The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Mm11

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Regist10

Forensics Revisited

Page 2 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 24.10.17 23:34

@MayMuse

Between my post submission and your reply, you haven't even had time to read and digest.  Your response bears testimony to that simple fact.

I'm wasting my time here, something I do not appreciate.   Please don't expect anything further from me on the subject.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14421
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by MayMuse on 25.10.17 0:14

@Verdi wrote:@MayMuse

Between my post submission and your reply, you haven't even had time to read and digest.  Your response bears testimony to that simple fact.

I'm wasting my time here, something I do not appreciate.   Please don't expect anything further from me on the subject.

I have read and digested since 2007!

Dismissed again when you cannot answer ? 
Testament to what you frequently do Verdi, which is sad and quite frankly not appreciated ,as if it's your time wasted, it is mine also!




Both dogs were used at separate times to avoid confusion for the purpose of their specific skills. IF Eddie alerted to human blood behind the sofa as well as Keela does that negate his alert of cadaverine odour in other areas where human blood was not detected? 
No it does not neither does it suggest that a "body" lay for some time for the odour to develop in the apartment or that a "body" didn't ! Dogs dont know time, it is irrelevant...what is important is that "cadaverine" was detected in apartment 5a, the very same apartment which Madeleine as we are told went missing from! No other person or persons had died there.... for cadaverine to be present there has to be a "body" or contact with that "body". 

Unless of course you believe in "sea bass!" 


I am not stupid Verdi please do not treat me as if I am, not one of us has the authority of expert in this case, we all are trying to fathom what happened to Madeleine... we are all with opinion from digesting evidence, and input from others and a healthy intelligent debate should be encouraged, not a put down which is frequently observed! 

Good day!

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Phoebe on 25.10.17 0:42

Verdi is correct when he states that Eddie would alert to blood, this is part of what he looks for whereas Keela's role is to search solely for human blood. However, Martin Grime, in his report does state that he feels Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent -

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."


 Martin Grime does make it clear here that the cadaver odour could have come from cross contamination. For instance, something which had been in contact with a corpse may have been placed in the bedroom and behind the sofa and the fact that Keela alerted to blood on the floor behind the sofa and the bottom of the curtains could be coincidental ie. Madeleine's blood was spilled there and something which had been in contact with a dead body contaminated the same spot. The two together are suggestive of a certain scenario but not definitively. It is not impossible that Madeleine bled in the apartment but was somewhere else when she died. This however, would suggest that items which had had contact with her body were brought back to the apartment post-mortem and subsequently moved several times contaminating the bedroom, behind the sofa and various spots in the garden. What item could possibly be so vital that it would be retained, returned to 5A and moved into all these places? I could envisage such a scenario BEFORE a body was successfully hidden elsewhere (if it involved a bag or indeed the body itself) but not after that had occurred?
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by MayMuse on 25.10.17 0:56

Yes, @Phoebe what "item" could be so vital? 

Missing bluebag erm er er, not big erm enough er, you know to hold a tennis racquet?

Eddies skills were used first... to determine his findings Keela was then sent into the apartment. 
Corroborating evidence to support the dogs findings was the first report, this I believe was then altered to suit....whom?

Both dogs deserve a medal!

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Phoebe on 25.10.17 1:59

@MayMuse I can't envision them moving say, clothing or a towel/sheet which had been in contact with a body, from the bedroom, to behind the sofa to various spots in the garden after the corpse had been hidden elsewhere! Perhaps if these things were placed in a bag of some sort it would make more sense but why bother keeping them at all? If they had found such a good hiding place for Madeleine's body (as they obviously did!) surely they would have left any such incriminating items there too? I doubt cuddlecat was responsible for this cross contamination as the bed hadn't been contaminated despite cuddle cat lying on it. Kate's clothing and the red T shirt also failed to cross contaminate other clothing/furniture. And if we are to believe they had help from immediately after the death surely those who aided and abetted them would have taken care of such matters rather than handing them back such items to dispose of ? High powered help would be well aware of the importance of leaving no traces. My gut instinct is that the contamination is from poor Madeleine's corpse and places it rested on its way to "disposal"( Gerry's word).
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 25.10.17 2:01

@Phoebe wrote: However, Martin Grime, in his report does state that he feels Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent
Yes indeed but there are two separate issues here. 

When Eddie the EVRD entered apartment 5a he got a whiff of something which was more likely to be cadavarine than any other scent considering the reaction was recorded by Martin Grimes as such, I quote..

"His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent' and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom...."

"The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent."

So not likely to be blood because a blood hound goes straight for the source.

Then moving onto the second alert..

"The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood."
-----------

That was the extent of the dog alerts within apartment 5a.

The CSI dog would not have been deployed unless there was thought to be evidence of blood residue.  Therefore this area behind the sofa alerted by the EVRD could only have been to confirm evidence of blood residue, as the CSI only alerts to blood.  The scent of cadavarine would not have confined itself to floor tiles and the curtain area - at least not without the presence of a corpse by way of evidence.

This is the reason I previously mentioned the clothing etc later signaled by the dogs.  It's highly unlikely that cuddlecat, Kate McCann's harlequin pants, the red T-shirt etc. were all behind the sofa along with the tiles and curtain area.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14421
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 25.10.17 2:12

@MayMuse #23

How many more times are you going to edit this post?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14421
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Phoebe on 25.10.17 2:13

@ Verdi 
"The CSI dog would not have been deployed unless there was thought to be evidence of blood residue.  Therefore this area behind the sofa alerted by the EVRD could only have been to confirm evidence of blood residue, as the CSI only alerts to blood.  The scent of cadavarine would not have confined itself to floor tiles and the curtain area - at least not without the presence of a corpse by way of evidence.

This is the reason I previously mentioned the clothing etc later signaled by the dogs.  It's highly unlikely that cuddlecat, Kate McCann's harlequin pants, the red T-shirt etc. were all behind the sofa along with the tiles and curtain area."




Martin Grime cites a similar situation wherein the EVRD dog alerted to an area of carpet on a floor. Nothing of evidential value could be recovered but it later emerged in that case through a confession that the body had indeed lain there briefly after death and the death odour had been confined to that spot. In yet another case the EVRD dog was able to indicate a specific area outdoors where it was later confirmed that a body had rested.
I absolutely concur  with you on how unlikely it is that Kate's clothing and cuddlecat lay behind the sofa, or indeed in the garden.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by MayMuse on 25.10.17 2:22

@Phoebe wrote:@MayMuse I can't envision them moving say, clothing or a towel/sheet which had been in contact with a body, from the bedroom, to behind the sofa to various spots in the garden after the corpse had been hidden elsewhere! Perhaps if these things were placed in a bag of some sort it would make more sense but why bother keeping them at all? If they had found such a good hiding place for Madeleine's body (as they obviously did!) surely they would have left any such incriminating items there too? I doubt cuddlecat was responsible for this cross contamination as the bed hadn't been contaminated despite cuddle cat lying on it. Kate's clothing and the red T shirt also failed to cross contaminate other clothing/furniture. And if we are to believe they had help from immediately after the death surely those who aided and abetted them would have taken care of such matters rather than handing them back such items to dispose of ? High powered help would be well aware of the importance of leaving no traces. My gut instinct is that the contamination is from poor Madeleine's corpse and places it rested on its way to "disposal"( Gerry's word).
Mine too and not transference as suggested below..... I'm sure I read somewhere that Eddie was deployed first and Keela second as to determine or distinguish findings, but can't seem to find it at the moment. 
What's more, the dog alerts did not clarify that a corpse had lain in apartment 5a long enough for cadavarine to develop, the scent could have been by transference - the most likely scenario in my opinion considering the items of clothing etc. that were signaled by the dogs.  I believe that was the opinion of the dogs trainer/handler, Martin Grimes, at the time.  It's late now but tomorrow I will check it out.

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by MayMuse on 25.10.17 2:33

@MayMuse wrote:
@Verdi wrote:@MayMuse

Between my post submission and your reply, you haven't even had time to read and digest.  Your response bears testimony to that simple fact.

I'm wasting my time here, something I do not appreciate.   Please don't expect anything further from me on the subject.

I have read and digested since 2007!

Dismissed again when you cannot answer ? 
Testament to what you frequently do Verdi, which is sad and quite frankly not appreciated ,as if it's your time wasted, it is mine also!




Both dogs were used at separate times to avoid confusion for the purpose of their specific skills. IF Eddie alerted to human blood behind the sofa as well as Keela does that negate his alert of cadaverine odour in other areas where human blood was not detected? 
No it does not neither does it suggest that a "body" lay for some time for the odour to develop in the apartment or that a "body" didn't ! Dogs dont know time, it is irrelevant...what is important is that "cadaverine" was detected in apartment 5a, the very same apartment which Madeleine as we are told went missing from! No other person or persons had died there.... for cadaverine to be present there has to be a "body" or contact with that "body". 

Unless of course you believe in "sea bass!" 


I am not stupid Verdi please do not treat me as if I am, not one of us has the authority of expert in this case, we all are trying to fathom what happened to Madeleine... we are all with opinion from digesting evidence, and input from others and a healthy intelligent debate should be encouraged, not a put down which is frequently observed! 

Good day!
Verdi wrote... @MayMuse #23

How many more times are you going to edit this post?


____________________this post of mine was edited to make it clear how you have made me feel.... not good! 

I suppose it is far much less than those which you edit in abundance.

Now may I suggest you get off my back ...you have made it more than obvious your dislike of my input and/or me,today and previously ( even though you don't know me whatsoever) and that just shows what type of person you are, not me.  Considering you said you were not going to comment further, I don't get why you have the need to continue and provoke?


______________________________________________________________


Again members are reminded to take their personal differences to PM.


Other members and guests do not come here to read petty squabbles between members.


Thank you.  Mod

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by MayMuse on 25.10.17 2:52

@Phoebe

Worth a read if you haven't already...

Harrison also suggests that we use the skills of two totally remarkable dogs: the first an EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog), achieves outstanding performance in the detection of human cadaver odour; the second, a CSI dog (Crime Scene Investigation) is capable of smelling the tiniest trace of blood, knowing how to recognise its human origin. To convince us of their capability and the extraordinary work carried out by these very special detectives in the course of over 200 investigations, he screens a video for us, showing their training and their intervention on the ground.


https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13711-bring-in-the-dogs-the-hypothesis-of-death-is-considered-the-arrival-of-the-specialists?highlight=Death+by+accident



EDIT TO INCLUDE...

I knew I'd seen it somewhere... 

Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred.

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by sar on 25.10.17 9:27

not sure where we're going with making a distinction?  Mods, supermods???
avatar
sar

Posts : 1049
Join date : 2013-09-11

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Phoebe on 25.10.17 11:43

Without hard evidence in the form of an actual body Eddie and Keela's findings of cadaver odour and blood in 5A are something which lead to interpretation of what this fact means. The P.J. and Dr. Amarel were of the opinion that this indicated -

"From the OFFICIAL POLICE FILES

10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)


"....we conclude that:

- The minor Madeleine McCann DIED in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007

 - It was performed a SIMULATION of kidnapping;
 
 - Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are INVOLVED in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;...


If we accept the Portuguese police conclusion above then it is reasonable to say that Madeleine's corpse was indeed in 5A for a period, which seems to be the crux of the dispute upthread. Where exactly in the apartment that corpse lay we cannot be sure but it does seem fairly reasonable to connect its position with the cadaver odour alerts methinks.


______________________________________________________________


Title of thread:  McCanns and the Internet Trolls


Back on topic please.  Mod
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 25.10.17 16:54

I don't think there is any doubt that Eddie was a cadaver dog.

"Victim recovery dog".

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

Cadaver is mentioned 31 times in this report.

CADAVER SCENT

The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.

Yes I know the report says that Eddie reacts to body fluids and blood but nobody in the reports thinks its only blood.

They have included some examples of Eddie's track records and it's always dead bodies.
BlueBag
BlueBag

Posts : 5124
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 25.10.17 17:04

Also... Eddie indicated in places where Keela didnt.
BlueBag
BlueBag

Posts : 5124
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by MayMuse on 25.10.17 17:19

I agree Eddie was brought in as the EVRD ...to detect cadaver...of which he is most known for,  Keela for human blood... 

I do not believe that Keela was sent in after Eddie because Eddie detected blood behind the sofa...he detected cadaverine odour in that area and other locations, even outside in the garden area.....he sniffed all over the sofa, the back of the sofa in the corner, in the air  etc because he was "in scent" . Keela alert to human blood confirmed its presence under the tiles. 


Interestingly McCann and their followers try to discount in such a way as to undermine the cleverness,and training of the dogs and their handler in their accuracy! 

Now if an anaesthesiologist kept losing patients or they were waking mid op,  then that could be considered very unreliable couldnt it?

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty McCann's internet Trolls

Post by willowthewisp on 25.10.17 17:49

@MayMuse wrote:I agree Eddie was brought in as the EVRD ...to detect cadaver...of which he is most known for,  Keela for human blood... 

I do not believe that Keela was sent in after Eddie because Eddie detected blood behind the sofa...he detected cadaverine odour in that area and other locations, even outside in the garden area.....he sniffed all over the sofa, the back of the sofa in the corner, in the air  etc because he was "in scent" . Keela alert to human blood confirmed its presence under the tiles. 


Interestingly McCann and their followers try to discount in such a way as to undermine the cleverness,and training of the dogs and their handler in their accuracy! 

Now if an anaesthesiologist kept losing patients or they were waking mid op,  then that could be considered very unreliable couldnt it?
That's why they had the big mallett,approach,thwack,they're fine?
willowthewisp
willowthewisp

Posts : 3393
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by MayMuse on 25.10.17 19:36

A good read, where should trust be placed, in Daddy or the Dogs? 
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Daddy_or_the_Dogs_.html

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Casey5 on 25.10.17 20:09

Any parent who had a missing three year old child and was informed by the police that sniffer dogs had scented cadaver and blood in the same place their daughter had vanished from would never in a million years react like the McCanns did imo.
Imagine the devastation you would feel, the utter horror and desolation of being caught up in a nightmare that never ends.
And then there's the McCanns, Kate wittering on about people being inherently good and Gerry smugly saying "ask the dogs, Sandra" and calling the dogs "incredibly unreliable".
These red flags should have been noticed immediately, this is SO not how ordinary parents would react.
avatar
Casey5

Posts : 347
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by MayMuse on 25.10.17 20:16

@Phoebe wrote:Without hard evidence in the form of an actual body Eddie and Keela's findings of cadaver odour and blood in 5A are something which lead to interpretation of what this fact means. The P.J. and Dr. Amarel were of the opinion that this indicated -

"From the OFFICIAL POLICE FILES

10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)


"....we conclude that:

- The minor Madeleine McCann DIED in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007

 - It was performed a SIMULATION of kidnapping;
 
 - Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are INVOLVED in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;...


If we accept the Portuguese police conclusion above then it is reasonable to say that Madeleine's corpse was indeed in 5A for a period, which seems to be the crux of the dispute upthread. Where exactly in the apartment that corpse lay we cannot be sure but it does seem fairly reasonable to connect its position with the cadaver odour alerts methinks.


______________________________________________________________


Title of thread:  McCanns and the Internet Trolls


Back on topic please.  Mod
Im confused, can the dogs be discussed on this thread as it has been?

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Forensics Revisited

Post by JohnyT on 25.10.17 20:35

@Verdi wrote:
@MayMuse wrote:Considering I have read the reports, and have never blown anything out of proportion! 
Let's get this in perspective...
Yes, let's. 

You can't just pluck out random passages from the forensic reports to prove a point - that's not how it works.  The whole subject of the forensic evidence has to be taken into consideration and thus put into perspective, before selecting appropriate text for the purpose of commentary.  This is why I initially said that it will take time considering the length, detail and complexity of the subject as regards the disapearance of Madeleine McCann.

Concerning the subject of forensics, my original response to a fellow member's post related only to the following statement, I quote  ".... the dogs indicated that a body had lain in the apartment long enough for cadaverine to be detected by dogs, cadaverine that was also found on certain items of clothing....".

This statement is fundamentally incorrect, which I have been trying (without much success it would seem) to redress.  I totally understand why the particular phraseology was used but that's beside the point.  CMoMM is read by the thousands - members and guests - it only takes one incorrect statement or facetious comment to set the tongues wagging.  Anyone who has followed this case on the various fora and blogs will be aware of how quickly a false claim will grow legs and then roam around cyberspace for eternity - the cyber grapevine whisper .  Trouble being that there are many people out there who have nothing better to do than propagate lies and rubbish in order to distort or distract from the truth.

So yes, let's do just starting with the dogs credentials ..

EVRD

'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.

CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate
exclusively human blood.

Stop there for a moment to ponder the dogs training, in particular the Enhanced Victim Recover Dog.  This is not a case of bark once for cadavarine bark twice for blood bark thrice for body fluid etc, we can leave that sort of nonsense at the door of the likes of the drole humorist - Clement Freud.

Moving on .. for the moment concentrating only on the dogs inspection of apartment 5a, follow the finger print trail..

Verbal Report by Martin Grime Relating to the Searches Carried out with the Dogs in the Ocean Club Apartments

Apartment 5 A


Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house the only two places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom, in this corner where he was barking.

What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But strong indication and I would say its positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief.

Moving onto the other rooms once he's found what he thinks he's looking for in this room, and we go into the bathroom and come into this bedroom he loses his interest because he's actually found the source that he was looking for, until we come over here and I think you've got it on video that when he first came in he was quite interested in the sofa but he didn't have access to the back of the sofa and when he's gone behind the sofa what I saw was that approximately in the centre of the wall where the window is, just along the tile area between the tiles and the wall, he's been scenting there a lot stronger than he has anywhere else and the when he's gone out there the second time he has decided yes that's what I'm looking for and that's when he has given me the bark indication.

What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that. The only times I've ever known him bark since I've got him as a small puppy a) for his dinner and that's just excitement and that's one of the training methods we use to teach to bark when we want him to and when he actually finds something, he won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or something like that, so again I would say that's a positive indication.

The second dog that we've seen work today is the crime scene dog Keela. She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that's historically very old and she will find anybody's blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows.
----------

All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications were at apartment 5a, the reported scene.

The EVRD alerted in the rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door.

Living room, behind sofa.


Veranda outside parent's bedroom.

Garden area directly under veranda.

My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment.He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search. On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an aboveaverage interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent' and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.

I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge. The dog's behaviour for these alerts led me to the following opinions:

MINISTERIO PUBLICO DE PORTIMAO

The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.

The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood.

The forensic science support officers were then deployed to recover items for laboratory analysis.

There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response.
-----

It's all here in the link I previously posted..

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

I think that's enough for the moment.  Pay particular attention to the EVRD dogs training, his reaction to the crime scene and the two alerts in apartment 5a living area where both Eddie and Keela alerted.  Do you think Eddie was alerting to blood residue or cadavarine - or more to the point is it debatable?

As I think I've said before, this area is better left to those with knowledge of forensic science - otherwise the subject is grossly misunderstood/misinterpreted.  One thing relative to the subject however is open to discussion .... why was Leicestershire Constabulary, John Lowe and the UK's prestigious Forensic Science Service involved with a Portuguese investigation?  Why did every sample submitted to the FSS for analysis produce a negative result?
Wow what a coincidence....of all the other apartments searched by the dogs......someone only ever 'cut' themselves or bled in apartment 5a...................
JohnyT
Save

Save
avatar
JohnyT

Posts : 215
Join date : 2014-06-01

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Julie on 25.10.17 21:14

I don't know about anyone else but I wholeheartedly trust Eddie and Keela. Highly trained dogs who alerted to specific things the GNR dogs did not. 

The GNR dogs were 'agitated' by appartment 5J - later to have discovered that there were 'rotting meat and vegetables' in an 'open' fridge. This topic has led to thoughts that possibly food was deliberately put into the appartment to offset cadaverine..  I believe that if there was any trace of cadaverine in 5J that Eddie would have alerted. I therefore dismiss any idea of Madeleine being hidden in 5J (sorry hope I'm not going off topic here).

One thing that always sticks in my mind with regards to the dog searches is that: "In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never alerted to meat based foodstuffs".  Something which I think should be kept in mind. Seabass and dirty nappies not Eddies thang. Neither is rotting meat n veg (possibly) placed in a fridge to attract/divert attention.


 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
avatar
Julie

Posts : 43
Join date : 2016-04-29

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 26.10.17 7:03

Martin Grime in his report absolutely rules out rotting food and he gives the reasons why.

These dogs were good.
BlueBag
BlueBag

Posts : 5124
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 28.10.17 13:04

Inspired by Jim Gamble and his Pavlov's Dog revelation.

Why were the forensic samples harvested, following Eddie and Keela's haunting investigation in Praia da Luz, sent to the UK's Forensic Science Service for analysis?

Analysis that proved fruitless.  Out of all the samples - not one??? 

Although I've had the technicalities of such analysis dumped on me from a great height by some pseudo scientist, somehow I find this very suspicious.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14421
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Forensics Revisited - Page 2 Empty Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 28.10.17 13:38

Analysis that proved fruitless.  Out of all the samples - not one???  

Wasn't it the interpretation of the analysis that proved fruitless?
BlueBag
BlueBag

Posts : 5124
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum