Why don't you admit; it we struggle to explain the cadaver dog alert. There was the alert in the bedroom and another in the garden area. A scenario that covers both spots is a body being removed from the apartment and tossed over the balustrade into the garden. You can't give that cadaver a name or a reason for its demise.
You can't just say "did he understand that the so called 'dog alerts' were not alerts to cadaver odour at all".
Do cadaver dogs ever produce a genuine alert to a cadaver? I presume you will say "yes". So how can you tell them apart? How do you separate the genuine ones from the false positives?
It's impossible to show that Eddie gave false alerts in 5A, Rob. Even so, hours are spent spent attempting to discredit his handler, to suggest that the dog was alerting to something else, to suggest that some other body or associated items had been there and, finally, to say the alerts meant nothing.
Of course all these stories can't be correct. The handler is still working in the same field, so he must do his job satisfactorily. The dog knew exactly what he was supposed to find, he had found it before in his career. If he alerted to another body then both he and the handler got it right and the alerts did mean something. The desperate attempts to deny the possibility that the child died in 5A have produced some very imaginative but ultimately contradictory stories.
