The discrepencies in the McCanns and cronies statements.

sym wrote:No one is cadaver one is blood...Dogs that is...never mind directing me elsewhere sabot, I want the opinion of posters here...so rip it apart and lets hear it.

I repeat, "Both dogs are trained to scent blood"

It's in Martin Grime's statement, in The Files.

Then go and get the relevant piece for us to debate.

sym wrote:Then go and get the relevant piece for us to debate.

Go and get it yourself. And have a good look through while you are there.

There is nothing to debate. It is a FACT.

sym wrote:Then go and get the relevant piece for us to debate.

Martin Grimes
CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 21 to 25

Dated May 14 2008

I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The Judicial Police is in possession of the originals of the search reports and the videos showing all searches performed and the reaction of the dogs. In addition to the report, Sam Harkeness of the Progresso Nacional Police Agency sent me by email several written questions sent by the Judicial Police together with a request for a written deposition. This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.

Questions and Answers:

Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs bearing in mind the searches that were performed?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).

Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.

In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case?
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog?
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver?
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred?
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

The EVRD dog also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?
The EVRD dog is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids?
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
Platelets
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.

Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion?
The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?
Cross-contamination is immediate.

How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog?
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odor, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results?
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
During training, the dogs are barely rewarded for positive alert signals regarding targets of known substances.

At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case?
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.

This deposition was made by me and is true according to my understanding.

Will straighten up and read it when I have a starighht head on in the next couple of hours...No I am not drunk, I do not drink and hate those who do it in excess.

Processos Vol XII

Pages 3885

Witness Statement

Date: 17-10-2007

Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa


He comes to the process as a witness, as an officer from the Lagos GNR, he has worked for the Guarda for 13 years.

He confirms the integrity of his previous statements.

Regarding the facts on 3rd May, when he was on patrol with his colleague Roque in the Odiaxere zone, they received a radio communication from the central, telling them to go to P da L, specifically to the OC resort reception where the father of a little girl who had gone missing was. When they were on their way to this place and in the Valverde area, they received a new communication, informing them that this was a very young child and that her father had called again. They continued on their way, now with urgency, heading for the main reception of the resort.

When they arrived they saw the girl’s father, a friend whom the witness describes as tall and blond, an OC employee and a translator who was also an OC employee, named Silvia Baptista.

After hearing about the circumstances of the disappearance (from the father with the help of translation) he does not remember whether the word abduction was mentioned, and he went in his police car, to the apartment, accompanied by the father, the friend and the translator. When he arrived at the apartment he saw that the wooden door, now referred to as the main door, was closed and he thinks someone who he cannot identify opened it. When he entered, there were other individual apart from the mother, he does not know how many but there was at least another couple present.

Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. He did not see anything strange during the search and there was no sign of a break in. As regards the bed clothes of the child’s bed, he found it to have a normal disposition.

He found it notable that when they were still at the main reception, the father kneeled down, laying his head on the ground and crying, at the same time as making an expression which the witness did not understand.

After the search of the interior, his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual, he does not know whether she was a member of the group of friends, who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine. It was in these circumstances that abduction began to be talked about. He made a report about this situation and sent it to the police.

This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.

When asked, he said that at that time he also saw a lot of local people, who were searching for the missing girl.

Whilst he was outside he talked to the witness mentioned previously and to some residents who had not seen anything. He exchanged some words with the mother, who was crying and only asked for more police officers.

When questioned about the bedroom windows, he only remembers that blinds of the window of the girl’s bedroom were not totally closed. He does not remember about the existence of curtains or whether the window itself was closed.

He says that in the apartment there were two beds and two cots placed in Madeleine’s room, he does not remember their position. The children never woke up, he is sure, not knowing what position they were in, however he found this situation to be very strange, as a lot of noise was made.

As regards the parents, he says they were nervous and anxious, emotional. He adds that upon observing the scene it did not appear to him to be an abduction, but rather a normal disappearance where the child had left by her own means.

As regards the living room sofa, next to a curtain, he cannot be sure whether the sofa was against the wall.

He also refers to a situation at about 02 or 03.00, that the parents asked for a priest and his colleague had tried to contact one on his mobile, but did not manage to find one.

He also emphasises the situation that someone, who he cannot identify, having contacted Sky News and the Embassy that night. He does not know if were the parents.

He also notes that he saw various photographs on normal A4 paper of the girl, which had been printed at the reception, as well as other photos on photographic paper, poster type 10x15, that could not have been printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that it was not possible for them to have been printed at the reception.

He has nothing else to add.

Reads, ratifies, signs.

Sabot one dog detects blood, the other dog human cadaver scent or death scent. There was no blood on cuddlecat, but the dog detected the death scent.

The EVRD dog is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver


Snip from the report you posted up of M.Grimes. It doesn't say anywhere that they only detect blood.

One detects blood, the other detects blood and cadavar scent.

candyfloss wrote:Sabot one dog detects blood, the other dog human cadaver scent or death scent. There was no blood on cuddlecat, but the dog detected the death scent.

The EVRD dog is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver


Snip from the report you posted up of M.Grimes. It doesn't say anywhere that they only detect blood.

Keela detects blood. Eddie dectects both blood and cadaver scent. Eddie is a Victim Recovery Dog. He was first trained to detect blood, and later trained to detect cadaver odour as well.

There have been countless threads about this. Eddie can detect dried blood from a live human.

Processos, volume III
Pages 762 to 765

Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz

The deponent states that:
• He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
• He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
• That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.
• When carrying out this operation with the second dog, he followed the same rout, took the same direction and headed toward the light post in the parking lot mentioned above. He sniffed the area and at that point appeared to have lost the scent. The only difference was that this dog did not head toward the entrance of the restaurant or the pool area.
• None of the dogs used in this search, after having been given the towel supposedly used by the child, entered into block 5 but went immediately to the street between the apartment and the leisure area. It should be taken into account that the second sniffer dog may have been conditioned by the first sniffer dog. That is to say that in the case of doubt, the second dog may have followed the second of the first.
• Taking into account the aforementioned results, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. This situation can be explained by the nature of the terrain, that is, it is a small space enclosed by walls and as such lingering scents would take longer to dissipate.
• Yesterday (08.05.2007) around 23H45, this search action was repeated but this time the dogs were sent into blocks 5 and 4 of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort. During this operation, and given the time that had passed combined with the heat, the results that were achieved are very relative given that the dog will confirm all the odours it scents, certainly alerting to those that are most active, namely due to the fact that the apartment was occupied. It is also noted that the dog’s perception in the interior may be affected by noise.
• The initial diligence carried out with first sniffer dog, after having sniffed the towel used in the previous operation, began searching and showing interest in some doors leading to other apartments. He did not show any interest or even approach other apartments. In none of these actions did the dog give the signal to his trainer, Soldado Fernandes. It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed.
• He states that after the search inside block 5, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route on 04.05.07, being the existent road of that apartment and the leisure area (pools and restaurant) and then went to the same parking area. At that point, the scent was lost. This situation may be related to the fact that the biggest concentration of odours are in that area and due to the fact that odours are better preserved near walls and away from major winds. It is certain that upon reaching the main road and turning right is where the biggest concentration of odours exist. This is where the dog lost interest.
• The second dog was taken through the same operation and also showed interest at the door of apartment 5J. This same dog jumped on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head as though in search of an odour. As related above, this interest could have been the result of various factors but it is certain that in this area the scent was intense. In the exterior, the sniffer dog immediately headed to the parking area next to block 6 and there apparently lost the scent.
• I would like to clarify that a search in a bad area, where a more intense odour perceived by the sniffer dog, such as in an urban area due to the large concentration of external odours, make it possible to confuse the dog. In this situation, search activity is very difficult as is the case when some time has passed since the event in question.
• Because he is asked, he states that in relation to this, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the sniffer dog. It is clear that some conditions involved in this action augment the degree of uncertainty. The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for.
• And nothing more was said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

[quote="murat_fan"]Processos, volume III
Pages 762 to 765

Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz

The deponent states that:
• He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
• He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
• That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.
• When carrying out this operation with the second dog, he followed the same rout, took the same direction and headed toward the light post in the parking lot mentioned above. He sniffed the area and at that point appeared to have lost the scent. The only difference was that this dog did not head toward the entrance of the restaurant or the pool area.
• None of the dogs used in this search, after having been given the towel supposedly used by the child, entered into block 5 but went immediately to the street between the apartment and the leisure area. It should be taken into account that the second sniffer dog may have been conditioned by the first sniffer dog. That is to say that in the case of doubt, the second dog may have followed the second of the first.
• Taking into account the aforementioned results, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. This situation can be explained by the nature of the terrain, that is, it is a small space enclosed by walls and as such lingering scents would take longer to dissipate.
• Yesterday (08.05.2007) around 23H45, this search action was repeated but this time the dogs were sent into blocks 5 and 4 of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort. During this operation, and given the time that had passed combined with the heat, the results that were achieved are very relative given that the dog will confirm all the odours it scents, certainly alerting to those that are most active, namely due to the fact that the apartment was occupied. It is also noted that the dog’s perception in the interior may be affected by noise.
• The initial diligence carried out with first sniffer dog, after having sniffed the towel used in the previous operation, began searching and showing interest in some doors leading to other apartments. He did not show any interest or even approach other apartments. In none of these actions did the dog give the signal to his trainer, Soldado Fernandes. It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed.
• He states that after the search inside block 5, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route on 04.05.07, being the existent road of that apartment and the leisure area (pools and restaurant) and then went to the same parking area. At that point, the scent was lost. This situation may be related to the fact that the biggest concentration of odours are in that area and due to the fact that odours are better preserved near walls and away from major winds. It is certain that upon reaching the main road and turning right is where the biggest concentration of odours exist. This is where the dog lost interest.
• The second dog was taken through the same operation and also showed interest at the door of apartment 5J. This same dog jumped on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head as though in search of an odour. As related above, this interest could have been the result of various factors but it is certain that in this area the scent was intense. In the exterior, the sniffer dog immediately headed to the parking area next to block 6 and there apparently lost the scent.
• I would like to clarify that a search in a bad area, where a more intense odour perceived by the sniffer dog, such as in an urban area due to the large concentration of external odours, make it possible to confuse the dog. In this situation, search activity is very difficult as is the case when some time has passed since the event in question.
• Because he is asked, he states that in relation to this, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the sniffer dog. It is clear that some conditions involved in this action augment the degree of uncertainty. The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for.
• And nothing more was said. Reads, ratifies and signs.[

this bit is very significant----They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.

supposedly hmmm,so it could have been used by anyone

It would have had Madeleines scent on it. If the scent belonged to anyone else, the dogs would have gone to them.

murat_fan wrote:It would have had Madeleines scent on it. If the scent belonged to anyone else, the dogs would have gone to them.

ok if you say so, sorry i thought this was eddie and keela

chris wrote:

murat_fan wrote:It would have had Madeleines scent on it. If the scent belonged to anyone else, the dogs would have gone to them.

ok if you say so, sorry i thought this was eddie and keela

No it was the search dogs

murat_fan wrote:

chris wrote:

murat_fan wrote:It would have had Madeleines scent on it. If the scent belonged to anyone else, the dogs would have gone to them.

ok if you say so, sorry i thought this was eddie and keela

No it was the search dogs

yes i realized when i re-read that report,thanks

One very basic question regarding the first and most crucial witness statements from the tapas group, 4th May 2007.
They did not simply sit there and give a statement each, did they ? Each delivering a monologue?
Under a photo taken of the group by press May 4th a.m. is this heading
On the morning of 04 May 2007, members of the 'Tapas Group' gather, before travelling to police offices in Portimão for questioning.
So, where are the questions? They were interviewed by the police, there is a comprehensive set of witness statements given to the police, with an interpreter present, and it states the translations of their statements were read and signed by the witnesses.

Why are the questions not part of the transcript? The questions themselves and the way they were asked were surely significant.

Straight from the horse's mouth - Gerry interviewed whilst in portugal filming the channel 4 documentary reconstruction - admits the police reconstruction was resisted because it would have shown up inconsistencies in their stories.


----------------
Gerry McCann explained his involvement with the documentary, which will be aired next month and shown in several European countries including Portugal shortly afterwards, was purely aimed at finding Madeleine.
He also recalled that failed attempts to stage a police reconstruction were not of their doing.

“We would have been obliged to come back [due to their status as arguidos that was only lifted last July]. It did not fall on us to do it, but other people. Don’t get me wrong, we had major concerns as to why the reconstruction was being done. As opposed to this reconstruction, which will be broadcast with a view to getting new information, the police reconstruction was not aimed at finding Madeleine, but rather to look for inconsistencies. There were 12 or 15 people involved and it is inevitable there would be inconsistencies”, he said. A response which led to the question over his disagreement with Jane Tanner [a member of the so-called Tapas 7] over where he was standing as Miss Tanner walked passed him the night she spotted a man taking what she believed to be a man carrying a child:
“In my mind, I am 100 percent certain I was on the other side of the road, though Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins said I was on the side closest to the apartment. I can’t resolve that, I remember making a conscious decision to cross the road”.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/24APRIL9/P_NEWS_11_04_09.htm

see above

Stewie - sometimes it just gets too much! When I read such blatant 'misrepresentations' of the truth. A friend of mine used to quote a famous German conductor, who got fed up in rehearsals with the wind section - he threw down his baton and shouted:
'You! Segonde flute! Zometimes, I can stand your damna nonsense, but today, always, Never!!'

Great topic!
I'd been looking for the post that Candyfloss added. I saw a headline once which said that Kate was persecuted for her religious beliefs because of the mass prayer.
Gosh this was so orchestrated. Actually an orchestra is a pretty good model for the players.
Not reading from the same page, dissonance, etc.

candyfloss wrote:Kate leaving the twins alone is the most shocking. IF there was an abductor, you would never leave the remaining children unattended.,

This is quite telling. The only way the twins would have been left alone would be by knowing there was no danger. Not left alone after "knowing" an abduction had taken place. Common sense.

have you had time to read the files yet? I was wondering how you were going to explain Kate getting 'war grave odour' on her kecks?

worriedmum wrote:have you had time to read the files yet? I was wondering how you were going to explain Kate getting 'war grave odour' on her kecks?

Was that post to me?

no Friedtomatoes, it was to the 'Guest' who thought cadaver odour was coming through the floor of the apartment...

friedtomatoes wrote:

worriedmum wrote:have you had time to read the files yet? I was wondering how you were going to explain Kate getting 'war grave odour' on her kecks?

Was that post to me?

Her post was entitled...

guest poster with a thing about old war graves....

Think it was meant for them.

No worries worriedmum and candyfloss

Got it now.

Those pesky dogs! Red flags all around on this score. Why? The innocent answer would be, we do not know, we will try and find out, instead they have gone out of their way to discredit them, huge red flag.

who were the others [apart from the tapas 9 and Wilkins] Gerry refers to here as forming the group for a reconstruction?

"There were 12 or 15 people involved and it is inevitable there would be inconsistencies”,

Jez Wilkins was the only one outside the group wasn't he? Who apart from him would have been needed?