Thank you Carana I read through both those reports.
My point is still the same.
I don't see how her potential death in 5a can be formally excluded (it's not as if there had been any form of irrefutable evidence of her subsequent live presence elsewhere). But nor is there any evidence - beyond a dog barking for reasons best known to himself - that she is dead, whether that happened in the flat or anywhere else.
At the same time, the dog could have been correctly reacting to a lingering smell of a totally irrelevant nature from previous occupants dating back to only a few days prior, after which it may have been locked and not cleaned pending the inspection, or it's possible that a cleaner or other member of staff had just checked briefly to remove any items from the previous occupants or their rubbish. And not everyone can be bothered to do laundry when on vacation.
It's also possible that Eddie felt under pressure and was doing his best by reacting to components of what he was trained for (VRDs have reacted to methane in peat bogs before now, for example).
What I disagree with is the assumption that he was NECESSARILY reacting to the prior direct presence of a deceased person, and even less with the idea that it had to be this missing child.
