  I understand very well..it is impossible to prove  a false alert ..  when the skull in jersey was found to be  a coconut...was that a false alert

[Jackie Sparrow]

The dog is trained to indicate where evidence may be found.  No evidence relating to Madeleine's disappearance was found.  Therefore the dog alerts mean nothing ... as their handler has stated in the PJ files.

The dog did his training good. The forensic found nothing. The dog only does his job not forensic job. With a judge it means nothing but the dog is still good. People fear the dog so say the dog is no good. The dog is good. The forensic is not so the doctors are free to say find a body. One day this may change but today they are free. The dog is trained so mostly right. People say mostly wrong but he is still good dog. This is the fear people have of a dog who is trained to be right. The dog makes people feel fear. Why?

[Mr Gray]

I seem to remember a cadaver dog alerted in the Shannon Mathews case