I can see no point, as I already said, in continuing this discussion. I've achieved what I set out to do, which was to discover what evidence existed to support such claims as are still being made. i.e. "the evidence that (a) Eddie alerted to coconut". As some people are unable to understand that cadaver dogs don't alert to the scent of coconuts, there's no point in continuing to try to enlighten them imo.
It was a coconut shell and always was a coconut shell from the time it found itself lying in what became through time a Victorian layer.
Eddie alerted to the general area where on excavation the coconut shell was found. It looked suspiciously like a fragment of a child's skull which the anthropologist thought it could be.
But Lenny Harper was in a hurry to release the information to the world in an arranged press conference so the fragment was not scientifically tested. Eddie was called for and alerted as per his training - therefore the hundred odd year old nut casing was certified as being from a child's skull.
Which even if it had been was outwith the parameters of the investigation. It wasn't human though but it was enough to set the ball rolling.
As some people are unable to understand that no-one knows what cadaver dogs alert to without forensic or other information (the scattering of ashes in Haute de la Garenne for example) is introduced into the equation whether the scent of coconuts emanating from concrete layers or the scent in the corner of a bedroom, there's no point in continuing to try to enlighten them, but it is fun to watch them squirm 😁
