Re: Blood spray

by nomendelta 07.02.15 16:59

So if there was no bloody spray then where does that leave the McCanns excuse that Maddie had suffered a nosebleed? If she had a nosebleed, then there was blood spray...but if there was no blood spray then what? Where did Maddie's nosebleed blood go to? I mean it MUST have happened if the McCanns said it did.

by G-Unit 07.02.15 20:23

When questioned Gerald McCann said;

The lawyer for the defence says he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn't know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

I don't know if they commented further.

by LombardySkeptik 07.02.15 22:09

nomendelta wrote:So if there was no bloody spray then where does that leave the McCanns excuse that Maddie had suffered a nosebleed? If she had a nosebleed, then there was blood spray...but if there was no blood spray then what? Where did Maddie's nosebleed blood go to? I mean it MUST have happened if the McCanns said it did.

Perhaps this was another example of 'just in case we missed something, lets add this to the list, along with tea stains and stuff'

by fz2 07.02.15 22:57

One of these sources is blood, and Martin Grime is in the PJ files on two occasions making it clear that Eddie will alert to blood, not fresh blood but decomposing blood. (Elca Craig)

Please, can you elaborate, when fresh blood becomes decomposing blood? I aint no scientist but from what I have read so far blood decomposes the instant it leaves the body.

by Guest 07.02.15 23:39

We have absolutely no evidence that Eddie alerts to cadaverine. There is at least one other product of decomposition, so 'cadaverine' is merely a term used by folks trying to imply a cadaver.

***Eddie is an evrd dog who is trained to alert to the scent of death as a whole, so yes it is true cadaverine is only used as a layman’s term, equal to the professional term of scent of death. To be more specific human scent of death.
Scent of death is indeed build up of several different break down components of tissue and blood, most could be measured in lab circumstances exits of gasses, fluids and acids.
Cadaver is not a scent and not used normally by a pro. Over here we don’t use the word cadaver ever for human remains, but always refer to it as a body or corpse, just to keep showing it some respect. Cadaver is reserved over here for dead animals.

The dog's handler, Martin Grime, does not use the term 'cadaverine', but explains that Eddie will alert to many sources of decomposition. One of these sources is blood, and Martin Grime is in the PJ files on two occasions making it clear that Eddie will alert to blood, not fresh blood but decomposing blood.

***Wrong, blood is coming from a once living body, it is not part of the scent of death, decomposing blood is. There is a difference in training to the scent of fresh blood, the scent of dried out blood( keela’s specialty) and the scent for decomposing blood.
In pure samples even most humans could smell the differences. For dog trained for evrd mostly dried out blood is used.
Eddy was originally trained on finding remaining human blood, before he was trained to scent of human death. So grime always takes this matter in to his observations, that is also the reason why eddy and keela and most other evrd dogs works in tandem.
Because there is still no way we could prove the scent of death on a actual crime scene, we know the dogs could differentiate, but dogs don’t talk, the just react on what they are trained to .

There is also a difference to actually what thee composing stages with the resulting scent the dog is trained to, sometimes a dog could be resistant to a certain stage. Not all dogs equally likes the smell of death.
As eddy was first out trained on human blood, he still could react to it, because of that earlier training. Nothing to do with decomposed blood, which he also could alert to, as it is part of scent of death. Eddy was after his initial training on human blood, trained further to a broad range of human death scent. Dogs of this caliber has a heavy paper trail of testing so the range within the scent of death he could react to is pretty well known.
All those dogs has to do regular examinations on their skills.

Eddie alerted to the Scenic car key and the FSS identified the source as Gerry McCann i.e. not a cadaver.
***Eddy in single could be signaling to remaining human blood, or scent of death, keela is not trained on the scent of death and would be brought in to mark out, if it is blood, or scent of death.
Keela could work on her own, but eddy’s specialty we can’t test from a live crime scene by lab results. Dried human blood would hardly gives a result of decomposing. The drying out fixates it and stops it to decompose. Keela is a very specialist dog on dried out human blood.

I have explained this at length over at ShiningInLuz, but here is the short version.
***you could explain a lot, but may i ask what your experience is with crime scene interpretation, evrd dogs and forensics in total?

The McCanns moved from 5A to 5H to spend a short part of one night with the Payne's. Eddie checked 5H and did not alert.
***there is nothing in the files to state the same objects from 5a were eddy later on alerted, have ever been there. So why would you expect scent of death in 5h at all?

On 4 May, the McCanns moved to 4G, where they spent 2 months. Eddie checked 4G and did not alert. Further, 2 items of clothing to which Eddie would later alert, plus Cuddle Cat, can be proved to have been in 4G.

***You can’t expect without more inside information, that 4g was ever contaminated by the later marked objects. Contamination works best from direct contact, in what is often told the decomposing stages of a body, when such a contamination dried out, you only left with very volatile gasses and acids.
Contamination depends mostly of transmission of something that is still wet or through not to much circulation of air in a confined space, otherwise the scent would end up into the air around until they are not longer traceable. That is actually what is happening with our noses, as long as there is not very much scent of death around we don’t smell it, dogs need just a fraction of what people need. But they need still a certain amount depending on the abilities of the dog. A heavy burden of human dead scent you won’t miss.

***There was nothing there left in 4g and there is no sign that there was ever something from a contact stage of a decomposing body, so no direct body to object contamination, the clothes would already were transported to the villa, so no direct contaminated items and no containing of scent of death around them. Nothing that is very special. They had a lot to take with them, the doors would have been open for quite some time, it was a warm period, so good circumstances for a scent to disappear into thin air. Your conclusion could also have been, there was to little to get an result. Why do you opt for not there, no results means something different.

The McCanns moved to 27 Rua das Flores on 2nd July 2007. From there Eddie alerted to 3 items of clothing (two of them Kate's, one of them Sean's), Cuddle Cat and 2 places in the Scenic.

***Those items could have been contaminated in direct contact or directly after from other items that were contaminated, transmission has then better conversion rates on those pretty early and direct contaminated objects, but not so much result in contamination of other objects in the villa. There are no pictures how those clothing items were stored, so it is difficult to set a conclusion to possibility of transmission to other surroundings and objects.
The items itself could still hold enough to detect for eddy.

Anyone who wishes to suggest a death and cover-up in 5A has to explain why 5H is clean and 4G is clean. Particularly if there was blood spray in 5A, which there wasn't.

***the lack of blood spray is your conclusion from nothing i think, you forget that also forensics have to make choices sometimes, certainly when samples are very small,
It looks like the results in the files, they concentrated on finding dna over sampling for origin like blood.
I have the impression you read to much in the term cellular material, this does not say were it originated from other then a cell, but it does also not disqualify blood.
The tests for proving blood are very different from any dna testing set up. not all samples were tested to origin.

Finally, Eddie's alert in the parent's bedroom in 5A. You need to look at the long version (about 90 minutes) on YouTube. Martin Grime essentially dismisses Eddie's alert in the bedroom, so Martin Grime doesn't think Eddie is 100% accurate. He picks and chooses.

***wrong conclusion, grime gives an explanation about the possibility that the scent could travel, there is always the possibility some air locked out or in from normal circulation, so scent could build up in something like a corner or even in a closet. Grime tells us, that the place were eddy signals don’t have to be the exact spot were the scent was originated from. Not that the scent was not there, or that eddy was not accurate, it does not mean if gives not a lead to the investigation, but the rest depends of further results and they have to come from other tools, because we simply can’t catch scent of death.

***The dog signal is pretty basic, it is just: i did found some, or i do not be sure or i don't find some. from there it comes to interpretation by experienced dog handlers to decide which type of behaviour his dog corresponded with what could be in circulation. That is why those dogs are always keeping in training. So the handler could learn howto read the dog.

As an aside, where was Cuddle Cat in the forensic photos taken in the early hours of 4 May? In the children's bedroom on Madeleine's bed. That's another place that Eddie did not alert, so Cuddle Cat has to be explained.

***If cuddly cat had only been contaminated on it’s front parts, there was no direct contact to what was beneath it, so secondary transfer couldn't have been enough to deliver enough scent. We also have to take into consideration that only the story of the parents told, gives us a time for the item being present. No way you could prove otherwise how long the item was there, time is also needed for secondary contamination.

What was found on the clothes to which Eddie alerted? I can't see anything from that going into the evidence chain, so the answer appears to be nothing.

***Absolutely no one can prove the existence of scent of death on an actual crime scene or such an object, so the answer could be also there was indeed scent of death or not, both answers are possible, why is your conclusion that when there is lack of proof, there is only one answer possible, a negative one?

***What you forget is that the work of the dogs is exactly the same in status, as what an witness statement is. Both on their own could not be evidence, not in my country, both could lead you up to evidence for further use.

***For the investigation the testimonies of eddy and keela are very important, but their positive signals are not the end, but just a beginning in evidence gathering. But if you don’t find evidence, it does not mean the dogs are incompetent or wrong, usually mostly the people are the incompetent ones, we still lack to much ability to get results we looking for.

***Those working dogs from different specialties are living tools, needed because we ourselves lack abilities. You can’t blame the hammer, because you let it slam down on your fingers?
If you read all the forensic files, you could also read that the dogs were not the only tools used. Why blame the dogs, but not the incubator, or the microscope or testing sticks?

the answers with *** are mine, did a mega mix up with the colors, when i transfer the copy from word. hope it comes out readable.

by fz2 07.02.15 23:59

nomendelta wrote:So if there was no bloody spray then where does that leave the McCanns excuse that Maddie had suffered a nosebleed? If she had a nosebleed, then there was blood spray...but if there was no blood spray then what? Where did Maddie's nosebleed blood go to? I mean it MUST have happened if the McCanns said it did.

There is a huge difference between blood spray (spatter) and that of a human nose bleed or cut.

by fz2 08.02.15 0:14

Keela could work on her own, but eddy’s specialty WE can’t test from a live crime scene by lab results.

fz2 wrote:One of these sources is blood, and Martin Grime is in the PJ files on two occasions making it clear that Eddie will alert to blood, not fresh blood but decomposing blood. (Elca Craig)

Please, can you elaborate, when fresh blood becomes decomposing blood? I aint no scientist but from what I have read so far blood decomposes the instant it leaves the body.

Who are we?

by fz2 08.02.15 0:30

G-Unit wrote:
Elça Craig wrote:
G-Unit wrote:Thank you for that. So. Eddie alerted in 5A behind the couch and in the parent's bedroom. As Keela alerted to blood behind the couch on the tiles, this could have been what Eddie was alerting to also. Keela did not alert in the bedroom, so we could assume Eddie was alerting to cadaverine there. Eddie also alerted to the McCann's hired car, and so did Keela, so there was probably blood there also. In addition, Eddie alerted to Kate's clothes and cuddle cat. If Keela did not, then that was probably cadaverine also. Corrections welcome!

We have absolutely no evidence that Eddie alerts to cadaverine. There is at least one other product of decomposition, so 'cadaverine' is merely a term used by folks trying to imply a cadaver.

The dog's handler, Martin Grime, does not use the term 'cadaverine', but explains that Eddie will alert to many sources of decomposition. One of these sources is blood, and Martin Grime is in the PJ files on two occasions making it clear that Eddie will alert to blood, not fresh blood but decomposing blood.

Eddie alerted to the Scenic car key and the FSS identified the source as Gerry McCann i.e. not a cadaver.

I have explained this at length over at ShiningInLuz, but here is the short version.

The McCanns moved from 5A to 5H to spend a short part of one night with the Payne's. Eddie checked 5H and did not alert.

On 4 May, the McCanns moved to 4G, where they spent 2 months. Eddie checked 4G and did not alert. Further, 2 items of clothing to which Eddie would later alert, plus Cuddle Cat, can be proved to have been in 4G.

The McCanns moved to 27 Rua das Flores on 2nd July 2007. From there Eddie alerted to 3 items of clothing (two of them Kate's, one of them Sean's), Cuddle Cat and 2 places in the Scenic.

Anyone who wishes to suggest a death and cover-up in 5A has to explain why 5H is clean and 4G is clean. Particularly if there was blood spray in 5A, which there wasn't.

Finally, Eddie's alert in the parent's bedroom in 5A. You need to look at the long version (about 90 minutes) on YouTube. Martin Grime essentially dismisses Eddie's alert in the bedroom, so Martin Grime doesn't think Eddie is 100% accurate. He picks and chooses.

As an aside, where was Cuddle Cat in the forensic photos taken in the early hours of 4 May? In the children's bedroom on Madeleine's bed. That's another place that Eddie did not alert, so Cuddle Cat has to be explained.

What was found on the clothes to which Eddie alerted? I can't see anything from that going into the evidence chain, so the answer appears to be nothing.
Thank you again. It is all much clearer to me now.

As an aside, where was Cuddle Cat in the forensic photos taken in the early hours of 4 May? In the children's bedroom on Madeleine's bed. That's another place that Eddie did not alert, so Cuddle Cat has to be explained.

He came into contact with someone who was complicit at a later date.

by fz2 08.02.15 1:06

What was found on the clothes to which Eddie alerted? I can't see anything from that going into the evidence chain, so the answer appears to be nothing.

You know full well the dog alerts are not evidence per se, but relevant to you.

Have a nice few weeks sweating like a 10K runner TM.

by Guest 08.02.15 1:19

fresh blood can perfectly become dried blood without decomposing. more or less you can say, that the level of moisture and oxygen makes the difference, most decomposing is the result of bacteria and they need enough moisture to survive.
to little moisture mostly stops the decomposing process.

but even dried blood could deteriorate, because of the influences of light and oxygen from the air, but that is a different process then decomposing.

we = all human beings around. no one did not find a solution to catch the scent of death, when the decomposing process gets further and further most people could smell the scent also, but we can't make it visible or test for it.
only in a lab you could catch the products from a certain level, but the dogs nose is still far superior.

so nobody can proof the existence of the dogs findings on the scent of death, except the dogs, they know it is there.

the other problem is, that scent of death is no proof of the identity of a victim. scent does not contain dna or other items for such a use.

a signal of a type of dog like eddy is almost always direct taken any case to the remit of possibly a serous crime case. so it will opens up the doors to more permissions, like warrants, more manpower and paid hours to get the investigation up and running. it is also information you could not get in any other way.

by fz2 08.02.15 1:56

onehand wrote:fresh blood can perfectly become dried blood without decomposing. more or less you can say, that the level of moisture and oxygen makes the difference, most decomposing is the result of bacteria and they need enough moisture to survive.
to little moisture mostly stops the decomposing process.

but even dried blood could deteriorate, because of the influences of light and oxygen from the air, but that is a different process then decomposing.

we = all human beings around. no one did not find a solution to catch the scent of death, when the decomposing process gets further and further most people could smell the scent also, but we can't make it visible or test for it.
only in a lab you could catch the products from a certain level, but the dogs nose is still far superior.

so nobody can proof the existence of the dogs findings on the scent of death, except the dogs, they know it is there.

the other problem is, that scent of death is no proof of the identity of a victim. scent does not contain dna or other items for such a use.

a signal of a type of dog like eddy is almost always direct taken any case to the remit of possibly a serous crime case. so it will opens up the doors to more permissions, like warrants, more manpower and paid hours to get the investigation up and running. it is also information you could not get in any other way.

Let me assure you blood decomposes the very instant it leaves the body, the very moment blood leves the body it performs to make a scab.
Perhaps GMc might know of a doctor who would perform a blood transfusion where the blood had been exposed to the atmosphere.
Once again let me assure you, fresh blood is hermetically sealed and has no odour known to any being.

by Guest 08.02.15 8:43

decomposing is reserved for processes as a result of other organisms, what you mean is deterioration, partly true, if you bring fresh blood into contact with oxygen, the iron will makes a bond with oxygen. not a good thing in transfusion.

dead people do not form scabs, some live people do also not form scabs and i have personal experience from that, people like me depends on secondary stage reactions for stopping a bleed, mostly just from drying out of the blood and some other clotting factors or just because the artery shuts itself.

you could make easily lab preparation with little to none deterioration, like a blood smear. if there are cells in the blood they don't have to become decomposed in any way. the fresh dried blood from the heel brick is a good example, that good storing outside the body could keep dried blood usable for research on dna years later. if the procedure when taken was correct, there is hardly any invasion from bacteria and fungi possible.the drying also would stop activity from bacteria and fungi.

even from a drop of blood you could see some quick hydrolisis, the more solid particles would keep their place in the middle of the spot and the fluids, get to the outside of a spot. best seen on a porous surface. on hard surfaces the drying takes a bit longer, but still that does not mean you see a lot of bacteria or fungi in the dried drop.

not every drop of blood is useful for a dna test, red cells don't do nuclei, so no dna, if you have white cells you could get dna. if you don't find any whites, you ends up with a red spot, but no dna. if a spot of blood is out to air and sunlight, the cells and the dna will become quicker useless by deterioration, because it will fall apart, but this is not a very quick process.

decomposing blood you would only found from very large bleeding, or when the blood is left behind in a dead body or body part, when it could form a puddle, or if you let it stay to long in a test-tube in a environment where bacteria and fungi are around.

fresh blood gets quickly a scent, mostly from the iron parts that bound. from a small spot or drop humans would not notice this, dogs do. the one better then the other. that is what you can control in training a dog, at least one person know the spot is there and this person also know in what form the blood is there. if it is done properly the handler does not know and besides knowing it also is advisable to not make a training situation into one, that the handler just could pick the result from guessing.

if you been on a scene of a just happened crime or accident with lots of blood, you would know fresh blood has a smell. just like the dogs, some humans has a better nose for it.

by **Hobs** 08.02.15 16:14

onehand wrote:decomposing is reserved for processes as a result of other organisms, what you mean is deterioration, partly true, if you bring fresh blood into contact with oxygen, the iron will makes a bond with oxygen. not a good thing in transfusion.

dead people do not form scabs, some live people do also not form scabs and i have personal experience from that, people like me depends on secondary stage reactions for stopping a bleed, mostly just from drying out of the blood and some other clotting factors or just because the artery shuts itself.

you could make easily lab preparation with little to none deterioration, like a blood smear. if there are cells in the blood they don't have to become decomposed in any way. the fresh dried blood from the heel brick is a good example, that good storing outside the body could keep dried blood usable for research on dna years later. if the procedure when taken was correct, there is hardly any invasion from bacteria and fungi possible.the drying also would stop activity from bacteria and fungi.

even from a drop of blood you could see some quick hydrolisis, the more solid particles would keep their place in the middle of the spot and the fluids, get to the outside of a spot. best seen on a porous surface. on hard surfaces the drying takes a bit longer, but still that does not mean you see a lot of bacteria or fungi in the dried drop.

not every drop of blood is useful for a dna test, red cells don't do nuclei, so no dna, if you have white cells you could get dna. if you don't find any whites, you ends up with a red spot, but no dna. if a spot of blood is out to air and sunlight, the cells and the dna will become quicker useless by deterioration, because it will fall apart, but this is not a very quick process.

decomposing blood you would only found from very large bleeding, or when the blood is left behind in a dead body or body part, when it could form a puddle, or if you let it stay to long in a test-tube in a environment where bacteria and fungi are around.

fresh blood gets quickly a scent, mostly from the iron parts that bound. from a small spot or drop humans would not notice this, dogs do. the one better then the other. that is what you can control in training a dog, at least one person know the spot is there and this person also know in what form the blood is there. if it is done properly the handler does not know and besides knowing it also is advisable to not make a training situation into one, that the handler just could pick the result from guessing.

if you been on a scene of a just happened crime or accident with lots of blood, you would know fresh blood has a smell. just like the dogs, some humans has a better nose for it.

Fresh blood has a distinct metallic coppery smell.
Once smelled never forgotten the same as the smell of cadaverine when at a strength for the human nose to detect.

I have smelt both, the latter is plain disgusting

by Guest 08.02.15 16:42

"As an aside, where was Cuddle Cat in the forensic photos taken in the early hours of 4 May? In the children's bedroom on Madeleine's bed. That's another place that Eddie did not alert, so Cuddle Cat has to be explained.

He came into contact with someone who was complicit at a later date."

True. Ditto for Kate's white top and Sean's red airplane t-shirt. I can't say anything about Kate's black and white slacks as I can't place those in any location other than 27 Rua Das Flores when that was searched by Eddie.

4G was clean despite the McCanns living in it for 2 months, with Kate's white top, Sean's red airplane t-shirt, and Cuddle Cat definitely at that location. This is a discontinuity that I can explain only by cross-contamination from the date of hiring 27 Rua Das Flores onwards.

Back on topic to the 'blood spray'. Keela did not alert to this. Keela did alert to a floor tile. I cannot see any way that the spray is blood, unless I call Keela's ability into question. I have no evidence that this is the question. Therefore, since there is no evidence that the 'spray' is blood, I can see no reason to assume blood spray.

Decomposition v deterioration is irrelevant. The central point is that both dogs reacted to the Scenic key, and whether it was decomposed or deteriorated blood is neither here nor there. The source was Gerry McCann, who is not a cadaver. Therefore calling it a cadaver product is nonsense.

Best evidence is that the 'blood spray' in 5A is not blood - source Keela. Best evidence is that 4G was not contaminated with the smell of death - source Eddie. Best evidence is that both dogs react to blood - source Martin Grime and Eddie (Scenic key).

Therefore, someone has to prove the stuff on the wall was blood, and that it belonged to Madeleine. The FSS did not find any trace of Madeleine from the wall, and Keela did not alert to the wall. Personally, if I was the McCanns defence team (which I am not) I would have a field day in court with this evidence.

Then the 'evidence' from 27 Rua Das Flores and the Scenic. The Scenic key is another major defence for the McCanns, as it has been proved to belong to Gerry. The remaining evidence has not been supported by the FSS.

This leaves anyone who claims this is blood spray with exactly the same challenge faced by Gonçalo Amaral. You have to make the McCanns hide the body, successfully, not leave a trace in 4G, then retrieve the corpse some 2 months later, dispose of the body, and cross-contaminate a restricted number of articles (from which no actual evidence was retrieved).

Gonçalo failed this challenge. Can anyone do any better?

The case against the McCanns actually becomes stronger if one rules out the wall marks as blood spray. It becomes much easier to explain why 4G was clean.

by j.rob 08.02.15 17:21

4G was clean despite the McCanns living in it for 2 months, with Kate's white top, Sean's red airplane t-shirt, and Cuddle Cat definitely at that location. This is a discontinuity that I can explain only by cross-contamination from the date of hiring 27 Rua Das Flores onwards.

-----

One could postulate that the McCanns, possibly with the help of friends, removed a body from apartment 5A (dog alerts scent of death) concealed in a sports bag. The bag is taken somewhere away from OC and the areas likely to be searched by police and placed into cold storage.

Three weeks after the alleged 'abduction' TM hire a Renault Scenic (dog alerts of scent of death). This vehicle is used to transport the bag towards a final resting place.

Snipped from post above:

4G was clean despite the McCanns living in it for 2 months, with Kate's white top, Sean's red airplane t-shirt, and Cuddle Cat definitely at that location. This is a discontinuity that I can explain only by cross-contamination from the date of hiring 27 Rua Das Flores onwards.

So cross-contaminated while TM used the Scenic to transport a large sports bag (containing a small body) perhaps?

by worriedmum 08.02.15 17:29

Elca Craig quote

''. The central point is that both dogs reacted to the Scenic key, and whether it was decomposed or deteriorated blood is neither here nor there. The source was Gerry McCann, who is not a cadaver. Therefore calling it a cadaver product is nonsense.'' unquote

How do you know the source was 'Gerry McCann'?

by G-Unit 08.02.15 18:40

worriedmum wrote:Elca Craig quote

''. The central point is that both dogs reacted to the Scenic key, and whether it was decomposed or deteriorated blood is neither here nor there. The source was Gerry McCann, who is not a cadaver. Therefore calling it a cadaver product is nonsense.'' unquote

How do you know the source was 'Gerry McCann'?

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

by truthfultiger 08.02.15 21:31

Cadaverine can be present without DNA being present as it is a chemical from decomposition. So cadaverine from e.g. Maddie's body could still be present on the key without her DNA. Gerry McCann drove the car so it is not surprising that his DNA is present.

by G-Unit 08.02.15 22:02

If only Eddie alerted, then cadaverine is likely, but Keela alerted also which suggests that Eddie was alerting to blood. Forensic analysis suggested that this belonged to Gerry McCann.

by worriedmum 08.02.15 22:29

G-Unit wrote:If only Eddie alerted, then cadaverine is likely, but Keela alerted also which suggests that Eddie was alerting to blood. Forensic analysis suggested that this belonged to Gerry McCann.

Oh are you saying that Gerry McCann's blood was on the key? How very odd! Was he ever asked this?
So are you saying that there was cadaverine ? Where could that be from??? And Gerry's blood?

by G-Unit 08.02.15 22:56

worriedmum wrote: Oh are you saying that Gerry McCann's blood was on the key? How very odd! Was he ever asked this?
So are you saying that there was cadaverine ? Where could that be from??? And Gerry's blood?

Martin Grime said what his dogs did below. Eddie alerts to remains, body fluids AND blood, Keela just to blood. As both alerted to the key blood MUST be present (Keela said so). I therefore suggested that Eddie (who also alerts to blood) was probably alerting to blood too, and not to the other substances he can detect.

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. 'Keela' is a three-year old English Springer spaniel bitch who is trained as an
Human blood search dog (C.S.I. dog).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Although Keela said there was blood, forensics cannot say what they are examining - they just call it cellular material, and that although the profile was incomplete, it did match with Gerald McCann's DNA.

The FSS report said;

An incomplete, low-level DNA profile that matched corresponding components in the profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material present on the card key - (286C/2007-CRL (12)).

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

by worriedmum 08.02.15 23:02

Oh, thanks, I see now it's your suggestion.

What do you suggest Eddie alerted to on Sean's t shirt? Any thoughts on the alert to Kate's trousers?

by noseyparker 08.02.15 23:10

worriedmum wrote:Oh, thanks, I see now it's your suggestion.

What do you suggest Eddie alerted to on Sean's t shirt? Any thoughts on the alert to Kate's trousers?

Sean,s T shirt?Maybe he carried the sea bass from the shop.Kate,s trousers?Wasn,t she in contact with 6 dead bodies titter

at work

by worriedmum 08.02.15 23:19

truthfultiger wrote:Cadaverine can be present without DNA being present as it is a chemical from decomposition. So cadaverine from e.g. Maddie's body could still be present on the key without her DNA. Gerry McCann drove the car so it is not surprising that his DNA is present.

That is interesting about cadaverine being present without DNA.