The pathetic response dave as per normal comes from you.
I know perfectly well what evidential reliability means.
it does not mean the indications aren't evidence.
That is why you and other mccann supporters keep returning to this.
Now where in Martin Grimes statement does it say the dogs didn't possibly alert to a body ?
Or more to the point where does Martin Grimes state that a dead body had definitely been in situ wherever Eddie alerted.
No-one is disputing the possibility that a cadaver could be one of many reasons for an alert. It is the contention by some people that a cadaver is the ONLY reason for an alert - to the exclusion of all the other reasons given by Grime which is in dispute imo.
Despite stringent forensic testing - no evidence was found to corroborate that one particular possibility - i.e. that the dogs were alerting to material from a cadaver. Therefore the 'requirements', (as described by Martin Grime himself,) for the alerts to be regarded as evidence that Eddie was alerting to a dead body - were not fulfilled.
No amount of playing with words or wishful thinking will change that fact.
