Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[pathfinder73]

If it's fallacious, perhaps you could explain the scientific methodology one would need to utilize in order to prove that Eddie did not alert to a cadaver in Apartment 5a?

If Madeleine turns up alive Eddie was wrong.

[Eleanor]

If Madeleine turns up alive Eddie was wrong.

Not necessarily.

[OxfordBloo]

If Madeleine turns up alive Eddie was wrong.

No. Eddie could have reacted to contaminant from elsewhere as did the dogs in the Shannon Matthews case.

[Alfred R Jones]

If Madeleine turns up alive Eddie was wrong.

Equally if Madeleine does not turn up Eddie could still have been wrong.  Madeleine not turning up does not prove she is dead either.

[Carana]

If Madeleine turns up alive Eddie was wrong.

Not necessarily as he could have been correctly alerting to any scent within his training parameters.

[pathfinder73]

Not necessarily.

I think it is with the many alerts from Eddie and Keela also alerting behind the sofa and in the boot. The source of scent can escape from the passenger door from the boot and there's unidentified hairs that match the missing girl's hair.

Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

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

[Mr Gray]

Provide proof that Eddie has not alerted to cadaver scent. SY are looking for the proof.

some negatives can be easily proved...the above however is a chocolate teapot argument...the last resort of the desperate...similar to...prove god does not exist

[pathfinder73]

some negatives can be easily proved...the above however is a chocolate teapot argument...the last resort of the desperate...similar to...prove god does not exist

A detective finds unknown information and the dogs have given their evidence. The dogs find the scent and the police confirms the source. They will believe the source is the missing person after all other possibilities have been investigated.

[OxfordBloo]

some negatives can be easily proved...the above however is a chocolate teapot argument...the last resort of the desperate...similar to...prove god does not exist

Good old Bertrand Russell.

He makes the point so well. Maybe we should quote it.

[OxfordBloo]

Russell's Celestial Teapot argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[Alice Purjorick]

If it's fallacious, perhaps you could explain the scientific methodology one would need to utilize in order to prove that Eddie did not alert to a cadaver in Apartment 5a?

Why? what I said has b*****r all to do with Eddie (great jazz Pianist by the way; shame he died so young).
I said the statement "you can't prove a negative" is fallacious or if you like folk logic.
Do you disagree with that statement? a simple yes or no will do. Try it without using the words Amaral, Eddie, Keela and McCann.

[OxfordBloo]

Why? what I said has b*****r all to do with Eddie (great jazz Pianist by the way; shame he died so young).
I said the statement "you can't prove a negative" is fallacious or if you like folk logic.
Do you disagree with that statement? a simple yes or no will do. Try it without using the words Amaral, Eddie, Keela and McCann.

Now let me see, believe you or Bertrand Russell?

Hard decision!

Enjoy your celestial teapot....

[Alice Purjorick]

Now let me see, believe you or Bertrand Russell?

Hard decision!

Enjoy your celestial teapot....

Russell had a rather large domain with a very prescriptive teapot.
There are those who show it is folk logic and not reality that "you can't prove a negative" why not address the issue as proven by them? and "Google is your friend".
Or even think about it your self for a few seconds.

[OxfordBloo]

Russell had a rather large domain with a very prescriptive teapot.
There are those who show it is folk logic and not reality that "you can't prove a negative" why not address the issue as proven by them? and "Google is your friend".
Or even think about it your self for a few seconds.

I have thought in great depth about it and understand that so far as empirical science and jurisprudence are concerned, the celestial teapot is commanding. In other arenas it is less so. This is because Forensics and empiricism are closed logically defined domains whereas other realms (religion, belief, etc.) are open non-logical domains.

Enjoy your celestial teapot.

[Carana]

I think it is with the many alerts from Eddie and Keela also alerting behind the sofa and in the boot. The source of scent can escape from the passenger door from the boot and there's unidentified hairs that match the missing girl's hair.

Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

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

"Similar to" doesn't equate to "match", does it? They were short fragments of hair - too short for mtDNA analysis.

His conclusion was "dunno". Even if they had been hers, innocent explanations would have had to have been ruled out: e.g. hairs from her belongings being moved in the car.