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

[G-Unit]

you are getting rather silly..the dogs have not made any statement as afar as I am aware

If by 'statement' you mean speaking words and signing papers you are correct. People give such statements but does that mean they're true? Not necessarily.

Eddies statement was a communication, even if words, paper and signatures weren't used. Does that mean it was false? Not necessarily.

the communication of an idea, position, mood, or the like through something other than words.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statement

[stephen25000]

John gave his opinion ...his opinion was the alerts tell us nothing....perhaps you should read the post

I have.

[ferryman]

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

The dog alerts are thus evidence as Anna pointed out earlier but the significance of this evidence is as yet undetermined.  In relation to Madeleine the alerts might have no significance whatsoever but then again they might have every significance.  As Mr Grime pointed out, the alerts at that moment in time had no evidential reliability since they were uncorroborated by forensic results but nevertheless, they are evidence of something.

Uncorroborated dog alerts are intelligence, not evidence. 

[G-Unit]

Amy Tierney was a witness to the windows, G
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post27240.html#p27240

However Off topic

Amy's evidence is a problem for me Anna, because she says that a female friend of the Mccanns was in the apartment when she was there. None of the McCann's friends saw the open windows and shutters, so how did Amy see them?

[slartibartfast]

John gave his opinion ...his opinion was the alerts tell us nothing....perhaps you should read the post

The only difference between the dogs and any other witness is that the other witnesses can be cross examined.

[Mr Gray]

If by 'statement' you mean speaking words and signing papers you are correct. People give such statements but does that mean they're true? Not necessarily.

Eddies statement was a communication, even if words, paper and signatures weren't used. Does that mean it was false? Not necessarily.

the communication of an idea, position, mood, or the like through something other than words.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statement

we don't know that eddie was alerting to cadaver odour...he cannot tell us

[Alfred R Jones]

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

The dog alerts are thus evidence as Anna pointed out earlier but the significance of this evidence is as yet undetermined.  In relation to Madeleine the alerts might have no significance whatsoever but then again they might have every significance.  As Mr Grime pointed out, the alerts at that moment in time had no evidential reliability since they were uncorroborated by forensic results but nevertheless, they are evidence of something.

evidence of what?

[Anna]

Amy's evidence is a problem for me Anna, because she says that a female friend of the Mccanns was in the apartment when she was there. None of the McCann's friends saw the open windows and shutters, so how did Amy see them?

There could be many reasons for this, G. She didn't see Russ or was it Matt? who passed her, whilst she was going to dinner

However this is Off topic and should be continued on an appropriate thread topic.

[Mr Gray]

The only difference between the dogs and any other witness is that the other witnesses can be cross examined.

the dogs are not witnesses

[Mr Gray]

evidence of what?

John doesn't know...nobody does...

[slartibartfast]

the dogs are not witnesses

Yes they are, expert witnesses.

[ferryman]

Yes they are, expert witnesses.

There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.


Martin Grime.

[stephen25000]

Fascinating.

The more the mccann supporters diss the dog alerts, the more credence they give them.

[G-Unit]

we don't know that eddie was alerting to cadaver odour...he cannot tell us

When Eddie finds the scent he is trained to find he barks. He barked in the bedroom. That's Eddie's way of saying 'Found it!'. You have chosen not to believe him, that's all.

[Mr Gray]

Yes they are, expert witnesses.

that is totally ridiculous


a person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place


witness definition...