Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Alice Purjorick]

In the context of a discussion sparked by the command to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour it is correct to say "you can't prove a negative".  Did you read the link provided by OxBloo, or could you not be arsed?  If Pathfinder had said "prove that the apple is not in the drawer" (as per the example in OxBloo's link) then obviously OxBloo's response would have been incorrect, because it IS possible to prove the veracity of the statement by opening the drawer, but in that instance neither command nor riposte would have been relevant to the discussion at hand.
So, to summarise, in the context of the on-topic discussion we were having, YES I agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative".
Now - my question to you requiring a yes or no answer only (as I have obliged you with the same, now you can likewise oblige me) - is it possible to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour? I await your YES or NO response with the almost certain knowledge that your response will be something of a disappointment...

Sprat me a riddle o.
I will consider it and get back to you with an answer qualified in the manner you have qualified your answer.

[Eleanor]

Which hairbrush are you referring to?

I'm not aware that the PJ ever had the blanket. The GNR police dogs apparently had it last.

The hairs found in the Scenic appear to be hair fragments. They weren't deemed long enough for mtDNA analysis. If they had had roots, they could have been sent for nDNA analysis.

The Twins had a hair cut.  Have we forgotten that?

Oh, sorry.  The Twins never had a hair cut.  That was just McCann spin.  They had the twins hair cut because they knew that somedebody would be looking for Madeleine's hair in the car.

Did I actually say that?

[Carew]

The Twins had a hair cut.  Have we forgotten that?

Oh, sorry.  The Twins never had a hair cut.  That was just McCann spin.  They had the twins hair cut because they knew that somedebody would be looking for Madeleine's hair in the car.

Did I actually say that?

Well, yes you actually did just say it.......The question is , why and what does it mean?

[Eleanor]

Any more references to OxfordBloo are going to be deleted, by me.  And believe me, I am one of his greatest fans.  But he bailed out.  So it is done.  Okay?

[Eleanor]

Well, yes you actually did just say it.......The question is , why and what does it mean?

There were short bits of hair in the car because the twins had their hair cut.  Is that awfully difficult to understand?

[Carew]

There were short bits of hair in the car because the twins had their hair cut.  Is that awfully difficult to understand?

You said it was "McCann spin" and they never had a hair cut.

 It seemed contradictory.

[Eleanor]

You said it was "McCann spin" and they never had a hair cut.

 It seemed contradictory.

I talk a load of rubbish sometimes.  As do you all.  But you know precisely what I meant.

[Carew]

I talk a load of rubbish sometimes.  As do you all.  But you know precisely what I meant.

Well, yes of course I knew.........but the snide aspect of some posts I do find rather more "fair game for a response" than are the loads o` rubbish we all talk sometimes.

(I should resist the temptation to comment though. )

[Alfred R Jones]

Really? Explain it to me then.

Ireally couldn't do a better job of explaining it as He Who Must Not Be Mentioned did, several times.  I suggest you re-read those posts and try to understand. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Little doubt of that; he has been here before.

Haven't we all.

[Alfred R Jones]

Sprat me a riddle o.
I will consider it and get back to you with an answer qualified in the manner you have qualified your answer.

Oh goody.

[Eleanor]

Well, yes of course I knew.........but the snide aspect of some posts I do find rather more "fair game for a response" than are the loads o` rubbish we all talk sometimes.

(I should resist the temptation to comment though. )

So why try to take me on?  I am probably the best that you are ever going to get.  And I am more on your side than you will ever appreciate.

[Eleanor]

Okay.  That's it.  My patience is worn out.  Just get back On Topic.  And that actually includes me.

[G-Unit]

Ireally couldn't do a better job of explaining it as He Who Must Not Be Mentioned did, several times.  I suggest you re-read those posts and try to understand.

I understood completely thank you. The contention that handlers and dogs are not always right is a valid one, particularly when alerts cannot be supported by forensic evidence. No-one knows if the dogs were right or wrong.

Trying to 'prove' that they were wrong by referring to 'studies' is no help for two reasons. Firstly, 'scientific' studies which work in the natural world are not applicable to the study of people. Even if the studies were well run and replicable, they tell us nothing about these two dogs, only about dogs and handlers in general.

Perhaps you would like to refute my points?

[Benice]

I understood completely thank you. The contention that handlers and dogs are not always right is a valid one, particularly when alerts cannot be supported by forensic evidence. No-one knows if the dogs were right or wrong.

Trying to 'prove' that they were wrong by referring to 'studies' is no help for two reasons. Firstly, 'scientific' studies which work in the natural world are not applicable to the study of people. Even if the studies were well run and replicable, they tell us nothing about these two dogs, only about dogs and handlers in general.

Perhaps you would like to refute my points?

What is your interpretation of what Grime said to the Mail on Sunday.     It seems to me it is an admission that because he is human -  he is not immune from making mistakes in his own field of work - and is therefore not claiming 100% accuracy.

Quote
Asked about the ‘human remains’ found by Eddie that turned out to be coconut, Grime said bizarrely: ‘People aren’t right 100 per cent of the time.  Otherwise they wouldn’t be human.’
unquote