You should stop spreading misinformation and lies. Eddie doesn't alert to those things unless mixed with blood. Read on and learn.
Eddie and Keela were both deconditioned to alerting to urine, semen, faeces, saliva etc and would only ever alert to such BODILY fluids IF they were mixed with blood.
Eddie was not a decomp dog, which would detect such BODY fluids, he was trained for blood only and then for detecting cadaver scent.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper) http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Between them the dogs alerted to two things and two things only. Eddie was trained to alert to blood and cadaver scent and Keela to blood. They would never alert to to urine, semen and faeces etc unless they were mixed with blood. FACT!
Goodness gracious me ... what a mine of disinformation and ignorance you reveal ...
Eddie was trained using aborted pig foetuses; therefore he would have alerted to pork and he did alert to semen in Jersey.
I think you should bear in mind that in Europe it is illegal to replicate the american body farm so dogs trained in Europe are not trained using cadavers.
You may be capable of reading, but you are not capable of interpreting what you read; Mr Grime enumerated biological waste to which the CSI dog would not react to as a trained response, but since these items emit the compounds of decomposition - that is exactly within the parameters of the VRD trained response.
I thought you would comprehend that which is why I used Martin Grime as a particular source as he is an acknowledged expert in the field. Apparently not ... so try this one for size ...
- snipped -
Take, for example, a dog trained to detect human remains (oft referred to as
a “cadaver dog,” an imprecise term). It can be trained to detect either putrescine or
cadaverine, two aptly monikered molecules which are specific to decaying carbon
based life forms. But while a deceased and thus decaying human gives off such
molecules, so too does decaying vegetation. On the other hand, handlers have been
known to train human remains dogs with human remains. In that case, however,
one cannot tell whether the dog has reacted to a specific molecule or to a
combination of molecules. That is of import, because parts of the body decay at
different rates; and the cocktail of molecules released by the cadaver may differ from
one day to another. So too, the body may decompose a different rates depending
on the environmental conditions. A dog trained on one combination of molecules
may not react to a different combination even though a body is present in the
vicinity.
Moreover, the dog may react to hair, nails, flesh and/or blood, or their
remnants, which are shed by the living as well as by the dead. There is an inverse
relationship between the number of substances which a dog has been trained to
identify with particularity, and the specificity of the dog’s alert.
http://hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=67
