![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/sydney.png)
- Aug 9, 2016
- 4,606
- 5,699
- AFL Club
- Sydney
At a more fundamental level, a paper finding dogs were successful 97% of the time doesn't mean it's 97% certain a body was in the unit or car or wherever. The study you keep referencing doesn't factor in the biases and errors specific to Maddie's kidnapping and murder. You can't take one study and apply it to a real event and expect the same results. It might be applicable (due to chance) but it almost certainly isn't (particularly considering all the evidence indicating Maddie's parents aren't involved).
This shows your ignorance. A paper that has those statistics WILL create a 97% probability there was indeed a cadaver there. 99.99% for twice and supported by blood dog indications. The only doubt is the fact the study is of a cohort whereas the single indications are by A dog. If, however, the dog is compatible example from the study then the study can be applied to the dog result. The fact Eddie was trained by identifying positive Indications (to enable the handler assess accuracy) means he knows his dogs accuracy.
This ignorance is part of the problem here. People simply don't understand the implications of the result. If you have a cadaver dog give indications at two locations on separate timelines supported then by blood dog indications at those same places also supported by a mixed DNA sample with Maddie and where both locations point one direction it's a conclusive probable link. Then throw in the fact it was on the toy, on their clothes, in main bed, on car keys, patio door handle.........
You simply can't find a more definitive scenario pointing to what happened.
Pat Brown understands the importance. She tried to find some explanation for how CB may have created those indications. What if he killed her behind sofa left her for 90 minutes to create cadaverine, came back and took her body away and then 3 weeks later tried to frame McCann not having known at that time there would even be cadaver dog tests and having no link to him having escaped without detection. No. Didn't happen.
There is only one probable explanation here with any credibility. That is why I knew from day 1 that CB wasn't responsible. The principle relating to mutually exclusive events
To be blunt, this reads like you're doing a bit. It's so convoluted and wrong that the only way to explain it is you're doing an intentional parody.
No parody. You were confused about the direction the multiplier principle creates and consequent increase or reduction in number. I was trying to explain there are two probabilities here. The probability of error rate (a negative) and probability of success rate. Because we are seeking to establish the probability it might be wrong it is multiplier of the negative values. 33 x 33. Inverse to each other obviously. But importantly when trying to determine either you MUST multiply them in the same line. At days end the two MUST add to 100% also. The chance the dogs were in error is 0.01%. that's because there were two tests and you need both of them to be wrong ie multiplier.
I apologise if I explained it poorly which in no way affects my math or conclusions drawn.