Firstly, I have not swung off on a tangent. I asked Ferryman a question in relation to a post which he made regarding the car. You felt the need to answer for him with the suggestion clever Hans.
Secondly, you have done nothing to explain how clever Hans is displayed in this scenario. You deny implying Grime acted deliberately and then claim it needs no sub conscious act from Grime. How then can you attribute clever Hans to this scenario? It's a pretty simple question which only arose after you suggested the reason was clever Hans.
Thirdly, please explain how you think Eddie is doing his job if clever Hans is occurring? His job is to sniff a scent.
Firstly, I answered for myself ~ last time I looked, this was a ‘discussion’ forum; Ferryman needs no-one to answer on his behalf as he does it very well for himself.
Secondly, I suggest you read up on the clever Hans scenario as you obviously have no idea what it implies: which certainly is not duplicity on the part of the handler.
Thirdly, Eddie sniffed – Eddie alerted to what he thought was appropriate – as far as Eddie was concerned – job done.
That’s what dogs and handlers do – they find things – it is then up to forensics to corroborate what they find and it will further be decided whether or not it can be used in evidence.
Instead of firing off a series of non-seqitur questions and demanding answers - why not instead do your own research and respond with something along the lines of " I disagree because ... why did you reach that conclusion? ... you have misunderstood ... etc; etc;"
I find your style agressive and designed to shut down rather than to open discussion. Just imo.
