Re: McCanns new video: Maddie plays dressing-up, weeks before she vanished

by kangdang 02.05.10 16:45

Wouldn't the most effective video appeal be, after all this time, one where the McCanns directed a message to Madeleine and her abductor/s. Surely a heartfelt direct appeal/plea would work far better.

Seriously cannot get my head around this new video, it does nothing except promote images of Madeleine that would appeal to plenty of paedophiles ...beggars belief, it really does

by aiyoyo 02.05.10 16:57

uuhmm,,,,Must go back to take a look....why people see the backside I dont.

by aiyoyo 02.05.10 17:20

jkh wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks jkh.
I've listened to them now. At the end, TB had said "those items had to be in direct contact where the corpse had been/laid".......I didnt realise that ie that it absolutely had to be in 'direct contact' first hand.

I had thought that, but in addition, so long as an item had been put together with something that had been in direct contact with the corpse (first hand) then cross transference/contamination (2nd hand) can occur. Of course, someone better comes along and correct me b/c I am not the best informed or read.

by kary 02.05.10 18:44

aiyoyo wrote:
jkh wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks jkh.
I've listened to them now. At the end, TB had said "those items had to be in direct contact where the corpse had been/laid".......I didnt realise that ie that it absolutely had to be in 'direct contact' first hand.

I had thought that, but in addition, so long as an item had been put together with something that had been in direct contact with the corpse (first hand) then cross transference/contamination (2nd hand) can occur. Of course, someone better comes along and correct me b/c I am not the best informed or read.

There is an often quoted paper regarding cadaver dogs and their reliability which describes an interesting experiment with carpet squares that were not in direct contact with the tissue of the deceased:

L. Oesterhelweg, S. Krober, K. Rottmann, J. Willhoft, C. Braun, N. Thies, K. Puschel, J. Sildenath, and A. Gehl, “Cadaver Dogs—A Study on Detection of Contaminated Carpet Squares,” 174 Forensic Science International 35-39 (2008).

You can download the pdf from here

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here's an extract from the method:

Two deceased individuals, a 60-year-old male (A) and a 63-year-old male (B) were admitted to the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg. They were immediately transported to a tent placed within the inner courtyard of the institute. The location for this investigation was specifically chosen in order to minimize a potential cross contamination of any odors
with those of stored, putrefied bodies within the Institute. Both men (A and B) had publicly collapsed and died despite comprehensive resuscitative efforts. At the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B) was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively.

Brand new carpet squares 20 cm _ 20 cm were purchased and used as the medium for the odor transport. Before the initiation of this investigation, the carpet squares were stored in airtight containers outside the boundaries of the Institute of Legal Medicine.

The two bodies were placed in a supine position on top of a new and clean table and a separate table was used for each individual. A cotton blanket was wrapped around each body to preclude the direct contamination of the carpet squares with the bodies while at the same time simulating a thin layer of clothing covering each individual. A total of 32 carpet squares were placed subsequently underneath the backside of the torsos. Within 45 min of the arrival at the institute, 24 carpet squares (body A) were ‘‘contaminated’’ for 10 min during three consecutive sessions. Within 15 min of arriving at the institute, eight other carpet squares (body B) were contaminated for 2 min during two subsequent sessions. Additionally, living individuals who denied having had any contact with deceased tissues served as control subjects and contaminated an additional eight carpet squares. Immediately following the contamination, the carpet squares were placed into airtight glass jars and brought to the Police Dog Training Center (LPS 36) at the Hamburg State Police Department.

-------------------

The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75–100%), specificity (91–100%), and having a positive predictive value (90–100%), negative predictive value (90–100%) as well as accuracy (92–100%).

Another interesting thing is that contamination could be for as little as 2 mins. Also, one of the bodies had been dead for only 1 hour 50 mins. This doesn't deal with transference, though.

by **Jill Havern** 02.05.10 18:45

candyfloss wrote:What a strange and weird video. At least they (the pro's) can't accuse the anti's of "doctoring" these photos can they??

It's interesting to see the Pro's opinions of the appropriateness of the new photo of Maddie.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Deuce:

It's a picture of a child who has raided the make up box and made a mess of herself with eye shadow. It's an impish child having a laugh.

This picture also forms a small part of the video. The bigger picture being to raise Madeleine's profile and show a normal child using photographs to reflect that child.

It is sad that the motive of the video has been lost in judging a photograph where the child has decorated herself. If it was a photo of a child, deliberatly made up to look like a made up woman, like Kate Price recently did, then it would be a different kettle of fish as the motive was different.

With this picture, the motive was not propogated by the parents making Madeleine up to show off. Therefore any motive to consider this picture sinister would have to be considered by those who behold it.

by Guest 02.05.10 19:02

jkh wrote:
candyfloss wrote:What a strange and weird video. At least they (the pro's) can't accuse the anti's of "doctoring" these photos can they??

It's interesting to see the Pro's opinions of the appropriateness of the new photo of Maddie.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Deuce:

It's a picture of a child who has raided the make up box and made a mess of herself with eye shadow. It's an impish child having a laugh.

This picture also forms a small part of the video. The bigger picture being to raise Madeleine's profile and show a normal child using photographs to reflect that child.

It is sad that the motive of the video has been lost in judging a photograph where the child has decorated herself. If it was a photo of a child, deliberatly made up to look like a made up woman, like Kate Price recently did, then it would be a different kettle of fish as the motive was different.

With this picture, the motive was not propogated by the parents making Madeleine up to show off. Therefore any motive to consider this picture sinister would have to be considered by those who behold it.

Does he really believe that Madeleine put that make-up on herself???

by **Jill Havern** 02.05.10 19:22

Yep, he also thinks she's an impish child having a laugh. I don't see Maddie laughing in the pic.

In fact there's a little bit of blue to the right of the pic and I wonder if it's the tshirt of a person because it looks as though someone has grabbed her hair and pulled her head back for the photo.

by littlepixie 02.05.10 19:44

I left a comment on the Mail article saying the new picture of Maddie reminded me of the pics I have seen of JonBenet Ramsey. It hasn't been published.

by twinkle 02.05.10 21:13

I have to say that the makeup doesn't look perfectly applied at all, it is all over her cheeks if you look.
But I do think it is an odd choice of picture to release, given that any picture they have would not be an accurate representation of how she would look now.

by **Jill Havern** 02.05.10 21:23

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What about the make up on this photo though?

by Rainbow 02.05.10 21:54

I dont see any make up on there?

by Judge Mental 02.05.10 22:04

“So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that.”

*******************************************************

Meanwhile thanks to Corner, there will be other 'bastards' out there who will be able to savour the latest releases for many years to come, as long as they keep them on their pocket-sized and easily disposable removable hard-drives.

One never knows when the police may come knocking at the door, and if one does not have a friendly neighbourhood bobby giving a sly tip-off that somebody from CEOPS is on their way round, one could get caught with all kinds of heavily encrypted mischief. However, an external hard-drive clenched between your buttocks and a request to go to the toilet before being interviewed will ensure there is nothing to find.

by Judge Mental 02.05.10 22:11

Rainbow wrote:I dont see any make up on there?

*********************************************

If one were to compare the lips here with other photographs, one would see that these lips make other photographs look as if she had Keats' '...... starved lips in the gloam.'

Latest topics