ALERT! Prout documentary on again

Gillyspot wrote:Looks like it is a must watch tomorrow night. I have seen it before but that was ages ago.

Candyfloss may I just say that I lurve your avatar

sijm wrote:Sorry all but who is Prout?

candyfloss wrote:So, did anyone watch Eddie doing his job on the Adrian Prout documentary screened earlier. As I said on the older thread in the link, he signalled between the sofa and the window, in the lounge - about a 2 to 3 foot gap. The Police Officer being interviewed called him Eddie, and said at that moment the investigation turned. As we now know, after pleading his innocence since being jailed, Prout finally admitted to the murder of his wife, and showed the police where he had hidden the body. What a brilliant dog!

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:So, did anyone watch Eddie doing his job on the Adrian Prout documentary screened earlier. As I said on the older thread in the link, he signalled between the sofa and the window, in the lounge - about a 2 to 3 foot gap. The Police Officer being interviewed called him Eddie, and said at that moment the investigation turned. As we now know, after pleading his innocence since being jailed, Prout finally admitted to the murder of his wife, and showed the police where he had hidden the body. What a brilliant dog!

And what was interesting was despite not finding any forensic material the Police accepeted the findings of Eddie and concluded she must have been strangled there.

Unlike those "experts" on JATYK who sneer that eddie barks at bacon and carpets. They must know more than Gloucestershire Police then becuase they took it seriously.

PeterMac wrote:Has there been any more from the "Free Prout - Prout is innocent" brigade, or have they crawled away to wash the egg off their faces ?

happychick wrote:

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:So, did anyone watch Eddie doing his job on the Adrian Prout documentary screened earlier. As I said on the older thread in the link, he signalled between the sofa and the window, in the lounge - about a 2 to 3 foot gap. The Police Officer being interviewed called him Eddie, and said at that moment the investigation turned. As we now know, after pleading his innocence since being jailed, Prout finally admitted to the murder of his wife, and showed the police where he had hidden the body. What a brilliant dog!

And what was interesting was despite not finding any forensic material the Police accepeted the findings of Eddie and concluded she must have been strangled there.

Unlike those "experts" on JATYK who sneer that eddie barks at bacon and carpets. They must know more than Gloucestershire Police then becuase they took it seriously.

And coconut shell. Don't forget the coconut shell.

Martin Grime said "People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. ... If they bark and nothing is found then the dogs are still right".

Eddie barked and a person dug up coconut shell and the pro's sneer at Eddie because of what the person did, not what Eddie did.

The McCann's and their supporters make me sick to my stomach that they make excuses for child neglect and child abuse. What sort of people are they?

Whenever there is ANY doubt about what happened to a child or children then questions MUST be asked, and an investigation MUST be concluded and NOT excuses made FFS.

Who can protect these children or speak up for them when adults let them down? Certainly NOT the McCanns or their low-life supporters (or well-wishers as Carter Ruck call them)!

This scenario has some merit because a couple of days later the good old JEP, who can't seem to mention Mr. Harper's name without mentioning the "Coconut" mentioned Mr. Harper's name and the Coconut. But if you, the viewer, listen to Mr. Harper's evidence (which the JEP clearly didn't) then you will hear him say that there is no scientific data to show it is coconut. There is however scientific "evidence" to show that this item contained 1.6% collagen which is only found in mammals. Not one of the "accredited" media had a single question to ask about the "fresh and fleshed" bones that had been burnt before burial. After one and a half hours of Mr. Harper giving evidence the "professional, paid, accredited "journalists" could not think of a single question to ask him?

The bone material shows features that are diagnostically human and most likely represent the remains of a juvenile person. The state of preservation of the remains indicates that they had been exposed to heat but this had been insufficient to cause much biomolecular damage (indeed, by sterilising the material the heating may have had the effect of reducing the opportunity for subsequent microbial damage to occur). The material is sufficiently well preserved to enable further chemical analysis including extraction of collagen for radiocarbon dating and dietary isotopic analysis, and the state of preservation of the material may render it suitable for the extraction and characterisation of biomarkers such as DNA.

The EVRD alert indications were confirmed by intrusive archaeological excavation and sieving. A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human.

Predominantly the human remains have been recovered from cellars 3, 4 and 5 which historically were one large classroom.

Enquiries at this time are suggestive that the human remains were deposited in this area and covered with top soil in a deliberate act of concealment. The deposition could only have taken place during a period of time when the floor had been removed. Research into the historical renovation of the property suggests that the floor above cellars 3, 4 &5 was taken up in the late 60’s early 70’s.

Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.

Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.

The tests clearly indicated the presence of human remains decomposition scent.

Remains identified by the resident forensic anthropologist Miss Julie Roberts as human, and items of interest to the enquiry, have been submitted for forensic analysis.

Forty eight human deciduous teeth have been recovered to date. Twenty six of which are presently in the UK being examined to identify the number of individuals from whom they originate.

Numerous bone fragments are being examined at Sheffield University for histology purposes.

The meticulous search of Haut De La Garenne has now been completed and the building handed over to Property Services. Evidence has been obtained to support the abuse enquiry and suggestive evidence that the remains of at least one child were present within the structure of the building.

A significant amount of human remains have been recovered that is suggestive of foul play in relation to the cause of death and guilty knowledge during deposition.

65 Human deciduous teeth

Numerous human bone fragments

It would appear at this stage that the remains were deposited into the area of cellars 3,4 &5 having been removed from a secondary deposition site in the west wing. They were then distributed evenly over the ground and covered with a layer of top soil so as to conceal the deposition from all but the most meticulous scrutiny. (End)

The local Mainstream Media seem to be falling over themselves to mention, as often as they can, the “Coconut” every time they mention Lenny Harper - so just what “evidence” are they working on when they say it is Coconut? Well it appears there “evidence” is based on “a throw away comment.” All the scientific data, or “evidence”, suggests that it is a piece of child’s skull, but a “throw away comment”, in the world of our mainstream media overrides scientific evidence.

I have posted some information concerning jar/6 the fragment of child's scull. This is for our local media also who are still having problems with it

rs



“23 February 2008
09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”

Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”. This would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.

“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”


So on the 9th of April 2008 Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the above entry.

Right, now David Rose in his article reproduced by Rooney says

On February 24, a day after Mr Harper made Haut de la Garenne an international byword for infamy by announcing his team had found the 'partial remains of a child' who might have been murdered, forensic scientists warned him that the so-called remains - allegedly a fragment of a child's skull - were so old as to be 'beyond the parameters of the investigation'


So we have email evidence to counter the above

Now there is this email exchange that could answer the question

On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”



SO NOW FOR THE COCNUT

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

So has a Whole historic Child Abuse investigation been trashed because "The Technician said it looked liked a COCONUT HUSK" just crazy

I would like to say a very big thanks to Spartacus & Rooney for bringing this up. I never new where the term came from now im SHOCKED

This is from Lenny Harper


The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.



Now for Mick Gradwell he says

Now, a bluff, straightforward and extremely experienced Lancashire detective, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who had taken over the investigation after Mr Harper retired in August, was telling them that most of what they had been told about Haut de la Garenne and Mr Harper's £4.5million inquiry was nonsense.
'There are no credible allegations of murder, there are no suspects for murder,' Mr Gradwell said, and neither was there a scrap of evidence that there had ever been any victims.

Stella wrote:I've just got round to watching it.

I have no doubts about which dog was used to confirm Kate's body had been in the living room. Martin Grime is the only British cadaver dog trainer we have in the country and they definitely referred to the dog being used in that instance as Eddie. Martin Grime would not have two dogs with the same name.

This is the same Eddie who signalled a dead body in the McCann's apartment and their car.

pennylane wrote:Wonder how the victim's accusers felt, including Prout's daughter, when Prout finally confessed?