I'll take a moment to recap here
When the cadaver dog alerts in the same locations as the blood dog, it must be because they are both alerting to the blood of a living human
When the cadavour dog alerts in a location where the blood dog did not, it must be because he is alerting to any number of things, other than a dead body
When it is only in the apartment where a missing child was last seen that this indiscriminate cadavour dog alerts, it must be because he has been 'cued' by his owner
It all sounds desperately defensive to me
NO NO NO
If both dogs alert, it could be dried blood from a living or dead person. It could be cadaver odor and blood, but unless further forensics present, it cannot be assumed to be cadaverous because there is another possible answer.
When any dog alerts, there is a finite chance that the alert is an error. Most research suggests that 80-90% accuracy is the maximum achievable.
All dogs are able to alert to unconscious cuing. I have posted links to most of these research papers over the past two weeks.
My two favorites are the one where handlers were told that a room had scents that their dog would alert to, and even though the room was totally clean, many alerts occurred. The second one was where the handlers were told which rags had the odor and which did not. There were frequent alerts to the identified rags; none of them had any odor.
