A fresh look at Eddie the cadaver dog and those alerts.

[Robittybob1]

Here we go again. As I recall that is what you said fridt time out.
I'll reply as I did at that time:
"Show us in judges rules etc where there is a delineation of dogs"

Your recent posts seem a little disjointed Alice. 

[Robittybob1]

There is a wealth of additional background information that could be added to that.

But it's broadly right.

Was that "additional background information" used as a type of circumstantial evidence?  Is "circumstantial evidence" sufficient to become evidence to enable inferences to be made from the dog alerts?
The words used are usual corroborating forensic evidence. That sounds like something more substantial rather than "circumstantial evidence".

[Robittybob1]

Even if future corroborating forensic evidence goes against the McCanns it still does not mean that it was right to preempt that evidence.  That is what RDH seems to do the Zapota case.  You can't predict the future like that, as  future corroborating forensic evidence could go for or against the dog alert intelligence, even if Eddie has a impressive track record no one can name the cadaver until the corroborating forensic evidence turns up.
So the options we are left with the cadaver alerts were:
1.  To Madeleine's  cadaver
2.  To someone else's cadaver
I would back Eddie as having very likely giving us intelligence of a cadaver. 

(Even if Gerry McCann says the evidence he saw showed "cadaver dogs were unreliable", Eddie on his own was very reliable in picking that there had been previous presence of cadaver material (body or body parts).)

[Alice Purjorick]

Your recent posts seem a little disjointed Alice.

Dat am de way of de worl'. Some is disjointed an' some is datjointed.

[Alice Purjorick]

If you could find that again that would be very useful, for it would be further evidence that a lot of important players have made the same error.  It is very tempting to turn the number of alerts, and their distribution (behind sofa, cupboards, gardens, cars and clothing), even if the distribution seems to tell a story, you can't make it into a factual story.  OK it can be a hypothesis, I have no problem about that, but that hypothesis needs corroborating evidence to back it up.

Trawl through my posts then it's there somewhere unless the delayed aberrant eraser has been at it again.
I am only here for the craic.

[mercury]

Even if future corroborating forensic evidence goes against the McCanns it still does not mean that it was right to preempt that evidence.  That is what RDH seems to do the Zapota case.  You can't predict the future like that, as  future corroborating forensic evidence could go for or against the dog alert intelligence, even if Eddie has a impressive track record no one can name the cadaver until the corroborating forensic evidence turns up.
So the options we are left with the cadaver alerts were:
1.  To Madeleine's  cadaver
2.  To someone else's cadaver
I would back Eddie as having very likely giving us intelligence of a cadaver. 

(Even if Gerry McCann says the evidence he saw showed "cadaver dogs were unreliable", Eddie on his own was very reliable in picking that there had been previous presence of cadaver material (body or body parts).)

Bar human remains there is NO SUCH THING as corroboratng evidence for eddies alerts

[slartibartfast]

Bar human remains there is NO SUCH THING as corroboratng evidence for eddies alerts

Some would have us believe that if no human remains are found then they should just shrug their shoulders and move on.

[ferryman]

Some would have us believe that if no human remains are found then they should just shrug their shoulders and move on.

That is the (official!) position.

[mercury]

Some would have us believe that if no human remains are found then they should just shrug their shoulders and move on.

Well they are wrong as the cadaver dog was sent in to specifically search for remnant scent of said remains, ie NO REMAINS, just evidence of them

[slartibartfast]

That is the (official!) position.

If you believe that, then there is no point in discussing.

[ferryman]

If you believe that, then there is no point in discussing.

Belief?

You either accept the truth or you don't.

[mercury]

That is the (official!) position.

No it isnt stop disseminating false information...oh hang on.....

[sadie]

Bar human remains there is NO SUCH THING as corroboratng evidence for eddies alerts

There was NO corroboration in any way to Eddies alerts.

As far as we are aware, Keela was NOT shown the things that Eddie (supposedly) alerted to.

It was essential that SHE was shown the things that Eddie alerted to.
1)  If she also alerted then they were both alerting to decaying blood from a living person
2)  Is she was shown the things Eddie alerted to, BUT she did not, then it was possible that it was cadaver odour. 

However, it appears from videos and reports that she was not shown the things that Eddie alerted to, so no conclusions could be properly made as to what he was alerting to ... and but for Amarals fertile imagination nobody would have thought Cadaver Odour at all.

The whole thing is a nonsense.  A huge myth based upon Amarals fertile imagination IMO

[Robittybob1]

Trawl through my posts then it's there somewhere unless the delayed aberrant eraser has been at it again.
I am only here for the craic.

How long ago would you have posted it?

[Alice Purjorick]

How long ago would you have posted it?

Sometime within the last year I would guess.
If it was the subject of an attack by the delayed eraser then it has gorn for good.
It was fun at the time so onward and upward. There will always be more corporation flags and mill ponds to lob them into...