Have the dog alerts any significance?

[G-Unit]

Some had died also.

I don't agree that it would be the smell of decomposition though, not so quickly.

[ShiningInLuz]

No-one had to die in apartment 5A ~ nor was it necessary for their belongings to be returned to 5A for there to be a transference of the scent of a dead person.

It is documented that individuals only have to be in the same room as a deceased person for the transference to affect the clothing being worn.

 http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/the-smell-of-359205.html

I read the first 3 or 4 posts on the link and then gave up on it.

People can supposedly smell death on those about to die, or nope, this idea is nonsense.

One cannot get smell of death removed from oneself or one's clothing, or nope, this idea is nonsense because you can supposedly do both.

The issue I am interested in is the alerts in 5A.  And can they be ascribed to a previous occupant, now dead.  By whatever means.

AFAIK, the Ocean Club complex was built around 1982.  I don't know if that is designed, built or the selling of apartments, but it is not relevant here.

The point is the blocks searched by the dogs were roughly 25 years old in 2007.

I am not going to supply evidence as to who, precisely, purchased and occupied those blocks over 25 years.  Let alone who rented them.

The general profile of owner-renters appears to be retired, ex-pats.  People who over a period of 25 years would have a tendency to die.

This returns us to the well known challenge of explaining why alerts were recorded in 5A, and 27 Rua Das Flores, but not in the other 25 year old apartments.  We have deceased people a-plenty, but not alerts.

People connected to 5A died.  The dogs alerted. Am I expected to believe this is due to contamination?

Since the dogs did not alert elsewhere in block 5 or block 4, am I expected to believe that no one associated with these died before the doggy searches?

My post was about the total absence of evidence for 'cremations' and 'artefacts returned to 5A'.  Am I expected to believe this?  And also believe the properties searched in block 5 and block 4 were clear of such contamination?  After 25 years?

[Alice Purjorick]

I read the first 3 or 4 posts on the link and then gave up on it.

People can supposedly smell death on those about to die, or nope, this idea is nonsense.

One cannot get smell of death removed from oneself or one's clothing, or nope, this idea is nonsense because you can supposedly do both.

The issue I am interested in is the alerts in 5A.  And can they be ascribed to a previous occupant, now dead.  By whatever means.

AFAIK, the Ocean Club complex was built around 1982.  I don't know if that is designed, built or the selling of apartments, but it is not relevant here.

The point is the blocks searched by the dogs were roughly 25 years old in 2007.

I am not going to supply evidence as to who, precisely, purchased and occupied those blocks over 25 years.  Let alone who rented them.

The general profile of owner-renters appears to be retired, ex-pats.  People who over a period of 25 years would have a tendency to die.

This returns us to the well known challenge of explaining why alerts were recorded in 5A, and 27 Rua Das Flores, but not in the other 25 year old apartments.  We have deceased people a-plenty, but not alerts.

People connected to 5A died.  The dogs alerted. Am I expected to believe this is due to contamination?

Since the dogs did not alert elsewhere in block 5 or block 4, am I expected to believe that no one associated with these died before the doggy searches?

My post was about the total absence of evidence for 'cremations' and 'artefacts returned to 5A'.  Am I expected to believe this?  And also believe the properties searched in block 5 and block 4 were clear of such contamination?  After 25 years?

It is known in some circles as "PdL Bubble Syndrome". The treatment for those who have been in contact with a carrier is m³ of NaCl

[barrier]

May be alive may be dead
So the alerts tell us nothing

So you accept the dogs alerted,what is still be to  determined is what they alerted to,seeing as the dogs were trained in  certain discipline's it can't be too hard to work it out,once that is done the who remains the mystery.

[Mr Gray]

So you accept the dogs alerted,what is still be to  determined is what they alerted to,seeing as the dogs were trained in  certain discipline's it can't be too hard to work it out,once that is done the who remains the mystery.

I accept Grime said the dogs alerted
I don't accept they did

[Mr Gray]

So you accept the dogs alerted,what is still be to  determined is what they alerted to,seeing as the dogs were trained in  certain discipline's it can't be too hard to work it out,once that is done the who remains the mystery.

The alerts are not deemed to be a reliable indication of anything
According to
Grime
Harrison
And an interesting article posted about the dogs exploits in jersey
If you have a cite to show the alerts are a confirmation of cadaver odour please post

[barrier]

I accept Grime said the dogs alerted
I don't accept they did

I see,thanks for the clarification.

[barrier]

The alerts are not deemed to be a reliable indication of anything
According to
Grime
Harrison
And an interesting article posted about the dogs exploits in jersey
If you have a cite to show the alerts are a confirmation of cadaver odour please post

The dogs were trained in specific disciplines were they not,the dogs alerted,whats there to cite,its all on film.

[Mr Gray]

The dogs were trained in specific disciplines were they not,the dogs alerted,whats there to cite,its all on film.

The dogs are trained
But the alerts are not a reliable indication of cadaver odour

[Robittybob1]

The evidence is on the video - the dogs alert.  Eddie barks, but keela freezes with her nose pointing to the blood spot.

[sadie]

'In 5A, with the exception of the alert near the wardrobes, Keela proved that all the other alerts by Eddie were to blood from a living person.'

You can of course provide proof for that statement ?

Cant you be bothered to read my posts or the posts by ferryman, stephen ?  It has all been proved many times before with documentation, but just for you:

It was shown, with cites, in a previous thread, probably by ferryman that Keelas input was essential to check out Eddies alerts ... and to decide whether Eddie was alerting to blood (Edited) or alerting to cadaver odour.

Despite all the claimed alerts to cadaver odour in 5A, the truth is that in only one place [in the wardrobe, or just outside it by the head of the bed], was there anything that could have been cadaver odour.   

However, likewise (i) it could have been dead pig cadaver odour, because Eddie was trained on pig.   Once trained a dog is always going to alert to the scent of dead pig, even if it is cooked pork or bacon.  He cannot be detrained.

Or it could have been that (ii) Eddie was having an erratic moment and barked for the sake of it,  See mistys video.

I have proved this over and over on this very thread.  Do please read my posts properly in future, stephen



Oh, I nearly forgot, forensic evidence was necessary to back up any possible alerts.  There was NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE that backed them

[stephen25000]

Cant you be bothered to read my posts or the posts by ferryman, stephen ?  It has all been proved many times before with documentation, but just for you:

It was shown, with cites, in a previous thread, probably by ferryman that Keelas input was essential to check out Eddies alerts ... and to decide whether Eddie was alerting to blood from a living person or alerting to cadaver odour.

Despite all the claimed alerts to cadaver odour in 5A, the truth is that in only one place [in the wardrobe, or just outside it by the head of the bed], was there anything that could have been cadaver odour.   

However, likewise (i) it could have been dead pig cadaver odour, because Eddie was trained on pig.   Once trained a dog is always going to alert to the scent of dead pig, even if it is cooked pork or bacon.  He cannot be detrained.

Or it could have been that (ii) Eddie was having an erratic moment and barked for the sake of it,  See mistys video.

I have proved this over and over on this very thread.  Do please read my posts properly in future, stephen



Oh, I nearly forgot, forensic evidence was necessary to back up any possible alerts.  There was NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE that backed them

Yet again Sadie, provide evidence that  Keela was trained to distinguish between blood from a living or non living source.

I await a logical answer.

[misty]

Yet again Sadie, provide evidence that  Keela was trained to distinguish between blood from a living or non living source.

I await a logical answer.

Keela was trained to alert to dried blood, whether from the living or deceased.

[stephen25000]

Keela was trained to alert to dried blood, whether from the living or deceased.

I know.

Tell Sadie.

[misty]

I know.

Tell Sadie.

I think I just did.
She is right that Keela was used to rule the blood element out of Eddie's alerts, though, meaning the alert beside the wardrobe has no forensic corroboration. There is no test for adsorption of odour film.