Did Eddie and Keela work as a team prior to the Madeleine McCann case?

[Mr Gray]

Grime also said the alerts have no intelligence reliability
How much clearer does he need to be

[Anna]

You are wrong Anna
The alerts are not evidence

Sorry, I obviously did not word my post well, Davel.

unless it can be proved that the alert was true and body had been there or there was a future confession to state that a body had been there, There is no corroborated evidence to back up Eddie's alerts.....as at this time.

[mercury]

Sorry, I obviously did not word my post well, Davel.

unless it can be proved that the alert was true and body had been there or there was a future confession to state that a body had been there, There is no corroborated evidence to back up Eddie's alerts.....as at this time.

The problem is as has been stated many times, that there really is no corroboration for remnant cadaverscent....the closest you can get to court evidence which some hold so dear, as if it's all that matters, is both dogs alerting to the same place and a 100 per cent DNA match from blood to the missing person...any sharp barrister would get that questioned anyway, although a jury might read between lines

[Mr Gray]

The problem is as has been stated many times, that there really is no corroboration for remnant cadaverscent....the closest you can get to court evidence which some hold so dear, as if it's all that matters, is both dogs alerting to the same place and a 100 per cent DNA match from blood to the missing person...any sharp barrister would get that questioned anyway, although a jury might read between lines

No evidential or intelligence reliability

[ferryman]

The problem is as has been stated many times, that there really is no corroboration for remnant cadaverscent....the closest you can get to court evidence which some hold so dear, as if it's all that matters, is both dogs alerting to the same place and a 100 per cent DNA match from blood to the missing person...any sharp barrister would get that questioned anyway, although a jury might read between lines

Wrong again.

If both dogs react to the same place, that has to be indicative of blood, since Keela is not trained to react to anything else, while Eddie will react to blood or cadaver scent.

Unless Keela has falsely alerted.

Or both dogs have falsely alerted ....

Edited to add.

Beg your pardon.

I missed the part I underline in my first reading of your post.

That's correct.

[Anna]

Quite simply they are not evidence because the person who knows the most about them says so

Are you referring to M Grime, Davel?

"  no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."

It depends on how you interpret that really.

There is no forensic or other evidence to corroborate the alerts at present. Therefore no evidence of the alerts being of cadaver scent at this time.

There is however the possibility that other evidence may come forward, to corroborate the alerts at a later date. which I very much doubt now.

[Mr Gray]

Are you referring to M Grime, Davel?

"  no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."

It depends on how you interpret that really.

There is no forensic or other evidence to corroborate the alerts at present. Therefore no evidence of the alerts being of cadaver scent at this time.

There is however the possibility that other evidence may come forward, to corroborate the alerts at a later date. which I very much doubt now.

I think we have to judge the case on the evidence at this time

[ferryman]

 no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."

That rather blurs the distinction between evidence and intelligence.

But I guess the key word is reliability ...

[Alfred R Jones]

The dog alerts are evidence of...?

[Anna]

I think we have to judge the case on the evidence at this time

Of course we must, but I was referring to M grimes words, which did not give a time limit or say that the alerts were false and would be non evidential....forever.

"no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence"

[ferryman]

The dog alerts are evidence of...?

Zilch

Nil

Nada

Nothing

.....

[Anna]

The dog alerts are evidence of...?

.....nothing until corroborated...... If ever, that is.

[Alfred R Jones]

.....nothing until corroborated...... If ever, that is.

If they are evidence of nothing, then they have no value as evidence, and cannot therefore be considered as evidence, right?

[Anna]

If they are evidence of nothing, then they have no value as evidence, and cannot therefore be considered as evidence, right?

If someone came forward and confessed to killing the child and placing her in the wardrobe long enough for cadaver scent to develop, then the now uncorroborated evidence would be considered True and corroborated evidence.
At present there is no evidence to back the alerts and cadaver scent can not be forensically tested for, so only a body found there by the dogs at the time or a later confession can confirm this IMO.

  Thinking of this some more......there is no evidence that Eddie's alerts were false either. woke and wandered proof or a confession of abduction or such like, would be needed to prove this.

Ferryman made a good point about reliability.....
MG did say that no intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts.  So it's a guessing game really.

[mercury]

Wrong again.

If both dogs react to the same place, that has to be indicative of blood, since Keela is not trained to react to anything else, while Eddie will react to blood or cadaver scent.

Unless Keela has falsely alerted.

Or both dogs have falsely alerted ....

Edited to add.

Beg your pardon.

I missed the part I underline in my first reading of your post.

That's correct.

No, not at all, it's embarrassing that you are even trying that false logic