Ok. So a 64% of correctly alerting to a scent within his training parameters.
Unconscious cueing?
Can unconscious bias be excluded? The inspections weren't double-blind.
Sex fluids?
Some people don't believe that decaying sex fluids are within those parameters... whereas I find the notes of the Jersey alerts to be ambiguous. If that decaying scent is within them, then that adds a different factor as to what he may have correctly alerted to.
Blood?
Grime has stated that the CSI dog (Keela) only reacts to the physical presence of blood. Grime stated that Eddie also reacted to dried blood from a living person, but he did not state that there needed to be a physical presence for him to do so. If a bloodied plaster had been left lying around and removed just before the inspection, Keela wouldn't have reacted, but it's not known whether Eddie would have noticed the airborne scent in the absence of the physical source.
Other decaying human material?
Then there's the possibility that he was reacting to the scent of other decomposing body material (e.g. the hypothetical example of a tiny lump of flesh from a sliced finger). He would be alerting correctly, but the person could still be alive.
Corpse or contaminant?
Then there is the possibility that he was correctly alerting to the residual scent of an entire corpse. That could be the result of a body having physically lain in situ, or it could be something within the scent area that had been in contact with a body at some point. That apartment had gone from residential to a holiday let. There doesn't appear to have been any eliminatory investigation as to where the furniture came from.
Madeleine?
If he had alerted to the residual scent of a dead body, could that have been Madeleine? I have read the literature on various scientific experiments, just as I have read anecdotal accounts mainly promoted by dog handlers.
I don't believe that the possibility can be totally excluded, but the number of VOCs released in the first 1-2 hours are few. And even then scientific experiments conducted in controlled conditions don't mimic everyday reality.
How likely, therefore, is it that Eddie actually did react to a residual scent of a dead Madeleine?
It certainly doesn't appear as simple as missing child + dog alert = dead child.
A well reasoned post, Carana.
I find the time spent in 5A extraordinary when a comparison is made of the time the dogs spent there and in the other apartments in the complex.
Particularly the apartment where Eddie showed enough interest in one of the bedrooms for Martin Grime to have the bed moved ~ then cursorily dismissed and the apartment where the sideboard was pulled away from the wall to allow Eddie access ~ which he was called back from and stood down in almost indecent haste.
at 39:30 in ?B Eddie is continually called away from a point of interest in a corner of the room at the sideboard, which is later pulled out to allow better access (it is an English voice which prompts the action, which is not Martin Grime's).
at 39:50 Eddie decides he is going to snack on something he has retrieved from the waste bin in the kitchen.
at 41:07 Eddie is allowed a cursory run behind the sideboard before being stood down
"we've searched this apartment with the VRD and he's shown no interest in the flat in what he's trained to find at all, so we're finished"
from 43:32 in 4D Eddie showed great interest in the areas under the beds where there was sweaty? footwear ~
at 46:35 it is declared that the VRD shows no interest in what he had been trained to find
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8Three thoughts occur ... I presume the apartment where Eddie's interest meant the sideboard was moved out was 5B ... which shared a wall with 5A ... perhaps both flats also shared the source of an interesting smell?
I presume 4D was the apartment to which the McCanns were decanted on the night Madeleine disappeared; one wonders if that was known to Martin Grime, certainly apartment 5A had been international news for some months.
One wonders what weight a dog handler's opinion carries in the light of exactly the same excitement ~ minus the all important bark eventually forthcoming in 5A ~ which was not afforded the same work by the handler who already had the desired 'result' under his belt.
The person with the English voice (Harrison?) noticed it ... it is also apparent to anyone watching the video.
